Which company do you think aims for quality?

[BurningDoom]

A game that keeps me completely engrossed for 100 hours, is a game that is well worth the money it goes for. And is that not what quality is? Getting the most for your money?

I don't think so I mean you could spend hundreds if hours playing shovel ware on the Wii but it still doesn't make it a quality game. Most Bethesda games are like cardboard cut outs. Sure they look good but to me just end up feeling so flat. There's never any likeable characters, the stories are boring and the gameplay is usually dry and not very rewarding due to level scaling. Oh and don't forget the complete lack of AI.

Except shovelware implies that it's not fun to play. Obviously it's not for you, but for me, those 100 hours of gameplay are 100 hours of pure entertainment. And the following it has seems to show I'm far from alone.

[Xeogred]

It’s not a question of glitches ruining an overall good experience, it’s a question of putting the word “quality” within a 100 mile radius of “Bethesda”. Every game has glitches, that’s inevitable. If only the acid trip physics were the least of the issues with their games though.

With lack of quality in their shit products I’m talking about the games running like slop, the save files constantly getting corrupt, the retarded decisions with how they “optimize” textures (this grass isn’t high res enough!), the abysmal, flat out unacceptable ports, and just the general carelessness of the game design. People slam JRPGs for getting lazy this gen?

The combat is essentially point and click, only with a Z-axis and slo-mo gimmicks to compliment the guns in Fallout 3. Nothing to write about there. That’s where the super inventive and fantastically creative world... wait, not that. Right, that’s why the deep, complex characters make it such… or I mean the innovative casting systems… no, must be the awseome 500 menu deep character creation tool where people are able to wringe 100 hours of enjoyment out of these games.

Touche'!

I'd say my post was pretty fair and just for the most part, they aren't a top favorite of mine but I feel like I could equally talk some of their games up as I can some of them down. No denying the Gamebryo engine is among the worst I've seen, lots of stuff to hate on there. But I guess I was able to get past that with New Vegas, and eventually after attempting Fallout 3 a third time (with mods...), I'd say New Vegas is probably like top 25 or something for me this gen. At the same time I can't even fathom how epic it would have been if the engine and level designs were way better, I'll agree the world feels... off. Everything is very flat and buildings just freaking suck, I can't help but think of architecture/buildings from STALKER in comparison which blow F3/NV out of the water.

I'm pretty sure Skyrim uses a different newer engine though, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Definitely "feels" way better than Gamebyro, doesn't feel like you're just hovering in the air, etc among many other things and they did a great job making the world and dungeons feel organic. 80 some hours in and I've never felt like I've trekked through the same place twice.

Believe me I can slam Oblivion into the ground so hard there's no coming back though. Completely hated that one.

[Dylan]

Nintendo games have quality in a technical sense, but if we're talking artistic quality, creative inspiration, story telling, etc. than Nintendo games are a joke. You look at games like Okami and Beyond Good and Evil and they utterly destroy your typical Zelda game in those categories. I also find it laughable that Nintendo in 2013 still expects us to be invested in a character that is a fat plumber and an Italian stereotype or a mute Legolas wannabee.

Get with the times Nintendo.

Well, at least I can praise the strength of your conviction to hate Nintendo

Really though, you act like the only possible criteria to judge a game on is the complexity of its story telling and lead character. A game like Mario uses no resources on storytelling and totally owns that in the context of it being a video game. You're judging it on a criteria that's it's chosen to forgo, and at no expense to the enjoyment of its gameplay. It would be like if I criticized a game like Heavy Rain for not having action elements; that's such a baloney criticism because I'm bringing in an outside element to judge on that the game decidedly lacks at no expense to what it's trying to be. A game like Zelda is light on story for the main characters in favor of creating a vibrant, detailed world. Explore the characters and themes in a game like MM that lurk beneath the obvious overarching mission. Look at WW's portrayal of the drastically modified Hyrule (both in civilization and geography) brought about by world changing events. You're so fixated on the character of Link that you can't get past that to see the awesome worlds and environments that the Zelda games create. Just because you explore dungeons in every Zelda game doesn't mean that the compositions and presentations of those dungeons are homogeneous.

I challenge the assertion that Nintendo games are lacking visually and artistically, all of them have excellent visual presentation. Not only that, new entries in Nintendo series always go for new looks. In the context of Mario compare SMB3 to SMW to SM64 to SMS to SMG. All of these games go for different creative presentation and exhibit vibrant graphics and unique worlds. Similarly for Zelda compare LttP to OoT to WW to TP to SS, they're all drastically visually and tonally different in their presentation. The visual presentation in Zelda games is always good, whether it's the darker tones and designs in games like MM and TP, or whether it's the vibrant and caricaturized visuals from WW or SS.

[BogusMeatFactory]

I challenge the assertion that Nintendo games are lacking visually and artistically, all of them have excellent visual presentation. Not only that, new entries in Nintendo series always go for new looks. In the context of Mario compare SMB3 to SMW to SM64 to SMS to SMG. All of these games go for different creative presentation and exhibit vibrant graphics and unique worlds. Similarly for Zelda compare LttP to OoT to WW to TP to SS, they're all drastically visually and tonally different in their presentation. The visual presentation in Zelda games is always good, whether it's the darker tones and designs in games like MM and TP, or whether it's the vibrant and caricaturized visuals from WW or SS.

Don't forget their work on the Pikmin series, especially the most recent work. It looks amazing and the style is very unique.

And no one can say that the Earthbound/Mother series lacks any story, character and style. I have to say that each franchise that they have under their belt is drastically different from the other and, even though they put out a Mario related franchise on a regular basis, those games tend to be competently entertaining. Look at Mario Kart, we still eat up every version, because it is genuinely fun and entertaining!

[J T]

CDProjekt Red.
In my eyes, they are the cream of the crop. The elite. They have truly impressive games in terms of graphics, sound, and depth of storytelling and gameplay options. Plus, they throw countless bonuses at you. Not to mention they dare to be DRM free. I bought The Witcher 2 pretty early on, and it just keeps on giving. They added the Enhanced Edition, new bonuses, and most recently the REDKit, for doing mods and level editing. They didn't charge me anything for these additions. It was a similar story with the first Witcher that also gave out the enhanced edition patch for free, and I even got a digital copy on GOG for free. This is a company that knows how to please.

REALLY looking forward to their release of Cyberpunk 2077!

[Erik_Twice]

Namco-Bandai - Mr. Driller, Ms. Pacman, .hack, Tekken, Starfox Assault, new Super Smash Bros, Dig Dug II BITCH

Ms Pacman wasn't designed by Namco, it was an unlicensed hack that was brought into the franchise in the US.

[d123456]

Arc & Cave

[fastbilly1]

I have tossed this around for the last few hours and really only could come up with a few companies that have never let me down:
1. Valve - Their weakest title released is Ricochet, and even that is a hoot with five plus people jumping around
2. CD Projekt RED - Sadly they only have two completed games but they are exquisite. I would even go so far to say that even if both games were crap, what they have done with GOG makes them much more likable as a whole.
3. HAL Laboratory - Though they are known mostly for their big three: Kirby, Mother, and Smash Brothers; they have a huge portfolio and have made very few duds since their NES years.

[TheRev]

Sony and Atlus

[MrEco]

Oh look, another thread where people can say "I think x game is good" or "I think x game is bad" and other people can reply saying "No you're wrong." In reality it's all subjective but hardly anyone ever admits that.

Don't we have the "Unpopular Opinions" thread for this?