The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Plenty of people have said that one of the main advantages of consoles is the lack of need for patches in order to cope with different systems.
As far as I can see, there are 3 main types of patches which occur on PCs today. These are:
1)Patches which solve bugs on different systems. This is clearly a disadvantage of a PC
2)Patches which add new features. Although you could say that the game should have come with these features to begin with, this will normally be considered an advantage because the manufacturer can add to the game even after it is released. With consoles adding internet capability and hard-disk facilities, it looks as if this will soon appear on consoles too.
3)Patche which simply solve bugs and problems which were in the original version and were present on all machines. I think that this is disgraceful, and more and more companies are using patches in order to be able to release a product without proper testing. This is nothing to do with the PC as a gaming platform, and the only reason it doesn't occur on consoles (at least not very often), is because manufacturers know that it is not possible to produce patches to fix this sort of problem on consoles. If consoles are to have hard-disks and internet facilities, then this problem could soon move onto other platforms. Therefore, for the most part, I think that the PC as a console has been unfairly critisised due to the many patches which are required in order to play many games properly.
As far as I can see, there are 3 main types of patches which occur on PCs today. These are:
1)Patches which solve bugs on different systems. This is clearly a disadvantage of a PC
2)Patches which add new features. Although you could say that the game should have come with these features to begin with, this will normally be considered an advantage because the manufacturer can add to the game even after it is released. With consoles adding internet capability and hard-disk facilities, it looks as if this will soon appear on consoles too.
3)Patche which simply solve bugs and problems which were in the original version and were present on all machines. I think that this is disgraceful, and more and more companies are using patches in order to be able to release a product without proper testing. This is nothing to do with the PC as a gaming platform, and the only reason it doesn't occur on consoles (at least not very often), is because manufacturers know that it is not possible to produce patches to fix this sort of problem on consoles. If consoles are to have hard-disks and internet facilities, then this problem could soon move onto other platforms. Therefore, for the most part, I think that the PC as a console has been unfairly critisised due to the many patches which are required in order to play many games properly.
Page:
Aahhh! I understand now Mr Savant!
What are you on (about)?
Ha, ha, funny joke??? (or something)
Ha, ha, funny joke??? (or something)
nerf?
Armatige:
Well, then you got out just in time. OSI went insane and basically just started to nerf people, seemingly, just to nerf people. Really, it just got insane, and they weren't the only group to do it: Turbine/Microsoft did it with AC and Verant made it a newfound job requirement with EQ. Very, very bad. Frankly, most players I talk to nowadays cringe whenever any of these companies announces a patch that's coming up.
Well, then you got out just in time. OSI went insane and basically just started to nerf people, seemingly, just to nerf people. Really, it just got insane, and they weren't the only group to do it: Turbine/Microsoft did it with AC and Verant made it a newfound job requirement with EQ. Very, very bad. Frankly, most players I talk to nowadays cringe whenever any of these companies announces a patch that's coming up.
PseudoSavant wrote:
My God, what MMOG are
> *you* playing and where can I sign up? Seriously, man, because this
> in no way describes how the average gamer feels regarding patches
> made to UO, EQ, or AC. Nerfs occur quite often; players get annoyed
> like hell and quit. There's a reason why, if you go to any site with
> conversations about MMOGs, they'll either be talking about the
> dreaded 'nerf monster' or will become irate the moment you mention
> them.
Used to be a UO player... And up until I stopped playing (about Nov last year I think?) All their patches were game updates, (real updates to the software, not fixes) or game tweaks...
Due to the type of game, theres never going to be a time when everybody is happy with the rules...
PKing, strenth of wizards, time needed to develop a character, etc... but they didnt ever claim they had the game perfected... they generally seemed to be listening to users desires... and changing the game as requested... and then... if the change didnt work, they would change it back again
My God, what MMOG are
> *you* playing and where can I sign up? Seriously, man, because this
> in no way describes how the average gamer feels regarding patches
> made to UO, EQ, or AC. Nerfs occur quite often; players get annoyed
> like hell and quit. There's a reason why, if you go to any site with
> conversations about MMOGs, they'll either be talking about the
> dreaded 'nerf monster' or will become irate the moment you mention
> them.
Used to be a UO player... And up until I stopped playing (about Nov last year I think?) All their patches were game updates, (real updates to the software, not fixes) or game tweaks...
Due to the type of game, theres never going to be a time when everybody is happy with the rules...
PKing, strenth of wizards, time needed to develop a character, etc... but they didnt ever claim they had the game perfected... they generally seemed to be listening to users desires... and changing the game as requested... and then... if the change didnt work, they would change it back again
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Patches for MMOG's are great, since these kind of titles are always in a state of development and change.
Though they seem to be more updates than patches to gameplay... tweaks and enhancements... <
My God, what MMOG are *you* playing and where can I sign up? Seriously, man, because this in no way describes how the average gamer feels regarding patches made to UO, EQ, or AC. Nerfs occur quite often; players get annoyed like hell and quit. There's a reason why, if you go to any site with conversations about MMOGs, they'll either be talking about the dreaded 'nerf monster' or will become irate the moment you mention them.
> Patches for MMOG's are great, since these kind of titles are always in a state of development and change.
Though they seem to be more updates than patches to gameplay... tweaks and enhancements... <
My God, what MMOG are *you* playing and where can I sign up? Seriously, man, because this in no way describes how the average gamer feels regarding patches made to UO, EQ, or AC. Nerfs occur quite often; players get annoyed like hell and quit. There's a reason why, if you go to any site with conversations about MMOGs, they'll either be talking about the dreaded 'nerf monster' or will become irate the moment you mention them.
PseudoSavant wrote:
> In a situation like the current MMOGs [Ultima Online,
> Asheron's Call, and Everquest], where the gamer is placed in an
> open-ended environment,
I dont disagree... but I was meaning more standard single player off-line titles...
Patches for MMOG's are great, since these kind of titles are always in a state of development and change.
Though they seem to be more updates than patches to gameplay... tweaks and enhancements...
& Even so, due to their nature of live updates, the need for patches is more acceptable?
> In a situation like the current MMOGs [Ultima Online,
> Asheron's Call, and Everquest], where the gamer is placed in an
> open-ended environment,
I dont disagree... but I was meaning more standard single player off-line titles...
Patches for MMOG's are great, since these kind of titles are always in a state of development and change.
Though they seem to be more updates than patches to gameplay... tweaks and enhancements...
& Even so, due to their nature of live updates, the need for patches is more acceptable?
True, Shanks, but the problem is essentially that: they listen to the gamers. In a situation like the current MMOGs [Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, and Everquest], where the gamer is placed in an open-ended environment, the game is whatever they deem it to be. Of course there's going to be some who feel warriors hit to hard or that this particular magic spell is too damaging. Meanwhile, others will have a drastically different view. A patch, in this sort of situation, is like knocking over a domino in a string of them. Others just keep falling...
Patches... from what I remeber... were never supposed to become such a major aspect of PC software...
Developers... well... PC Mags... said that they could be used to provide add-ons to the game... or change features as a result of player feedback... and in the odd case fix game bugs....
Although everybody knew what was really going to happen... I dont think many people thought it was going to get as big as it has... to the point where its almost the expected standard?
Developers... well... PC Mags... said that they could be used to provide add-ons to the game... or change features as a result of player feedback... and in the odd case fix game bugs....
Although everybody knew what was really going to happen... I dont think many people thought it was going to get as big as it has... to the point where its almost the expected standard?
Page: