The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I don't really know if the title really fits in but it was the best I could come up with. I have been trying to juggle loads of university work, time for games and some kind of social life and it sure is not easy. The other day I was sitting in a lecture listening to my Greek lecturer (hard to understand, think of Stelious the easy-jet guy.) as he went on about flaws in software (PC) and how many software systems had failed or done a certain degree of damage.
All this got me thinking about gaming. I would like to see some kind of board of people or company who are employed by all the major developers and console manufacturers. The purpose of this board would be to ensure that all the games released were actually suitable to be released. By suitable I don't mean that the content is suitable for a particular age group, what I mean is that the game meets today's standards and also hasn't got any major flaws or programming problems or bugs. Games that have a poor graphic quality or pants gameplay could be wiped out and gone forever. Which I see being better for gamers and also for developers, and here is why.
Ok I can hear some of your views already, if the developer wants to and has the money to they can release any game they want, which is true. But a decent game will sell a lot more than a poor game meaning the developers get more money and we as gamers get better games. Games like army men could disappear allowing the developer to concentrate on better quality games for us.
So what does it mean for the gamer?
Well we would see more quality games, consoles may not have as many games as usual but there are certain games people just don't buy as they are so poor. Also games would have less problems such as graphical errors (where your character seems to punch straight through your opponent), less bugs and the overall standard would be better. Also it would make developers try that little bit harder to make games of an exceptionally high standard just to compete with other developers. I know if a game is poor then most won't buy it as we have been warned in magazines, reviews on the web or by friends but there is always a small percentage who don't see or hear these who buy it from the box. Imagine if you could only afford one game every 3-4 months and you bought a poor game, how would you feel?
What about the developers then?
It would put more pressure on them to make an end product (The game) that is of a suitable standard and is also good enough to compete with similar games. Sure the problem would be with those who fail to makes games suitable for release, they could end up shutting down. But surely if they can't make a product of a certain standard them they shouldn't be allowed to sell it.
So what kind of people would be required to be on this kind of board?
We would need programmers, yes geeks hold the answer to everything these days (nothing wrong with being a geek by the way) they could search through the code looking for potential problems and bugs.
Then we would need testers who test the games to their limits, give feedback on how well it looks, feels and plays and any problems they have seen.
Now some may think well this will all add to how long it takes to create a game, true but if the coding used in a game is good then certain aspects of it can be reused with other titles. Also surely it is worth the extra wait if you know what you will be getting has been approved and is good enough to be released.
Ok there is always another side to every argument and this one is no different. So what are the potential problems,
Well developers and manufactures may not like the idea and refuse for such a thing ever to happen.
Some gamers may enjoy some games that others see poor, these games may never be released if such a system was introduced.
It would be hard to find the right people to do the job (and also want to do it).
We could set the standards to high so the number of games actually making it through the system is very low. This could see a dramatic decrease in the number of developers and a loss of thousands of jobs.
With every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (remember windows 2000 has 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors)
Sometimes the developer does the best they can with the hardware they can use. Many problems lie within the hardware of the console itself.
So are there other ways of doing the same or similar thing?
Well we as people/gamers could complain to developers more. If a product isn't what it should be or has many faults then we should let them know. We don't complain enough whether it be in a restaurant or to a developer about a shoddy game. Stand up for your rights and let them know how you feel. It's time to whinge! If developers have a lot of pressure from the gamers then they will know they will have to do better next time of face a loss in sales, may also give you freebies if you moan enough just to try make you happier.
Manufactures like Sony and Nintendo could do something like this themselves, they already do but they aren't as strict on some games as they should be. Also they should provide more help to the developers on certain aspects of the hardware allowing developers to use it as best they can.
Maybe a universal rating system could be used for all types of software, say a star rating out of 10 where 0-1 was very poor and 10 was awarded for very advanced and great quality software (maybe out of 100 would allow easier rating?) The console developer could rate each of the games available for their platform. This way you know if you pick up a game with a high star rating you know it has been approved by the console manufacturer.
So what do you all think about the standard of games. Should something be done to stop rubbish games being released or games with a lot of faults being released. Is there any way we can really stop this problem?
Something like these ideas could be beneficial to the gaming industry (and also any software industry) as it improves the overall standards for the customers and users and also for the developers as it would mean more would buy it as it has passed a suitable standard and people would recognise that it has something worth seeing.
All this got me thinking about gaming. I would like to see some kind of board of people or company who are employed by all the major developers and console manufacturers. The purpose of this board would be to ensure that all the games released were actually suitable to be released. By suitable I don't mean that the content is suitable for a particular age group, what I mean is that the game meets today's standards and also hasn't got any major flaws or programming problems or bugs. Games that have a poor graphic quality or pants gameplay could be wiped out and gone forever. Which I see being better for gamers and also for developers, and here is why.
Ok I can hear some of your views already, if the developer wants to and has the money to they can release any game they want, which is true. But a decent game will sell a lot more than a poor game meaning the developers get more money and we as gamers get better games. Games like army men could disappear allowing the developer to concentrate on better quality games for us.
So what does it mean for the gamer?
Well we would see more quality games, consoles may not have as many games as usual but there are certain games people just don't buy as they are so poor. Also games would have less problems such as graphical errors (where your character seems to punch straight through your opponent), less bugs and the overall standard would be better. Also it would make developers try that little bit harder to make games of an exceptionally high standard just to compete with other developers. I know if a game is poor then most won't buy it as we have been warned in magazines, reviews on the web or by friends but there is always a small percentage who don't see or hear these who buy it from the box. Imagine if you could only afford one game every 3-4 months and you bought a poor game, how would you feel?
What about the developers then?
It would put more pressure on them to make an end product (The game) that is of a suitable standard and is also good enough to compete with similar games. Sure the problem would be with those who fail to makes games suitable for release, they could end up shutting down. But surely if they can't make a product of a certain standard them they shouldn't be allowed to sell it.
So what kind of people would be required to be on this kind of board?
We would need programmers, yes geeks hold the answer to everything these days (nothing wrong with being a geek by the way) they could search through the code looking for potential problems and bugs.
Then we would need testers who test the games to their limits, give feedback on how well it looks, feels and plays and any problems they have seen.
Now some may think well this will all add to how long it takes to create a game, true but if the coding used in a game is good then certain aspects of it can be reused with other titles. Also surely it is worth the extra wait if you know what you will be getting has been approved and is good enough to be released.
Ok there is always another side to every argument and this one is no different. So what are the potential problems,
Well developers and manufactures may not like the idea and refuse for such a thing ever to happen.
Some gamers may enjoy some games that others see poor, these games may never be released if such a system was introduced.
It would be hard to find the right people to do the job (and also want to do it).
We could set the standards to high so the number of games actually making it through the system is very low. This could see a dramatic decrease in the number of developers and a loss of thousands of jobs.
With every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (remember windows 2000 has 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors)
Sometimes the developer does the best they can with the hardware they can use. Many problems lie within the hardware of the console itself.
So are there other ways of doing the same or similar thing?
Well we as people/gamers could complain to developers more. If a product isn't what it should be or has many faults then we should let them know. We don't complain enough whether it be in a restaurant or to a developer about a shoddy game. Stand up for your rights and let them know how you feel. It's time to whinge! If developers have a lot of pressure from the gamers then they will know they will have to do better next time of face a loss in sales, may also give you freebies if you moan enough just to try make you happier.
Manufactures like Sony and Nintendo could do something like this themselves, they already do but they aren't as strict on some games as they should be. Also they should provide more help to the developers on certain aspects of the hardware allowing developers to use it as best they can.
Maybe a universal rating system could be used for all types of software, say a star rating out of 10 where 0-1 was very poor and 10 was awarded for very advanced and great quality software (maybe out of 100 would allow easier rating?) The console developer could rate each of the games available for their platform. This way you know if you pick up a game with a high star rating you know it has been approved by the console manufacturer.
So what do you all think about the standard of games. Should something be done to stop rubbish games being released or games with a lot of faults being released. Is there any way we can really stop this problem?
Something like these ideas could be beneficial to the gaming industry (and also any software industry) as it improves the overall standards for the customers and users and also for the developers as it would mean more would buy it as it has passed a suitable standard and people would recognise that it has something worth seeing.
hmmm, so crap games is actally a good thing? i suppose it helps u differentiate easier between the good games and the not soo good games.
I agree, it would be nice for their to be less poor games, but they shouldn't be regulated. As quoted in OPS2: "One man's Army Men is another man's Onimusha". Apparently it's true, and that some people actually LIKED Sarge's Heroes.
That's the beauty of the PS2. People who like crap games get crap games, and people who don't just buy good ones.
That's the beauty of the PS2. People who like crap games get crap games, and people who don't just buy good ones.
OrÜega wrote:
> yeah, somthin should be done to stop the flow of poor qulaity games. I would
> say the easiest way would be just not too buy the game! Developers would get the
> idea then!
Yeah I agree but surely there must be quite a few who don't know anything about the game and buy it from what they see/read on the box.
About this idea about making some kind of quality control thin
> board. Who is going to pay for it? the only thing i can see happending is us
> paying for it through higer game prices, which would be a bad thing.
Hopefully it wouldn't come to that, they already make huge amounts of profit, maybe use some of that.
> yeah, somthin should be done to stop the flow of poor qulaity games. I would
> say the easiest way would be just not too buy the game! Developers would get the
> idea then!
