What Would Matt Do

 (insert bullshit picture here…no really, someone make me a bullshit picture. I have no art skills.)

I actually had to double check and make sure I haven’t already used that title since it’s so obvious and I end up spending a lot of time kicking Epic in groin (not they don’t deserve it). What do we have today in the continuing saga of Epic stupidity? We have yet another reason to never work at Epic:

Mike Capps, head of Epic, and a former member of the board of directors of the International Game Developers Association, during the IGDA Leadership Forum in late 08, spoke at a panel entitled Studio Heads on the Hot Seat, in which, among other things, he claimed that working 60+ hours was expected at Epic, that they purposefully hired people they anticipated would work those kinds of hours, that this had nothing to do with exploitation of talent by management but was instead a part of "corporate culture," and implied that the idea that people would work a mere 40 hours was kind of absurd.

Now, of course, the idea that a studio head, which Capps is, would have such notions is highly plausible; but he was, at the time, a board member of the IGDA, an organization the ostensible purpose of which is to support game developers. Not, you know, to support management dickheads.

(seen via Lum via ZenofDesign; which I can’t get to load right now)

Scott gives pretty good coverage of why crunch time is dumb and he links the most important study of all. It explains when they figured out crunch time didn’t work…the mother fucking 1900′s. That’s right, about a hundred years ago:

So, yes, Crunch Mode can increase output over the short term. But, at 60 hours per week, in no case should "the short term" be defined as anything more than eight weeks long. At that point, the costs strongly begin to outweigh the advantages. Not only have you lost all the gain those increased hours bought; you’ve also got tired, angry, burned-out workers. When you return them to a 40-hour week, their output will be sub-par for some time while they recover.

Read the whole study. No, really, go there now and read the whole thing. It’s that important for anyone that works in any industry where crunch time is seen as the norm. It completely debunks anything Epic could ever say about why they work 60 hour work weeks by default.

Singling out Epic isn’t really the point though. We all know Epic will do stupid shit. It’s kind of their way. What about the industry as a whole though? I don’t know of one guy working in the game industry that doesn’t have crunch time as a part of their regular job. Sometimes just for months, sometimes for years.

Why won’t the industry get a grip? Why do they think that they can defy science, conventional wisdom and common sense and continue with their ways forever?

Because game developers just don’t have the power the normal software industry guys do. And they often don’t know any better or feel trapped into it. Between the two, the ways aren’t changing. Back to Epic for a sec…they are, by all accounts, a wildly successful, development house. But not only are they not pushing for more quality of life at the job, they actively countering it AND they are, or were, a part of the body that is supposed to have some say for developers…

Publishers push unreal timelines on developers. Developers agree because they like having projects so they can get more projects and survive. Look at Obsidian. They did Knights of the Old Republic II. One of my all time favorite RPGs, even though it was never finished. They aren’t alone by any means, but that’s a good example. We see games released all of the time that either a) aren’t done or b) done, but severly limited from the original scope. That doesn’t even get into time for playtesting, beta, changes before release, etc. Another example… Relic just released Dawn of War II a little bit back. They called the game gold AND THEN had a playtest for the multiplayer.

You know what Stardock is going to do? They are working on their next game, and when they think it’s good, they are going to have a beta test. They’ll invite any that preordered it to play it not only for a quick stability check, but to have at least some input into the game about what’s fun and what’s really broken. How long are they going to do this for? Until they feel it’s ready. But hey, what do they know, they just make mad money in a dying market.

The question is though, what needs to happen to fix this? For one, game developers obviously need to get better at knowing how long projects are going to take AND telling publishers that there is a testing/beta window where the public will have feedback on their game. Two, game development houses need to get together and start telling publishers to go to hell. I’m not going to single any specific dev houses here, but anyone that has successful titles under their belt and is still taking on crunch time as part of life, is part of the problem. We have shining examples of the right way to do it (Valve, Stardock and Blizzard to some extent), but they are completely darkened by the business as normal routine most developers start games with.

As I said above, game developers obviously need to get better at both telling the truth about how long projects will take and about accturately figuring that out. None of that is going to change the fucked up relationship of the industry though. Maybe the likes of Stardock and Valve can change it on their own…

Quality of life. It’s more important than whatever dumb ass game you’re trying to release. Companies in general need to get back to working for employees instead of using them until they dry up and can’t handle it anymore. Not just in the game industry, in all industries. But while I dream about moon ponies and wish for fish with my wish making ish, I continue to hope at least a few more companies come around.

What Would Matt Do: Were it up to me, all corporations would be tasked with first taking care of their employees and secondly their plan to make money. Whatever the case, I won’t ever again work for a company where crunch time is just a part of the company creed. See, I like my family…

Just quick note here on a new game I saw on Troll in the Corner (?). Elven Legacy? Beyond the trite sounding name, the game looks pretty cool. Turn based combat, purty graphics, hex strategy… Yeah, it sounds sweet.

The guys who made this game are serious strategy developers, which usually turns me off. It’s often filled with to many checkboxes and simulated battles and things not fun. But the whole point of this game is to bring strategy games to the masses. I love the idea and I’m extremely interested in playing any game that is trying to take hardcore strategy and make it more accessible (i.e. – fun).

Now I’d like a demo, it to be released on Steam/Impulse and for it to be bad ass. And I’d like a moon pony.

What Would Matt Do: First I’d be greatly impressed with my awesome title… Then I’d like to stop being sick. plskthx.

I know, I’m as stunned as you are. But apparently not only can you make money, you can make good money doing it:

As a case study, Wardell released sales statistics of Stardock’s latest products as proof that the market for hardcore PC games can be a profitable one.

Galactic Civilizations II

• $1.2 million budget (original plus two expansions)
• $500,000 marketing
• $500,000 distribution
• $10 million revenue

"I’ll go out on a limb and say a ten-to-one ratio of investment to earnings is good," joked Wardell, who added that the marketing/distribution budgets include bribes and bonuses. "My jet fuel isn’t cheap."

Sins of a Solar Empire

• $1 million budget (original and one expansion)
• $600,000 marketing
• $800,000 distribution
• $8 million in revenue so far

"Half of our revenue has come from Impulse," he said of Stardock’s digital distribution application. Sins of a Solar Empire sold more copies at retail, but Stardock makes significantly less money on each sale as compared to copies sold through its own digital service.

Dear god man. EA would kill for ratios like that. Ubisoft actually tried to sacrifice animals to get returns like that. Sony doesn’t really understand profitability, but if they did, they’d be impressed.

Of course, EA and the like might not like my part of the title that talks about good games. What do both Valve and Stardock do that makes a huge difference? They release stable, fun games. How do they do that? They take the time in beta to get it right. Where as many companies use beta like a demo, these two bad boys, and especially Stardock, use their betas to completely reshape the game. It’s pretty impressive and extremely necessary. And, sometimes takes awhile. It’s weird, sometimes quality just can’t be rushed. Huh.

So, Maybe, just maybe, PC gaming can make it. Maybe the likes of Wardell and his ilk (Valve and the like) can not only save PC gaming, they can bring it into the future. For a long time now I just assumed the industry would die out at some point. Now I’m not only thinking that’s not the case, I’m pretty sure it has a pretty big upside. Maybe even a potentiial for a long term competitor or merging with console gaming at some point. Maybe.

Whatever the case, it’s good to see not just Valve doing well in the PC gaming industry. The more Impulse/Steam services we get, the more PC developers we get, the more interest and money generated by PC gaming, the better.

I’d miss my RTS/RPG/FPS games were they to disappear or morph into their slightly retarded console cousins permanently.

What Would Matt Do: I’d read the rest of that article to. It’s not just about how much money they are making, but more of a State of the PC Gaming nation. Side note, if you’re STILL doing crunch time at your company, you must hate your company. And history. And most imporantly, your employees.

Ok, before you do anything else, check out the image I borrowed from Gamespy’s article to the right.

Done? Some quick observations can be drawn. First, it looks like 20% of the players are female. I didn’t expect it to be that high. Second, compared to the general population, EQ2 player are a lot more depressed. Third, they are thinner than the general pop.

Highly interesting stuff. But it only leads to a LOT more questions. One, does this kind of demographic apply across all MMOs? Does it extend to other types of online games? We know the age is a pretty normal for video games these days, so does the rest of the information hold across the board?

Another question occurs to me…how does Sony know all of this about their players? Did the research staff get access to players and get to ask them more questions? Because if not, I’m now wondering what exactly Sony does keep track of. How would they know the BMI or education level? Do they know what I had for breakfast too?

Whatever the case is, this is some highly interesting stuff. Because it goes a ways to disproving the normal geek myths. It makes me want to ask so many other questions. For instance, are all gamers so depressed? In both women and men, it’s a LOT more than the general population in this study. I wonder.

If I were reading this as a potential advertiser, I’d be gleaning a lot. If were reading this is a game designer, I’d be gleaning a lot. So will anyone pay attention to this information at all? The sad, but most likely true, answer is no.

What Would Matt Do: I’d love to see this sort of info on all MMOs, and compared to country specific and worldwide data. On a side note, if Empire doesn’t shape up soon (i.e. – quit crashing on me), I’m going to give it quite the stinging review on this very site. I’m loving it, when the game doesn’t crash every third turn.

You know what I like most about Dawn of War II? The fact that it’s not a sequel with a few new features and maybe a race or two. This is a true sequel. Which is both a good and bad thing. We’ll worst to best, because I always prefer the bad news first.

The Bad News (single player)

The single player is poop. Yep, I said it. You’ll see lots of other places that say the single player is awesome and it has RPG elements and it’s made of pure gold shat out by golden geese raised by unicorns. I whole heartedly agree with the previous statement, if you remove all of the parts except it having RPG elements.

You see, the single player game consists of this in 90% of the missions. First, you watch some really boring and drab report (The entire thing is VERY skippable) about which mission(s) are available and why. Then you watch the again boring and drab report on the specific mission. Ok, boring pre mission shit out of the way. Next, you launch the mission, and this exact process over and over.

• Move your unites up to AI units. Engage, put suppresson fire on the whole group. Win.
• When you run out of groups to win against, you then go the Boss fight. You follow whatever dumb mechanic the developer came up with (explosives, suppression, etc) for beating the Boss.
• Mission complete.

That’s mostly it. Sometimes you get swarmed, yoiu retreat and regen for free, then start again. Very rarely you take on defensive only missions (which can choose to skip, but you shouldn’t if you like turtling and experience gain). They are extremely easy though. The guys run at you, you cut them down. Sometimes you have to reposition your units.

So that’s it. The entire single player experience in a nutshell. Don’t look for good AI (there isn’t really any). Try not to think of the incredibly boring and silly Boss fights. The boss fights break the cardinal rule of any game. They break all fo the rules the game established up to this point. Much like in Marvel Ultimates, the end guys can’t be knocked down, they have massive health and none of your super/special powers work on them…except the one the developer decided to make work. Completely useless.

The Good News (multiplayer)

Here’s the good news, the multiplayer is a MESS of fun. It’s chaotic and crazy and strategic and fun. There isn’t any buildings other than your base to be built (unless your Hero can build stuff with their special abilities). You have a Hero (who you can upgrade), and you can buy new units from your main base. That’s it. The true beauty of the system is that you don’t miss it after a few games.

You’re going to be so wrapped up in not getting your guys killed by suppression fire, or telling your Orks to frenzy, that you wouldn’t want anything else to do. The Micromanagement in this game is extreme. Which is why you won’t miss base building. Almost every single one of your guys has something they you need you to specifically setup. From the direction they are facing, to the cover, to the grenades ready to be thrown, the powerup,etc, etc, etc. And if you don’t pay attention to those things, you will lose, guaranteed. This isn’t a game for someone that wants to select a mass of units and throw them at the other guy. At most you’ll be controlling 3-6 different squads. Each of them needing to be caressed just right or they will get slaughtered in seconds.

You see, tactics and strategy is the name of the game…at least on the multiplayer side. You need to position each guy just right, know when to retreat (like Company of Heroes, you guys can run away to replenish, at a cost, and fight again another day), and when to change the front of the battle. You only have two resources, cash and gas (basically). As you level up your base, you can build new guys, most of which require more and more gas. Speaking of leveling up, everything guy in the game can level up. Your guys get levels for combat, obviously, as does your Hero. It makes protecting units and retreating before they die very important, even more so than just the cost of regening a unit being less than buying a new one.

Small Things

I do have a few complaints about the whole system overall. The UI is confusing and not too helpful. The units on the field don’t call out when they get attacked, but only when the first guy in the squad dies. Especially in lighter armored squads, that’s often too late. By the time you click to them, they are surrounded or just to close to be able to retreat in time. The balance is still questionable at best. The Tyrniads are win machines at this point, even with recent downgrades. And Relic has a REALLY bad history of patching their games. We shall see longer term. They did do better with Company of Heroes than the first Dawn of War.

The other thing that may become more than a small thing in the future is the lack of maps. For each mode (1vs1 and 3vs3), we only have four maps. That’s really not that much…and we either have two tilesets, or they don’t stand out well. I can’t really decide on that now. Right now, I’m playing DoWII daily, even though I was in the MP beta too.

The Verdict

That’s a tought call. For me, it’s definitely worth the purchase. But only because the mutliplayer is so good. If multiplayer isn’t really your thing, then you may want to pass on this one, or wait on a Steam sale. It will most definitely come at some point. Unless, you’re real big into previous single player portions of RTS games. I don’t like most of them. I think the last RTS I beat in single player was Kohan II, and probably Starcraft and Red Alert before that. Mostly, they just bore me to no end. But if you like them, then this may be for you. It does have RPG elements (such as experience bars like ME and gray, green and blue items that you can assign to different squads). and it is fun to just destroy the shit out of things…

If you like playing multiplayer RTS games, this game is definitely for you. If not, you may want to pass (unless your of the breed noted above who has liked single player RTS games in the past).

Oh, and I marked this review as to be continued because Relic promises they have a huge plan for more downloadable content. If they do, and it improves or lessens the game, I’ll add a follow up review.

What Would Matt Do: I’d buy it. The multiplayer is that good.