How do we define a "rushed" video game.

[darlarosa]

Tonight as I was strolling through the escapist forum, a post someone made triggered an epiphany in me. This particular person (and I'm not being negative)said they felt ME3 was rushed. Assuming this person meant the entirety of the game, I immediately was about to ask them to explain because I disagreed. I thought "ME3 was incredibly well done as compared to a rushed game like Dragon Age 2," and then I realized something....how do we define rushed?

Has anyone given a solid definition?
Is it a vague feeling we have all gotten?
Is it a flaw of pacing?
Is it a flaw of mechanics? Story structure?
Is the definition of "rushed" variable depending on the time allocated to the entire game or just sections?
Maybe the definition depends on the context of the situation?

How can we call something "rushed" if we don't define it?

Looking back, I have asserted that the Dragon Age 2 felt rushed. In the context of that game I felt like it was a good game, but not a good Bioware game. The pacing was off in that you miss some of the critical parts of Hawke's life an are told just to accept them. You miss her/his entire first year in Kirkwall, without ever knowing what she/he did. How is she/he became such a powerful person politically in Kirkwall? Was defeating the Quanari REALLY all it took(astounding feet but...there must have been something). You skip years at a time and it never quite feels...natural. Then on another level there are the mechanical and graphic issues such as the repeated areas, the odd seemingly major glitches, etc.

My point is to me the game did not feel cohesive, and because of that it felt like sections and storylines were glossed over, but does that mean it was rushed?

Really how can we define this word. Because a word loses meaning when no one can rightly describe it.

 

[skywolfblue]

Rushed = Poor quality due to short development time frame.*

Poor Quality can be anything from Gameplay Bugs, to Plotholes in the story. And can vary from mild to severe.

*The difficulty arises in that since the end gamer(s) don't have a thorough view of the development process, so they can't say very definitively what items in development were rushed vs. what items were simply created badly regardless of time allotted.

 

[darlarosa]

Rushed = Poor quality due to short development time frame.*

Poor Quality can be anything from Gameplay Bugs, to Plotholes in the story. And can vary from mild to severe.

*The difficulty arises in that since the end gamer(s) don't have a thorough view of the development process, so they can't say very definitively what items in development were rushed vs. what items were simply created badly regardless of time allotted.

But for instance if you have a game like Dragon Age Origins, which I consider vastly suprior to Dragon age 2, both of these were created in I believe the same amount of time....then doesn't the definition become irrelevant.

A thuroughly gross example...it could take me four hours to smear a turd on a canvas, and five minutes to sketch and then paint a rose...does time frame really matter?

 

[Sangnz]

Personally I think it just comes down to a number of factors, most of which you have pretty much nailed.

In your Dragon Age 2 example for me it was the constant re-use of certain areas, the time jumps in the story felt fine but I read a lot of books and that kind of jump is fairly normal so I just accepted it.

Using Bioware again.
ME3 hit me big time on the feeling rushed dept, the final mission itself (not just the ending that everyone was pissed about) was just a huge divergence from how the rest of the game had built up and built up and then you have a bog standard slog through some ruins, the game felt like it was pushing for one hell of a big ending mission and just ran out of time so they had to quickly put something together.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Rushed = Poor quality due to short development time frame.*

Poor Quality can be anything from Gameplay Bugs, to Plotholes in the story. And can vary from mild to severe.

*The difficulty arises in that since the end gamer(s) don't have a thorough view of the development process, so they can't say very definitively what items in development were rushed vs. what items were simply created badly regardless of time allotted.

/thread in the first reply.

OT: It has less to do with the quality of the game itself and more to do with the development process. For example, Bad Rats is a pretty terrible game. It's got problems with the physics engine (in a physics puzzle game, no less), and graphics straight out of a late 90's PS1 game. In fact, it's so PS1-y that even the music comes across as an attempt at the kind of stuff Neversoft was using in their games at the time. However, this doesn't necessarily mean it was rushed. In all likelihood, it's just a bad game from a small studio that didn't have either the talent or the money (or both) to do a better job.

On the other hand, if a AAA game from a respected studio has problems like this, you have to wonder if maybe it didn't happen because the publisher wanted the game to come out earlier than the developer had it ready. These suspicions are almost always confirmed at some point by the developer. For example, pretty much the entire output of Obsidian is a case of this.

There's other tell tale signs, of course. Half implemented features, obviously aborted storylines with hanging plot threads, manuals that mention mechanics that don't exist in the game, all are usually signs of a game that had a design document more ambitious than what was delivered. The most common cause of a game falling short of a design document is a publisher cutting off the funding and pushing the game out the door whether it's ready or not[footnote]Although this isn't always the case. Daggerfall's design document was just too ambitious for the technology of the day, same thing with most modern Peter Molyneux games. It can be tough to tell sometimes.[/footnote].

By the way, I knock Bad Rats, but if it ever winds up in another indie bundle or on sale for, say, $1.50, pick it up. It's the only videogame I've ever played that fell into the realm of "so bad it's good" for reasons other than voice acting.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Rushed = Poor quality due to short development time frame.*

Poor Quality can be anything from Gameplay Bugs, to Plotholes in the story. And can vary from mild to severe.

*The difficulty arises in that since the end gamer(s) don't have a thorough view of the development process, so they can't say very definitively what items in development were rushed vs. what items were simply created badly regardless of time allotted.

But for instance if you have a game like Dragon Age Origins, which I consider vastly suprior to Dragon age 2, both of these were created in I believe the same amount of time....then doesn't the definition become irrelevant.

A thuroughly gross example...it could take me four hours to smear a turd on a canvas, and five minutes to sketch and then paint a rose...does time frame really matter?

It does if you're having a hard time getting the turd to smear properly, but the paint for the rose is working just fine. There's no hard and fast rule for a time frame that's too short. The problem comes in when a publisher forces a developer to push a game out the door before they're finished with it. How much time that is can vary for many reasons aside from the length and complexity of the game itself.

 

[skywolfblue]

Rushed = Poor quality due to short development time frame.*

Poor Quality can be anything from Gameplay Bugs, to Plotholes in the story. And can vary from mild to severe.

*The difficulty arises in that since the end gamer(s) don't have a thorough view of the development process, so they can't say very definitively what items in development were rushed vs. what items were simply created badly regardless of time allotted.

But for instance if you have a game like Dragon Age Origins, which I consider vastly suprior to Dragon age 2, both of these were created in I believe the same amount of time....then doesn't the definition become irrelevant.

A thuroughly gross example...it could take me four hours to smear a turd on a canvas, and five minutes to sketch and then paint a rose...does time frame really matter?

DA:O was announced way back in like 2004-ish, that's like 5 years development compared to 1 year for DA:2. If they were the same time frame then yes "rushed" would be the wrong choice of words to use.

Yes, since "Rushed" is a time-sensitive word. A project that is slow and bad is simply "bad", not rushed.

 

[Cranky]

Uhh... ME3 is rushed. The only things they polished and pulled off damned well were the Tuchanka segments, the Citadel coup and Rannoch. Everything else felt a bit lacking.

 

[darlarosa]

Rushed = Poor quality due to short development time frame.*

Poor Quality can be anything from Gameplay Bugs, to Plotholes in the story. And can vary from mild to severe.

*The difficulty arises in that since the end gamer(s) don't have a thorough view of the development process, so they can't say very definitively what items in development were rushed vs. what items were simply created badly regardless of time allotted.

But for instance if you have a game like Dragon Age Origins, which I consider vastly suprior to Dragon age 2, both of these were created in I believe the same amount of time....then doesn't the definition become irrelevant.

A thuroughly gross example...it could take me four hours to smear a turd on a canvas, and five minutes to sketch and then paint a rose...does time frame really matter?

Yes, since "Rushed" is a time-sensitive word. A project that is slow and bad is simply "bad", not rushed.

But my issue is that people throw around the word rushed like they were helping develop the game.

