How did unfinished games go from "Please Stop" to "GOTY"?

  • 88 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for df
#1 Edited by df (410 posts) -

Hi all,

I just don't get it.

It seems like a year ago we were all: remember Simcity 2013? remember No Man's Sky? Those were some broken ass games.

But now we are all: who cares if they are broken? PUBG is magic!

So let's be honest: do people actually care about broken games? or do they just don't have much fun with said games, so "broken" is a way to argue against these games?

Avatar image for imhungry
#2 Posted by imhungry (1131 posts) -

I mean, you're really talking about 2 completely different things here. In fact, I'd disagree with your premise and say neither Simcity 2013 nor No Man's Sky were particularly broken games. They were unfinished. They were just somewhat lacking in feature sets, in the case of No Man's Sky heavily under-delivered on pre-release advertising, and what was there wasn't really compelling. Perhaps most crucially, both those games were sold as full priced final releases.

In contrast, PUBG has a well-executed core gameplay aspect and is 'unfinished' in the true pre-release sense of the word, where they are selling it as early access and actively adding features to it. It's also full of crazy jank, but it's jank that doesn't necessarily get in the way of playing the game. What's more, weird/fun jank in enjoyable games is a topic that's been contentious on this website in the past and continues to be in the present with people having varying degrees of tolerance for said jank (see: Skyrim, Fallout 4) so really I don't think anything's changed in this regard. PUBG isn't broken, it's in early access (at least for the next few hours).

Perhaps most importantly though, PUBG is fun. I'm sure there exist people who derived a bunch of fun from playing Simcity and No Man's Sky and I bet for those people those games didn't feel nearly as unfinished as they did to the rest of us. Ultimately if a game provides enough fun that the presence of so-called 'objectively unfinished' technical aspects doesn't bother me, then isn't that game finished enough?

Avatar image for liquiddragon
#3 Posted by liquiddragon (3449 posts) -

I think there is a distinction between "unfinished games" (early access) that are playable vs. "finished games" (retail releases) that are unplayable without large day one patches, or worse. I say this as someone that does not play PUBG. Also, in a hypothetical debate, the broken nature of a game would be a point of contention. Games don't win because of their flaws but despite them. How many awards have Bethesda games won.

Avatar image for darlingdixie
#4 Edited by DarlingDixie (120 posts) -

@df said:

So let's be honest: do people actually care about broken games? or do they just don't have much fun with said games, so "broken" is a way to argue against these games?

PUBG wasn't even broken at launch. It was janky.

There is a very big difference. DayZ on the other hand...

in before someone links a video of a lot of PUBG bugs

Avatar image for timberbarrackk
#5 Posted by timberbarrackk (37 posts) -

Yeah, these aren't comparable.

It's like getting a gross meal from a reputable restaurant versus trying something new that the chef is experimenting with. The first is just a failure to deliver what was expected. Anyone who is constantly complaining about PUBG needs to remember they were more than up-front with it being a work in progress.

Now, if you'd want to argue that is strange that some games have been "early-access" for seemingly forever (ARK, I'm looking at you) and seem to never want to ditch that moniker then I could go down that path.

Avatar image for sasnake
#6 Edited by SASnake (612 posts) -

Theres a difference between a released game thats "unfinished", and a game that's unfinished because its still being made....

Avatar image for timberbarrackk
#7 Posted by timberbarrackk (37 posts) -

Also, to be completely honest, even an early-access PUBG has given me more enjoyment and feels more substantial than a retail release, like Need for Speed: Payback, which I thought was okay but just lacked atmosphere and an engaging gameplay-loop, at least for me.

Avatar image for cikame
#8 Posted by cikame (2857 posts) -

Yeah, these aren't comparable.

It's like getting a gross meal from a reputable restaurant versus trying something new that the chef is experimenting with. The first is just a failure to deliver what was expected. Anyone who is constantly complaining about PUBG needs to remember they were more than up-front with it being a work in progress.

Now, if you'd want to argue that is strange that some games have been "early-access" for seemingly forever (ARK, I'm looking at you) and seem to never want to ditch that moniker then I could go down that path.

+1, though i'm sure there's a few people who would give a game like ARK their game of the year, if they never fell off of it.
Once most of the technical issues were fixed what was missing from PUBG? Considering that it's just over half the price of a full priced game... some more guns? Another map? Some new mechanics and modes? Those things have come or are almost here, the developer thinks that that is enough to consider it "1.0" and that's fine, because the core mechanics have kept a lot of people playing for hundreds of hours, it's more than earned its awards.

Avatar image for zolroyce
#9 Posted by ZolRoyce (1589 posts) -

Everyone else pretty took the words out of my mouth so I'll just agree, yeah, there is a difference between.
"Here, a full game for full price. JUST KIDDING IT'S BROKEN AND MISSING THINGS!"
Vs.
"Here, an unfinished game we are actively working on."

It's a different promise and different delivery.

Now, with the second example that COULD become a problem, there are early access games that never finish, but it's not a problem right out of the gate like a full broken release is.

Avatar image for hrairoo
#10 Posted by hrairoo (13 posts) -

In addition to what everyone else said, if you're trying to make a point about unfinished games, why did you link to the Polygon review that they made a point of holding until the day of the 1.0 release? The game's finished now. And people are reviewing it. This post seems poorly thought through.

Avatar image for hippie_genocide
#11 Posted by hippie_genocide (2443 posts) -

It's all about expectations. No Mans Sky was hyped up as this amazing space exploration game with infinite replayability. Sim City is a beloved series and with that comes expectations that systems would be expanded on, not removed. PUBG was just like hey remember that ARMA mod? We made a game out of it. It's early access so we're actively working on it. It's also $40.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#12 Edited by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@df: It's kind of crazy seeing the PUBG apologism on display here. This game was busted as fuck for a lot of people up until September (at which point it was only busted as fuck for a much smaller number). Never mind the game feels like shit when you play it and looks like shit also. And for the vast majority of the year it's had a single map and effectively no new content beyond that. So what you say is entirely true, people are just hypocritical and will use anything they can to bash the game of their choice. Whether that game is bad or not is an entirely different issue (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.)

I don't care if they said it's in beta or alpha or whatever: they're charging $30 for it. It's not hard to keep your pants on and wait for a review for a AAA game to find out if it's busted, so this argument seems silly to me. But hey, silliness is how I could describe 99% of the nonsense that goes on within internet gaming communities nowadays. Anyway, I agree, there's a double standard on display here.

Avatar image for timberbarrackk
#13 Posted by timberbarrackk (37 posts) -

@wetracoon: how is it hypocritical to say I enjoy a labeled-as-unfinished game more than a full release of a more mediocre product? That's not even what OP is asking.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#14 Edited by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@timberbarrackk: I never said it was wrong to enjoy it. I said it's a double standard when we're willing to drum up rage over some thing we find offensive in some games but then entirely ignore them in other games just because we like them or they're popular. The argument that slapping "alpha" on a game to justified it's brokenness is weak. Couldn't any developer just do that then? It's not like PUBG plastered it right across it's header image; hell I'm willing to bet that most people who bought it didn't even know, understand, or care that it was early access. Yet the game has microtransactions, was rife with cheaters, has dumpsters full of problems on a technical level etc.

People need to understand that if you pay asking price for an early access game, the market interprets that no different than paying asking price for a "finished" game. All that'll happen is you'll see more games labelled as early access. Isn't the standard that you don't charge for your busted alpha/beta and then charge on release? Not charge for the alpha and throw microtransactions on top?

Honestly, I don't give a shit how a game is labelled: I'll only buy games that I enjoy. I'm just saying that there are a large contingent of people who have spent the better part of the year bitching about shit in gaming but then supporting this game. It's pretty hypocritical.

Avatar image for adamalc
#15 Posted by AdamALC (291 posts) -

Zeitgeist always gets a pass.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#16 Posted by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

Zeitgeist always gets a pass.

