Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnotherGoodName | Hacker News Reader

Seems completely arbitrary to me honestly. Clearly some adjustments to the criteria are needed because this list reads unmaintained vs maintained as opposed to complete vs incomplete.

View on HN

I'd love to keep improving so if you have some examples that would be great

The entire page of ‘net yet’.

Counter strike 2, Dota 2, GTA 5, Red Dead Redemption etc. the list goes on. Everyone would consider these games maintained not incomplete. Maybe just merge not yet into complete? The ‘pending’ is more reasonable the ‘not yet’ list is clear nonsense.

But they aren't. They are live service games that are constantly getting updates and new content. They are "Complete" in the sense that you can play them, and live service games fall under a weird area where they are "finished" in the sense that they have active communities and are wildly considered released but they aren't "done" in the sense that they are always evolving, changing, and adding content.

That is why most of those games listed will have the "live service" tag. This isn't really a website for figuring out if live service games are complete. Its more for determining if a singleplayer game you are interested in has released every post launch dlc.

i would maybe clarify in the about page that it comes from a campaign lens versus a multiplayer lens

When in Rome (or when on the web)… You need to align with the expectations of users of your site for the site to have value to those users and this doesn’t align with user expectations.

People do wish to be informed if a game is missing core content and features. People in general don’t see it as a negative if new content is added to an otherwise complete game. You have a mismatch here with general consensus.

This mismatch means this is a site that only has worth to yourself. Which is ok if you’re ok with that. If you want others to gain value you have to change to meet their expectations.

So it’s up to you. You can stick to this idea and keep this website as you want it or you can adjust to the feedback given here and accept that these games are considered complete by the vast majority.

This is also true for HITMAN 2/World of Assassination. This game's whole premise is episodic releases and new targets. At this rate, the game will never be "released".

Cyberpunk 2077 is labeled as "Not yet. Released, but still in active development", but it's clearly a "Done" game, as in they've added a ton of stuff and development slowed since then. Still patches, yes, but should that mean "it's not done yet"?

I agree it seems more to be about "receives patches still or not", which is different compared to if major feature development essentially stopped.

Cyberpunk is a bit of an odd one. They have pretty long stretches between releasing major content. It certainly feels "done" but it had a LONG tail of development after launch. Phantom liberty is most likely the logical place to say its fully finished but cd projekt red haven't definitely stated there is no more content coming (and there might be with edge runners 2 about to release). So I would argue the assessment is fair, its most likely done, but we can't say for sure so we flag it still. Given enough time has passed, with no communication and no more updates, it will eventually flip over to done.

So a game is only done if you neglect it?

I wouldn't say this is making a judgement on neglect or care. Its just making a judgement on "Do we expect any more content coming for this game". A neglected game over time will become an answer, as will a cared for game with a "We now consider our journey complete" developer post.

I'm guessing for similar reasons you have The Witcher 3, a game released more than a decade ago, labeled as "Not done yet"? I'm not sure how this is supposed to be helpful, especially not when the labels will arbitrarily change back/forth as stuff is announced or it was a long time ago you heard about anything.

Most games do not change, is the leading principle. But bear this scenario in mind: A game is released, receives post launch support and then the developer posts a blog post stating "This was the final update, thanks for playing my game, there will be no more updates". The system reads that, makes the anaylsis and we mark it done. Then three years later the developre comes back and goes "PSYCHE! HERE IS AN AWESOME NEW UPDATE". Well we can't account for that, so the system will see the update and change it from done to not yet.

This is an imperfect system because its trying to assess a situation that has no actual contract. But for 90% of titles or more, when a game is flipped to done it won't suddenly be revived at a later date. The Witcher 3 being hte exception not the rule.

> "This was the final update, thanks for playing my game, there will be no more updates"

So you're only going to call abandoned and/or end-of-support games "done"? Even if they were abandoned because there wasn't more that needed fixing/balancing, you're still using a definition I have never seen any other human being use. If it would be done at a given version if the dev just left, isn't any game that provides access to run any version better than "done"? (Minecraft, for example.)

For any multiplayer game this seems to just favour yearly release slop over actually good games with good teams behind them.

Pretty sure Elden Ring is done.

Elden ring is still releasing content to the base game, like the Tarnished Pack which literally released today and adds some starting classes and other things. So the arguemnt which is made is that its basically not "done" and there is still more content to come

Thats overdone - almost burnt. Felt "done" after about a year / 9 or 10 patches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com