Why has video game quality gone down the toilet?
Any of you who have gamed continuously for 10 or 15 years know what I’m talking about. Most games always had bugs and glitches but none were game-experience hindering, for the most part. (The exception that comes to mind is Superman 64, which was panned. I remember thinking when I had bought it that they would probably fix the game – then I realized that it wasn’t possible to do that yet. It was like I expected an update before they even existed. I’ve had plenty of weird things like this occur throughout life, though).
FUCK THIS GAME
With the advent of game updates, developers can continue developing after you have purchased a game. No other product exist in the world where this would be acceptable. But game developers, some of the biggest pussies on earth, actually bitch that it is us, the consumer, who should be more understanding.
You’ve seen those “thank you for your patience” posts. What they’re saying is “If you’re angry or enraged that we took your money and gave you something unfinished, we don’t want to hear your opinion.” And it’s evident in their behavior, too.
Take Eric Holmes, lead developer of the quality-deficient Batman: Arkham Origins. At first, angry consumers who tweeted him that the game was broke or not up to standard would get a condescending reply, like “Manners.” But after that became a general consensus in the gaming community, regarding his game, did he apply the logic that something might be wrong with what he did? No. He blocked people who he considered trolls (in other industries, these trolls are called “disgruntled consumers who don’t like quality-retarded products”).
Batman, after playing ‘Arkham: Origins.’ He was blocked several minutes later by Eric Holmes on Twitter, for complaining.
See, where it was once unacceptable to be sold something that was unfinished, it is now something commonly done by game makers. Why? Because they CAN.
You would think game reviewers might point this out more, but when the video game publishers are the primary advertisers on a game-review site, how critical can they be?
How do you stop this practice? For starters, games should pass a quality check that, if not met, entitles consumers a full refund within 7 days of purchase, or an extended period for holidays. What this says to developers is that, unless your game meets a certain quality standard, consumers have the power to get their money back. If you still enjoy the game, it’s yours to keep. But this puts the threat over developers that says you have to do more than market a game well and sometimes, blatantly false advertise, to earn your money.
The developer of Alien: Colonial Marines did this. You may know him – he does the Borderland series (which sucks dick. It’s game slop). Fortunately, consumers said enough and brought lawsuit against his sorry ass. He similarly will not reply to critics.
Whether a quality commission comes together (likely going to be the result of a class action suit against EA or Activision or the like) or just a few big lawsuits get the industry to change, consumers are going to have to get angry to stop getting run over.
And “thank you for your patience” will become “We’re sorry” when developers start understanding their place in this relationship.
I sometimes ask myself if the game developers played the game before sending it off to the stores. There is so much focus on graphics, but not enough on the game play. There’s a game called, “Full Spectrum Warrior,” that came out years ago, and I remember playing the game and saying to myself, “these graphics are amazing, but the game play is terrible.” I believe they’re worried about reaching the deadline and making money, rather than the gamer. Gamers can complain and moan, but they will listen only if they’re losing money. I don’t buy games much anymore anyway, because they’re all the same.
LikeLike