Basically, DSDM (Dynamic System Design Methodology) is based around the idea that the deadline is unmovable, but the functionality can be reduced .. So if you set Dec 8th 2000 as a deadline, and you realise your not going to make it, you chop functionality and acheive your date, rather than let the date slip.

In my opinion, you should be conservative with your release dates, so for example .. you set your release date for March 01, let your boss know it will be finished in Dec/Jan .. and cut yourself 1 to 2 months to get the functionality you wanted in there .. ??

What do you think ?

Project is due tomorrow and you know it doesnt work, what do you do? Install or delay?

Guess we know Activisions expected answer.

I would also point out that part of our pressure to release on a schedule is consumer based. This poll is from Apolyton:

CTP2: Delay if buggy?
No, release it today, fix the bugs later! 7 / 4%
No, keep the schedule 11 / 7%
Yes, if it is in the same state CTP1 was on its release 64 / 41%
Yes, until there are no bugs! 71 / 45%
Dont know/Dont care 2 / 1%

Now while it's quite clear that 45% of you all said to hold it till all bugs are gone, 54% found that some level of bugs are acceptable. Was CTP2 more or less stable than CTP1 upon it's initial realease? I don't know, that's difficult or maybe even impossible to quantify. Did we try our best to eliminate every bug we knew of? Yes, we did. We did the best job we could possibly do given the constraints we had. I also realize that this thread isn't about bugs, but this poll is along the same lines. If people wanted us to ship ignoring bugs, how many of those same people would have voted on less features for shipping earlier? (Please, don't do a poll on this.) In the end, everyone always wants more. It is impossible in this industry to please everyone.

I hope this addresses the issue to some degree. I have worked at 4 game companies now, and 3 of them were large companies. It really isn't a simple problem with a simple answer. There are many issues involved. And while I may not agree with all the decisions made, I can certainly see why the decisions were made, and can't say that they were necessarily wrong. And the people making those decisions aren't stupid by any means, otherwise they wouldn't have the power to make those decisions in the first place. And that is my take on it from an insiders view.

My answer to that question is always; if you have to ask that late in the ball game, management failed very early in the process to come up with realistic project schedule. And from what i hear, the programmers at Activision did the best with what they had.

I would guess that the majority of people would agree that poor AI was CtP1's biggest problem. yet CtP2's doesnt seem much smarter, but they totally redid the UI. Seems like screwed up priorities to me. Does activisions management actually play these games?

Call me Scrouge (actually, no don't please ), but Christmas is one of the major contributors to this process .. as its a cut off date for developers, keen to get the software out before Christmas ... but don't worry, im not suggesting we cancel Christmas ha ha certainly not to please my love of well estimated project cycles .. BAHHH HUMBUG!

For some reason, i get the feeling that Activision has many pointy haired people running things. (hmmmm, do y'all get Dilbert outside of the US?)

how come that a person who plays the first game on impossible level, gig. map, 8 civs, and thoughest barbarian level wins straight??? (ok there was some fighting but this is my first game)

OK, perhaps I played earlier CIV incarnations a bit too much, but still I would say that impossible should be what it says - trully challenging ( and than you could have lower levels )

I believe that you have put a lot of effort in making AI better, and that this is not easy by any means... but the finished product (AI) is a bit too easy to beat.

i still think this is a great game, but when i remember now when i still had tougher levels to beat... I really looked forward to it... unfortunatley not in this case...