Sad that we went to unfinished games by moneydevouring publishers and all its errors that come along with that (overworked staff, bad salaries every here and there).
When did we leave the path that finished games should be released around the clock?
Basically, capitalism can be traced back as the reason for most decisions corporations make. Although the fact people will complain and do it anyway is something else.
Day one patch means they released an unfinished game. They haven’t done enough testing before physical production. Also fucks over the people with a slow connection.
A patch 1 year after release is fine. Some people found a rare bug which can be fixed. If the game gets patches 1 year or longer after release tells me the developers have love for their game and/or community for fixing it long after they had any obligation to.
A day-one patch is the day of the release, so it counts as included in the release in my books.
It doesn’t mean « they haven’t done enough testing before physical production », it means they took advantage of the inevitable several weeks or months between start of physical printing and release.
And of course a patch 1 year after release is fine. What I’m saying is that I prefer a broken game that is fixed on release day over a broken game that is fixed 1 year later.
Except that’s not what happened in the old days, I’ve been getting PC game patches for as long as I’ve been gaming, upwards of 30 years. You’re not going to get every bug. Console games just didn’t get patched, if it was a buggy PoS it remained a buggy PoS.
BG3 had a day-one patch, and is at its 6th hotfix now. Does it make it a broken game?
With the scale of modern AAA games it is inevitable, if a studio had to wait until every bug in a game the size of Starfield was fixed to release it, it would simply never release. You have to decide at some point that the game is in a releasable state, and at this moment you start printing discs, then you keep working on it and fixing bugs and that constitues the day-one patch. And don’t worry about the expansion, they started working on it long before the release.
Having a day one patch doesn’t make a game broken, but it is a symptom of a bad internal process. Here are the patch notes for BG3 Day 1 (not sure if 100% accurate, but this is the best source I could find). To me, that doesn’t sound like anything game breaking.
I’m not saying BG3 is the gold standard for AAA game releases, I’m merely saying it’s what we should expect for an average AAA release with some being a little better and some being a little worse.
I’m not saying every bug needs to be fixed. Even older games before SW patches were a thing had a ton of bugs. I’m just saying, the game should play well even if users never patch the game. This is really important for game preservation, so you should always be able to take the game disk and install it offline and play through the whole game and have a great experience. That’s not the standard many AAA studios hold themselves to.
Look at this way, you’ve got everything you needed to fix complete. The game is uploaded the the storefront database. It’s now a week before release. There will always be bugs to fix and no game will ever be completely bugfree (especially not games at this scale). At some point you have to release the game, so why not just release what you’ve been working on since when the game launches?
I’m not saying the game needs to be perfect, but it should be a great experience beginning to end without applying any patches. As in, I should be able to take the game disk and install it without any Internet connection and play through the game with only minor bugs here and there.
This is really important for game preservation (the patch servers will eventually go offline), yet many AAA games are almost unplayable without day one patches.
I’m a huge fan of software updates for games, but those updates should merely improve an already great experience, not be the method to fix a broken game. A broken game should never leave QA.
As usual, people have no idea of the complexity of software. Games are extra complex. Games that are meant to run on an infinite variety of hardware combinations are worse. And it’s not any game, it’s an expansive RPG with hundreds of hours of gameplay and paths.
It’s impossible to ship this kind of product bug-free, and it’s quite probable that it will never truly be bug-free. A day-1 patch is obviously expected, and bugfixes in the following weeks mean that devs are closely monitoring how it goes, and are still working full-time on it. That’s commendable.
Day one patch is fine. It’s just an odd remnant of buying physically as the discs have to be pressed and shipped several months ahead of launch while the Devs carry on working. Digital owners just download the latest build on launch.
If there’s a patch and the game is still full of issues, thats another story.
So pressing unfinished games on disks is fine for you? They should release a finished game. What if the console shop or server goes offline? How can you play it then? For preservation, day one patches are a nightmare.
I’m glad to see the trend of releasing more games for pc beside their console counterpart rising. It makes preservation easier.
Pressing unfinished games is a trade-off and a lesser evil than instead choosing to distribute games digital only. One alternative would be to delay all launches until multiple months after the game is considered “ready,” but that would likely impact revenue streams in a way that the people making those decisions would never agree to. It would also upset the 80% of the market who buy games digitally - why should their release be delayed?
Would you prefer for physical releases to not be available until 3-6 months after the digital release (and more frequently, for there to be no physical release at all)?
