Why do they make bad games?

a better question is why do ppl buy bad games??
they'll continue to make them as long as you're buying.
 
Are we talking about bad games, or games that we personally don't like? There are hundreds of TV shows I would never watch, but I wouldn't presume to call them bad. They just aren't for me. Yet they get fantastic ratings season after season, so they must be doing something right.

Games are the same way. Games with a lot of bugs and problems can be enjoyable and even memorable, but well-polished well-selling games can be a snoozefest. Either type of game could be considered good, or bad, depending on your definition.
 
merlin704 said:
Because God of War didn't borrow from Devil May Cry, Sword of the Beserk, Ninety-Nine Nights, e.t.c....:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well yes it did. God of War is definitely DMC-Lite, but my point was Dante's Inferno copies GoW in everything from the gameplay to the controls (which are exactly the same, even having Dodge mapped to the right analog stick), the combo system, the combat system, button-mashing to open doors, button-mashing to open chests with health/magic, magic abilities, quick-time events to defeat every second enemy and more. Add to it all that there is already a videogame hero named Dante who was very loosely inspired from the same text Dante's Inferno takes its name from and you have a recipe for the most unoriginal game ever.
 
Last edited:
Plague_Injected said:
- Developer lacks experience and/or talent (Raven Squad)
- Game is rushed to market (Dragon Age 2)
- Game design, evolution and experimentation are restricted by publisher (COD)
- Insufficient quality control and play-testing (STALKER Clear Sky)
- Self-indulgent, self-celebratory developer (Alan Wake)
- Game "borrows" too much from better, more prominent games (Dante's Inferno)
- Poor understanding of what is fun and what is boring (Far Cry 2)
- Game is self-confessed shovelware with the sole purpose of generating income (any Ubisoft title available on the Wii)
Click to expand...
Nice. Good post here — hits all the finer points.
 
NKDietrich said:
Are we talking about bad games, or games that we personally don't like? There are hundreds of TV shows I would never watch, but I wouldn't presume to call them bad. They just aren't for me. Yet they get fantastic ratings season after season, so they must be doing something right.

Games are the same way. Games with a lot of bugs and problems can be enjoyable and even memorable, but well-polished well-selling games can be a snoozefest. Either type of game could be considered good, or bad, depending on your definition.
Click to expand...

It is much more in line with human nature to have an over inflated sense of ones subjective tastes and feel that it is gospel. Just look at many of the opinions on these forums that are presented as indisputable facts.
 
You guys think a crash such as 83 would actually be good for the gaming industry?
 
Azureth said:
You guys think a crash such as 83 would actually be good for the gaming industry?
Click to expand...

Considering what came out of it,yes. People turned to PC's for their gaming,and the industry learned that they couldn't just keep shoveling out crap. But once again the greedy console makers have ruined it.Sure,there's a ton of games out there,but quantity doesn't equal quality.And because those games are held back by the obsolete technology in consoles,there's very little innovation.
 
A crash wouldn't solve the problem. The companies that keep putting out these shit titles are companies such as Activision and EA. They have the most money and would be the most likely to survive if a crash happened.
 
michael.pa2 said:
Considering what came out of it,yes. People turned to PC's for their gaming,and the industry learned that they couldn't just keep shoveling out crap. But once again the greedy console makers have ruined it.Sure,there's a ton of games out there,but quantity doesn't equal quality.And because those games are held back by the obsolete technology in consoles,there's very little innovation.
Click to expand...

Consoles makers didn't ruin games and nobody is moving back to desktops, period. People have moved on past them.

If the market crashed as it did, ipads and iphones would take over. Which is how most people want to game on their computing devices.

And PC's bad parts and nonsense about graphics ruined gameplay. PC gaming has been a curse on games quality for a long time now.
 
sd11 said:
Consoles makers didn't ruin games and nobody is moving back to desktops, period. People have moved on past them.

If the market crashed as it did, ipads and iphones would take over. Which is how most people want to game on their computing devices.

And PC's bad parts and nonsense about graphics ruined gameplay. PC gaming has been a curse on games quality for a long time now.
Click to expand...
lol @ the ridiculousness of these statements.
 
Plague_Injected said:
- Developer lacks experience and/or talent (Raven Squad)
- Game is rushed to market (Dragon Age 2)
- Game design, evolution and experimentation are restricted by publisher (COD)
- Insufficient quality control and play-testing (STALKER Clear Sky)
- Self-indulgent, self-celebratory developer (Alan Wake)
- Game "borrows" too much from better, more prominent games (Dante's Inferno)
- Poor understanding of what is fun and what is boring (Far Cry 2)
- Game is self-confessed shovelware with the sole purpose of generating income (any Ubisoft title available on the Wii)
Click to expand...

I agree with most of it.

As for games borrowing from other games, it doesn't really matter as long as the game is good.
 
Why do they make bad games. It's easy, it's all about money, period end of story.

Lazy developers, and "let's get it out, rushed, so we can sell more copies" mentality of the gaming industry.

Until we as smart consumers, stop buying the crap games, it will never end. Everyone needs to send them a message.

Great a bad game and we won't buy it.
 
Defective said:
I agree with most of it.

As for games borrowing from other games, it doesn't really matter as long as the game is good.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, which is why I put "too much" and "from better... games". You don't need to reinvent the wheel to have a good game but when it's a blatant clone of another game without any of the good game design, then you have a clunker.
 
sd11 said:
Consoles makers didn't ruin games and nobody is moving back to desktops, period. People have moved on past them.

If the market crashed as it did, ipads and iphones would take over. Which is how most people want to game on their computing devices.

And PC's bad parts and nonsense about graphics ruined gameplay. PC gaming has been a curse on games quality for a long time now.
Click to expand...

You're still on about your anti-PC bullshit? Tragic.
 
He he... nobody even wants to touch my post... maybe long, but too true to handle for many. There is more money to be made off of releasing games that are just "good enough" rather than "great".
 
undertheradar said:
He he... nobody even wants to touch my post... maybe long, but too true to handle for many. There is more money to be made off of releasing games that are just "good enough" rather than "great".
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say, and that's kind of tragic in it's own way.
 
I wouldn't put blame on the developers. I would blame the publishers because they are the source of money for most projects and end up having a lot of say on the projects that they really shouldn't have anything to do with (deadlines, features, even game design and content). Developers do not enjoy putting out sub-par games. But it gets to a point where they need to get it shipped or they aren't getting paid.

Look at companies like Blizzard and Valve. Both companies push-back release dates constantly. I remember reading that Starcraft II had been mostly complete for 2 years prior to release, content and all. Blizzard just spent 2 years polishing and balancing it. Some games don't even get 2 years for development, content, and testing/polish. They also don't have to worry about a publisher or deadlines. Other developers don't have that luxury...

Most game developers actually really enjoy making games, it really sucks when you have to just cut your losses and release an unfinished game.
 
Yea.. Vampire the Masquerade for one. If only it had another 2 years, it would be even more amazing...
 
Money comes first and artistic integrity is not even a consideration for many of these development studios because they have none. They are not in it for the love of the art but purely to make a buck so they just emulate some other game that sold well but lack the skill to do it well.

You find the same problem in the film and music industry. Many of them just emulate another movie or musician in the same style but they lack what it takes to write good music or direct a good movie.
 
The T-man said:
$$$
Click to expand...

You win, someone gives them $$$ for their crap. We read reviews here by Kyle & Co. before we spend our hardware $$$, you can do the same with your game $$$. Although game tastes are relative (I like it & you don't & vice versa) I try to pick games that score high in reviews. Except for Duke, I'm getting Duke Nukem even if it's the biggest POS on 2 legs !!!! :D
 
Dev teams sit down in a big room and think "Hmmm, there's been too many good games in recent years, lets make a few shit ones".
 
limitedaccess said:
The saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure" is extremely true in this regard.
Click to expand...

This is why we invented the concept of quality, however diffuse the term is.

Some things are simply of better quality or a higher standard. One problem is the incredible lack of financial will to expose and bet on individuals or teams, capable of delivering this.

This problem is apparent in music, film, TV and of course in the gaming industry.

We are a visual species if anything and we still can´t get this aspect of the production to be of a higher standard in most cases, though it´s fine we are currently being satisfied with less than our real time hardware can pull off. The real horror stories lies with fundamental game design and writing, the bar is set VERY low here.

There is an almost industry wide fear ($$) of producing something that makes the consumer feel too challenged. In most major game development complexity is eradicated in order to secure a broad and dumb consumer base.

Remember how difficult games used to be? It took a long time to master many games. Today not so much, since everything needs to be "fast carbs" and easy access.


IN SHORT: Quality = High level of complexity (or the brilliantly simple for mini games).

Complexity is expensive; takes talent to produce on all levels of the production. Fundamental design and writing suffering the most IMHO.
 
limitedaccess said:
It is much more in line with human nature to have an over inflated sense of ones subjective tastes and feel that it is gospel. Just look at many of the opinions on these forums that are presented as indisputable facts.
Click to expand...

Truly , you've summed up the entire essence of forum posting on this site or any gaming related forum. So many opinions , so many assholes.
 
One thing that bothers me is how many people give up as soon as they reach something difficult or hard. My friends are like that and it bugs the hell out of me.
 
I don't understand you guys, none of you seem to know how much it costs to make a game, say you wanted two programmers and two artists, you are the designer and project manager.

For 1 year that is at least 200,000 dollars if they just work at your house (No office) for a year for fairly inexperienced developers, you would probably end up with a shit face-book game.

If you sunk that much money into something wouldn't you EXPECT it to make money and get something done? Like you guys saying shit games are 0 effort? It's impossible to make a game with no effort even a shit one.

I want you to go ahead and make a simple 'shit' game. Hell just mod Oblivion by adding 1 quest that's interesting I bet you couldn't.

All in all, it's hard to make a game GOOD and FUN, especially for everyone. Hell I know people who don't like Portal or Half-Life does that make them bad games? No.
 
Bobthecoolguy said:
I don't understand you guys, none of you seem to know how much it costs to make a game, say you wanted two programmers and two artists, you are the designer and project manager.

For 1 year that is at least 200,000 dollars if they just work at your house (No office) for a year for fairly inexperienced developers, you would probably end up with a shit face-book game.

If you sunk that much money into something wouldn't you EXPECT it to make money and get something done? Like you guys saying shit games are 0 effort? It's impossible to make a game with no effort even a shit one.

I want you to go ahead and make a simple 'shit' game. Hell just mod Oblivion by adding 1 quest that's interesting I bet you couldn't.

All in all, it's hard to make a game GOOD and FUN, especially for everyone. Hell I know people who don't like Portal or Half-Life does that make them bad games? No.
Click to expand...

This. RIGHT THE F*CK HERE.

Some of the people in this thread think they can make better games by themselves compared to an entire team or multiple teams it takes to make a game.

...and before anyone quotes my post and says "well I can", no...you can't. That's all.
 
Plague_Injected said:
- Developer lacks experience and/or talent (Raven Squad)
- Game is rushed to market (Dragon Age 2)
- Game design, evolution and experimentation are restricted by publisher (COD)
- Insufficient quality control and play-testing (STALKER Clear Sky)
- Self-indulgent, self-celebratory developer (Alan Wake)
- Game "borrows" too much from better, more prominent games (Dante's Inferno)
- Poor understanding of what is fun and what is boring (Far Cry 2)
- Game is self-confessed shovelware with the sole purpose of generating income (any Ubisoft title available on the Wii)
Click to expand...

FarCry 2 is a good example of what I was talking about. Theres nothing "wrong" with it. Hell it's top notch graphics and gunplay, but gameplay wise it's just awful. Most frustratingly boring game I ever played and I used to play game like Boxing for Atari 2600 for hours. It just feels like They didn't bother to play it while making it.

COD is fine. I accept that there's nothing wrong it other than it being sold as an FPS when its really just an on rails simulator, but that's all opinion. I wouldn't categorize it as a bad game no matter how distasteful I find it.
 
stop!theradio said:
This. RIGHT THE F*CK HERE.

Some of the people in this thread think they can make better games by themselves compared to an entire team or multiple teams it takes to make a game.

...and before anyone quotes my post and says "well I can", no...you can't. That's all.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many people work on a game,or how much money they spend on it. It's the attitude they have going in,if they start off developing with the lowest common denominator in mind,i.e consoles,then the game is crippled from the start. Originality is a thing of the past,for every STALKER there are a dozen Halo clones churned out by the assembly lines that past for game studios. We aren't getting paid to make games,but we are expected to pay an increasing amount of cash for them. And we don't need to know how to make a game to know when one sucks.
 
michael.pa2 said:
It doesn't matter how many people work on a game,or how much money they spend on it. It's the attitude they have going in,if they start off developing with the lowest common denominator in mind,i.e consoles,then the game is crippled from the start.
Click to expand...

The only upside to developing exclusively for PC is in the graphics department. Shitty games will be shitty games, regardless of whether they're on PC or Xbox. I simply don't see the logic in what you said. The only thing that would have to scale is graphics - shit gameplay has nothing to do with platform.
 
The issue is they'll design gameplay / controls focusing on making it more playable on the console. Things like auto-aim or just simplifying things down to fewer buttons can completely change how the game works.

Things like MMO's and RTS's just don't work on consoles. FPS doesn't belong on console but they still make them. I think some people over-exaggerate the consolizing of games. People were throwing fits about Bad Company 2 being consolized but it played great on the PC.

It's not impossible to create a game that runs on multiple platforms, but most companies get it wrong.
 
I can definitely agree with that. I am a pc gamer myself but cannot stand when people act like multiplatform games are absolutely doomed from the start, because that's simply untrue.
 
Blazestorm said:
The issue is they'll design gameplay / controls focusing on making it more playable on the console. Things like auto-aim or just simplifying things down to fewer buttons can completely change how the game works.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? You been in any design meetings recently? Having auto-aim for PC and Xbox requires an actual designer saying, hey I want to have Auto-Aim on the PC AND on the 360 it's not like the technical lead is like, hey Mr Designer...if we have auto-aim for Xbox then we can't remove the functionality for PC.

It is obvious the designers were going for an easier way to play the game. By the way this has nothing to do with a game being bad.

Blazestorm said:
It's not impossible to create a game that runs on multiple platforms, but most companies get it wrong.
Click to expand...

It's just incredibly costly and very difficult, especially if you go from anything to the PS3.
 
Bobthecoolguy said:
How do you know this? You been in any design meetings recently? Having auto-aim for PC and Xbox requires an actual designer saying, hey I want to have Auto-Aim on the PC AND on the 360 it's not like the technical lead is like, hey Mr Designer...if we have auto-aim for Xbox then we can't remove the functionality for PC.

It is obvious the designers were going for an easier way to play the game. By the way this has nothing to do with a game being bad.



It's just incredibly costly and very difficult, especially if you go from anything to the PS3.
Click to expand...

You do not know any better how things work. No there is usually not someone saying we must have it for both. But someone will say we need some auto aim for the controllers and then they will be just to lazy, disorganized or forgetful to disable it for the PC.

In the name of shipping the product fast a great many things in games are just skipped over. And this will be one of them. If you can make a single product and sell it to all markets you are going to do that because it is cheaper. In the console/PC field it cannot be the exact same product but you most devs spend as little time as possible making sure it runs best on all systems. It is painfully obvious if you play lots of these games.

For instance lost planet 2 has auto aim because controllers suck. And you can turn it off, but the funny thing is even when you disable it some remnants of the feature remain and you cannot get rid of them. At least I have not figured out a way to do that yet.
 
Bobthecoolguy said:
How do you know this? You been in any design meetings recently? Having auto-aim for PC and Xbox requires an actual designer saying, hey I want to have Auto-Aim on the PC AND on the 360 it's not like the technical lead is like, hey Mr Designer...if we have auto-aim for Xbox then we can't remove the functionality for PC.

It is obvious the designers were going for an easier way to play the game. By the way this has nothing to do with a game being bad.

It's just incredibly costly and very difficult, especially if you go from anything to the PS3.
Click to expand...

No, but that was a simple example. But trying to port Halo Wars from the XBox (an RTS designed around a controller) would be pretty disappointing for PC players who want a deep game. Instead they dumbed down a lot of the game so it could be played with a controller. This is the kind of console ports that don't work but companies still try. Just depends on the game.

And writing an engine that effectly uses cell processors is a pain, but not impossible (Bad Company 2... Frostbite 1.5)... ran on Pc, PS3, and Xbox and was pretty well received all around. Valve also did it with the source engine and Portal 2 (Some of their earlier attempts weren't as good).
 
After a bit more thought:

An Xbox 360 controller has 14 actual pressable buttons plus the analog sticks. Now, I am a PC gamer, but 14 buttons sounds like more than enough for most any game out there. I mean in first person shooters - what do you need to do? Move forward, backward, left and right. Shoot your weapon, throw grenade, jump, crouch, lean, run, switch weapon and use/activate. That's like 12 buttons, and I think I covered everything pretty good there.

Again, I'm a PC gamer. I had my attempt at modern console gaming with the Xbox 360, but the whole RRoD crap just made PC gaming that much more "valid" to me, and yes I do (and always will) find the kb/m a much better, more accurate way to play games.

But the thing is that 14 buttons, which the 360 and PS3 both have, should be more than enough for most any game - save for the most hardcore of flight simulation games :p Honestly, though, if a developer can't make their game work well with 14 buttons or less then I think they're just doing it wrong. No one should have to look down at the keyboard to find that one awkward button that they almost never have to press.

...and of course, the whole auto-aim thing is a whole other beast. While I do think that an overall control scheme of an FPS works fine across platforms, auto-aim itself simply has no place in a first person shooter on PC. If they incorporate it into a console version, then fine, but in the PC version of the same game? No. It has no place, and it does suck when a developer leaves that feature in the PC version. It's definitely not game-breaking for me, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top