It would be better if video game reviewers kept from phrasing their judgments of a game's quality in terms of man-months.

(e.g. "Feels like a game that could've used x more months of work.")


I think this because (1) I do not have faith that these estimates are made with enough knowledge—about the resources, context, and people involved, and because (2) it perpetuates the language and expectations of a management class which have accepted & encouraged a disregard for fair and humane dealing with developers in the past, while (3) not saying anything much about the experience of playing the game.

"Feels like it was released before it was ready," or "Is in need of a patch to address issues x and y," seem fair. It's the man-month thing that irks me.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!