Game quality decreasing? Discuss

[Guest]

So me and my mates were having a chat the other night about recent games how we feel there quality and care is decreasing. Prime examples being;

Arms 3 - Its optimisation is still really bad, even on higher end gaming rigs, and since the Alpha, not a whole lots been added. It's also been released without the story because it wasn't finished, so there releasing the story in parts, as they finish them. But its still the 'full game' and still £40.

 

Battlefield 4 - To be quite frank the Beta was really good... it also run a lot better. The full game is riddled with bugs making it unplayable for quite a few people, issues like frequent crashes (even on high end PCs), Hit detection, LOOONG loading times (Even on SSD) and much more. In my eyes its once again an unfinished game, so close to being there but not quite, just the general fact the beta was better in regards to how it run and generally working, yet still £35.

 

GTA V - Ok yes its old gen console only but still carrys a similar point. The game was released unfinished, without a multiple, something they added 1 month later, in my eyes not finished. The multiply game came with a whole bunch of issues which I'm sure your all aware off. Ok so it's all out now, and well, finished, just needs a few patches. £30.

 

Edit*  Mass Effect 3 - You had to buy the DLC to finish the game! I mean c'mon money hungry or what!? (Thanks Cjeffcoatjr)

 

The fact is, many of these issues are still in the games weeks to months after there acknowledgment by the developers, yet they don't seam to be doing much 'We're working on it'. Don't get me wrong, I understand that games are constantly becoming more and more complex, and fixes can take time, it's not magic, but that doesn't mean they have to release unfinished games. Fair enough with games like DayZ which has been released as a Alpha and has constant warning's of bugs, but even that's arrived 1 year late with the minimums and bugs from the early mod. Why should I have to be worrying about the game working when I buy it new? And the worse bit is, games being broken or unfinished is becoming the norm, developers are now releasing games thinking its ok to release them unfinished, because at the end of the day, were still going to buy them right?

 

So discuss people, I would like to hear your opinion! Obviously this above is my opinion and I know I'm going to get some hate from some of you out there. And I'm not saying all games are like this and in fact it seams the Indies are doing a better job at maintaining and developing.

[Unhelpful]

Not the quality of all games. Honestly I just think it is AAA titles. I have hated most of them that have released in the last couple years. Not all of them, but most.

[Guest]

Yea exactly, as I said above, the smaller games seam to be in much better condition and seam to be loved by there devs much more

[cjeffcoatjr]

You forgot one

 

Mass Effect 3 -  You had to BUY a DLC to complete the game. 

[JAKEBAB]

Also simcity was terrible and still fixing it but it is finally playable.

 

I think we can all agree its EA's fault and Activision trying to pump out call of duties and other AAA titles every year when quality takes time.

[Guest]

So me and my mates were having a chat the other night about recent games how we feel there quality and care is decreasing. Prime examples being;

Arms 3 - Its optimisation is still really bad, even on higher end gaming rigs, and since the Alpha, not a whole lots been added. It's also been released without the story because it wasn't finished, so there releasing the story in parts, as they finish them. But its still the 'full game' and still £40.

 

Battlefield 4 - To be quite frank the Beta was really good... it also run a lot better. The full game is riddled with bugs making it unplayable for quite a few people, issues like frequent crashes (even on high end PCs), Hit detection, LOOONG loading times (Even on SSD) and much more. In my eyes its once again an unfinished game, so close to being there but not quite, just the general fact the beta was better in regards to how it run and generally working, yet still £35.

 

GTA V - Ok yes its old gen console only but still carrys a similar point. The game was released unfinished, without a multiple, something they added 1 month later, in my eyes not finished. The multiply game came with a whole bunch of issues which I'm sure your all aware off. Ok so it's all out now, and well, finished, just needs a few patches. £30.

 

Edit*  Mass Effect 3 - You had to buy the DLC to finish the game! I mean c'mon money hungry or what!? (Thanks Cjeffcoatjr)

 

The fact is, many of these issues are still in the games weeks to months after there acknowledgment by the developers, yet they don't seam to be doing much 'We're working on it'. Don't get me wrong, I understand that games are constantly becoming more and more complex, and fixes can take time, it's not magic, but that doesn't mean they have to release unfinished games. Fair enough with games like DayZ which has been released as a Alpha and has constant warning's of bugs, but even that's arrived 1 year late with the minimums and bugs from the early mod. Why should I have to be worrying about the game working when I buy it new? And the worse bit is, games being broken or unfinished is becoming the norm, developers are now releasing games thinking its ok to release them unfinished, because at the end of the day, were still going to buy them right?

 

So discuss people, I would like to hear your opinion! Obviously this above is my opinion and I know I'm going to get some hate from some of you out there. And I'm not saying all games are like this and in fact it seams the Indies are doing a better job at maintaining and developing.

Gta v didn't have servers because they couldn't get anymore money to buy some so they waited to make some money back

[Guest]

Also simcity was terrible and still fixing it but it is finally playable.

 

I think we can all agree its EA's fault and Activision trying to pump out call of duties and other AAA titles every year when quality takes time.

Trey arch and is are separate so a cod games comes out every 2

[LifesCompanion]

It seems to me that the developers are getting more complacent with the current market... before (pre Warcraft 3 era) the game had to be freaking good or else you were screwed but now since the market has expanded so much and the fan bases have also grown massively (before it was a cult following esque thing but now it's normal to fanboi/fangurl a game) the general quality has declined. 

I also think it's our fault as consumers since we all bitch and moan about how company X hasn't released their game yet but company Y has, etc... 

[JAKEBAB]

Trey arch and is are separate so a cod games comes out every 2

what?

[Guest]

what?

A cod game is Made every two years cod2 -4- mw2 - mw3 - ghosts/ 3- w@w - blops - blops 2

[Skanic]

So me and my mates were having a chat the other night about recent games how we feel there quality and care is decreasing. Prime examples being;

Arms 3 - Its optimisation is still really bad, even on higher end gaming rigs, and since the Alpha, not a whole lots been added. It's also been released without the story because it wasn't finished, so there releasing the story in parts, as they finish them. But its still the 'full game' and still £40.

 

Battlefield 4 - To be quite frank the Beta was really good... it also run a lot better. The full game is riddled with bugs making it unplayable for quite a few people, issues like frequent crashes (even on high end PCs), Hit detection, LOOONG loading times (Even on SSD) and much more. In my eyes its once again an unfinished game, so close to being there but not quite, just the general fact the beta was better in regards to how it run and generally working, yet still £35.

 

GTA V - Ok yes its old gen console only but still carrys a similar point. The game was released unfinished, without a multiple, something they added 1 month later, in my eyes not finished. The multiply game came with a whole bunch of issues which I'm sure your all aware off. Ok so it's all out now, and well, finished, just needs a few patches. £30.

 

Edit*  Mass Effect 3 - You had to buy the DLC to finish the game! I mean c'mon money hungry or what!? (Thanks Cjeffcoatjr)

 

The fact is, many of these issues are still in the games weeks to months after there acknowledgment by the developers, yet they don't seam to be doing much 'We're working on it'. Don't get me wrong, I understand that games are constantly becoming more and more complex, and fixes can take time, it's not magic, but that doesn't mean they have to release unfinished games. Fair enough with games like DayZ which has been released as a Alpha and has constant warning's of bugs, but even that's arrived 1 year late with the minimums and bugs from the early mod. Why should I have to be worrying about the game working when I buy it new? And the worse bit is, games being broken or unfinished is becoming the norm, developers are now releasing games thinking its ok to release them unfinished, because at the end of the day, were still going to buy them right?

 

So discuss people, I would like to hear your opinion! Obviously this above is my opinion and I know I'm going to get some hate from some of you out there. And I'm not saying all games are like this and in fact it seams the Indies are doing a better job at maintaining and developing.

What game is Arms 3?

 

On your battlefield 4, My experience has been good with it not so many crashes and crashes are very rare for me now. also the hit detection has gotten better as well.

And loading times? Yeah on HDD it takes over a minute but that was in bf3 the same case. With an SSD its really fast no long wait time. the game had it rough at release because EA pushed them into releasing the game earlier.

[JAKEBAB]

A cod game is Made every two years cod2 -4- mw2 - mw3 - ghosts/ 3- w@w - blops - blops 2

ok but the devs effectively only have one year to work on it...

[Guest]

ok but the devs effectively only have one year to work on it...

How.?

[Denned]

They need to make more and better games in less time.

[JAKEBAB]

How.?

ok im really confused infinityward releases a game then they work on a game while treyarch releases a game and then it goes back and fourth every year i dont know but a cod game is out every year if they would bring a game out every 2 years both of them then it would be more quality.

[Flojer0]

I believe it is primarily a symptom of DLC. if you go back in time rougly 7 years or so DLC wasn't popular, on the original Xbox it was hardly an option, and before that it wasn't really possible on consoles. Now any game is likely to be playing on a system that has a connection and storage so developers are letting themselves release games sooner than they would without the DLC option and fixing it after the fact. Shigeru Miyamoto was quoted as saying about Ocarina of time that "A Late game is late for a finite amount of time, a bad game is bad forever." That is not the case anymore with developers having the option to potentially re-do everything on a game that someone already bought.

 

 

They need to make more and better games in less time.

The problem with that is it costs a lot more to do things quickly and there are times when throwing money and people at something can actually make the project take longer instead of solving the problem. You have a choice of a game being developed cheaply, quickly, or well, pick two, preferably one if you want to be certain.

[orangecat]

The quality of gaming overall is falling but there are still good games. I haven't finished BF4 but the singleplayer is very detailed and is pretty fun I also like GTA 5 its really well done.

[Ertman]

A cod game is Made every two years cod2 -4- mw2 - mw3 - ghosts/ 3- w@w - blops - blops 2

Hasn't there been 10 COD games in 11 years.

2003 - Call of Duty

2005 - Call of Duty 2

2006 - Call of Duty 3

2007 - Call of Duty MW

2008 - Call of Duty World at War

2009 - Call of Duty MW2

2010 - Call of Duty Black Ops

2011 - Call of Duty MW3

2012 - Call of Duty Black Ops 2

2013 - Call of Duty Ghosts

That's 1 a year except 2004. The developers release every 2 years.

[Lukiose]

They have the potential... just look at BF4.

But under EA's mad rush... it just won't happen, look for smaller studios like Irrational Games for example and pray!

[Guest]

Hasn't there been 10 COD games in 11 years.

2003 - Call of Duty

2005 - Call of Duty 2

2006 - Call of Duty 3

2007 - Call of Duty MW

2008 - Call of Duty World at War

2009 - Call of Duty MW2

2010 - Call of Duty Black Ops

2011 - Call of Duty MW3

2012 - Call of Duty Black Ops 2

2013 - Call of Duty Ghosts

That's 1 a year except 2004. The developers release every 2 years.

That's was I said...

[Aphexx]

distribution method and patching system.

 

once upon a time games were released and that was it. thats the final iteration of the game there were no patches, no dlc no nothing the game had to be finished and polished all stop. with the internet and all the interconnectivity we've lost that, game companies can release a subpar product and then later on fix the game via patches. I don't know when this started to happen but it is now standard practice and I fucking hate it.

[Guest]

For the COD games, (I can't stand them) they have 2 main rev studios given 2 years to make a game. Because there is 2 studios, they alternate between game release eg.

Year 1 - Studio A's game

Year 2 - Studio B's game

Year 3 - Studio A's game

etc. therefore allowing A&B 2 years each.

[Ertman]

I believe it is primarily a symptom of DLC. if you go back in time rougly 7 years or so DLC wasn't popular, on the original Xbox it was hardly an option, and before that it wasn't really possible on consoles. Now any game is likely to be playing on a system that has a connection and storage so developers are letting themselves release games sooner than they would without the DLC option and fixing it after the fact. Shigeru Miyamoto was quoted as saying about Ocarina of time that "A Late game is late for a finite amount of time, a bad game is bad forever." That is not the case anymore with developers having the option to potentially re-do everything on a game that someone already bought.

So how's Duke Nukem Forever... Still a bad game?

 

 I don't think it is a symptom of DLC. It's more likely a symptom of the size, scope and complexity of games today, along with the need to actually put something out to see a return on your multi-year, multi-billion dollar investment.

The problem with that is it costs a lot more to do things quickly and there are times when throwing money and people at something can actually make the project take longer instead of solving the problem. You have a choice of a game being developed cheaply, quickly, or well, pick two, preferably one if you want to be certain.

That can be said about anything really.

What they need to do is streamline the development process with new game development techniques that will allow the developer to more easily implement and customize game design without having do as much from scratch. Unfortunately this will lead to bloated inefficient coding.

[Guest]

And that is exactly my point. Its crazy and it really is a shame!

[Guest]

I mean does the fact that a lot of games are still running on old engines that have been layered for the latest release affect this? Perhaps if they started development from scratch on a new engine, do you think it would improve the outcome and leave less issues? Obviously it would take a lot longer but games like Call Of Duty and Battlefield are still chugging away on very old engines. And anyone who says they use new ones because they said so in their trailer, i.e. cod, they don't, they just add to there old engines making it new-er