We have heard several times from BHG that they are very much ahead of schedule in their game development.
What I wonder is: How did they manage this wonderful result? Lets compare it to Civ3, CTP1 and 2, MOO3. None of these titles said that they were way ahead of schedule! And several really seemed to be behind schedule. Either they shipped late or they were buggy on shipment.
Now, Mark says that the reason for this difference is various problems that the other companies (Activision, Firaxis, and Quicksilver) had. Problems that were not the fault of the design companies. For instance, Firaxis had the Brian Reynolds defection. This is certainly one way of looking at things.
But I wonder if that is the best explanation. Maybe, BHG has been doing things right...and deserves some credit. Maybe it's not just a matter of different "luck" seperating these companies. Rather it is a difference in "skill". Perhaps, Firaxis should have done a better job of keeping Brian Reynolds happy. And perhaps, BHG deserves some credit for keeping their team intact.
Discuss...
What I wonder is: How did they manage this wonderful result? Lets compare it to Civ3, CTP1 and 2, MOO3. None of these titles said that they were way ahead of schedule! And several really seemed to be behind schedule. Either they shipped late or they were buggy on shipment.
Now, Mark says that the reason for this difference is various problems that the other companies (Activision, Firaxis, and Quicksilver) had. Problems that were not the fault of the design companies. For instance, Firaxis had the Brian Reynolds defection. This is certainly one way of looking at things.
But I wonder if that is the best explanation. Maybe, BHG has been doing things right...and deserves some credit. Maybe it's not just a matter of different "luck" seperating these companies. Rather it is a difference in "skill". Perhaps, Firaxis should have done a better job of keeping Brian Reynolds happy. And perhaps, BHG deserves some credit for keeping their team intact.
Discuss...
Comment