this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
1263 points (98.1% liked)

Games

16645 readers
774 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] seiryth@lemmy.world 90 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Not sure why we're arguing this quote with the same two games over and over. Nms and cyberpunk are great games, but they're a rarity.

Game Dev crunch is a plague in th industry, we suffer as consumers who cop bad releases on release. The whole industry could learn from its roots and delay things for a better initial product.

Defending the current practice of redevelopment in post is almost consumer gaslighting.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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 6 points 11 months 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.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months 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.

[–] Wumbologist@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

I would even say NMS is a good example of this sentiment. The game has been good for years now and has had tons of free updates. There's a lot of people out there who just don't care and you can see this in forums whenever the game makes news. People still show up to decry the game for how terrible the release was.

Public sentiment on the game and the studio is still pretty mixed

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

The fact that it’s only the same two games is more of an argument against than for, honestly. With all of the awful launches people can think of two games that were redeemed.

That’s bad.

[–] IndefiniteBen@leminal.space 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think a big difference with both is that they're not big multiplayer titles that are looking to make money with cosmetics.

If a multiplayer focused game is shit at launch, it won't get a good user base and then it's as good as dead.

[–] FunctionFn@feddit.nl 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Both Destiny and Destiny 2 had really poor launches. Then they cleaned up their act and we're very successful and had thriving playerbases. Light fall and this past year notwithstanding...

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I’m not defending the need for post-launch patches to fix glaring issues and I’m not defending crunch, but suggesting that buggy releases and crunch haven’t been with gaming since the earliest days of the industry seems like putting on rose colored glasses. There is a lot to damn about the current industry, but painting the root days of the industry as free of those same issues just to make the comparison seems unrealistic.