Open Letter to People Who Make Games

[soulsabr]

I'm talking about companies like Bethesda, 2K and Microsoft. These are companies with reputations for quality.

I'm sorry, I stopped reading right there. These are companies that are known for putting out quality games. When people say quality games, they mean REALLY GOOD games, not BUG FREE games. If anything, these companies have reputations of putting out initially VERY BUGGY games. And yes, while this is an issue, don't point the finger at game developers. Point it at publishers, because they are the ones setting the release dates and pushing for faster releases without as much time for QA.

And people like you are the reason they keep releasing games in beta form as a finished product. A "very buggy game" is not a "really good game". A very buggy games is like a Toyota car. Sure they'll eventually fix the problem but by that time the damage has already been done.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Hm...makes sense to me. And to everyone yelling and screaming, "Stop buying games that are crap!" clearly you have never had to return a game. Or a movie. Or a CD for that matter. If you open the game (or any media device) most retailers will say you are STUCK WITH IT. Yes, there's a way to get around this with Game Fly, but a lot of people don't have that.
There's also the fact that many people buy the game on day one. They don't want to wait for it to come in the mail. "So why don't you just wait and see what other people say about it?" Yeah, people do that. They're called reviewers. Half the time readers throw a fit because a reviewer doesn't like their game, so reviewers "don't know what they're talking about." Plus, SOMEONE has to by the game on day one, and since that person is shelling up sixty dollars, is it really too much for that person to ask for a game that, while not perfect, is at least functional? No, I didn't think so.

On a side note, I'm getting New Vegas, Civilization V, and (apparently) Fable 3. Is that what most people think?

 

[gring]

I had to sign in to comment on this article, as it basically mirrors my entire thoughts on the game industry as a whole right now. that coupled with the blandness of reusing IP's over and over until they scream bloody murder, and the fact that publishers are addressing "piracy" in the most ridiculous ways, I can honestly say with 100% confidence that I have never been as disappointed with the game industry as I am right now.

(btw, Squareenix should be on that list as well, just saying.)

but my disappointment runs so deep, that for the first time in my life I am considering moving on from being a hardcore gamer. considering the amount of games I buy and love to play that should really say a lot to publishers, I have played games my whole life, ever since I can remember being alive, i can remember playing a video game. "magic" really describes what video games are capable of, but in its current form, the video game industry is just a Hollywood clone that rushes out games before they are truly done and work to their intended state, there is almost no "magic" in these games anymore.

oh, its because of euphoria, you say? well, games like minecraft have that magic. games like mass effect 2, sort of captured that magic, but was so dumbed down (opinion) that it just turned into a very nice movie. and i would definately consider mass effect 2 to be the game of the year, which imo, is SAD, considering how many design choices completely bothered me (side rant). fallout: new vegas, as well, almost has that magic, but because of how many stupid bugs and crashes i've delt with, any magic that was there has been sucked out with a vacuum. when i get a bug, or a crash, it dramatically affects the experience, nothing destroys IMMERSION faster then a stupid bug or crash (that forces me to reboot), and that is why we play games, for the immersion and experience.

certain movies can still have that magic, so really my point is its not a euphoria thing, its a QUALITY ISSUE. and it doesn't have to be a perfect game to be "magical" (minecraft is in ALPHA for crying out loud, and look at its popularity), it just needs to be designed by competent people who dont try to reach for the broadest audience possible (aka dumbing down).

yes, rant rant rant, blah blah blah, some people are completely happy with what they get, and thats fine. I'm not here to convince other people that they shouldn't be satisfied with the games they play. but from my experience, the game industry is headed down a steep slope with no signs of stopping. the whole "recession proof" thing went completely to their heads, as well as "addressing piracy", and completely forgot about what makes people satisfied when they buy their game, which in turn makes them COME BACK.

TL;DR - basically I'm a hardcore gamer looking for a new hobby to pass my time, simply because of how many disappointments there have been with the gaming industry. I'm getting really sick and tired of being treated like a criminal (piracy) who doesn't mind choking down several bugs and performance issues on release, which may or may not be addressed in future patches.

thanks for reading if you did.

 

[nipsen]

If Russ doesn't want to do this, I will gladly do so, for goddamn free.

..funny story. I submitted a review of Lost Planet 2 to the escapist. It was 800 words or so, plus another 400 or something about the network code and the game-mechanics. They told me to cut it down, because they were interested in something more easily readable. Eventually it wouldn't get published, because they decided they had already done a review already, and one was enough.

But yeah. Some of us are doing this kind of thing for free, because we'd like to see more reviews that aren't rehashes of the press-kit content.. and.. because literally no one are actually interested in publishing critical reviews.

I mean, it's not like I don't see why magazines are wary of people with strong opinions.. sure have seen that go wrong several times. Actually, there are lots of people who claim to have technical insight, and uses that to push their very unscientifically found opinions as fact. You don't want that.

Still, the typical attitude is that the review really must be an opinion only, sustained by the writer's credibility - instead of having the writing and review stand on the content itself. Maybe this is chosen because it's immune to criticism (from for example publishers). Maybe it's chosen because it's easier to write. But it lacks content.

That's.. something that certainly should change. And of course.. I applaud anyone in gaming magazines who take that discussion. Even if often it's really a superficial way to boost some personality's influence and reputation - by implying such and such methods and thought lies behind the.. when you get down to it.. author's largely unexplained opinions. And so reducing the entire thing to: "I have experience and knowledge; trust me", put as a reminder under the extremely subjective text. Which defeats the entire gig.

And you end up writing for free. And that's that.

 

[Calamity]

"Text"

Honestly I was feeling this same way until just recently when I discovered the Indy market Steam was now supporting, there's some really great stuff there.

Or on the professional level the Layton series has been my guilty pleasure as of late, simple detective mysteries done right with some puzzling makes a surprisingly good game.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the quality is still there, it's just you ironically(?) have to look away from the AAA, big name, hype-fest studios to find it.

 

[gring]

ya, im still playing occasionally (layton ftw), i'll never turn my back to gaming completely, but im definately looking elsewhere for my entertainment. the fact is, i used to be very hardcore, but no longer have the interest i used to, for no other reason then there simply isn't enough quality or depth in most games.

what used to be great value in just about everything gaming related, is now just buggy DLC ridden penny pinching blandness to appeal to the "everyman" (which in reality is no one).

 

[chickenlord]

so...if i were a game developer... this article would give me no further insight to what i am doing wrong other then...im making bad games... a little more description would really enlighten me... ok so im making bad game... what if im one of the game developers that dont know its bad, then this article wouldn't help me in the slightest...

so what you want the game developers to do is...stop making bad games...a little too broad of a request without a suggestion or two. What can i as developer do to improve myself? what aspects of the game makes you despise it so? any information would help.

as a person who strives to become a game developer it would really help to know what NOT to do...

 

[King Toasty]

So here we stand, at the edge of the future.
We have a spaceport, we have a lunar base planned.
We can talk to anyone instantly.
Here we stand, and it's time for the games industry to understand that. This is a time of great, ridiculous changing. Fads are flickering in and out of existence faster then games can be made. If we want games to live, we need them to realize that this is the end of history, and the beginning of the future. It's a new art we're watching being born here, and I want to see it grow up. So snap out of it, work for the arts and don't forget your fans. Microsoft forgot, now they're sinking.
Good luck.

-Toasty

 

[Irridium]

Okay, now the minimum question that is burning deep in the back of our minds: what three games were you specifically referring to? Telling us they were AAA titles and from reputable studio's is kind of like saying it was a fish from a lake. Plus, there's been a shitload of poor games out this year, so you're going to have to be very specific...

If I had to hazard a guess: Fallout: NV, Civ V, and Halo: Reach Not sure about the last one though.

I'd guess it would be Fable 3.

Since Reach is actually pretty bug-free.

OT: Well said Russ.

All the developers/publishers complain about piracy and used sales. If they want people buying their games, perhaps they should release games that aren't buggy and unfinished.

You wouldn't pay full price for any other broken product, why should games be different?

 

[nipsen]

but no longer have the interest i used to, for no other reason then there simply isn't enough quality or depth in most games.

what used to be great value in just about everything gaming related, is now just buggy DLC ridden penny pinching blandness to appeal to the "everyman" (which in reality is no one).

..agree with that.. But.. ahh... that type of game kind of is.. exactly as rare as it used to be, you know. It's just that the gems are more often passed over.. with high kneelifts, in the name of writing catchy, snappy, reviews.

Thing is, we really have seen a few games lately that have extremely high production value, and still didn't turn into some sort of serial regurgitation of an overused pilot.. And they're of course not the most profiled games, and they bomb, and are rarely reviewed at all anyway..

..some of them don't even get published in EU and NA until a year after it came out.. Presumably because, again, publishers and reviewers have very specific ideas about what is "sellable". And catchy, and engaging.

Not that I don't sympathise. Had a blog for a while - anything that was longer than five sentences typically didn't get read. Anything with "read more" got, statistically speaking, ignored by just about everyone. And to keep the hits on the rise, we needed to renew the entire frontpage twice a day.

So if you're interpreting this in a very straightforward way - and not taking into account that people might not be sitting down in their chair to view all the articles most of the time they visited. And might not actually have no interest whatsoever in reading the content, at all times. Then you would conclude that every reader of that blog had an average attention span of 2 seconds, and didn't really care for words at all, basically.

Still.. then what happens, if you cultivate a main audience like that? And really end up dropping even giving people the opportunity to read something else than twitter-style blogging?

 

[lafona]

i think it was probably fable 3. Susan said it was buggy, but i havent played it, so i could be wrong

 

[xunjez]

Your mention of fraud is spot on. If gaming companies want to be able to police themselves and prevent government intervention in their business, they need to stop this practice of releasing faulty products such as these. I signed up at videogamevoters.org to support the gaming industry. But my feelings about Fallout NV are that it is a criminal act releasing such a thing as this. If I didn't patch the product myself and get it at least playable, I would be looking into legal action to get my money back. These gaming companies' carelessness is moving into the realm of the criminal, and the things Mr. Pitts said here should not be taken lightly. I will never ever buy a product released by Bethesda through a preorder again. They can keep their stimpacks, I'll keep my 60 bucks.

 

[gring]

but no longer have the interest i used to, for no other reason then there simply isn't enough quality or depth in most games.

what used to be great value in just about everything gaming related, is now just buggy DLC ridden penny pinching blandness to appeal to the "everyman" (which in reality is no one).

..agree with that.. But.. ahh... that type of game kind of is.. exactly as rare as it used to be, you know. It's just that the gems are more often passed over.. with high kneelifts, in the name of writing catchy, snappy, reviews.

Thing is, we really have seen a few games lately that have extremely high production value, and still didn't turn into some sort of serial regurgitation of an overused pilot.. And they're of course not the most profiled games, and they bomb, and are rarely reviewed at all anyway..

..some of them don't even get published in EU and NA until a year after it came out.. Presumably because, again, publishers and reviewers have very specific ideas about what is "sellable". And catchy, and engaging.

Not that I don't sympathise. Had a blog for a while - anything that was longer than five sentences typically didn't get read. Anything with "read more" got, statistically speaking, ignored by just about everyone. And to keep the hits on the rise, we needed to renew the entire frontpage twice a day.

So if you're interpreting this in a very straightforward way - and not taking into account that people might not be sitting down in their chair to view all the articles most of the time they visited. And might not actually have no interest whatsoever in reading the content, at all times. Then you would conclude that every reader of that blog had an average attention span of 2 seconds, and didn't really care for words at all, basically.

Still.. then what happens, if you cultivate a main audience like that? And really end up dropping even giving people the opportunity to read something else than twitter-style blogging?

as for the rareness of quality games, i think there were times when companies really did put out original and high quality games almost time and time again. its just when companies and budgets get too large is when all that goes out the window. squaresoft is a great example, sure they had a bunch of crappy games, but for the most part, they were just so on point with just about every game they made, time and time again, they pushed the boundaries and were highly successful. all of that of course went right out the window after final fantasy 7, when at that point it wasn't about making quality games that they themselves want to play and enjoy, as much as it was selling as many copies as ff7 did. that turned into their priority, and soon had to be bought out by enix.

basically what it comes down to is greed. companies get bigger and bigger after big mergers, independents (at one point) were becoming less and less relevant (but that is changing thanks to the internet and steam, etc) because most were just getting bought out (EA*coughcough*activision*cough).

