Why games will always suck

by Ross Miller { Jun 14th 2006 at 1:35PM }

1UP has a new feature up on some gaming issues that seem to be prevalent, regardless of technology and generation. Briefly, the list includes brain-dead AI, limited online opposition, choppy graphics, long load times, sloppy ports and glitchiness. PC gaming has the simple-yet-costly solution of upgrading their hardware (or waiting 6 months and upgrading) to solve half of those problems; the remaining issues plague all games on all formats. The reason these issue persist and will continue to persist? Simple: marketing.

Call us cynical, but these problems do not need to be solved to market and sell a game. Screenshots do not reveal the average frames per second, pre-rendered video will never demonstrate how poorly the enemy performs in combat -- many of the issues 1UP observe are talking points in developer interviews, but the media and public does not get a glimpse into these games usually until late in the development cycle. While this gives developers time to tweak and fine tune the product, they have already generated hype for their title -- an invaluable asset that moves units and grants consumers the ability to overlook glaring technical deficiencies.

As for sloppy ports, one need only to remember the phrase "screenshots taken from the [best-looking] version." You will see it in almost every advertisement for a multiplatform title.

Oblivion, for all its critical praise and commercial sales, still suffers from glitchiness, a plethora of game-ending bugs, long (and frequent) load times, and a rather silly in-game AI.

Too Human is an example of a game shown too early, with noticeable lag issues and a heavily-undulating fps. Lead designer Denis Dyack, who presented the demo at E3 2006, consistently told his audience to look past the lag, and assured the journalists in attendance that all the problems would be resolved by the game's release. The assurance was necessary, yet the media should still note the incompleteness of their demo product, instead of going on blind faith from an inherently biased source. Many online impressions showed dismay over the lag issues, while some publications (ourselves included) completely ignored them, lauding the product based on hype and future promises, thus generating more hype.

What developers strive for is the most gorgeous visuals that will be forever ingrained in the mind of the consumer, and it works. As journalists (and bloggers), we should be able to relay to our audience general impressions of the game, extrapolate how the final product will play. But it is our responsibility to make note and write about technical issues, so that developers are reminded how important it is to fix the issues. Technology is far too often a burden on wonderful concepts.

See Also:
Why games suck

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Revadarth @ Jun 14th 2006 1:44PM

Games make you fat and stupid, and violent games drive children to kill.

But seriously, these issues will be cleared up eventually, it's just a matter of time.

epobirs @ Jun 14th 2006 1:49PM

In one of his books Terry Pratchett had a game ad with the fine print, 'Screen shots are from version you didn't buy.'

sev4 pri1 @ Jun 14th 2006 1:51PM

the best "no duh" article of the year!

el nico @ Jun 14th 2006 1:51PM

these problems persist because as you said "these problems do not need to be solved to market and sell a game".

With that in mind, let's also shift some of the blame to ourselves, the consumers. Let's stop being rabid fanboys of consoles, or of franchises, and look at the games rationally. Let's make it worth their time and their profits to fix these persistent problems.

To the reviewers: start berating publishers for pushing advertising material that doesn't reflect accurately the in-game mechanics, such as commercials with nothing but cut scenes (and this happens across all platforms). Let's make the quality of pre-rendered cut scenes the very last thing worth considering.

Neil @ Jun 14th 2006 1:52PM

Oh, I was hoping that the title "Why games will always suck" was referring to the state of modern game design. For instance most games come from the superhero/Tolkien inspired/mythological/sci fi/anime mold. I think the industry and its designers need to grow up and stop pushing their embarrassingly immature, boyhood fantasies on us.

Otherwise that was a great article! :D

martin @ Jun 14th 2006 1:56PM

I thought it was just going to be another article on fanboyism!!!

mandarin @ Jun 14th 2006 1:58PM

Reviewers need to get a real job.

Xavier @ Jun 14th 2006 1:59PM

Wow, one day you're complaining that posters nitpick you over garbage blog entries due to the fact that "you're not a news site", the next damn day you're calling yourselves journalists.

It's rare that hypocrisy is so outrageous that it's amusing, but this is one of those times.

Pick a stance and stick to it.

PS. Long load times on Oblivion? Upgrade your rig, whiny.

Tom @ Jun 14th 2006 2:02PM

Questions philosophers have long pondered: if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? What came first, the chicken or the egg? And of course, why will games always suck?

Sometimes I wonder why I bother clicking on Joystiq links...

Pheonix Gamma @ Jun 14th 2006 2:06PM

This is an article from EGM a while back. Why they're just putting it up now is beyond me...

Ross Miller @ Jun 14th 2006 2:09PM

Xavier (or shall I call you Professor X?),

We did separate blogger from journalist, but to be fair we do offer a jouranlistic service by reporting on news (and we were also at E3 giving impressions and news to many who could not attend). The critique seems rather unnecessary and puts us in a Catch-22: we are damned if we stick to our low points, but we are hypocritical if we try to rise above them.

And to gripe over long load times on the Xbox 360 version (as all PC games have been differentiated from technical glitches by the inital paragraphs) is a valid complaint: one cannot upgrade a 360 to make it load faster. That's the developer's fault.

Woody @ Jun 14th 2006 2:09PM

Xavier, oblivion has long load times on the xbox360, I don't see you being able to 'upgrade the rig'.

My issue with next gen games continues to be AI. Its SO stupid. The reason people play online is to have smart(er) teammates and opponents.

minus_273 @ Jun 14th 2006 2:11PM

from the article
"unless there's a cooler, faster Internet we don't know about"

sounds like someone has not used Internet2.

trip1ex @ Jun 14th 2006 2:13PM

Graphics sell baby!!!! Unfortunately most gamers drool over screenshots and trailers like dogs that haven't seen their owners in a week and well the industry is all setup to give them what they want often at the expense of everything else.

I agree about Oblivion. I'm not sure how reviewers just glossed over the complete bugginess of that game. And on the pc that horrible interface and the unoptimized port from the 360. Terrible.

Tucker @ Jun 14th 2006 2:20PM

Xavier:
Main Entry: jour·nal·ist
Function: noun
1 a: a person engaged in journalism; especially: a writer or editor for a news medium b: a writer who aims at a mass audience

Journalists don't have to wear ties and appear on CNN. You'll notice, with your clearly keen observational powers, that Ross also included the parenthetical "and bloggers" - most likely in hopes of avoiding the random spouting of insults by clowns such as you.

Unfortunately, however, despite the fact that a) Joystiq writers fall easily within the DEFINITION of journalists and b) Ross even tried to avoid explicitly labeling Joystiq-ers as journalists, you still felt the need to vomit forth a few unfounded insults. It's ok, though, we all understand... It must be tough to be a troll.

Usually I ignore this crap, but I'm getting more and more tired of people bitching and whining about this site. If it sucks so badly, stop freaking reading! It's that simple. Personally, I find nothing wrong with the mix of "newsworthy" items and humorous/interesting posts. If you're really so concerned about "real" news and "real" journalism, might I suggest you turn your attention away from a goddamn VIDEO GAME BLOG.

Mark Felps @ Jun 14th 2006 2:22PM

Define long load times. Define choppy graphics. Virtually all of these metrics are entirely subjective, and will therefore never go away. Comparing the "long" load times of Oblivion to say, virtually anything in the first generation of PS2 games is fairly ridiculous, yet they are vastly longer than load times on any cartridge-based system.

As for AI, until someone codes routines that easily pass the Turing test, we'll always be complaining. In fact, the better the AI is, the weirder it will seem when it does something "stupid". There's no question that AI in games has improved and will continue to improve, and yet will never be perfect.

Any simulation of the real world is going to be imperfect. And none of this has much to do with marketing. It has to do with attempting to simulate the most chaotic and complex processes that science tackles.

Finally, my primary beef, which no one seems to mention as a failure is clipping. While some of the other stuff is amazingly difficult to do well, you'd think that this far into using 3D graphics, someone would have found a way to deal with clipping, and yet even the newest of the new games clip like ther's no tomorrow. I'd trade all the Radiant AI and HDR lighting in the world for a hand that actually closed around an object, and feet that actually reacted to changing terrain.

jabbertrack @ Jun 14th 2006 2:24PM

If the other option is longer development times and increased prices (to compensate) then I'll take my glitches with a grain of salt as I've always done.

AoE @ Jun 14th 2006 2:28PM

#4, Boyhood fantasies sell, and as long as they sell, that's what will be made. Beyond Good & Evil and other reasonably intelligent titles like it just don't make the $$$ to justify such a sift in game design...

#11, correct me if I am wrong, but Internet2 is only avaliable for university use, and it hasn't been avaliable for more than 5 years or so... so it's a safe bet that most humans in the world have not used it.

Xavier @ Jun 14th 2006 2:31PM

As journalists (and bloggers), we

That's the line. If the individual who penned this were a writer, he would have used "or", not "and." The way the sentence is constructed, he is calling himself a journalist and a blogger. Had the sentence been "As journalists (or bloggers), we"... there would be no complaint. This site is not filled with journalists, it is filled with bloggers.

The point is that Joystiq remains completely hypocritical, one day spouting off that it's not a news site and to not expect it to act like one (Which is a perfectly valid argument on their behalf if they would stick to it) but the next referring to themselves pretentiously as "journalists." As the dolt Tucker wrote, a journalist is defined especially as a writer or editor for a "news medium"...

But as Joystiq will invariably cry at some point in the days to come...

"We're not a news site!"

Hence, you're not journalists. Life works better when you talk out of one side of your mouth.

PS. Complaining about load times on a console port is silly. Grow some patience, load times are a reality of gaming life. Why pick out Oblivion as well? Burnout: Revenge on the 360 has some really annoying long load times, so does Fight Night Round 3 on the 360. It's called the "last three generations of console gaming." Deal with it or buy a high-end PC, whiners.

Tig @ Jun 14th 2006 2:34PM

One of the main problems I see with games is the homogenous background from which many games seem to be conceived from. Many game designers come from a computer (mainly programming) that seems to have stifled imagination. As mentioned by Neil (#4) we find ourselves picking from games that fit nicely into "boxes" (i.e. sports, driving, RPG, etc.) One needs only to look at the ESA's breakdown of games to see the clearly defined categories.

What is needed is an infusion of individuals who conceptualize games and how they are presented in a new way. Yes, Nintendo seems to have stepped into this arena with perhaps Sony to follow, but is that it? Can we do no better? Until we can move into truly innovative game deisgn and implementation that extends beyond the argument of "is a keyboard / mouse combo superior to a controller" we're all stuck in this rut.

Tig @ Jun 14th 2006 2:37PM

Above it should say "from a computer (mainly programming) background.

Sorry.

GTgamer @ Jun 14th 2006 2:44PM

"For instance most games come from the superhero/Tolkien inspired/mythological/sci fi/anime mold."

BTW, what's your fictional genre idea? You've already ignored any of the more reality-based genres and all simulations, so I assume you're focusing on fantasy fiction and that's where I'll direct this debate. What's your non-"boyhood fantasy" fiction? You've gotta at least give up an idea for something. I can think of plenty of "adult fantasy" game ideas, but that's for the AO. market.

Some of those genres I'm definitely not much a fan of myself, but you pretty much eliminated every *popular* (that's the key word here) fantasy genre (although one is actually an art style rather than a type of content).

It's also pretty naive to think game developers are going to ignore/abandon the proven appeal of fantasy genres that still pump out cultural hits (The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Xmen, Superman, etc...).

Every now and then a new cracked-out plumber fantasy genre emerges, but even the base story of that such things falls within classic, defined story types with a slightly acid-like universe around it. Unique story universes and environments can be excellent and well crafted (see : Psychonauts), but then again, there's also the matter of mass appeal (see : Psychonauts).

Fenris @ Jun 14th 2006 2:45PM

The possibility of "better" gaming can be had with better integration of demos. The 360 marketplace is a fine example of how the gaming community can evaluate a game before release. I am hopeful that this feature will be used to great extent on the 360 and that the gamers will then vote with their wallets.

I think that The Outfit and Full Auto were examples of games that were not up to snuff and the gaming public was able to move on to different titles.

However some publishers know that their game is garbage and not allow a demo onto the marketplace.

Some of the tools are in place to allow the gamer to make a choice, the problem is that casual gamers who have to have the latest Madden or such anual games are rarely critical of what could have been and the glaring faults that often show up in casual games.

Without the support of the casual gameer, we are subject to the few and far between games that either innovate existing types of games, supply great gameplay or just bring an experience that we have never before had.

I for one look foreward to those games. As do many of you. We can only hope that a publisher will rise above and allow developers to produce the games that they want to make. I am sure that very few developers want ot make "crap", and are forced into it by "suits" or other such leeches on the industry.

GTgamer @ Jun 14th 2006 2:49PM

"Many game designers come from a computer (mainly programming) that seems to have stifled imagination."

Actually, that's quite untrue in this day and age. Most game designers come from modding backgrounds or were testers that made their way up the chain. You'll rarely ever see designers who were programmers.

People seem to forget that most companies are in business to sell what's popular (or what can become popular) or profitable. The price of games falls within a fixed window and so the best way to profit is via mass-appeal. It's already been debated many times before that unique and great does not equal lots of sales. Even nich "hits" (Katamari Damacy) still don't really move an incredible amount of units when compared to the more "mainstream" genres.

ck @ Jun 14th 2006 3:03PM

Xavier,

I hate to point out your own hypocrisy, but you keep calling people whiners who don't have money to spend on a new gaming rig (which is 75% of Americans. And Joystiq wasn't just talking about PC games. You can't solve everything with a computer) and yet you continually come back and whine about how this site sucks. If you hate it so bad, go comment somewhere else.

Blogs are always going to tip-toe the line of journalism/journal entries, but to be honest, who cares? If there's news stories out there, Joystiq usually has it covered. And if there's stories about a stupid fake trailer for Pac-Man the movie, that's fine too - as long as it's in good taste and humor.

VampireHunter Z @ Jun 14th 2006 3:25PM

I think the reason why games will always suck is because of gamers. Your expectations are just out of this world and completely unreasonable. If it wasn't the advent of the Internet I wouldn't know that there were so many whiners out there.

As far as A.I. goes whenever I play PGR3 online there is always a crash in the first corner because everyone wants to win on the first turn. So much for human intellegence, atleast the A.I. cars won't crash me in the first corner. You would think they would learn to break by now.

As a programmer I have alot of appreciation for what they pull off in games. It's not simple stuff. In essence, games do not suck.

Justin C. @ Jun 14th 2006 3:58PM

I don't belive that games suck. I just think that most games lack the imagination and awe inspiring gameplay additions that got gaming where we are today.

Games have evolved immensly since the days of atari, sega genesis, and NES. Eventually graphics got a major facelift and with the new processing power of games the actually gameplay in these titles involved and took new and creative ideas for new ways to play.

Now ever since around the playstation and n64 era, games have gotten major graphic updates and they look really good now, damn good but gameplay is remaing to stay the same for the most part. Just slightly tweaked and redone with better graphics.

People and developers need to remember that graphics only take you so far. Gameplay needs to be updated along with it. I'm glad the Wii is taking a different approach to the next gen moto and will see in the years to come if it pays off.

Now adays it seems a game is only as good as its story because while the game might be fun to play, its the same type of gameplay that we have been playing for the past two generations, therefor the story is a major factor into why we continue to play games and actually finish them to the end.Only time will tell if the company takes advantage of the new technologys that are at their disposal.

Justin C. @ Jun 14th 2006 4:03PM

Also to add to my above info. Games ports and sloppy ports to be more exact have gotten better in my opinion. I remeber years ago when some ports of games were just terrible. Nothing like their original counter part or they had severve bugs,etc. More recently I still see ports that are obviously ports due to certain small descrepancies but for the most part there pretty good now adays, again in my opinion of course.

Lagomorpho @ Jun 14th 2006 4:07PM

I agree with VampireHunter in that games do not suck. It is very very hard to make a video game, let alone a great one. Thousands and thousands of man-hours are poured into a game. There is only so much that can be done.

A lot of the problems presented in the article can be addressed by the fact that there is a near infinite amount of things a player can do in-game. AI has to account for everything you do so that it can respond. Every 1/60 of a second. Try to make a decision based on the temperature, air pressure, and humidity levels of every major city on the planet and the lattitude/longitude of every person on Earth and what they are doing. Now do that 60 times a second.

Same with glitches. Developers don't have the time to try every single thing that is possible. If they did, games would never come out.

Regarding ports. Remember all the time spent on making a game? Do it again because they want to play it on a different system. And make sure there are absolutely no glitches either.

MosquitoControl @ Jun 14th 2006 4:07PM

AI used to be a huge concern of mine. No longer.

The 10 second lifespan in the article is an exaggeration. Playing through HL2E1 (which has poor AI) I noticed guys being alive less than 3 seconds. It's really hard for them to do anything interesting if I can kill them that quickly.

FEAR solved this by letting them kill you just as quickly. You could see what they could do by being forced to hide and watch.

But, for the most part, enemies in most games barely have time to react to you in any way.

idioteraser @ Jun 14th 2006 4:15PM

of course the problem with the AI is if it is too good most people get turned off by the game. You continously find people who cannot stand even one defeat in a video game and refuse to play.

Also AI has to be hampered due to control schemes on a console. The playtest of Red Steel at the Ubisoft headquarters show that the enemy AI was definetly great and they had realistic reactions. They would try to grab grenades and throw them back at you. They would react to their fellows getting wasted.

The E3 demo well lets face it they only had two weeks to make it and they weren't going to put their entire staff efforts on a throwaway demo that will only be played for three days.

Lagomorpho @ Jun 14th 2006 5:33PM

Here's a nice way of looking at it:
How long have books been around? I'm gonna say AT LEAST as long as video games have been around. What percentage of books is actually good? I would be
inclined to say a very small percent.

I think the more appropriate thing to say is that bad games will always suck and the majority of games will always be bad. It's the same with everything else. Books, movies, music, and anything creative.

We can bitch and moan forever about how bad a lot of games are but I think I'd rather spend my time playing good games.

minus_273 @ Jun 14th 2006 6:22PM

#17

you are right. My point was that there IS a faster better internet than the one the authors are using. Online play is fantastic on Internet2 as any college kid will tell you. The authors were trying to say that some people are making stuff up when they say online play is great when in reality, the people having great experiences could be on the better inernet and not the ratty old thing most people use.

avery @ Jun 14th 2006 7:07PM

Maybe it's because people are playing games too much. It eventually gets boring just like every other hobby. Take some time off from games and come back, maybe then it might be more fresh. It's like those retro Nintendo games. During the SNES days I didn't want to play the old NES games. But now a decade and a half later I can't stop playing them.

Orpheus @ Jun 15th 2006 5:25AM

Don't you realize videogames are the easiest medium of art you can influence or protest? If you really want to make it clear to a Rockstar or EA, BUY THEIR GAMES USED!

You buy a bootleg movie, you're breaking the law; it doesn't matter if your intent was protest. With TV, I'm still thinking about a way to have an influence without covering a Network affiliate with Tabasco sauce, but with a GTA 3 or Madden, you can send a message that mediocrity will not be tolerated, and still enjoy the games because the publishers and developers don't get any of that money!

Waccoon @ Jun 15th 2006 8:55AM

Two words: Interface Design

Some games on my PS2 and Gamecube load lightning fast. Some take forever. Some have choppy framerates. Some as silky smooth. Some PC games suffer from frame tearing. Some are made by developers that know what VSync is for.

And of course, today's computers are a thousand times faster than they were 10 years ago, and we still have to wait a minute or two for software to load/boot/initialize/whatever.

Some developers care about responsiveness, and some don't. That will never change. What should change is people's awareness that overall performance is a design issue, not a hardware issue. Graphic detail and audio quality is a hardware issue. Whether you look at a blank loading screen for 30 seconds, or get to see a cached animation for 5 or less, really shows who can make good games and who cannot.

Upgrade your CPU, and a 30 second load time may become 20. Get a game designed for responsiveness, and you'll wait 5 seconds even if your hardware is a couple years old.

Now, what I want to know is, where are the fractal textures and procedural synthesis? Developers that know how to do stuff like that are the ones who make responsive games.

Orpheus @ Jun 16th 2006 1:20AM

35-"What should change is people's awareness that overall performance is a design issue, not a hardware issue."

