The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Naff games.
Every platform has them, but why?
On consoles, a game is tested throroughly before it is given approval by the hardware vendor, to ensure that it is 'suitable for the purpose for which it is intended'. i.e. that it runs okay, does what it's supposed to when you press the buttons, and generally doesn't crash.
If any problems are discovered, the code is modified accordingly, and the process begins again. Only then will the license be granted.
But what about gameplay?
I believe it was EA who decided to do away with 'Thrill Kill' because it didn't suit their image, being "too violent and sick" etc.
Underneath all the gore and sickness, though, lurked what seemed to be a highly entertaining and very playable game. It didn't matter, though, because their 'quality control' department decided it was unsuitable.
However, the same company then releases something like 'Driving Emotion: Type S' for the PS2 - a blurry, difficult, unplayable game, which has been slated by just about every magazine out there.
I know that 'a good game' is very much a matter of personal taste, but on many occasions, pretty much everyone agrees that a particular game is a disgrace. Whether it be graphics, sound, framerate or playability, some games just plain stink.
Isn't it about time we had some kind of Software Quality Control department - at least at each of the hardware companies (Sony, Nintendo etc.) - where they can turn round and say to a developer, "Sorry, we can't give you a licence for this particular title because it just isn't good enough."
It's not as easily applicable on PC's because any company can develop a game, get it mastered on CD, then begin shipping. With no licence requirements, any company can release anything they see fit.
The principle is the same, though - someone somewhere in these companies must, if they're honest, think to themselves, "Well, it's ready... but it's not actually very *good*, is it?"
I know we don't have to buy these games, but I just wish that developers would put as much effort into quality assurance as they put into content censorship. After all, what's the point in censoring a game that no-one's going to want to buy anyway?
Hope this makes some sense - it's a bit of a 'lunchtime rush job'.
Every platform has them, but why?
On consoles, a game is tested throroughly before it is given approval by the hardware vendor, to ensure that it is 'suitable for the purpose for which it is intended'. i.e. that it runs okay, does what it's supposed to when you press the buttons, and generally doesn't crash.
If any problems are discovered, the code is modified accordingly, and the process begins again. Only then will the license be granted.
But what about gameplay?
I believe it was EA who decided to do away with 'Thrill Kill' because it didn't suit their image, being "too violent and sick" etc.
Underneath all the gore and sickness, though, lurked what seemed to be a highly entertaining and very playable game. It didn't matter, though, because their 'quality control' department decided it was unsuitable.
However, the same company then releases something like 'Driving Emotion: Type S' for the PS2 - a blurry, difficult, unplayable game, which has been slated by just about every magazine out there.
I know that 'a good game' is very much a matter of personal taste, but on many occasions, pretty much everyone agrees that a particular game is a disgrace. Whether it be graphics, sound, framerate or playability, some games just plain stink.
Isn't it about time we had some kind of Software Quality Control department - at least at each of the hardware companies (Sony, Nintendo etc.) - where they can turn round and say to a developer, "Sorry, we can't give you a licence for this particular title because it just isn't good enough."
It's not as easily applicable on PC's because any company can develop a game, get it mastered on CD, then begin shipping. With no licence requirements, any company can release anything they see fit.
The principle is the same, though - someone somewhere in these companies must, if they're honest, think to themselves, "Well, it's ready... but it's not actually very *good*, is it?"
I know we don't have to buy these games, but I just wish that developers would put as much effort into quality assurance as they put into content censorship. After all, what's the point in censoring a game that no-one's going to want to buy anyway?
Hope this makes some sense - it's a bit of a 'lunchtime rush job'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAwyuEE387A 'The Tiger Trap'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FVewxFF2jE 'Nutters with Putters' Promo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slaJVjML7m8 'Not Winning Not Losing'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9jpX0IPRCI 'Mini Momentus'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co89fewPlGQ 'BMGA International British Open 2006'
http://www.channel4.com/fourdocs/film/film-detail.jsp?id=55245 'Inside Ted's Outside Story'
http://www.europeantour.com/publish.sps?pagegid=%7BD872AA1B-60AB-4F23-95F2-E247C40F85FC%7D&assetid=566093 'European Tour Weekly coverage of WCs 2007'
Ben Grimsey's Nutters with Putters Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3bf5rh7_yQ
Ben Grimsey's Nutters with Putters Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzmNp0WaPUU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNvLJq7tZDY Blackpool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQhQRBkZ7ac The Eight Wonders of the Modern World - Putting the great into Great Britain
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uZcOMdZkDH4 2008 British Matchplay Championships.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st7RxJKgAS8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FVewxFF2jE 'Nutters with Putters' Promo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slaJVjML7m8 'Not Winning Not Losing'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9jpX0IPRCI 'Mini Momentus'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co89fewPlGQ 'BMGA International British Open 2006'
http://www.channel4.com/fourdocs/film/film-detail.jsp?id=55245 'Inside Ted's Outside Story'
http://www.europeantour.com/publish.sps?pagegid=%7BD872AA1B-60AB-4F23-95F2-E247C40F85FC%7D&assetid=566093 'European Tour Weekly coverage of WCs 2007'
Ben Grimsey's Nutters with Putters Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3bf5rh7_yQ
Ben Grimsey's Nutters with Putters Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzmNp0WaPUU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNvLJq7tZDY Blackpool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQhQRBkZ7ac The Eight Wonders of the Modern World - Putting the great into Great Britain
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uZcOMdZkDH4 2008 British Matchplay Championships.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st7RxJKgAS8
Strange to find some crap games get to even be released here, more games made for Nintendo goes through to Club Mario which tests the games out for any bugs, but i haven't heard they have ever tested it for quality.
Here's how i think the process should be before putting games on sale:
1) Games should be made and passed to the testing area.
2) Where from there they will test the games for bugs and any faults. So this will phase out the WWF No mercy problems from happening again.
3) Members of the public should be asked to volunteer for long tests on their games, whether they should be even released or not games that do not pass this test must go back to the drawing board or cease production. It may be expensive to stop development of the game but there is no point in bringing in rubbish games.
Here's how i think the process should be before putting games on sale:
1) Games should be made and passed to the testing area.
2) Where from there they will test the games for bugs and any faults. So this will phase out the WWF No mercy problems from happening again.
3) Members of the public should be asked to volunteer for long tests on their games, whether they should be even released or not games that do not pass this test must go back to the drawing board or cease production. It may be expensive to stop development of the game but there is no point in bringing in rubbish games.
> It's not always just a case of releasing a lame game, though.
> Smaller third party software developers don't have the time and
> resources to do as much testing and tweaking of gameplay as the
> bigger names.
Very valid point; unfortunately, this is likely to mean that - barring some very good luck and the production of what review mags consider to be a 'must have' title, most small companies are destined to remain so.
However, that doesn't excuse the 'big boys' like EA, who - despite some very good games - do supply more than their fair share of turkeys.
We should definitely be past the stage by now where the top software companies are happy to fob off customers with sub-standards goods. And as I said earlier, even accounting for personaly taste and preference, generally we all know a crock when we see one!
> Smaller third party software developers don't have the time and
> resources to do as much testing and tweaking of gameplay as the
> bigger names.
Very valid point; unfortunately, this is likely to mean that - barring some very good luck and the production of what review mags consider to be a 'must have' title, most small companies are destined to remain so.
However, that doesn't excuse the 'big boys' like EA, who - despite some very good games - do supply more than their fair share of turkeys.
We should definitely be past the stage by now where the top software companies are happy to fob off customers with sub-standards goods. And as I said earlier, even accounting for personaly taste and preference, generally we all know a crock when we see one!
Yeah... I agree with The New Jimmy here...
Imagine making it LAW, to have a review from one magazine on the game, which had nothing to do with production?
This would probably end up with magazines giving games high marks for money...
Imagine making it LAW, to have a review from one magazine on the game, which had nothing to do with production?
This would probably end up with magazines giving games high marks for money...
If third party developers think they can get away with releasing shoddy titles, I think they have every right to try. If a game is bad enough, it definitely will lose them money. I'm sure most developers will learn from their mistakes.
It's not always just a case of releasing a lame game, though. Smaller third party software developers don't have the time and resources to do as much testing and tweaking of gameplay as the bigger names. The console may be able perform, but the company might not. Ah well, I guess if you can't stand the heat you shold get out of the fire?
Quite frequently though, it's more a compromise between how many more sales you expect to get as a result of spending x months longer (and therefore $xxxxx more) making the game as good as possible. It's all about profit, sadly....
It's not always just a case of releasing a lame game, though. Smaller third party software developers don't have the time and resources to do as much testing and tweaking of gameplay as the bigger names. The console may be able perform, but the company might not. Ah well, I guess if you can't stand the heat you shold get out of the fire?
Quite frequently though, it's more a compromise between how many more sales you expect to get as a result of spending x months longer (and therefore $xxxxx more) making the game as good as possible. It's all about profit, sadly....
> The thing is the consoles need the third party developers, if they
> started telling them that everything they produced had to be of a
> certain quality, they would probably choose to only release on the
> PC.
I agree, and that's one of the problems.
The thing is - what price quality games? Do the console manufacturers insist on quality, rejecting naff titles and risking the problem you mention, or carry on as they are, allowing all manner of gaming tosh to 'grace' their machine?
Obviously the latter is more likely.
You'd think the best way of ridding ourselves of naff games would be not to buy them, and as far as I know, this has always been the case. However it seems the software companies just don't learn, doesn't it?
Looking through the last issue of PSM2 at the release schedule for PlayStation 2, I saw something like 5 or 6 Army Men titles due to appear over the next few months.
Why is this? Every one I've seen reviewed so far has been given abysmal scores - and these are on PS1, not PS2 which - supposedly - has much higher expectations!
As far as I know, they're not selling well enough to justify one sequel - let alone six - and yet they just keep churning them out! Why not put the combined funds of all the Army Men games into producing one killer, huge-selling PS2 title?
It just doesn't make sense!
> started telling them that everything they produced had to be of a
> certain quality, they would probably choose to only release on the
> PC.
I agree, and that's one of the problems.
The thing is - what price quality games? Do the console manufacturers insist on quality, rejecting naff titles and risking the problem you mention, or carry on as they are, allowing all manner of gaming tosh to 'grace' their machine?
Obviously the latter is more likely.
You'd think the best way of ridding ourselves of naff games would be not to buy them, and as far as I know, this has always been the case. However it seems the software companies just don't learn, doesn't it?
Looking through the last issue of PSM2 at the release schedule for PlayStation 2, I saw something like 5 or 6 Army Men titles due to appear over the next few months.
Why is this? Every one I've seen reviewed so far has been given abysmal scores - and these are on PS1, not PS2 which - supposedly - has much higher expectations!
As far as I know, they're not selling well enough to justify one sequel - let alone six - and yet they just keep churning them out! Why not put the combined funds of all the Army Men games into producing one killer, huge-selling PS2 title?
It just doesn't make sense!
The thing is the consoles need the third party developers, if they started telling them that everything they produced had to be of a certain quality, they would probably choose to only release on the PC.
Also, when the casual gamer comes to buying a console, it's going to be the one with the most games on the shelves, so I'm sure Sony didn't mind developers putting out some crap. It makes their console look like it has a wide range of titles.
No doubt Nintendo would have prefered to walk into a game shop, and see shelves of N64 games, rather than one measly rack.
I guess we have to learn which developers we can trust. I have faith in Nintendo (the software perfectionists) and there are some third party companies that I'd usually steer well clear of. THQ put out some right crap for the SNES if I remember rightly, and Rugrats games? No thanks!
Also, when the casual gamer comes to buying a console, it's going to be the one with the most games on the shelves, so I'm sure Sony didn't mind developers putting out some crap. It makes their console look like it has a wide range of titles.
No doubt Nintendo would have prefered to walk into a game shop, and see shelves of N64 games, rather than one measly rack.
I guess we have to learn which developers we can trust. I have faith in Nintendo (the software perfectionists) and there are some third party companies that I'd usually steer well clear of. THQ put out some right crap for the SNES if I remember rightly, and Rugrats games? No thanks!
I agree that there are many games that should have been released instead of some that actually are, but it's the censors again that cause difficulties.
I've played Thrill Kill and it is pretty 'disturbing' in the same sense that Postal on the PC was (remember the fuss that game caused?) The problem is that the company has to keep on the good side of Sony to keep it's licence (which it has to pay for anyway!)
Strangely enough, Sega have just announced that they are significantly lowering their licence costs for software, to encourage third party support for the Dreamcast!
BTW: The Thrill Kill engine can be found alive and well inside the Wu-Tang Clan: Taste the Pain game. It's just a reworking of the game with no dodgy nurses or men in stockings and suspenders doing strange things to each other (well, I haven't noticed it yet anyway!)
I've played Thrill Kill and it is pretty 'disturbing' in the same sense that Postal on the PC was (remember the fuss that game caused?) The problem is that the company has to keep on the good side of Sony to keep it's licence (which it has to pay for anyway!)
Strangely enough, Sega have just announced that they are significantly lowering their licence costs for software, to encourage third party support for the Dreamcast!
BTW: The Thrill Kill engine can be found alive and well inside the Wu-Tang Clan: Taste the Pain game. It's just a reworking of the game with no dodgy nurses or men in stockings and suspenders doing strange things to each other (well, I haven't noticed it yet anyway!)
Naff games.
Every platform has them, but why?
On consoles, a game is tested throroughly before it is given approval by the hardware vendor, to ensure that it is 'suitable for the purpose for which it is intended'. i.e. that it runs okay, does what it's supposed to when you press the buttons, and generally doesn't crash.
If any problems are discovered, the code is modified accordingly, and the process begins again. Only then will the license be granted.
But what about gameplay?
I believe it was EA who decided to do away with 'Thrill Kill' because it didn't suit their image, being "too violent and sick" etc.
Underneath all the gore and sickness, though, lurked what seemed to be a highly entertaining and very playable game. It didn't matter, though, because their 'quality control' department decided it was unsuitable.
However, the same company then releases something like 'Driving Emotion: Type S' for the PS2 - a blurry, difficult, unplayable game, which has been slated by just about every magazine out there.
I know that 'a good game' is very much a matter of personal taste, but on many occasions, pretty much everyone agrees that a particular game is a disgrace. Whether it be graphics, sound, framerate or playability, some games just plain stink.
Isn't it about time we had some kind of Software Quality Control department - at least at each of the hardware companies (Sony, Nintendo etc.) - where they can turn round and say to a developer, "Sorry, we can't give you a licence for this particular title because it just isn't good enough."
It's not as easily applicable on PC's because any company can develop a game, get it mastered on CD, then begin shipping. With no licence requirements, any company can release anything they see fit.
The principle is the same, though - someone somewhere in these companies must, if they're honest, think to themselves, "Well, it's ready... but it's not actually very *good*, is it?"
I know we don't have to buy these games, but I just wish that developers would put as much effort into quality assurance as they put into content censorship. After all, what's the point in censoring a game that no-one's going to want to buy anyway?
Hope this makes some sense - it's a bit of a 'lunchtime rush job'.
Every platform has them, but why?
On consoles, a game is tested throroughly before it is given approval by the hardware vendor, to ensure that it is 'suitable for the purpose for which it is intended'. i.e. that it runs okay, does what it's supposed to when you press the buttons, and generally doesn't crash.
If any problems are discovered, the code is modified accordingly, and the process begins again. Only then will the license be granted.
But what about gameplay?
I believe it was EA who decided to do away with 'Thrill Kill' because it didn't suit their image, being "too violent and sick" etc.
Underneath all the gore and sickness, though, lurked what seemed to be a highly entertaining and very playable game. It didn't matter, though, because their 'quality control' department decided it was unsuitable.
However, the same company then releases something like 'Driving Emotion: Type S' for the PS2 - a blurry, difficult, unplayable game, which has been slated by just about every magazine out there.
I know that 'a good game' is very much a matter of personal taste, but on many occasions, pretty much everyone agrees that a particular game is a disgrace. Whether it be graphics, sound, framerate or playability, some games just plain stink.
Isn't it about time we had some kind of Software Quality Control department - at least at each of the hardware companies (Sony, Nintendo etc.) - where they can turn round and say to a developer, "Sorry, we can't give you a licence for this particular title because it just isn't good enough."
It's not as easily applicable on PC's because any company can develop a game, get it mastered on CD, then begin shipping. With no licence requirements, any company can release anything they see fit.
The principle is the same, though - someone somewhere in these companies must, if they're honest, think to themselves, "Well, it's ready... but it's not actually very *good*, is it?"
I know we don't have to buy these games, but I just wish that developers would put as much effort into quality assurance as they put into content censorship. After all, what's the point in censoring a game that no-one's going to want to buy anyway?
Hope this makes some sense - it's a bit of a 'lunchtime rush job'.