The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
(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: