by asspennies & rizzuh
wednesday april 23rd, 2003
Counter-Strike: Condition Zero was announced almost two years ago (http://csnation.totalgamingnetwork.com/viewnews.php/2859/) when Computer Gaming World broke the story. The magazine reported that the game would feature a crossbow, a toolkit, and even a suicide pack.
Now the game will feature a FAMAS, a single player campaign with many scripted sequences, and upgraded visuals. But will the game be good or bad, and will its quality have anything to do its shaky and diverse history?
The sly duo of asspennies and rizzuh is back to answer that very question.
From: asspennies [mailto:asspennies@counter-strike.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 8:00 AM
To: rizzuh [mailto:rze@counter-strike.net]
Subject: Delay of Game
We've seen some big news recently, what with the recent (expected) announcement of Half-Life 2's imminent arrival. It's certainly been quite a wait for this one—a good 5 years, if it takes as long as November.
One thing that hasn't taken quite that long, it only seems like it, is Counter-Strike: Condition Zero. We've seen it go through three developers and as many complete redesigns. With all this delay, and with all these changes, one has to wonder. Will it be any good?
There are a lot of people who rue publishing delays as if they were the most objectionable thing on Earth. I'm not one of them. Publishing delays are a fact of life in the game design business. We've seen them have a wonderful effect on the final outcome (see Half-Life) and we've seen them destroy a game (see Daikatana, although it's questionable whether there was any game in there to start with.)
As it is, I have a very simple rule I apply to games that are delayed: They had better be good.
It's my belief that, since delays are in some cases inevitable, you better use them to make your game better and only release it when it's ready. In fact, if the delays are extensive and the product keeps getting moved back, your game better keep getting better and better. With all that time to work on it, it better not be crap. In a sense, I expect the quality of the game to be proportional to the delay since the announcement of its development. (Half-Life 2 is a special case—it still hasn't been officially announced, but it's likely been in development for quite a while, and based on its predecessor, it will be a huge disappointment if it is anything less than groundbreaking.)
If Condition Zero comes out and isn't exceptional, I'll be sorely disappointed. They can keep delaying it till the sun comes home as long as we ultimately get a fantastic game out of it. If it's merely good and nothing special, Valve and their rotating development contractors deserve all the criticism they get.
Hell, if Duke Nukem Forever ever comes out, it had better be the best game ever, because it's going to get no mercy otherwise. What do you think? Are game delays justified if the game that comes out is that much better for it? Will Condition Zero benefit or be harmed by the constant delays?
From: rizzuh [mailto:rze@counter-strike.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 3:22 PM
To: asspennies [mailto:asspennies@counter-strike.net]
Subject: Rain delays
Games don't just magically become bad because of time. Condition Zero and TeamFortress 2 won't just lose all of their gameplay because of delays. What gamers forget often, something that shocks me, is that the Daikatana effect was in full swing long before that crappy game was released. There was a lot of hype and then there were a lot of delays. The delays made gamers mock the game before it was released, but all of that would have been silenced if Daikatana was good. Well, lo and behold, it sucked more ass than a pedophile's vacuum. Delays didn't make the gameplay magically suck. It made the graphics out-dated, perhaps, but that is not what gamers really care about.
However, making games is a business. You do not run a business on a creative license of "do whatever the hell you want." The extreme delays in games like TeamFortress 2 and Condition Zero won't make the games worse, and will most likely make them better, but the end result is a collection of games that take 3 years to make, barely make profit, and severely test the gamer's patience.
No one in the damn world thinks to themselves, "Hey, this game is fun but it was delayed too often therefore it sucks." The game quality and release date have almost no correlation. Example: Counter-Strike's single-player spin-off Condition Zero has switched developers three times and has, of course, had three different design directions. What if Ritual Entertainment was the first developer? Them game that we're looking forward to now would have been released already, in the best condition that it could possibly be in.
Instead VALVe went through Rogue, who had an absolutely crappy comic book design, and Gearbox Software, who was turning the game into an arcade shooter. In the end, the "right" design was found and Ritual is making what is hopefully the best product. If the industry had any sense to it, Ritual would have won out in the first place and no money would have been wasted.
TeamFortress 2 has had multiple designs and multiple engines. If the design was right the first time, the engines would have never changed and, who knows, Counter-Strike might have been a TF2 modification.
Do I fault the industry for being perfectionist and switching things on the fly? Not really, but this kind of nonsense can't fly for long. When publishers realize that it could have been done right on the first try rather than the third then heads will roll and blank checks will no longer exist.
However, while we live in the age of irresponsibility within the industry, there's no reason to demand that games should automatically be better because of delays. Gamers should demand that every game they play be great, regardless of the time it took to make the game. The problem for the industry is making a great game without the delays. And, you know, no one is anxious to call delays mistakes when plenty of games like Half-Life and Max Payne are the direct result of a complete re-design.
Condition Zero likely won't suck, but if it does then why should it matter that they took longer to make the game? It'll be bad, or good, either way; now or then.From: asspennies [mailto:asspennies@counter-strike.net]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 3:24 PM
To: rizzuh [mailto:rze@counter-strike.net]
Subject: Children of a lesser game
Demanding that every game we get is great is obviously the best choice, but it rarely works out that way. Those games that stick to their schedule and come out on time can certainly be good, but rarely great.
Good examples abound. Jedi Knight II, while a passable and even fun game, was not the instant classic everyone had hoped for. Quake 3 remains an enjoyable diversion but didn't take any risks. Halo had to eventually meet the deadline of the release of the X-box, and while it bucked the trend and came out a truly fantastic game, it definitely suffered in the latter half of the single player campaign.
All of these problems were acceptable—the consumer is smarter than most think, and understands the perils of a quick development cycle. Just getting a game that's worth playing can be, in many cases, a coup.
Most of the better games we know of came out at their own pace. We all know the story of Half-Life, but there's also every Blizzard game to think of. Deus Ex had quite a few delays if I remember the situation correctly.
But delaying until you think you're ready doesn't automatically mean the game will be excellent. Consider Black and White, which gave all appearances of being a landmark game and turned out to be amazing gift wrapping of an empty box.
I accept that not every studio has the luxury of being 3D Realms or Valve and being able to fund endless development cycles until the game is truly ready. But those like Valve and Blizzard that can afford to take the time have an obligation to their customers to make it count.
Blizzard has a history of completely understanding this. Every title they put out is polished till it shines, with infectious gameplay and exceptional quality control evident throughout the product. Valve's first real test won't come till TF2/HL2, but one hopes that with all the time they've had, they've been able to have the same influence on Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, including those extra layers of varnish.
I daresay one expects it.
I can recognize that Jedi Knight 2 took nine months to make and one week to play. I can't accept that same quality from Condition Zero. It must be better.
From: rizzuh [mailto:rze@counter-strike.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 11:59 AM
To: asspennies [mailto:asspennies@counter-strike.net]
Subject: Growing Pains
There are scores of games that never had significant delays and turned out great. Splinter Cell, Vice City and No One Lives Forever 2 all come to mind. Faced with the option of playing a good game now and a marginally better game in two years from now, I would pick actually being able to play it now without having to break into a developer's studio and butcher everyone inside.
But this has nothing to do with Condition Zero or even Half-Life. There is a significant difference between re-tooling a product and completely starting over from scratch. Half-Life was entirely re-done for the best, but is there a real reason why it couldn't have been done right the first time? Condition Zero is on its third completely separate design. Just because the game is taking longer doesn't mean that the third try would have been better than if the third try was actually the first try.
There's a big difference between replacing a broken graphics card with a new graphics card and replacing a broken graphics card with a whole new computer. I know this goes under the "easier said than done" category, but why not make your design document not have a freaking broken graphics card in the first place? Game designs are professionals, and their work should reflect that.
Do you think this pattern of completely throwing things out the window will last long? It just shows that the PC gaming industry is still in its infancy. Console developers, who do have much fewer technical limitations to deal with, don't completely redesign games on a whim. Why to the best PC game developers do it? And, in fact, is this willingness to waste time and money for the supposed benefit of the end product actually why these developers are the best out there?From: asspennies [mailto:asspennies@counter-strike.net]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 10:24 PM
To: rizzuh [mailto:rze@counter-strike.net]
Subject: Developing Front
I think it will certainly last as long as gamers put up with it. And I don't have much of a problem putting up with it. Like I argue, if we get a better game out of the deal, then it's better that they redesign it. Can you imagine if Half-Life shipped without redesign? Would Counter-Strike even have existed?
You ask why PC developers can't get it right the first time, but I don't think that's really fair. When you're trying new, ambitious things, sometimes you can get relatively far along and realize nothing is working. There's no point in continuing only to put out a shallow, poorly realized product, even if it means stretching the schedule considerably.
And I'm not totally sure your console example holds water. Consider that many of the big games don't even get release dates until they are close. The biggest offender here is Nintendo, with Metroid, Mario Sunshine, and Zelda all not getting release dates until they were done or very close to it. While they may have not gone through a re-design, we wouldn't know it if they had. I'm certain that things changed through the long development cycle. And some people no doubt wish that Mario, for instance, had more thought placed in the development process.
I'll bring up Counter-Strike as an example here. We're a Counter-Strike website. We've both been around for the very beginnings of this game, (you even before it went public) and we've seen it evolve considerably over the years, many times going through some fairly radical changes. The focus of the game hasn't changed at all, and the general gameplay style is still basically the same, but much of the surrounding factors have undergone a complete metamorphosis into something new.
Many of us have been there along for the ride, witnessing firsthand the development cycle of a game in a unique way—it was shared with us almost from its earliest beginnings. It's difficult to argue that Counter-Strike isn't better off for its continued and ever-changing development. If we all had a choice of Counter-Strike being only released as Beta 1, or only released as version 1.0, I'm sure we'd all pick 1.0.
Perhaps it's not the best analogy considering the public nature of Counter-Strike as opposed to the private nature of most games before they are released. But laying off releasing the game until it's done—for privately developed games, not mods—seems to me to be the better choice.
Does this more common willingness to release the game when it's done, and not before, make PC developers better? I'm not sure. I certainly wasn't impressed with Freelancer, even though that wasn't released for years after it was announced. And there are other examples. But they do have more to contend with—a PC market that features an enormous mix of configurations that makes your design decisions that much more difficult to achieve.
I disagree that this shows that PC gaming is in its infancy. I think it shows that PC Gaming is the most refined and mature of all the gaming circles. The developer who takes their time to make the best game they can in much more likely to have a hot seller, make more money, and have the opportunity to develop big games again. It shows where PC developers are at that they can convince publishers to hold off on the publication of their products until they will make the most out of them.
From: rizzuh [mailto:rze@counter-strike.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 6:32 AM
To: asspennies [mailto:asspennies@counter-strike.net]
Subject: A Shining Example
I write this early Wednesday morning. Over the last few days more and more info about Half-Life 2 has been released. In fact, it's the first public information about the title that's around. VALVe has big ambitions, no doubt the biggest of which is an actual release date of September 30th, 2003.
There is no great history between VALVe and release dates, but at least VALVe has learned a lesson from the past. Half-Life 2 is being announced only months before its planned release date. There's no doubt that the game went under a re-design when the new engine, called "Source," was developed and refined. TeamFortress 2 suffered the same treatment. In fact, I believe that the games have been in development for relatively the same amount of time.
Then why is TF2 such a joke to so many cynical gamers? Easy, it has publicly undergone multiple changes. It's like being on stage while you go through puberty, experience your first kiss, and murder your first schoolgirl. Blemishes like this should be experienced within a private corporate setting. "OH YEAH THIS GAME WILL ROCK WE'LL HYPE IT NOW" doesn't make the PC gaming industry more intelligent simply because they decide later that, indeed, the game doesn't rock and instead they'll use the same intellectual property to create an entirely different game.
To give game developers unlimited freedom is fiscally irresponsible and very trying for the fans out there. "Counter-Strike: Condition Zero" is more of a trademark than a specific game as three very separate attempts have been made to flesh out a single player game from the CS world. TeamFortress 2 might be a Half-Life mod or a game based on an updated Half-Life engine depending on what generation of screenshots you look at. The hilarious punchline is that neither category is actually TF2, as that game was completely re-designed and hasn't been seen since the Source engine was developed (the Source engine, for those confused and possibly dazed, will be used for Half-Life 2, TeamFortress 2, and even Counter-Strike 2).
I give VALVe credit. They changed their tune. They don't hype their games anymore and thus don't piss off many gamers.
VALVe starts the hype machine as their games near release, if HL2 is any indication. I guess they did the same thing for Condition Zero since we've been told "hey, around 6 months from now or less" for the last two years. That's frustrating to many gamers. Especially since we don't know if Condition Zero will turn out to be like Titanic the movie (where some delays were required) or Titanic the ship. And we won't know until we play it, because games don't just get better over time because the tooth fairy makes it so.
So yes, PC gaming is fine and mature and smart. Sadly the geniuses who develop games are optimists by nature and should either start doing everything right the first time or just keep quiet about their game until the timing is right. Half-Life 2, if it's released on time, would be a prime example for other companies to follow.
Seeing, however, that this is the PC gaming industry, I doubt HL2 will be on the shelves on September 30th and it'll be another letdown for PC gamers everywhere. Regardless, I'll be paying close attention to that date and will certainly be carried along by hype, hype, and hype. It's so hard to be a cynical gamer when you can't help but love games.
Counter-Point will be back next Wednesday for another issue full of insight and whining. Be sure to keep the discussion going on the comments by clicking the image on the bottom right!
related links» Half-Life 2 News (http://csnation.counter-strike.net/content/search.php?scope=newscate&type=equal&find=64)
» Condition Zero News (http://csnation.counter-strike.net/content/search.php?scope=newscate&type=equal&find=256)
post comments @ http://csnation.totalgamingnetwork.com/comments.php?id=5991
—asspennies & rizzuh, send feedback to asspennies@csnation.net
Written for CS-Nation - http://csnation.totalgamingnetwork.comall content ©1999-2004 by John 'rizzuh' Jensen, unless otherwise noted. all rights reserved.
