When They Know It Sucks.

I saw a topic like this one on a different forum and wanted to see what you guys thought about it.

So here's the thing, do developers know that their making a really bad game? I mean all of these guys should know exactly what makes up a good game and what makes up a bad one. So why is it that there are still so many terrible games coming out? I'm guessing money is the number one reason, but even with that being said. I still think that good games can be made with lower production values. Look at Geometry Wars on X Box Arcade. The game was made really quickly with pretty low production values but it's still good.

I would hate to be the one releasing a bad game and knowing that it does indeed suck. Anyway just wondering what you guys thought on the topic.

They must have known something was up when they were making FFVIII lololol

Yes, they do know what they're making sucks and most of the time they don't care.

I used to have some sympathy with developers who would get absolutely trashed for making a bad game thinking, 'Poor guys. They don't deserve that! How demoralising' but that isn't the case at all. First... they are professionals and know what they are doing when they are programming. They know if something works and if something does not. And second... good game or bad game, they still get paid the same for what they do. And third... among some developers, their is a degree of arrogance about their programming skills. In Edge magazine I once read an article about game Testers where they would do their best to find as many bugs as possible, list them all down... and still find the same ones in the final release. Some game programmers resent having their mistakes pointed out to them.

I am not a fanboy but there is only one company that releases virtually perfect, bug-free games and thats Nintendo. They have their own QA team called, I think, the Mario Club? (I think... I am not sure) and that is one of the best Quality Assurance teams in the world.

2 games that come to mind as badly programmed, sucky games are Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness and Driver 3. Both games were awful, really bad, but slick marketing by their publishers ensured they sold millions around the world... thats millions of crap games in homes because of clever marketing. And in interviews the developers of both games said 'Yes, we made some mistakes'... so I am sure they know what they are doing.

Granted, crap games may be crap because of publishers putting pressure on developers, ie, to hit a Christmas deadline or something, so the developers have to rush to get the game completed to meet the deadline and therefore make programming mistakes... but thats no excuse.

It's not just programming though. It's a lot of game design and concepts, especially with the story (plot, character developments, etc) and art (concepts, modeling, level design, etc).

I think most of it due to the publisher really pushing the team to their limits in such a short amount of time. Myst V is a good example of that, though they have had a brilliant series to back up all their material, it was extremely rushed by the publisher giving them only a year to produce.

Still a very nice game though, but if it were any ordinary company instead of Cyan making it, it would have been extremely bad.

Its mainly money, especially if its a movie tie in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Its mainly money, especially if its a movie tie in.

---

QFT

Of course dev teams know if the game there making is poor. But the developer's arn't in charge in most cases. The publisher will have a deadline that they want the game released by and any delays add more cost onto the title.

Something else you might not realise is that every game released on a console has to be submitted to Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, depending on the platform its designed for, for certification. All games have a set date they have to be submitted by. If the publisher misses thier slot it may be months before they can resubmit it. There's also only a few places that press game disc's, which again the title will have a set date to be pressed and if thats missed it causes another delay.

All of this cost's money, which most companys don't like to spend anymore than they have to. So if they know they've got a turky instead of paying more money to make it better it's just thrown out as is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NM

All of this cost's money, which most companys don't like to spend anymore than they have to. So if they know they've got a turky instead of paying more money to make it better it's just thrown out as is.

---

Exactly, that is what it all comes down to. No company intentionally tries to make a bad game, or even move forward with a concept that looks bad from the get-go (yes, this even applies to movie licenses). Usually it comes down to finding out late in development that it's just not turning out to be as good a game as they'd hoped. By that point you really have no choices other than to constantly delay, and essentially start over again to fix a lot of what's wrong with it, or you can get it done and just shove it out into the market. Taking the time to make a bad game good very often isn't worth it. You're looking at costs piling up so high that if you do that you have no hope of making a profit, or possibly, taking an even bigger loss than if you cut a project off and make whatever sales you can.

