PDA

View Full Version : Worst Developer?


Vundi
11th April 2003, 06:14 PM
I'm going to have to go with Acclaim. They've really gone south in the last few years. It's sad really.

3DO is also on my list if for nothing elsethan those freakin' Army Men games.
PNT510
11th April 2003, 10:15 PM
Activision. Tony Hawk Pro Skater was fun and interesting. 3 years ago that is.
Razola
11th April 2003, 10:45 PM
Titus. I don't think they have ever had a good game...
dienamight
12th April 2003, 06:53 AM
989..?
kainashi
12th April 2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by dienamight
989..? i concur.
Deus Mortuorum
12th April 2003, 11:07 AM
Rockstar.

Nah, just kidding.

I dunno...Midway and THQ have never been my favorites but as far as worst...I'd say Activision. Toy Story 2 is an abomination unto the Lord.

989? I liked Twisted Metal and Syphon Filter...
kurai
12th April 2003, 12:02 PM
^^^ why is your signature so giant? ^^^
kainashi
12th April 2003, 05:32 PM
it's bigger than kurai's head. :o
ILikePokemonP
12th April 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by LuGiA007

it's bigger than kurai's head. :o Lol

Microsoft :P
tron
12th April 2003, 11:23 PM
989. Bottom of the barrel is their speciality.
Austrian ViceMaster Alex
14th April 2003, 04:11 AM
SOE, I'm yet to see a decent game made by Sony themselves. Others on my "hitlist" are Acclaim (always makes 10 pathetic games for 1 good one), Infogrames (masters of sickening hard jump 'n runs) and Titus (did they ever make a good game?).
Mewfour
16th April 2003, 11:20 PM
Titus, for the incredible materpiece of crap called Superman 64, a game which crappiness rivals that of ET for Atari 2600. True story, actually, taken from seanbaby.com, ET sucked so bad that kids wouldn't even take them for free. So the developers, who had gotten 5 million of the 6 million copies produced sent back to them, couldn't destroy them in any way(Due to bylaws), so they buried them all in a field in New Mexico.

... well yeah, Titus sucks the most, undoubtedly.
Razola
17th April 2003, 04:04 AM
Many experts say the poor sales of ET was one of the causes of the crash in gaming industry in the mid-1980s.

It sucked THAT bad.

I also think EA is a pathetic publisher. SimCity 4 is so dang buggy, and many EA just lack so much polish that they fall into mediocrity. I wonder what Command & Conquer: Generals would be like if EA cared a little bit more about quality games than stuffing their pockets.

#1 profit wise, a stinker quality wise.
classy_cat18
17th April 2003, 01:59 PM
I think anyone that agrees to make a game for Nickelodeon should have their head examined.
Pewter City Geodude
17th April 2003, 03:42 PM
A close tie between 989 Sports and Konami. Konami's MGS games are probably good (I haven't played them) but that's it. Almost every time they (989 or Konami) put out a sports game it gets really crappy reviews.
dienamight
17th April 2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Pewter City Geodude
A close tie between 989 Sports and Konami. Konami's MGS games are probably good (I haven't played them) but that's it. Almost every time they (989 or Konami) put out a sports game it gets really crappy reviews.

Do you even know just HOW many quality games Konami has under its belt? It's not Japan's top games publisher for nothing.

I personally didn't like MGS, though.
Lezta
18th April 2003, 10:20 AM
EA.

I have yet to play a game by EA that feels truly finished (let alone polished) in years.
Razola
22nd April 2003, 09:38 PM
Ea is a publisher, not a developer. But they still are responsible for a game's quality

Sadly, their quality-assurance is still sub-par. I wish Ea would get on the ball and focus on quality games, not profits. They're Are VERY well-off in terms of cash, I think they can afford to make sure that the next SimCity is really awesome.

EDIT: Actually, EA is both. But they don't develop even half the games they publish, so I think of them as more of a publisher. As a developer they are quite good. Any sports game by them is of the utmost quality. I just wish this quality would be bleed into their other games that they don't develop.
Lezta
27th April 2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Raz
Ea is a publisher, not a developer. But they still are responsible for a game's quality

Sadly, their quality-assurance is still sub-par. I wish Ea would get on the ball and focus on quality games, not profits. They're Are VERY well-off in terms of cash, I think they can afford to make sure that the next SimCity is really awesome.

EDIT: Actually, EA is both. But they don't develop even half the games they publish, so I think of them as more of a publisher. As a developer they are quite good. Any sports game by them is of the utmost quality. I just wish this quality would be bleed into their other games that they don't develop.

It's largely because EA say's to the Developer "Finish this game by THIS date or it doesn't happen". Therefore game is rushed and half the features get left out.
EA don't seem to realise that while lots of gamers complain when a game is delayed, almost all of them prefere it when it when developers take time and don't **** up. :)
MetalScyther
27th April 2003, 01:04 PM
Also didn't konami have a lot of good soccer games in japan that sold well and got good reviews? I forget there name, but I heard they were good. MGS and Castlevania are some other games I like from konami, so I'm not sure how you get that they suck. Were entitled to out own opinions though. *shrugs*