Support NeoGAF

[Afro Republican]

Within the last generation, while there are exceptions, it's clear around 90% of the industry big releases two types of games, sometimes by incident, but usually on purpose for $$ and to screw people over, here are the two form of games that release constantly, which do you prefer, because I KNOW YOU DO prefer one of them because many people here buy either of these two types of games, you may deny this however:

Games that launch Bare-Bones:

1. Games that launch without much content or with many features no available.

2. Usually puts out a free update later on with some content to keep the base.

3. Usually charges for the rest of the content for the game.

4. Bare-bones games are usually designed on purpose to put out low-content games by a deadline and/or to encourage monetization policies for players to get more game.

Games that release broken:

1. Games that are released broken usually filled with errors, bugs, or unfinished content either to meet a deadline or purposefully expecting that the audience will pay for fixes.

2. Games will launch in a poor state, with a few free patches, but usually expecting you to be the beta tester to figure out what areas need fixing.

3. As problems are fixed, they'll charge players for additional content, or to fix features and content tat was already in the game, but unfinished and/or broken.

4. Usually releases a high-priced patch or a new retail edition with "fixes" built-in a year or so after launch.

It's a shame that this is so common for AAA (especially for retail titles) in the industry, and how even with consoles the percentage is high, but these are the types of games you're most likely playing RIGHT NOW. But which one do you give the edge to? Which poison do you like the flavor of better?

 

[Husky]

Jinkies, that's a hard one, Afro.
Honestly, both cases are why I tend to be a late adopter. I'd rather get into my games when they're fixed and complete, spend $10 or so during a sale for the Entire Game Edition.

At least if the game's bare or broken enough the developer might be obliged to forego some less favorable business practices and deliver us free goodies. AC Unity's dreadful launch led to a series of patches that resulted in a more polished game than either Black Flag or Syndicate, and cut their plans to nickel and dime for endless small DLC packs (with the game's major expansion being released for free). It's the only AC without any tiered editions on digital platforms, thank fuck. No Man's Sky's gotten some massive updates as well, do you think it might be fair to thank the outrage for that? Jesus, Murray, you had to see that coming...

 

[egocrata]

For once, this is a good poll.

I picked barebones, as long as the underlying mechanics are good. A game with good bones can be improved. A game with shitty design cannot.

 

[Shaqazooloo]

Well, one of my favorite Switch games is Mario Tennis Aces, so i'll say I prefer barebones because at least then I have a game that I can have fun with and not worry about game-breaking glitches or bad game design that hinder my enjoyment of the game.

 

[Woo-Fu]

You need another option for your poll: Games that launch bare bones are effectively broken.

 

[AV]

I like games that launch complete. If I had to choose? bare-bones.

But really, this only really applies to some games, mostly GAAS. That 90% stat you pulled from your ass is pretty disingenuous. I had no problem with, say, the content and features that REmake 2 launched with, it's a complete game.

 

[Afro Republican]

I like games that launch complete. If I had to choose? bare-bones.

But really, this only really applies to some games, mostly GAAS.

Start at 2013 and move onwards, and most of the games you remember released in either of these two categories. Especially the AAA retail games. You're only real exceptions are a bunch of indies and SOME of Nintendos games but even they messed they had several games fall into those two categories.

People have gotten so used to it they forget it's been a thing all gen.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

I chose broken. This way, I am at least confident that the devs KNOW what needs to be done to get the game raised to a higher standard. I'd buy/play a broken game if I thought it had potential.
If a game is bare-bones, then I'd worry the devs have no idea what needs to be added to make it good.

 

[ethomaz]

It is the same.

I prefer actual finished games to be released.

 

[Chozofication_]

Finish your fucking game or I won't buy it / wait for the bargain bin.

So yeah, not too hyped for next gen you might say

 

[Mr Hyde]

Neither. I wait until the game comes in a complete package a year or two after launch. I refuse to buy into this shitty GaaS-type of phenomenon that is all over us right now. I´ve been burned too many times when purchasing games at launch, with key features being missing, sometimes even the goddamn story is gutted, so no, I wait until the game is finished. I have no desire to be the first one in line to play a game and I don´t care about hype or pre-orders as well. This approach have been so much better for me in terms of my peace of mind, my entertainment values and my wallet.

