The Ever Changing nature of Video Games / HOW TO NOT SUE A REVIEWER OVER OPINIONS

Disclaimer: Totally not stolen from TotalBiscuit's latest video.


So apparently, i make another serious business topic that I think everyone can talk about.

So for a few paragraphs and sentences, I will gush about the ever changing nature of video games but lets all start with a rather relevant story. Again totally not stealing from Totalbiscuit because this is something relevant for a lot of talk.



Now about the legal processes regarding defamatory things and whatnot.. please refer to TotalBiscuit's video:

This presents something that should be more open to discussion. Regarding the ever changing nature of video games, ESPECIALLY AT THIS DAY AND AGE. You see, unlike other forms of media such as movies, paintings, poems, and music, video games especially at this era can be changed through patches. The product you may have bought or downloaded in order for you to play and have fun with, may or may not be the same product when it first came out at launch.

Sure back in the days, video games back then were not subject to as much change as what we experience today. Back in the day, when a video game was launched or released, it stayed the way it was when it first came out. Reviews and general and consensus opinions for these games were MUCH EASIER to make because no matter how much we say about them, they stayed the way they are. They weren't patched or had DLC to "Fix" or "add enhancements". When a game came out, it is what it is. For example: Bubsy 3D when it came out, its a piece of crap. It was never pathced for fixed obviously since digital delivery patching never existed that time. So Bubsy 3D being a piece of **** will always be a piece of ****.

The only time video games did need to be patched or have changes or alterations to address issues demanded or pointed out by players were at MMORPGS, since these are the kinds of games that change, and are subject to rapid changes in the metagame. People love to point out and complain about the balance in MMORPGs, and reviewers and critics talk about that as well. But people will still play them anyway, but what they wanted to play may not have been the same version as that of when said game was launched years ago.

However, these days, and since last year, we are living in a generation or era of gaming where almost every game, from non MMO video games to even some games of little cultural or global impact are now subject to patches, enhancements, and even DLC that adds enhancements or fixes issues. E-SPORTS/Competitive oriented titles such as League of Legends, DOTA2, Counter Strike, Overwatch, and other multiplayer titles of significant importance are getting patched in order to address issues regarding game balance and quality because of the large global and cultural impact of the games. We also get games that are not necessarily your Triple AAA or a massive multiplayer outlet (MMO, MOBA, or anything with a large multiplayer fanbase) be patched in order to address customer complaints (Ex: Rome Total War on release - Total garbage but was improved through patches) But then we also have certain games that do not even have any cultural significance but are still patched or fixed in some way just so that these developers can prove the critics wrong or show to the world that they know how to address issues and problems. (example, read what was inside the spoiler tag).

Because of the ever changing nature of video games, especially in this era, creating video game reviews is even more challenging that it already is. When people create reviews, they want to make sure that their verdict or opinion is something that's final to them, especially if its a video to be uploaded in youtube. Going back to re-review a game because of some updates is time consuming, when making video game reviews are already time consuming in itself. However, we have seen actions by DICKISH video game developers that resort to the use of actions in order to censor user/critic reviews and opinions of products that said reviewers and/or youtubers, and them claiming to have made fixes to make the game better.

So to ask some questions: What do you all think with the ever changing nature of video games? Do you think that its okay for video games to undergo changes as their existence continues? What do you like and hate about the ever changing nature of video games? What do you think video game developers should do when they produce and release a game in order to avoid problems and whatnot?

LE DISCUSS!

Credits an inspriations:

Total Biscuit's video regarding the ever changing nature of video games - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVwF2kXwTS8
NerdCube - https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialNerdCubed

Rabinov said:

I am not happy with the ever-changing nature of video games because of the DLC culture we are in currently. Developers nowadays are using DLCs as a quick-fix for the inevitable event of their games breaking or as a quick cash-grab if they feel their game is lackluster in initial sales/dropping in sales over time.

As a result, Developers are rushing to release games to meet with the current demand which is WAY too short a time to create, produce, test and then release a game of high quality; most of the time you are getting a game which is around 80% complete. This results in the NEED for DLC/Patches to fix the game, as opposed to being a new exciting angle to it. What developers need to realise that perhaps taking another 6-12 months to complete their game results in a much bigger result on launch and therefore over time grossing better than a game which spikes (naturally) at launch, drops dramatically and then finally peaks once 5 DLC packs and 14 patches have been applied.

(Please note that by Patches I do not mean the likes of patches which you see for League of Legends and the like where these are buffs/nerf/tweaks due to a constantly changing meta, what I mean is a patch that has to be implemented because of a huge game-breaking feature.)

Click to expand...

I'll raise you that I think developers are doing this purposely to grab as much money as possible. They know they can release half-finished games and they know that will make them as much pre-order cash as a game with soul put into it.

Add on DLC, seasons pass, the ever loved Microtransactions and you got a lot of cheddar coming in for not a lot of work. This doubles when you sell reskins, reworks, or other easy to produce content as DLC.

I think companies are too tuned into the business side of game making, which don't get me wrong, it is a business, but, games need heart put into them as-well. Without it I don't see gaming lasting much longer as a mainstream form of entertainment.

Then again the masses probably don't care much so I could be wrong...

I think I'll ride along with what TotalBiscuit has pretty much said regarding this matter - A good video game launch, will almost always, and at around 95% of the time, (just so that I don't sound like an absolute madman ;0) will ensure success with your video game. If the game came out well, then we shouldn't have a problem. This is what's challenging for Multiplayer games since the dawn of time. A lot of multiplayer games came out quite nicely but because of the ever changing metagame and even the attitude of the developers regarding how the game is, it can lead to a lot of mixed opinions regarding the nature of constant change and updates, thus people having mixed perceptions and opinions about the game in general.

"Oh man, that game was great when it first came out, now it sucks because the nerfs, buffs, and patches to characters came in"

I keep remembering how Overwatch is universally acclaimed on release even though most reviews never really noted how overpowering McCree and Widowmaker were at launch before they were eventually nerfed. Then of course, Torbjorn on consoles has wrecked havoc so much that he was given a HUGE HUGE nerf on the console ports. But most of the time, these kinds of things aren't really pointed by reviewers and critics alike. They don't really care for the whole "metagame" of the game. They just care if the game is functioning the way its supposed to or not.

I don't think I mentioned it above, but speaking of great launch, I think it's the only other thing that matters to a lot of companies now.

Not to throw ubisoft under the bu- oh who the hell am I kidding I love to throw them under the bus! Ubisoft has again and again had dazzaling, amazing looking 'gameplay' trailers with wonderful looking graphics, amazing physics with things like wind blowing down a street affecting your clothes, and gameplay dialed up to 11.

The trailers then net them a large amount of pre-orders.

After a long wait, the game comes out, and you get....



Why? Because all they cared about was netting those pre-order sales. And boy did they get a lot of those. The Division got roughly 1.46 million pre-orders, as well as taking the record for most sold copies of a new IP. Ubisoft didn't need to make a good game (and they didn't.) Only needed to make a good trailer.

I see this becoming a trend around the industry as a whole.

Arsenic said:

Not to throw ubisoft under the bu- oh who the hell am I kidding I love to throw them under the bus! Ubisoft has again and again had dazzaling, amazing looking 'gameplay' trailers with wonderful looking graphics, amazing physics with things like wind blowing down a street affecting your clothes, and gameplay dialed up to 11.

Click to expand...

To be fair, it's unfair to only hold it against Ubisoft. Everyone does it. Look at the new Zelda game. It looked much better when it was announced than at E3 than it looks now, or Witcher 3 that took a massive downgrade as well. But people generally don't care about those since it's Nintendo and CDPR. Only EA, Activision and Ubisoft seem to get complains for things like downgrades and expensive DLCs, while it's okay when Bethesda for example extorted people with 50$ season pass for literally a post apocalyptic Disneyland. Don't get me wrong, I hate the practice of EA, Activision and Ubi, but I also hate the practice of From, Bethesda, Valve and others that get a free pass while doing the same things as Ubi.

ZetaZaku said:

To be fair, it's unfair to only hold it against Ubisoft. Everyone does it. Look at the new Zelda game. It looked much better when it was announced than at E3 than it looks now, or Witcher 3 that took a massive downgrade as well. But people generally don't care about those since it's Nintendo and CDPR. Only EA, Activision and Ubisoft seem to get complains for things like downgrades and expensive DLCs, while it's okay when Bethesda for example extorted people with 50$ season pass for literally a post apocalyptic Disneyland. Don't get me wrong, I hate the practice of EA, Activision and Ubi, but I also hate the practice of From, Bethesda, Valve and others that get a free pass while doing the same things as Ubi.

Click to expand...

Oh I never meant to make it sound like it's just Ubisoft. They're just the studio with the most drastic downgrades IMO.

Like I said its becoming more and more common around the industry. As much as it sucks...

Arsenic said:

Oh I never meant to make it sound like it's just Ubisoft. They're just the studio with the most drastic downgrades IMO.

Like I said its becoming more and more common around the industry. As much as it sucks...

Click to expand...

It was quite a controversy with Watchdogs.

ZetaZaku said:

It was quite a controversy with Watchdogs.

Click to expand...

You think that's bad? Have you seen the downgrade for CS:Siege?

My favorite Ubisoft video



Again all they care about is pre-orders.