Surely it was more expensive to make a cartridge rather than a dvd in vast numbers as well.
Are gamers short changed?
- Thread starter JUMPURS
- Start date
Surely it was more expensive to make a cartridge rather than a dvd in vast numbers as well.
You are also forgetting that there where 110 million PS2's sold, compared to 13 million master systems. Every console of this generation has outsold it. So they are selling more, the cost shouldn't really be effected. I remember VR Racer on the mega drive was 90 quid. Was it called VR racer??
My point isn't that the games are too expensive. I don't have a problem paying 50 quid for a game, what i do mind is paying my 50 quid and getting a buggy, half ***** piece of **** that shouldn't have made it into playtests, let alone out of them.
Danny, me and you have always agreed about how superior RSV was to Gears, but gears was popular due to hype and shineyness.
I honestly couldn't have said that better myself.
Maybe undenaible is a strong word,
But even though I love the games,
PGR3 - lack of features, sub 720p resolution
PGR4 - lack of cities, and then night or day depending on city..
Forza 2, no interior view, lack of overall tracks, technically good graphics effects but with unrealistic shaders, Aliasing showing badly at times.
Halo 3 - sub 720p resolution
Still AAA games for me though..
I think I'm correct in saying all of those things would have been addressed had their been more time?
i see where you guys are coming from with some of the mentioned games, but personally i feel that unfinished games are vastly in the minority... its true that games that take ~40 quid of hard earned cash out of your pocket should never be unfinished, but yes the odd one does feel like that but i reckon overall there really isn't an issue.
Sorry, I disagree on most points.
Rushed Games:
No different to anything else. Your analogy of a film with a gap is flawed. Budget issues effect films in the same way, as do deadlines. Ever see some special effects that were great in parts and dodgy in others? That was probably down to time/money not a lack of abilty to make it look better.
Timing:
The problem with games is they take a long long time to make. A big name game could easily take 2/3 years, a film is often more like 1. The longger something takes, the harder it is to get it out on time. Also the time of year a film is released is more important than films. Hence why many games a rushed to be for the big holiday season.
Easy:
You make it sound like making games is easy. You imply there is loads of money to go around and profits are easy.
Not true.
I don't think so. If they had the time why would they have bothered? Did they detract from the game? Would they have been better moving on and say enough is enough?
(Are you seriously telling me that the sub 720p res really hurt your enjoyment of the game?)
- They could always have added more cities/features to PGRX. They have to stop eventually and it is up to them when they think they have enough.
- Minor graphic issues in Forza 2? Again, how did they hurt the game? Other than a minor pain when you first see them, the gameplay becomes king.
If they had had more time, they might have fixed a few little things, but most developers are glad to get the game out.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,293
They could add all the features they want but the companies want to get the games out as soon as possible, a polished up game isnt going to sell loads more than one that isnt, its the hype and publicity that sells the game for most people. They want to spend as little time as possible and use as little money as possible, and it works as the companies are more bothered about you buying it rather than liking it. Thats just the way it is most of the time. Its not right at all but people use this technology as a way to make money.
Name as many movies with flaws like that, as games have been mentioned in this thread? Even just name 5 when it is as noticable as framerate drops in games. Not many if any at all, yet movies are released at a hell of a lot more frequent rate than games.
Well surely with something that takes 2-3 years, they have enough time to project manage it and design it correctly. With a 3 year time frame, should we (as consumers) be listening to studios saying 'we had to rush it to market' "YOU HAD 3 ****ING YEARS!!"
And what you are saying is, movies have a tighter shedule and rely more on time of year than games do, yet movie makers don't get the same acceptance?
Having never made a video game i can't comment on how easy or hard it is. But i just think that the video game industry is one/the only industry where the consumers get sub standard products, and feel sorry for the people making them. i mean, helloooo!
Would you accept a CD that was in stereo 3/4's but crackly and mono for the other 1/4 and be happy with the excuse 'Well they had a deadline'?
A perfect example at the moment is High Def movies. People moan about the quality of encoding for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's saying it is sub par and unacceptable. That's a product which cost 15-20 quid. Half the price of a game. Look at the moaning that went on about 300 only being in stereo on xbox live marketplace, how much is that? 3 quid a rent? Yet people are happy to pay 40 quid for a game with a story that doesn't make sense? If a story doesn't make sense then why have it? Would you buy Gears 2 if it was just 10 maps, no story/cut scenes etc just start here, get there? Because Gears would have been just aswell like that, i would have understood it more. 'But they had to get it out for November' so i suffer. I didn't even know what the guy at the end was called until i read it on here.
Same as most things really. After all, making games is a *job* for many rather than a hobby. I can't see any way the games industry is very different to anything else.
I noticed tearing and framerate problems in earlier games (Like burnout revenge). But recently released titles seem a lot better. As for COD 4 being short, you clearly haven't tried it in vet mode 
Also, if you paying £40 for a game each time you're buying in the wrong places imo. Burnout Paradose is the only game I have bought brand new (£33) in about a year - glad it was worth every penny though!
Also, if you paying £40 for a game each time you're buying in the wrong places imo. Burnout Paradose is the only game I have bought brand new (£33) in about a year - glad it was worth every penny though!
I'm not going to sit and argue, but I personally think you are way off the mark.
- Plenty of films have great special fx with some rubbish bits in them. One of the first two spiderman films comes to mind.
- Just because they have 3 years doesn't make it easy! Not only is making a great game slow, it is expensive, technically challenging and hard to plan. How do plan something to be fun/playable/feel right etc. Films can rely on the script as the basis for a film. Games don't have that.
Is the games industry the only one? No, look at the music industry. There is loads of pressure on artists to get records out. They rush them, produce poor/short/few tracks and the end result is a poor album. Or they might not be good enough! If you buy it, it is your fault. Same with games.
The games industry is not the easiest. The best thing to do is vote with your wallet. Be careful with the games you buy and the industry will change. The problem is with the people who buy the games, not make them.
Right, thats enough of this thread for me.
Have played all those myself and imo your being picky there. Personally thought they all looked amazing tbh.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,527
- Location
- Surrey
I agree, both Halo 3 and COD 4 are below 720p and they still look fantastic. I swear you wouldn't be able to tell if it wasn't common-ish knowledge already.
Who honestly gives a crap what resolution games run at, if they look as good as COD4/Halo 3 - that are 720p. Maybe if you have a 50" screen then you may start to notice 720p. Some people on here are so anal about resolutions on this site. If games can look that good at 720 then why make a whole discussion about it?
I think 720p is absolutely fine for games tbh and I don't see the need to go to 1080p - at least not this generation anyway.
I do get what JUMPURS is saying regarding games being rushed but I think some of you are taking it the wrong way. There are games out which have poor stories or mediocre graphics or poor gameplay mechanics but none of this really bothers me. Where I think the problem lies is when games are released which are quite clearly not finished. Remember how crap Spiderman 3 was for the Wii?
I do get what JUMPURS is saying regarding games being rushed but I think some of you are taking it the wrong way. There are games out which have poor stories or mediocre graphics or poor gameplay mechanics but none of this really bothers me. Where I think the problem lies is when games are released which are quite clearly not finished. Remember how crap Spiderman 3 was for the Wii?