Do Game Consumers Expect Faulty Games?

[Yeekim]

"Flawed" mechanics being legally banned?

I think Form was using the term "design flaw" essentially as a synonym for "bug".
I don't think he is completely crazy.

That many of the bugs will ever be fixed and the game will be "perfected" is just as much a "fiction". This is particularly true until we have far more strict consumer laws which force the vendors to actually spend far more time and effort to do so.

I may be mistaken, but I am under impression that video game industry is currently not particularly profitable. That means that in order for vendors to be able to spend "far more time and effort", prices would accordingly need to rise "far higher". Considering how easy pirating is, I don't think that is going to work well.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I may be mistaken, but I am under impression that video game industry is currently not particularly profitable. That means that in order for vendors to be able to spend "far more time and effort", prices would accordingly need to rise "far higher". Considering how easy pirating is, I don't think that is going to work well.

Don't bother telling a "Gamer" that. They all feel like they're being constantly cheated and wronged because new games aren't as good as faded, rosy memories of old games.

 

[Disgustipated]

Older games were better than new games, and you got more value for your money. Older games were larger in most cases. The only exception I can think of is Skyrim. While I'm not the biggest Bethesda fan, they do seem to release complete games.

Firaxis has had a history of releasing incomplete games. I remember Civ3 shipping without multiplayer which was released in an expansion, and it still didn't work very well.

I'm against government regulation. It amazes me people think government can fix all their problems. Why not have faith in the free market? Okay, that isn't perfect either. Because company advertising is so effective. It turns people into sheep that will pre order a game without knowing how it is.

The only answer is to convince people to stop pre ordering games, and if game isn't good call them out on it on their forums (assuming the company isn't the type to ban users who complain about the game).

 

[AlpsStranger]

Older games were better than new games,

Subjective, no use debating it.

and you got more value for your money.

Define "more." Do you realize how much more involved the art assets alone are in new games? How many Daggerfall sprites to one unique Skyrim model?

Older games were larger in most cases.

They were not larger in any meaningful sense. They did not take more man hours to make. Nothing before the current era compares to something like GTA4 or World of Warcraft.

I can make a game called "dot on a flat black plane" and declare it to have an area size of 100Billion X 100Billion miles, but that doesn't make it bigger than World of Warcraft.

The worst thing about early/mid 90s PC games, particularly the vaunted titles from Microprose, is the sheer number of mind-numbingly glaring bugs they have. Huge doozies like the "Difficulty Bug" in X-Com or the ridiculously huge number of spells in Master of Magic that did absolutely nothing. Remember that one smoke wall spell? Did nothing. Of course, it was hard to tell in a game where like 50% of the spells that weren't either direct damage or direct healing did absolutely nothing.

Sorry, I just feel like I am the one-man army of counter nostalgia.

 

[Dachs]

Older games were better than new games, and you got more value for your money. Older games were larger in most cases. The only exception I can think of is Skyrim. While I'm not the biggest Bethesda fan, they do seem to release complete games.

Instead of driblets of DLC, older games just stuffed content into (rarely, if ever, stand-alone) expansions that were sold at absurd prices. There are plenty of older games that shipped with game-breaking bugs, too, but they are rarely remembered because they were universally panned and there was no way for their producers to sell consumers on post-release patches and fixes.

Skyrim is a hilarious one to bring up because it has become notorious for being a buggy release to the point where PS3 players especially still refer to it as Lagrim because of awful bug-induced load times and very poor support. It took awhile to "fix", too. Bethesda has also continued to release DLC for Skyrim since launch, implying that the game was not, in fact, complete at all even disregarding the launch bugs.

 

[Disgustipated]

Subjective, no use debating it.



Define "more." Do you realize how much more involved the art assets alone are in new games? How many Daggerfall sprites to one unique Skyrim model?



They were not larger in any meaningful sense. They did not take more man hours to make. Nothing before the current era compares to something like GTA4 or World of Warcraft.

