Are patches becoming a crutch for developers?
By PerryVandell 10 Comments
With all the work and manpower that goes into most video games today, it's a wonder that games are ever released. I think of all the time that must have gone into design, programming, sound effects, etc., and how releasing a game is an achievement on it's own. Of course as the years go by, games become more and more complex. Millions of lines of code are written to make today's games possible, and it's only expected that a few bugs will show up. To compensate for this, developers can release a patch to help fix some minor bugs/glitches that have affected a small portion of their consumer audience. However, I've noticed that more and more developers have been releasing games with a greater amount of bugs, and then spending a great deal of time working on patches after the buggy game has been released in order to meet the game's deadline. Now while I feel for developers trying to make a quality game within a specific time frame, releasing something that looks to be in the alpha stage and patching it later isn't the answer.
I'll admit, this blog was partly born out of the technological atrocity that was Fallout: New Vegas. Don't get me wrong, the game itself I hear is pretty good, but there have been reports of so many game-breaking bugs, that I have reserved myself from purchasing it. Of course, I did expect New Vegas to contain a good deal of bugs. The game is running on the same engine as Oblivion and Fallout 3, which can create beautiful expansive worlds normally reserved for MMOs, but is also infamous for it's bugs and glitches. Oblivion and Fallout 3 had their fair share of bugs as well, but I don't recall them being as awful as the ones found in New Vegas. If a game has a bug that corrupts all of your save files, or makes characters look like they game out of The Exorcist, then the game shouldn't be released until those issues are addressed. Period. Patches are tools that are great for solving minor bugs and glitches that provide small annoyances, but don't hinder the game experience in a significant way. However, when a game like New Vegas is released, it makes me think that the "idea of a patch" was used as a crutch during development. That it provided either the developers or publishers the idea that it's ok to finish making a game a few weeks after it has been released.
Of course, the line between what is okay to release and patch and what isn't is a bit blurry. Sometimes games have bugs that can only be found after hundreds of thousands of people play the game, and game companies can only hire so many QA testers. Generally, I have found those types of bugs/glitches to only affect a minute amount of people when compared to the game's total sales, and it's understandable if the developers missed it. However, if a game has a noticeable amount of bugs and glitches that directly hinders the player's experience, then the game should be delayed until the problems can be fixed, as no likes playing a game that was released on time if it's half broken.
As of right now, most games are relatively bug free and don't rely on patches in order to be playable, but hopefully the trend of bug testing after a game's release ends here. Games are pretty damn expensive and when I pay $60 for one, I expect it to be playable, and won't crash or have frame rates that drop into the single digits. I hope game publishers and developers feel the same way.