I would rather a game that is supported for years with new content up updates and fixes over one that isn’t. This thinking that “games were done back in the olden days, now they’re not” is dumb. They were just smaller.
Comment on Physical disc production ending in January 2028 for new games releasing on PlayStation consoles
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoWe used to finish games. No update bullshit. A game was done when it was done. Humans can do this shit. Capitalism erodes our skills and our brains.
Just look at crash on ps1. Amazing.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 2 days ago
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Nah. I’ll take a finished game with a few bugs over a "weekly update ".
Also, game updates aren’t even bug fixes a lot of the time, its doing some idiotic menu reorganizing or adding a new loot box. Games dont need any of that. They just have to be good.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 1 day ago
So you are against updates just in principle lol. You’d rather games not get better because of a misguided idea that updates being a thing mean games aren’t “finished” at release.
You also seem to think that only online-only games get frequent updates. That’s not true. Take a game like vampire survivors for example. It must have had a hundred updates by now, and it’s a single player offline game (though they also recently added online multiplayer in a free update). That game will be playable in 30 years time too. Why wouldn’t it?
You are mistaking games that require a persistent online connection as “games that get updates”.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Basically yes, because many are unnecessary updates. I don’t care about them. Its actually cringe for me when I open a game and see “gahhh NOW what did they fricken change ??”. For many games, its usually not a good thing either, just from games I’ve played. Thats of course not always true. A bug fix here and there isnt the worst. But it rarely stops there.
"Constant updates " and "required online for single player " are often (usually) tied together. They can be separate yes, and those examples exist and are fine.
I still stand by the fact that there were millions of games made before constant internet and updates were a thing, and maaaaany of them are very good. I mean, I also hate when software devs think moving around all our menu buttons and shit (also introducing more bugs) and re releasing a product makes it “better” when it worked just fine for years. Its like they feel the need to change unnessesary shit, probably because the CEO told their boss it needs to be done so line go up. Who knows. Changing stuff for the sake of change does nothing.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Yes, but also no… For instance there were definitely bugs in Mario 64 that were corrected in later editions of Mario 64 like Mario 64DD and the one that came out on the DS. One very famous bug that’s been corrected is the ability to backwards long jump up the stairs in the upper section of the castle before having enough stars to climb the stairs.
Obviously these weren’t game breaking bugs in the same way that day one patches are fixing things, but it’s also not exactly correct to say it didn’t happen in the before time.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Right, it happened, but Usually they were small bugs.
I’m referring more to unnessecary updating every week . i hate that shit