Do Games Take Too Long To Make?

Duke Nukem Forever started development in 1997.

As you've all heard by now, StarCraft II has been delayed to sometime in 2010. As disappointing as this is, I think it raises an important question. Is it possible that developers can take too long to make their games? Does the length of time that goes into producing a title necessarily indicate its quality? Its said that too much of a good thing can be bad. Developers certainly need time to fine tune their game, ensure that the quality is high as possible, and release it in as functional a state as can be achieved. But how much time is too much? Should we be assured that a game is taking so long because it is being perfected? Or is it a bad omen?

Battlecruiser 3000 AD is notorious for being one of the longest games in history to make. It received medicore reviews when it was finally released.

Case in point, Battlecruiser 3000. When it was previewed, it was said to be, "The last thing you'll ever desire." It got a lukewarm reception after being one of the most anticipated titles for its time, and taking a decade to be developed. So much hope goes into games like these and seems to be so often misplaced. While the game did eventually improve with future updates and tweaks, it launched one of the longest and hottest flame wars in history. I haven't read too much into the content of the wars, but I suspect it was about fans bickering over whether or not the game would be good or if it would even see the light of day at all. Could this game be responsible for every heated PC or video game debate to come after it?

It takes over a decade to make a sequel to one of the greatest RTS games of all time? Really?

I have high hopes for StarCraft II, and I wish it well. I have fond memories of playing the game in my high school days. There was an irrestible charm to the eerily familiar world (Warhammer 40k anyone?), the distinctive units, the awesome map editor and the great story and mission designs. But I must know, why does it have to take so long? It's hard to take on this topic without sounding impatient. Gamers want thier money's worth, and want a good quality game. So its not unreasonable to have to wait for it. But in a market with so many games, a rare few will reach classic status. An instant buy like StarCraft II takes so long to come out as to seem cruel. We're teased with in game footage, trailers, dev diaries, and it seems the game is never closer to release.

Prey started in '95. It was finally released in 2006 and received fairly high reviews.

I guess the fairest and most logical way to look at this is on a case by case basis. Not every game that takes a long time will be worth it. Some will. It depends on the effort, planning and ability of the studios developing them. In the end, I think we have to be glad that some games take as long as they do. There's always the chance that the added time and attention will make the difference between a classic and a flop. It can even work to the advantage of developers. Without having to compete with what will be an instant commercial success like SC II (regardless of how it actually is, we can be pretty sure it will sell big no matter what), maybe it will encourage indie developers to take more chances. Get their games out before giants like Blizzard can own the spotlight.

Left 4 Dead 2 comes out a year after its predecessor. Can I have my $50 back now?

A game released after an excessive development cycle can be ominous, but so can a game released too soon. It's probably happened to every gamer. They wait breathlessly for their most anticipated game. It's coming out not too long from now. When you finally get it, you scream "WTF!?" And can't believe how badly they screwed it up. You think if they had just taken the time they needed to make it better, it would have been the experience you hoped for.

So do games take too long? Perhaps its the wrong question. Maybe a better question would be, "Do devs do the right things in the time that they have?" In a perfect world Blizzard could have released SC II in a state of perfection half a decade ago. We'd be eagerly anticipating StarCraft III right now. But if they need over a decade, I'll give them over a decade. All I ask is that you don't screw it up. And so far, Blizzard's track record has been pretty solid. Next time I log onto Team Fortress 2 (which was announced in '98), I think it will remind me that, "Good things (usually) come to those who wait."