Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican
I would say both A and B are true. There are some cool new things - like stunning animation (and probably online stuff for those who care) - while in the background tweaks are made to improve the gameplay and performance. The former are visible right away, whereas appreciating the latter requires playing out games and seasons and really exploring options within the game.
I don’t want to dive into the argument of whether only a flawless game should be offered, except to remind posters that “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. The issue to me is not whether a new version has any flaws or bugs. The issue is whether those flaws and bugs get fixed. In my experience, they do, and quickly.
My impression is that one of the greatest enemies of programmers is the “doctrine of unintended consequences”. If you fix or enhance one aspect of the game by changing the programming, that could trigger an unanticipated issue with a seemingly unrelated part of the game engine. That has to be infuriating. Lots of testing may not reveal the issue, and then our intrepid community finds it. Again, flaws are addressed and repaired, without (I hope) affecting anything else adversely.
I also don’t want to fall into the debate about whether $40 bucks for a computer game is a lot of money. Ultimately it depends on one’s financial circumstances and spending habits and expectations. We come to that party from different places. I’m convinced the value is there at that price point. It fulfills my expectations, thus far, each year, and I can afford it. YMMV.
|
This is a straw man argument. Show me where anyone in this thread demanded a “flawless” product.
All of the lengthy “voice of reason” posts and citations of pseudo-erudite maxims are pointless if alternative perspectives are either willfully misrepresented or unintentionally miscomprehended.