 

[GTR R35_Supra RZ]

I prefer in very early alpha state, mixed with broken and bare bones..I think that's one of the best combos you can get?

 

[Fbh]

I generally don't buy games that to me looks either broken or bare bones and contrary to your poll options I don't believe I've missed out on most games this gen.... unless you consider "broken"
to be anything but 100% perfect with literally no bugs and no issue whatsoever which is silly

 

[AV]

Start at 2013 and move onwards, and most of the games you remember released in either of these two categories. Especially the AAA retail games. You're only real exceptions are a bunch of indies and SOME of Nintendos games but even they messed they had several games fall into those two categories.

Nah. Without getting into list wars, I can look back at the games I played in the last few years and hardly any of them fall into either of the definitions you listed. If you really need me to list them all I can, but I shouldn't need to.

Your problem is that you're confusing "most games" with popular games rushed out by shitty publishers. The ongoing reductive nature of calling some outstanding games a "bunch of indies" doesn't help. I understand your frustrations with games like Fallout 76 and Anthem, but really, you're just picking the worst of the bunch and pretending that it applies to the whole industry, when it really doesn't.

If 90% of the games you're playing are barren, buggy messes, you're simply playing the wrong games, sorry.

 

[Afro Republican]

Nah. Without getting into list wars, I can look back at the games I played in the last few years and hardly any of them fall into either of the definitions you listed. If you really need me to list them all I can, but I shouldn't need to.

Your problem is that you're confusing "most games" with popular games rushed out by shitty publishers. The ongoing reductive nature of calling some outstanding games a "bunch of indies" doesn't help. I understand your frustrations with games like Fallout 76 and Anthem, but really, you're just picking the worst of the bunch and pretending that it applies to the whole industry, when it really doesn't.

If 90% of the games you're playing are barren, buggy messes, you're simply playing the wrong games, sorry.

Outside some digital exceptions, usually indies, and some smaller retail titles (and a chunk of Nintendos library) i's basically almost all games.

You may find a few dozen you played since 2013 that didn't have it but that's part of the 10%. You can see piles of games of this type in videos, boxes, the industry went rapidly for these two types of strategies once they proven to become viable, that doesn't mean you can't find a good number of games that don't but they are a minority. Especially in retail.

 

[BusierDonkey]

Care to list some of these games and why you consider them "broken" or "Bare bones"? If you consider 90% of modern games to fall into these categories you shouldn't have any issue finding a bunch of examples.

 

[Bakkus]

AKA you missed out on most games this generation

No shit. I sincerely hope this goes for everybody in the world...

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

He is baaaaaaack!

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'd take barebones polished games. I usually don't play a game's full feature set and tons of modes anyway. And I never download extra content. Last time I did was an old Call of Duty map pack from the 360 days.

 

[Leks]

I don't play either type. Waiting for fixes, updates and DLC is my purchase habbit.

I make a few exceptions for single-player only games with a low risk of bare-bones / broken state at launch (Spider-Man, God of War).

 

[Jubenhimer]

Neither are ideal IMO, But given the choice, Bare-bones is always a better fate than broken. Bare-bones means the game works, it plays fine, but just needs a lot more meat to it in order to be something truly worthwhile. Broken is when the game is not only lacking features, but is a buggy, unpolished mess on top of that.

I usually like how Nintendo goes about it. Start small with a polished gameplay engine and a few basic modes, before expanding with more features and content once the player-base starts rolling in.

 

[AV]

Outside some digital exceptions, usually indies, and some smaller retail titles (and a chunk of Nintendos library) i's basically almost all games.

Fine, we'll play the list game. This is the list of games I played last year. Can you tell me which of these released bare-bones or broken?