I thought that was a great point, and a good example of that is the Grand Theft Auto series; Rockstar gets new hardware to develop on and they have to squeeze too much for their own good-

1st GTA: Pac-Man but in an entire city, GTA 3: 3D(even though I hate GTA 3 I'll give them some slack considering it was the developer's first time with the PS2), but, Vice City had more land, weapons, music, and a lot more vehicles in land, sea, and air, and then San Andreas: A WHOLE STATE! If you get a tiny scratch on that disc you are screwed! I don't have any faith GTA 4 will be great because instead of being happy with the opportunity of new technology they just want to put more and more than is really needed.

I don't consider myself a geek, but the people behind the Metal Gear Solid series is an example of a developer who knows how to emphasize quality over quantity; they know their limits and work within those limits.

Whatever you want to say about story or translation, can you really say the GTA team is any more talented in game design than the MGS team?

What we really need is more people like Hideo Kojima, who wants to make "great", not executives who want to make "cool".

Sergio @ Jun 18th 2006 2:50PM

Do games really suck? I don't know. It really depends on what games you're talking about.

Let's address the loading and frame-rate problems. In terms of PC Gaming, there will always be loading time and frame-rate problems because each computer is "custom-made", meaning that each will respond to games differently. That's a given. Console games for the most part don't have that problem since they are not upgradable. To solve that problem for the PC, you're just gonna have to get a $3000 computer.

In terms of "quality over quantity", that seems to be an all-catch phrase these days because even PCs and consoles try hard to live up to that, there will always be disappointments. The Nintendo DS is a perfect example of this. It's very innovative with the use of the stylus control like we would use for a PDA, but somehow, just like everything else, there are very few "great" games. The New Super Mario Bros. has received critical praises along with Mario Kart DS and Nintendogs. But with those games, those with huge expectations, they somehow fall short. I haven't played most of the DS games, but judging from the reviews (Gamespot), I can't help but wonder on why high-expectation games turn out to be "duds": Trauma Center, Brain Age, Metroid Prime Hunters (yes, it got an 8.6, but I've played it and felt it could've done better).

The Nintendo Wii has shown a lot of promise, but how many of these games will actually be "great?" I suspect Super Smash Bros. Brawl will be one of those. Ditto for the Twilight Princess. But how will Red Steel, Madden 07, and Battlefield do? I don't know. Like the previous bloggers said, there's only so much technology can do, and it is our fault for giving way-too-high expectations for these games.

What is the solution? I don't know, but games are just like anything else in life: there are triumphs and disappointments, but either way, we got to work with them, and one-liners and catch-phrases such as "quality over quantity" alone will not solve that.

gamer @ Jun 18th 2006 5:18PM

Why are the graphics in the game intro movies and the end of game movies so much better than the graphics in the game? It is a real let down. If they have the technology to make the cgi in game movies look so good then why don't they make the game graphics look that good as well? The new standard for in game graphics should be the same quality as any cgi movie in the game.

Mike Harris @ Jun 18th 2006 5:43PM

Honestly, they (the video game companies/makers) really haven't improved in graphics or loading times that much. Due to the lifeless graphics on the GCN, I finally decided to get a PS2, but at the exact wrong time (or possibly the right time). In my opinion, the success in video game sales is amazing when you have all of the other oppritunities to do something else other than play video games (e.g. music, DVDs/movies, etc.). Is this world THAT stupid? No, it actually isn't, due to little 8 year olds asking the same question every week-" Mommy, can I get the new cool game? All of my friends have it! Pleeeaaassseeee!!!!" Those little minds don't understand the weaknesses in game-making even today-YES, TODAY. They just care if the game gives them a certain type of enjoyment. How ironic! My sister just plugged in her iPod at this moment! There's a good example of doing something else! Anyways, when you were that age and video games were on the rise or were at the top of the industry already, you were the same as that typical 8-year old. My point is that most (or at least 60% of the video game industry) is aimed at that kid walking down the street, begging his Mommy for that same video game again and again until he gets it. However, then comes the rated Mature video games; kids look at guns, they like it, I'll tell you that. I'm not saying there should be an end to rated M games, I'm just saying kids get interested in it around the world. Wait-I got off the article, didn't I? My bad. I'll say one more thing about gaming today, choppy graphics and long loading screens; as you get older, you'll notice how easily you (YES, I'M POINTING AT YOU) were so susceptible to bad graphics, stupid A.I, and long loading screens. As far as I'm concerned, no 8 year-old in 2001 would have played the N64 and seen glitches in it (that was me, smart ones). Listen, I'm running out of room, so if you want to talk to me more on this issue or on rock music, don't E-Mail, but IM me at Elrick30. My name is Mike Harris, and yes, I'm only 13.

THE END

JM Scion @ Jun 18th 2006 6:24PM

I kinda wish people would stop ignoring the obvious handicap of not having the money to upgrade your pc, or getting a new computer despite all the personal information you'd lose throwing out the old one. It kinda makes it seem like anyone who can't afford the latest ATI/NVidia whatever or own the next-gen processor has no right to play games.

But my main point is, I hope games never lose these glitches and AI! Come on, people, So much of the stuff is absolutely HILARIOUS! One of my favorite XBOX games is Driv3r because of how cool the glitches make the game, like when you can teleport yourself into the back of a moving truck. And lets' not forget how fun the flitches of Driver 2 were, with people running away from you terrified as you casually walk down the street. As for AI, it's simply too funny to speak of. I love the sight in Oblivion when a town guard gets pissed and starts unloading arrows on hapless civilians. And who could forget Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City, as we watch old leadies beat cops and see two fat guys shooting at eachother, missing horribly despite the fact that they are standing two feet apart. This is not why games will always suck. This is why games will always rule! If any of these major companies were to release a game that was all about glitches and hilarious NPC antics, it would be a hit!

Eric @ Jun 18th 2006 7:15PM

Do you people not realize after all the bitching and whiny ass comments about publishers, that YOU YOURSELVES ARE PUBLISHING YOUR THOUGHTS ? That makes you publishers.....Ok, so i am being a publisher now, but oh freaking well, you all need to realize something.......video games are here to stay and are only going to be marked as a part of the human race as we know it.........AI THIS AI THAT, SCREW YOU PEOPLE. You dont care how the AI is, and yet, you play the games anyways, WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FOOLING ? AND STOP BEING SO HYPOCRITICAL

BlessedWrath @ Jun 18th 2006 7:23PM

Xavier, how can you point out hipocrisy when you, in the same breath, both defend Oblivion's load times and berate the load times of Burnout: Revenge, and Fight Night 3?

Shouldn't that make you a hypocrite as well?

Beyond that, your incessant pursuit of pointless semantics and unimportant grammatical errors is, at best, irritating. So long as you point to a typo and say "See?! That's why you're wrong!", nobody will take you seriously.

My very first thought, when I read your first reply (and, yes, I did read the whole thing, as well as all subsequent replies), was to shake my head and sigh. Why? Because you're just the same as that Christian guy who got himself on TV and started yelling about how Christians worldwide needed to rebel against those who were persecuting them.

Do you think anyone at all took him seriously? I'll stake my worth as a person on the idea that the Pope himself was embarrassed by it.

If you really want your opinions to be heard, I would suggest the following steps:

1) Formulate a coherent, valid, and properly worded response.

2) Post said response in a non-threatening manner, so that people won't simply shut you down out of hand, without giving it a chance. (On that note, I'm probably one of about three people who read every word)

3) Stop getting hung up on the finer details. If you have a point to make, make it. Nobudy carz if u typ wroung thei wll undrestand it n e whey. Right? Right.

4) Finally, the purpose of a blog is not to "win". Stop treating this like a battlefield and actually consider what the bloody thing was written for.

When you can do all that, I will consider hearing your voice -or, rather, seeing your type- again. Until that time, piss off!

Now, as to the Joystiq issue, I rather enjoyed the article. It said what it needed to in a concise and (I believe) professional manner. It was a bit opinionated, but this is the hangup of free speech.

I agree that bugs are a major issue, and need to be dealt with. However, I also agree that people will continue to play the ones that end up being tolerable, and they may even enjoy some of them. Personally, I don't buy games unless I rent them or play them first, or I hear a recommendation from a person I know has an IQ above double digits. It won't solve every issue, but many of them can at least be cushioned this way.

As for the developers, TALK WITH THEM! The inherrent assumption in this article is that the developers are only out to show you just enough to take your money. That isn't always true. A great deal of the world is corrupt; fine, I can see that. But everyone? Nah. Most people are reasonable enough to at least consider your opinions, especially if you're the one lining their pockets.

There. Now you have MY three cents, I think I'll run off to my Gameboy Advance and enjoy some horrible games.

Ciao.

DeathCalibur @ Jun 18th 2006 7:57PM

Video games are awesome.
1. Load times aren't that bad. I love Oblivion and the load times are hardly noticeable if you actually liked video games.
2. Graphics aren't that important! They're just the iceing on a good video game cake. Gameplay is the most important part of a game.
3. You think AI isn't getting that much better? Maybe you don't think so because you haven't played FEAR! The AI is very good in that game. You can actually hide and computer players will walk around checking to see if you are still around.
4. Glitches? Who the hell cares about glitches? They hardly affect video games. If there is a glitch, just avoid it! Glitches can also be very fun if you are getting a little bored with a game.
5. Limited online opposition? Have you ever heard about next-gen consoles? More specifically Xbox Live?
I don't know where you are coming from on that one...
Video games are truely great. Great way to have fun and can be very educational. They help people broaden their minds!

Ben @ Jun 18th 2006 8:27PM

# 39 left this little gem: "Due to the lifeless graphics on the GCN, I finally decided to get a PS2, but at the exact wrong time (or possibly the right time)."

What the hell are you talking about?!? The graphics on the Gamecube are lifeless compared to the PS2?!? Uh....NO!! Which system came out first Einstein? Both the gamecube and the original Xbox are graphically superior to the PS2! Why do you think Capcom put out their Resident Evil remake on the Gamecube and not the Playstation? It's because the Gamecube could do more graphically! Go play RE4 on the PS2 and then play it on the Gamecube, the Gamecube has better frame rates and it looks a lot smoother!

Sariyana @ Jun 18th 2006 8:45PM

I don't claim to be the biggest or most knowledgeble gamer out there, but I don't honestly don't believe that video games suck. I actually read every word of this article and the following comments (I'm very proud of myself for that) and here's my opinion (as worthless as it may be).

Among some of the problems mentioned repetedly were long load times, glitches, bad AI, etc. These are always gonna exist as long as technology continues to advance. I'm actually very happy with the progress video games have made. However, technology isn't perfect, and you can only do so much to get things the way you want them to be, all you can do is give your best, nothing is perfect and machines are no exception. A couple of people mentioned gaming problems due to poor hardware. It's true that a gaming system can't be upgraded, but as for a computer, if you know that your machine isn't top of the line, then who are you to complain about the performance of the game? I understand poor systems perfectly. I only have 224 MB of RAM, and an old graphics card...and I just recently got Roadrunner...but I was still playing World of Warcraft with my brother (on dial-up) despite the fact that I didn't meet even the minimum system requirements. So, if you're gonna play an advanced game without having the best equipment, you'd better be prepared to suffer the consequences.

I do also believe that people do expect too much from video game developers. Video games are entertainment....they are meant to entertain. Isn't it enough that you enjoyed the game? Does it have to be perfect too? Good quality is important, but I think that the fun value should be more important (but like I said I'm not a hardcore gamer, so what do I know?). And as for the belief that the developers only want to make money...well yes...I believe that's true to an extent. After all, it's a business and the point of business is to make money, so you can't really condemn them for wanting to do so. But I believe that there are developers who want to make good quality games for their fans, and those developers will make the best games.

Now as for glitches and poor AI, well...I love glitches. I think they're hilarious. Kinda like watching the bloopers from a movie. And poor AI. Well, it is artificial intelligence...therefore it should stand to reason that it wouldn't be perfect. Not like it could be perfect anyway, because intelligence is impossible to imitate. Everyone is different, so while one may respond in a certain matter to a perticular situation, another my respond in a different manner. Sometimes, yes the computer does do stupid things, but sometimes it may not have necessarily been stupid, it's just not what you would have done.