I made a mistake, this is not based on the document I thought it was. I've crossed out the parts that are incorrect.
Criss is correct.
My point still stands, that this document can not really be that helpful for the direction of the game. It's really here to show the scale of what we're attempting to achieve and for ETAs.
Why do Schine's plans (if they can even be called that, rather than 'ideas') change so much?
Plans, if we're talking about the feature or the core concept behind them, rarely change. The details of these plans, implementation, potential balance, connectivity, do often change. This is to be expected.
Does Schema randomly realize that he can't do something after it having been planned for years? :\
Sure, that happens with any project. There are some things that we've planned and we then realise they are not realistic, or don't really fit.
Honestly, it seems that every two months or so I hear that you guys had to change direction or rewrite this or reorder that or scrap and replace this-that-and-the-other-thing. Do you guys not know the requirements and prerequisites for your own intended features?
I've not seen any creative project where they manage to get all the initial planning correct the first time, and if I had, I would put it down to luck. We don't change directions, we're always heading in the direction set forth in our internal goals document. This is a creative process, which requires that we're not afraid to throw out material. Requirements/pre-requisites might not change (they can, not often) but how they are implemented and how they work, often do change in the planning phase.
Most games, tv shows, books, and other creative mediums won't mention all the content (ideas, plans, features) they've thrown out. But this is a very normal part of the process (I don't have experience with books, but I assume they would as well). I don't think it's very healthy to lay out an extensive plan for something like a game, and not adjust or remove/add significant parts of it, once you've covered ground. You're not going to know how things are really going to turn out or be received, so, you need to be willing to realise that some of the things you do, are not perfect, and must be adjusted. Of course, there is a balance with such a thing, and you do need to be careful. I think we have a good balance, the closer we get to the implementation of a feature/concept, the more planning that goes into it. Often, when we scrap something (ideas), there was very little to begin with.
When we say we're scrapping or replacing something, often, we mean we're scrapping the existing plans for implementation. I can't think of a case where we've trashed a concept or core feature completely. I can think of plenty of cases where the long-term planning we've done, has needed significant adjustments for it to fit, or be realistic.
