Open Letter to People Who Make Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Sevre90210:
I find it very hypocritical for the industry to complain about piracy and the like when it can't even release a finished product. If the industry doesn't care about gamers, then why should gamers care about them?

exactly they can't make a propper game and bubble bath (laugh) at us than we buy'em and than they bitch that peapole don't wanna pay for'em

Dorkmaster Flek:
Amen, Mr. Pitts. The recent Fallout: New Vegas debacle is just the latest in a long line of broken-out-of-the-box games. I'm actually not interested in Fallout games personally, but the reports I've read are just unbelievable. The amount of flat out brokenness that is this game is unacceptable. Apparently this is par for the course when it comes to Bethesda. I may not play their games, but if they ever decided to make a game that really appealed to me, I'm going to have big red warning flags coming up going "Hey, this was made by those guys that ship broken games constantly!" and I'm probably not going to buy it. The era of online consoles with hard drives and broadband Internet connections has spoiled developers into thinking they can ship a broken game and then patch it later. This has to stop, period.

Bethesda did publish New Vegas but not developed. Obsidian developed and is the reason for the bugs. I'm saying this so that the developing team at Bethesda doesn't leave the wrong impression due to your own ignorance on the topic. Oblivion and Fallout 3 were great games for example.

I agree with Russ 100%. When a studio or publisher comes out with a great game, they form a bond with their consumers, their "fans". When those game-makers then turn out garbage to follow up that originally great experience, that bond is strained to see just how strong it is. Like any material in the real world, too much strain for too long can rip even the strongest of bonds. When this happens, our trust in their ability to turn out quality product is shattered and our mob mentality shifts from pure adoration to abject hatred. THAT is what causes industry recessions.

I also agree with the dozens of people who apparently completely missed the point (or the lines in the article which I'll paraphrase as "or we'll punish you by not buying your products"). We, the consumers should (and often do, but not often enough) take responsibility for our purchases. Our gaming dollars aren't just revenue, they're our vote, our say, our way of talking directly to publishers and game makers, saying "this is what we want". By banking on our trust of a label, the publishers create false positives. They see their sales numbers rise and assume that we cast our votes for their products, and in turn churn out more of the same relatively cheap, "sequelly" garbage. If only there was some sort of system in place where professionals could play the games for us before we make a purchase and let us know what a certain gaming experience was like so we could make a more informed decision, perhaps with a type of rank or score which compares said experience to others of the genre... but alas, there is no such thing... [/sarcasm]

Marketing is a dynamic system, 100% blame cannot be placed on any one party (i.e publishers, developers, programmers, and consumers). However, the people creating these supposedly "finished products" have the power to directly affect the way their industry trends. If they choose to strive for higher standards and better quality ON RELEASE, their revenue streams will reflect that. Conversely, if they choose to crank out samey crap, they will still see returns, but miss out on vastly higher potential earnings (i.e. billions instead of millions). I think that's what Russ was getting at here. They could be doing so much better, but instead we (the entire gaming industry, including we, the consumer) are spiraling into a depression. It's happened before and it will happen again; they have the power to prevent it.

PS. Attacking someone's argument instead of making one yourself is a sign of a far weaker point; as is name-calling, Capt. "debate-team politics". heh.

PPS. I'm sure there's an Extra Credits dealing with this very topic, (and if not, there should be) I leave it to you to find it.

Russ Pitts:
Open Letter to People Who Make Games

Dear Game Makers: The biggest current threat to the industry is in your mirror.

Read Full Article

I don't agree with this person. Especially since he mentioned 2K, Microsoft and Bethesda, of all the companies.

Can we also tell gaming companies to get of QTE too?

I can't believe it even needs to be said.

SinisterGehe:

The Gentleman:
Okay, now the minimum question that is burning deep in the back of our minds: what three games were you specifically referring to? Telling us they were AAA titles and from reputable studio's is kind of like saying it was a fish from a lake. Plus, there's been a shitload of poor games out this year, so you're going to have to be very specific...

So you can't get the message he trying get trough without first hearing what games he referred to?

No, I got the message quite clearly: Game studios are publishing games with bugs in fundamental areas, studios that really should know better. It's not the first time that this accusation has been made on this site. Shamus Young, if I remember correctly, made the accusation that patching had made the game studios lazy as games could be fixed post-purchase (not counting the two thirds of gamers who do not use PSN, XBL, or comparable services).

My question was simply one that tends to bug me in the same way un-cited information bugs me in the P&R forum: Don't tell me you simply have it, show it to me. While I fully understand that the piece itself looses something when you remove the mystery of the three "AAA" games (which is mainly a rhetorical technique), my skepticism require me to tear apart rhetorical tactics in order to get the evidence and premises that support the conclusion. It's not a matter of effectiveness, it's a matter of good writing.

magicmonkeybars:
I call bullshit Mr. Pitts.
If you're looking for someone to blame look no further than yourself.

Don't blame the people trying to make a dollar when they take advantage of an all to eager and spoiled fan base.

Minecraft is a perfect example of this, people are more than willing to buy a game that's still in the alpha phase of it's development.
The only difference between say Civilization 5 and minecraft is that 2K isn't willing to admit that they're selling a barely beta version of their game.

Who to blame is the consumer who pays for games and supports the diseased industry letting it continue on as it has.
Every copy of Madden 2011 people buy is a nail in the coffin of gaming industies creativity and honesty towards its customers.

I dare say it's your job as a gaming journalist to help the consumer make a educated purchase.
The industry is dying because everyone is interdependant on each other consumers on reviewers, reviewers on advertizing that publishers use to sell games to consumers.

The industry will only fix itself when people STOP BUYING THE GODDAMN CRAP THAT IS BEING PUBLISHED!

This is more or less what he says in the article. That if they continue this shit, peopel will stop buyign their games/games all together. I don't know how else you'd interpretate him talking about market crackdown, like in 82. Maybe aliens came and destroyed all the studios?

But you are right, apart from not understanding that you're agreeing with him.
If people stop buying shit because it's crap, the industry will not survive by making shit.
thats basicly what the whole letter was about.

I agree with almost every point in this article. I think that it is high time game developers realised that they are asking us to spend large amounts of money on their products, and for that money we want products that work. I don't spend forty pounds on a guitar pedal then just say 'oh well' when it doesn't work, I take it back, I complain, I get a new one. Yet I'm expected to just say 'oh well' if I spend forty pounds on agame that doesn't work.

Forty pounds is a lot of money when you're living as a student of a meagre income. I can buy a DVD for five pounds, and I know it will play, from begining to end, every time I put it in the DVD drive, I would expect a lot more from the videogames I buy for eight times that amount.

BUT

My counterpoint is to the issue raised at the end, and the implication that before game developers start complaining about piracy they should consider the bargain. Pirates came first. This is one issue on which I maintain the same stance as ever. You can blame many things for piracy, and yes, some of those things do come back around to the gaming industry, but don't try to insinuate that pirates have somehow gained a measure ofj ustification from the fact that the game's don't work.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and just because a game developer has released a buggy game, you are not somehow entitled to pirate it. That is what we refer to as insane troll logic.

Otherwise, a very good article highlighting some often overlooked facts about the gaming industry.

I gotta say, we are getting a lot of reviews, including from The Escapist, that do not report serious issues for AAA releases. In fact, except for Fallout: New Vegas, I had to scratch my head and speculate which games you were talking about.

I've heard a number of things about Civ V, but NONE of them were from any review, which were ALL extremely postive about the game--**ALL** mentions of bugs and playability issues came from forums. And mostly for Fallout I hear: "it's fun enough that you can overlook the bugs and still have fun."