I can make a game called "dot on a flat black plane" and declare it to have an area size of 100Billion X 100Billion miles, but that doesn't make it bigger than World of Warcraft.

The worst thing about early/mid 90s PC games, particularly the vaunted titles from Microprose, is the sheer number of mind-numbingly glaring bugs they have. Huge doozies like the "Difficulty Bug" in X-Com or the ridiculously huge number of spells in Master of Magic that did absolutely nothing. Remember that one smoke wall spell? Did nothing. Of course, it was hard to tell in a game where like 50% of the spells that weren't either direct damage or direct healing did absolutely nothing.

Sorry, I just feel like I am the one-man army of counter nostalgia.

Most people didn't even know about the difficulty bug in X-com (including myself), so it couldn't have been that huge. Despite the bug, X-com was the best game made during the 90's, and still is in my opinion one of the top 5 PC games of all time. I wasn't the biggest Master of Magic fan, but I was a huge fan of Civilization 2 which I see you didn't mention. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (a Firaxis game btw) was also an amazing game. I don't rank it higher than civ games because I prefer history more than abstract futuristic stuff. But SMAC is a game where giving you more choices is fun. They don't artificially constrain you like Civ5 and X-com to make up for weak AI. Yes you could trounce the AI in SMAC, but it's still a better game by far than Civ5 (I can't comment on the new XCom because I haven't played it).

Games such as Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 were functional upon release (although I admit not playing them right after release), and were very large games. You got value for your money.

 

[Disgustipated]

Instead of driblets of DLC, older games just stuffed content into (rarely, if ever, stand-alone) expansions that were sold at absurd prices. There are plenty of older games that shipped with game-breaking bugs, too, but they are rarely remembered because they were universally panned and there was no way for their producers to sell consumers on post-release patches and fixes.

Skyrim is a hilarious one to bring up because it has become notorious for being a buggy release to the point where PS3 players especially still refer to it as Lagrim because of awful bug-induced load times and very poor support. It took awhile to "fix", too. Bethesda has also continued to release DLC for Skyrim since launch, implying that the game was not, in fact, complete at all even disregarding the launch bugs.

I'm not including PS3 and consoles. Anyone stupid enough to buy Skyrim on a console deserves what they get. Yes you can play on a large tv (although I think most computer can be hooked up to LCD's as well), but so what? You can't mod the game (which is huge for Bethesda games), so what's the point? Computers can out perform consoles is every way.

As for expansions they are cheaper than dlc. Look at a game like Fallout New Vegas (my favorite game btw- which shows new games can be just as good if not better than older games). They released dlc totalling around $50 which is more expensive than a $40 expansion. The dlc is so short, there isn't enough time to tell a complete story, and have good characters. None of the dlc for FNV was all that great. Not nearly as great is the main game. Expansions are better because they allow more time to tell a complete story. DLC is like reading one chapter of a book. Pointless.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Computers can out perform consoles is every way.

Yeah, no not always. There are not insignificant stretches of time where consoles are ahead. I'm 99.99% a PC Gamer, but consoles are hardly insignificant.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Most people didn't even know about the difficulty bug in X-com (including myself)

All difficulty levels set back to beginner after the first mission. That's a pretty serious bug, bro. It essentially means the game has no difficulty setting.

I realize I'm practically attacking a religion by attacking classic PC Gaming, but the facts are what they are.

 

[Disgustipated]

Maybe that's why terror from the deep is considered so difficult. I admit to not have playing terror from the deep (anyone know where I can get this? - is it on steam? ).

But I found the original X-com challenging enough. Yeah there was no chance I could lose, but I did often lose men on missions. And when psionics came around, I lost some of my good men as well.

 

[amadeus]

That many of the bugs will ever be fixed and the game will be "perfected" is just as much a "fiction". This is particularly true until we have far more strict consumer laws which force the vendors to actually spend far more time and effort to do so.

You really think such a thing can be regulated into existence? What bugs should count? Those that appear in all copies of the game, or bugs that occur only under some operating environments? Moreover, how do you determine what's a bug versus just bad game design?

 

[Disgustipated]

It's okay, we'll agree to disagree. If you are a one man army to counter nostalgia, I am a one man army for nostalgia.

If I didn't still play these games, then yes I would say it's just nostalgia, and the games weren't as good as I remember them (MOM is one example- I haven't played that game since the mid 90's). But I do have the old X-com on steam, and I do still play occasionally. I do still play the Baldur's Gate games.

What gets me is the Civ5 forums where people can't admit that Civ4 is the better designed game. And Civ4 is hardly a classic game. It wasn't that long ago it came out. Yeah you can say it had unneeded complexity, but you could just ignore it if you wanted. I ignore my civilians all the time, I'm not going to micromanage that. Civ5 isn't a bad game, it's just a step down. In that case, classic game nostalgia is what ruined it. Why would I want to play a modern game like it's a 90's wargame that I have never played? 1 UPT is horrible and it ruined Civ5, and should not be in civ6.

 

[Yeekim]

Most people didn't even know about the difficulty bug in X-com (including myself), so it couldn't have been that huge.

You wouldn't know about 95% of bugs in current games either, if not for dedicated user forums and change logs in patches.

 

[trader/warrior]

Some of my favorite games are also some of the most buggy. Some of the most polished games I have are also the most boring, linear and uninventive. In a world where bugs are illegal, the game industry would be even more of a sequal grinding, streamlining machine and would never try anything new. Just throwing that out there.

 

[Grisu]

Maybe that's why terror from the deep is considered so difficult. I admit to not have playing terror from the deep (anyone know where I can get this? - is it on steam? ).

yep, it is available on steam...I (re-)bought it just 2 weeks or so ago

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You actually look forward to legal regulation of games? LOL

I can imagine it now. Cling cover is banned because it's considered a "lemon" mechanic. Health pickups are mandated over regeneration. The "League of Hardcore Gamers" manages to ban ironsights. Talent trees are mandated over "Pandaria Style" talents because the latter is "lame." ( That's the legal term, anyhow. )

Game design by lawyers. Fun times

That's a really pessimistic take on what's going on or what could happen AlpsStranger. I actually do expect the new Consumer Protection Agency (or whatever it's called - it's the product of Dodd-Frank) to step in and regulate the industry for flawed products.

This could backfire of course, as it will force game companies to spend even higher figures on developing games than they already are. But we wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasn't for the game companies essentially releasing beta software as finished code. I wonder if this has anything to do with the 25% slump in game sales recently.

Also, I thought software had to be 'gold' certified by Microsoft and the like before it was released? How does that system work and why does it not catch broken games?

But I don't think lawyers are going to regulate game mechanics, just broken software.



I'll give an example of how stupid the industry can act and why they need regulation:

There is this great space 4x game called Sword of the Stars (SotS). It was produced by a smallish company and it was a surprise hit that spawned several DLC's. The company, I believe, got bought by another and then started work on SotSII.

The developers added a ton of new features (one of the compelling things about SotS was how exceptionally simple and straightforward it was) to the point that it wasn't as much a sequel as it was a completely different type of game. All of the complexity took time to code, and the publisher of the game grew impatient. They forced the developers to rush to release a beta version (by the companies own later admission) that wasn't ready.

It was a broken product. I don't mean it had some flaws; it was completely unusable. The backlash was immediate and immense and the developers had to put out a patch every single week for like 6 months to get the game stable. AFAIK, they are still patching it sporadically a year or two out from it's release.

In one fell swoop, they imploded their fan base and completely alienated people. I was a hardcore SotS fan that bought all the DLC's, but I'll never buy SotSII.

