Open Letter to People Who Make Games

[Srkkl]

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.

 

[2xDouble]

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.

 

[LastMondaysHangover]

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

 

[Keith K]

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

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

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.

 

[teisjm]

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.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Fearzone]

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.

 

[Dogstar060763]

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.

 

[Sir Prize]

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.

 

[ZelosRaine]

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.

 

[Srdjan]

You said them Russ.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[ryai458]

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..

 

[SinisterGehe]

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?

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

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.

 

[veloper]

I reckon it could have been said in fewer words.

Don't sell broken games plz.

 

[Levethian]

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.

 

[SinisterGehe]

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. ^^

 

[Okysho]

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!