Should "serious gamers" just accept buggy games?

Agreed, especially if you pre-order a game's deluxe/special edition and love the series and then it turns out to be unplayable because of bugs. (FONV) That completely ruins the magic of the game until they fix it.

Launching a game before it's been extensively tested for common bugs and what should be tested for in every game is completely inexcusable. A major gaming company shouldn't launch a game while it's filled with glitches just so they don't have to push back a launch date, I'd much rather wait a few extra months to have a wonderful game than to have a rushed piece of garbage.

I agree, I hate rushed games though I understand bugs occur but I mean didn't they encounter them during testing? So I would totally wait an extra few months for a polished game, such as Portal 2.

No, I don't mind if games take a lot longer to be released, so long as they're of a good standard. Brink will hopefully be a good example of this.

I think it's kind of funny how much the gamers now are willing to accept game breaking bugs from the launch of a game. Seriously? How many bugs did anyone encounter when games were released on any console before the 360 and ps3, the concept of games have come a long way but it looks like we've sacrificed the quality to see it pushed out a bit faster. With the addition of high speed internet in just about every gamers household and the development companies able to push out a fix as soon as possible it's almost as if some unsaid agreement has been reached, exchanging fantastic graphics and additions for a few bugs that break the entire game from the moment the disc is read. I'm a bit appalled at the fact that we're paying these companies to give us broken goods, I've easily given over $80's for a spectacular collectors edition of a busted game... I'm looking at you New Vegas.

I think that the quality of service from the industry needs to be re-examined.

Apples_mmmmmmmm said: Launching a game before it's been extensively tested for common bugs and what should be tested for in every game is completely inexcusable. A major gaming company shouldn't launch a game while it's filled with glitches just so they don't have to push back a launch date, I'd much rather wait a few extra months to have a wonderful game than to have a rushed piece of garbage.

This.

Unfortunately most developers have deadlines to meet. Especially the smaller ones. Only big developers like Activion Blizzard have all the time in the world to polish their games and work out bugs.

SpyMoose said: I think it's kind of funny how much the gamers now are willing to accept game breaking bugs from the launch of a game. Seriously? How many bugs did anyone encounter when games were released on any console before the 360 and ps3, the concept of games have come a long way but it looks like we've sacrificed the quality to see it pushed out a bit faster. With the addition of high speed internet in just about every gamers household and the development companies able to push out a fix as soon as possible it's almost as if some unsaid agreement has been reached, exchanging fantastic graphics and additions for a few bugs that break the entire game from the moment the disc is read. I'm a bit appalled at the fact that we're paying these companies to give us broken goods, I've easily given over $80's for a spectacular collectors edition of a busted game... I'm looking at you New Vegas.

I think that the quality of service from the industry needs to be re-examined.

I agree with you 100%. I'm willing to wait longer for a game to release rather than getting a pile of crap.

vile_things said:

...

This.

Unfortunately most developers have deadlines to meet. Especially the smaller ones. Only big developers like Activion Blizzard have all the time in the world to polish their games and work out bugs.

Most deadlines are actually quite flexible, if they weren't then games would always be released on the initial deadline (which obviously is not the case). And I actually view it the other way around; while bigger companies do have larger assets to work with and the ability to hire the manpower they need, they are expected to honor their word and release on the given announced release date. If they don't then the company is seen as being less consistent, causing stocks to fall, and loss of consumer trust and respect.

On the other hand independent developers while having limited resources are also more flexible on when they release the game. Since only a small team is working their games at any given time, they are able to decide when they think the game is ready for launch. Of course this leniency tends to dissolve once they sign on with a large corporation in return for more assets to work with. (Take the Dishwasher for example, this was being developed by a single man on his spare time from his actual job. Once he signed on with Microsoft however, he was under certain restrictions and deadlines that he hadn't previously been restricted to.)

LOL New Vegas is the buggiest game ever? Apparently he never played Saints Row 2 on the PC. The fact of the matter is, we're paying these fools 50+ US Dollars for a product that is supposed to be complete, it was never said that we were purchasing beta or Alpha software, and thus we shouldn't get a game that could barely pass for an open beta release. Now this doesn't change the fact that Black Ops is a terrible game, but without the bugs it could pass as Mediocre. This is an increasing problem in the games industry as publishers are begining to claim PC is a dead market. I realize it's unreasonable to test the games on the infinite numbers of hardware configurations that people have. However if people are reporting problems on every hardware config, then obviously the blame is on the company.

As for deadlines, deadlines get missed all the time, by big and small Devs, as long as you're not pulling a DNF most publishers could care less.

By the way, Activision isn't a developer of anything anymore, they're a publisher, to the person above.

We pay about 90 dollars for the full game, not including the pieces they cut and sell individually as DLC for $15 dollars each, and they're so busy trying to get a deadline in November (A game that glorifies war that sells on frigging' REMEMBRANCE DAY?) for their yearly cash grab, that they accept that if they ignore any complaints for a year, people will stop caring by the time the new game comes out. (Untrue of course, the cod series died with Modern Warfare 1) Of course, when people encounter game-breaking bugs before getting past the loadingscreen, then that's just sloppy.

Rather than miss a deadline and the impulse buyers, they intend to ship out the scraps that can barely pass as a game and send us patches eventually, but even then only if people raise enough concerns. Smart monetary-wise, but rather resembling a fourth grader scrambling with a science project the day before then handing in what he has in hopes of a passing grade...

It really does depend how bad the bugs are.
Minor graphical glitches and such are acceptable... but really if it has a noticeable negative effect on game-play then it needs to be delayed until it's fixed. Seems like nobody likes hiring game testers nowadays.

Well no one understands why they lunch a game theat has bugs ! Since if the game is buged youl let ather people know the game is buged and they let ather people know and so on ! In the end youl just make the game useles and you worked for nothing !

bugs and bad code seem to be inherent within the gaming community, i think there is always going to have to be a level of acceptance to this. its not likely they will lose sales numbers to this, as well as the amount of complaining, it's never going to be perfect.

styuR said: No, I don't mind if games take a lot longer to be released, so long as they're of a good standard. Brink will hopefully be a good example of this.

Well if brink has a big succes maby other will follow this strategy and hopefully they won't rush the realeses of the games that much enymore.

ofc not why does anyone have to accept buggy games its just that most developers are incompetent to make a game with no or at least minimal bugs (minimal means 1 bug max)

i accept you

i had a dream

i accept you baby bloom )

cmncdr said: bugs and bad code seem to be inherent within the gaming community, i think there is always going to have to be a level of acceptance to this. its not likely they will lose sales numbers to this, as well as the amount of complaining, it's never going to be perfect.

Indeed :/