Saturday, March 25, 2006

GDC 2006

Thanks to everyone that came to the 2006 session! Lots of great questions.

The slides are posted on the main page of the website.

I'll have some follow-up posts coming up soon. So much detail is left out of a one hour presentation. I have a lot to add.


Paul Mendoza said...

Do you know if there is a place to get video of it?

Clinton Keith said...

I don't think there was any video taken. The audio preceedings should be released in a few months.

Paul Mendoza said...

I looked over your slides and they look good. I wish I had been there at GDC to hear the talk.

I was somewhat unclear on slide 21. It shows that the cost of a change is actually less in the alpha stage with XP than with Waterfall. I'm assuming waterfall is the design methodology you used before. But why would there be a difference in the cost of the change since it really should require going into the same code? Or is the idea that with XP, you'll have better code which means less changes or does the cost per change actually stay level in the later stages as it shows but there are less changes over all in the later stages?

Clinton Keith said...

You go into significantly different code. Code with thousands of unit test. Code that has been refactored signficantly.

Code without these tests and the associated stability that comes with relentless refactoring can be very dangerous to modify at the end of a project. Unintended side-effects can take QA days to detect.

Add this to the pressure of change from the desigers and artists who are now seeing the "real game" for the first time in Alpha, and you get the typical end of game mess that you usually see (crunch and stress).

Paul Mendoza said...

That helps a lot. Thanks!