I still don't know which Microsoft game you are talking about, but if it's Fable 3 as some above have wondered, if it is really unplayable I'd say 4/5 stars is a little high.

Great article, Russ - nice to see someone else gets as mad about this nonsense as myself.

Now, can you do a second article about my other pet peeve: difficulty curves in videogaming?

I mean, I play on 'Easy' all the time. So why do I have a pile of unfinished videogames?

Some might say because I'm a pretty poor gamer: I would say because the games I play mostly fail to keep me playing. The moment I get kicked out to a 'game over' screen I've been failed by the game, not the other way around.

And developers bewail the fact that so many gamers never actually see the entirety of the games they create.

Go figure.

Excellent article!
As much as I love some of my games, the sheer amount of bug found in games like Dragon Age and New Vegas is shameful.

The bottom line of the article is that video games are expensive (in comparison to other forms of entertainment like the $15 blue-ray at Wal-Mart), and, as such, game companies should be aware that they are PRIVILEGED to receive our hard earned money. However, what he overlooks is that the developers often have little if anything to do with when a game gets released (and, therefore, how complete it is). It's the fat cat owners that are, often, the real problem.

You said them Russ.

Couldn't agree more.

Dorkmaster Flek:
Amen, Mr. Pitts. The recent Fallout: New Vegas debacle is just the latest in a long line of broken-out-of-the-box games. I'm actually not interested in Fallout games personally, but the reports I've read are just unbelievable. The amount of flat out brokenness that is this game is unacceptable. Apparently this is par for the course when it comes to Bethesda. I may not play their games, but if they ever decided to make a game that really appealed to me, I'm going to have big red warning flags coming up going "Hey, this was made by those guys that ship broken games constantly!" and I'm probably not going to buy it. The era of online consoles with hard drives and broadband Internet connections has spoiled developers into thinking they can ship a broken game and then patch it later. This has to stop, period.

I have played many of Bethsedas titles and haven't had problems with any of them people just blow them out of proportion, then there are PC gamers..

The Gentleman:

SinisterGehe:

The Gentleman:
Okay, now the minimum question that is burning deep in the back of our minds: what three games were you specifically referring to? Telling us they were AAA titles and from reputable studio's is kind of like saying it was a fish from a lake. Plus, there's been a shitload of poor games out this year, so you're going to have to be very specific...

So you can't get the message he trying get trough without first hearing what games he referred to?

No, I got the message quite clearly: Game studios are publishing games with bugs in fundamental areas, studios that really should know better. It's not the first time that this accusation has been made on this site. Shamus Young, if I remember correctly, made the accusation that patching had made the game studios lazy as games could be fixed post-purchase (not counting the two thirds of gamers who do not use PSN, XBL, or comparable services).

My question was simply one that tends to bug me in the same way un-cited information bugs me in the P&R forum: Don't tell me you simply have it, show it to me. While I fully understand that the piece itself looses something when you remove the mystery of the three "AAA" games (which is mainly a rhetorical technique), my skepticism require me to tear apart rhetorical tactics in order to get the evidence and premises that support the conclusion. It's not a matter of effectiveness, it's a matter of good writing.

So. You just asked for the matter of principle? :)

SinisterGehe:

The Gentleman:

SinisterGehe:

The Gentleman:
Okay, now the minimum question that is burning deep in the back of our minds: what three games were you specifically referring to? Telling us they were AAA titles and from reputable studio's is kind of like saying it was a fish from a lake. Plus, there's been a shitload of poor games out this year, so you're going to have to be very specific...

So you can't get the message he trying get trough without first hearing what games he referred to?

No, I got the message quite clearly: Game studios are publishing games with bugs in fundamental areas, studios that really should know better. It's not the first time that this accusation has been made on this site. Shamus Young, if I remember correctly, made the accusation that patching had made the game studios lazy as games could be fixed post-purchase (not counting the two thirds of gamers who do not use PSN, XBL, or comparable services).

