a buggy excuse for bugs?
so treyarch sent out a hearty explanation in an attempt to defend themselves from the ire of the fans because of the less than stellar performance of the black ops on the ps3 and pc version.
true, we don't live in an ideal world. but we do know that bugs in games are part of the system already. what we just want is to at least make sure that our chances of being bogged down with it would be as minimal as possible.
they're obviously trying to cover their backsides now from all the backlash this might potentially cause them. but as fans who spend good money to purchase the games, do you think their efforts are enough, or are they just giving out a flimsy excuse for their shortcomings?
of course we recognize that they did make a great job with the game (when the bugs are not concerned), but when do you say a developer is not working hard enough with the follow-through of their games?
what game is the worst, bugged game for you?
it really sucks to pay $60 for a game that doesn't even work the way it's promised. true, there will always be bugs, but not those that make headlines.
even god of war III had its share of bugs, i fell into a few ditches and pits that aren't really there. it wasn't even worth complaining over.
having a game freeze on you regularly and lag like a mo-fo, however, is inexcusable.
The first game to cross my mind is Fallout
Which Fallout though? I never had problems with the original games as far as I recall. As for Fallout 3, the only issue I had with it was Liberty Prime getting stuck on the bridge leading to the Jefferson Memorial.
Originally Posted by RyanF
New Vegas is another story, but that's why I bought it on PC. The command console is just so so useful. :D