So many bad Games! Where's The Quality Control?

[Brian_Provinciano]

I was reading the topic on offensive games, and it got me thinking about another way I've been offended--the games that were so bad they should never have been released. I've been most offended by the early games released by DSI Games, or Destination Software Inc... Midnight Club Advance, Smuggler's Run Advance, Sim City 2000, etc. I bought them, just because I'm a huge fan of the companies they get licenses from (Rockstar Games, etc.). What has offended me is how awful the games are, just pure trash, absolutely horrible. Sim City, a later game of theirs wasn't awful, but nothing was worse than Midnight Club Advance. I'm a huge fan of MC, and am still playing MC2 on my PS2, However, the GBA version they did is so awful, it just had no place being released. It was worse than the worst first gen SNES games! You name it!

What offends me is how they were licensed Nintendo developers, how they got licenses from all of the great companies for all the great games, and butchered them all. What offends me is how they kept getting licenses from huge companies for huge games, and for the most part, still butcher them. It offends me because I should've jumped into the GBA market when they did, put out crap, and made good money, and continued tol get licenses for A+ games. I guess I'm mainly angry with them because they were to release GTA for GBA back in early 2002, and kept delaying it, delaying it, until they lost the deal.

To be fair, the new game they are publishing, Payback, looks awesome, and I've been waiting for it for ages... but to be real fair, they didn't develop it, only published it, heh.

Ah... DSI.

Isn't it amazing how many PS1, PS2, GBA titles are produced these days? There sure isn't much quality control anymore. I don't see another crash up ahead, but will there ever be quality control again?

[Graham Mitchell]

Isn't it amazing how many PS1, PS2, GBA titles are produced these days? There sure isn't much quality control anymore. I don't see another crash up ahead, but will there ever be quality control again?



That started with Playstation, I think. I used to work at Babbage's when PS and Saturn were released. Saturn had a head start by the time the PS was released, so it had quite few games on the market when PS showed up. Except for the ones by Acclaim, they were all really pretty good games (Daytona didn't seem like a POS until Ridge Racer showed up...then they had to re-release Daytona to keep from embarrassing themselves.)

I only worked part time, and I'm telling you: when PS came out, I'd come to work everyday and there would be at least 5 new games on the shelves. And most of them looked like $hit. And, in fact, most of them were. It wasn't as bad at first, because the first slew of developers for PS were Psygnosis, Williams/Midway, and Namco, and they were all bringing over quality stuff. But after awhile the floodgates opened on the licensed games, the wrestling games, THQ, etc. And this perpetuated for years.

I think that, because these systems tend to appeal to kids, PS1/PS2 and GBA are especially guilty for having a lot of garbage. The funny thing is that if it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't release all that trash. That means DSI and THQ (whom I admit has had some wonderful Sega ports done by Digital Eclipse for GBA) are shoveling poo and people are eating it.

[Ernster]

Well crap games have been a part of systems ever since the early Ataris etc...but of course some systems have more bad games than others. I have to agreee and say that the PSX is the worst of the lot...since 95% of PSX games I have played are absolute rubbish.

[Flack]

As long as people keep buying crap games, they'll keep releasing them.

[Graham Mitchell]

Well crap games have been a part of systems ever since the early Ataris etc...but of course some systems have more bad games than others. I have to agreee and say that the PSX is the worst of the lot...since 95% of PSX games I have played are absolute rubbish.

It happened so badly with Atari that it killed them! (Not that anyone needed to be reminded of that around here... :) )

It is true, though and I didn't take that into account when I wrote my first post. There are atari games so bad that you can size them up in less than a minute, and decide IMMEDIATELY that there is no point to playing them. Some of them are horrible to the point that I can't even tell what I'm controlling on the screen. (There are some Activision games, etc., that pretty much require you to look at a manual, but that doesn't mean they're bad. It just requires a little imagination on the part of the player.) So yeah, it's always been around and probably always will. Just don't give those games your money.

[Kamino]

As long as people keep buying crap games, they'll keep releasing them.
Bingo, WE are quality control. That's why I won't buy shovelware....if I do, it's YEARS after it was released when it won't matter.

[kainemaxwell]

...and this is how Sony managed to turn everyone into a "gamer"...

[Graham Mitchell]

...and this is how Sony managed to turn everyone into a "gamer"...

