Developers That Rub You The Wrong Way

[Hijax]

What developers rub you the wrong way?

Going to get flamed for this but: Valve. Like their games but they take too damn long to make them. Not asking them to release a new game every year but L4D2 came out in 2009 and they've only released 2 bits of DLC for it, and both were mediocre at best. Hell, they both used the exact same last stage. Most developers can manage that many DLC's in a year. They strive for "perfection" and as Duke Nukem Forever taught us, the longer you take to make something "perfect," the crappier the final version will be. And their relationship with console gamers as been shaky at best. I suspect they just do it for profit, which it seems a lot of mostly PC developers do. 'We want everybody to enjoy our games!' Yeah, right. Don't get me started on the console release of TF2, which they are partly to blame for. Placing all the blame on MS for that is just stupid. And I hate how they've been put up on this pedestal to where nobody can ever say anything bad about them. "But they made Half-Life!" that doesn;t excuse them for doing shoddy business and making half-baked promises they never intend to follow through on. "We're going to release some community maps as DLC for the consoles!" B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

I have some other major developers I'm not suppose to say anything bad about because they made X and X was a great game so that excuses them from any criticism ever but I'm tired now and don't feel like writing anymore.

So again, what developers do you dislike for one reason or another?

I really hate to be the obligatory angry fanboy revenge guy, but here goes:
You say they take too long to make their games, and cite Duke Nukem as an argument that this is a bad idea. This is a good argument, or would be, if it weren't for the fact that none of the problems that exist in duke nukem(or at least, none of the problems caused by the long development time) exist in most valve games.

See, what (i am guessing) happened to DNF was what is sometimes called the Feature Creep. Everyone on the team kept going "Oh, wouldn't it be cool if Duke could do this, [insert feature here]?", and they kept adding it because, hey, the ideas were pretty cool. The long time was spent adding a load of features that weren't thought up as a coherent whole, and they drowned out any merit the actual game might have had.

Valve, however, spends the long development cycles polishing their games. And while i'd be lying if i said i didn't want the games to come out more often, i'd much rather wait my ass off than get anything less than the excellence i've come to expect of valve.

As for the Xbox thing, this is actually the truth, as far as i know. It is literally against the terms of the agreement between microsoft and the developers to release free DLC(including patches), and furthermore it's not supported within the system, as far as i know. What, you'd rather pay for you patches?

Also, the thing about them not linking consoles in general is a valid point. But if you're actually saying that it's wrong for them to want more money, then i'm sorry, but their job is to make money. And if you're saying that the marketing department shouldn't lie about their true motives, then i'm sorry, that is also pretty much their job.

 

[Blue_vision]

As much as I love them, Mojang, for not testing their patches sufficiently. Yes, Minecraft is still a beta. Doesn't mean you can get away with some of the damage their patches have done (eg, 1.6). I think they've just not transitioned to a "proper" development company, but it still frustrates me.

I will second this. Also because I get the feeling that the team's already made millions off of Minecraft, they figure they can do very little to actually improve the game. Seriously, the last notable game update was way back at the end of October: everything since then has just been little details that could take a full team maybe a day to complete, without breaking the game every single patch.

Not that they have an imperative to keep adding to the game, but with the amount of stuff that minecraft could still have in it, I'm a bit dismayed at how little work they're getting done. But, perhaps they're just making the transition and will improve in efficiency as time goes on.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Quantic Dream. Mainly the lead's pretentiousness, his inability to design a game or even write for a game. A couple of others on my mind: Ninja Theory, That Game Company, Tale of Tales and Lionhead. I dislike those guys more for their comments on other games and their own games than I dislike any of their work.

 

[Arluza]

Lionhead for everything Fable related.

In what way? The Fable series is an excellent one.
I actually hope to work for Lionhead in the future because of B&W and Fable.

in short;

Too short of games, horribly unbalanced weapon choices, horrible NPC interactions, lack of customizable features in game, stupid bullshit DLC (Black Dye, for example), bland story, Black and White choices in 'ethical options', horrible endings in all Fable games.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Recently, DICE. I understand that EA is responsible for a bunch of PR bullshit, but DICE has been making a bunch of shoddy design decisions. I'm looking at you Battlefield Heroes, with your "Free2Play" approach meaning free to play if you like losing. There is no fucking balance in that game at all.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

As for the Xbox thing, this is actually the truth, as far as i know. It is literally against the terms of the agreement between microsoft and the developers to release free DLC(including patches), and furthermore it's not supported within the system, as far as i know. What, you'd rather pay for you patches?

Never said I wanted it for free. I would have paid for a TF2 map pack. A lot of people would have. Valve just didn't want to bother with it. They were too focused on making hats.

And patches are free. I've never had to pay to get an update for a game on Xbox unless you count the monthly subscription. Are there really people who believe that?

 

[Juk3n]

ValVe - their fanbase is the MOST hardcore, geeky, fanboyish and loyal. The should have 10 times the amount of communication with their fans than they do.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

Going to get flamed for this but: Valve.

Not gonna flame, just gonna re-assess your points.

Valve
. take too long: So they should be whipped to work faster?
. DNF wasn't good: So no-one should ever strive again?
. "as a PC developer, they don't have a great relationship with consoles." Really?
. "They're just doing it for the money". Unlike every other company ever.
. 'We want everybody to enjoy our games!' - They probably do, y'know. All game developers want people to enjoy their games.
. the console release of TF2 - Valve attempted to fix that a number of times, but were just held to insane rules.
. pedestal theory - pointing out flaws in emotional, rather than logical arguments, isn't a pedestal. It's just that all of your flaws can be applied to other manufacturers and more. Even if we accept all of your criticisms as true, there are companies far worse.
. shoddy business: Care to give some examples?
. "We're going to release some community maps as DLC for the consoles!" And they might, but it's a little harsh to attack someone before they've had chance to fulfil their promise, isn't it?

Now if you still want to hate Valve because you don't like black and grey artwork, or the bald guy creeps you out or it once looked at your bird funny then fair enough.

But you don't seem to have any solid evidence to hate them, just feelings and misinformation.

My own personal hate figure is pretty obvious, but that's because of dodgy business practices, multiple lawsuits, suit-dodging, jack-booted non-payment and strip-mining IPS. All of which I've got a nice bookmarked link for. I could also hate them for all of your Valve reasons, but they're feelings rather than facts.

my problem with Valve? either all their games are in first person, highly linear (i like free-roaming games the best), or they just bought the right to a somewhat finished product from someone else (L4D and DoTA spring to mind). I have yet to see them break out of their comfort zone and make something completely different.

First person is their thing (you have the right to have your opinion and so you can not like their games for that reason).

But L4D was a valve title so I don't know what you are talking about. Also, comfort zone, what comfort zone. After literally making only half life one they come up with the zany tf1 precusrsor to the awesome online only comedy team shooter that is TF2. They took a step into an unknown not only for them but for all of gaming with a dark humour first person puzzler (portal). And then L4D, in my opinion one of the best zombie games of all time was radically different from their other titles. They actually said, we have done fpses (with some slow headcrab zombies admittedly) lets just take that and make a game in a completely different (zombie) genre. Everything they do is steppin out of the comfort zone. If it works they make sequels and there is no crime in valves sequels.

 

[Kahunaburger]

This is more or less how I feel about Bioware, too. I like the gameplay in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins, and in the rest less so. The big narratives are really nothing to write home about.

I think the characters are good for what they are. They don't feel as independent or credible as, say, the characters in Planescape: Torment, Prince of Persia:SoT, or Witcher games. (Example: we have no idea how the characters in Mass Effect 2 relate to each other because the game never really shows us.) And they aren't as entertaining as the characters in Psychonauts. The aim seems to be to strike a happy medium between the two extremes, and Bioware seems to be pretty good at that.

They are very good at some things, though. Some of the loyalty/recruitment missions in Mass Effect 2 are inspired. And the whole experience is very polished - none of the gameplay, UI or difficulty issues that affect all the other games I mentioned here. So they're pretty good. It's just that they could be so much better haha.

They've gotten good at combining slick presentation and gameplay with well thought out universes, and their stories are undoubtedly better than a lot of the turgid crap we get. So for that reason I don't like to say I hate them. Hell, I still really enjoy KotOR. My problem is that, as a fan of literature and reading books, "great storytelling" doesn't just mean 'good characters and a few interesting sub-plots'. It's the whole package, both the events of the narrative, and the techniques by which it's presented to the audience. When you have works like Ulysses, The Great Gatsby, 1984, Brave New World, etc, books that didn't just tell good stories, but that helped change the way we tell them in, as well as telling us something profound about the world we live in. Despite the prior existence of Communism, no-one in the West really gave any thought to Totalitarianism and its implications for a modern society. Thanks to Orwell, it's a concept which many of us now consider on an almost daily basis. Heck, it's only now, in our age of instant gratification, that we're starting to realise just how prescient Aldous Huxley was when he wrote Brave New World.

That to me is the true power of storytelling, and that's something that's still lacking in videogames. We have any number of cyberpunk games, but are there any that offer as chilling and plausible a setting as Blade Runner? We have dozens of sci-fi shooters set in the reaches of space, but anything that matches the commentary of Arthur C. Clarke? It's not enough to simply have good characters, I think, because a truly great story has to offer something that applies beyond itself: something for the player to take away with them, if you will. And while Mass Effect isn't bad, I fail to see how it's any better written than your average episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Bah, I'm rambling now. Suffice to say that I'm glad we agree, and I hope one day a developer can offer up a story that can stand alongside the works of Kafka, Dostoevsky and Dumas. With EA behind them, however, I can't say I'm optimistic that it'll be Bioware.

I agree with you - gaming as a medium has a way to go to catch up with literature. Something like Mass Effect 2 on a good day (say, Legion or Mordin's loyalty mission) is about on par with Star Trek on a good day. Something like Planescape: Torment is in line with an amazing fantasy novel, and something like Witcher 2 is in line with a good fantasy novel. Psychonauts and Prince of Persia I think are more "game-like" in terms of writing and plot in that the gameplay drives the plot as opposed to vice-versa, although I guess you could say the writing is about on par with what you'd get in a very good movie. I think Bioware is doing stuff that's generally a good direction to be going in with Mass Effect 2, but yeah I agree with you that EA is not exactly a positive influence.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Going to get flamed for this but: Valve.

Not gonna flame, just gonna re-assess your points.

Valve
. take too long: So they should be whipped to work faster?
. DNF wasn't good: So no-one should ever strive again?
. "as a PC developer, they don't have a great relationship with consoles." Really?
. "They're just doing it for the money". Unlike every other company ever.
. 'We want everybody to enjoy our games!' - They probably do, y'know. All game developers want people to enjoy their games.
. the console release of TF2 - Valve attempted to fix that a number of times, but were just held to insane rules.
. pedestal theory - pointing out flaws in emotional, rather than logical arguments, isn't a pedestal. It's just that all of your flaws can be applied to other manufacturers and more. Even if we accept all of your criticisms as true, there are companies far worse.
. shoddy business: Care to give some examples?
. "We're going to release some community maps as DLC for the consoles!" And they might, but it's a little harsh to attack someone before they've had chance to fulfil their promise, isn't it?

Now if you still want to hate Valve because you don't like black and grey artwork, or the bald guy creeps you out or it once looked at your bird funny then fair enough.

But you don't seem to have any solid evidence to hate them, just feelings and misinformation.

