• ipkpjersi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Plus, the base game itself should be good. It shouldn’t need updates. Post-game launch updates should be enhancements, not fixes.

    • Pogbom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously, we need to return to pre-internet console mentality. You put out an N64 game, it better be goddamn finished. Companies rely way too much on “ehh can just patch it”.

      • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, modern games are many times more complex so the idea of putting out a “finished” game these days is more like “this is an acceptable level of bugs/most players won’t hit this.” The problem is that the acceptable level has shifted way too fucking far in the wrong direction to the point where in some cases we’re barely getting an alpha, much less a beta. In general, I have no problem with companies putting out good games that get better, like tuning for performance so you get better FPS, it’s player on lower spec machines, etc. I don’t like the idea of paying to be a beta tester for two years, and not getting the good game until way later.

      • SSTF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not arguing in favor of companies putting out shoddy gamesor the practice of games needing patches to fix glaring issues, but suggesting that the 90s and early 2000s were the days of totally flawless games seems like a result of survivorship bias.

        We remember the great games from those days, but there were mountains of shovelware games releasing with all the problems we see today.

        Even many good or great games from those days have problems that either remain unfixed, or have only been fixed years later by fans.