You know, I've been saying this for a long time, and people get ANGRY when I suggest it. But this is exactly how Sony caused this industry to boom, in my opinion.

I got picked on A LOT in school for playing video games when I was growing up. They were viewed as wierd and anti-social. Thanks to Madden and Gran Turismo, people who used to make fun of me were now approaching me on our local college campus and trying to talk Playstation with me.

Edit: Note that I'm not hatin' on people here. Though it opened the floodgates for a lot of crap games, it's a good thing that the industry is successful. That just assures that it'll be around for a long time. It might not be producing stuff I'm wild about at the moment, but I'm sure there will always be games coming around that I'll want to play.

[MegaDrive20XX]

As long as people keep buying crap games, they'll keep releasing them.


bingo

That's how gameboy and PSX got to their positions today, keep flooding the market with titles that don't quite make sense...and then you got the titles that make you regret they are called "games" like Mary Kate and Ashley 2....

[Captain Wrong]

...and this is how Sony managed to turn everyone into a "gamer"...

How is this Sony's fault? They aren't making but a small percentage of the games on the Playstation, and as has been noted, there were tons of crap games in the Atari and even NES day, so it's hardly a new thing.

[Graham Mitchell]

...and this is how Sony managed to turn everyone into a "gamer"...

How is this Sony's fault? They aren't making but a small percentage of the games on the Playstation, and as has been noted, there were tons of crap games in the Atari and even NES day, so it's hardly a new thing.

Well, Nintendo had really tight controls to some degree of what got released and what didn't in the days of the NES. (Note that the companies that didn't meet their "standards", like Color Dreams, put out some of the worst stuff.) Sony's licensing policies seemed to be pretty lax, on the other hand, and the sheer volume of PSX games alone should be an indicator of that.

So, yeah, it kind of is Sony's fault. I didn't interpret Kaine23's statement that way though...I thought he was suggesting that Sony was responsible, via this route, for getting a Playstation in everybody's home.

[Griking]

Sony definately has control over what can and can't release for the PS1 and PS2. Wasn't it Sony's decision that Metal Slug wouldn't be released on the PS2?

[Gamereviewgod]

You know, I never really noticed how bad DSI was. He's right. They did Gekido:

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/gekidoadvance.htm

Midnight Club:

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/midnightclub_gba.htm

Smugglers Run:

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/smugglersrun_gba.htm

Tiger Woods:

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/tigerwoods_gba.htm

And Road Rash, though I have't review it yet. Road Rash is actually pretty good; really nice engine powering it, but they didn't include a battery backup. The rest of their games do suck or are completely average.

[Promophile]

Sony definately has control over what can and can't release for the PS1 and PS2. Wasn't it Sony's decision that Metal Slug wouldn't be released on the PS2?

Smooth move, especially since there are alot more violent games than Metal Slug on the PS2. MS doesn't get released yet Mary Kate and Ashley dream house gets released? Comon, even the people who MAKE Olsen twins games know they're going to flop.

[Daria]

...and this is how Sony managed to turn everyone into a "gamer"...

You know, I've been saying this for a long time, and people get ANGRY when I suggest it. But this is exactly how Sony caused this industry to boom, in my opinion.

I got picked on A LOT in school for playing video games when I was growing up. They were viewed as wierd and anti-social. Thanks to Madden and Gran Turismo, people who used to make fun of me were now approaching me on our local college campus and trying to talk Playstation with me.

I don't think that's really the point of the discussion here. Gran Turismo and Madden, while definately appeal to a mainstream crowd are not "shovelware" titles. And if game companies were to adhere to a strict code of quailty control I don't think either of those games would be affected.

I'm not about to start playing Madden any time soon, but it's also not out right crap. Now Mary Kate and Ashley on the other hand... Movie and TV. licenses should be a red flag for quality control. :P


Sony definately has control over what can and can't release for the PS1 and PS2. Wasn't it Sony's decision that Metal Slug wouldn't be released on the PS2?

Sony judges games on a very superficial level, ie. on graphics rather then gameplay. So Metal Slug got the axe simply for being a 2D title.

[Promophile]

You sure about that? because Growlanser generations looks like crap....

[zmweasel]

You sure about that? because Growlanser generations looks like crap....

Working Designs originally intended to ship Growlanser II and III separately, but Sony Computer Entertainment America forced WD to bundle the two as GG because of the looks-like-crap factor.

