In the real world there is no entirely reasonable code base. There's always going to be some aspects of it that are kind of shit, because you intended to do X but then had to change to doing Y, and you have not had time or sufficient reason to properly rewrite everything to reflect that.

We tend to underestimate how long things will take, precisely because when we imagine someone doing them we think of the ideal case, where everything is reasonable and goes well. Which is pretty much guaranteed to not be the case whenever you do anything complex.

[–] shoo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I agree, real code always has tradeoffs. But there's a difference between a conceptually simple change taking 3 weeks longer than planned and 6 months. The reality is game code is almost always junk and devs have no incentive to do better.

Getting a feature functional and out for launch day is the priority because you don't have any cash flow until then. This has been exacerbated with digital distribution encouraging a ship-now-fix-later mentality.

This means game devs don't generally have experience with large scale, living codebases. Code quality and stability doesn't bring in any money, customer retention is irrelevant unless you're making an mmo.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

And games are usually one and done, so there's even less motivation to write sustainable code.