Really, I would think compared to Oblivion, there were be quite a few less bugs, considering they're working with the same engine.
Fallout 3 goes gold
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Humpsalot said:
Huh? He's saying consumers should be patient in "demanding" a certain release date from a game, not patient in waiting for new features to be implemented. They're two completely different sets of patience, related to different expectations.
And I agree with Mrxknown in principle: the laziness that has crept into the industry is increasingly becoming a problem. Publishers have no problem throwing half-finished games at us and expecting consumers to be fine with having to wait to be able to play the game they just purchased. Consumer expectations actually affirming this trend is just double bad.
Whether it be Mass Effect being unplayable due to broken DRM, Fallout 2 or V:Bloodlines unplayably buggy state or something as recent as the many technical problems indie product Hinterland has, it's just not acceptable.
Hinterland is a good example of what's wrong with mainstream industry even though it's an indie product (made by industry vets tho', I think): a week before release, they announced a delay to add more content. Right after release, complaints come flooding in about the game freezing up, being incompatible with many PCs and having incredibly long loading times for such a lo-end game.
And there they were, a week up ahead, adding content. That's ridiculous. Bethesda should have put a content freeze on Oblivion months before release so they could actually release it in a polished, bug-free state. Instead we got a buggy, unbalanced mess that one could hardly believe went through QA (seriously, what kind of QA department lets level scaling go by?).
If the same is true for Fallout 3, then yes, Outbreak's attitude of "OMFG RELEASE NOW" is part of the problem. Patches are fine, they've never conceptually been the problem because it's ridiculous to demand a perfectly polished game, but it is unacceptable for publishers to meet their deadlines over the backs of consumers as was done with - say - Fallout 2 or Bloodlines, bringing us a buggy mess because they had a release date to make.
It's even worse for Oblivion, because the patched vanilla version is still hard to play, horribly optimized, badly balanced and with a few big remaining bugs.
I agree, this is why I no longer buy EA games unless it is after review and patches. They are the McDonalds of gaming. Release 100 average games a year. I have heard it is like slave labor over there.
But more on point, what I was saying is Fable II is being released polished as hell, but they felt that the Co Op had some bugs in it that would take an undetermined amount of time to fix, so they are releasing the main game and later releasing a polished Co op. Not saying games are not rushed, because it sickens me how much they are.
Remember games before the internet? How they had to make a good game with no back up plan? L O L
But more on point, what I was saying is Fable II is being released polished as hell, but they felt that the Co Op had some bugs in it that would take an undetermined amount of time to fix, so they are releasing the main game and later releasing a polished Co op. Not saying games are not rushed, because it sickens me how much they are.
Remember games before the internet? How they had to make a good game with no back up plan? L O L
Ausir said:
We're not in a position to judge on Fallout 3 yet, honestly, we'll have to see after release. Just realise content freeze and "the design is finished" aren't the same things - though I don't recall what words Bethesda used.
Humpsalot said:
Mirrror's Edge looks sweet, tho'
Humpsalot said:
And I don't like that. Not so much because of this individual case, because you're still getting a complete game with more coming later, but where does this trend end? When they ported Mass Effect to PC they promised Bring down the Sky DLC for free, and that's cool, but it then took them aeons to implement it. That's just lazy, if you promise something you follow up on it.
It all sets bad precedent. How incomplete can a game release be before we say enough is enough? "Oh sorry it doesn't have ranged weapons yet but we'll implement it in a patch", "oh sorry it doesn't have an endgame area yet but we'll implement it in a patch"? It's just a bad trend, period.
Mirrors edge does look good, and EA has gotten better (believe it or not) but not by enough yet. But I still am going to wait for a review to buy it.
I played through mass effect PC without a patch and now going through it again with patch. And also Mass Effect was a good game because of BioWare, not EA.
The gaming industry, on the broad scale, is now a business, it is sadly no longer some no named guys making groundbreaking games and where they can decide when the game is being released. They have deadlines and pressure, which sucks, but it is the way it is now, on the most part. This is also why indie games are on the rise.
I played through mass effect PC without a patch and now going through it again with patch. And also Mass Effect was a good game because of BioWare, not EA.
The gaming industry, on the broad scale, is now a business, it is sadly no longer some no named guys making groundbreaking games and where they can decide when the game is being released. They have deadlines and pressure, which sucks, but it is the way it is now, on the most part. This is also why indie games are on the rise.
Brother None said:
LOL... Ok, I may feel that way, but I am not talking about releasing a game that has MAJOR bugs. Even I am not that impatient. I mean, if I am walking through the wasteland and am suddenly falling through a pink void with Radscorpions flying around me singing "Rain Drops are Falling on My Head," then OK, don't release it. lol... I am just talking about small things that don't actually hurt the game. We're all use to those. (I don't have first hand knowledge of the bugs that came with Oblivion)
I am only this impatient when it is this close to release. It's too much of a tease. (I'm more excited about it than a lot of members here) When a deadline is pushed back with a month or two to go, I may be disappointed, but otherwise I'm OK with that. I already saw it pushed back once with this game. But yeah, if they found something severe, then by all means, go ahead and fix it. I don't want people without access to internet, etc. to be left out. Small things though, I can wait for a patch. At least I can pretty much enjoy the game while I am waiting. It's not like the patch costs anything either.
Yeah, anyway... No, I don't want a broken game to be released. But seriously...OMFG!!! Isn't it the freakin' 28th yet!!!???
EDIT: I agree with the content freeze BTW so that the developer has time to polish the game. In one of the interviews, I think with Pete Hines, he basically said that it was like it kept getting bigger and bigger. "I don't know how much more she can take, Captain!!"
Humpsalot said:
I wouldn't bet on it.
Let's be clear on one thing: The announcement of going gold and the game going gold are often not at the same time for PR reasons, only companies on the stock market are under legal obligation to be honest about these things.
But review copies usually aren't the same as gold copies. It's pretty standard that a review copy is a few versions before the gold copy, and that the company sends along a list of known bugs. That's a tradition that goes way back. Just check the Fallout 1 reviewer's guide.
Since it's Ubisoft that announced it going gold and not Bethesda, we can assume it already had gone gold and Bethesda was withholding this information for PR reasons - until Ubisoft blew it.
shihonage
Made in USSR
It's a little known fact that the collector's edition box actually radiates over 20000 REMs, killing you instantly.
Phancypants
First time out of the vault
Gentlemen said:
It's largely because of unified hardware. Devs love consoles because they know EXACTLY what they have to play with. With PC releases, you need to be able to perform on a wide variety of hardware, both in manufacturer and performance. As well, on a console you know exactly what processes are running (yours, and the dashbord or XMB). On PC's, you have to take into account that there are dozens of processes looking for hardware time, as well as programs such as antivirus which may be interrupting your processes.
So yes, console games are much more stable for a good reason.
PaladinHeart
Mildly Dipped
I'm pretty sure there have been games released too early, promised features in a future patch, and never actually made those features available, though I can't think of what game that was..
There is one thing nowadays in the gaming industry, that i really hate: each and every game developer thinks that PC is not a profitable platform. 'Cause of piracy, they tell us that they loose their money by making a product for PC, cause it instantly gets pirated. But please, tell me, why the review copies of Saints Row 2 and Fallout 3 for XBOX360 are already on p2p networks, and PC ones aren't?
Seboss
First time out of the vault
The MMO industry is already doing that.Brother None said:
See Age of Conan. It was the best selling MMO (except for first WoW addon) during the first few weeks, and now they're already merging servers just months after release.