Same deal with the recently announced SEGA retro-compilation. The SEGA Ages titles ship as individual titles in Japan, something SCEA would never allow here.

Keep in mind that there are also icky political factors involved in which games get through concept-approval and which don't. I've witnessed it first-hand.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

I got picked on A LOT in school for playing video games when I was growing up. They were viewed as wierd and anti-social. Thanks to Madden and Gran Turismo, people who used to make fun of me were now approaching me on our local college campus and trying to talk Playstation with me.

Really? I never got picked on by my peers for playing Atari 2600 and NES games. Even the "cool" kids in my neighborhood were gamers. I got picked on for nerd behavior, like doing my math homework during recess because I enjoyed it, or reading on the school bus instead of shooting spitballs.

-- Z.

[Gapporin]

You know, I never really noticed how bad DSI was. He's right. They did Gekido:

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/gekidoadvance.htm

Midnight Club:

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/midnightclub_gba.htm

Smugglers Run:

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/smugglersrun_gba.htm

Tiger Woods:

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/tigerwoods_gba.htm

And Road Rash, though I have't review it yet. Road Rash is actually pretty good; really nice engine powering it, but they didn't include a battery backup. The rest of their games do suck or are completely average.

If I remember correctly, they also put out Driver 2 Advance which (surprise, surprise!) sucked.

[XxMe2NiKxX]

I made a ratio...

For every 5 good games, there are 87 bad ones.

[Daria]

I got picked on A LOT in school for playing video games when I was growing up. They were viewed as wierd and anti-social. Thanks to Madden and Gran Turismo, people who used to make fun of me were now approaching me on our local college campus and trying to talk Playstation with me.

Really? I never got picked on by my peers for playing Atari 2600 and NES games. Even the "cool" kids in my neighborhood were gamers. I got picked on for nerd behavior, like doing my math homework during recess because I enjoyed it, or reading on the school bus instead of shooting spitballs.

-- Z.

I know in the 4th grade I had more friends the days I brought my GameGear to school than the days I didn't.

[kainemaxwell]

Keep in mind that there are also icky political factors involved in which games get through concept-approval and which don't. I've witnessed it first-hand.

-- Z.

Zm, are you allowed to talk about these factors? If not, its ok, I was just asking and not trying to stir up trouble.

[zmweasel]

Keep in mind that there are also icky political factors involved in which games get through concept-approval and which don't. I've witnessed it first-hand.

-- Z.

Zm, are you allowed to talk about these factors? If not, its ok, I was just asking and not trying to stir up trouble.

Nope. Last time I ranted about SCEA, all hell broke loose. Consider my statement more of a general observation that applies not just to Sony, but Microsoft and Nintendo as well. Even in the NES days, the "Seal of Approval" was about financial control, not quality control.

-- Z.

[Flack]

Regardless, isn't the bottom line that companies make shitty games because they make a profit off them?

[Nesmaster]

Regardless, isn't the bottom line that companies make shitty games because they make a profit off them?

exactly. if they werent making money, they would not make them.

[whoisKeel]

heh, everytime i look at thread like this i think of the popular systems on this board...nes, atari, snes, genesis...

WOW!!!! there's alot of downright aweful games on all of those systems (go ahead, glance at your collection). sure, maybe the ps1 holds the record, but there's always been bad games and there always will be...that's what makes the good games so special :)

[Daria]

Keep in mind that there are also icky political factors involved in which games get through concept-approval and which don't. I've witnessed it first-hand.

-- Z.

Zm, are you allowed to talk about these factors? If not, its ok, I was just asking and not trying to stir up trouble.

Nope. Last time I ranted about SCEA, all hell broke loose. Consider my statement more of a general observation that applies not just to Sony, but Microsoft and Nintendo as well. Even in the NES days, the "Seal of Approval" was about financial control, not quality control.

-- Z.

I'm just going to wager a guess that ATLUS has slightly more brownie points with SCEA then WD, cause I don't see how else they could have sliped Disgaea past them.

And it's also likely the hardship between Ireland and SCEA didn't completely disapear when Stolar left.

Course that's just my very limited view on the situation and you were probably alluding to something on a grander scale concerning Sony anyway.

