   Had to share: How the rest of the world views game dev
  I come into work this morning and find this on our web site: World of Warcraft is a superstar in the online gaming world.  Now, read the first line... [headshake]   
  What fools we've all been! All of those failed MMORPGS.. the developers simply didn't know what to "put in" their vast equally-developed online vacuums!   ;  OH SHIT.[ravuya@home]# ravsql --database BetterThanWorldOfWarcraftINSERT INTO world DUNGEONS, WARRIORS, DRUIDS, PRIESTS, WARLOCKS, HUNTERS, BATTLEGROUNDS, SPELLS, (SELECT * FROM QUESTS WHERE LENGTH > 24)HAH! I win again. Wait..[ravuya@home]# tighten --graphicsRaph actually knows what he's talking about wrt this speech, though. Wish I could've gone and taken this idiot's spot.   ;  Well, if that's not how you start, then what is?CM   ;Quote:Original post by Conner McCloudWell, if that's not how you start, then what is?CMThe problem is that creating a world _IS_ "deciding what to put into it". The two are not separable, but part of a single, atomic process.Blizzard will most likely have taken the following steps:1. Market research.2. Existing, easily leverageable IP. (You can tell I've been writing marketing materials, can't you?)3. Lots of existing code and tools that can be repurposed to your needs.4. Design. Lots and lots of design:... a. A Design Overview / "Bible"-type document which describes the overall framework.... b. Architecture Design. (Client-Server design, networking protocols and other folderol.)... c. Asset docs and specs for the programmers, artists, sound designers, etc.... d. Testing / QA docs.... e. Support, Community Management and FAQ docs.5. Asset creation (including code, which is just an asset that's been dignified with its own name.)6. Testing.7. Release.8. While (Profit) Goto 4c.Most development processes are iterative to some extent. WoW is more iterative than most and designed with long-term maintenance and expansion in mind, but both of these aspects are becoming increasingly common in other game genres too -- particularly games that also market their core libraries to third parties.The above is pure speculation on my part, based on educated guesswork. Nevertheless, I draw readers' attention to my sig.   ;Quote:Original post by stimarcoThe problem is that creating a world _IS_ "deciding what to put into it". The two are not separable, but part of a single, atomic process.I see.  So you're reading that sentence as some sort of sequence.  I do not, I read it as a clarification for people who might not consider things like quests and character classes to be part of "creating a virtual world."With your breakdown, 1 2 4a and 4c are all part of creating the world.  Considering the speech [which was rather interesting, by the way; thanks for the link] was all about that initial design, I'm still not clear why that article [and the first sentence in particular] should be mocked so.CM   ;Quote:Original post by Conner McCloudWell, if that's not how you start, then what is?"The MAKING of an online video game blockbuster..."  I can start building a house by buying a hammer, doesn't mean I'm making one. =bQuote:Original post by Conner McCloudI'm still not clear why that article [and the first sentence in particular] should be mocked so.Entirely for the purpose of humor. =)  It reminds me of trying to explain to my girlfriend that the physically correct tumbly boxes on the screen didn't get there by themselves, a concept that is lost on her.  Then, after showing her the extent of the coding that went into it, she replies, "...and that's all it does?"*sigh*  Ya feel me?   ;Quote:Original post by coderx75Quote:Original post by Conner McCloudWell, if that's not how you start, then what is?"The MAKING of an online video game blockbuster..."  I can start building a house by buying a hammer, doesn't mean I'm making one. =bI see.  So you don't think design is part of making a video game.  Yeah, in that light the article is positively idiotic.CM   ;  That article contains some incorrect information, but I'm actually quite happy that someone finally wrote an article looking at gaming as a good thing.Quote:Known in the industry as an MMOG — short for massively multiplayer online role-playing gameWhere does the role-playing part come from? Does that imply that MMORPG means  massively multiplayer online game?Quote:"Warcraft" has hit $1 billion in revenue. Subscribers pay $13 to $15 monthly to play.I certaintly doesn't pay to play Warcraft, WoW is not Warcraft.Quote: Game developers are working on "Burning Crusade," the first big expansion pack for "Warcraft,"Quote:"World of Warcraft" player Andrew W. Donoho, a software engineer in his mid-40s, has multiple Level 60 characters including a female warrior that he plays regularly.He says switching genders in the virtual world has allowed him to understand some of the discrimination and harassment women face in the gaming world.[oh]   ;Quote:Original post by Conner McCloudI see.  So you don't think design is part of making a video game.  Yeah, in that light the article is positively idiotic.Personally, I see it as one of the most important parts.  However, even the design aspect has been completely trivialized.All in all, I don't fault the guy.  As a business writer, I doubt the guy knows much about the game franchise he's writing about (as CTar clearly pointed out =b) let alone the development of such a game.  It's just funny how people view "game making" unless they get hit in the face with it a few times.CTar: Good point.  This is a nice break from the usual "G4m3rz r t3rr!sts" articles. =b   