Sadly, this situation is repeating itself over and over across the industry as companies publish broken software. Something needs to be done or I fear a 1980's style crash of the industry.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Older games were better than new games, and you got more value for your money. Older games were larger in most cases. The only exception I can think of is Skyrim. While I'm not the biggest Bethesda fan, they do seem to release complete games. Firaxis has had a history of releasing incomplete games. I remember Civ3 shipping without multiplayer which was released in an expansion, and it still didn't work very well.

I'm against government regulation. It amazes me people think government can fix all their problems. Why not have faith in the free market? Okay, that isn't perfect either. Because company advertising is so effective. It turns people into sheep that will pre order a game without knowing how it is.

The only answer is to convince people to stop pre ordering games, and if game isn't good call them out on it on their forums (assuming the company isn't the type to ban users who complain about the game).

(emphasis mine)
Really? Bethesda releasing complete games?

Dude, did you ever try and play their Star Trek game? Probably not, because it was a broken, terrible game. I bought it and I still can't get it to run correctly on a new computer with all of the patches.

I work next door to a bunch of programmers and we have had several discussions of how much crap Bethseda releases that is broken or seriously flawed at launch. I'm completely serious, that firm has a bad reputation for it. I just thought it was funny that you mentioned them.


About regulation: Why is it not acceptable to buy say a TV or a car that must be immediately repaired to work correctly, but it is acceptable to buy a game that requires the same? Why is it acceptable for other industries have lemon laws and regulation to prevent this but not the video game industry.

I believe regulation should have as light a touch as possible and that it's usually best for the free market to pick losers and winners. But in this case, it's an industry wide problem that needs fixing; consumers are being hurt across the board and a problem of this size desperately needs regulation.

Hell, with more stable games being released, maybe video game sales will pick back up.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, the developers set the easiest difficulty level in TFTD as UFO Defense's "Impossible" level in response to complaints that the first game was too easy. And TFTD happened to be my entry into the franchise. Boy, was that a learning curve.

On the OP, I haven't bought the new XCOM yet (I generally wait some time out of principle), so I can't comment on its particular issue. Let me just say that there are things that have to be fixed and things that have to be fixed. I usually don't mind bugs as long as they don't glaringly disrupt the game. So my game crashes if I want to change the volume of the background music during a mission on the southern hemisphere with only women in my team. Things like that (I exaggerate of course, but you get my meaning) simply slip past the quality control at a certain level of complexity, and it would require ridiculously long testing periods to get rid of them all, driving every game past the point of profitability.

But then there are cases where the customers are blatantly abused as beta testers. Features don't work as advertised. Game mechanics are not thought out. The game is totally unbalanced. In short, it almost seems like the developers haven't played their own game, and the reason is often most likely they haven't. I could insert a rant about Civ5 where this clearly happened now, but you all know the usual arguments if you care about that. This is unacceptable to me. If the developers have to redo game mechanics via patches because their original incarnation was untenable, I have no sympathies for them.

So now for the original question: are we okay with something like that? I guess to a certain degree we should be. We want our games to be better looking every year, a good story and decent voice acting have become standard in the associated genres, we want larger settings and a more complex game, and still everything has to cost less than 50 bucks. I am willing to pay them essentially in advance to allow a studio to develop a game which otherwise would not be possible to make. That's of course some sort of a gamble, since I cannot actually trust the developer to fulfill their promises to perfect the game in the following months.

Maybe there should be some kind of business model that formalizes this kind of informal "buy buggy product, get fixes later" situation we have now, to give customers a contractual right to have bugs fixed at least in the patching process.

 

[Yeekim]

In one fell swoop, they imploded their fan base and completely alienated people. I was a hardcore SotS fan that bought all the DLC's, but I'll never buy SotSII.

Thats sounds like free market taking perfect care of the problem.
And the publisher learned from that mistake too, as the sad fate of MMtG has proven us...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Thats sounds like free market taking perfect care of the problem.
And the publisher learned from that mistake too, as the sad fate of MMtG has proven us...

The free market isn't taking care of the majority of the developers who publish broken games. This is just one case where it kind of did.