Yeah I agree but surely there must be quite a few who don't know anything about the game and buy it from what they see/read on the box.
About this idea about making some kind of quality control thin
> board. Who is going to pay for it? the only thing i can see happending is us
> paying for it through higer game prices, which would be a bad thing.
Hopefully it wouldn't come to that, they already make huge amounts of profit, maybe use some of that.
i agree with or?ega. I dont fancy forking out the extra money for good games just to pay for this board. I just make sure i play demo's and know about the game before i buy it. Eventually devlopers have to realise that putting in extra effort to make a game better will get them more money. With any luck there will never be a Myst 4!
yeah, somthin should be done to stop the flow of poor qulaity games. I would say the easiest way would be just not too buy the game! Developers would get the idea then!
About this idea about making some kind of quality control thin board. Who is going to pay for it? the only thing i can see happending is us paying for it through higer game prices, which would be a bad thing. The best thing to do is just try before you buy. Or make sure you do you research on the product before you purchase it.
About this idea about making some kind of quality control thin board. Who is going to pay for it? the only thing i can see happending is us paying for it through higer game prices, which would be a bad thing. The best thing to do is just try before you buy. Or make sure you do you research on the product before you purchase it.
I don't really know if the title really fits in but it was the best I could come up with. I have been trying to juggle loads of university work, time for games and some kind of social life and it sure is not easy. The other day I was sitting in a lecture listening to my Greek lecturer (hard to understand, think of Stelious the easy-jet guy.) as he went on about flaws in software (PC) and how many software systems had failed or done a certain degree of damage.
All this got me thinking about gaming. I would like to see some kind of board of people or company who are employed by all the major developers and console manufacturers. The purpose of this board would be to ensure that all the games released were actually suitable to be released. By suitable I don't mean that the content is suitable for a particular age group, what I mean is that the game meets today's standards and also hasn't got any major flaws or programming problems or bugs. Games that have a poor graphic quality or pants gameplay could be wiped out and gone forever. Which I see being better for gamers and also for developers, and here is why.
Ok I can hear some of your views already, if the developer wants to and has the money to they can release any game they want, which is true. But a decent game will sell a lot more than a poor game meaning the developers get more money and we as gamers get better games. Games like army men could disappear allowing the developer to concentrate on better quality games for us.
So what does it mean for the gamer?
Well we would see more quality games, consoles may not have as many games as usual but there are certain games people just don't buy as they are so poor. Also games would have less problems such as graphical errors (where your character seems to punch straight through your opponent), less bugs and the overall standard would be better. Also it would make developers try that little bit harder to make games of an exceptionally high standard just to compete with other developers. I know if a game is poor then most won't buy it as we have been warned in magazines, reviews on the web or by friends but there is always a small percentage who don't see or hear these who buy it from the box. Imagine if you could only afford one game every 3-4 months and you bought a poor game, how would you feel?
What about the developers then?
It would put more pressure on them to make an end product (The game) that is of a suitable standard and is also good enough to compete with similar games. Sure the problem would be with those who fail to makes games suitable for release, they could end up shutting down. But surely if they can't make a product of a certain standard them they shouldn't be allowed to sell it.
So what kind of people would be required to be on this kind of board?
We would need programmers, yes geeks hold the answer to everything these days (nothing wrong with being a geek by the way) they could search through the code looking for potential problems and bugs.
Then we would need testers who test the games to their limits, give feedback on how well it looks, feels and plays and any problems they have seen.
Now some may think well this will all add to how long it takes to create a game, true but if the coding used in a game is good then certain aspects of it can be reused with other titles. Also surely it is worth the extra wait if you know what you will be getting has been approved and is good enough to be released.
Ok there is always another side to every argument and this one is no different. So what are the potential problems,
Well developers and manufactures may not like the idea and refuse for such a thing ever to happen.
Some gamers may enjoy some games that others see poor, these games may never be released if such a system was introduced.
It would be hard to find the right people to do the job (and also want to do it).
We could set the standards to high so the number of games actually making it through the system is very low. This could see a dramatic decrease in the number of developers and a loss of thousands of jobs.
With every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (remember windows 2000 has 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors)
Sometimes the developer does the best they can with the hardware they can use. Many problems lie within the hardware of the console itself.
So are there other ways of doing the same or similar thing?
Well we as people/gamers could complain to developers more. If a product isn't what it should be or has many faults then we should let them know. We don't complain enough whether it be in a restaurant or to a developer about a shoddy game. Stand up for your rights and let them know how you feel. It's time to whinge! If developers have a lot of pressure from the gamers then they will know they will have to do better next time of face a loss in sales, may also give you freebies if you moan enough just to try make you happier.
