• seiryth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months 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
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months 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
          5
          ·
          8 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.

    • Wumbologist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 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

    • IndefiniteBen@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        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…

        • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I fucking loved the Forsaken expansion and felt that it was worth the money. I got Black Armory not realizing it wasn’t an expansion like Forsaken and was so fucking disappointed. I eventually quit because they kept making the game worse.

          • FunctionFn@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Destiny 2’s been a real roller coaster. Forsaken was the best it ever was, so you haven’t missed much imo.