[game_preservation] Wikipedia thoughts?

[Andrew Armstrong]

I guess, but it's not usually up for debate when you can't actually 
complete a game. If something is known for a poor release then not 
noting it isn't really lacking opinion, it's lacking a fact (ie; a 
rushed game. It happens for console games too now sadly, sigh) - as much 
a fact as by consensus of choosing which genre a game is, for instance :)

Then again, I do go for a more objective view of "buggy". "Buggy" isn't 
not having perfect functionality, but having the game not work due to a 
bug (which might not even be the game. *cough* DRM *cough*). I should 
have been more specific perhaps. It is a problem when every review notes 
it for a game though, which is sometimes lost to time (gamers have a 
real short attention span).

And yeah, patch release dates are fine, but the most patched games might 
well have the least amount of bugs - for instance, I am sure World of 
Warcraft and other MMO's have a ton of patches, which might rebalance 
more then fix. Neverwinter Nights also had a ton of patches, which 
mainly added functionality to the game, rather then just fixing bugs.

Fair enough on staying neutral, I just differ on the opinion of what you 
consider opinion or fact I think, haha. ;)

Andrew

PS: Yes, programming is an art (and part of the collective whole of 
making a game), and no, buggy games are not always the fault of 
programming anyway, hehehe :)

Jim Leonard wrote:

> Andrew Armstrong wrote:

>> For example; the Fallout 2 review - there is no mention of the word 

>> "bug" - something which plagued the original release (as it is 

>> documented elsewhere, foretold by saying it was, basically, very 

>> obviously rushed to completion), and even after the patches many 

>> problems persisted (which fan patches helped with). Maybe another 

>> review would mention this, it'd mean searching them all. :)

>

> We track release information, which also applies to patches.  It does 

> not scream "this game was buggy as hell on release" obviously, but the 

> info is there.  There is much debate as to whether or not that is 

> important in judging the artistic merit of a game; some say no, 

> because it has nothing to do with the design/art/vision; others say 

> yes, because the programming is an art in and of itself.

>

> Also, claiming a game is buggy is a subjective statement, not 

> objective.  It is entirely possible to play most "buggy" first-release 

> games through to completion if your hardware matches the Q&A group's 

> hardware.

>

> Moby has tried to stay away from any subjective claims or observations 

> about any aspect of a game where appropriate.  That's our focus; it 

> keeps us neutral.