My question was simply one that tends to bug me in the same way un-cited information bugs me in the P&R forum: Don't tell me you simply have it, show it to me. While I fully understand that the piece itself looses something when you remove the mystery of the three "AAA" games (which is mainly a rhetorical technique), my skepticism require me to tear apart rhetorical tactics in order to get the evidence and premises that support the conclusion. It's not a matter of effectiveness, it's a matter of good writing.

So. You just asked for the matter of principle? :)

You could say that, though it could be more based on what constitutes a good persuasive piece. Being vague and unclear is okay in terms of persuading a general audience, but a targeted piece, which this is, requires more objective evidence to support a claim. Bugs are easy to objectively identify and games which contain them would support this thesis. The absence of this evidence in Mr. Pitts piece could be interpreted both as a feint or a rhetorical tactic, but in the hands of a more-critical reader, this results in a weak argument.

In short: the best arguments are built upon concrete evidence. While the piece clearly has merit, it's lack of direct evidence weakens it's argument.

I reckon it could have been said in fewer words.

Don't sell broken games plz.

I've only played about 200 games, but the only one I truly couldn't complete was Daggerfall..

Perhaps we'd better define 'broken' more carefully, because a CTD every 4-5 hours (my current rate with FO:NV) doesn't qualify a game as 'broken' in my view.

It sounds like the rantings, albeit tempered and sincere ones, of a guy with a computer made of / filled with toffee.

I'm not saying Bethesda's engine is good, but it's functional enough. ID software will be their salvation, one hopes.

EDIT: Agree with The Gentleman in saying evidence is required.

The Gentleman:

SinisterGehe:

The Gentleman:

SinisterGehe:

The Gentleman:
Okay, now the minimum question that is burning deep in the back of our minds: what three games were you specifically referring to? Telling us they were AAA titles and from reputable studio's is kind of like saying it was a fish from a lake. Plus, there's been a shitload of poor games out this year, so you're going to have to be very specific...

So you can't get the message he trying get trough without first hearing what games he referred to?

No, I got the message quite clearly: Game studios are publishing games with bugs in fundamental areas, studios that really should know better. It's not the first time that this accusation has been made on this site. Shamus Young, if I remember correctly, made the accusation that patching had made the game studios lazy as games could be fixed post-purchase (not counting the two thirds of gamers who do not use PSN, XBL, or comparable services).

My question was simply one that tends to bug me in the same way un-cited information bugs me in the P&R forum: Don't tell me you simply have it, show it to me. While I fully understand that the piece itself looses something when you remove the mystery of the three "AAA" games (which is mainly a rhetorical technique), my skepticism require me to tear apart rhetorical tactics in order to get the evidence and premises that support the conclusion. It's not a matter of effectiveness, it's a matter of good writing.

So. You just asked for the matter of principle? :)

You could say that, though it could be more based on what constitutes a good persuasive piece. Being vague and unclear is okay in terms of persuading a general audience, but a targeted piece, which this is, requires more objective evidence to support a claim. Bugs are easy to objectively identify and games which contain them would support this thesis. The absence of this evidence in Mr. Pitts piece could be interpreted both as a feint or a rhetorical tactic, but in the hands of a more-critical reader, this results in a weak argument.

In short: the best arguments are built upon concrete evidence. While the piece clearly has merit, it's lack of direct evidence weakens it's argument.

Yes, I know most of these things as I am a philosophy student. ^^

I feel the need to comment of this because of the extensive amount of truth. Most people have already said what's on my mind, and I hope Mr. P mails it to the respective development teams.

I have to wonder why designers and developers don't listen to their communities.... that's the sign of a bad dev team/publishing company

Blizzard does it, their stuff sells and they don't put out that many games. They're still the richest developer in the world!

