|
|
|
|
|
|
by xdfgh1112
1582 days ago
|
|
|
Not just survivorship bias imo. You had to ship a stable game because you couldn't patch it later. And the scope of games was much smaller, in complexity and game length, so it was easier to QA. End result is that on average games were much more stable than modern games are at 1.0. |
|
|
Agreed on this point.
> End result is that on average games were much more stable than modern games are at 1.0.
Have you got an actual source for this? I think you're missing a large amount of pure crapware that was released. I have memories of playing the Sierra adventure games being incredibly unreliable for example. Ports for DOS were unbeatable without cheating because they were so sloppily done[0]. E.T. [1] which has been associated with the fall of major games companies and is widely known as the worst game in history, or Bubsy 3d which is literally meme material. 95% of boxed games that were released were complete and utter crapware.
[0] https://kotaku.com/that-time-a-teenage-mutant-ninja-turtle-g... [1] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/31/530235165/total-failure-the-w...