101
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
101 points (99.0% liked)
Games
16387 readers
937 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:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And I and many others didn't experience anything of substance really ever. That's the nature of wide variety in play. It's literally not possible for QA to test it all. There isn't enough budget in the world.
It should definitely not have been delayed a year. Ignoring that the first 24 hours after launch provides more testing than a decade of a massive QA budget, it was very obviously ready and the vast majority of people had a great time. (Which is why the hype went immediately through the roof effectively as soon as it launched.)
Of course, if you got lucky you missed bugs but there were still a lot of poorly made systems that bled over from DOS2 that they didn't bother to update. With the size of the patch notes following release, some having a good experience isn't really a counter-point.
As I said though, they could have used early access better because it definitely wasn't ready, it was passable (well ignoring game-breaking bugs a lot of people ran into to). And why would you be opposed to a game being developed a bit longer if it means a better experience for all?
It's not "lucky" when there were 100 satisfied customers for every complaint.
I'm opposed to waiting for a very clearly ready game to satisfy some nitpickers, especially when having the game in players' hands massively accelerates the testing timeline. If you wanted it a year late and "polished", you could have bought it a year later and had it "polished", without punishing everyone else over your unrealistic expectations. And you'd save money on top of it.
Crazy how people wanna gloss over issues just because they like something generally. I'll never understand why people wouldn't want a better product. Absolutely mental take too there at the end. Have a good one.
Crazy how people want to highlight issues just because they don't like something generally. I'll never understand why people who aren't satisfied with a humongous game when it's universally acclaimed as one of the best games of this decade, if not further.
As they said, for every complainer there is a hundred happy customers. Expecting utter perfection from a game that has already blown away most people playing it is simply unreasonable. The game is a masterpiece and I would love to hear about a game as large and polished as BG3. So yah, I'll be waiting for an example of one, let's hear it.
Most people didn't have issues.
Later is meaningful negative value, and again, the product you get on the same date is almost always better if a finished and reasonably polished game of that scope is released to the public and uses the public feedback to help improve bug detection.