GameBanshee Forums

I ask this because it seems like any good game you buy nowadays has bugs and needs a patch or two. Basically these gaming people are making alot of money for selling products that don't work properly. It seems money is more important than a quality product.

Yes, they are 90% of the time tested thoroughly, yet the problem lies with how extensive games are in terms of exploration size. Developers can't catch every single problem on every single inch of the game within there set deadline of creating it.

Though, there are some games which make me think that the developers didn't even try. Mage Knight Apocalypse and Dungeon Lords for example.

Mage Knight Apocalypse?

You haven't played KotOR have you.

Jazz.z wrote:Mage Knight Apocalypse?

You haven't played KotOR have you.

I have, beaten it several times. Nowhere near the bug amount of Mage Knight Apocalypse. It took Mage Knight a good 4 patches before it became the equivelant of a just released thoroughly tested game.

To answer the question, usually, yes. But due to the complexity of RPGs, there will be lots of bugs for sure, given the fact already mentioned by Siberys. I can also include Gothic 3 as one of the games with many bugs (both major and minor) but since the game developer, Piranha Bytes, consist of only 20 people, it is understandable.

Sometimes games are so filled with bugs when they're released it's out of this world lol. I think the developers get greedy and simply throws a half-made game out on the market to start earning money, which probably results in motivation to make the patches. I've seen it one too many times =/

N3CROMANCER wrote:Sometimes games are so filled with bugs when they're released it's out of this world lol. I think the developers get greedy and simply throws a half-made game out on the market to start earning money, which probably results in motivation to make the patches. I've seen it one too many times =/

They throw out half made games because most of the time they have a deadline. Making a game requires you to say, take out a loan from a bank to hire people skilled enough to make said game, then a few years later when you are required to pay that money back, that's when the deadline comes in, so they make the game, earn the money so they can stay as a company, and then they can produce patches to fix the game.

I'm saying MOST companies do this, not all though. There are some where what you describe is pretty accurate.

Siberys wrote:They throw out half made games because most of the time they have a deadline. Making a game requires you to say, take out a loan from a bank to hire people skilled enough to make said game, then a few years later when you are required to pay that money back, that's when the deadline comes in, so they make the game, earn the money so they can stay as a company, and then they can produce patches to fix the game.

I'm saying MOST companies do this, not all though. There are some where what you describe is pretty accurate.

I do understand what you mean, but in the end it's still up to the company to hold this deadline, with or without a loan. If they throw themselves in the business, the least they could do is to deliver, as most new games cost alot.

I don't think these factors justify the major bugs most new games have, like I said, if they throw themselves in the business, it's up to them to deliver.

Then again, I do understand nobody forces me to buy the games, but when the vast majority of the market is like this, what are you going to do? Stop playing alltogether? Well, maybe.

N3CROMANCER wrote:Then again, I do understand nobody forces me to buy the games, but when the vast majority of the market is like this, what are you going to do? Stop playing alltogether? Well, maybe.

Or you can do like I and many others do and wait at least one year for the patches and the expansions to come out before you buy a game. Not only do you avoid most of the bugs, you also save money.

Or you can do like I and many others do and wait at least one year for the patches and the expansions to come out before you buy a game. Not only do you avoid most of the bugs, you also save money.

There are some games that merit buying the moment they are released though. And in the one year wait, plenty of the game can be potentially spoiled by friends or GameBanshee members.... :laugh:

Gilliatt wrote:Or you can do like I and many others do and wait at least one year for the patches and the expansions to come out before you buy a game. Not only do you avoid most of the bugs, you also save money.

I do that too.. and you save *a lot* of money..
I picked up Morrowind and both of its expansions for less than $20 Cdn, and ditto with IWD/HOW/IWD2..

Of course... seeing as I'm getting set to order a new computer... I confess, there are several fairly new titles I have every intention of picking up in the next few weeks (glad I save birthday money for a while... )

@N3CROMANCER ,
and as I just stated in a different GB forum, a lot of it is that publishers are effectively using consumers as advance Beta testers.... Pretty sleazy, IMO. But, as long as you have over zealous fans willing to rush out in order to buy half-polished games.. the publishers will continue to take advantage.

dragon wench wrote:Of course... seeing as I'm getting set to order a new computer... I confess, there are several fairly new titles I have every intention of picking up in the next few weeks (glad I save birthday money for a while... )

Since it's confession time, I'll make one too. I don't think I'll be able to respect my one year rule with Eschalon: Book I if the reviews are good.

Loki[D.d.G] wrote:There are some games that merit buying the moment they are released though. And in the one year wait, plenty of the game can be potentially spoiled by friends or GameBanshee members.... :laugh:

Not exactly. I played Beyond Good and Evil 4 years after it's release date and I enjoyed it. As long as you don't take a peek at spoiler-related information, everything will be fine.

This is actually a quite complex topic, because it isn't as simple to catch many of these bugs as one might think.
Software is very complex and when pounded on by thousands of people, almost all with individual computer specs etc, it is all but impossible that something doesn't creep up.
It is almost impossible to test any complex piece of software on any working PC for every scenario of users. That is why big MMOs usually have a long beta period for example, to get "free" testers.

Secondly as also mentioned Siberys there is the deadline, money aspect, of the problem. It is expensive to develop this type of software, and many companies do run out of money and thus can't survive unless their product is released at a specific time. This can have unfortunate consequences for the stability and bug issue, but the alternative could be no game, or no company.
Also there can be economical interest from backers, publishers etc which will attempt to get the game pushed out, to get a return on their investment.

So the problem is much more complex then just "why don't they do ...." because that is rarely an option.

Outside games mentioned, the "famed" MMO Vanguard originally made by Sigil is an excellent case study on how bad it can go actually if a company does not seem to control their process.

However that being said- I do agree some companies will throw just about any state of game out on the market, and many games are embarrasingly unstable and bugridden.
However, my blame falls more upon the consumer then it does the company. They just make the stuff - it is the people who buys the products and thus reward such release that I'd rather have a few words with
I hear so many people complain about bugs in newly released games almost everywhere from singleplayer, multiplayer to MMO. Yet, these people have bought the game themselves without (or in spite of) checking if indeed the game is stable, bugfree etc

If people stopped buying bugged games, developers/publishers would be forced to polish their games better up front.

Being reported as buggy was for instance that I stayed away from Dungeon Lords, and why I never tried out Vanguard.

DesR85 wrote:Not exactly. I played Beyond Good and Evil 4 years after it's release date and I enjoyed it. As long as you don't take a peek at spoiler-related information, everything will be fine.

How about blockbuster games. I know you aren't an avid fan of RPGs in general, but I will suggest one: Oblivion. That didn't merit a wait. And in our country, waiting for it to appear in licensed dealers would probably take the mickey out of the game. :laugh: