The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Plenty of people have said that one of the main advantages of consoles is the lack of need for patches in order to cope with different systems.
As far as I can see, there are 3 main types of patches which occur on PCs today. These are:
1)Patches which solve bugs on different systems. This is clearly a disadvantage of a PC
2)Patches which add new features. Although you could say that the game should have come with these features to begin with, this will normally be considered an advantage because the manufacturer can add to the game even after it is released. With consoles adding internet capability and hard-disk facilities, it looks as if this will soon appear on consoles too.
3)Patche which simply solve bugs and problems which were in the original version and were present on all machines. I think that this is disgraceful, and more and more companies are using patches in order to be able to release a product without proper testing. This is nothing to do with the PC as a gaming platform, and the only reason it doesn't occur on consoles (at least not very often), is because manufacturers know that it is not possible to produce patches to fix this sort of problem on consoles. If consoles are to have hard-disks and internet facilities, then this problem could soon move onto other platforms. Therefore, for the most part, I think that the PC as a console has been unfairly critisised due to the many patches which are required in order to play many games properly.
As far as I can see, there are 3 main types of patches which occur on PCs today. These are:
1)Patches which solve bugs on different systems. This is clearly a disadvantage of a PC
2)Patches which add new features. Although you could say that the game should have come with these features to begin with, this will normally be considered an advantage because the manufacturer can add to the game even after it is released. With consoles adding internet capability and hard-disk facilities, it looks as if this will soon appear on consoles too.
3)Patche which simply solve bugs and problems which were in the original version and were present on all machines. I think that this is disgraceful, and more and more companies are using patches in order to be able to release a product without proper testing. This is nothing to do with the PC as a gaming platform, and the only reason it doesn't occur on consoles (at least not very often), is because manufacturers know that it is not possible to produce patches to fix this sort of problem on consoles. If consoles are to have hard-disks and internet facilities, then this problem could soon move onto other platforms. Therefore, for the most part, I think that the PC as a console has been unfairly critisised due to the many patches which are required in order to play many games properly.
Page:
Plenty of people have said that one of the main advantages of consoles is the lack of need for patches in order to cope with different systems.
As far as I can see, there are 3 main types of patches which occur on PCs today. These are:
1)Patches which solve bugs on different systems. This is clearly a disadvantage of a PC
2)Patches which add new features. Although you could say that the game should have come with these features to begin with, this will normally be considered an advantage because the manufacturer can add to the game even after it is released. With consoles adding internet capability and hard-disk facilities, it looks as if this will soon appear on consoles too.
3)Patche which simply solve bugs and problems which were in the original version and were present on all machines. I think that this is disgraceful, and more and more companies are using patches in order to be able to release a product without proper testing. This is nothing to do with the PC as a gaming platform, and the only reason it doesn't occur on consoles (at least not very often), is because manufacturers know that it is not possible to produce patches to fix this sort of problem on consoles. If consoles are to have hard-disks and internet facilities, then this problem could soon move onto other platforms. Therefore, for the most part, I think that the PC as a console has been unfairly critisised due to the many patches which are required in order to play many games properly.
As far as I can see, there are 3 main types of patches which occur on PCs today. These are:
1)Patches which solve bugs on different systems. This is clearly a disadvantage of a PC
2)Patches which add new features. Although you could say that the game should have come with these features to begin with, this will normally be considered an advantage because the manufacturer can add to the game even after it is released. With consoles adding internet capability and hard-disk facilities, it looks as if this will soon appear on consoles too.
3)Patche which simply solve bugs and problems which were in the original version and were present on all machines. I think that this is disgraceful, and more and more companies are using patches in order to be able to release a product without proper testing. This is nothing to do with the PC as a gaming platform, and the only reason it doesn't occur on consoles (at least not very often), is because manufacturers know that it is not possible to produce patches to fix this sort of problem on consoles. If consoles are to have hard-disks and internet facilities, then this problem could soon move onto other platforms. Therefore, for the most part, I think that the PC as a console has been unfairly critisised due to the many patches which are required in order to play many games properly.
What is this the A to Z of patches?
nooooooooooo!!!!!!
I'm in the middle of writing a really long piece about Console Vs PC Gaming!!!!!
By the way if anyone makes a topic entitled this I will cough into my computer and hope that my flu germs carry over to you.
OK maybe I won't but I just don't want anyone to steal my thunder
I'm in the middle of writing a really long piece about Console Vs PC Gaming!!!!!
By the way if anyone makes a topic entitled this I will cough into my computer and hope that my flu germs carry over to you.
OK maybe I won't but I just don't want anyone to steal my thunder
With regards to patches I feel that PC games are a lot more blessed, there are numerous add-ons and downloads for big games like The Sims and Quake 3 Arena. The patches improve the gameplay to suit you so they don't really go far wrong. All consoles have are cheats and in an other more coslty case, MOD chips. I think that PC patches are great, and if used properly can add so much more to a game whether it be a simple add-on or an 'Expansion Pack'. PC games offer a lot more and they can be released as a foundation and be built upon with add-on packs console games can't do this, so In my view PC games, with the right computer, deliver super games that ineffect have no end.
The Game
The Game
With the current Gen of consoles either comming with harddrives, or having themas add-ons...
The next gen will probably all have them as standard...
Us PC owners will be able to welcome you all to the lovely world of patches :)
The next gen will probably all have them as standard...
Us PC owners will be able to welcome you all to the lovely world of patches :)
One major problem with patches that 'add' new things to the games is this: They often add things people *don't* want, not to mention that patches are where the infamous MMOG 'nerfs' come into play. Imagine this: It's taken you three months of hard gaming to reach a level where your mage is actually able to hold his own with a group of adventurers. In fact, you're readily accepted in the group, because (after all) mages prove to be remarkably helpful for, say, 3 particular things. Here's what happens when the developers add a patch: You log in and it immediately downloads the thing and makes the changes. But, uh-oh, you find that the 3 things that made you mage valuable are now practically useless, because, well, the developers felt they unbalanced the game for others.
THEN...all the mages write into the company to say how unfair this is, how the other classes can beat them like crazy and that their characters aren't useful anymore, so don't get invited to go on adventuring parties as they used to. So...what does the developer do? Yep. That's right. They nerf [i.e. weaken] the other classes, so it's not so unfair. Of course, then you have all the other people mad at you now, and it didn't exactly make the mages happy either because they're still not happy with being altered from the way they used to be. Then...the other classes blame the developers and the mages for being nerfed themselves.
Sound insane? It ALWAYS happens. Personally, I feel consoles are making a mistake adding this into it. They've been free of this sort of derision and contempt for a while now, but they'll soon feel the hatred of gamers the world over every time they release a patch. I pity the buggers, I really do.
THEN...all the mages write into the company to say how unfair this is, how the other classes can beat them like crazy and that their characters aren't useful anymore, so don't get invited to go on adventuring parties as they used to. So...what does the developer do? Yep. That's right. They nerf [i.e. weaken] the other classes, so it's not so unfair. Of course, then you have all the other people mad at you now, and it didn't exactly make the mages happy either because they're still not happy with being altered from the way they used to be. Then...the other classes blame the developers and the mages for being nerfed themselves.
Sound insane? It ALWAYS happens. Personally, I feel consoles are making a mistake adding this into it. They've been free of this sort of derision and contempt for a while now, but they'll soon feel the hatred of gamers the world over every time they release a patch. I pity the buggers, I really do.
You're right that many patches which add new features add features which nobody wants, or that should have been in the original anyway (e.g. Multiplayer modes). On the other hand, games like the Sims would never have been half as big as they are if it wasn't for the internet, and various tools and add-ons available.
PinkPig wrote:
> You're right that many patches which add new features add features which nobody wants, or that should have been in the original anyway (e.g. Multiplayer modes). On the other hand, games like the Sims would never have been half as big as they are if it wasn't for the internet, and various tools and add-ons available. <
Probably right, but most of the Sims patches weren't so massive as the ones instated into games like UO, EQ, and AC on a regular basis. They'll often take something you've been working on for months, sometimes for years, and suddenly make it useless. That's why I, to a degree, have grown rather weary of patching. I admit that it can assist at times, but it can also fundamentally disregard the previous actions of the players. That's not good. Players don't play something for an extended period only to then be forced to start over. It's ridiculous. That's like if your memory cards were to suddenly be wiped clean of all your previous game data. What are the chances that you'd want to do everything over again just so you can reach the status you'd previously attained?
> You're right that many patches which add new features add features which nobody wants, or that should have been in the original anyway (e.g. Multiplayer modes). On the other hand, games like the Sims would never have been half as big as they are if it wasn't for the internet, and various tools and add-ons available. <
Probably right, but most of the Sims patches weren't so massive as the ones instated into games like UO, EQ, and AC on a regular basis. They'll often take something you've been working on for months, sometimes for years, and suddenly make it useless. That's why I, to a degree, have grown rather weary of patching. I admit that it can assist at times, but it can also fundamentally disregard the previous actions of the players. That's not good. Players don't play something for an extended period only to then be forced to start over. It's ridiculous. That's like if your memory cards were to suddenly be wiped clean of all your previous game data. What are the chances that you'd want to do everything over again just so you can reach the status you'd previously attained?
Patches... from what I remeber... were never supposed to become such a major aspect of PC software...
Developers... well... PC Mags... said that they could be used to provide add-ons to the game... or change features as a result of player feedback... and in the odd case fix game bugs....
Although everybody knew what was really going to happen... I dont think many people thought it was going to get as big as it has... to the point where its almost the expected standard?
Developers... well... PC Mags... said that they could be used to provide add-ons to the game... or change features as a result of player feedback... and in the odd case fix game bugs....
Although everybody knew what was really going to happen... I dont think many people thought it was going to get as big as it has... to the point where its almost the expected standard?
True, Shanks, but the problem is essentially that: they listen to the gamers. In a situation like the current MMOGs [Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, and Everquest], where the gamer is placed in an open-ended environment, the game is whatever they deem it to be. Of course there's going to be some who feel warriors hit to hard or that this particular magic spell is too damaging. Meanwhile, others will have a drastically different view. A patch, in this sort of situation, is like knocking over a domino in a string of them. Others just keep falling...
Page: