New games have had major issues thus far this generation, so are we beginning to accept higher and higher levels of instability? And is that a good thing?
I think we should understand that since games are built from nothing, and are essentially just 0's and 1's on a computer than there are gonna be issues...esp when internet is involved. I think so far the vast majority of games this gen have exceeded the level of stability "needed" ...basically, for me when it comes to the point that it impacts gameplay and technical issues annoy me into not wanting to play...then that is crossing the line. However, I do feel that this gen, ALL MP online games should have dedicated servers...not just matchmaking servers...that won't make the whole world perfect or bring about world peace, but it does make online gaming a ton better. ...just my two cents.
As far as the main beef this article has, I actually felt Witcher 3 was great from day one.
It had its flaws but people over exaggerated those flaws though. I mean come on, you have to be fair and just stop and look at that world/size of the game. Its one of the only games ever where I dont mind walking from point A to point B because of how breath taking the game is. The trails are amazing, scenery is beautiful, textures are great, etc.. If you ask me, the game was almost perfect at launch.
I put Witcher 3 up there with RDR. RDR was the last game I can remember having a world close to Witcher 3's world.
Witcher 3 had a few crashes for me at launch, but it was generally working well. It generally looked better as well for the first few patches, so they toned down something later on. It was certainly more polished than a Bethesda game, but still not quite there.
But then again, that game had other issues that becomes more apparent after you've played and thought about it.
To be honest I think that it varies depending on the scope of the game. A really ambitious open world game should be given less criticism than a fighting game where everything is contained in a small confined area.
It's unacceptable if there are game breaking bugs, crashes, randomly falling through floors, or you can't complete quests due to bugs. Minor bugs are acceptable since it's impossible to make a game 100% bug free, plus minor bugs can be hilarious.
I think we should understand that since games are built from nothing, and are essentially just 0's and 1's on a computer than there are gonna be issues...esp when internet is involved. I think so far the vast majority of games this gen have exceeded the level of stability "needed" ...basically, for me when it comes to the point that it impacts gameplay and technical issues annoy me into not wanting to play...then that is crossing the line. However, I do feel that this gen, ALL MP online games should have dedicated servers...not just matchmaking servers...that won't make the whole world perfect or bring about world peace, but it does make online gaming a ton better. ...just my two cents.
As far as the main beef this article has, I actually felt Witcher 3 was great from day one.
Witcher 3 had a few crashes for me at launch, but it was generally working well. It generally looked better as well for the first few patches, so they toned down something later on. It was certainly more polished than a Bethesda game, but still not quite there.
But then again, that game had other issues that becomes more apparent after you've played and thought about it.
Only 7% instability or less is acceptable.
To be honest I think that it varies depending on the scope of the game. A really ambitious open world game should be given less criticism than a fighting game where everything is contained in a small confined area.
It's unacceptable if there are game breaking bugs, crashes, randomly falling through floors, or you can't complete quests due to bugs. Minor bugs are acceptable since it's impossible to make a game 100% bug free, plus minor bugs can be hilarious.
I love Witcher 3 since day 1... I do think 1.08 is the worst patch yet, I might go back down to 1.07.