Even if you press finished game, you still find tons of issues to fix before the release. It should be treated as bonus polishing time though, not time to finish the game.
BG3 has plenty of bugs, some of them game breaking. Look at the litany of fixes they delivered in each patch. It’s not about that. It’s about releasing a game that isn’t a “service”, and just a purely high quality game - tactical combat that works well, characters with good writing, a solid plot hook, a distinct graphical style, phenomenal voice acting and mocap (which matter more for this genre than they would in, say, a third person shooter).
Every game has bugs, that is not really what a ‘finished game’ is about. Its more about consistently working features, delivering what you promised and working on fixing things you know arent working correctly.
I’m actually quite surprised that nobody has stumbled across that 2014 “Moonlight Jelly” and discovered it was his bandcamp. This is a trove of 2010s vaporwave that I’m glad to have on my radar now!
Same here except I use a 6600 xt, which isn’t anywhere near as good as your GPU. I’m running medium settings at 4k and it’s fine. It even runs on the Steam Deck, although the graphics are not so good on there. Still, it’s playable and I will probably play there when it’s convenient.
IMO, ultra settings are for people with new, high end hardware and to future proof a game for at least a couple years. It’s not for people running a 2-3 year old rig with a 1080p GPU. Medium and high settings are generally good. Ultra is just like bonus mode for hardcore enthusiasts.
Yeah, the reason why I mentioned my experience is because I’m finding people with better specs complaining and I’m like if we just turned the FPS counter off and enjoyed the game, I’m sure we’d barely notice it dips below 60 at times.
BG3 is critically acclaimed and on path to win every GOTY award this year. Taking this into consideration any game compared against BG3 may look lackluster, not just Starfield.
I didn’t play these games yet but I did play The Outer Worlds and it was acceptable to me. If Starfield is a game along the same lines then I am OK with that.
Hogwarts Legacy was a very solid title with very memorable characters, story and wow what a detailed fun world. Have not played BG3 yet so cannot compare, but Hogwarts is my GOTY so far.
Just finished Hogwarts yesterday for the first time. I absolutely love the world building, but I found the story a bit lacking. In my mind I ended up siding with Ranrok, in his quest to free the goblins, Sebastian (Solomon was an asshole thorough and through), and the ending was pretty vanilla. Also the whole idea in the ending of keeping the ancient power secret makes no sense: the same implications could be made100% for normal magic
Never never really was the best in graphical quality. But if the DLSS 3.5 part is real. It can definitely be way better than the Switch is now and more likely on par with Series S
Then don’t clutter my world with infinite foam cups literally everywhere highlighted with the scanner drawing my attention and distracting me so I’ll inevitably pick it up,just for it to be something that’s just going to get dumped into a container or an npc?
If you want every piece of clutter in your game to be lootable, every piece of clutter in your game will be looted, if only to get it out of the way.
It's literally 100% on the gamer if they insist on carrying every item they find. There isn't even .00000000000000001% responsibility for the developer. Carry capacities are a mandatory part of good design.
They haven’t called it anything yet, this is just a way of saying “new version of the switch”. Could still be Super Switch, SwitchU or even New Switch XL!
I don’t mind the idea of an encumbrance system where it makes sense. Like, the idea of being able to carry whatever you want into combat feels obviously wrong to me, since you can just overwhelm any challenge with endless inventory - like you just grinded an endless supply of healing potions and smart-bombs. Encumbrance caused by your combat-relevant inventory creates the idea of a “build” of your character, it creates interesting decisions about which combat gear you’re going to keep available to roll with (or non-combat gear if your game’s core loop isn’t combat-driven).
Although I do see the argument that it shouldn’t be coupled to a weapon-durability system. I like weapon-durability as a way to make players fully explore all of the gear available instead of just getting “The Good One” and then never ever switching and making the optimal strategy super boring (yes, Steph Sterling, I’m That Guy) but it means working on the “build” of your character is constant fiddling and decision fatigue.
Either way, all that falls apart when it’s stuff you’re only carrying for saleable loot or for crafting materials. Unless you have an interesting and fun gameplay mechanic to provide supply-lines, that’s just adding tedium for the sake of realism. Yes, it’s not realistic that you can carry unlimited bricks, but taking that away doesn’t add anything interesting to the game, it just adds tedium.
Bethesda has been lowering the base carrying capacity for a while now. It was 300 in Skyrim. 200 in Fallout 4 I think. Around 100-150ish in 76. I can see why it’s impacting people so much. Even more so when your ships carrying capacity is also limited.
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.