The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
If you are a PC gamer, chances are there's a patch for your game.
But, despite the Lionhead debacle, I personally feel this is a good thing.
What it means is, if there are aspects to game that need improving, you can download a small patch and Voila! Game is fized.
And yes, "it should be fixed when you buy it", but quite often there are little problems that need addressing afterwards.
However, what people seem to neglect (and jump right into the "pc games are rubbish, console games never need patches" fight) are that patches can be a good thing.
Take the number one selling PC game ever, Half-Life.
That needs updating, but not to fix game problems, but so you can play online and get the latest downloads for playing.
Not game fixes, but mods or add-ons for games that are already done.
And you don't need to buy them.
As much as I enjoy console games, once you've bought it, that's it. It's finished and the only way to extend the gameplay is to buy data cds.
Or, you can download a patch from the net for nothing.
The Sims have continual patches with new items, skins, programmes etc - all evolving a game and keeping it fresh.
The number on online game is Counterstrike.
A terrorist vs counter-terrorist mulitplayer game.
You can buy it, but it's also available as a free download.
Ok, so it's 80meg but so what? Download it at work or from someone with cable/isdn line and there you have a free game.
There are skins, weapons, maps, pretty much everything you want for a customised game.
Patches dont always mean bad news, they can improve a game and extend it's life dramatically.
Unreal Tournament is out for the PS2 now.
But you can't download new maps for it, or mods of any kind.
You're stuck with whatever is in the game when you buy it.
So I for one speak up for patches.
But, despite the Lionhead debacle, I personally feel this is a good thing.
What it means is, if there are aspects to game that need improving, you can download a small patch and Voila! Game is fized.
And yes, "it should be fixed when you buy it", but quite often there are little problems that need addressing afterwards.
However, what people seem to neglect (and jump right into the "pc games are rubbish, console games never need patches" fight) are that patches can be a good thing.
Take the number one selling PC game ever, Half-Life.
That needs updating, but not to fix game problems, but so you can play online and get the latest downloads for playing.
Not game fixes, but mods or add-ons for games that are already done.
And you don't need to buy them.
As much as I enjoy console games, once you've bought it, that's it. It's finished and the only way to extend the gameplay is to buy data cds.
Or, you can download a patch from the net for nothing.
The Sims have continual patches with new items, skins, programmes etc - all evolving a game and keeping it fresh.
The number on online game is Counterstrike.
A terrorist vs counter-terrorist mulitplayer game.
You can buy it, but it's also available as a free download.
Ok, so it's 80meg but so what? Download it at work or from someone with cable/isdn line and there you have a free game.
There are skins, weapons, maps, pretty much everything you want for a customised game.
Patches dont always mean bad news, they can improve a game and extend it's life dramatically.
Unreal Tournament is out for the PS2 now.
But you can't download new maps for it, or mods of any kind.
You're stuck with whatever is in the game when you buy it.
So I for one speak up for patches.
Oh I absolutely agree with ALL the opinions here, but especially Sniper.
If a patch adds something to the game, cool. If it's to fix basic gameplay errors, then that's a bad thing and yes, it should have been fixed before release.
Black and White is a perfect example of good and bad:
Bad because these issues are showstoppers and can ruin your game, destroy save games, freeze and smash hours of play.
Good because they are releasing patches that are "addons" more than fixes.
Village chatter, creatures dancing to MP3 and many others.
So, in summary:
Bad if fixing serious gameplay issues
Good if providing new gameplay enhancements
If a patch adds something to the game, cool. If it's to fix basic gameplay errors, then that's a bad thing and yes, it should have been fixed before release.
Black and White is a perfect example of good and bad:
Bad because these issues are showstoppers and can ruin your game, destroy save games, freeze and smash hours of play.
Good because they are releasing patches that are "addons" more than fixes.
Village chatter, creatures dancing to MP3 and many others.
So, in summary:
Bad if fixing serious gameplay issues
Good if providing new gameplay enhancements
Meka_Dragon wrote:
I can't be bothered to check all manner of things just
> to get the game working, which is why I don't have many PC games at
> all.
Arnt you over complicating the situation?
As a rule... if theres a patch out 'll stick it onto the game... though normally I wont need it...
Patches, I find, as a whole, update 'older' system configs and fix a few minor bugs (usually some colision detection flaw)... and are for the vast majority of players not really needed at all...
There is always the odd exception (B&W, Ultima9). Although for myself... apart from these two titles I've never had a problem with a title that has needed to be fixed by patching...
I can't be bothered to check all manner of things just
> to get the game working, which is why I don't have many PC games at
> all.
Arnt you over complicating the situation?
As a rule... if theres a patch out 'll stick it onto the game... though normally I wont need it...
Patches, I find, as a whole, update 'older' system configs and fix a few minor bugs (usually some colision detection flaw)... and are for the vast majority of players not really needed at all...
There is always the odd exception (B&W, Ultima9). Although for myself... apart from these two titles I've never had a problem with a title that has needed to be fixed by patching...
Mind you, I'm lazy.
I want to buy a game, put it on, and for it to work.
I can't be bothered to check all manner of things just to get the game working, which is why I don't have many PC games at all.
Patches can be good in the instances that Goatboy stated, but more often than not, they're there to fix bugs that shouldn't have been present in the first place.
Patches are being abused methinks.
I want to buy a game, put it on, and for it to work.
I can't be bothered to check all manner of things just to get the game working, which is why I don't have many PC games at all.
Patches can be good in the instances that Goatboy stated, but more often than not, they're there to fix bugs that shouldn't have been present in the first place.
Patches are being abused methinks.
I think i agree with you. Without patches wouldn't PC Games only come out in a eternity if they were being developed so every single bug and glitch wouldn't be there?
