TheCheese33: No, I don't mean it like that. I mean there are plenty areas in the game that lack polish. For example, the mouth movements, the squad member telling the others where an enemy is, the voice acting itself, including the dialog...
Heck, so does OpFlash/ArmA, but I still love it because there's nothing like it, nothing else comes close.
TheCheese33: While many say that it does things no other games do in the market, it also lacks some basic things that many games have mastered doing. I'll borrow Rev from Destructoid's opinion of indie games and say that we should cut them no slack for what they failed to do, just because they're the only ones doing it. If I were their publisher, I would not be happy with them because of all the bugs that were left in the final game, and I would start to wonder if a new team could do the same things without the mess...
I'm first and foremost concerned with a game getting the core mechanics down. Whether or not it *does what it's supposed to do gameplay wise.* Anything after that is significantly less important. Too many games compromise on core mechanics, while spending time and money on the nonessentials.
And yes, a publisher would probably start to think that they could get somebody else to do it better. And they'd probably be wrong. I have yet to see a slick, polished, bug-free game that is also truly open-world and flexible. It can be done, sure. But it hasn't been done, and none of the big studios have tried. Because it's the hardest thing in gaming. So they axe flexibility and scope to get slickness.
ArmA 2 does the opposite, fine, I'd rather have it that way.