Besides in my mind "rushed" is usually when something has all the elements of a good game and then just doesn't put them together well. Then there are just plain bad games.

 

[Dandark]

One way to tell if a game has been rushed.
Is their EA logo on it? If so then it has been rushed but you can buy what was cut out in DLC.


I usaully define rushed by if it feels like the game is lacking where it shouldn't be, for example Dragon age 2 and it's constantly reused dungeons as well as it's complete lack of content near the end and the fact that it had two endings both of which are mostly the same, it just decides what side you are on.

 

[Scrustle]

I would say a game feels rushed when it's full of small problems that could be fixed (such as bugs, glitches and sloppy texture/modelling work etc.) and has mechanics that aren't fully realised. They aren't used as well as they should be and can sometimes be obtuse in their implementation.

Those problems could be the causes by different things, like the developers simply being crap at their job, but if they are there because of a short development time then it's rushed. I guess it's hard to definitively tell when those problems are caused by a rushed game, but not impossible. Like if an otherwise good developer is forced to release a game once a year by a big publisher...

 

[Fishyash]

Rushed is Sonic 06 or Ultima 9.

Those are very good examples of a rushed game. Problems arise with too short a time-frame to fix it.

The reason I would consider something rushed is when, if more time was spent on the game, it would have probably turned out great rather than a pile of crap.Saying it's rushed iss more of an excuse or an attempt to suss out why what should have been a good game just didn't meet expectations. We're never really going to know, and saying it's rushed is normally the best possible explanation if the time frame vs how big the project is fits that idea.

Any aspect of a video game can be rushed, whether it be the story, the graphics or general game mechanic flaws/bugginess or more.

 

[DeltaEdge]

Chances are if a demo comes out for a game way before it releases and the actual game doesn't hold a candle to the demo it was rushed. If the publisher just finished their little public interest survey and found out that people liked multi-player and forced a project to throw in multi-player mid-way in that still had to be out by the same deadline, then it was rushed. If there just isn't enough time or man power to make a game of a certain level in the allotted time-frame, yet they just barely get a game out, it is probably rushed. If they tell you, "We had very little time to do much else other than make the game functional, we were too rushed", then it was probably rushed.

 

[Joccaren]

A rushed game is a game that has many problems throughout, likely due to a short development time [Though few devs would ever admit it].

I for one found ME3 rushed. Why?
1. Decisions meaning F*** all for the most part. Council was a clone of the old one, just a new wardrobe. Rachni... Not going there. Collectors base? WTH. Very little changed based off any decision, likely due to development time being short.
2. Sidequests. Or lack thereof. Planet scanning sidequests make up something along the lines of 60% of all sidequests in ME3. Possibly more. Then there was another 15% made of purely multiplayer quests. that is 75% of sidequests had basically 0 substance. I can't think of any reason for this other than short development time.
3. Pitiful screentime for ME2 characters. Thane. Jacob. Kasumi. Miranda. Samara - I'm not even going to go there with the fact that the only hint you got of Morinth at all was a specially named Banshee. Most ME2 characters were given the short end of the stick in terms of content. Check the content each of these characters has. Now check the amount of content in either Stolen Memory or Price of Revenge. DLC characters for ME2 had more content then many non DLC characters for ME3. That's pathetic. I can think of few reasons other than a short timeframe for this.
4. Lack of Dialogue options. Design choice? Maybe, but a stupid one if it was - considering they had Action mode for if you didn't want dialogue options. I find it more likely they would have included dialogue options, but didn't have the time, and thus were unable to get it into the game.
5. Priority: Earth. It had no sense of pacing, was just Horde mode after Horde mode after Horde mode, had basically nothing in the way of scenery and failed to be engaging on any level. It just felt like it was designed, programmed and shoved into the game in a week, then shipped.


Basically, a reasonable way IMO of seeing if a game is rushed is looking at what it is, what it had the potential to be, and what the timespan of development was.