Manufactures like Sony and Nintendo could do something like this themselves, they already do but they aren't as strict on some games as they should be. Also they should provide more help to the developers on certain aspects of the hardware allowing developers to use it as best they can.
Maybe a universal rating system could be used for all types of software, say a star rating out of 10 where 0-1 was very poor and 10 was awarded for very advanced and great quality software (maybe out of 100 would allow easier rating?) The console developer could rate each of the games available for their platform. This way you know if you pick up a game with a high star rating you know it has been approved by the console manufacturer.
So what do you all think about the standard of games. Should something be done to stop rubbish games being released or games with a lot of faults being released. Is there any way we can really stop this problem?
Something like these ideas could be beneficial to the gaming industry (and also any software industry) as it improves the overall standards for the customers and users and also for the developers as it would mean more would buy it as it has passed a suitable standard and people would recognise that it has something worth seeing.
All this got me thinking about gaming. I would like to see some kind of board of people or company who are employed by all the major developers and console manufacturers. The purpose of this board would be to ensure that all the games released were actually suitable to be released. By suitable I don't mean that the content is suitable for a particular age group, what I mean is that the game meets today's standards and also hasn't got any major flaws or programming problems or bugs. Games that have a poor graphic quality or pants gameplay could be wiped out and gone forever. Which I see being better for gamers and also for developers, and here is why.
Ok I can hear some of your views already, if the developer wants to and has the money to they can release any game they want, which is true. But a decent game will sell a lot more than a poor game meaning the developers get more money and we as gamers get better games. Games like army men could disappear allowing the developer to concentrate on better quality games for us.
So what does it mean for the gamer?
Well we would see more quality games, consoles may not have as many games as usual but there are certain games people just don't buy as they are so poor. Also games would have less problems such as graphical errors (where your character seems to punch straight through your opponent), less bugs and the overall standard would be better. Also it would make developers try that little bit harder to make games of an exceptionally high standard just to compete with other developers. I know if a game is poor then most won't buy it as we have been warned in magazines, reviews on the web or by friends but there is always a small percentage who don't see or hear these who buy it from the box. Imagine if you could only afford one game every 3-4 months and you bought a poor game, how would you feel?
What about the developers then?
It would put more pressure on them to make an end product (The game) that is of a suitable standard and is also good enough to compete with similar games. Sure the problem would be with those who fail to makes games suitable for release, they could end up shutting down. But surely if they can't make a product of a certain standard them they shouldn't be allowed to sell it.
So what kind of people would be required to be on this kind of board?
We would need programmers, yes geeks hold the answer to everything these days (nothing wrong with being a geek by the way) they could search through the code looking for potential problems and bugs.
Then we would need testers who test the games to their limits, give feedback on how well it looks, feels and plays and any problems they have seen.
Now some may think well this will all add to how long it takes to create a game, true but if the coding used in a game is good then certain aspects of it can be reused with other titles. Also surely it is worth the extra wait if you know what you will be getting has been approved and is good enough to be released.
Ok there is always another side to every argument and this one is no different. So what are the potential problems,
Well developers and manufactures may not like the idea and refuse for such a thing ever to happen.
Some gamers may enjoy some games that others see poor, these games may never be released if such a system was introduced.
It would be hard to find the right people to do the job (and also want to do it).
We could set the standards to high so the number of games actually making it through the system is very low. This could see a dramatic decrease in the number of developers and a loss of thousands of jobs.
With every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (remember windows 2000 has 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors)
Sometimes the developer does the best they can with the hardware they can use. Many problems lie within the hardware of the console itself.
So are there other ways of doing the same or similar thing?
Well we as people/gamers could complain to developers more. If a product isn't what it should be or has many faults then we should let them know. We don't complain enough whether it be in a restaurant or to a developer about a shoddy game. Stand up for your rights and let them know how you feel. It's time to whinge! If developers have a lot of pressure from the gamers then they will know they will have to do better next time of face a loss in sales, may also give you freebies if you moan enough just to try make you happier.
Manufactures like Sony and Nintendo could do something like this themselves, they already do but they aren't as strict on some games as they should be. Also they should provide more help to the developers on certain aspects of the hardware allowing developers to use it as best they can.
Maybe a universal rating system could be used for all types of software, say a star rating out of 10 where 0-1 was very poor and 10 was awarded for very advanced and great quality software (maybe out of 100 would allow easier rating?) The console developer could rate each of the games available for their platform. This way you know if you pick up a game with a high star rating you know it has been approved by the console manufacturer.
So what do you all think about the standard of games. Should something be done to stop rubbish games being released or games with a lot of faults being released. Is there any way we can really stop this problem?
Something like these ideas could be beneficial to the gaming industry (and also any software industry) as it improves the overall standards for the customers and users and also for the developers as it would mean more would buy it as it has passed a suitable standard and people would recognise that it has something worth seeing.