Are some game developers not "finishing" video games completely before launch.

[Gildan Bladeborn]

This is harly new, look at KOTOR 2 or Fallout 2 both were rushed and buggy. It's just that now the developers are in a better position to patch them, it's not ideal but it's better.

???...I never had any problems running KOTOR II......

There's a few sections of the story missing that the developers said were left out 'cause Lucas Arts didn't give them enough time to finish it.

ooooooh. i guess it WOULD have been nice if there had been more story

More than just a few sections of the story actually, the entire ending was a hastily slapped together mish-mash that didn't make any sense because of all the content that was missing (but already voiced and partially scripted and in fact shipped on the game disc), there were certain cutscenes that would just never trigger because of bugs in the scripting language, lots of locations felt kind of barren because in the rush all sorts of planned content was cut, and so on.

Fortunately there were enterprising modders at work, and one team has actually released [http://www.deadlystream.com/downloads.php?do=cat&id=5] (unlike Team Gizka) - the open beta for the Restoration Project is out now (link goes to the download page for the mod and a few subsequent patches).

Owners of the console version are pretty much screwed, but at least the PC gamers can play the game as it was supposed to be.

 

[scnj]

And they are withholding, alot of companies. It is theoretically finished if the main story is completable, but if you have whole DLC planned prior to, thats stupid.
DLC should be "Crap, I just had a great idea for that game...but we released it already...I know..DLC!"

The development of games is finished months prior to release, so the team is either allocated to a different project within the company, laid off entirely, or left with nothing to do. Now, with the advent of DLC, the team can stay together and continue to produce content. Sometimes that content is finished and ready in time for the game's release, but it can't be packaged in with the finished game, because it's been ready on the discs for a while. It can't be released for free because it cost money to make and that money has to be brought back in somehow. The result is day one DLC.

I'd prefer patches then. And they should atleast pretend it wasnt pre-emptive. And that just seems like wasted time. Either fix the game more, or release it sooner.

The game has to go through final testing, then box art has to be created. Then it has to be sent off for classification. Then they have to market it (trailers, adverts etc) and pick the best release date for it.

But do they not have different people for these things. I dont think the devs are the advertisers.

No, but that process doesn't begin until the game is finished. Hence why developers are then tasked with creating DLC rather than being let go from the company.

 

[flying_whimsy]

Oddly enough I just picked up Section 8 on clearance and was thinking "boy, this game sure would be nice if it were finished."

While I usually want to blame a lot of that unfinished feeling on rushed development schedules, I can't help but think there is a certain point where developers just get scared off at the idea of putting any more work into a project. It's that concept of cutting and running when a company realizes that their project simply isn't going to perform as expected. Section 8 is somewhat buggy and the single player is very very very short; while the game was primarily targeted at the multiplayer crowd (I'm not even sure why I bought this game anymore) I can't help but feel that a little more effort and some shred of creativity could have put this game on a tier rivaling the beastie top FPS franchises. But they got scared of the amount of work the story mode was demanding, because if it flopped they would be out even more money. I understand cutting your losses and all, but a little more vision would mean I could be fragging my way through interplanetary war with a jetpack right now.

A lot of companies, and this isn't just game devs, seem to be stuck with the concept of acceptable losses: sure, release a half-finished or terrible product or service and get some sales from it rather than wait and work more on it to get something that has equally good chances of being terrible or brilliant. Guaranteed money, I guess you could call it. I suppose that's better than waiting an entire generation to then not release a game. However, Valve is probably the best and most frustrating example of a company that takes its time to deliver quality product. And yes, I would very much like Half-Life 2: Episode 3 to come out before I have to retire.

EDIT: I just remembered Halo 3: ODST and its amazing trailer and bewilderingly dissimilar gameplay. From what I heard, the developers weren't able to get the original concept going and Microsoft had just enough time to step in and hammer out a little Halo Clone by the release date. Not sure where that fits into my discussion above, but it's relevant.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Any game published by Bethesda is just chock full of bugs and glitches...

Mostly because their games are so massive that it's hard to test every single area of the game.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I've been gaming on PC for a while so patching glitches doesn't bother me really.
What bothers me is when they sandbag a game hoping to get the fans of the franchise into buying overpriced dlc: I'm looking at you gta4

At least they do finish them on the ps3 or 360. You should be happy, most Wii games (like No More Heroes) are just as crappy and half done as they were at launch.

 

[Jark212]

Mercs2... That really pissed me off...

 

[Twad]

Its almost like we're paying them to let US test the game!?!?

Theyre not finishing and testing them properly because they know sales wont be affected by a slightly buggy game and that we the community will find these bugs, tell them and they can pay someone $5/hour to write the patch.

This is as much our fault as it is theirs!

Indeed, they give us what we accept to buy. If we dont agree with something, we obviously dont show it in our buying decisions.
We accept broken games. They give us broken games.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

You could be right. Maybe they don't test a game as thouroughly nowadays so they can get it out there earlier. That's not a problem though, as long as they patch it and they don't leave any game breaking glitches in. A fair amount of glitches actually make games more fun.

What annoys me is when game developers leave out content for DLC. Now in some cases it may be that they start working on DLC after the game's finished but before it's released and that's OK (although they probably reserve ideas for it that would otherwise have gone on the disc) but there are definitely times when content is purposely excluded. There have been some games with "DLC" that actually just unlocks content already on the disc. Not cool.

 

[darkhawk918]

It just means game testers aren't doing their job properly

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I don't mind one or two glitches in a game and obviously there will be the occasional random glitch that occurs every so often, but some games are a lot more noticable then others. Fortunatly, I haven't noticed any that really come to mind. Maybe I'm just lucky.

 

[Svenparty]

It often feels like designers say "Lets fix this up in post" and screw anyone over that isn;t online.


Like the game breaking glitches for Fable 2. All the Devs said was "Well the patch is out soon!"

 

[DemonI81]

I firmly believe that developers are taking advantage of the idea of patching.
Now they can get games out earlier and not pay testers.
Once the game releases they look at the reported problems and can then decide what's the easiest, cheapest, glitches they can fix with minimal effort and fix only those ones.
DICE, IW, Bethesda are just a few of the companies that do this.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Of course they're not fi9nishing games. How else are they supposed to make money even after the game has passed it's main selling time? DLC is the golden saviour of gamer developers.

 

[Virus0015]

Its almost like we're paying them to let US test the game!?!?

Theyre not finishing and testing them properly because they know sales wont be affected by a slightly buggy game and that we the community will find these bugs, tell them and they can pay someone $5/hour to write the patch.

This is as much our fault as it is theirs!

Well not really. Developers don't know where bugs are (or else they wouldn't be in the game). If we don't tell them what is wrong then they will simply not fix it.

And they dont know where the bugs are because they dont test and finish their games properly.

Its not our job to find the bugs that proper testing should have uncovered long before release.

Your point lacks any validity.

What I'm saying is that they do not care if there are bugs in their game at release, they are happy as long as they have our money. If we do not tell them about the bugs and how to fix them then the game will remain ruined (e.g. the COD javelin glitch), and it will never be fixed. Refusing to report bugs only serves to disadvantage us gamers by continuing to have a broken game, it's unfair but the developer won't make an active effort to spot bugs in a game they already sold to us because they lose out on nothing.

 

[BlackWidower]

It's because now they can release it sooner and patch the bugs at a later date.

 

[Terramax]

Well, you could say that, but then again, new games (should) have massive ammounts of content and a wide variety of things that can be done in them, so thorough testing may be impractical and could be very expensive.

The way I see it many games now have too much content. Case study: Far Cry 2 was at least 2x longer than it needed to be. It dragged things out by making you repeat the same missions countless times so you played for 40-60hrs when it could've been just 20, but an immensly enjoyable 20.

 

[The Heik]

Its almost like we're paying them to let US test the game!?!?

Theyre not finishing and testing them properly because they know sales wont be affected by a slightly buggy game and that we the community will find these bugs, tell them and they can pay someone $5/hour to write the patch.

This is as much our fault as it is theirs!

Well not really. Developers don't know where bugs are (or else they wouldn't be in the game). If we don't tell them what is wrong then they will simply not fix it.

You know that there are professional game testers who actually are paid to do any crazy thing to see what could make the game bug out.

Evidently these guys are finding it hard to get work nowadays

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Alot of games are, look at the console ports of Oblivion bugged to fuck and in some cases render the game unplayable.

 

[Gindil]

One thing always baffled me when I played bad games - and I mean really bad - don't the developer realize how shit this game is? It's so obvious that it's shit. And if they do see it, how come they're releasing it if it's so shit... This was back when I was still naive and though developers cared about gamers...

Simple answer really. Economics. If a developer can recoup the losses by having a game put out into the market and sold, they'll usually do so. Of course this can come to bite them in the behind. Look at Midway.