Yeah the patches are pretty large sometimes but what do they do? They do the Job the Game developers are meant to do in the first place, but they didn't of course.
Or they could add extra options to the game such as Deus Exs' Multiplayer patch.
I'm not suggesting that patches are a good thing all the time. For games like Daikatana they are useless when the game is already crap, a patch wouldn't upgrade the game sufficently so it would make your gaming experience different.
That's really the job for the developers to make the games friendly for mod makers.
Yeah the patches are pretty large sometimes but what do they do? They do the Job the Game developers are meant to do in the first place, but they didn't of course.
Or they could add extra options to the game such as Deus Exs' Multiplayer patch.
I'm not suggesting that patches are a good thing all the time. For games like Daikatana they are useless when the game is already crap, a patch wouldn't upgrade the game sufficently so it would make your gaming experience different.
That's really the job for the developers to make the games friendly for mod makers.
Time_Warp wrote:
> Wow! it's all so simple nutter! (:)
Hey Time_Warp. Can I be in the newbie whipping/prodding clan?
> Wow! it's all so simple nutter! (:)
Hey Time_Warp. Can I be in the newbie whipping/prodding clan?
Perfect example of the magic of patches:
You buy Carmageddon for £8. Get it home, and find your swanky new Voodoo 5 is useless with it. Get annoyed. Go on the Internet, 10 minutes later, you've got yer 3dfx patch. It works, voila! 1024x1280 at 72 FPS. Fab.
See?
You buy Carmageddon for £8. Get it home, and find your swanky new Voodoo 5 is useless with it. Get annoyed. Go on the Internet, 10 minutes later, you've got yer 3dfx patch. It works, voila! 1024x1280 at 72 FPS. Fab.
See?
Patches are a good thing if compnaies still act like they do on console games, and before the internet was widely available - that is, the game must be bug-free upon release. This can only be done with extensive testing. Patches are fine if they add features that the designers did not originally anticipate, but if, like the fabled B&W patch, all they do is fix bugs, add features that were planned to be in the original anyway, or add something like a multiplayer mode, which should always have been in any game, then they are a very bad thing!
Manufacturers claim that patches are needed on PCs because everyone has a different set-up, but this is very rarely the case. If you look at the fixes that the B&W patch will have, then nearly all of them are related to gameplay, and bugs which a vast proportion of gamers will have.
I say, make the game perfect, don't expect to need a patch, and only have a patch if there is really something new to offer!
Manufacturers claim that patches are needed on PCs because everyone has a different set-up, but this is very rarely the case. If you look at the fixes that the B&W patch will have, then nearly all of them are related to gameplay, and bugs which a vast proportion of gamers will have.
I say, make the game perfect, don't expect to need a patch, and only have a patch if there is really something new to offer!
Patches are a double edged sword. They can allow glitches in games to be settled and eradicated without any major hassle. Although, there are fears that some games companies abuse this by releasing games before they are finished and without proper testing, thats bad!!
If you are a PC gamer, chances are there's a patch for your game.
But, despite the Lionhead debacle, I personally feel this is a good thing.
What it means is, if there are aspects to game that need improving, you can download a small patch and Voila! Game is fized.
And yes, "it should be fixed when you buy it", but quite often there are little problems that need addressing afterwards.
However, what people seem to neglect (and jump right into the "pc games are rubbish, console games never need patches" fight) are that patches can be a good thing.
Take the number one selling PC game ever, Half-Life.
That needs updating, but not to fix game problems, but so you can play online and get the latest downloads for playing.
Not game fixes, but mods or add-ons for games that are already done.
And you don't need to buy them.
As much as I enjoy console games, once you've bought it, that's it. It's finished and the only way to extend the gameplay is to buy data cds.
Or, you can download a patch from the net for nothing.
The Sims have continual patches with new items, skins, programmes etc - all evolving a game and keeping it fresh.
The number on online game is Counterstrike.
A terrorist vs counter-terrorist mulitplayer game.
You can buy it, but it's also available as a free download.
Ok, so it's 80meg but so what? Download it at work or from someone with cable/isdn line and there you have a free game.
There are skins, weapons, maps, pretty much everything you want for a customised game.
Patches dont always mean bad news, they can improve a game and extend it's life dramatically.
Unreal Tournament is out for the PS2 now.
But you can't download new maps for it, or mods of any kind.
You're stuck with whatever is in the game when you buy it.
So I for one speak up for patches.
But, despite the Lionhead debacle, I personally feel this is a good thing.
What it means is, if there are aspects to game that need improving, you can download a small patch and Voila! Game is fized.
And yes, "it should be fixed when you buy it", but quite often there are little problems that need addressing afterwards.
However, what people seem to neglect (and jump right into the "pc games are rubbish, console games never need patches" fight) are that patches can be a good thing.
Take the number one selling PC game ever, Half-Life.
That needs updating, but not to fix game problems, but so you can play online and get the latest downloads for playing.
Not game fixes, but mods or add-ons for games that are already done.
And you don't need to buy them.
As much as I enjoy console games, once you've bought it, that's it. It's finished and the only way to extend the gameplay is to buy data cds.
Or, you can download a patch from the net for nothing.
The Sims have continual patches with new items, skins, programmes etc - all evolving a game and keeping it fresh.
The number on online game is Counterstrike.
A terrorist vs counter-terrorist mulitplayer game.
You can buy it, but it's also available as a free download.
Ok, so it's 80meg but so what? Download it at work or from someone with cable/isdn line and there you have a free game.
There are skins, weapons, maps, pretty much everything you want for a customised game.
Patches dont always mean bad news, they can improve a game and extend it's life dramatically.
Unreal Tournament is out for the PS2 now.
But you can't download new maps for it, or mods of any kind.
You're stuck with whatever is in the game when you buy it.
So I for one speak up for patches.