You know, as irritating as it might be to hope for something and then be told you have to wait, I respect them for being willing to push back the release. It can't have been an easy decision to...
You know, as irritating as it might be to hope for something and then be told you have to wait, I respect them for being willing to push back the release. It can't have been an easy decision to make, and I'm sure they'll get flak for it, but even as games are infinitly patchable these days I'd prefer to have a game that's good on release.
Upset fans immediately forget they are angry once a delayed game eventually releases. The stink of a buggy unpolished release and stories of extreme crunch and developer burnout are a lot harder...
Upset fans immediately forget they are angry once a delayed game eventually releases.
The stink of a buggy unpolished release and stories of extreme crunch and developer burnout are a lot harder to wash away.
This is a difficult but correct call. Rockstar has the goodwill to pull it off. The adage in the industry is that a late game can still be good, but a bad game is bad forever. Just look at the...
This is a difficult but correct call. Rockstar has the goodwill to pull it off. The adage in the industry is that a late game can still be good, but a bad game is bad forever. Just look at the general public opinions for No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk. Countless articles and videos try to build good PR for how those games are better now and how they are a labor of love. Phoenixes of the industry, if you will. The general public just remembers how they were trash at launch and thinks they always will be bad and there's no convincing them of that.
If GTA6 flops because it was rushed, I think this would be a nuclear bomb on the AAA gaming industry. They are way better off taking their time and making it right.
I mean, both of the examples you give here are considered good games at this point - both are over 80% positive reviews all-time on steam. So you're kind of disproving your own generalization...
a bad game is bad forever. Just look at the general public opinions for No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk
I mean, both of the examples you give here are considered good games at this point - both are over 80% positive reviews all-time on steam. So you're kind of disproving your own generalization here.
Though, I do agree it's obviously better to release a good game late rather than fix a flawed game after release.
I'm not here to say those games are still bad, I'm just here to reflect the attitude of the greater gaming community towards them. While you are correct that these games have a high rating on...
I'm not here to say those games are still bad, I'm just here to reflect the attitude of the greater gaming community towards them. While you are correct that these games have a high rating on Steam, that is from players who have played the game and are satisfied. It does not reflect those who have no interest of going anywhere near the game because of the bad press it received early after launch. I'm sure the games are good now, but some people aren't going to be swayed because the name was tarnished that much. (Full disclosure: I haven't played either game, but that's solely because I just am not interested in the games themselves, regardless of quality)
If you read literally any posts about updates for No Man's Sky, the game has clearly redeemed itself in the public eye. Cyberpunk still has some ill will (from me included), but NMS has officially...
If you read literally any posts about updates for No Man's Sky, the game has clearly redeemed itself in the public eye. Cyberpunk still has some ill will (from me included), but NMS has officially escaped the event horizon.
The launch can impact everything about a game. I think some can build momentum from a mediocre launch, but a bad launch tarnishes the reputation forever. Even now people talk more about the many...
The launch can impact everything about a game. I think some can build momentum from a mediocre launch, but a bad launch tarnishes the reputation forever. Even now people talk more about the many bugs plaguing Cyberpunk's launch than the amazing quality of the updates, that game will forever be remembered for the disastrous launch. And the odds of someone who left a bad review at launch recanting it after updates are low, which permanently marks the rating.
Normally, survival/building/space games hit all my target buttons. But for some reason No Man's Sky, despite the unquestionable massive improvements, feels so much more shallow and samey than...
Normally, survival/building/space games hit all my target buttons. But for some reason No Man's Sky, despite the unquestionable massive improvements, feels so much more shallow and samey than Elite Dangerous for space combat and Spore for procedurally generated content. I put in some solid hours, but became bored far quicker than I imagined I would.
It's a very confusing game for me for that reason.
No Man's Sky was worse than bad, it was just fraudulent. They advertised mechanics that didn't exist at launch. If you sell a thing and advertise that it has feature XYZ, then tell the buyer...
The general public just remembers how they were trash at launch and thinks they always will be bad and there's no convincing them of that.
No Man's Sky was worse than bad, it was just fraudulent. They advertised mechanics that didn't exist at launch. If you sell a thing and advertise that it has feature XYZ, then tell the buyer "Well, actually, it might have XYZ eventually", you're a dick.
Labor of love doesn't matter, the game and the studio are poison as far as I'm concerned.
Based on the interviews & documentaries I’ve seen, that whole fiasco seems to have been caused by misguided ambition & excessive enthusiasm. I don’t think it was borne out of malice.
Based on the interviews & documentaries I’ve seen, that whole fiasco seems to have been caused by misguided ambition & excessive enthusiasm. I don’t think it was borne out of malice.
It's still reckless and harmful to make those kinds of claims. I was so excited for simulated solar systems, orbits and dynamic climates and organism generated to the environment. Stuff that was...
It's still reckless and harmful to make those kinds of claims. I was so excited for simulated solar systems, orbits and dynamic climates and organism generated to the environment. Stuff that was talked about during development (I followed pretty closely). And instead we got illusory days, Star Wars monobiome planets, and mad-libs randomization.
I don't want the game it turned into. I don't want base-building. I want the naturalist-explorer experience in a system that makes sense.
That's starting to be a timeline where I wonder if I'll survive to play it - since the PC launch is unlikely to happen until a year or two after that. Meh.
That's starting to be a timeline where I wonder if I'll survive to play it - since the PC launch is unlikely to happen until a year or two after that.
With the eye watering load times and instability of the GTA V network at its launch, I'm not too concerned about waiting a bit. Besides, since I sold my PS5 I'm going to have to wait regardless.
With the eye watering load times and instability of the GTA V network at its launch, I'm not too concerned about waiting a bit.
Besides, since I sold my PS5 I'm going to have to wait regardless.
To my knowledge, yes. I take that as a good sign. A few months ago, I went back and looked at the various RDR2 trailers and you can see the dates move back in each one until the settled on a...
To my knowledge, yes. I take that as a good sign. A few months ago, I went back and looked at the various RDR2 trailers and you can see the dates move back in each one until the settled on a specific date.
You know, as irritating as it might be to hope for something and then be told you have to wait, I respect them for being willing to push back the release. It can't have been an easy decision to make, and I'm sure they'll get flak for it, but even as games are infinitly patchable these days I'd prefer to have a game that's good on release.
Upset fans immediately forget they are angry once a delayed game eventually releases.
The stink of a buggy unpolished release and stories of extreme crunch and developer burnout are a lot harder to wash away.
This is a difficult but correct call. Rockstar has the goodwill to pull it off. The adage in the industry is that a late game can still be good, but a bad game is bad forever. Just look at the general public opinions for No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk. Countless articles and videos try to build good PR for how those games are better now and how they are a labor of love. Phoenixes of the industry, if you will. The general public just remembers how they were trash at launch and thinks they always will be bad and there's no convincing them of that.
If GTA6 flops because it was rushed, I think this would be a nuclear bomb on the AAA gaming industry. They are way better off taking their time and making it right.
I mean, both of the examples you give here are considered good games at this point - both are over 80% positive reviews all-time on steam. So you're kind of disproving your own generalization here.
Though, I do agree it's obviously better to release a good game late rather than fix a flawed game after release.
I'm not here to say those games are still bad, I'm just here to reflect the attitude of the greater gaming community towards them. While you are correct that these games have a high rating on Steam, that is from players who have played the game and are satisfied. It does not reflect those who have no interest of going anywhere near the game because of the bad press it received early after launch. I'm sure the games are good now, but some people aren't going to be swayed because the name was tarnished that much. (Full disclosure: I haven't played either game, but that's solely because I just am not interested in the games themselves, regardless of quality)
To help prove my case on opinions, this comment was posted literally minutes after yours
If you read literally any posts about updates for No Man's Sky, the game has clearly redeemed itself in the public eye. Cyberpunk still has some ill will (from me included), but NMS has officially escaped the event horizon.
The launch can impact everything about a game. I think some can build momentum from a mediocre launch, but a bad launch tarnishes the reputation forever. Even now people talk more about the many bugs plaguing Cyberpunk's launch than the amazing quality of the updates, that game will forever be remembered for the disastrous launch. And the odds of someone who left a bad review at launch recanting it after updates are low, which permanently marks the rating.
Normally, survival/building/space games hit all my target buttons. But for some reason No Man's Sky, despite the unquestionable massive improvements, feels so much more shallow and samey than Elite Dangerous for space combat and Spore for procedurally generated content. I put in some solid hours, but became bored far quicker than I imagined I would.
It's a very confusing game for me for that reason.
No Man's Sky was worse than bad, it was just fraudulent. They advertised mechanics that didn't exist at launch. If you sell a thing and advertise that it has feature XYZ, then tell the buyer "Well, actually, it might have XYZ eventually", you're a dick.
Labor of love doesn't matter, the game and the studio are poison as far as I'm concerned.
Based on the interviews & documentaries I’ve seen, that whole fiasco seems to have been caused by misguided ambition & excessive enthusiasm. I don’t think it was borne out of malice.
It's still reckless and harmful to make those kinds of claims. I was so excited for simulated solar systems, orbits and dynamic climates and organism generated to the environment. Stuff that was talked about during development (I followed pretty closely). And instead we got illusory days, Star Wars monobiome planets, and mad-libs randomization.
I don't want the game it turned into. I don't want base-building. I want the naturalist-explorer experience in a system that makes sense.
That's starting to be a timeline where I wonder if I'll survive to play it - since the PC launch is unlikely to happen until a year or two after that.
Meh.
With the eye watering load times and instability of the GTA V network at its launch, I'm not too concerned about waiting a bit.
Besides, since I sold my PS5 I'm going to have to wait regardless.
Is this the first time that Rockstar has announced a specific date? The initial trailer just gave a year, 2025.
To my knowledge, yes. I take that as a good sign. A few months ago, I went back and looked at the various RDR2 trailers and you can see the dates move back in each one until the settled on a specific date.