Game development

[Drakul]

Red Dead Redemption is shaping up to be an amazing game going by the videos and hands on previews.
The game has taken 5 or 6 years to make it this far, which has made me wonder about something.

Would you be willing to wait a much longer time for a game (say, 4 or 5 years, max) if it meant the quality and content of the game was a very high standard or would you rather it's kept to the way it is now, with games usually taking a year or two to develop and have the kind of content they tend to have currently?

A long development would mean games wouldn't come out as often as they do now but, when they did, they'd have great content. I'd wait.

[Kalyx triaD]

Pfft, Hell yeah. In fact I wish more developers followed the 'when it's done' mantra.

[Emperor Smeat]

Miyamoto had the best quote about delays and their usefulness : "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever". I believe he's one of the reasons why Nintendo's policy now is to only announce a game that is known to be done 3-6 months later unless its from the Big 3 (Mario, Zelda, Metroid).

Better to have the game done when its ready than "rushed" like majority of titles are these past few generations. This generation took too much bad from pc development about patching post-release when the main problem with pc development focused on the wide range of computer types people own.