Comment on [deleted]
_stranger_@lemmy.world 5 months agoThis is survivorship bias. There’s probably uncountable shitty software that never got adopted. Hell, the E.T. video game was famous for it.
Comment on [deleted]
_stranger_@lemmy.world 5 months agoThis is survivorship bias. There’s probably uncountable shitty software that never got adopted. Hell, the E.T. video game was famous for it.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 months ago
I don’t make games, but fine. Baldurs Gate 3 (PS5 co-op) and Skyrim (Xbox 360) had more crashes than any games I’ve ever played.
Did that stop either of them being highly rated top selling games? No. Did it stop me enjoying them? No.
Quality feels important, but past a certain point, it really isn’t. Luck, knowing the market, maneuverability. This will get you most of the way there. Look at Fortnite. It was a wonky building game they quickly cobbled into a PUBG clone.
_stranger_@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I love crappy slapped together indi games. Headliners and Peak come to mind. Both have tons of bugs but the quality is there where it matters. Peak has a very unique health bar system I love, and Headliners is constantly working on the balance and fun, not on the graphics or collision bugs. Both of those groups had very limited resources and they spent them where they matter, in high quality mechanics that are fun to play.
Skyrim is old enough to drive a car now, but back then it’s main mechanic was the open world hugeness. They made damn sure to cram that world full of tons of stuff to do, and so for the most part people forgave bugs that didn’t detract from that core experience.
BG3 was basically perfect. I remember some bugs early on but that’s a very high quality game. If you’re expecting every game you play to live up to that bar, you’re going to be very disappointed.
Quality does matter, but it only matters when it’s core to the experience. No one is going to care if your first-person-shooter with tons of lag and shitty controls has an amazing interactive menu and beautiful animations.