The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
(This turned out longer than expected, but please stick with it...)
Gran Turismo 3 was originally a launch title. Like so many games in the past it was delayed, and many were angry. We finally got a playable demo in March last year from OPSM2, and though it looked nice, and played nice, it diddnt look the AAA title thousands of people specifically bought their PS2 for.
Delays, delays and more delays followed, and the gamers were getting more and more annoyed. News snippets on it's progress came regularly, saying things like "We would rather have it perfect than rushed" yet it diddnt stop people whinging that it wasn't out yet.
Finally it was released, and was the genuine killer app that we all wanted. Far superior to the demo in every way, it looked and played beautiful. Everyone was happy.
This raises 2 issues. Firstly, game delays for development. Fair enough that argument is valid over MGS2 being delayed for the X-Box release, but when a game is delayed to make it a better game how can you complain? Wouldnt you rather have a better game a month later than a shoddy, unpolished stinkloaf now?
Secondly and more importantly, is that the games industry know this. Hugely anticipated games like Wipeout Fusion have delayed the launch so they can tweak the game. Lotus Challenge did this, though could have done with another month or so to make it AAA.
So why doesnt everyone else do this? Why not release a game a month later, in the knowledge that it will be better, therefore sell more? Gran Turismo would never have got to the status it has now if it was released half baked, so how can developers think that their rushed title will do so?
Well, thats the problem. People like EA sports know that their games will sell regardless. We all know that Pro Evo is a better game than Fifa, yet Fifa will sell by the crateload regardless. EA do have a great name for themselves, and they generally put the effort in to make their games good. People know this, and buy the games regardless of there being better titles out there.
Lesser developers do not have this though. Some need to release a game to cover their costs before they start making a profit from their game, and you could imagine a point where they would have to release a game to generate some funds before they run out.
For the rest of them though, here is my question, and the point of all this. Instead of releasing a substandard game for the quick money, why not wait a month or so, do a bit more work and have a better game? As soon as the game gets to the magazines and people learn how bad it is, the sales stop. You are counting on the time before the magazines get it to sell a few copies to make some cash, yet surely if you just had a better game the overall sales would be greater? (cue "Don't call me Shirley" gag)
Ther is something we can do. Don't buy the games. It's been said a hundred times, bu I'm saying it again. At the end of the day it's the cash that says things in the gaming industry, and if we don't buy the pants titles perhaps they might think about their games more, and spend more time making them the AAA titles we would be happy blowing £40 on. Also, don't complain about development delays, instead encourage them! It sounds daft, but it's better in the long run.
Personally, I would rather have a late, yet better game than a shelf full of shoddy titles now.
Ta for your time.
Slave.
Gran Turismo 3 was originally a launch title. Like so many games in the past it was delayed, and many were angry. We finally got a playable demo in March last year from OPSM2, and though it looked nice, and played nice, it diddnt look the AAA title thousands of people specifically bought their PS2 for.
Delays, delays and more delays followed, and the gamers were getting more and more annoyed. News snippets on it's progress came regularly, saying things like "We would rather have it perfect than rushed" yet it diddnt stop people whinging that it wasn't out yet.
Finally it was released, and was the genuine killer app that we all wanted. Far superior to the demo in every way, it looked and played beautiful. Everyone was happy.
This raises 2 issues. Firstly, game delays for development. Fair enough that argument is valid over MGS2 being delayed for the X-Box release, but when a game is delayed to make it a better game how can you complain? Wouldnt you rather have a better game a month later than a shoddy, unpolished stinkloaf now?
Secondly and more importantly, is that the games industry know this. Hugely anticipated games like Wipeout Fusion have delayed the launch so they can tweak the game. Lotus Challenge did this, though could have done with another month or so to make it AAA.
So why doesnt everyone else do this? Why not release a game a month later, in the knowledge that it will be better, therefore sell more? Gran Turismo would never have got to the status it has now if it was released half baked, so how can developers think that their rushed title will do so?
Well, thats the problem. People like EA sports know that their games will sell regardless. We all know that Pro Evo is a better game than Fifa, yet Fifa will sell by the crateload regardless. EA do have a great name for themselves, and they generally put the effort in to make their games good. People know this, and buy the games regardless of there being better titles out there.
Lesser developers do not have this though. Some need to release a game to cover their costs before they start making a profit from their game, and you could imagine a point where they would have to release a game to generate some funds before they run out.
For the rest of them though, here is my question, and the point of all this. Instead of releasing a substandard game for the quick money, why not wait a month or so, do a bit more work and have a better game? As soon as the game gets to the magazines and people learn how bad it is, the sales stop. You are counting on the time before the magazines get it to sell a few copies to make some cash, yet surely if you just had a better game the overall sales would be greater? (cue "Don't call me Shirley" gag)
Ther is something we can do. Don't buy the games. It's been said a hundred times, bu I'm saying it again. At the end of the day it's the cash that says things in the gaming industry, and if we don't buy the pants titles perhaps they might think about their games more, and spend more time making them the AAA titles we would be happy blowing £40 on. Also, don't complain about development delays, instead encourage them! It sounds daft, but it's better in the long run.
Personally, I would rather have a late, yet better game than a shelf full of shoddy titles now.
Ta for your time.
Slave.
Page:
I think it's delayed again, though this months OPSM2 has a playable demo on it.
Slaveunit wrote:
> I am certainly looking forward to Wipeout far more than I was before, as they
> have actually said that the delays are to perfect the game.
What's happened to Wipeout - SR have got it in their listings as released, and I had it pre-ordered, but haven't received it yet. Anyone know an official release date?
I am painfully excited to play it tho...
> I am certainly looking forward to Wipeout far more than I was before, as they
> have actually said that the delays are to perfect the game.
What's happened to Wipeout - SR have got it in their listings as released, and I had it pre-ordered, but haven't received it yet. Anyone know an official release date?
I am painfully excited to play it tho...
I am certainly looking forward to Wipeout far more than I was before, as they have actually said that the delays are to perfect the game.
Of course some turds can't be polished. An extra month won't do it any good whatsoever, but money has been spent on it, and it might recoup a little if the box art is nice!
But yes, it's quite frustrating when a highly anticipated game falls down on something that could have been sorted with just a little more time.
I'm sure you've all heard about the problems with Metroid Prime in the past. Retro Studios have cancelled all other projects to work on this, and Nintendo have had to offer a helping hand.
Thing is, it could have probably been a launch title had nobody have been overlooking it so closely, a shoddy title with a big name. Fortunatle yfor gamers Nintendo haven't let it get bad, and it's now looking good, apparently. Yes we'll have to wait, but who'd have wanted it if it was crap anyway?
But yes, it's quite frustrating when a highly anticipated game falls down on something that could have been sorted with just a little more time.
I'm sure you've all heard about the problems with Metroid Prime in the past. Retro Studios have cancelled all other projects to work on this, and Nintendo have had to offer a helping hand.
Thing is, it could have probably been a launch title had nobody have been overlooking it so closely, a shoddy title with a big name. Fortunatle yfor gamers Nintendo haven't let it get bad, and it's now looking good, apparently. Yes we'll have to wait, but who'd have wanted it if it was crap anyway?
True.
Now what we need is some kind of attack against the publishers. Not buying the games wont do it cos if the same publisher releases a killer app then we miss out.
Now what we need is some kind of attack against the publishers. Not buying the games wont do it cos if the same publisher releases a killer app then we miss out.
I blame the purse-string holders (i.e. the publishers) for the release of terrible games. Surely, as a developer, it's corporate suicide to churn out junk - you'll have no chance of further publishing deals. I suspect the publishers get narked off with shelling out money to the devcos and get greedy. Maybe one day they'll learn to hold on for a bit longer and we'll see less Army Men titles....
I recon I'd go with the muppets theory.
Imagine how many GT3's would have sold if it handled like Lotus? (Not including the name issue)
It's their loss in the end, not ours. We can just go and buy a different game.
Imagine how many GT3's would have sold if it handled like Lotus? (Not including the name issue)
It's their loss in the end, not ours. We can just go and buy a different game.
Absolutely, I agree. It would heve been better.
Reading my reply back, it sounds more p***-taking than I'd intended. I agree with your PoV, but I'm a cynical git.
Either (a) the developers are a bunch of muppets
(b) the publishers decided that enough was enough and went ahead and released it anyway (the more likely option)
(c) the speculative toss-up between cost-to-fix and increase-in-sales didn't add up
Reading my reply back, it sounds more p***-taking than I'd intended. I agree with your PoV, but I'm a cynical git.
Either (a) the developers are a bunch of muppets
(b) the publishers decided that enough was enough and went ahead and released it anyway (the more likely option)
(c) the speculative toss-up between cost-to-fix and increase-in-sales didn't add up
I would like to take this opportunity for posting a constructive argument rather than the usual pap that my posts get.
But to the point.....
Yeah, there is a line, but many games are released before they can even see the line. Take Lotus. A great looking game, released at the same time as GT3, with serious handling problems. (Yes, I own the finished release) Surely it would have made sense to get ths sorted for the launch?
But to the point.....
Yeah, there is a line, but many games are released before they can even see the line. Take Lotus. A great looking game, released at the same time as GT3, with serious handling problems. (Yes, I own the finished release) Surely it would have made sense to get ths sorted for the launch?
OK, but where do you draw the line? By your logic, delaying it one month to make it better isn't as good as as delaying it 6 months to make it even better. Or a year to have bells and whistles on it. Or maybe even 3 years and have it come in a box hand-carved from a single ingot of dodo poo by a Tibetan hermit up a mountain.
OK, I'm being facetious, but I reckon that there aren't too many developers who think along the lines of "OK, it's shoddy, but it'll do". There has to be a point where the extra effort will not add sufficiently more value to the game to make it worth doing. And the difficult thing is judging when you've reached this point. It's not exactly a measurable quality.
Good ole EA are actually pretty shrewd guys methinks. They know that it's not worth them turning out 100% pure-platinum pieces of software, as their sales will likely be largely unaffected. They know that they've got the market nice and saturated, and salivating for more FIFA. So it makes good business sense to spend the minimum possible for the maximum return.
It's just a shame that it offends the gaming sensibilties of those who think they know better (i.e. me, thee and the rest of the gaming intelligencia on here)
OK, I'm being facetious, but I reckon that there aren't too many developers who think along the lines of "OK, it's shoddy, but it'll do". There has to be a point where the extra effort will not add sufficiently more value to the game to make it worth doing. And the difficult thing is judging when you've reached this point. It's not exactly a measurable quality.
Good ole EA are actually pretty shrewd guys methinks. They know that it's not worth them turning out 100% pure-platinum pieces of software, as their sales will likely be largely unaffected. They know that they've got the market nice and saturated, and salivating for more FIFA. So it makes good business sense to spend the minimum possible for the maximum return.
It's just a shame that it offends the gaming sensibilties of those who think they know better (i.e. me, thee and the rest of the gaming intelligencia on here)
Page: