THE ART OF THE PREMATURE RELEASE

[Brittainy]

Some interesting points.

 

Personally, I find the shoddy porting from console to pc to be the most annoying part of rushed releases. This results in more than just bugs: It means we get incredibly inferior graphics, malfunctioning UI and the general superiority of the pc (vs the specs of a console) goes to waste.

 

I agree with you that rushing a release is a terrible idea...but as long as the companies keep pulling in the profits, they aren't likely to change their ways.

 

Not only would I like to see more time put into the game, but I'd also prefer to see a later release date for the pc version to make sure it's actually worthwhile and makes full use of the advantages of the pc. As an example (regardless of whether or not anyone likes the games themselves) most of the GTA series (from III onwards, I believe) came out much later on the pc after the initial console releases. (And I must say, I never patched any of those games: Never had to.)

 

Would definitely be a smart move to invest more time in the pc version when it comes to the next ES installment. :thumbsup:

[Sabatasso]

@OP

Yes, they are, and they have been since mid/late 90's. Gone are the days that games was really thought through, tested and ready for the mass market on release. And I am not talking about bugs specifically, but the fact that we buy retail games, and play halfway through the story of a game that is basically in alpha/beta stages before any patch is released. And once you are done with the game, you notice the "final build" patch being available. For the F of it, you download and test it, and wonder why it wasn't released like that in the first place, maybe you'd be able to enjoy the game without bursting a few veins in the process.

 

I have said this before, and I've let myself down once more, but now I'm never buying another game until 6-12 months after release. Skyrim, despite being fun, is a piss poor release, an abomination among games, because it looks so good, sounds so fun, but lets me down in every possible way in mechanics. Combat is a blast from the past, and wouldn't even be considered good in 2005, for example, and is barely a step up from Oblivion and Morrowind. I blame consoles though, those abominations have been destroying the gaming industry since XBOX and Playstation hit the market.

 

The Witcher 2 managed to make decent combat, but completely dependant on CEO (also on the nexus) to be any fun. But I don't see why Bethesda could be that much worse. I honestly think they didn't even try because gamers are suckers and buy more or less anything these days. Again, I blame the mindless console community. No offense... sort of.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Sabatasso

[vertex23]

Games have been getting released too early since consoles have had easy internet access that makes it possible to patch.

Is this really surprising to people?

[El`derina]

Some interesting points.

 

Personally, I find the shoddy porting from console to pc to be the most annoying part of rushed releases. This results in more than just bugs: It means we get incredibly inferior graphics, malfunctioning UI and the general superiority of the pc (vs the specs of a console) goes to waste.

 

I agree with you that rushing a release is a terrible idea...but as long as the companies keep pulling in the profits, they aren't likely to change their ways.

 

Not only would I like to see more time put into the game, but I'd also prefer to see a later release date for the pc version to make sure it's actually worthwhile and makes full use of the advantages of the pc. As an example (regardless of whether or not anyone likes the games themselves) most of the GTA series (from III onwards, I believe) came out much later on the pc after the initial console releases. (And I must say, I never patched any of those games: Never had to.)

 

Would definitely be a smart move to invest more time in the pc version when it comes to the next ES installment. :thumbsup:

 

that ties more into how they decided to make the game for Xbox first and then port it, instead of starting on PC like they should have... you run into issues either way and upset people either way... they believed this was the easier course and took it.

(which I think was a dumb move,.. but hey, im not calling the shots)

 

@Sabatasso

really? your gonna have to explain this alpha/beta parts of the game halfway thru the main quest... im afraid I missed both it and this mythical patch your talking about that brings in the main game....

as to the gameplay elements of the game.. thats not what this topic is about.

if you really want to compare Skyrims combat to say... Assassins Creed? Well... I am sure there are trade-offs and I'll let you start.. whatcha giving up in Skyrim to have that kinda combat? :)

Edited December 3, 2011 by El`derina

[StannieDum]

... Fact is, near every game in existance has been released with bugs, and will continue so... as the scope of games increase, so will bugs.

And besides that... Bethesda has been pretty much on top of it as far as releasing patches... although they were too hasty and messed that up! I don't hold that against them and actually find it pretty funny, and I dont see why you or anyone else should get worked up over a few bugs either. (Game not working on systems it should, is another matter...)

 

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to highlight, or perhaps I wasn't clear about it, which was that the situation could and would change if sales were to be directly affected by releasing games too early. It would simply have to in order for the companies to remain financially viable.

 

I am not 'worked up over a few bugs' as, like yourself, I have also experienced relatively few bugs in the game. Personal annoyance or frustration was not the reason behind posting. As I said, Skyrim is a superb open world game and any game of this magnitude is bound to have bugs discovered after release once it is played by millions of people. However, issues like non-responsive mouse clicks or scroll wheels that do not always correctly select items are issues that the developers (who are actually creating the game on PCs) must have been fully aware of before release. Add to that, the fact that the recent flawed 1.2 patch was released to the PC platform AFTER the issues were fully reported around the web from the PS3 release also points up the fact that developers release things knowing that there are issues present.

