You know, every step of the way -- from the beginning to the end -- we're talking about a 90 percent Metacritic. That's our goal. That's what we tell Sega. And we communicate that through graphs, basically, of where we think we are.
The Agile method of software development strikes again. Though I'm a strong supporter of the method, you have to have a good scrum master or team leader to crack the whip when necessary...
CA cutting features willy nilly suggests they are using the Agile approach rather than a well planned out approach, and their approach the is wrong choice for developing a game because you don't release in short iterations to gamers (as you would a customer) and get the feedback you need, you release only a final product to the gamers. Normally, the Agile software development mindset allows the customer to terminate production whenever they decide they have the product they want after seeing an iteration. This means that features may be left out, but it is the customer's call.
In this case, CA decided it is both the development team and customer, using Metacritic scores as customer feedback.
The process is flawed, because Metacritic isn't the customer, we are the customer, and game wasn't done. But it got released. Sure it got a great Metacritic score, but that is meaningless. CA isn't pushing the envelope, they are pushing mediocrity, and so long as no other company makes games similar to TW, they will continue to score well with Metacritic. Shame on them. Shame on the reviewers too, except ones like Angry Joe, the Guardian, and Cinema Blend who took the time to get it right. Rome Total War II wasn't a good game on release, it was average.
There is a reason most English car companies went out of business, and I think CA is quickly becoming the British Leyland ( http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-...t-1_179448.htm ) of the gaming industry.
Okay kids, let's all give a nice golf clap for CA for achieving a high meta critic score even though they released an incomplete game!
Bookmarks