Self care is important, and looks like a lot of things to a lot of different people.


Whatever it looks like to you, just make sure you keep doing it in times of need

With that said, this is going to be a short one today I think, as the mood is quite drab, and the energy level is following suit, which has led me to the need of greater self care as well, which should be everyone’s top priority.

Still working my way through Silksong, which, for anyone following me, knows that’s kind of been the thing to do for the month of September. I’ve yet to beat it, strangely, which has me somewhat befuddled, as I really haven’t had quite as much trouble with it as so many others have, though my sessions, save for a random few, have mostly only been about an hour at a time. With a good twenty four hours now poured into the title, I stand impressed with how much “game” Team Cherry has packed into what I thought was going to be such a little package, but I suppose seven years of development time will bear sweet fruit in such a fashion.

Which does lead me to touch upon the point of interest I wanted to briefly discuss today, and it’s a fairly straight forward one to boot. My question is as follows: are games good because they take a longer time to develop, or does a longer development time produce a good game? The question does remind me of the old dialogue written by Plato called Euthyphro, where Socrates and the titular character have a similar debate about what piousness is, and whether or not if something is pious because the gods like it, or if them liking something makes the thing pious? Of course, my posit isn’t quite as perplexing a paradox, as there is no gotchya! moment of vexing woe attached in the critical thinking department, as the answer is an open ended one, and not necessarily singularly conclusive, either, as looking back on the history of gaming culture, you can find both good games that were developed quickly and or faster than others, and you can also see much longer development times producing titles that aren’t necessarily considered masterpieces; with an obvious flaw in the thinking akin to X game needs Y time to be Z good, or some such mathematical nonsense. I don’t think there is a right answer, but I do think there is something to be said about making sure any given team does have the resources and time they feel they need to turn around a good product, which is definitely a luxury most do not have.

I suppose I was inspired by reading this article, which basically details how developers interviewed at Gamescom seemed to all be of the mind that their solution to maintaining such standards to develop games on “the cheap”, or at least, in turning around a profit quickly while maintaining costs (is likely a better way to put that), is to get games out quicker. I’m sure any of the more savvy of you don’t need to be told the obvious flaw in this plan, though for the sake of clarity, I will iterate the idea that games turned around quicker will of course, as a result, increase the probability they have more problems than games that take more time to bake in the oven. I know there is something to be said of day one patches, continuous hot fix updates and the like, but at what point are we all just lowering the bar of standard to the point where we need a shovel to uncover it? I know the industry needs to have a serious conversation involving how to make sure teams have safety nets, and many of these exchanges likely involve the hard reality of finding more ways to support workers through regulations and unions, but I don’t think getting games out super fast is going to fix the kind of problems they think it will.

I know these were all spit-balling exchanges, so much like my question of how long a good game takes to develop has no conclusive answer, I think there’s plenty of precedent and reason to suggest better games generally demand longer turn around times, so the question in the headline is pertinent, if not only a little objectively demanding in its inquisition for a modicum of truth This is not only in reference to the number of great games that have been delayed, or the number of titles I’ve played that have taken years to come out, but one recent example I remember reading was developer John Romero (of Doom fame) mentioning how the 4+ months they had to develop Wolfenstein 3D felt “luxurious” in comparison to their earlier titles. Granted, early 90’s were a different time, but if you consider that Wolfenstein 3D was id software’s breakout title, where most people are aware of it, even before Doom’s fame, but can’t remember other titles id previously worked on, it’s another great example of what a longer time frame can do for any singular video game.

Anecdotally speaking, I can’t seem to ever keep up with the number of titles I have, let alone new ones coming out, and as much as I love the perks of both new games being free through sub services, and even old games being made available in similar such manners, I can never seem to find time for them, and even though I’m not the biggest social butterfly, whenever I talk to other gamers or read opinions online, it seems I am not alone in that regard. I think much like the dialog around Silksong taking seven years in development time was such a shock to so many people, the $20 price tag was similarly jarring, with both gamers and industry analysts saying “how could they do that!?”, with the implication being they somehow “got away with it”, breaking a precedent no one thought possible.

Well, if nothing else, maybe Silksong reminds us all, both with its price, development time, and eventual quality there after, good things do take time, and they don’t necessarily need to break the bank after the fact. Maybe that is a precedent we should all appreciate and learn from.

~Pashford