jake_the_fake1 said:
NJ5 said:
twesterm said:
jake_the_fake1 said:
I based my post on the fact that Guitar hero for the Wii with it's mono sound issue could have easily been patched rather then getting discs replaced, it would also have cost them almost nothing, but there was no patch. This suggests that wii games can't be patched hence my post. |
You know there have been several games that get a patch the first time you put in the disc right? In fact, you actually get a quick update the first time you pop Brawl in. |
I think that's a firmware update contained in SSBB's disc, not an update fetched from the Internet. I say this because the same thing has happened to me with several games, and I don't even have my Wii connected to the Internet yet. The fact that Wii games can't be patched is more of a good thing than a bad thing IMO. It means that developers have to test their games properly instead of launching and worrying about it later (see PES 2008 on the PS3 and 360 for a scandalous example from Konami). By requiring a recall of the gaming media, it makes the financial impact of launching buggy games bigger on the companies, and thus discourages them from being lazy. It prevents one of the things which is making console gaming closer and closer to the bad side of PC gaming. |
in the realm of online gaming patches are a must, they correct bugs, but most importantly they eliminate exploits that gamers find thus making the game fair for everyone who play it, also most patches tend to include extra content which again benifit the end consumer. There is only so much QA a game can go through, and even then that won't guarantee that the game will be bug/glitch free, so wouldn't patches be beneficial, rather than just being stuck with the glitch/bug? |
I didn't say that patches are worthless, I just think that they're more hurtful than good in the world of console gaming (even accounting for your well made points). In most cases, a well tested console game won't have to be patched.