 

Again, I was not just highlighting Bethesda, but many developers/publishers. Often, many issues are discovered as a result of a pre-release demo, but as we know, Bethesda don't do this - but they could! And some of the issues discovered since release would have been found by millions prior to release.

 

 

Stannie

[Tardivex]

Look at Torchlight 2 for instance, they are delaying the release date a lot, it was supposed to come out in July this year, but you know what they say? "We want the game to be as polished as possible with no bugs, or gameplay issues" And I reaally like that, in fact more companies should do that and seriously I think theres way more potential in Skyrim that could have been used if the release date was delayed and the Creation Kit could have released as promissed too...

[Brittainy]

Well, generally I've always been a 'late bloomer' about buying games. I think I bought Oblivion maybe 2 years ago. And only tried Morrowind not long before that. As a rule, I don't buy games until a year / years after their release. That's even more cemented by the fact I'm always reliant on mods (for purely vain and visual reasons.)

 

In general, I buy when there's mods / info galore / and I'm guaranteed (or almost) a very good and stable game.

 

My only exceptions to this rule have been The Sims 3 and Skyrim - both of which I sorely regret and wish I'd gone with my guy about NOT buying.

 

I definitely agree that people could make a huge difference when it comes to forcing companies to release better quality work...however, I have absolutely no faith that they will.

 

All I can be bothered doing on that front in future is avoid third party software which I hugely object to (incredibly sorry I let myself get saddled with Steam when I bought Skyrim) and to not buy games until long after they're cleaned up.

 

:thumbsup:

[AZRainman]

It's cheaper and more viable to have consumer's bug test than staff, hence a lot of software seems to be beta releases.

 

Sales of Skyrim are epic, so I'd say they did an adequate job in regards to the bottom line aka profit.

[El`derina]

 

 

rather they already knew about it or not proves nothing...

 

maybe 'you' missed the point I was making? There really isn't a situation as you put it... it's not much of an issue, if one at all....

 

congradulations to torchlight 2 players? they get to wait longer to play, with no real return.

 

let me paint this out fully....

Released normally:

Day 1- released, game more than playable, but with bugs

Day 2- Bugs found

Day 3- Bugs reported, some already patched and fixed

Day 4- More patches

Day 5- Game fully patched

 

Delayed release:

Day 1- Delayed

Day 2- Released... still with bugs, but not as many

Day 3- Bugs found

Day 4- Patches

Day 5- Game fully patched...

 

>.> whats the difference? really?

the problem comes down to, people really can't take even the slightest of hiccups in their life and would rather have a delayed release game even if it means the full version will still be on the same day anyhow...rather than have the ability to play it sooner, when its still more than playable

 

OP, you said yourself that you havent run into many of the issues present in the game. So why does it matter if the game is available sooner, when the full version is gonna be on the same day regardless?

Edited December 3, 2011 by El`derina

[Sabatasso]

@Sabatasso

really? your gonna have to explain this alpha/beta parts of the game halfway thru the main quest... im afraid I missed both it and this mythical patch your talking about that brings in the main game....

as to the gameplay elements of the game.. thats not what this topic is about.

if you really want to compare Skyrims combat to say... Assassins Creed? Well... I am sure there are trade-offs and I'll let you start.. whatcha giving up in Skyrim to have that kinda combat? :)

 

There is no need for a trade off to get better combat, they just need to work out a better physics and impact engine, and add a proper dodge option. It isn't the considerably smaller world in The Witcher 2 that opens up opportunities for a better combat, you know. And to be honest, Bethesda don't seem to have spent too much time on writing deep and meaningful quest lines either, as the game is more or less shallow, and hardly anything you do have any impact on anyone but yourself. (and hardly that).

 

Skyrim looks amazing, though, and it's really a curse. Because it's like waking up from a dream and realize it wasn't a dream, and you really are married to Beyonce Knowles. Only that she has contracted AIDS, and you can't really do the things you really wanted with her anyway.

 

But as I've said before, once SDK comes, some genius modders will fix the game for Bethesda, but in all honesty I think they rely too much on a community to fix their games.

 

@alpha/beta parts.

Dragons, giants and mammoths raining from the sky, dead on impact... and I could go on, but the list is long and mentioned frequently on this forum. And Keyboard+mouse issues with the UI should be noticed prior to release, if they had actually tried starting the game on a PC before they shipped it.

 

And I really don't have to explain anything to you, but I did anyway. Either you agree, or you don't. I don't really care, I am not afraid to stand for my views, even alone.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Sabatasso