Holding Developers to Higher Standards

[Redweaver]

Oy... Congratz, you noticed that the video game industry is like every other industry and everything on this planet in that there will occasionally be shit. Films, books, comics, tv, and every industry will try and make money and rush a product for fan appeal. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

And I honestly think they're in the right. It costs a LOT to make a video game, and they're trying to make a return on their business. We are capitalist. We want to make money. Not everyone is going to pour their heart and soul into a new IP when they're not sure where their dinner's going to come from. And we're not entitled to anything just because they're selling stuff.

Yeah, right. The CEOs, venture capitalists and other people at the descision-making level of companies who choose to rush games out the door are really worrying about where their dinner is going to come from.

What a perfect bit of douchebaggy hyperbole.

The code monkies might make minimum wage and worry about their dinners, but they aren't making the decisions.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

How is that a good rebuttal? You've both completely glossed over the fact that the people who are unhappy with the game may want things done differently, if people are happy with the game, they may like it the way it is.

Improvements for one person might not = improvements for another.

Your argument is generally invalidated by the simple fact that it is impossible to please everyone.

For your *logic* to even be relevant, you'd have to determine what the word *improvement* is for a game like DA2.

The word "improvement" probably isn't the best choice simply because defining what that term means in a universally satisfying way is impossible (see my first point). They can introduce "changes" that will satisfy some and alienate others. The savvy business man generally opts to make changes that result in the largest number of sales, a point that quite conveniently disregards petty notions of "brand loyalty", which is little more than a polite term for fan-boy.

Saying "every improvement is good" is bullshit unless you can specify what improvement you're talking about, because when you're talking about "improvements" based on personal opinion, then you've already failed.

One can easily make an argument as to why a particular change is for the best but it is by no means definitive. People lament the changes in the inventory system in DA2 for example but they never seem to tell us why. What did the inventory system offer except pointless busy work? One can talk about "choice" if they want in this regard but, really, where was the choice? Sure, you could put your rogue in heavy armor and then proceed to never get to use special abilities. Sure, you could put your tank in light armor but why would you make the member most certain to get pummeled at greater danger? All this "choice" really offered was the chance to play the game in a non-optimal way.

What people really want is control. The old inventory system did not offer it. The new one does not offer it either. The difference is simply that the new system is far more obvious about this fact.

Does that mean I could call the change good? Probably not - it seems to be a bit of a push. They discarded the thin illusion of choice when they did away with busy work but failed to address the fundamental concern inherent with the system in the first place. Bioware's latest titles have all had this very problem in that they present themselves as respecting the player's ability to define the game while simultaneously offering only the barest pretense of choice.

 

[Blueruler182]

Oy... Congratz, you noticed that the video game industry is like every other industry and everything on this planet in that there will occasionally be shit. Films, books, comics, tv, and every industry will try and make money and rush a product for fan appeal. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

And I honestly think they're in the right. It costs a LOT to make a video game, and they're trying to make a return on their business. We are capitalist. We want to make money. Not everyone is going to pour their heart and soul into a new IP when they're not sure where their dinner's going to come from. And we're not entitled to anything just because they're selling stuff.

Yeah, right. The CEOs, venture capitalists and other people at the descision-making level of companies who choose to rush games out the door are really worrying about where their dinner is going to come from.

What a perfect bit of douchebaggy hyperbole.

The code monkies might make minimum wage and worry about their dinners, but they aren't making the decisions.

Oh, good, you've decided to be a dick about this. You miss the rest of what I wrote? About every industry having these problems? Of course not, that would ad validity to what I said, so why don't we just focus on the part of the argument you decided to focus on.

First off, companies are being shut down and making video games is a risky business. You flop at a game big enough and you can be brought under. That is why those decision makers are playing it safe. You sink enough money into a completely new, innovative title that winds up sucking ass and it can and probably will fuck you over.

Second, lets look at exactly how a company works, shall we? The higher ups aren't stupid, that's how they got up there, and they're not Sauron. They have to keep their people happy and working in order for their business to work, and part of that is making sure that the "code monkeys" get fed. Because if those code monkeys go away the people at the top are screwed. I'm not saying that they have any say in the way the company is run, I'm saying that their dinner relies on the people at the top playing it safe.

 

[Redweaver]

Oy... Congratz, you noticed that the video game industry is like every other industry and everything on this planet in that there will occasionally be shit. Films, books, comics, tv, and every industry will try and make money and rush a product for fan appeal. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

And I honestly think they're in the right. It costs a LOT to make a video game, and they're trying to make a return on their business. We are capitalist. We want to make money. Not everyone is going to pour their heart and soul into a new IP when they're not sure where their dinner's going to come from. And we're not entitled to anything just because they're selling stuff.

Yeah, right. The CEOs, venture capitalists and other people at the descision-making level of companies who choose to rush games out the door are really worrying about where their dinner is going to come from.

What a perfect bit of douchebaggy hyperbole.

The code monkies might make minimum wage and worry about their dinners, but they aren't making the decisions.

Oh, good, you've decided to be a dick about this. You miss the rest of what I wrote? About every industry having these problems? Of course not, that would ad validity to what I said, so why don't we just focus on the part of the argument you decided to focus on.

First off, companies are being shut down and making video games is a risky business. You flop at a game big enough and you can be brought under. That is why those decision makers are playing it safe. You sink enough money into a completely new, innovative title that winds up sucking ass and it can and probably will fuck you over.

Second, lets look at exactly how a company works, shall we? The higher ups aren't stupid, that's how they got up there, and they're not Sauron. They have to keep their people happy and working in order for their business to work, and part of that is making sure that the "code monkeys" get fed. Because if those code monkeys go away the people at the top are screwed. I'm not saying that they have any say in the way the company is run, I'm saying that their dinner relies on the people at the top playing it safe.

Yeah, play it all safe so I can afford a third car and second vacation home.

Sorry, no sympathy for millionaires.

 

[Blueruler182]

Oy... Congratz, you noticed that the video game industry is like every other industry and everything on this planet in that there will occasionally be shit. Films, books, comics, tv, and every industry will try and make money and rush a product for fan appeal. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

And I honestly think they're in the right. It costs a LOT to make a video game, and they're trying to make a return on their business. We are capitalist. We want to make money. Not everyone is going to pour their heart and soul into a new IP when they're not sure where their dinner's going to come from. And we're not entitled to anything just because they're selling stuff.

Yeah, right. The CEOs, venture capitalists and other people at the descision-making level of companies who choose to rush games out the door are really worrying about where their dinner is going to come from.

What a perfect bit of douchebaggy hyperbole.

The code monkies might make minimum wage and worry about their dinners, but they aren't making the decisions.

Oh, good, you've decided to be a dick about this. You miss the rest of what I wrote? About every industry having these problems? Of course not, that would ad validity to what I said, so why don't we just focus on the part of the argument you decided to focus on.

First off, companies are being shut down and making video games is a risky business. You flop at a game big enough and you can be brought under. That is why those decision makers are playing it safe. You sink enough money into a completely new, innovative title that winds up sucking ass and it can and probably will fuck you over.

Second, lets look at exactly how a company works, shall we? The higher ups aren't stupid, that's how they got up there, and they're not Sauron. They have to keep their people happy and working in order for their business to work, and part of that is making sure that the "code monkeys" get fed. Because if those code monkeys go away the people at the top are screwed. I'm not saying that they have any say in the way the company is run, I'm saying that their dinner relies on the people at the top playing it safe.

Yeah, play it all safe so I can afford a third car and second vacation home.

Sorry, no sympathy for millionaires.

Well then, it's perfectly fair that they don't give a flying fuck about you either. Since you've decided to ignore the arguments that go against what you've clearly decided are the only truth, being the all knowing all seeing god-man that you are, I'm just going to say fuck it and move on. If you ever feel like learning something or growing as a person let me know. But I can fucking guarantee that whatever you do for a job (assuming you have one probably being a stretch, but still), you don't do it for free, and I highly doubt that you push yourself to the highest standard.

But, again, wallow in your self inflicted ignorance if you so choose. Last thing I need to hear is the whining of someone else who hates people with money just because they have money.

 

[Redweaver]

Well then, it's perfectly fair that they don't give a flying fuck about you either. Since you've decided to ignore the arguments that go against what you've clearly decided are the only truth, being the all knowing all seeing god-man that you are, I'm just going to say fuck it and move on. If you ever feel like learning something or growing as a person let me know. But I can fucking guarantee that whatever you do for a job (assuming you have one probably being a stretch, but still), you don't do it for free, and I highly doubt that you push yourself to the highest standard.

But, again, wallow in your self inflicted ignorance if you so choose. Last thing I need to hear is the whining of someone else who hates people with money just because they have money.

So do they have money or are they worried about where their next meal is coming from? Can't have it both ways.

Poor, struggling executives, however DO they make ends meet on those salaries?

And I'm in the wrong for thinking they should maybe put a few more dollars into the game and a few less in their pockets.

But you keep on cheerleading for greed. Go, go capitalism!

 

[Ascarus]

There's one thing with your argument, there's the silent majority who ARE satisfied with their purchases.

These are the guys who don't defend what they like because they're too busy having fun.

no he alluded to that group while he was explicitly disparaging those who vocally challenge developers to improve quality as "the extremes of fanboyism".

which i find really interesting.

 

[GonzoGamer]

My friends say I'm cheap and I say I'm just not dumb enough to spend a plethora of games worth of money on map packs for a game the devs are replacing in 8 months.

As another gamer who is actually a savvy consumer: if you refuse to be ripped off and say anything against the overpricing and schemes made by publishers, console makers, and retailers, you will be called a cheapskate, a whiner, paranoid, commie, and everything else by the fanboys of whatever you're criticizing.
The fact of the matter is that when they react that defensively, they obviously realize that they were taken advantage of, they are embarrassed about it, and they don't want to admit that they got ripped off because they feel it will make them look foolish.

Look at how this devolved:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.274534-Poll-Im-going-to-buy-Mortal-Kombat-Used-just-out-of-Spite

So you criticize anything (even when it is an obvious scheme to grab cash like online pass) there will be some fanboy who will resent you saying (in one way or another) that they wasted their money or got ripped off.

Don't let that stop you. If the savvy consumers manage to convince the other gamers to not be bullied into handing over their money every time some publisher/retailer/developer asks for it, we might start to see reasonable prices and/or well made products again.

 

[GraveeKing]

I'm actually doing a minor course at college on Game development.
To put it bluntly - it is VERY hard, and VERY expensive and this is just one guy working on the tiniest bits of the game.

Give developers a break - they only have as much time and money and equipment as their budget will allow (often which will come from a demanding publisher who's determined to get the game out by -insert month/year here-).
If you want to hold anyone to higher standards bug the publishers themselves who pay for the idea. They're the ones investing their money most of the time and affording every program, computer and human resources that comes with gaming for a long period of time is to be frank - damn difficult.
These aren't flash games people! You can't just ask them to 'make -A/B- from game -B/C- simply because it'll be different developers, modelers, programmers using different programs and coding for the game.

I feel damn sorry for all the developers we go so hard on, they probably put a HECK load of effort into most that we don't even blink or care about - often not noticing it at all.