Poll: Is there such thing as overpolishing a game?

[StarStruckStrumpets]

A game without flaws wouldn't be a game. It'd be something that the almighty dragon deity has sent from his rainbow kingdom of the starborn to show us how powerful he is. I like a game to have some flaws, otherwise it doesn't feel like a game. I need something to complain about. I also like it when I find a glitch that is either funny or useful.

Vote no for overpolishing!

 

[internetzealot1]

I'd rather it take long than spend $60 on a game that doesn't play right.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I want a game to be as close to perfect as possible.

I HATE buggy and glitchy games that are shipped out and patched later. We are not your fucking beta testers so take the time to get it right!

What about Infamous. That game is awesome and is practically made of vehicles glitches. (I am pretty sure that just because a truck is crackling with electricity it doesn't magically become intangible to other vehicles ... but then again if it was magic electriciy???)

 

[Shadowfaze]

if it does what it was supposed to do, it seems a little annoying to push the release date back a FEW MORE MONTHS to "give it a bit more polish".

 

[DrDeath3191]

If you take too long, you get Duke Nukem Forever. I don't like glitches, but I want to play the damned game in my lifetime.

 

[Adam]

Im very patient with my games because if I get a game that is riddled with bugs then its a complete waste of time and money for me. I want my games to be perfect in the sense of no bugs and attention to detail. If a game has no bugs and is a good game overall then I know I can come back to that game over and over again.

 

[T-Bone24]

Spore was delayed for 4 years. I'd say that's overpolishing.

Also, Duke Nukem Forever was continuously delayed after every new engine was released, to remake the game in that engine, whether that is polishing it is up to YOU.

 

[Ace of Spades]

To sum it up, a game cannot be overpolished, but developers can definitely spend too much time polishing it. I'm looking at you Valve.

 

[Ossum]

Praise be to the pre-broadband and cartridge days where a bug in the game meant severe lost profits from returns and recalls...

Sure the games were simpler to make back then but seriously... bugs suck.

 

[j0z]

I don't want a game with a lot of bugs and glitches, or with gameplay/balance issues. But I would like to play the game in my lifetime. So, I say get the game in very good shape, and release it. Then actively patch and improve the game. NOT release a half completed game and let the modding community fix it (STALKER, Oblivion).

 

[Quick Ben]

I'd rather wait a long time and then get an excellent game than getting a rushed game which could have been so much better if they had taken the extra time.

Team Fortress 2 took nine years between announcement and release. Was it worth it? Hell yea!

 

[Dubkip]

I rather have a lag free and bug free game than a piece of junk with terrible lag and bugs everywhere, But I don't like to wait to long too so I would say clean the game up until it has very minor bugs and patch those up. I don't think a game can be over polished either because once you fix one bug an other could show up.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I'll be happy to wait a couple more months if that means that the game is a lot better. Quality first and foremost for me.