I have to agree whole-heartedly with many of the intelligent posts in this thead. Many of my hardcore gamer friends and I have been talking about the state of the industry recently with a lot of concern. Most of us are hardcore gamers from back in the early 80s and while we like a lot of what comes out these days, we also see a lot of "me too" tripe released as well as a great many titles that are hugely flawed right from the start, either technically or from a design point. We've also seen a growing trend of companies focusing more and more on getting out the next coolest engine rather than a good game. Many games these days are just playable technology demos that happen to sell well (I still firmly believe Doom 3 will be this.)

The main reason for this drive towards engines is very simple: Engine licensing makes the developers money and not he publishers. If you can spend a couple of million dollars and three years writing an engine and then license it fifteen times for $250,000 a pop, that's a good profit. The problem is that in this drive to find a higher revenue stream, many developers are forgetting that they are around to make games and not the next greatest eye-candy wrapper. The problem is that many gamers (particularly newer ones) are so conditioned to believe that the best looking game is also the best game overall. Many gamers will love Doom 3 simply because it looks so great. It doesn't matter that it won't have any meaningful story, it doesn't matter that id Software has already said it will have only basic multiplayer, it doesn't matter that it's just another spooky shooter like all the others, it will be the best looking thing out at the time and therefore, it must be good. This is one of the key problems.

The other of course is publishers. DX:IW was an Xbox game that received a half-assed port to the PC. Thief was also poorly polished and no way in shipping condition. While I do place a large onus of responsibility on Warren Spector for being the studio head and clearly not having any problem so heavily promoting two technologically flawed (also flawed in design according to some) projects, much of that is the fact that Eidos wanted it out fast. Their marketing guys know that all the fanboys will rush out and buy the game regardless of what condition its in. Some of them will put up with it, many will bitch and whine in forums, but you know what? They'll all be lined up to buy the next hyped title and Eidos knows it! People don't seem to understand that if Eidos didn't think the title would make money when they wanted to ship it, they would change the ship date. They only push it out the door early because they know the lemmings that make up much of the gaming public will buy it and they'll buy the next one and the next one. EA has been doing this to us for years. Does anyone remember Ultima IX? Does anyone remember that Battlefield 1942 was unplayable when it shipped? Does anyone remember the countless other aborted projects they've pushed out the door? I bet many do, but I bet many of those people also bought the games and will buy their sequels. I didn't buy Battlefield Vietnam because in spite of 1942 being a very fun title to play, it runs horrible, still crashes frequently and is full of cheaters. I made a decision to not keep telling EA and DICE that it's OK to push this kind of crap on me by not giving them my money. But many people here did buy B:V and then bitch in here when certain maps didn't work, when there were lag issues and when there were balance issues. But EA and DICE have your money and they know that when Battlefield 2 ships, many of those people will be lined up again. This is another key flaw.

Much like politics, the only way to force change is with your wallet. Did EA or Eidos push unfinished crap down your throat? Then stop buying their games! I know that's a tall order for many, but it's the only way change will happen. Or if you don't want to stop buying their games altogether, only buy the stuff that ships in good condition. Don't buy DX:IW, even knowing what shape it shipped in just because you had been looking forward to it. Either wait until they patch it right or tell them you won't tolerate it in that condition. I admit, it's also difficult to know what games ship good and which don't as most major game sites post horribly skewed reviews (GameSpot gave 8.x ratings for DX:IW and Thief 3 which is ludicrous), but discussions like this and the flame-based ones you'll find elsewhere make it a lot easier to know the truth. The fact is that people need to stop whining about the quality of games and start altering their buying practices to reflect the demands they have. If you are whining about DX:IW, but plan to buy DX3 if there is one, then you don't have a right to whine in the first place.

Sorry if I came off on a bit of a rant here, but I believe this to be the cold, hard truth. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. My friends and I are thinking of starting a web site talking about what we think is wrong in the games industry, where they are failing us and what we think the gaming public can do to try and make things better. Would anyone contribute to such a site if it was started?

Parallax Abstraction
Technical Consultant, Hardcore Modern and Retro Gamer, Video Game Historian
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada