Back to Games
Over the last few days, my boyfriend has been playing Heritage of Kings: The Settlers. Not a bad game per se, but watching him get frustrated when the game crashed a few times, made me ask a few questions. After checking around online, we found out that there is actually a patch that needs to be uploaded, and there are several known bugs that affect game play, not to mention issues surrounding the 'supposed' AI.

This is not the first game that I have witnessed such issues comprimising a game. Sadly, it is not even a rare occurence - it seems to me that out of the umpteen number of pc games we have (not to mention ps2 games!) its is more common then not to have a bug that alters game play. (this is often fully admitted by the game designers at some point after release)

So i ask myself, why is this acceptable? Would such subpar construction of any other product be acceptable? If i bought a table - at full price mind you - i would not accept it having one leg shorter then the other three.... i would not buy a television that works most of the time. Why is this acceptable when it comes to games (and i could even stretch this rant to computer technology - ive lost count how many network cards, bum memory and fizzled hard drives we have gone through - some of them not even lasting 3 months)

I understand that games are released before they are 'ready' and that the publishers and financial backers want their return as promised, but by delivering a half broken product, all it does (imo) is give the games bad ratings. Although I understand now why cheats and walkthroughs have become more and more popular .. its not necessarily because gamers are lazy - as was my first thought ;o) , but because when faced with a bug in a game, a gamer has no choice but to check out the walkthrough to make sure there really is a problem.