Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.

For those of you who have been through the development of a Stardock developed or published game, much of this will be familiar.  For those of you aren’t, welcome!

Early next year we plan to release a new turn-based PC strategy game called Elemental.  Our games typically have 3 betas and then a private “gamma” and then release.  We use the beta to mean truly unfinished, not feature complete but playable (we also use the term “alpha” for truly unfinished but not playable before we move into beta).

Beta 1 is typically the engine test. Beta 2 is the connectivity/multiplayer test. And beta 3 is the balance/fun test. Gamma is where it’s done but we’re doing final bug testing on it.

For Elemental, we want to add a 4th beta that’s earlier than we normally start betas. The reason for this is because we plan to do some pretty radical stuff with Elemental from a game mechanics point of view. Some of these ideas may look good on paper but not be remotely practical.  So for Elemental, we’re going to add a beta 0.

Here is the tentative schedule:

Beta 0: June 2009.  This won’t be fun and will only play on the cloth map.

Empire_Cloth_City_Wide

The idea being, if the game is fun, it should still be fun without fancy graphics. Finishing Spring and over the Summer, we’ll be trying out all kinds of game mechanics, listening to people in the beta (anyone who pre-orders has the option to participate in the beta) to see what ideas they might have, etc.  It’s a lot cheaper to implement an idea or concept when we only have to represent it with icons on a cloth map.

Beta 1: August 2009. This is the engine test where we insert the actual graphics engine. The cloth map will still be there for zooming out but now you’ll be able to really play in the world and we’ll start to build onto this.  The game still won’t be fun at this stage but you’ll be able to give feedback on the look, UI, and other game engine stuff.


Beta 2: October 2009. This is the multiplayer test. It still won’t likely be very fun but you’ll be able to suffer with friends on-line. Elemental’s multiplayer model is client-server (which is the opposite of Demigod which is peer-to-peer). In Elemental’s case, Impulse will host the actual games which means that (in theory) there should be no such thing as “connection issues”. If you can connect to a web page, you should be able to play people on-line in Elemental. 

It will be at this stage when we decide whether Elemental will make its ship date.  We have February 2010 or August 2010 set aside for Elemental based on player feedback (we prefer February but we don’t want to feel rushed).  Right now, we’re running slightly ahead of schedule.

One nice thing about Beta 2 is that the multiplayer features we’re adding into Elemental will also be made available in updates to Demigod for multiplayer users and anything else that uses Impulse Reactor (our development platform).

 

Beta 3: December 2009. This is when the game better start getting to be fun. This is where we balance things, etc.

 

Gamma: January 2010. This is often called a “release candidate” by other developers but these are private builds where we think everything works but expect there to be some last minute bugs that need to be fixed.

 

Release: Mid-February 2010.

 

If you have any questions, let us know. We’re always around.


Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Apr 09, 2009

I'm wondering what kind of feedback is expected for beta 0.

If i'm correct beta 0 will include:

- the map

- generating the world (and show it as a map)

- some game mechanics that are accessable from the map

Can you give some explanation about what kind of stuff is included in this beta0?

on Apr 09, 2009

Would you open up some modding capabilities during the betas (I think of map genreation)?

I know the thing is likely to change and all such mods are very likely to be unusable when the game's out, but still...

on Apr 09, 2009

mmm do want beta 0 , now...

on Apr 10, 2009

thinking about it, I think calling the 1st beta "beta 0" might be a mistake.   Because I recall brad making a big deal about betas were not supposed to be fun and there was to be no mistake this time around.   Now beta 0 gets the label "0" with an emphisis on 'not fun' rather than just pushing the 'fun' version back to beta 4.    So now people are going to equate beta '0' to be the 'bad beta' and still expect a 'fun beta' for the ones with numbers that can be used in division.  

maybe it doesn't really matter. 

on Apr 10, 2009

landisaurus
thinking about it, I think calling the 1st beta "beta 0" might be a mistake.   Because I recall brad making a big deal about betas were not supposed to be fun and there was to be no mistake this time around.   Now beta 0 gets the label "0" with an emphisis on 'not fun' rather than just pushing the 'fun' version back to beta 4.    So now people are going to equate beta '0' to be the 'bad beta' and still expect a 'fun beta' for the ones with numbers that can be used in division.  

maybe it doesn't really matter. 

