166
Baldur's Gate 3's success is not about setting a new "standard"
(www.gamedeveloper.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
166 points (91.9% liked)
Games
15794 readers
669 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
It's not about the type of game. The new standard should be about releasing a finished game. Not a buggy mess with day one patches.
What’s the problem with day-one patches? I’d much rather have a game with a day-one patch than a game that needs a patch 1 year after its release
Game + day-one patch is essentially the initial state of the game
Day one patch means they released an unfinished game. They haven't done enough testing before physical production. Also fucks over the people with a slow connection.
A patch 1 year after release is fine. Some people found a rare bug which can be fixed. If the game gets patches 1 year or longer after release tells me the developers have love for their game and/or community for fixing it long after they had any obligation to.
A day-one patch is the day of the release, so it counts as included in the release in my books.
It doesn’t mean « they haven’t done enough testing before physical production », it means they took advantage of the inevitable several weeks or months between start of physical printing and release.
And of course a patch 1 year after release is fine. What I’m saying is that I prefer a broken game that is fixed on release day over a broken game that is fixed 1 year later.
What about a working game instead? They could just delay the launch until they've finished what would've gone into a day 1 patch before going gold.
If they did that, they could:
In other words, a studio shouldn't go gold until their TODO list for launch day is done. That should be the standard, and it seems to be what BG3 did.
BG3 had a day-one patch, and is at its 6th hotfix now. Does it make it a broken game?
With the scale of modern AAA games it is inevitable, if a studio had to wait until every bug in a game the size of Starfield was fixed to release it, it would simply never release. You have to decide at some point that the game is in a releasable state, and at this moment you start printing discs, then you keep working on it and fixing bugs and that constitues the day-one patch. And don’t worry about the expansion, they started working on it long before the release.
Having a day one patch doesn't make a game broken, but it is a symptom of a bad internal process. Here are the patch notes for BG3 Day 1 (not sure if 100% accurate, but this is the best source I could find). To me, that doesn't sound like anything game breaking.
I'm not saying BG3 is the gold standard for AAA game releases, I'm merely saying it's what we should expect for an average AAA release with some being a little better and some being a little worse.
I'm not saying every bug needs to be fixed. Even older games before SW patches were a thing had a ton of bugs. I'm just saying, the game should play well even if users never patch the game. This is really important for game preservation, so you should always be able to take the game disk and install it offline and play through the whole game and have a great experience. That's not the standard many AAA studios hold themselves to.
Look at this way, you've got everything you needed to fix complete. The game is uploaded the the storefront database. It's now a week before release. There will always be bugs to fix and no game will ever be completely bugfree (especially not games at this scale). At some point you have to release the game, so why not just release what you've been working on since when the game launches?
I'm not saying the game needs to be perfect, but it should be a great experience beginning to end without applying any patches. As in, I should be able to take the game disk and install it without any Internet connection and play through the game with only minor bugs here and there.
This is really important for game preservation (the patch servers will eventually go offline), yet many AAA games are almost unplayable without day one patches.
I'm a huge fan of software updates for games, but those updates should merely improve an already great experience, not be the method to fix a broken game. A broken game should never leave QA.
Why do you prefer broken games at all though? Wouldn't you prefer a finished game at release?
Except that's not what happened in the old days, I've been getting PC game patches for as long as I've been gaming, upwards of 30 years. You're not going to get every bug. Console games just didn't get patched, if it was a buggy PoS it remained a buggy PoS.