RDR2, Into the Breach, God of War, Spider-Man, Dead Cells, 2-Point Hospital, Astro Bot, Obra Dinn, Subnautica, Celeste, Spyro Trilogy, A Way Out, Detroit, Warioware Gold, Yoku's Island Express, Moss, Smash Ultimate, Black Ops 4, Guacamelee 2, Tetris Effect.

That's a good amount of games, and most of the best ones released in 2018, I reckon. I'd call roughly half of those indies. How are half of the games I play in a year "some exceptions"? Sure, some of them got some patches to fix a few bugs. Sure, some of them have paid DLC. But I played most of those games on release day, and was more than satisfied with the content I got without buying a single piece of DLC. I don't know where you're getting this idea that "most games release unfinished or broken". It's nonsense.

 

[Zannegan]

Neither. The only exception I make is for launch window games which are often a little barebones, like Splattoon 2 or inFamous Second Son. As long as they have enough content to be worth the asking price (even if it won't compare to later games) and have fun base gameplay, I usually let myself be carried along by hype and buy a few too many games to go with my new system.

 

[Makariel]

Neither, but that doesn't mean that I can't play any recent games. Astro Bot was complete and worked perfectly straight away, which was my game of 2018. With Kingdom Come I waited for a number of patches before buying (still crashed a few times though).

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

how about neither

 

[Bernkastel]

From the title I knew it was the poll guy.

 

[ROMhack]

Expected a poll. Wasn't disappointed.

 

[Fuz]

Neither.
But if I really had to choose, like, with a gun on my head:
Broken. Bugs can be fixed.
Barebones games is usually a delberate way try to shill money out of you.

 

[Meccs]

It's a no-win situation isn't it? I would rather not play games than having to deal with one of the two options. And to be honest, most games these days fit both categories. I skipped a lot of games this generation because of that. Thankfully there are still games that are neither bare bones nor broken.

 

[HeresJohnny]

I’m trying to buy later and suffer neither. It’s also cheaper.

 

[TLZ]

Eh, I almost never buy games day 1 nowadays, unless they're first party Nintendo games or DQ. I wait for the complete editions and prices usually around $20.

So I'm good.

 

[deriks]

I just HATE day one patches, so yeah, the game should be all finished before goes gold.

 

[Petrae]

Bare bones or broken, neither deserves my money or time. All the more reason to not buy games at launch and wait a few months. By then, the broken shit should be mostly fixed, missing content should be added, and it’s at least $20 cheaper.

Win, win, win.

 

[michaelius]

Neither - I usually get GOTY edition later or wait few months at least till they get all patches done.

 

[BTHR Zero X]

I would rather miss a game and get it late so I don't get something I can complete in less then 5 hours.

 

[AV]

Yo Afro Republican are you just gonna duck out on this one now that I called you out, or are you gonna stand by your original position?

 

[Yoshi]

Yo Afro Republican are you just gonna duck out on this one now that I called you out, or are you gonna stand by your original position?

Hell, the only game I own that is bare bones or broken is Sonic 06...

 

[sublimit]

This is basically like asking "Do you prefer your leg getting cut-off or your arm?" Kinda pointless don't you think?

 

[Virex]

Would you rather get shot in the arm or get shot in the leg?

 

[Achelexus]

Broken games are (usually) fixed with a few patches. Bare-bone games need much more work put on it, and are hardly ever "fixed".

 

[bati]

Broken. Bugs are easier to fix than shoddy design.

 

[Danjin44]

Or......... I could just buy single player games like DQXI that’s neither broken or bare-bone.

 

[Afro Republican]

Fine, we'll play the list game. This is the list of games I played last year. Can you tell me which of these released bare-bones or broken?

RDR2, Into the Breach, God of War, Spider-Man, Dead Cells, 2-Point Hospital, Astro Bot, Obra Dinn, Subnautica, Celeste, Spyro Trilogy, A Way Out, Detroit, Warioware Gold, Yoku's Island Express, Moss, Smash Ultimate, Black Ops 4, Guacamelee 2, Tetris Effect.

That's a good amount of games, and most of the best ones released in 2018, I reckon. I'd call roughly half of those indies. How are half of the games I play in a year "some exceptions"? Sure, some of them got some patches to fix a few bugs. Sure, some of them have paid DLC. But I played most of those games on release day, and was more than satisfied with the content I got without buying a single piece of DLC. I don't know where you're getting this idea that "most games release unfinished or broken". It's nonsense.

You didn't disprove my point, 10% of games out of 100% is still a decent number of games, you know that's what i said but decided to inflate your small game list instead trying to act like the majority of non-indie/Nintendo games, especially retail ones, met either of these two standards, that's just how this gen has been.

 

[AV]

You didn't disprove my point, 10% of games out of 100% is still a decent number of games, you know that's what i said but decided to inflate your small game list instead trying to act like the majority of non-indie/Nintendo games, especially retail ones, met either of these two standards, that's just how this gen has been.

But I can keep going. I can do this for every year, it doesn't change anything. Shall we do the games I played 2017?

Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey, Horizon, Cuphead, NieR: Automata, Wolfenstein 2, Prey, Resident Evil 7, PUBG, Metroid: Samus Returns, Crash Bandicoot Trilogy, Steamworld Dig 2, Uncharted: Lost Legacy, Doki Doki, Mario + Rabbids, Golf Story, Injustice 2, Wipeout Omega, Picross S, South Park: Fractured But Whole, Star Wars Battlefront 2

Eight of those games are big budget, non-Nintendo releases that came out complete and unbroken. No, I'm not counting Battlefront 2 in that selection.

You're telling me I just happen to be playing this "magical 10%" of games that aren't broken/unfinished? You keep pulling this 10%/90% thing out of thin air and it has absolutely no basis in reality.

First the exception was "SOME Nintendo games", then it was "a chunk of Nintendo's library", now all of a sudden it's "Nintendo games". How far do you need to move these goalposts before you admit you're objectively wrong about this?

 

[Maguro]

I prefer games to be complete like in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

And I don't buy into the hype. These days my money is kinda lika my vote. I don't want to support this kind of concept so ain't spending money for that.

 

[nikolino840]

I have no problem with games like Sea of thieves or bfV if theres no season pass but you Need to wait for the content...
And...what about the early access purchase? You pay for an incomplete game

 

[Dragagon]

Bare boned please, Better to have a good begin to grow in than a bad start where people won't see the evolution :/

 

[Saruhashi]

Depends on the game.

I think for so called AAA games being either bare bones or broken, or both, is simply unacceptable.
I do not want to spend 60 to 80 bucks on something that is incomplete or not working.

For indies I would give them far more leeway on both fronts.
For example, I actually enjoy Legendary Eleven but it's pretty broken. Fun football game for a low price though so I am happy with it.
On the bare bones side, I was able to complete Light Fall in like less than 5 hours but I enjoyed every moment of that 5 hours.

For something like Warframe I think it's kind of cool if people got into the game in the early days and have been a part of the community that nurtured and grew the game into what it is today. That's free to play though.

 

[Afro Republican]

But I can keep going. I can do this for every year, it doesn't change anything. Shall we do the games I played 2017?

?

You're downplaying how many AAA games, especially retail, have come out, no mater how many games you list I can more than double the number, you won't go higher than 10% of releases, when these types of games already were messed around with the end of last gen, when they became profitable and devs got away with it, a lot of developers, went into that direction during this generations. It's why you can find tons of articles on the state of the industry and complaints about both of these practices across the entire gen.

Then for many people games that released incomplete because of their attachment to the developer may not even realize it. Even if the dev themselves said so or showed actons with content packs that should have been at launch.

This is a major problem that will likely continue into next generation, though Fallout76 may have showed where the consumer limit is.

 

[Barnabot]

is there a fifth option here? Like when I prefer to buying them when the price is right. I meant I was so hyped to buy New Gundam Breaker for PC and it was like my top #1 priority back then but after the dissapointment with the release and th review scores I'm still waiting for a steep discount to buy that game.