My own personal hate figure is pretty obvious, but that's because of dodgy business practices, multiple lawsuits, suit-dodging, jack-booted non-payment and strip-mining IPS. All of which I've got a nice bookmarked link for. I could also hate them for all of your Valve reasons, but they're feelings rather than facts.

my problem with Valve? either all their games are in first person, highly linear (i like free-roaming games the best), or they just bought the right to a somewhat finished product from someone else (L4D and DoTA spring to mind). I have yet to see them break out of their comfort zone and make something completely different.

First person is their thing (you have the right to have your opinion and so you can not like their games for that reason).

But L4D was a valve title so I don't know what you are talking about. Also, comfort zone, what comfort zone. After literally making only half life one they come up with the zany tf1 precusrsor to the awesome online only comedy team shooter that is TF2. They took a step into an unknown not only for them but for all of gaming with a dark humour first person puzzler (portal). And then L4D, in my opinion one of the best zombie games of all time was radically different from their other titles. They actually said, we have done fpses (with some slow headcrab zombies admittedly) lets just take that and make a game in a completely different (zombie) genre. Everything they do is steppin out of the comfort zone. If it works they make sequels and there is no crime in valves sequels.

of course there's no crime in sequels, but i'd like valve to step into new genres for once, saying "hey, let's make half-life... with zombies!" is about as original as "hey, let's make a world war 2 shooter... with dinosaurs!" and like i said, i know everyone on this site likes to think of valve as some sort of gaming folk hero of the ages, but let's face it, like any other company out there, they only do what's successful and safe and won't step out of that comfort zone (call me when they make an RTS, Family, or 3rd Person Open World Action Game... g-mod doesn't count since it's an mmo mod)

 

[Kahunaburger]

Tale of Tales

These guys annoy me so much. Their business model:

1. Make a mediocre adventure game with hot topic aesthetics
2. Be really, really pretentious about it
3. Whine about how nobody played it
4. ???
5. Profit!

 

[9999squirrels]

Nexon: My only real experience with them was a few months of MappleStory which I now bitterly regret, how ever its rather obvious that they are in it for money only. They could care less about games and more about gimmicky micro purchases that are either one use only or disappear in a month or so. I remember once an admin came on the server wide announcement thing and was flamed by seemingly every player who possessed the item needed to do the same. It was quite sad how even their own community hates their guts. Also who ever the heck owns C.O.D. now, I can't keep track.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

Rockstar. I love the stories in their games, but I just find that their open worlds don't have an awful lot to do that doesn't involve leaving you to your own devices. Yeah, slaughtering everyone is entertaining the first couple of times, but some of the side content is a bit dull. Like the challenges in RDR towards the higher ranks and some of the Stranger missions.

Also, Obsidian. Great games and concepts, but such poor execution due to bugs. Please, guys! Just test your games a bit more!

 

[Vibhor]

Have you play the SP yet? Please tell me if you did. Cause in the Story, you can make two decision on who to help. Like save a human colony, or destory it due to them being infected by zerg. Why have this choice if it isn't going to play out in the next game? Or use points you get to buy a few different units. So it has a few "RPG" elment in choice making. Next time you try to quote me , do your reseacher.

CHOICES ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE TO RPG DAMMIT!
And how come few points are different than using resources to bu units?
That kind of system has been done before in an RTS not an RPG.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Obsidian. These are guys who came from the CRPG company in the late 90s and early 00s, Black Isle Studios. Those guys made Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale; they picked up right where SSI left off with the gold box games. When the Black Isle guys reformed into Obsidian, they got KoTOR 2 which is PS:T's spiritual sequel set in the Star Wars universe and would have been the greatest CRPG ever made but for issues I'll get to shortly, NWN2, New Vegas...

...but their quality assurance and development times suck, and that really pisses me off considering their games are phenomenal. Granted, they also tend to get screwed by their publishers (LucasArts, I have yet to forgive you for that), but still...

I said that gamers screamed not to change Starcraft's core mechanics because they didn't need fixing.