Some honesty right here.

Avatar image for teddie
#17 Edited by Teddie (2157 posts) -

It's a really bad idea to compare Giant Bomb's GOTY stuff between years, because it's always super inconsistent, illogical, sometimes hypocritical, based on the fact that they're a year apart and people have different thoughts about different things at different times.

They love a janky game with little content that wasn't even "released" at the time of recording their award deliberations, and they're celebrating it because that's what they do when they love a game. I'm sure all the issues with giving it GOTY will be heavily discussed by the staff anyway, so we'll most likely be getting the definitive answer to this next week regardless.

Avatar image for glots
#18 Posted by glots (4362 posts) -

Holy crap, I can't wait for the explosion that happens if PUBG wins GOTY.

Avatar image for viking_funeral
#19 Posted by viking_funeral (2881 posts) -

@glots said:

Holy crap, I can't wait for the explosion that happens if PUBG wins GOTY.

On one hand, yeah, I can see it happening.

On the other, the end of the year debate for GOTY usually comes down to a lot of, "Yeah, but..." comments. PUBG is worthy of a lot of "Yeah, but..." comments.

Avatar image for timberbarrackk
#20 Posted by timberbarrackk (37 posts) -

@wetracoon: Again, that's not what's being argued here.

Whatever hypotheticals you want to create wherein developers start labeling anything early-access are not relevant. OP was conflating BROKEN full-retail releases (one a new entry in a much beloved decades-old franchise) with games that are not full-retail releases. I'm saying that's apples and oranges. You're basically saying "well, you're hypocritical because WHAT IF grocery stores start labeling apples AS oranges? What are you gonna do then??"

Not the same argument.

Avatar image for craigieh28
#21 Posted by craigieh28 (90 posts) -

We know where this going...

Jeff will eliminate PUBG from GOTY deliberations this year but will make it clear that Early Access games will be eligible if they feel the quality is worthy of inclusion...

Avatar image for wetracoon
#22 Posted by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@timberbarrackk: You're completely ignoring that my argument is directly addressing the OPs question as you've stated it. He's effectively asked why "full retail" games are bashed for being broken but an "early access" game like pubg get's a pass. That's all. I'm saying it's simply because it's popular and people enjoy the game, even though they'll bash other games for having paid microtransactions, being full of hackers etc. Hence they are hypocritical.

And what I said wasn't a hypothetical: only a few years ago, before early access, those games were alphas or betas that you didn't pay for. Now magically we're paying full price for them under the guise of some new ambiguous classification. So to clarify: there is no difference between a busted af PUBG vs. a busted af Simcity. If someone slapping "early access" on their games is enough to get you to happily pay for a busted game then it's pretty hypocritical to get angry over busted games that aren't labelled as such.

Avatar image for wandrecanada
#23 Edited by Wandrecanada (1011 posts) -

I doubt PUBG would make GOTY with the current team of people. Dan will certainly not make PUBG his #1 game since Mario is out and I feel like everyone is forgetting the whole Zelda game thing that everyone continues to gush over.

Knowing the GB crew I'm going to predict Zelda as their winner.

Avatar image for timberbarrackk
#24 Posted by timberbarrackk (37 posts) -

So apparantly words don't mean anything anymore, OK!

Avatar image for fatalbanana
#25 Posted by fatalbanana (1106 posts) -

@timberbarrackk: I never said it was wrong to enjoy it. I said it's a double standard when we're willing to drum up rage over some thing we find offensive in some games but then entirely ignore them in other games just because we like them or they're popular. The argument that slapping "alpha" on a game to justified it's brokenness is weak. Couldn't any developer just do that then? It's not like PUBG plastered it right across it's header image; hell I'm willing to bet that most people who bought it didn't even know, understand, or care that it was early access. Yet the game has microtransactions, was rife with cheaters, has dumpsters full of problems on a technical level etc.

People need to understand that if you pay asking price for an early access game, the market interprets that no different than paying asking price for a "finished" game. All that'll happen is you'll see more games labelled as early access. Isn't the standard that you don't charge for your busted alpha/beta and then charge on release? Not charge for the alpha and throw microtransactions on top?

Honestly, I don't give a shit how a game is labelled: I'll only buy games that I enjoy. I'm just saying that there are a large contingent of people who have spent the better part of the year bitching about shit in gaming but then supporting this game. It's pretty hypocritical.

Okay, but you're still conflating two different things here. There is a reason we don't see big name developers doing the early access thing. We all know that EA, Ubisoft, Activision have the resources to deliver a finished and polished product. If they were to plaster "alpha" on a game and expect people to buy something broken there would be an uproar. Early access gives small or none existent devs a foot in the door and a chance to compete or at the very least make a profit. Criticizing Battlefront for having microtransactions but being okay with them in PUBG is simply an exercise in expectation. We expect EA to know better where we expect PUBG to get better. Besides, the microtransactions in PUBG are purely cosmetic and the gaming community at large has shown they are okay with that but that is a different discussion.

Avatar image for teddie
#26 Edited by Teddie (2157 posts) -

@wandrecanada said:

I doubt PUBG would make GOTY with the current team of people. Dan will certainly not make PUBG his #1 game since Mario is out and I feel like everyone is forgetting the whole Zelda game thing that everyone continues to gush over.

Knowing the GB crew I'm going to predict Zelda as their winner.

Dan's already said some weird thing about Zelda being one of his top games ever, but PUBG is his GOTY. It didn't make any more sense in context.

As for Zelda getting GOTY, it sounded like half the staff fell off it, and Jeff will likely be a big detractor based on how he's talked about it in recent podcasts. As far as I can tell, everyone on staff has a game they enjoyed more than Zelda.

(Sorry, totally getting off topic. I just really enjoy hypothesizing about the GOTY stuff for some reason)

Avatar image for nicksmi56
#27 Posted by nicksmi56 (848 posts) -

Dude, all I know is I'll never purchase an early access game. Seems like one big fool's errand to me.

Avatar image for capum15
#28 Posted by Capum15 (6010 posts) -

I have no dog in this race, but:

So apparantly words don't mean anything anymore, OK!

basically sums up 2017 for me.

On the question itself: It's actually kind of simple, at least to me. People like and dislike things, opinions change, and there are different levels of expectation for different things (in this case, the sheer hype of NMS and the legacy of SimCity vs a rather sudden, new, and fun game that people really seem to enjoy). These things are also literally a year apart in terms of time.

Avatar image for aquacadet
#29 Posted by aquacadet (309 posts) -

@df said:

Hi all,

I just don't get it.

It seems like a year ago we were all: remember Simcity 2013? remember No Man's Sky? Those were some broken ass games.

But now we are all: who cares if they are broken? PUBG is magic!

So let's be honest: do people actually care about broken games? or do they just don't have much fun with said games, so "broken" is a way to argue against these games?

It's almost like these titles (release, early access, and unfinished) mean nothing and every release is case by case. It's the same with Free-to-play and loot boxes.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#30 Posted by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@fatalbanana: This is where consumer expectations go awry. I don't honestly care who or what is making a product: the price should be appropriate for the quality, regardless of the source. EA or Activision are no more beholden to take a financial risk vs Bluehole Studios, so to say that you automatically expect a finished and polished product from them is logically inconsistent. And this is where my issue is coming from here: people are giving a pass to PUBG just because they slapped an early access label on it. I understand what early access is for, but we all know how much it's been abused from day one. That's not to mention that Bluehole isn't a new developer either.

