why do dev release games like these

#1dennis941012Posted 2/14/2013 2:16:49 AM
they must know that it will fail miserably @_@
why not wait pour more effort into it and release a better product?
---
(>")> <(' ')> <("<)
~GameFAQs LoL Board Supreme Leader~> voted by http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/user.php?=89123
#2gandonkingPosted 2/14/2013 4:06:06 AM
Games are ran by banks nowadays, that's why. We have ran into the dark ages of the industry. Expect nothing new or great for a decade.
#3pouTHEstampedePosted 2/14/2013 5:15:05 AM
Publisher deadlines. The publisher contractually has the right to sue the dev if they don't deliver on time. Dev looks at potential of lost money due to low sales or reputation damage and compares it to how much they're liable for per the contract and decides whether to release the game in its current state or not.
---
"P.S. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated"
#4TheJCBandPosted 2/14/2013 12:22:49 PM
Ok new question: Why is this the final product when the deadline was 6 years after the announcement?
---
Wind Fish in name only, for it is neither.
#5julbull73Posted 2/14/2013 12:40:00 PM
gandonking posted...
Games are ran by banks nowadays, that's why. We have ran into the dark ages of the industry. Expect nothing new or great for a decade.


Yeah we are in the dark ages of gaming.

That's why there's all these great games to play, because we are in the dark ages of gaming.

That's why we have more graphic processing power and ability to model physics than ever before. Because we are in the dark ages of gaming.

That's why games are starting to be seen akin to movies and literature as an artform and not as "kid" things. Because we are in the dark ages of gaming.

FFS, take your nostalgia glasses of for friggin' second or play some games that are out there. Suggestions (off the top of my head without actually looking up GOTY nominees):

The Witcher 1 or 2.
Portal 1 or 2.
Xcom: Enemy Unkown.
Skyrim (if you like open world RPG's)
Left 4 Dead 2 (it comes with 1 basically. :))
The Mass Effect series.
Dragon Age: Origins
Red Dead Revolver/Redemption

If you want to limit yourself to it's just Call of Duty. Then yes, we are in a dark age. However the dark is due to your own eyelids and the age is the length of time it takes you to open your eyes.

Because in whatever gilded age you speak of before the dark ages there were never any bad games with a lot of hype.
#6MastadiPosted 2/14/2013 1:03:23 PM
julbull73 posted...
gandonking posted...
Games are ran by banks nowadays, that's why. We have ran into the dark ages of the industry. Expect nothing new or great for a decade.


Yeah we are in the dark ages of gaming.

That's why there's all these great games to play, because we are in the dark ages of gaming.

That's why we have more graphic processing power and ability to model physics than ever before. Because we are in the dark ages of gaming.

That's why games are starting to be seen akin to movies and literature as an artform and not as "kid" things. Because we are in the dark ages of gaming.

FFS, take your nostalgia glasses of for friggin' second or play some games that are out there. Suggestions (off the top of my head without actually looking up GOTY nominees):

The Witcher 1 or 2.
Portal 1 or 2.
Xcom: Enemy Unkown.
Skyrim (if you like open world RPG's)
Left 4 Dead 2 (it comes with 1 basically. :))
The Mass Effect series.
Dragon Age: Origins
Red Dead Revolver/Redemption

If you want to limit yourself to it's just Call of Duty. Then yes, we are in a dark age. However the dark is due to your own eyelids and the age is the length of time it takes you to open your eyes.

Because in whatever gilded age you speak of before the dark ages there were never any bad games with a lot of hype.


You cannot really argue that there aren't bad things happening to the gaming industry as a whole which negatively affect most gamers.

The industry is trying to attract more and more players, which leads to dumbing down of many games to make them more accessible.

The processing power you speak of is barely ever utilised close to full potential, thanks to outdated consoles being the primary target market.

And sure, we are still getting great games, and will likely keep getting them as long as video games exist as a medium. The issue is though, games are becoming more and more costly to make, forcing developers and publishers to cut corners and utilise non-customer friendly practices in order to maximise profits.

The potential for this to be the golden age of gaming is there. Sadly, it is only really golden for the companies behind.
---
I would use a nude male mod with equipable underwear just so I can enchant a pair of magical boxers. - Nexus_Nocturnal.
#7Relen222Posted 2/14/2013 1:27:43 PM(edited)
Eventually the market will find a balance. Some people love Scorsese, others want family friendly Disney films. The industry will find a way to accomodate both. I'm not sure I agree that games are "dumbing down"--less complex in some ways? Sure. But It's not always a bad thing. Less time spent finding a quest objective is a good thing in my book, as it allows more time to do other things. It can go badly however--not allowing gamers to pick their own race in Dragon Age 2 was a step back in my opinion. So it depends on the kind of change.

Ultimately, games are about fun. Despite the dlc nonsense and pumped-out sequels, I've never had as much fun with games as I've had in the last generation. The SNES/PSOne era comes close...but it was limited by the technology of the time. There was no way we could have had the kind of open-world games like Sleeping Dogs or Skyrim then. The developers of that era did the best they could with what they had.

It's hard to see in the moment but I think we will look back on this era as a sort of golden gaming era. Even the PS3 vs. XBOX 360 rivalry reminds me of the Genesis vs. Nintendo arguments of the late 80s and 90s.
#8julbull73Posted 2/14/2013 2:24:43 PM

You cannot really argue that there aren't bad things happening to the gaming industry as a whole which negatively affect most gamers.

The industry is trying to attract more and more players, which leads to dumbing down of many games to make them more accessible.

The processing power you speak of is barely ever utilised close to full potential, thanks to outdated consoles being the primary target market.

And sure, we are still getting great games, and will likely keep getting them as long as video games exist as a medium. The issue is though, games are becoming more and more costly to make, forcing developers and publishers to cut corners and utilise non-customer friendly practices in order to maximise profits.

The potential for this to be the golden age of gaming is there. Sadly, it is only really golden for the companies behind.



I can and do argue that all eras of gaming had bad things happening. What is happening now is closer to a renaissance than the dark ages. (If we're going to stick to historical era metaphors. :D)

How are games getting dumbed down? When aged gamers like ourselves speak of dumbed down games, we normally reference games where the challenge was in overcoming the massively inferior controls. The cheap, abusive, and in most cases "cheating" AI. Or the horrible response and unforgiving designs.That's not dumbed down or lower skill, that's hiding a technological gap by saying it's a difficulty setting and ironically was a money making technique. Making games cheap meant more quarters during gaming's infancy.

But just sticking to FPS's even the "golden" age of FPS's (doom, duke nukem, RoTT) the skill level equated to the following, hold strafe and fire. Compare that to today's FPS's where strafing, verticle movement, positioning, sight flashing, sprint toggling, cover use, and others all come in to play.

Even in story driven games, the stories haven't changed. That's the problem that is most often brought up and is correct. So to say the story/plots are being dumbed down is ridiculous. The only thing that's actually happened is that people now recognize the contrived plots for what they are. It's like watching your favorite 80's cartoon and realizing the plots were just silly. Go watch He-man/She-ra or Gi Joe and tell me they are amazing as when you first saw them.

Further, an expanding market is a good thing. A larger market allows for companies to take bigger risks and for innovators to get bigger rewards when they succeed. This is called progress and this has existed since the 80's first brought gaming into the main stream.

It's clear you put on a PC elitist hat, excluding consoles as "outdated" despite the fact that consoles are still mid level PC's and play even the most power hungry PC games on medium or medium/high. Doesn't make them outdated, that makes them current.

On top of that, some of the best games I've ever played and are considered as "hall of fame" games are or started as console exclusives! Uncharted series, Gears of War, Mass Effect series, Battletoads, most of the Nintendo first party games.

I'm sorry if you are blinded by the few poor games that are released so that you don't see the others that are true works of art.

Even gaming as a whole is now seen as a hobby and common. Compared to gamers being social outcast prior. Gaming is alive, healthy, and well, it's hardly in a dark age.
#9MastadiPosted 2/14/2013 3:07:37 PM(edited)
julbull73 posted...
How are games getting dumbed down?


It's not just the controls and difficulty. The games do become easier as a direct result of this, but that's not an issue - that's what difficulty levels were invented for, so that players of all skill levels can have an enjoyable experience.

And just because there's more actions you can do in an FPS doesn't make it harder. The main issue with modern FPS' games that I personally have is the movement, or rather the limitations imposed on it. Compare even an arcade shooter like CoD with something like Quake. Combat involves a lot less movement, and is reduced to merely means of moving from one place to another. It honestly feels to me like a shooting gallery with some freedom of movement than a proper FPS game. In the older games, dodging and preventing the enemy from actually setting their sights on you was an integral part of combat, but it's nearly useless in most modern games due to the slowing down of player's speed.

As for the stories of games, I don't have issue with what they are - both older and newer games have their good and bad ones, the truly interesting ones and the cheesy ones just put there to serve as a reason to kill more baddies. I do, however, have an issue when a game which should have a decent story and quality writing doesn't. Consider Skyrim, for instance. The characters are simply boring and flat. Even compared to Oblivion, they lack personality, and the quests aren't as nearly fleshed out as the ones from previous games, especially the various guilds.


Further, an expanding market is a good thing. A larger market allows for companies to take bigger risks and for innovators to get bigger rewards when they succeed. This is called progress and this has existed since the 80's first brought gaming into the main stream.


The people who are willing to buy 'risky' games are those who already were gamers to begin with. People who are only starting to game are more likely to stick to well established franchises and simple casual games.

It's clear you put on a PC elitist hat, excluding consoles as "outdated" despite the fact that consoles are still mid level PC's and play even the most power hungry PC games on medium or medium/high. Doesn't make them outdated, that makes them current.


Hardware wise, no. The consoles are vastly outperformed by an average gaming PC. We just don't get to see that power utilised often for reasons I mentioned before. Going back to Skyrim, consider the graphical mods made by fans using a somewhat limiting engine. If devs focused on PC in terms of graphics first, we'd be seeing a lot more beautiful PC games.

On top of that, some of the best games I've ever played and are considered as "hall of fame" games are or started as console exclusives!


I don't have an issue with consoles, What I do have issue with, however, is devs limiting themselves to an outdated hardware for some unknown reason.

I'm sorry if you are blinded by the few poor games that are released so that you don't see the others that are true works of art.

Even gaming as a whole is now seen as a hobby and common. Compared to gamers being social outcast prior. Gaming is alive, healthy, and well, it's hardly in a dark age.


I'm not saying that gaming is in a bad state. There are brilliant games being released which we couldn't dream of even a couple years back. However, that doesn't mean that all is good within the industry. There are major issues which the developers and publishers benefit from at the cost of the player.
#10MadellePosted 2/14/2013 3:11:06 PM
pouTHEstampede posted...
Publisher deadlines. The publisher contractually has the right to sue the dev if they don't deliver on time. Dev looks at potential of lost money due to low sales or reputation damage and compares it to how much they're liable for per the contract and decides whether to release the game in its current state or not.


In this case, I think Sega had afforded Gearbox more than enough time throughout 6 years of development and continual delays. At this point I doubt the game will even turn a profit.
---
"In the depths of winter I finally found in myself an invincible summer" ~Albert Camus