Unfinished Games vs Bad Games

[bangtango]

Have you ever noticed that when someone gives a poor review of a game in a magazine, on a web site or even in a forum, they often dismiss it as unfinished or rushed even if they have no basis to make that claim on?

I was wondering what the rest of you think of those type of statements. I bring this up for a few reasons. The way I see it, some programmers or designers are good and some are bad. The same as it is with singers, baseball players or even landscapers. There are people who are at the top of their profession and others who take up space because there is a need or demand for their work, whether it is "good" or not.

It just seems like some people, whether they are informed or not, spend too much time dreaming up theories as to why (Insert Game Title) is a poor game. I understand that there are indeed games which are rushed to the market or released unfinished, but I wouldn't think the number as great as some gamers or reviewers might suggest.

Just because a game is lousy, do you think it is always fair to label it unfinished or rushed, especially if it isn't? I see those two words thrown around far too often. At some point, you'd think reviewers might see some of these "bad" games for what they really are:

Crappy programming, crappy design, crappy company, but not "rushed" or "unfinished." The programmers had a suitable amount of time to work on it and they thought it was complete when it went to release. End of story.

I'm not talking about any game in particular, just putting down some thoughts on a trend I keep noticing in magazines and some message boards (nothing I saw posted here, mind you).

Excuse any spelling or grammar errors. I need to send this and log off. I'll edit any major messes later

[bangtango]

Have you ever noticed that when someone gives a poor review of a game in a magazine, on a web site or even in a forum, they often dismiss it as unfinished or rushed even if they have no basis to make that claim on?

I was wondering what the rest of you think of those type of statements. I bring this up for a few reasons. The way I see it, some programmers or designers are good and some are bad. The same as it is with singers, baseball players or even landscapers. There are people who are at the top of their profession and others who take up space because there is a need or demand for their work, whether it is "good" or not.

It just seems like some people, whether they are informed or not, spend too much time dreaming up theories as to why (Insert Game Title) is a poor game. I understand that there are indeed games which are rushed to the market or released unfinished, but I wouldn't think the number as great as some gamers or reviewers might suggest.

Just because a game is lousy, do you think it is always fair to label it unfinished or rushed, especially if it isn't? I see those two words thrown around far too often. At some point, you'd think reviewers might see some of these "bad" games for what they really are:

Crappy programming, crappy design, crappy company, but not "rushed" or "unfinished." The programmers had a suitable amount of time to work on it and they thought it was complete when it went to release. End of story.

I'm not talking about any game in particular, just putting down some thoughts on a trend I keep noticing in magazines and some message boards (nothing I saw posted here, mind you).

Excuse any spelling or grammar errors. I need to send this and log off. I'll edit any major messes later

[j_factor]

"Unfinished" to me is when the game clearly needed a few more rounds of playtesting, or if it seems like there's areas/features missing, or if the visuals/audio seem like they have less to them than intended. Enter the Matrix was unfinished. The Dreamcast port of Virtua Fighter 3tb was unfinished.

I don't think this is a designation that I've seen thrown about all that much.

[j_factor]

"Unfinished" to me is when the game clearly needed a few more rounds of playtesting, or if it seems like there's areas/features missing, or if the visuals/audio seem like they have less to them than intended. Enter the Matrix was unfinished. The Dreamcast port of Virtua Fighter 3tb was unfinished.

I don't think this is a designation that I've seen thrown about all that much.

[exit]

Martian Gothic was unfinished, they had to leave out an entire character because of a deadline. They also could have tweaked a few things in the PSX version, but again they had a limited ammount of time.

It's still a great game for a budget title tho.

[exit]

Martian Gothic was unfinished, they had to leave out an entire character because of a deadline. They also could have tweaked a few things in the PSX version, but again they had a limited ammount of time.

It's still a great game for a budget title tho.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Most PC games -are- unfinished.

They get finished with patches. This is happening with console titles too... didn't the 360 have some games that had to be patched after release to fix bugs?

[Kitsune Sniper]

Most PC games -are- unfinished.

They get finished with patches. This is happening with console titles too... didn't the 360 have some games that had to be patched after release to fix bugs?

[Sothy]

Heroes of the Lance for nes needs a patch..... I dont think its coming but...

[Sothy]

Heroes of the Lance for nes needs a patch..... I dont think its coming but...

[Moo Cow]

Heroes of the Lance for nes needs a patch..... I dont think its coming but...

My thoughts exactly.

[Moo Cow]

Heroes of the Lance for nes needs a patch..... I dont think its coming but...

My thoughts exactly.

[Kid Ice]

That's a problem with VG journalism in general...writers are so anxious to name drop and demonstrate how "in" they are, they forget the game will be consumed by regular people. Examples: "Boy, this game has come a long way since I saw it at the Take Two booth at E3 last year". "The game is missing a lot of stuff from the Japanese version". "The game was shown at TGS two months ago so it's obviously a rush job"

I remember a review of Tenchu in EGM that said "This game reminds me a lot of Metal Gear Solid." Before MGS was released. So cool!

[Kid Ice]

That's a problem with VG journalism in general...writers are so anxious to name drop and demonstrate how "in" they are, they forget the game will be consumed by regular people. Examples: "Boy, this game has come a long way since I saw it at the Take Two booth at E3 last year". "The game is missing a lot of stuff from the Japanese version". "The game was shown at TGS two months ago so it's obviously a rush job"

I remember a review of Tenchu in EGM that said "This game reminds me a lot of Metal Gear Solid." Before MGS was released. So cool!

[Slimedog]

Heroes of the Lance for nes needs a patch..... I dont think its coming but...

My thoughts exactly.

Actually, I would say Heroes of the Lance is a classic example of a bad, not unfinished game. What kind of patch would have made that game fun? Even with faster movement and better controls, the premise of the game was fundamentally flawed. It was pretty much doomed from the beginning.

[o2william]

It's a fine distinction. If the reviewer says the game IS unfinished, then he's stating something as fact, which he should not do unless he can back it up. If he can quote the project leader saying something like, "Management mandated unreasonable deadlines that forced us to ship before we had time to do proper QA," then it's safe to call the game unfinished. If he can't back it up, then the reviewer should not say a game is unfinished.

But if he says the game FEELS unfinished then that's perfectly OK. "Feels unfinished" is subjective; it connotes exactly what j_factor said: the game seems like it needed more testing or seems like it is lacking features. Maybe it's not; maybe it was playtested to death and it has every feature the developers wanted, but it doesn't seem that way in the reviewer's opinion.

Calling a game "rushed" isn't quite the same. No software developer has EVER been involved in a project where they weren't being rushed by somebody. So it's reasonably true to say every game was rushed. I suspect that when most reviewers call a game "rushed," they're referring to how it feels, not what it is. It feels slipshod, it feels buggy, etc. -- the kinds of things a reviewer is supposed to say. But if the reviewer is saying, "This game was rushed to market and therefore DID NOT ship according to spec," that's a factual claim that has to be supported somehow.

A lot of it depends on the wording of the review. If the reviewer seems to be making a factual claim when he's really stating an opinion, or if it's not clear what he means at all, then it's a bad review.

[tholly]

It's a fine distinction. If the reviewer says the game IS unfinished, then he's stating something as fact, which he should not do unless he can back it up. If he can quote the project leader saying something like, "Management mandated unreasonable deadlines that forced us to ship before we had time to do proper QA," then it's safe to call the game unfinished. If he can't back it up, then the reviewer should not say a game is unfinished.

But if he says the game FEELS unfinished then that's perfectly OK. "Feels unfinished" is subjective; it connotes exactly what j_factor said: the game seems like it needed more testing or seems like it is lacking features. Maybe it's not; maybe it was playtested to death and it has every feature the developers wanted, but it doesn't seem that way in the reviewer's opinion.

Calling a game "rushed" isn't quite the same. No software developer has EVER been involved in a project where they weren't being rushed by somebody. So it's reasonably true to say every game was rushed. I suspect that when most reviewers call a game "rushed," they're referring to how it feels, not what it is. It feels slipshod, it feels buggy, etc. -- the kinds of things a reviewer is supposed to say. But if the reviewer is saying, "This game was rushed to market and therefore DID NOT ship according to spec," that's a factual claim that has to be supported somehow.

A lot of it depends on the wording of the review. If the reviewer seems to be making a factual claim when he's really stating an opinion, or if it's not clear what he means at all, then it's a bad review.

Your post seems to be rushed and unfinished.

Just kidding with you, but what you have to say is absolutely right. Wording is everything and a lot of problems develop when people do not know how to speak (type) properly.

[bangtango]

If he can't back it up, then the reviewer should not say a game is unfinished.

If the reviewer is saying, "This game was rushed to market and therefore DID NOT ship according to spec," that's a factual claim that has to be supported somehow.

A lot of it depends on the wording of the review. If the reviewer seems to be making a factual claim when he's really stating an opinion, or if it's not clear what he means at all, then it's a bad review.

My sentiments exactly, which is what made me post the topic. Why do people always assume bad games are unfinished or rushed? You never hear the same said about average or mediocre games.

With a game being rushed, I can see your point in that every game is rushed (to some degree) or at least has a deadline. I suppose it depends on the circumstances, since some games clearly are compromised.

One might be games based on movies or tv shows. When Ocean was making Jurassic Park games in the early 1990's, the head honcho may have walked in one day and said, "Shit, we got 2-3 months to make a game for Jurassic Park before it comes to the theater or video (depending on when the game came out). Get on it!"

You also may run into a scenario where Sega, Nintendo, Atari, Sony or whoever demands to have a certain title done before launching a system. That has happened quite often. Virtua Fighter on the Saturn, for example. Aside from that, you have the usual business of game companies wanting certain titles ready for release in time for the holidays. For the most part, though, I would assume programmers have a reasonable amount of time to get a project done.

[SirDrexl]

Well, we know E.T. was rushed.

I think the terms get tossed around more when there are certain release windows that were likely to have to have been met, like the holidays, at a console's launch, or when a movie is released. I remember in a review for Banjo Tooie it was said that the game's poor frame rate could have been due to Rare not having enough time to optimize the code before the game had to be released before Christmas.

I think the terms get used because reviewers really want to believe that game designers don't set out to make something bad, like in The Producers. They assume there must be a reason why the game turned out how it did.

[calthaer]

Sometimes it's quite obvious - the most blatant example I can think of is when EA bought Origin and then forced all future Ultima games to come out in one year. Suddenly you have Ultima VIII, which has almost NONE of the rich depth and content that was a hallmark of the other games in the series. Obviously Richard Garriott isn't a bad designer - the former games in the series prove it. It's the marketing suits at the top who are trying to dictate game design that ruined those games.

And let's face it - everyone thinks Miyamoto is a genius, and he surely has talent, but there's also another reason his track record is flawless with nary a blemish. That reason is Nintendo's deep pockets. They can ALWAYS afford him as much time as he wants to polish his game to perfection, and they always do. That's why we don't have the next Zelda game yet. Lots of time to finish something and the money to keep perfecting & playtesting it has a lot to do with it. True, there are probably some game designers who would never turn out a quality product, but there are also probably a lot (like Garriott) who just don't have that luxury all the time, and sometimes their games suffer as a result - and that's by no means a poor reflection on their abilities.