[kainemaxwell]

Nope. Last time I ranted about SCEA, all hell broke loose. Consider my statement more of a general observation that applies not just to Sony, but Microsoft and Nintendo as well. Even in the NES days, the "Seal of Approval" was about financial control, not quality control.

-- Z.

I apologize then Zm. *bows

[Captain Wrong]

Well, Nintendo had really tight controls to some degree of what got released and what didn't in the days of the NES. (Note that the companies that didn't meet their "standards", like Color Dreams, put out some of the worst stuff.) Sony's licensing policies seemed to be pretty lax, on the other hand, and the sheer volume of PSX games alone should be an indicator of that.

Umm...Jaws? Back to the Future? (Hell, pretty much any NES game with a movie or TV tie-in, and there were a lot of them.) M.U.S.C.L.E.? Super Pitfall? I could go on. There was tons of crap that still got the Nintendo Seal of "Quality." Yeah, Nintendo had tight controlls on what got released, but that had more to do with squeezing the game makers than insuring true quality in the gameplay.

[Push Upstairs]

That is very true Captain Wrong.

I don't know how anyone can say that Nintendo having a "seal" made games better. The NES still had scores of crappy titles (Hello, Total Recall!)

[Dahne]

The Playstation had a kajillion games. Therefore, as only a certain percent of games are actually good, it would have a squillion bad ones.

Besides, sometimes bad games are fun. I know SaGa Frontier is terrible, but I still love it.

[GarrettCRW]

[quote="Kaine23"][quote=zmweasel]Even in the NES days, the "Seal of Approval" was about financial control, not quality control.

Which is likely why Nintendo recently changed it to just a "Seal" as opposed to "Seal of Quality". (Maybe someone finally called them out on it!)

[The Manimal]

[quote=Kaine23][quote=zmweasel]Even in the NES days, the "Seal of Approval" was about financial control, not quality control.

Which is likely why Nintendo recently changed it to just a "Seal" as opposed to "Seal of Quality". (Maybe someone finally called them out on it!)


I just thought that implied 'quality' as in manufacturing? That a cart won't damage your NES and whatnot...

[Push Upstairs]

I just thought that implied 'quality' as in manufacturing? That a cart won't damage your NES and whatnot...

Too bad it didn't imply 'quality' as in "We promise this game won't suck so much that it makes you wanna throw your NES at the wall."

[Brian_Provinciano]

Nintendo did control a lot of game content, making developers remove things and such. As well, they limited the amount of games each company could come out with per year, so they could only make their best games. Ultra came from Konami as their second company so they could make double the NES games.

Sure, there have been bad games since the beginning of time, but Nintendo for one, USED TO have some control. Now they seem to publish anything they can. Just look at how many games came out for the NES vs. how many for the GBA -- in way less time!

[kainemaxwell]

Nintendo did control a lot of game content, making developers remove things and such. As well, they limited the amount of games each company could come out with per year, so they could only make their best games. Ultra came from Konami as their second company so they could make double the NES games.
What was Acclaim's excuse for their crappy titles then?

[Brian_Provinciano]

Nintendo did control a lot of game content, making developers remove things and such. As well, they limited the amount of games each company could come out with per year, so they could only make their best games. Ultra came from Konami as their second company so they could make double the NES games.
What was Acclaim's excuse for their crappy titles then?

It's pretty clear that Nintendo favoured certain companies, while giving others a real hard time. I wonder what the background on those situations was... payoffs... lowest bidders?

[SoulBlazer]

The 'controls' Nintendo had in place was limited to three things --

1) Censoring some content from games -- extreme violence, language, sexual content, etc.

2) A company could only publish FIVE games a year. That's why 'spinoff' comapnies like Ultra for Konamia and LJN for Acclaim were around.

3)The carts had to be bought and produced by Nintendo (this was eventuly changed in the early 90's after major protests).

That's all they did. The games could be pure CRAP, and often were, and they were given the Seal of Aproval because they did the above three, NOT for game content.

[Push Upstairs]

Now they seem to publish anything they can. Just look at how many games came out for the NES vs. how many for the GBA -- in way less time!

How many of those games are simply ports of older titles?

I remember going to work at the gamestore and literally looking at the GBA wall and pointing out all the games that were orginally SNES titles.

This is really what led me to not really caring much for Nintendo today. I understand that a port is cheaper than making an orginal game, but the orginal Gameboy got orginal titles why should the GBA be any different?