Can a videogame actually be broken? Well, figuratively of course. We see this term thrown around a lot these days. What makes a videogame broken? Is it subjective or objective? Some people claim a game is broken when a certain aspect of that game doesnít work properly. For example, zone defense in a football game. If this aspect of the game does not work correctly then I guess itís conceivable the game is broken. If the gamer cannot get past that glaring issue who could blame them for making the broken game claim.
As always, there are two sides to every story. What about the gamers who claim the game is broken when a seemingly small aspect of the game is not to their liking? For some gamers it seems like the developers canít win for losing. No gamer should have to play a game they donít like, or arenít able to have fun with. But there has to be a limit right? Is it okay for gamers to complain about players having the wrong Shoes, and incorrect Sock length? These have been considered game breakers by some gamers. But hey, thatís their opinion right?
Even patches to fix these so called ďgame breakersĒ sometimes create more issues than the game had in the first place. Take the second patch for NCAA Football 12. While it fixed some issues, it messed up the no huddle offense. It begs the question, are patches even worth it? Most people would probably say yes, but you have to wonder what it would be like if the developers were pressed to get it right the first time around.
In the end, there is no right or wrong when it comes to this argument. Every gamer is well within their rights to claim whether a game is broken or not. Itís all subjective.
As one man so famously said, ďNo dreads, no piece.Ē