So they didn't, and still got screamed at.

But they would have been screamed at even louder had they made SC2 a totally different kind of game.

Gamers are impossible to please, kid.

You know, the thing that amazes me over the SC2 "controversy" is that the community actually was up in arms that...units were smarter. Whereas, in SC/BW the AI was so stupid that it worked against the player and the first step in becoming good at the game was overcoming a limitation which never should have been there in the first place. Two ARM construction Kbots could out-think the Terrans, Protoss, and Zerg combined and somehow this was construed to be a good thing.

Players (especially the Korean community) were actually outraged that you no longer had to be obsessive-compulsive to do well at the game, and could concentrate on actually strategizing...in a real-time strategy.

 

[pdgeorge]

Bethesda are the guys who piss me off.
Why?
Fallout 3.
A game with GREAT potential, but with so many things letting it down.
100+ hours of potential game play! Great! (in theory)
in truth, they did closed beta's and didn't properly test everything so very regularly you'll get stuck in the geometry of the world, with quick saving being a rarity it would be VERY easy for you to lose 2 hours worth of exploring because Bethesda coded a shitty game. (I'm going to be honest, if I have to save regularly it takes me out of the game, especially when I have to pause and save etc. That's not a good thing for an RPG to do to you) and the other bad point about that... the main story quest takes about... 10 hours of that 100 hours. And most of the rest of that time has nothing to do with the story or is even anywhere near it. It would have been rather easy to modify the story enough to make it so you need to go to the republic of Dave instead of chancing upon it (or going there on purpose because you have meta knowledge) or any of the other areas.
Also the end of game 'boss' (or just the mission itself) was just so... horrid.
Also, Fallout New Vegas ended up with them making the same mistakes they made previously, just made them MORE.

BTW: for fanboys who are wanting to flame me for this: I did like those two games. Loved them. I was just so disappointed that they had so much potential but kept crapping all over it.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Square Enix. I suffered through 15 hours of FFXIII before rage quitting.

Bioware. The romances at this point seem to serve no purpose. I want a switchboard to turn off romantic interest from specific characters. That?s the fairest way to do it. Also, you guys seem snarky and your fans are the worst.

Lionhead. I thought Fable 2 was good, and Fable 3 was decent. Both were worth my money, and they shall always have a place on my shelf. But now the rail shooter thing? Sorry, this is the jumping off point for me. I don?t care what the journalists say, Peter has stretched the truth in the past. I also didn?t like the very one sided political commentary in Fable 3

Obsidian. I am a fan of what you did with NWN2. It is likely my favorite RPG of all time. Hell, that had some of the better ?romance? subplots I have ever seen in a game.

Spoiler

You crush my girlfriend under a rock? And my other one is a bald Red Wizard who is part of a soul of the woman who is the lover of the person who is now a curse that now lives in me? Lolwut?

I really want to play NV and Alpha Protocol, but I hear they are so unpolished that I won?t even bother. I am really hoping Dungeon Siege 3 is good. I also think you need to do more with the Forgotten Realms IP.

Gearbox. I loved Borderlands. It was the first game I got for my Xbox. I have spent countless hours playing that wonderful game. But DNF? Come on guys. Two weapons? Roland can carry around a pistol, SMG, assault rifle, shotgun, missile launcher, sniper rifle, ect easy. So why can?t Duke?

Rockstar. I am not a PC gamer (because of system issues), but I really think you guys need to release RDR and L.A. Noire for the PC. PC gamers aren?t all jerks.

 

[Laser Priest]

Capcom, mostly.

I think they release five versions of every game they produce.

 

[Arehexes]

Any company that sees a genre and plays it safe, not going the extra mile to try new things.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Those people that are making the new Twisted Metal. Jaffe or something is one of them. I hate that guy.

Not trolling just curious but whats your problem with Jaffe.

Hard to put my finger on. It's his general persona; I find him very loud and opinionated, but not overtly diskish or anything.