JemyM
Okay, now roll sanity.
- Joined
- October 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
Been pondering this for awhile.
While brief experiences may be fun once in awhile, large RPG's such as Gothic 3, Arcanum and Fallout NV have offered me more than compact games like Tomb Raider: Underworld and Call of Duty: Black Ops.
However, large RPG's are often ridden with bugs and get shunned because of it. It's often the case, that the games I loved the most ended up in the 70-80% range due to it's bugs.
Lesser games are rated higher because they are easier to bugcheck.
Should major review-sites be more accepting of bugs in large RPG's and assume that it's part of the package rather than something unexcuseable, or should all games regardless of size be held to the same standard?
While brief experiences may be fun once in awhile, large RPG's such as Gothic 3, Arcanum and Fallout NV have offered me more than compact games like Tomb Raider: Underworld and Call of Duty: Black Ops.
However, large RPG's are often ridden with bugs and get shunned because of it. It's often the case, that the games I loved the most ended up in the 70-80% range due to it's bugs.
Lesser games are rated higher because they are easier to bugcheck.
Should major review-sites be more accepting of bugs in large RPG's and assume that it's part of the package rather than something unexcuseable, or should all games regardless of size be held to the same standard?
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027