girlf finished alan wake last night she wasn't overly impressed... from what I saw of her playing it, seemed alot like alone in the dark without the variety, and combination of items...

http://www.thegamingvault.com/2010/05/red-dead-redemption-bugs-or-hilarious-genetic-experiments/

Glitch-er-rooney

Glitch-er-fixey coming soon:

http://www.incgamers.com/News/22770/rockstar-fixing-red-dead-redemption-invisibility-glitches

It was this or Alan Wake for me. I chose this. This one has a longer life of gameplay.

I have both but I'll wait til the glitches are patched before getting into it. Alan Wake is an awesome way to fill that time.

I'm actually considering returning it under the 7 day thing.

I'm a bit fed up of games being released with glitches just because they can patch on the fly.

In my day it was unacceptable to release a game without being thoroughly play tested 1st. I know people are profit driven and have to get the games out on deadline, but I think the industry is getting a bit lazy at times.

I both agree and disagree.

Yes I agree the quality control should be there, but I also understand that games are more complicated now than then. Not just in technology but scope too. The more you can do, see & and interact with increases the chance for glitches exponentially.

In your day games that were made by more than a few people were studio games, but even then, most weren't. These days games have budgets rivalling blockbuster movies, and just as much crew, you need only look at the credits at the end of a game to confirm that.

Patching after the release of games is a necessary evil, yes, but one I wish we didn't have to require.

Still would think they'd have a truckload of testers checking for this stuff? Embarrassing when you pay testers to do their thing for a month or more and then on first day of release the customers start finding annoying bugs. Someone won't be getting rehired for testing.

For games testers I just watch 'Grandmas Boy"

What I mean is that designers these days seem to think "sod it I can patch it" and if it doesn't sell, well then they don't bother.

If they wanted it tested it properly then they could at least do a beta

a problem can arise with games not getting tested properly before release due to the ability to update them can be caused by companies deciding it is not economically viable to update it any more (a example would be blood bowl where they are focusing on releasing a newer version instead of patching the one release last year) or the unfortunate cases where the company goes under/falls apart before the problems have been addressed(ie vtm:bloodlines).
I think companies are starting to take advantage of the fact consumers often hold onto games that are buggy on release, thinking it will be patched soon after. I know thats what stopped me returning the xbox version of blood bowl, since it had been stated by a dev that it would be patched no later than a month after it was released. unfortunately no such patch ever came