It should be beta 0, because as all good programmers know, you start counting at zero

on Apr 10, 2009

It should be beta 0, because as all good programmers know, you start counting at zero


Depends on what you're counting an how!

on Apr 11, 2009

ckessel

It should be beta 0, because as all good programmers know, you start counting at zero

Except, you know, the "small" community of Visual Basic programmers

on Apr 11, 2009

Vicente
Quoting ckessel, reply 25

Except, you know, the "small" community of Visual Basic programmers

 

Even VB.net uses zero indexed arrays and such now.

on Apr 11, 2009

Tridus

Even VB.net uses zero indexed arrays and such now.

Ok, good point, the correct sentence was "VB6" programmers

on Apr 11, 2009

Tridus

Quoting Vicente, reply 2Quoting ckessel, reply 25

Except, you know, the "small" community of Visual Basic programmers


 

Even VB.net uses zero indexed arrays and such now.

 

And I did say "good" programmers  

on Apr 12, 2009

ckessel

It should be beta 0, because as all good programmers know, you start counting at zero

heh, I don't think having a counting system start with '0' is something that marks a 'good' programmer.  maybe a seasoned one, but the whole 'start with 0' is just syntax.  There is not an advantage to starting with 0 over a real number. Its just tradition because in theory it better translates into machine code and most programming languages use it.

my point was for more common people start with a real number, namely the number 1.   I'm really not worried about the programmers, since they will be the most likely to pull out their debuggers to find code errors.   I'm worried about beta 2 being full of people complaining about silly things like spell balance or extra features when players still can't even pick what color they want to play. (i.e. something that is considered to be a standard feature in everything where players are represented by colors except demigod apparentl)

Except, you know, the "small" community of Visual Basic programmer

I count them as a lot smaller than C, C++, C#, and Java programmers.  I would almost venture to say that in this day and age, they really are a minority.   I honestly have not encountered many basic programmers of late.  I knew several visual basic communities that created software for TI calculators and such back in the 90s, but they've pretty much died down.   I have since not seen anything else or any other particularly notable programs to be done in any form of basic in the last 5 years.  I think even calculators are starting to turn to things like java.

Basic does now have actianscript, which is very popular in flash games, on its side.   They use '1' rather than '0' to start all counting, lists, arrays, or whatever.   I know many modern and active action script communities *looks at the web-based casual games industry, namely the half not running on java*

on Apr 12, 2009

A lot of .net work gets done in VB, and if all you're getting is a compiled installer you'd never really notice the difference. It's got a worse reputation then the current version deserves, mostly due to VB6 and its ilk.

 

Counting at 0 these days is just a defacto standard, there's no technical reason why modern compilers couldn't adapt if we started at 1 instead. I wish we would, 0 based indexes always cause confusion and off by one bugs from new programmers.

on Apr 12, 2009

landisaurus

I count them as a lot smaller than C, C++, C#, and Java programmers.  I would almost venture to say that in this day and age, they really are a minority.   I honestly have not encountered many basic programmers of late.  I knew several visual basic communities that created software for TI calculators and such back in the 90s, but they've pretty much died down.   I have since not seen anything else or any other particularly notable programs to be done in any form of basic in the last 5 years.  I think even calculators are starting to turn to things like java.

It's not because VB6 is only used for things in the 90s that MS retracted from its decision to not support VB6 on Vista It's because there are thousands of applications out there used in companies that are VB6 and they needed to support them if they wanted their business partners to migrate to Vista/W7... Probably the VB6 community is bigger than the C# one right now.

on Apr 12, 2009

ckessel

And I did say "good" programmers

I'm a C# programmer, but I won't say a specific language makes you a better or worse coder (because if you say that, then everyone should be programming in Lisp probably ).

on Apr 12, 2009

landisaurus

Quoting ckessel, reply 25
It should be beta 0, because as all good programmers know, you start counting at zero

heh, I don't think having a counting system start with '0' is something that marks a 'good' programmer.  maybe a s

...whole bunch of stuff snipped...

You realized it was a joke, right? Albeit, a joke I suppose only make sense to folks familiar with programming.

 

6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6