Susan Arendt:
My personal bug experience with Fable was aggravating, and in one case game-breaking, but it could be worked around. Not everyone I know who played the game was so lucky. The game saves automatically, and you only get one save slot. If the game happens to save you when your game is in a game-breaking bugged state...well, you're screwed. It's a gamble. As I said, that didn't happen to me personally - I was fortunate enough that I had only just started up the game when it broke that badly, so simply restarting was enough to solve the problem. I recommend you play it because, based on my personal experience, overall I find the good to outweigh the bad.

See, I prefer to think of it this way: Suppose I buy a movie on DVD, and there's a minor scratch on the disc that makes it skip at a certain point. And, somehow, every copy of that DVD also has the same scratch. (It's an analogy; work with me.) Even if the movie makes Metropolis look like Superman IV, I'm not going to say "the good outweighed the bad" and that people should buy it in spite of the problem; I'm going to qualify whatever review I give of the actual movie (after having rubbed the scratch out with that acid stuff) by saying "Don't buy it now at all; wait for the recall and second printing. But after that, definitely get it."

In other mediums we're expected to tolerate mediocrity. But only in video games are we expected to tolerate epic failure.

On similar lines, I would like to see multiple versions of a game get reviewed more often. As a PC player, it bugs me that all the glowing reviews of GTA IV were based on the console versions and I only found out that the PC version was damn near unplayable later on through Internet forums (luckily, I don't buy games on launch day anyway, so I hadn't bought it yet). Likewise, if I had a PS3 I would be pretty peeved if I bought The Orange Box only to find that the ninety-something score that The Orange Box has on Metacritic is based solely on the PC version and that my copy is an expensive Frisbee.

Rattler5150:
1. Microsoft should get out of the gaming industry. period!

2. Games for windows Live sucks

3. Steam sucks

4. DRM sucks

I am curious how this has any relevance here.

Hey Russ, I think you have made a mistake in the article title. It should read: Open Letter to People Who Publish Games.

Steve the Pocket:
.

I would also like to see several reviews for a game (preferably by the same reviewer).

If the game launches and has large bugs that make portions of it frustrating or unplayable, penalize it properly for those problems. If the problems are that bad, give it 1-2 stars for the portion that you could play and did enjoy.
Try back after a patch or two (or a set period of time), and see how many stars it now merits. Or allow publishers to submit one or two requests for a re-review when they think they have fixed enough bugs that a score based on the game they were trying to publish is possible.

Related to your Orange Box comment, Steve: Metacritic does have an entry for every platform on which a game is published, though the same reviews are often applied to all platforms instead of the one that was actually reviewed. However, in the case of the PS3 Metacritic score, it is much lower than that of the PC score.

Steve the Pocket:

Susan Arendt:
My personal bug experience with Fable was aggravating, and in one case game-breaking, but it could be worked around. Not everyone I know who played the game was so lucky. The game saves automatically, and you only get one save slot. If the game happens to save you when your game is in a game-breaking bugged state...well, you're screwed. It's a gamble. As I said, that didn't happen to me personally - I was fortunate enough that I had only just started up the game when it broke that badly, so simply restarting was enough to solve the problem. I recommend you play it because, based on my personal experience, overall I find the good to outweigh the bad.

See, I prefer to think of it this way: Suppose I buy a movie on DVD, and there's a minor scratch on the disc that makes it skip at a certain point. And, somehow, every copy of that DVD also has the same scratch. (It's an analogy; work with me.) Even if the movie makes Metropolis look like Superman IV, I'm not going to say "the good outweighed the bad" and that people should buy it in spite of the problem; I'm going to qualify whatever review I give of the actual movie (after having rubbed the scratch out with that acid stuff) by saying "Don't buy it now at all; wait for the recall and second printing. But after that, definitely get it."

I understand what you're saying, certainly, but your analogy is flawed in one key way: the DVD doesn't skip in the same spot for everyone. In fact, for some people, it doesn't skip at all.

I know many people who have played Fable 3 at this point. A quest that had a game-killing bug for one person ran flawlessly for another. I'm not sure I know of anyone who had the exact same sound issues I did (AIs repeating themselves, sound dropping out). It's possible you might play the game and have no bugs at all, or bugs that are mild annoyances at best. It's possible you might have your experience completely ruined by bugs. Because I can't say for sure what will happen to you, I can't say don't get the game.

Susan Arendt:
I understand what you're saying, certainly, but your analogy is flawed in one key way: the DVD doesn't skip in the same spot for everyone. In fact, for some people, it doesn't skip at all.

I know many people who have played Fable 3 at this point. A quest that had a game-killing bug for one person ran flawlessly for another. I'm not sure I know of anyone who had the exact same sound issues I did (AIs repeating themselves, sound dropping out). It's possible you might play the game and have no bugs at all, or bugs that are mild annoyances at best. It's possible you might have your experience completely ruined by bugs. Because I can't say for sure what will happen to you, I can't say don't get the game.

Odd. I thought consoles were supposed to be immune to bugs that only randomly show up for a handful of users for no apparent reason. This might say worse things about the 360 than it does about the game's developers, especially if they assumed the same thing.

RvLeshrac:

No one demands an absolutely perfect, bug-free game.

What they demand is a game that is *playable*, from beginning to end. That means "No bugs which prevent you from ever entering an area of the game," and "No bugs which completely halt progression of the primary campaign."

For what games is the above true?

I want in on the ranting - but, alas, all *my* games work fine!

Steve the Pocket:

Susan Arendt:
I understand what you're saying, certainly, but your analogy is flawed in one key way: the DVD doesn't skip in the same spot for everyone. In fact, for some people, it doesn't skip at all.

I know many people who have played Fable 3 at this point. A quest that had a game-killing bug for one person ran flawlessly for another. I'm not sure I know of anyone who had the exact same sound issues I did (AIs repeating themselves, sound dropping out). It's possible you might play the game and have no bugs at all, or bugs that are mild annoyances at best. It's possible you might have your experience completely ruined by bugs. Because I can't say for sure what will happen to you, I can't say don't get the game.

Odd. I thought consoles were supposed to be immune to bugs that only randomly show up for a handful of users for no apparent reason. This might say worse things about the 360 than it does about the game's developers, especially if they assumed the same thing.

It's not so much about the hardware as it is about the game itself. There are a lot of variables in play at any given time - everything from the gender of your character to the order you've done things to how many quests you have going to whether or not the outfit you have on is assembled from different pieces or one set. Given that no two people are likely do play the game exactly the same way, down to the last detail, it makes sense that the issues are tough to replicate.

Got New Vegas at midnight launch. I havn't encountered any game breaking bugs.

personally i don't see why everyone other than me seems to have such big problems with fallout new vegas. bought steam version, ran it, no bugs or crashes except 3 corpses falling through the world after 50 hours of playing.

same thing with my friend who diddn't even get the patch (he pirated it because he heard it was unplayably buggy and diddn't want to pay for it, then no bugs).

They can get away with doing that because when word that a game sucks is out they'll have already sold half the units they'll sell for the next year. If people would learn to just fucking wait devs would actually have a tangible reason (rather than some lofty dedication to the craft) not to churn out unfinished garbage. I haven't played CoD5.5MW2 yet and I'm proud of it.

...Okay, that one I let linger fot too long. Maybe I'm not proud of that specific one. But still, would it kill you not to play games the second it comes out?

AC10:
So.. Russ Pitt's fallout new vegas game isn't working I guess?

According to his review, it's the bees knees. Still not sure why he hasn't edited it.

He has played over 25 hours of it, but he only edited his Indiana Jones joke, no word yet on it being broken and unplayable.

