Game developers are getting more sloppy; having the wrong attitude

[4RM3D]

[rant]
Game developers are getting more sloppy; having the wrong attitude. Don't they have quality checks anymore? Because I really get the impression studios just skips that step and release the game, with an attitude like: " If When there are bugs we can always release a patch. No problem, right? And it's not like we could see every bug, so we let the costumers who buy the game test the game for us." Thats a pretty cheap solution.

And now that most consoles are also connected to the internet 24/7, even console games get a myriad of bugs. I remember the PS2 era where you couldn't just patch games. PS2 games had a lot less bugs.

Maybe all this is happening under pressure of time and money or some other pressure from the top. But it seems to be happening more often to the triple A studio's than the smaller indie devs.
[/rant]

Most recent examples are the game breaking bug(s) in Skyrim and Zelda: Skyward Sword.

Thoughts?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

There aren`t fewer bugs, there are just more games. To be more precise, more huge, AAA games with scope that the last gen couldn`t handle on a regular basis, or at all. If we look at the kind of games that were big on the PS2 (action, racing, JRPG), today`s games aren`t any more buggy. Compare then Morrowind and Skyrim, which have just as many bugs (Morrowind was even worse) despite being generations apart, or GTA 3 to 4. Its just the nature of the genres. Also take into account online compatibility, which opens a whole bevy of new problems.

Online patching also has the advantage of letting buggy games actually fix themselves. Time was, if you released a buggy game that was it. You`d better hope it wasn`t game ending, because the chances of it getting fixed without you having to buy a new one was nil on consoles. WIth PC it was slightly better: provided the company actually bothered to do it, or didn`t got under in the process (coughTroikacough).

In short: games are bigger, there are more of them so its more noticable, online patching actually helps consoles make these games playable.

 

[Iori Branford]

Correct. Small devs with small games are where the quality's at now. Big ones still pour most everything into their pretty cutting-edge technical and cinematic arms race, regardless of an economy that can barely support an industry and market for such titles anymore.

 

[endtherapture]

Arkham City is an example of this.

The game on PC was delayed for well over a month after the console release. The game on release is bugged to hell and features like GFWL and PhysX are just broken.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Well, the probability of a bug rises exponentially with the complexity of the game...
AAA games are more complicated than they've ever been...
The math on that is pretty straight-forward.

However, you are correct in the sense that the internet plays a role.
PC games went downhill when internet connections became more common.

Consoles followed the same trend.

Guess which console has the least bugs in it's games... It's the Wii.
And I'll hazard this is because you can't patch Wii games at all.

I mean, look at what happened when a huge bug was found in Other M...
They had to ship out replacement game disks...
Fix save files (by having them sent to Nintendo by mail...)

With the prospect of bugs being that expensive to fix, you have much more incentive to get it right the first time.

When you can just get people to download a patch from the internet? Yeah... It's easy to start being careless.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, updates and bug fixes are used for all sorts of computer software, not just games, it'd be odd if they didn't use it.

It's annoying to have to deal with bugs, yeah, but if the people are serious with patches, it's not that major a problem, except initially.

Not ideal, but not too bad.

 

[4RM3D]

There aren`t fewer bugs, there are just more games. To be more precise, more huge, AAA games with scope that the last gen couldn`t handle on a regular basis, or at all. If we look at the kind of games that were big on the PS2 (action, racing, JRPG), today`s games aren`t any more buggy. Compare then Morrowind and Skyrim, which have just as many bugs (Morrowind was even worse) despite being generations apart, or GTA 3 to 4. Its just the nature of the genres. Also take into account online compatibility, which opens a whole bevy of new problems.

Bethesda has become known for its bugs, no matter the time period. ^^

When games become more complex and thus more difficult to test, that doesn't mean they are allowed to have more bugs just because of that. If games evolve, then quality assurance should evolve with them.

 

[GonzoGamer]

All that has happened is that console games have finally cought up to PC standards of release a game that is buggy as hell and patch it later. It was inevitable that this would happen as soon as more consoles became connected to the internet.

It is also the same types of games that this is happening to as well. All of your bigger world open games have tons of bugs because they are big open games and its hard to get all of them. The smaller more linear games have far less bugs since they have less things that need testing.

So basically Console games are getting all of the annoyances of the PC games but none of the benefits like mods & things.
No wonder the big budget console business has taken a nosedive.

Big open world games from last gen (like San Andreas) had some serious bugs too but none of them rendered the game unplayable.

I don't think people would mind so much if most of the problems actually got fixed but someone like Bethesda is notorious for fixing a few minor things and leaving all the really annoying game breaking problems.

 

[Worgen]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was partly intentional to prevent piracy, I mean release a game that is kinda buggy so that if its leaked early then they don't get a less buggy game unless they connect to update patches and if its a pirated version then deny them updates or something.

 

[GonzoGamer]

So basically Console games are getting all of the annoyances of the PC games but none of the benefits like mods & things.
No wonder the big budget console business has taken a nosedive.

Except that it hasnt it has actually been increasing over the years.

Interesting.
If that's the case, then how come they feel the need to add $10 pass and all these other schemes to increase pre-orders? If it's been increasing, they should be pleased, stop complaining about the used market, and they should stop hacking apart their games so this mode requires a pass code or that content requires a pre-order. Not saying that it's an excuse to irritate the consumer either but if it isn't the case then they're just getting greedy.
But I don't see how it can be though: when the sales for the PS3 and the 360 combined are far short of just the PS2 sales at this point in the last console cycle, it just seems logical that the smaller base of consumers would lead to less purchases of big budget games.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

There aren`t fewer bugs, there are just more games. To be more precise, more huge, AAA games with scope that the last gen couldn`t handle on a regular basis, or at all. If we look at the kind of games that were big on the PS2 (action, racing, JRPG), today`s games aren`t any more buggy. Compare then Morrowind and Skyrim, which have just as many bugs (Morrowind was even worse) despite being generations apart, or GTA 3 to 4. Its just the nature of the genres. Also take into account online compatibility, which opens a whole bevy of new problems.

Bethesda has become known for its bugs, no matter the time period. ^^

When games become more complex and thus more difficult to test, that doesn't mean they are allowed to have more bugs just because of that. If games evolve, then quality assurance should evolve with them.

Maybe so, but it's still virtually impossible for any Q&A team to catch every last bug before a game is released. And let's not forget that debugging software/games is like trying to slay a hydra; fixing one bug causes five more to spring up in it's place.

 

[KingHodor]

If we look at the kind of games that were big on the PS2 (action, racing, JRPG), today`s games aren`t any more buggy. Compare then Morrowind and Skyrim, which have just as many bugs (Morrowind was even worse)

That's what gets me: People who complain about Skyrim being a bugfest are forgetting/ignoring/don't know that all the Elders Scrolls games have been bugfests when they were first released. From my experience, freshly released RPGs have almost always been bugfests - the same people who are now delivering you horribly flawed yet captivating RPGs under the name Obsidian did the same thing when they were still working for Black Isle in the 90s, and Troika in the early 2000s.

Heck, all the European/"ComBloc" PC RPGs that are sadly underappreciated by gamers across the Atlantic (e.g. the Witcher, Gothic or Two Worlds series) make Skyrim look downright "polished".

 

[4RM3D]

Heck, all the European/"ComBloc" PC RPGs that are sadly underappreciated by gamers across the Atlantic (e.g. the Witcher, Gothic or Two Worlds series) make Skyrim look downright "polished".

Maybe, but the devs from The Witcher admitted they screwed up and released a free version 2.0. They have constantly improved the game. With The Witcher 2 (which is less buggy than Skyrim) the devs once again made an effort to improve the game while giving free DLC's other games charge +10 bucks for. I can't say the same for Bethesda. No, The Witcher ain't a good example.

Gothic 1 and 2 had little issues then everything went downhill with Gothic 3. So it is not all bad.

I have played Two Worlds without noticing any bugs. Mediocre game though, but not so buggy.

Bethesda still takes the cake here. Yes, The Elder Scrolls games are complex and a difficult to test. Still no excuse to find that many bugs.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Yes, Skyrim has a lot of bugs. You know what else it has?

Size.

Huge, huge amounts of land and sea to roam about on and have an astonishing and breathtaking time in.

Developers aren't getting sloppier, games are getting bigger- obviously there will be a greater amount of bugs.

So perhaps THEY don't ha the wrong attitude, but YOU do?

 

[Hal10k]

Heck, all the European/"ComBloc" PC RPGs that are sadly underappreciated by gamers across the Atlantic (e.g. the Witcher, Gothic or Two Worlds series) make Skyrim look downright "polished".

Maybe, but the devs from The Witcher admitted they screwed up and released a free version 2.0. They have constantly improved the game. With The Witcher 2 (which is less buggy than Skyrim) the devs once again made an effort to improve the game while giving free DLC's other games charge +10 bucks for. I can't say the same for Bethesda. No, The Witcher ain't a good example.

