Poll: Is the internet ruining games? Please read before voting

[McClaud]

I'm 50/50 with you.

Let me say this -

Having actually been a gamer BEFORE the Internet started allowing people to patch games, I can say that the quality of a majority of releases is still pretty much the same. Companies aren't cutting corners in games and then saying, "You know, I'll patch up the crappiness later," because most of them still don't fix the game by patching it. The reason they release crappy games in the first place is because they were lazy in the first place. They don't want to do anything - not even PATCH the fucking game. Thus, crappy games will always be crappy games.

However, some games require extra time to develop an independent feature later, outside the initial gameplay. I wish developers would stop ADDING those to the list of things to be in the UNPATCHED version when they knew well enough months ago that it wasn't going to be there until a patch (I'm looking at you, Fable 2).

DLC ... it's okay. I mean, it can be a huge benefit to games that can do with more mods, maps and content. Anything that adds value to a game is good. We need more of that, especially if inspiration strikes a developer after the game comes out. I don't need a Ponyfest 2 video game if the first one can get DLC to add something new and fun.

I do agree, however, that the single player aspect in gaming has been sorely neglected because right now it's "trendy" to release a game with co-op or multiplayer mode while fucking up on the campaign. Hellloooooo? Not everyone wants to play those modes, and the sheer fact that games were fine before those modes showed up should be an indication that some games should stay single player.

 

[Flishiz]

Patches: You have to take into consideration that games today are certainly more massive than they were 20 or even 10 years ago. A finished game could have piled months on development time. By a finished game, I mean one that not only works very well and doesn't have any terrible hidden glitches, but have all the small problems removed as well. As well as the nuance isn't a problem, it shouldn't ruin the game.

 

[godevit]

The internet has some pros and cons ..... on one hand multilayer games can be a great fun but they tend to be shallow and repetitive. on the other hand many game developers try to include multilayer mod in every game they make instead of a deeper storyline and polish the single player.

 

[oliveira8]

In the patch area, you have too see that these days, coding for video games is huge! Its easy to let pass some bugs/code errors, and sometimes you have deadlines to achieve.

Theres some developers like Valve or Blizzard that dont have deadlines and still release games with some bugs. And in playstesting sometimes things pass unoticed till it gets to the masses and people start to break the game, trying to find glitches and crap.

DLC:Needs to go, may it be Horse Armour or online components that should have been shiped with the game. Or make it free.

Multiplayer killed the Singleplayer star.

 

[mechabrae]

I'm a big fan of the internet, especially in gaming. I can get my pathces, which are nothing new, much faster and I can deck my horsey out in shiny armour should said armour take my fancy. I pretend he's a pony of course, but that's largely irrelevant.

What really gets me though, is for a group so much in love with the march of technology, gamers realy don't handle any other form of change well.

 

[Vlane]

Yes and No.

Games are getting worse when it comes to the quality everybody knows that but patches can also fix something that is just unfair (I wonder if Valve ever makes a CS:S update which fixes the AWP).

DLC for games needs but I still want to download full games via Steam, PSN or Xbox Live.

Online gaming is something good and I respect games which have absolutely no single player when the online multiplayer is great (CS:S for example).

 

[Obliterato]

I agree wholeheartedly, I hate it when I get a game I've been waiting for and it has some massive glitch that could have been worked out with a bit more time, I'd rather wait (BTW, Empire: Total War, I'm looking squarely at you on that one).

Don't get me started on Empire, Amazing game, most broken release of recent days, although Dawn of War 2 can be very broken, I cant fiddle with the graphic settings with bugs coming up. Everyone said Fallout 3 had bugs, and it has a few but they were bareable. Empire is just a whole new level of broken, wanna command amazing navies - you can't because of the lag and crashes, what enrages me most is very little has come out of creative assembly about it, inspite of the internet being a great way of reassuring fans that their working on it.

 

[oliveira8]

I agree wholeheartedly, I hate it when I get a game I've been waiting for and it has some massive glitch that could have been worked out with a bit more time, I'd rather wait (BTW, Empire: Total War, I'm looking squarely at you on that one).

