Games

16834 readers

858 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO

522

Baldur's Gate 3 won so many awards that it started to "affect development", forcing Larian to send "rotating teams" of devs to ceremonies (www.gamesradar.com)

submitted 4 months ago by nanoUFO to c/games

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Salix 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

As a kid, I had no such issues. Games couldn't be updated post launch, so they had to be good or they'd fail. I miss those launches...

Idk... As a gaming kid in the 90s, I always wished companies could fix the bugs in their games or rebalance stuff. I was so happy when computer gaming started having patches available.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

To an extent, sure, but that was when the bugs were small because they were operating on the assumption that games wouldn't be patched (e.g. for consoles, many people didn't have reliable Internet, etc).

Now that updating post launch is a thing, they don't bother with as much pre-launch testing, so you only get to the quality we should've had after 6 months or so of patches. I'd much rather they delay games by 3-6 months and have a solid launch instead of releasing crap and patching their way to success.

I'm not against post-launch patches, I just think they should be much smaller and way more rare than they are. The launch version should look substantially similar to the patched version some 6 months later.

Case in point, I just bought Cities: Skylines 2 after 6-ish months post launch, because it's finally at the point where I feel like it should've been at launch. Performance seems okay, features work mostly as advertised, etc. I'd still like some performance tuning, but reviewers gave the recent patches a thumbs up, so I'm finally getting into it. That's a bit of an extreme example, but it's indicative of the state of gaming these days.

Whereas for Nintendo, I have no qualms about buying a game at launch. I know it'll be a solid experience, and by the time I notice bugs, there will probably already have been patches. I wish more devs were like Nintendo...