He did say this tho in his review: "Recommendation: There is more than enough game in this package to justify the expense."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8229-Review-Fallout-New-Vegas

Srkkl:

Dorkmaster Flek:
Amen, Mr. Pitts. The recent Fallout: New Vegas debacle is just the latest in a long line of broken-out-of-the-box games. I'm actually not interested in Fallout games personally, but the reports I've read are just unbelievable. The amount of flat out brokenness that is this game is unacceptable. Apparently this is par for the course when it comes to Bethesda. I may not play their games, but if they ever decided to make a game that really appealed to me, I'm going to have big red warning flags coming up going "Hey, this was made by those guys that ship broken games constantly!" and I'm probably not going to buy it. The era of online consoles with hard drives and broadband Internet connections has spoiled developers into thinking they can ship a broken game and then patch it later. This has to stop, period.

Bethesda did publish New Vegas but not developed. Obsidian developed and is the reason for the bugs. I'm saying this so that the developing team at Bethesda doesn't leave the wrong impression due to your own ignorance on the topic. Oblivion and Fallout 3 were great games for example.

Oblivion and fallout 3 both had problems it is a massive failing of the gamebro engine and the size of the games period. Both oblivion and fo3 had multiple patches to fix bugs and in the end had to have community made patches that fixed 100s of bugs every bethesda game that has come out had to have the community clean up bethesdas mess because bethesda never did.

new vegas was made by obsidian but used the gamebro engine from fallout 3 and it was published by bethesda.so while it was made by another team it was made using the same tool that gave us two buggy games already.

But on one hand i can give games like oblivion and fallout 3 and nv a semi pass, tjhese are MASSIVE games, with 100s of quests and npcs and nm that the whole engine is modular and can be heavily mofified, the day the game came out there were already mods for nv showing up, 2 days out you could have 15 to 40 mods loaded.

I could see side quests and mini quests being buggy, but the main issue arises is why are there game screeching bugs in some of the main quests? there is a list of q & a testers in the game credits if anything in testing the main quests should have been tested to hell and back. they even have god weapons in the game code to aid testing these q & a should have been abloe to blast through the main quest in no time flat several times over and discovered if you talk to npc x before you talk to npc y it bugs this quest line out and it will just stop, or the end quest where you trigger one event but one of the npcs does not trigger to come out and the game just kind of hangs out and people just stand around doing nothing.

I mean i played thru part of the game twice, and i lost about 20 hours of game time because of at one point a series of saves going corrupt, and another time when victor spontaneously exploded outside the lucky 38 and i could not even enter without getting shot at. victor also has the odd habit of randomly exploding up in the presidential suite, but when he explodes it does not change anything or bug anything out far as i can tell. But if i could encounter some of these same bugs in 1.5 play throughs why is not the q & a team catching some of them?

But fallout 3 and oblivion were no better or no worse they all had major issues anyone that has played all those games would admit that, not that fo nv is vastly worse than the other games, tho in some cases people claim that overall nv is more stable then fo3 was, and they maybe right but when something does go wrong in nv it goes very wrong and you might be loosing a bunch of hours to backtrack and fix the issue.

Excellent letter. But I think the sad thing is the audience for games is both growing and becoming less discerning. There are enough morons out there with disposable income (or more likely, their parents income) who will just buy anything that strikes their fancy, and if it doesn't work, they will get mad of course, but they wont cease to buy in the future. Most people don't pay strict attention to developer/publisher names, industry-inside news, etc. These are the same dimwits who allow GameStop to continue in their unbridled success. They buy a game, play it for a week or two, trade it in, buy the next one.

Um... Bethesda?

He does realize that New Vegas was developed by Obsidian right? He must. But I didn't think Bethesda had released anything since Fallout 3. Or did they publish New Vegas? need to check that....

Ah, yes. BethSoft published it.

So yes, the criticism is earned here. If the devs muck up (which Obsidian does on a regular basis) the publishers should catch it and bring them to task. Personally, I'd love to see Obsidian absorbed into Bethseda. Put the Obsidian people in the creative department, and get some competent coders to write the damn game.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here