Yet you're assured every console game is going to work just fine with great performance? Not really much different. AC Unity was a mess on consoles as well. Wasn't a PC thing, but a software thing.
So how good is assassin's creed syndicate expected to be?
- Thread starter RS1
- Start date
If you want an excuse, tell yourself it will speed your system up and those saved seconds add up to minutes and then up to hours. You are effectively, using the time you have more efficiently
£17 is nothing to me and i like the look of the game, if its crap so be it, not that bothered, not that i would pay full price anyway with ubisofts recent history as you have pointed out, im hoping they redeem themselves with this one.
If you want an excuse, tell yourself it will speed your system up and those saved seconds add up to minutes and then up to hours. You are effectively, using the time you have more efficiently
Haha - a gain quickly lost when considering the procrastination and time taken to research the purchase
Agreed. I'm just trying to justify a guilty purchase here haha.
It's not about the money.. it's about publishers knowing they can release steaming piles of excrement because people will keep buying titles before their release and before anyone knows if they are any good.
You are telling the publisher exactly what you've just told me, if it's crap so be it. We shouldn't be letting them get away with it.
I'm not having a go at you here because hundreds of thousands of gamers do it, and some of them waste money on collectors editions that don't really have any value over the original game.
We should be united in saying, we want good quality games, no bugs with good stories.
i get what you mean and if I had to pay full price then I wouldn't pre order.
That's not what happens, though. Pre-orders are not the cause of 'broken' games. Increasing complexity, extreme development costs and deadlines create broken games. Take away pre-orders and nothing changes.
And it's annoying when people tell others what their priorities should be. Frankly, if you are interested in a game and can get a good deal via pre-ordering, go for it, so long as you know the risk you're taking. I wouldn't pre-order a Ubisoft game myself, but if somebody else wants to, let them.
I really dont care about story that much. I can also handle bugginess so long as nothing is game-breaking.
There is no 'united', sorry. We all have our own preferences and tolerances.
Last edited:
I didn't say that pre-orders were the cause.
If all sales are dependent on a good quality game being released developers and publishers will put more effort into delivering a quality product. If developers know that they can get a large portion of their sales via pre-orders there is less incentive to release that polished product.
You only have to look at Kickstarter games that received funding but never delivered. "We have their money, why bother!"
I can't take anyone seriously that doesn't care about a story.
The fallacy is thinking that developers aren't trying. "Lazy devs" and all. That just isn't the case whatsoever. It's actually insulting if you knew just how grinding and rough game development actually is, especially for large studios with deadlines. I'm sure you've heard of 'crunch time' in game development and it's no joke. People work crazy long hours trying to get these games in the best shape possible for release day.
If a game releases broken, 99.9% of the time, it is not for lack of trying.
Sometimes it might be mismanagement, sure, but it is not lack of effort.
As for Kickstarter, the failures tend to result from over ambition and incredibly naive budgeting. Many simply get way in over their head and have no idea how game development actually works in reality and totally underestimate the complexity and difficulty in putting out a complete product. Not because anybody gets lazy or is trying to scam anybody. That has happened, but those are exceptions.
That's cool. I have a hard time taking seriously people who think video game stories have ever been anything worth caring about in the first place, given they are typically B-grade in the *very* best case scenarios, and usually far, far worse on average.
In fact, they are often so bad, I get why video games aren't taken seriously as an art form by some. It is just embarrassing. I love story, dont get me wrong. I'm an avid reader, and I feel good books tend to trump any other medium when it comes to story by miles and miles. But video games are just awful in this regard.
To me, gameplay is king. I like other aspects, and hell, a moderately passable story is always nice to have in a game, but if I placed any sort of high priority on story in order to enjoy video games, I probably wouldn't be able to play them at all and I dont know how anybody else could, either.
Last edited:
That's not good enough. It's not acceptable for any other product or in any other industry. If something isn't ready, it doesn't get shipped, or the company faces legal ramifications. Let alone the breakdown of trust between the company and it's customers.
Fine, the devs are working hard, but that's still not an excuse for the industry wide mentality of "ship it broken, fix it later... maybe". That's not a product I want to buy or a model I want to encourage.
Fair enough, but that's the reality of video game development nowadays.
Publishers cant afford to continually delay games til everything is *just right*. It is simply way too expensive. The alternative is basically that publishers pack it in and say, "Ok, screw this, we're not doing AAA games anymore, it is a lose-lose situation." Look at The Witcher 3. It has been out like 5 months or something now and they are continually patching it and fixing bugs and whatnot. Several questlines are still broken and probably will be for a time to come, if they ever get fixed. And The Witcher 3 was a game that was DELAYED quite a bit already. That's the reality of creating large, complex games nowadays. It is super, super difficult. And way too expensive to just put it off til it's 100% polished.
So either you desire studios to scale back scope and presentation levels to 'safer' margins or you accept some level of jank in order to get ambitious new AAA game titles. Sure, some developers get all the time in the world, like some 1st party studios or franchises like GTA that are guaranteed to pull in like a billion dollars, but not everybody has that luxury.
And I'm not saying accept any broken mess. Just pointing out that it will happen here and there. Even great games will have some level of jankiness at times. It's not ideal, but that's the reality of it and no amount of whining over it is going to change the situation. Not saying you should never complain, but again, the problem isn't a lack of effort. Problems will occur and games will have to be pushed out sometimes.
Last edited:
Same engine, animation and gameplay, just different art assets. Then just lots of marketing, because marketing can sell anything, right?