i read an article a while ago that showed (this info is off the top of my head and cant remember the specific numbers) that most games came from small and independent publishers like 70%ish in the 90's, after the game industry crashed in the 80's, to about 20%ish when the article was written, earlier this year. I think that number is starting to rise again, but this is where the innovation comes from usually. these companies are more interested in making games that are fun for themselves, and then quickly become popular (example: minecraft, super meat boy, etc). when companies become corporate, quality, depth, and originality usually die along with that step, although they do get a LOT shinier. even bioware is starting to show its corporateness (damn you, project 10 dollar).

and i feel you on the ADHD twitter style chat and being ignored. this is why i hated the wow forums (along with many other reasons) because if you actually wrote more then a paragraph, you got the "TL;DR. MOVE ALONG". i was actually shocked to see i had people read my entire post, and its why i threw down the TL;DR at the bottom, as well as a thanks.

btw, thanks for reading my post and responding, and to calamity as well.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

If Russ doesn't want to do this, I will gladly do so, for goddamn free.

..funny story. I submitted a review of Lost Planet 2 to the escapist. It was 800 words or so, plus another 400 or something about the network code and the game-mechanics. They told me to cut it down, because they were interested in something more easily readable. Eventually it wouldn't get published, because they decided they had already done a review already, and one was enough.

But yeah. Some of us are doing this kind of thing for free, because we'd like to see more reviews that aren't rehashes of the press-kit content.. and.. because literally no one are actually interested in publishing critical reviews.

I mean, it's not like I don't see why magazines are wary of people with strong opinions.. sure have seen that go wrong several times. Actually, there are lots of people who claim to have technical insight, and uses that to push their very unscientifically found opinions as fact. You don't want that.

Still, the typical attitude is that the review really must be an opinion only, sustained by the writer's credibility - instead of having the writing and review stand on the content itself. Maybe this is chosen because it's immune to criticism (from for example publishers). Maybe it's chosen because it's easier to write. But it lacks content.

That's.. something that certainly should change. And of course.. I applaud anyone in gaming magazines who take that discussion. Even if often it's really a superficial way to boost some personality's influence and reputation - by implying such and such methods and thought lies behind the.. when you get down to it.. author's largely unexplained opinions. And so reducing the entire thing to: "I have experience and knowledge; trust me", put as a reminder under the extremely subjective text. Which defeats the entire gig.

And you end up writing for free. And that's that.

It's incredible how much of your post applies to the journey I have made as a musician.

I started out by buying a cheap starter kit, as most of us do. Shitty strat copy and a tiny amp that sounds like bees trapped in a tin can, etc.
Kept playing, jamming to myself until the early hours just out of the goddamn love of having something to express myself with.
Eventually, I get to the point where I'm a good enough player to join bands, take it further (or so I thought,) so I take a Music Course at college. It covers theory, playing in groups, music history, midi based music sequencing, music technology, recording, blah blah, "the works" if you wanna put it like that and the more I got into the course, the more I found it was about ticking boxes, doing things the way they quote unquote "should" be done, not upsetting the status quo.

From a young age, you are taught to depersonalise essays rather than stating things as though they are your opinion and your opinion only. This course was like a manifestation of that idea as a big, ugly, churning machine that takes bright eyed, passionate individuals and turns them into jaded, chain smoking musicians.

I lost my passion, dropped out.

2 years later, I find myself only making music to express myself, doesn't matter whether anyone likes the pieces of music, doesn't matter whether they don't like the production, the aesthetic, the choices of notes, the feeling, the mood, whatever, because it's not for them, it's for me.

I find it all to be quite the big joke now, and it's nice to see someone else having similar experiences in a totally unrelated field.

I was thinking of starting a website for film/game/whatever based writing/reviewing, maybe I should get it going now and really try to upset the status quo with it.

 

[SpcyhknBC]

I think the main problem with games in general is the fact that they're so different from other forms of entertainment media.

1.) They're interactive, music, books and films spoon feed you, games are expected not to. You as the player are in control, and your only decision isn't just whether to put it down and pick it up again later. Games might be the ultimate ego trip.

2.) Their pricing structure is wonky compared to the others as well. If I want to see a movie on day 1, I pay movie theater ticket prices. If not that interested, I can wait as long as I want until I can see the film for "free" on Network television. Price depreciation for games seems to be overly complicated, some games stay at full price until a sequel comes out. Nintendo does this with all its first party games. Some games drop in price in a month, some games slowly depreciate over time, some games become greatest hits, sometimes a GOTY edition is released. Movies have somewhat moved into similar territory with Director's cuts, blu ray/DVD combo packs and so on, but games seem to be experts at this practice.

3.) Unplayable games exist, unreadable novels, unwatchable films, and unlistenable music does not exist. No matter how horrible a book, song, or movie is, a finished product is released, a complete experience can be obtained from those forms of entertainment. You can choose to stop indulging in a given form at any time, but never is it forced upon you. Games however can have this unique ability. The most recent example that comes to mind is the Metroid: Other M debacle where you could literally get stuck in a certain room. The fix was to ship the save file to Nintendo where they could fix it and send it back. Admittedly, I find this instance to be acceptable, because they missed it, they're weren't dozens of these things, but only this one. Another older example is the Fallout 3: GOTY edition for PS3. I literally could not complete the game because it froze every time I got near Old Olney. I checked various forums and found out that this was a very common problem, so I refuse to buy Fallout: NV.

Because of these facts, I try not to hold my games up to books, movies, and music very often, but I wonder sometimes if perhaps we should. A book has to be readable at least, the plot may be the worst thing ever, but it can still be read (Twilight). A movie has to be watchable at least, you may not want to watch it, but you push play, and it goes to the end (The Room). An album must be listenable at least, it may sound like saws grinding against metal in the most unpleasant way possible, but you can still bother your neighbor with it (Nickleback). A game should be playable at the very least, and if it's to become a legitimate entertainment media, one that isn't scorned by politicians and parents, one that's not criticized by its very consumers over and over again. It should not be released until it is completely playable.

Games have often been touted as the ultimate media format, the best way to tell a story, the best way to involve you audience. Shouldn't we hold them to the highest standard of all?

 

[LordWalter]

Dear Industry: the Russ Pitts Gauntlet has been thrown down. Shape up, or hordes of Escapists will kick down your studio doors and give you multiple well-thought out, eloquent, and deeply passionate lectures on your job and video games in general.

 

[SonicKoala]

Like I've mentioned before, the games you buy don't legally have to function, that isn't what you're buying, that's just what you think/expect to buy.

How can an industry survive in a climate of hostility and distrust between customer and supplier ?
Just look at the drugs trade, no one trusts each other but they all make millions.
Addiction is a terrible thing but also very profitable.
And as long as you'll buy a box that says "Halo" on it without thinking developers and publishers won't care if the contents of the box works or not.

Yes, of course they don't legally have to function, but they BLOODY WELL SHOULD! That's what the article is saying - how can an industry survive if the people making the products of this industry can't even accomplish the task of making their products usable?

I find it interesting that you're blatantly acknowledging that developers and publishers don't seem to care whether or not the product works, and yet somehow it's still the consumer who should be blamed for this? And everybody makes millions in the drug trade? Um...no, that's wrong. Totally, utterly wrong.. And regardless of that, why would you want the games industry to be like the drug trade?

What you seem to be getting at more than anything (and I agree with this, to an extent) is that the consumer is to blame for the lack of creativity and innovation in the games industry. Obviously, if people continue to shell out money for the same bland, repetitive formula, then yes, I certainly wouldn't blame developers for continuing to make that same bland, repetitive game. However, there is absolutely NO reason why those same developers shouldn't at least make their games playable. Such a blatant display of incompetence is inexcusable.

 

[Exort]

As you probably know it is impossble to make a game without bug, so spending time polishing is is essential to make a bug free game. The problem is the investor rather see a return in their investment as soon as possible, as a result they will often publish game before they are done. As long the consumer don't show that is the wrong thing to do they won't stop. Developer don't get much a say in terms of release dates.

Also if you want your option to be heard it is best to put it in a fomat they actually cares that is the sells, and no buying when the game is fix is not a way to get thier attention.