I've seen enough inconsistency as to what constitutes acceptable microtransactions vs. unacceptable to say that a game that releases in alpha for it's full retail price and then charges for microtransactions comes off just as slimy as the Battlefront 2 microtransactions.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#31 Edited by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@timberbarrackk: Admittedly I could say the same right back to you. You're too infatuated with this game to see objectively that it's a broken ass game that was released for full price and with microtransactions on top. If all it takes is slapping an early access label on it to make you accept that then I'm standing by my point that this comes off as patently ridiculous and also hypocritical. If we're going to apply standards to games inconsistently based on what we like and don't like, then they're not standards at all and aren't worth applying in the first place.

Avatar image for dizagaox
#32 Posted by Dizagaox (14 posts) -

PUBG has never pretended to be the finished thing.

Avatar image for fatalbanana
#33 Posted by fatalbanana (1106 posts) -

@fatalbanana: This is where consumer expectations go awry. I don't honestly care who or what is making a product: the price should be appropriate for the quality, regardless of the source. EA or Activision are no more beholden to take a financial risk vs Bluehole Studios, so to say that you automatically expect a finished and polished product from them is logically inconsistent. And this is where my issue is coming from here: people are giving a pass to PUBG just because they slapped an early access label on it. I understand what early access is for, but we all know how much it's been abused from day one. That's not to mention that Bluehole isn't a new developer either.

I've seen enough inconsistency as to what constitutes acceptable microtransactions vs. unacceptable to say that a game that releases in alpha for it's full retail price and then charges for microtransactions comes off just as slimy as the Battlefront 2 microtransactions.

I'm not sure what you are saying here what does financial risk have to do with this?

You seem to want to view games regardless of where they come from as being on the same playing field and that just isn't a realistc view of how games are made, purchased or thought about in 2017.

Avatar image for dray2k
#34 Edited by Dray2k (884 posts) -

@glots: Hell yeah this is gonna be a fun read.

The more so if people start getting salty over the thing for no reason. I do feel for the mods, however.

Avatar image for timberbarrackk
#35 Posted by timberbarrackk (37 posts) -

Dude, how am I infatuated with this game? I'm discussing if it's fair to hold clearly different items up to the same standard. Insert whatever game you want, we're talking logic and you're talking irrational devotion to a product. That's not happening in this case.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#36 Posted by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@fatalbanana: That's in direct reference to you stating that customers have expectations from companies who have the capital to deliver a finished and polished product and that early access is a platform for small devs to raise capital for a project. Larger publishers take on the same amount of capital risk as a small dev when it comes to a game development; asking for more for your dollar from them but letting more slide per dollar from small devs is silly. How does that benefit anyone? It also means that standards are applied ambiguously. Is Bluehole even a small dev? Did they not have the capital already from successful MMO projects to fund and develop PUBG? We don't even know the answers to some of these questions, so how can we fairly sit there and judge one game for being broken or laden with microtransactions while shrugging our shoulders at another? This isn't the first time it's happened, but I still think the OP has a point. If a game is hugely popular, people suddenly start ignoring all the fucked up shit it does. But hey, if it's from a big publisher or someone else that they already have a hate boner for...

Avatar image for ajamafalous
#37 Posted by ajamafalous (13818 posts) -
Avatar image for wetracoon
#38 Edited by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@timberbarrackk: You'll have to forgive me, but your "words don't mean anything anymore" post came off as pretty condescending. If we're not on the same page, then we're not on the same page, that's fine. Just don't call me a twit under your breath because you disagree.

Also, I think the source of our disagreement is just that: I don't think they are clearly different items. Which partially answers the OPs question (and is a summary of my original answer): people are erroneously willing to look past PUBG's unfinished state simply because they told you it was an early access game (even though they charge their full price and threw paid loot boxes into it) but mostly because people just like the game. I don't think it's any different than an unfinished game from a bigger dev.

Avatar image for oursin_360
#39 Posted by OurSin_360 (6184 posts) -

Well it does literally say "stop shipping unfinished games on disc", which I don't believe would include Pubg. While i agree an early access game has no place in any award format (unless it's best unfinished game) that topic from last year doesn't have much to do with early access games.

Avatar image for fatalbanana
#40 Posted by fatalbanana (1106 posts) -

@fatalbanana: That's in direct reference to you stating that customers have expectations from companies who have the capital to deliver a finished and polished product and that early access is a platform for small devs to raise capital for a project. Larger publishers take on the same amount of capital risk as a small dev when it comes to a game development; asking for more for your dollar from them but letting more slide per dollar from small devs is silly. How does that benefit anyone? It also means that standards are applied ambiguously. Is Bluehole even a small dev? Did they not have the capital already from successful MMO projects to fund and develop PUBG? We don't even know the answers to some of these questions, so how can we fairly sit there and judge one game for being broken or laden with microtransactions while shrugging our shoulders at another? This isn't the first time it's happened, but I still think the OP has a point. If a game is hugely popular, people suddenly start ignoring all the fucked up shit it does. But hey, if it's from a big publisher or someone else that they already have a hate boner for...

I just don't think this is true and I have no idea how you are even measuring this. By default, smaller devs speak to a smaller audience ergo less money is being brought in (PBG being a special exception because it happened to be a good enough game to set the world on fire). Money being spent differs obviously from the size of the project and we can't say how much each product costs to make but I am willing to bet larger devs spend more money. To say the amount of risk is the same across the board is crazy to me.

Consumers know when they are buying something that is in early access versus buying a disk on a shelf or something without the early access/alpha/beta .etc tag on it. They buy it knowing one is a finished product and one is not. If the finished product has funky shit in it I would say "the game has funky shit in it" if the unfinished game has funky shit I would say "this game has funky shit in it but it could be better when it comes out". If it isn't better when it comes out I would hold it against it the same way I would with the already finished game. What's silly to me is judging these two things the same because they happen to be playable at the same time. Erasing nuance because we should hold everything to the same standard whether it makes sense or not.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#41 Edited by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@fatalbanana: What you're arguing is sales risk (capital risk in the same industry is typically treated the same); this may or may not be true, but based on what I've heard, Bluehole didn't really put much money into PUBG to begin with. If it hadn't sold well in early access they would have cut and run (at least this is the suggestion). So sure, we can take into account nuance, and there's plenty there, but this nuance should be related to the final product, not the source. I understand what you're saying but I just can't agree with the idea that company A could be peddling literal pigshit and charging full price for it, but I shouldn't hold it to the same standard because company A lacks the resources (or so claims it does).

Also I've mentioned this before, but claiming that putting the early access label on the game is actually informing customers is explicitly supporting deception: how many people do you think who bought PUBG actually knew it was an unfinished game that was full of jank and microtransactions? Early access? Oh wow, this must mean I get the game early if I buy it now! Again, slapping a label on it and thinking this makes it any different from a AAA game that doesn't do the same is wrong. All it will do is result in more games being labeled as "early access" given the same price is being charged for both early and "finished" versions.

Avatar image for slag
#42 Posted by Slag (8157 posts) -

It's important to be honest about what you are selling

PUBG makes no bones about being an unfinished Early Access product.

No Man's Sky, Ass Creed: Unity etc did not.

Avatar image for rejizzle
#43 Posted by Rejizzle (1124 posts) -

Didn't they jut call it "Stop shipping unfinished games" out of convenience? I seem to recall that Brad wanted to make some kind of statement about data caps and enormous day one patches, and Jeff talked him down from it. I don't think the unfinished games thing had anything to do with Early Access.

Avatar image for timberbarrackk
#44 Edited by timberbarrackk (37 posts) -

@wetracoon: You're just making stuff up now. It's literally 2 different items. You don't want that to be the case, assuming others are "erroneously" looking past problems in an unfinished game that's labeled as such. Keep conflating though!

I wasn't being conscending, but when items are labeled differently, they're usually different. I can buy a brand new Harley and get mad about an oil leak. I buy a bike that a guy I know is in the middle of building himself and look past that. Because they're different things. That's not really up for debate. There's not "differing opinions" on what nouns are.

Avatar image for fatalbanana
#45 Posted by fatalbanana (1106 posts) -

@wetracoon: I would be more accepting of your argument if you had anything more than anecdotal evidence. I can't think of more than one or two that have been caught doing the deceitful things you claim are so rampant in the early access space. Are there people trying to game the system and do deceitful shit? I have no doubt there are. But claiming it is a widespread problem I just don't see it. I think more people than you are suggesting knew PUBG was in early access. Maybe I am giving them too much credit but it does say "Early Access" in big bold letters right above the "add to cart" button. I don't know how you could miss that.

I agree with your microtransaction point though other than that we just have to agree to disagree.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#46 Edited by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@timberbarrackk: If saying I'm "making things up" is the best you can come up with to dismiss my relatively salient points, then I'll have to toss that claim right back your way.

You can scream about this all you want, but just because something is labeled one way doesn't mean it IS that way. An early access game that charges its full price up front and has microtransactions is an early access game in name alone; it's mostly just the developers not wanting to risk their capital like any other developer would and instead asking for customers to support their project and take on all the risk instead. You'd be correct if they were charging nothing, or even a fraction of their retail price for early access (and weren't pushing paid microtransactions) but that's not what's going on here.

Say what you want, that's just how it is. Where there's room for discussion here is whether or not PUBG is actually that busted or whether people are hypocritical about how they apply their standards for what a game should be. My argument is that PUBG was busted af for most of the year and that people are hypocritical about how they apply their standards to different games.

Avatar image for timberbarrackk
#47 Edited by timberbarrackk (37 posts) -

Cool man. Nobody's "screaming." Nobody is "infatuated." That's what you're making up. You're not being salient so stop. You seem more triggered than anyone. You want to force everyone to agree to your skewed stance on the topic and nobody seems to be biting.

Sorry man. Although I DO agree with your last sentence: yes, they are different games.

Avatar image for goboard
#48 Posted by Goboard (293 posts) -

There were two awards, one in 2014 and the other in 2016 with different language based on different circumstances but the point was generally the same, that companies stop shipping games in an incomplete state. I don't make the distinction between the scale of development in any aspect matters because at the end of it all anyone should still expect that a game functions well when it's released whether it's Indie or AAA. While PUBG has a solid idea implemented it still has numerous small problems like not dynamically updating UI to reflect the input type a player is using to gaps in geometry on the desert map that allow players to go inside mountains and shoot at players who can't shoot back. I mean it took them several months after implementing controller support to have the controller not rumble when it's not the input type being used to play, but in that same span of time, able to add honking to vehicles. I won't be playing the game again till the official release later tonight, but if those many small problems still persist then this game released in an unfinished state. This also ignores the perennial problems with the game including network latency/rubber banding, hacking/cheats and stability/crashing that I, or the people I play with, experienced as recently as two days ago. This game has been one of, if not, the most successful games of the year yet it's still coming in hot and rough. No one should be happy or accepting of that.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#49 Edited by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@timberbarrackk: Your usage of exclamation points led to my loose usage of "screaming".

I'm not forcing anyone to agree with anything: I posted something as a reply to the OP's question (not directed at you or anyone else) and you were triggered to the extent that you defensively replied to me, asking how liking the game makes you a "hypocrite". If you didn't like my opinion or couldn't handle my talking points, then you probably shouldn't have replied to me in the first place.

Avatar image for wetracoon
#50 Posted by WetRacoon (80 posts) -

@fatalbanana: I agree with most of what you're saying, but ultimately this is still a game they charged their full final price for and added paid microtransactions in. The game was an alpha/beta in name, but not in business practice. That's the issue here. I'm not willing to give it a pass because they put it under early access titles. If they had charged a fraction of the price (or ideally nothing) for this alpha/beta build, then I wouldn't be arguing this at all in the first place. Also I don't think "early access" communicates at all that you're potentially buying a broken or barely functioning game; at best it's a euphemism for alpha/beta.

Yeah, I mean I think our view on this is different enough that we're not going to agree. It was good chatting about it either way though, thanks for being civil about it.