It sucks for the developer since they've got a bad game on their record, but at least the consumer can try and make an educated purchasing decision.

And about your testing comment Devil Man; true, games sometimes ship with bugs that testers found, but you've got to look at it this way; aside from time pressures to get the game out, sometimes the bugs just aren't big enough to warrant delaying release any longer to fix. If it's not a common thing and has no major effect on gameplay, then they may let it slide, since it's not worth the extra time and money at that point. It may sound pretty lazy, and I'm not trying to defend it, but it's the way things go sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsukasa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Its mainly money, especially if its a movie tie in.

---

QFT

---

Enter the Matrix

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

And about your testing comment Devil Man; true, games sometimes ship with bugs that testers found, but you've got to look at it this way; aside from time pressures to get the game out, sometimes the bugs just aren't big enough to warrant delaying release any longer to fix. If it's not a common thing and has no major effect on gameplay, then they may let it slide, since it's not worth the extra time and money at that point. It may sound pretty lazy, and I'm not trying to defend it, but it's the way things go sometimes.

---

Yeah, I know what you mean and agree.

For example, a game like Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion on the XBox 360 has many little bugs but the game is just so huge that its easy to forgive it anything.

Another game that I purchased recently is Just Cause and that also has many small, annoying bugs, but the developers have lavished so much time and attention on it that its so easy to simply overlook it and enjoy the game.

I guess whats annoying is when a game has lots of bugs but is so heavily marketed with a massive advertising budget and sells millions as a result. Driver 3 is what always comes to mind. Bad games making their publishers and developers lots of money seems like a gross injustice.

But what about companies that just have a nearly perfect track record of good games or vice versa. Everytime I pick up a new Nintendo developed game, it never disappoints me. Is it because they have such talented people and the extra money? But if that's the case, then why does this happen: There are many games on the market that had extremely high development costs, but didn't really come out to be well good. Also the recently released God Hand by Clover Studios had many talented people working on it, one of which was Shinji Mikami, the man responsible for the Res Evil games. But yet this game did not turn out to be nearly as good as Clover's previous projects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roto13-ness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsukasa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Its mainly money, especially if its a movie tie in.

---

QFT

---

Enter the Matrix

---

ewww stinky...i had almost forgotten about that....the nightmares are coming back already!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RiseToFall

But what about companies that just have a nearly perfect track record of good games or vice versa. Everytime I pick up a new Nintendo developed game, it never disappoints me. Is it because they have such talented people and the extra money? But if that's the case, then why does this happen: There are many games on the market that had extremely high development costs, but didn't really come out to be well good. Also the recently released God Hand by Clover Studios had many talented people working on it, one of which was Shinji Mikami, the man responsible for the Res Evil games. But yet this game did not turn out to be nearly as good as Clover's previous projects.

---

I haven't played Godhand, but from what I've read I'd say it all comes down to exactly what I said earlier; despite the developers talent, the game didn't make it from concept to implementatioon the way they thought it would, and they chose not to take the time and money needed to fix it. It's not always easy to fix a bad game; it can sometimes require redoing so much that you might as well start over from scratch. Not always a viable option for companies.

Then again, there's always the possibility that the devs thought it was indeed fun in the end. Like I said, I haven't played it.

Why bother making the game good if you're going to rake in loads of money regardless of quality? As people have stated correctly in this very thread, movie tie-ins generally make a truckload of cash regardless of whether or not the game is actually any good. Okay, so E.T. for the ancient Atari console is an exception to the rule, but that game was the pits.

Look at all the Disney games released over the past decade. They're all the same old mix of platform, driving and shooting, and boy, it's getting old. However, why should Disney update this formula and release a half-decent game when the ones they're currently releasing are selling so damn well?

If a game is completely unknown, doesn't have a movie license and has had no advertising whatsoever, then of course it will fail. What surprises me is that the developers of this type of game still continue to release them, even though they must know that they aren't going to make any profit. The mind boggles...

Developes can only make assumptions. It's once the game is released to the public that they know whether it's good or not.