Don't get me started on Empire, Amazing game, most broken release of recent days, although Dawn of War 2 can be very broken, I cant fiddle with the graphic settings with bugs coming up. Everyone said Fallout 3 had bugs, and it has a few but they were bareable. Empire is just a whole new level of broken, wanna command amazing navies - you can't because of the lag and crashes, what enrages me most is very little has come out of creative assembly about it, inspite of the internet being a great way of reassuring fans that their working on it.

Hehe 2 or 3 patches ago my crashes got fixed. ^^

Finished a long campaign with the Maratha already, no crashes, slowdowns, bugs or glitches...roll in the gameplay patch.

 

[sms_117b]

Don't get me started on Empire, Amazing game, most broken release of recent days, although Dawn of War 2 can be very broken, I cant fiddle with the graphic settings with bugs coming up. Everyone said Fallout 3 had bugs, and it has a few but they were bareable. Empire is just a whole new level of broken, wanna command amazing navies - you can't because of the lag and crashes, what enrages me most is very little has come out of creative assembly about it, inspite of the internet being a great way of reassuring fans that their working on it.

It's easily the most broken game I've ever played, which isn't good, my faith in Sega and Creative Assembly has been shattered

Hehe 2 or 3 patches ago my crashes got fixed. ^^

Finished a long campaign with the Maratha already, no crashes, slowdowns, bugs or glitches...roll in the gameplay patch.

I'm so jealous of you right now

 

[oliveira8]

Hehe 2 or 3 patches ago my crashes got fixed. ^^

Finished a long campaign with the Maratha already, no crashes, slowdowns, bugs or glitches...roll in the gameplay patch.

I'm so jealous of you right now

Gonna start as Prussia or the Ottomons now. Fun fun. But I want to buy AI that remenbers to do naval invasions then only when all the planets of the Woink solar system are perfectly alligned.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

I must point out a problem with this particular paragraph.

With the rise of patches and downloadable content, developers can rush out a game. Then, when we find these flaws, they will respond with a 'we'll release a patch for it later' remark. Some do, some don't. Regardless, it forces gamers to reserve their judgment on a game until said patch is released.

The developers want to release a finished polished product. The publishers want to make money.

The developers get paid to make a game as soon as they start making it, they see a percentage of sales but their main income arrives on the door as soon as they get a deal from the publisher.

The publisher makes money from sales.

The publisher forces stupid deadlines on the developers to make sure that said publishers get a release when they want it. The act of delaying a game is such a nightmare, especially these days, that the Developers decide that it is better to fix issues after the game has gone to the Publisher rather than wrestle with their overlords.

Its not like developers want to do it in most cases. They don't have a choice. Games are getting more and more complex to the point where getting everything done within the given time is becoming an insurmountable task.

Depending on the problems, most of the developers have patches ready for a fix within a week of release. Hell, EGOSOFT (a small time German developer) released a patch on release day to fix the major bugs as they got shafted by the publisher as well.

 

[Bluntknife]

Yes and no.
I agree that it's letting companies "launch now, patch later" which is a horrible business flaw that I admit the software company I do my work terms at (which shall remain nameless) abuses a lot. The difference in that is our partners are direct clients we are writing software for on commission, so I can give them a mostly working product and tell them what's still not done and why. It's different with a pure consumer base, the game should be at a very high standard on release with few bugs.

I also just hate DLC. Some companies do it okay, most just abuse the hell out of it. It's made a lot of people adopt the "lets be microsoft greedy" motto on consumerism. And, honestly customers do NOT appreciate being nickled and dimed for stupid crap that should be free. A lot of Japanese companies I find just add aesthetic crap to your characters that should have been there to begin with.

I also feel, as you stated, that single player campaigns are getting the nerf. That's not ALL bad so long as your multiplayer is amazing, but that's often not the case. Plus, some people just don't like multiplayer games. The worst is when both are just boring, then you got a bad game.

I agree with you on the DLC.
It realy pisses me off when companies release DLC or map packs you have to buy like a week after the game has been launched.

I find it especialy funny that a few companies are trying to sell DLC for the pc. Looking at your farcry2.
This isn't going to fly with PC gamers I don't think. With consoles you don't have much of a choice cause you don't have access to modding tools but Pc's do, and I'm not about to pay 5 bucks for 3 new weapons when I could download a mod that'll come with them. Or better yet, code them myself.

 

[_Janny_]

Remember what a terrible game Angel of Darkness was? Poor controls, and a terrible camera. The story, however, was interesting, and the graphics, for their time, were pretty good. Imagine if Eidos had said 'we'll release a patch to fix those errors'? Would the game still be lauded? Would they have even released said patch?

The fact that the game is buggy isn't the internet's fault, Eidos just really rushed the guys to finish the game in order to start raking in the money.

 

[squid5580]

Patches are terrible and a SP game should never need one. I am the type who preorders a game months before a game is released. And to drop damn near 70 bucks to find out that they couldn't be bothered to even test the game makes me not want to buy new games. That is a bad place for the industry to be. I do understand and am more forgiving when it comes to MP games. They can't possibly test how millions of people will affect the game.

DLC is both a blessing and a curse. Some are done well and some are ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with new maps to play on except when they are coming a week after release. It also hurts the used market a bit since most people who drop 10 bucks on a game are more likely to keep it.

MP is a game by game basis. Some devs get it right and make a fun MP experience. Most don't and feel the need to include it for no other reason to have it on the back of the box.

 

[A Random Player]

FACT: The Internet ruins everything eventually.

Really, the only thing I like about Halo are the books by Eric Nylund (and no one else). The games are just run of the mill FPS games, with nothing new. Some people praise the story, but as an avid reader (and writer) I found the plot of the games to be predictable and uninteresting.

Replaying all the Halo games, I share these feelings as well.

 

[bindox]

The problem you are running into, I think, is that you are playing the games the devs didnt take the time to revamp before they made an online version. They try to keep the money rolling in before the franchise dies. Warcraft is the ultimate example of this.

 

[gustcq]

Imo no,
Not every1 has the capacity to pay a monthly fee to play an online game, so they stay with console gaming. In my case my last console was a ps2 and stuck to PC gaming but every now and then i ask me friends to borrow me a console so i can enjoy some games i cant play on pc

 

[new_age_reject]

Remember when we were all waiting for Twilight Princess to come out? Of course not. After the delayed release, we knew it was a complete, amazing game, so everyone forgot.

It doesn't hurt to wait until its done.

Totally, completely agree with you on that point.
I don't mind patches that add to the game at a later date however, as long as they release a full working game in the first place!

The online gaming thing I both agree and disagree with you. With some games it really does feel like the developers have skimped on the single player campaigns in favour of the multiplayer, which sometimes doesn't even turn out all that great anyway.
However, with some games, the multiplayer mode can only add to the gaming experience. There are certain game types that shouldn't even have some half assed single player campaign when the multiplayer was always going to be so much better.

 

[Shycte]

It depends on the game. BioShock was amazing without any multiplayer.

If Left 4 Dead was with split-screen only, it would have sucked.

Just look at TimeSplitters 2, best game ever and it don't have any internet supported gameplay.

 

[Socdk]

Tough one... I really don't feel that companies take advantage of us by using patches, as much as you obviously do. Where the problem lies for me (and they are related) is that some companies makes miniscule testing of games, and use the costumers as testers. I'd like to see companies forced to do a certain amount of testing before being allowed to release a game.

About downloadable content. THIS is where I get annoyed, mostly because I'm starting to see a tendency. EA are showing signs that every game they release from now on will have extra features availible but for a price. This is not right. I remember when Skate 2 hit the streets. I don't even think a day went by before you could buy extra replay editing tools! I hate EA for this. It's a feature thats readily availible on release day, therefore it should be included in the game that we already pay a good amount of money for. It was so obvious that it was in the original plans for the game, but then left out for the purpose of cashing in on this.