This topic is locked from further discussion.
I'd rather they be able to fix problems, than not be able to, or simply choose not to do so. No developer can be 100% on quality control. It's an option they should have available to them.AndromedasWakeI feel that quality testing for a game is like penetration testing for a security system. You can't afford to mess up, so you need to be thorough.
id wish insomniac was "lazy" and didnt release the wraith glitch patch which kinda ruined online competitive in resistance 2
[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]Um, since when could you patch a broken PS1 or PS2 game? Last I checked, if they were broken, they stayed broken.Did you really just compare a PS1 game to something as complex as current gen games? Really?patches are nothing new.
HuusAsking
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]I would rather see broken game that's later patched, than no game to begin withI'd rather not. It speaks of a bad work ethic.well...I treat games like art pieces, so the work ethic isn't exactly the highest priorit for me.[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]I'd rather see no game than a bad game. HuusAsking
Plus...you seem to be horribly egocentric . Nobody is actualy forcing you to buy those games, why deny people who don't have such insanely high polish standards their own enjoyment?
I don't know about that. I mean, very few games of this generation would probably be considered candidates for best or most innovative game of all time. Most of them fall within the scope of the previous generations where one shot was all you got. You say it limits the scope; I say it keeps them focused, sorta like the Sword of Damocles.HuusAskingWhen they are focused they don't take chances, they just stick to what they are perfectly sure they can pull off. A videogame industry that is completely devoid of games who aim for the sky is horrible perspective for me.
Same for movies; I went to see Avatar once and only once. Visually, it was all right (though the 3D was lost on me), but plot-wise it was horribly predictable.HuusAskingBut it was polished. Seems you should have loved Avatar ;) Bassicaly if the whole industry would follow your way of thinking and work ethic the only SF movies that would ever be made would be Avatar-like
well...I treat games like art pieces, so the work ethic isn't exactly the highest priorit for me.
Plus...you seem to be horribly egocentric . Nobody is actualy forcing you to buy those games, why deny people who don't have such insanely high polish standards their own enjoyment?
AdrianWerner
I would argue that you shouldn't sell a game that you know is broken.
It's true that no one if forcing anyone to buy a certain game but it's impossible to know what exactly you're getting into when you buy a game.
I expect the games I buy to work as intended the day I buy it. I consider anything else a broken product that people simply shouldn't buy.
Wow...arrogant much? Who gave you the right to decide what other people should or shouldn't buy?I would argue that you shouldn't sell a game that you know is broken.
It's true that no one if forcing anyone to buy a certain game but it's impossible to know what exactly you're getting into when you buy a game.
I expect the games I buy to work as intended the day I buy it. I consider anything else a broken product that people simply shouldn't buy.JLF1
Plus please, no serious dev is releasing broken games anymore. THey might be buggy as hell and crash often, but it's far cry from being actualy broken.
Wow...arrogant much? Who gave you the right to decide what other people should or shouldn't buy?
Plus please, no serious dev is releasing broken games anymore. THey might be buggy as hell and crash often, but it's far cry from being actualy broken.
AdrianWerner
you came off as arrogent because you claimed that people shouldn't buy games you consider broken. That was what the wording in your post suggeted. I don't mind the stance in this post. You are free to buy or not buy whatever you want, what irked me was the "people shouldn't buy" part
I don't care what people buy. Buy a broken car, DVD-player, Music CD or game all you want.
I won't buy them though as I don't support broken products.
Cryostatis is a perfect example of a broken game that was released last year. That game is a total mess and should not have been released in that state. Silent Hunter 5 is another example. No offence but I'm not being arrogant just because I want the products I buy to actually work.
I guess it's also arrogance to hate on Ubisoft for their new DRM or Activision's threatment of PC games with MW2's pricing and lack of dedicated servers.JLF1
The only way for games to be completely glitch-free is to -drastically- turn down the scale of a game.
With that in mind, I'm very happy to get the kind of games we get, even with the occasional glitch/patch.
Glitches have not been a big issue this gen, andthanks to the amount of information available, skipping severely broken games is fairly easy (problem solved!).
It's not really a big deal, at all.
Cryostatis is a perfect example of a broken game that was released last year. That game is a total mess and should not have been released in that state.JLF1
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]I would rather see broken game that's later patched, than no game to begin with but developer like obsidian never learn from mistakes :P Who cares? :) it's not like there ever was any alternative to Troika for example. Bugs or not, this type of expeirence was exclusive to their games. Same with Bohemia, ARMA 2 might be buggy, but what will you do? GO play Operation Flashpoint 2? lmao..no :)[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]I'd rather see no game than a bad game. badtaker
but developer like obsidian never learn from mistakes :P Who cares? :) it's not like there ever was any alternative to Troika for example. Bugs or not, this type of expeirence was exclusive to their games. Same with Bohemia, ARMA 2 might be buggy, but what will you do? GO play Operation Flashpoint 2? lmao..no :)[QUOTE="badtaker"] [QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]I would rather see broken game that's later patched, than no game to begin with
AdrianWerner
:lol: who cares (every gamer do)
Arma OA (expansion) and stalker Cop doesn't have bugs if those developers can learn from mistakes why don't obsidian
Darkness=Light
One cannot have one without the other.
yes it can allow some devs to be lazy but it can allow the larger amount to fix games.
Wow...arrogant much? Who gave you the right to decide what other people should or shouldn't buy?[QUOTE="JLF1"]
I would argue that you shouldn't sell a game that you know is broken.
It's true that no one if forcing anyone to buy a certain game but it's impossible to know what exactly you're getting into when you buy a game.
I expect the games I buy to work as intended the day I buy it. I consider anything else a broken product that people simply shouldn't buy.AdrianWerner
Plus please, no serious dev is releasing broken games anymore. THey might be buggy as hell and crash often, but it's far cry from being actualy broken.
True, but look at half the games coming out. Dated graphics with waggle effect with no plot or innovations.(with any combo you like, not just Wii) Hard to make a mistake when you sell crap that's easy to make. "Getting it right the first time" is a philosophy of business that many businesses should strive for but can't. Whether it be laziness to make some quick cash or not having the ability to be a "Just-in-Time" business.
The gaming scene has changed, apparently so have your expectations.
When they are focused they don't take chances, they just stick to what they are perfectly sure they can pull off. A videogame industry that is completely devoid of games who aim for the sky is horrible perspective for me.They have to take chances or they don't stand out. And that's when you get the real standouts: ones that surpass generations. The ones who take chances...and still make it.[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]I don't know about that. I mean, very few games of this generation would probably be considered candidates for best or most innovative game of all time. Most of them fall within the scope of the previous generations where one shot was all you got. You say it limits the scope; I say it keeps them focused, sorta like the Sword of Damocles.AdrianWerner
As for Avatar being polished, yes it was...a polished rock (I didn't say the story was bad, just bland).
Nope. They don't have to take chances and they don't take them. That's just how this industry works nowadaysThey have to take chances or they don't stand out. And that's when you get the real standouts: ones that surpass generations. The ones who take chances...and still make it.
HuusAsking
Nope. They don't have to take chances and they don't take them. That's just how this industry works nowadaysAnd that's why this gen doesn't have any real standouts, not like previous gens where there were games that are still remembered (fondly) today.[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]
They have to take chances or they don't stand out. And that's when you get the real standouts: ones that surpass generations. The ones who take chances...and still make it.
AdrianWerner
Who cares? :) it's not like there ever was any alternative to Troika for example. Bugs or not, this type of expeirence was exclusive to their games. Same with Bohemia, ARMA 2 might be buggy, but what will you do? GO play Operation Flashpoint 2? lmao..no :)[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]
[QUOTE="badtaker"] but developer like obsidian never learn from mistakes :P badtaker
:lol: who cares (every gamer do)
Arma OA (expansion) and stalker Cop doesn't have bugs if those developers can learn from mistakes why don't obsidian
Arrowhead is an add-on though, most bugs have been patched out from ARMA2 alrady. CoP however still does have bugs, just less of them. And Obsidian? Who says they can't learn? Mask of Betrayer and Storm of Zehir were very polished. Using those examples..if Sega would allow them to make Alpha Protocol 2 or 3 we should be able to get polished release ;)I'm really curious to see how New Vegas will turn out
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]Nope. They don't have to take chances and they don't take them. That's just how this industry works nowadaysAnd that's why this gen doesn't have any real standouts, not like previous gens where there were games that are still remembered (fondly) today.To me this gen has pretty of standouts and as always they're not really polished on release. Even in previous gens I can't think of many standouts that took the chances and were polished.[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]
They have to take chances or they don't stand out. And that's when you get the real standouts: ones that surpass generations. The ones who take chances...and still make it.
HuusAsking
Anyway, it doesn't matter, the industry just don't work like that anymore, you eiher have polish or ambition.
And that's why this gen doesn't have any real standouts, not like previous gens where there were games that are still remembered (fondly) today.To me this gen has pretty of standouts and as always they're not really polished on release. Even in previous gens I can't think of many standouts that took the chances and were polished.[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]Nope. They don't have to take chances and they don't take them. That's just how this industry works nowadays
AdrianWerner
Anyway, it doesn't matter, the industry just don't work like that anymore, you eiher have polish or ambition.
Well, my standard are higher. I seek both at once. Maybe that's why I don't feel like going for today's games. They're either polished rocks (if not turds) or gift-wrapped bombs.i don't agree entirely. while patches do allow them to push products out that aren't fully tested, we have to realize that games today are much more complex than they were in the past and thus bugs will slip through.Before patches devs had to release the game with as little problems as possible, as when it was released that was it, no more changes and if it was broken it wouldn't sell so they would need to test it extensively. Now, they can just release patches to cover any bug up. So when most games are released now there are dozens of problems and the devs just let the players test the game instead of doing it theirselves.
Wario_Kid
Whats a better test than letting the game be played by the people buying it? It means they can concentrate on more content rather than fixing the pesky little issues that take away time from development and increase the time for games to be released. Why not just release a patch? It means you get to play the game earlier with more features so whats your problem? Also developers do not have 10million workers to test every single little tiny detail to the absolute perfection status... They emply maybe 60 or 70 game testers(guessing) and make the game stable enough to be released and THEN fix the little insignificant bugs and niggles.
What about limited-audience alpha- and beta- testing?Whats a better test than letting the game be played by the people buying it? It means they can concentrate on more content rather than fixing the pesky little issues that take away time from development and increase the time for games to be released. Why not just release a patch? It means you get to play the game earlier with more features so whats your problem? Also developers do not have 10million workers to test every single little tiny detail to the absolute perfection status... They emply maybe 60 or 70 game testers(guessing) and make the game stable enough to be released and THEN fix the little insignificant bugs and niggles.
JohnF111
I remember a time when if a newly released game had glitches and bugs and what not, the developers of that game wouldn't do jack **** about it. Nowadays problems can be fixed with a simple download. I'd say that a game developer that fixes problems in their game--however long it takes--is much better than a developer that doesn't do anything about it.
TC, you have no idea how hard (most) game developers work to try to satisfy everyone's exceedingly high expectations.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment