Early on I decided to not number Houdini releases that way, since people look at .9 and say, "oh it is 90% done". I just label releases based on the build date.
I've been asked how do I know it is 'finished', and my general take is, it will be finished either when I run out of ideas or I get sick and tired of working on it. Having said that, the release that included the final wizard mode marked the completion of the major things planned, but that milestone certainly did not represent me being done, but that it has the major components and features intended. The last release was a lot of bugs fixes and feature adds where I now feel the game is living up to the vision I had for it and has no major flaws (well one bug cropped up that I want to address). However, that does not mean that I won't do more.

Although I am currently knee deep in Oktoberfest, I continue to add ideas and thoughts to my Houdini list. Now that I have one at home, I see things I'm just not totally happy with it, maybe something that did not work as I had envisioned, or maybe something that is just off, and I will also get new ideas on how to give things more pizzaz or even ideas for new rules. And while many of these things will likely make it into the game, that does not mean that I consider the current iteration has being incomplete, although I am sure plenty of you would find things that you feel make it otherwise.

As far as what else is this thread, I find it much of it amusing since most of the people here have no clue as to what is involved, what is happening, the challenges that exist, what the developers goals were, etc. I love when you can read two posts back to back, that state the exact opposite things about a game, and both believing they are right and the developer is wrong, since they did not do what you think should be done. The word 'polish' has become some catch-all used when someone feels the game is not compete in their mind or just does not do what they thing it should. The reality is you can take any machine ever made, and if you want, you can find something you can say is 'incomplete' or 'needs more polish', ultimately that is the eye of the beholder. Sure, sometimes a game is clearly missing things, but that is far more often the exception than the rule, despite what reading pinside might make you think. I am sure there are plenty of times the developers would like to do a little more on some of their machines, tweak a few things, add a few things, but the reality is, none of that is really going to change what matters. If you don't like the way the game shoots, if you don't like the rules, than more 'polish' is not going to change that. Some games you are going to like and some you are not. Some rules you will find fun and challenging, and some won't be your cup of tea. If some missing light show or sound call is ruining the game for you, I suspect there more to it than that. The great thing is there are so many machines to choose from, that you will certainly find ones you like (or you need a new hobby).

For all you guys who think you know what a polished game looks like, I encourage you to try. There are now great resources and technology out there to let you do your own machine, so, rather then spending time on here dissing designers and developers, go try it for yourself. Maybe you will create the next great game or more likely you won't even get one close to being finished, let alone giving it 'polish'. But what is likely, is that you will gain a new appreciation for what designers and developers do, and why a thread with this title and some of this content, is insulting to those who work their assess off to bring these machines to life.

I get you are teasing. I just think guys get way too focused on little things that don't really matter and let that stand in the way of enjoying a game or worse, let it get in the way of others enjoying it. I agree games should be complete and if a company says there is more to come, then they need to deliver on that. No game should leave an owner feeling it is incomplete. But getting hung up on insert that does not get used in game play or that the light shows are not wow enough, just seems to go a little too far. There is little doubt that Stern left some games feeling incomplete and certainly seems they have tried to correct that, but seems some of this stuff is beyond that, and again, a thread with a title this this is inappropriate, imho.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on a game and if they want to say they think it needs more 'polish' that is their right to say so, but seems some guys take that too far and turn into something else, and that is what I object to. Just too much nitpicking at time, its pinball for crying out loud, some of these guys need to step back and just enjoy wonderful renaissance we are enjoying. Time is a constrained resource. Designers. developers, artist, animators, composers, etc. due as much as they can to make the best game they can with the time and other resources provided, and within the constraints that are given to them. Seems some guys here lose sight of that, when they look for some thing to pick at. I guess that is why most people in the industry don't spend time here. I was a collector before I was started working in this industry two years ago. I like to try to bring some of what goes on besides the scenes here since I know I enjoyed that. I also like getting feedback and idea, plenty of Houdini owners can point to things they suggested that made it into the game, but there are certainly times when I get why so many don't spend time here.

Hilton has not liked Houdini or AP from day one (and guessing me either for that matter). He seems to seek out opportunities to criticize us. I get that he does not like Houdini, he finds the shots are too tight and challenging, and seems to have never had a good game on it. He is certainly entitled to that opinion, but seems he looks to find reasons to rip on it to somehow justify his feeling about it. That is also his right, but I don't get why he has that need and what void he is trying to fill.

As many of you know I listen to feedback, whether positive or negative, sometimes I agree with it and will take action and sometimes I don't, but I will certainly listen. Some people people love Houdini and some don't, pretty much like every game. There are many folks on Pinside or who I know outside of it, who's opinions I respect, and that has not changed based on whether they like Houdini or not. However, some folks like to be bombastic and over the top, just to get attention or maybe they believe that their opinions are so great, that they need to be shared at every opportunity, and that all of the rest of us would be lesser for not having heard them, when in reality it is the opposite. These are folks whose opinions carry zero weight with me, whether about Houdini or anything else.

It is always easier to tear things down, then to build them -- which is also the case when doing a playfield swap .

I agree, bugs that are hit consistently and cause issue need to be fixed and I don't think Dwight or anyone else does not want to fix those. I have not met anyone in the industry who does not take pride in what they do, and want it to be as good as it can be (given the constraints, resources, etc.)

My point was there is great opportunity for folks to make their own games and doing so will give you far greater insight into what is involved and what goes on and will give them a new appreciation for what is in front of them. Talk to any custom game builder and they will tell you how it was far more difficult and involved then they had imagined. And I can tell you from personal experience going from custom to commercial, takes it up another notch.

That is why I am still here to listen to honest constructive feedback, good and bad, it is that noise and the misplaced cynicism, that I am commenting about. I will say that if people want their opinions and feedback listened to, then starting a thread with the original title of this one is the wrong way to go about it. But I guess people like to use a title that will get attention.

At no time have I said it is okay for games to be incomplete or missing features. I said that just because an insert is not used by a game rule, does not mean the game is incomplete, just that developer took the rules in a different direction then planned (which is often a good thing) and it was not needed as intended, but given the uproar over it, and how some find that to be totally unacceptable, I guess all developers will find some use for every insert, even if it adds little to nothing to game play.

My comments on polish was around that becoming a term that is used anytime someone has something they don't feel is the way they think it should be in a game, when in reality if you want you can find something in every game that you believe could be 'better' or more polished. I can't speak for everyone, but anyone I know in the industry, is trying to make every game the best it can be, they all take great pride in their work, and sometimes there are people here who forget that or don't get it, and can be real jerks.

I also find the double standard interesting. It is okay to criticize companies and the people who work there, but, god forbid someone from the industry comments back or disagrees, and it becomes "how dare you say something or disagree with the people who buy games".

While my skin may not be Platinum armored yet like Keefer's, it is pretty thick.

no, just saying there is a great opportunity now, that did not exist several years ago, to create your own. So, for those who think they can do better, that they can create a great layout or great set of rules, you can go for it. That is what I did, when I realized I could now do something I had dreamed about since being a kid. TNA would not exist if not for that, and in a likelihood Iron Maiden as well (which was originally the custom game Archer), nor would TBL. The options are many, whether expanding rules, like epthegeek did on CCC, or a game from scratch like TNA, NBX, Doom or a re-theme of an existing game, with all new rules like Buffy The Vampire Slayer or even just re-theming an EM, where it just about an art package (which was my first step in doing this). Doing any of these kind of things will give you a different perspective on things.

Some are trying to twist my words, the case I was referring to was AC/DC, where Lyman at one point explained inserts were not being used since the code went a different direction. We have seen more than one game get a major code refresh that took the game to new heights and in different direction. I think that it is better to do that (and possibly have an unused insert, that some find beyond appalling), then stick to a path that will result in a game not living up to its potential.

Games should absolutely get finished, and ideally a developer should be able to finish a game before being pulled in another direction. It is one of the reason we brought Joe "Ferret" Schober on board, so I could continue to spend some of my time on Houdini while we were bringing Oktoberfest to life. It is also great to have a partner who sees things a little different, and we are able to challenge each other to make things better.

Just because game does not sell one, does not mean it should not be finished. I think the changes in the marketplace are having the positive impact in changing that. The opposite is true as well, there is nothing wrong with a real selling game to get some updates to make it even better. I think when you look at the manufacturers today, some are forced to keep feeding the production line differently than others, which then forces them to move resources to feed the line. So for some companies putting out games a slower pace, the developers are able to get it to where they want and not cut corners and be able do things they had planned.

based on comments here and the dozen or so PMs I got since yesterday, not sure that 'most of us' find this 'ludicrous'. There is no way a company is going to go back and re-engineer a playfield, art, light loads, wiring harnesses because a programmer decided the rules would be better in a different way and there is an insert that no longer make sense. So the choice would become, stick to the original rules concept or have an insert not used, I'm betting far more here would prefer the latter, again AC/DC being the prime example. Of course the other option is to find some way to use it, that is not really a fit, but too make people happy that all the inserts are used.

Just to be clear, Houdini and Oktoberfest have no unused inserts. Regardless, calling it a cop out is silly. You are trying to stick to a position that makes little sense, as I believe the majority would rather have great rules and an unused insert, then mediocre ones where every insert has a purpose. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but seems AC/DC sold pretty darn well when there still inserts not being used. Obviously there are some here with extreme views on many of these things, and some might find it ludicrous, and that is their right, but I don't think they speak for the majority.

If you followed along on Houdini you would know this has been the case. Recently had one of the top players in the world give a dozen different ideas and comments about Houdini. Some were ideas I thought were great and I implemented them, some where areas he felt scoring was too low relative to other game play, some were bugs, and some were ideas I felt were not a fit. Ferret and I every day debate things, give each other feedback on the parts of the game they are working on, brainstorm new ideas, in order to make the game as good as possible. We listen to all feedback, sometimes we will take action and sometimes we won't.

I'll move on now, since I have bunch of PMs to respond to, since just like I listen to feedback, I will respond to everyone who reaches out to be share ideas and thoughts.

I think that is something almost everyone, if not everyone, can agree on. I would hope and expect that it will get in there at some point, obviously a lot later than most think it should be.

While I tend to believe a game geared towards the 'home' typically should have a deep and varied rule set, what really matters is that the game entertains, is fun to play and keeps you coming back for more. I have a few 70s and 80s game in my collection and some will never leave. They are not deep, but I love to play them and they never seem to get old. I don't always want to play a game that is going to being a long journey, sometimes I just want an adrenaline rush or not want to have to think to much, and just flip. I'd like to think that TNA and Beatles, will introduce a lot of guys to the joys of older style games, at the same time, part of me hopes it won't, since that will drive prices up.