If its bad, had the potential to be amazing, and had a short development time [1-2 years. Maybe 3, but that's starting to push it] - odds are its rushed.
If its bad, had the potential to be amazing, but had a long development time [3-6 years active development] - odds are its not rushed, but just designed poorly.

 

[ThriKreen]

DA:O was announced way back in like 2004-ish, that's like 5 years development compared to 1 year for DA:2. If they were the same time frame then yes "rushed" would be the wrong choice of words to use.

DA2 was in development much longer than one year.

DA:O was released Nov 2009, minus about ~6 months for polish, porting, and console certification, you can estimate it went into lockdown around April/May, at which point you'd have a skeleton crew doing the final polish work, and rolloff the other content creators onto post-release content (DLC paid or not, the Awakening expansion), and some others over to prototyping the next game.

With DA2 released in March 2011, it works out to about 2 years. It also stands to reason there were plans and talking at the higher levels way before then. And of course, reusing the same engine and tools would mean development goes a lot faster as you don't have to bother with the time investment redeveloping it.

"Rush" is hard to quantify though, especially for most people here without direct knowledge of the dev process: were there areas being reused? Sure, but was the game stable or crashing left and right? Were most storylines intact with no glaring plot holes? Was there any missing audio from conversations? Was there inability for some quests to be finished due to inadequate testing, resulting in bugs that blocked the quest? Also what is the scale and size of the game compared to the other? One focused on a huge war over a lot of areas, while another was somewhat focused around one city, a smaller dev period for the smaller scale game wouldn't be out of the question, and expected.

 

[DoPo]

Rushed = Poor quality due to short development time frame.*

Poor Quality can be anything from Gameplay Bugs, to Plotholes in the story. And can vary from mild to severe.

*The difficulty arises in that since the end gamer(s) don't have a thorough view of the development process, so they can't say very definitively what items in development were rushed vs. what items were simply created badly regardless of time allotted.

But for instance if you have a game like Dragon Age Origins, which I consider vastly suprior to Dragon age 2, both of these were created in I believe the same amount of time....then doesn't the definition become irrelevant.

A thuroughly gross example...it could take me four hours to smear a turd on a canvas, and five minutes to sketch and then paint a rose...does time frame really matter?

No, it doesn't become irrelevant. If you're building something, you can estimate how long it will take to finish it, if you take less time by cutting corners, then it rushed, if you fit into the timeframe, then the product isn't. The definition fits, since games rarely have the luxury of taking as much time as they need to be built, hence it is a reasonable assumption to make that bad parts in games come from the short development time. True, some stuff could really be bad design decisions and just the devs being bad or whatever but it would be a bit harsh to assume that every developer sucks hard and tight schedules have nothing to do with quality.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Rushed is an excuse and with any excuse it's credibility depends on a number of factors.

Like with Obisidian people say they are the best developer ever but every time they are rushed so we never get to see them at their best. And you look at a company like Valve and the only reason why people say their games are good is that they are never rushed. But if Obsidian were not rushed would they ever be able to deliver a game like Half-Life 2 that delivered new tech and was highly polished? Or would you just have a game with another Obsidian story that didn't have any major missing segments and overall the game was less bugged but not outstanding in terms of tech.

In the end we already have the game that was the official industry experiment on what happens if developers are never rushed and are allowed to pursue quality in an uncompromising way. It was called Duke Nukem Forever.

 

[Esotera]

Rushed = Time taken to develop Half Life 3 / 2pi^2

Where time taken to develop half life 3 = the point at which heat death in the universe begins to set in

I don't think we need an objective measure to tell if something has been rushed. It generally isn't fun to play, parts don't make sense, may be quite buggy, and just doesn't feel like it's as good as it could be if it had more time. Rushed games shouldn't be confused with games that had a rapid development but are still solid games with only minor flaws.

 

[baddude1337]

I don't think it's a valid point. Look at Halo, they changed it to a console from MAC and in its development cycle changed from RTS to TPS to FPS. They had a year to make it into a FPS for the Xbox and it came out as the Xbox's killer app and created a new massive franchise.

It's less rushed, more lazy developers IMHO.