Gothic 1 and 2 had little issues then everything went downhill with Gothic 3. So it is not all bad.

I have played Two Worlds without noticing any bugs. Mediocre game though, but not so buggy.

Bethesda still takes the cake here. Yes, The Elder Scrolls games are complex and a difficult to test. Still no excuse to find that many bugs.

The Witcher 2.0 update came out four months after the game was released, and still left a sizable number of bugs. Skyrim has only been out for one month, and it's constantly being patched, so yes, the developers are "making an effort to improve the game". And you're forgetting that, while horse armor wasn't the best idea, Bethesda also released Shivering Isles as "$10 DLC", which nearly doubled my length of playtime for the game.

 

[4RM3D]

The Witcher 2.0 update came out four months after the game was released, and still left a sizable number of bugs. Skyrim has only been out for one month, and it's constantly being patched, so yes, the developers are "making an effort to improve the game". And you're forgetting that, while horse armor wasn't the best idea, Bethesda also released Shivering Isles as "$10 DLC", which nearly doubled my length of playtime for the game.

Shivering Isles is an expansion of Oblivion. That game is worse than Skyrim in every aspect. Already made a post about that, so I won't be reviewing that here. The point is that I stopped playing Oblivion long before the end (ultimately because of a game breaking BUG!). When Bethesda released the expansion it was already too late.

Now, don't get me wrong... I don't hate Skyrim. I can even accept a few bugs. Some are even amusing. Heck, I enjoy Skyrim for the most part, but I had once again a game breaking bug that screwed up the game. And that would have been the end, if not for Bethesda backing up save data. Who would have guessed? I guess Bethesda thought it would be a smart idea with all the shit that can happen in game.

So, Bethesda ain't all bad. Bugs are still an issue, not just for Bethesda, but for most games. Bethesda just had "one too many".

 

[Hal10k]

The Witcher 2.0 update came out four months after the game was released, and still left a sizable number of bugs. Skyrim has only been out for one month, and it's constantly being patched, so yes, the developers are "making an effort to improve the game". And you're forgetting that, while horse armor wasn't the best idea, Bethesda also released Shivering Isles as "$10 DLC", which nearly doubled my length of playtime for the game.

Shivering Isles is an expansion of Oblivion. That game is worse than Skyrim in every aspect. Already made a post about that, so I won't be reviewing that here. The point is that I stopped playing Oblivion long before the end (ultimately because of a game breaking BUG!). When Bethesda released the expansion it was already too late.

Now, don't get me wrong... I don't hate Skyrim. I can even accept a few bugs. Some are even amusing. Heck, I enjoy Skyrim for the most part, but I had once again a game breaking bug that screwed up the game. And that would have been the end, if not for Bethesda backing up save data. Who would have guessed? I guess Bethesda thought it would be a smart idea with all the shit that can happen in game.

So, Bethesda ain't all bad. Bugs are still an issue, not just for Bethesda, but for most games. Bethesda just had "one too many".

I know, I was just objecting to the benchmark you were using to claim the the Witcher 2 devs were better at updating the game than the Skyrim devs. We should wait until Skyrim has been out for four months before judging it by the standard of the Witcher 2.0.

I can understand what you mean about not liking Oblivion; I certainly prefer Morrowind and Skyrim. But I still liked it, and Shivering Isles made it much better. I was just pointing out that Bethesda will often put a lot more effort into DLC than the likes of Project $10.

 

[Baldr]

[rant]
Game developers are getting more sloppy; having the wrong attitude. Don't they have quality checks anymore? Because I really get the impression studios just skips that step and release the game, with an attitude like: " If When there are bugs we can always release a patch. No problem, right? And it's not like we could see every bug, so we let the costumers who buy the game test the game for us." Thats a pretty cheap solution.

And now that most consoles are also connected to the internet 24/7, even console games get a myriad of bugs. I remember the PS2 era where you couldn't just patch games. PS2 games had a lot less bugs.

Maybe all this is happening under pressure of time and money or some other pressure from the top. But it seems to be happening more often to the triple A studio's than the smaller indie devs.
[/rant]

Most recent examples are the game breaking bug(s) in Skyrim and Zelda: Skyward Sword.

Thoughts?

More complicated games with less development time and less budget on Quality Assurances does not mean Game Developers are getting more sloppy.

 

[4RM3D]

More complicated games with less development time and less budget on Quality Assurances does not mean Game Developers are getting more sloppy.

What then...?

"less budget on Quality Assurances" doesn't sound good either.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Bigger games, more action, more moving parts = more bugs. Get used to it.