| 3 OCT 2008 at 7:59pm |
ShanyGuild Master
Posts : 3313
Joined: 19 JUN 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Cultura (3 OCT 2008 6:31pm)
adding to the list of recent flawed games:Operation Wintersun
Operation Wintersun is not only buggy, but also has lousy tech support. I've emailed the publishers 3 times, and even though they were pretty nice they didn't help at all.
An email to the developers got no response.
At least most of the other games you mention got a patch.
|
| 3 OCT 2008 at 9:27pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By nik2008ofs (3 OCT 2008 11:32am)
The final official Fallout 2 patch still leaves eight hundred (800) bugs unfixed, a lot of them quite serious. You have to install Killaps unofficial patch to play Fallout 2 the way it was meant to be experienced.
The same goes for Arcanum, Temple of Elemental Evil,Vampire Bloodlines (in other words, all of Troika's games), Anachronox, Ultima IX, Gothic 3, Sacred, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (the last two were eventually fixed with a number of official patches. In both cases it was more than a year after initial release before the games were "relatively bug free" to name but a few otherwise truly excellent games that were released half finished.
You and I may be willing to wait five to ten years for a fan made patch/mod to make the game playable, Terry, but those that aren't willing to do so have a legitimate complaint and should have the legal right to get a refund for a product that doesn't work as promised. I really can't see how anyone can argue against that.
Actually Nik, I played both Fallout and Fallout 2 when they were originally released without any patches and finished both without running into any game-ending bugs. I did however experience a few broken quests and lots of minor glitches.
Since then, I have thoroughly played both games from beginning to end with the final official patches installed no less that a dozen times each - using a wide assortment of main character types with all sorts of different skills, optional party members in every combo, and paths that crisscross the world maps in every direction.
Matter of fact I'm replaying the first game again right now and just finished clearing out the Mutants in Necropolis and getting the water chip last night.
There are only two bothersome bugs that I have experienced with the patches applied and both are in the far larger sequel.
One occurs occasionally in San Francisco if you leave party members there, exit the city and then try to return later on. Sometimes that map simply will not reload. So now I just leave them all in the parking lot in New Reno and have not experienced the bug since.
The other is a well-known glitch that blacks-out the Skilldex button on the main interface - usually the first time you enter the old Military Base just east of San Francisco. Not game-ending but a hassle, this corrects itself if you save in that area, exit the game, restart and reload.
If the unofficial patch fixes those two things, it would be nice. But I've explored every inch of every map, done every quest and completed both games many times without it.
Cheers, Terry
.
|
| 5 OCT 2008 at 11:10am |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | By the way: in (some sort of) a blacklist, you could also include companies that state minimum requirements on thier packaging, but when you get home (and have these specs) the game actually is unplayable because of stuttering, low framerates, delay and/or huge loadtimes. just to be able to sell the game to as many PC users as possible.
What is you bought a TV and it doesn't work on your regular AC/DC? You return it to the store. No such thing with games. Up to you to increase your specs or buy a new PC altogether.
|
| 5 OCT 2008 at 2:18pm |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | I'm on the fence here. I can see both sides of the argument, but I think it comes down to the type of bug it is. As Terry pointed out, you can't test your game on every possible system setup. Those technical bugs have to be forgivable to a certain extent. Now if they said it will run on XXX system and you happened to have an XXX system, then you would expect it to work.
When it comes to bugs in the game, then I think it depends on several factors. Developers do try to get these things tested by as many people as one can reasonably expect, they also have to depend on those testers to truly click around and do things that make no sense in order to try to break the game.
A good example would be the Walkie Talkie bug in The Lost Crown. Despite it going through testing, it wasn't until I was reviewing it that the bug showed up. Jonathan quickly issued a patch to address the issue. Does this mean the beta testers never tried to use the walkie talkie in the same place I did? Perhaps. But there is also the possibility that it worked when they did it, but a last minute change hosed it up.
Here's generally how it works for small developers. People are asking for a release date, the publisher is waiting and sending out press releases and paying for ads that proclaim the release date, some people have pre-ordered the game, etc. You are busy working away to fix last minute issues and your testers are hard at work (you hope!) trying to find more bugs. Just prior to sending it to the publisher, someone finds another bug. Crap! You quickly stomp on it and do a quick run through to make sure everything is functioning properly. You can't do a detailed run through because there just isn't anytime. You send off the gold copy to the publisher who starts the wheels rolling with the duplication and boxing process.
People start playing the game and report a bug. Oddly enough it's something that worked just fine every time the game was played before. Turns out your last minute change to fix a bug ended up breaking something else was working.
People complain about the developer missing something so obvious that there is no way the game was ever tested and make stupid posts on forums about how can the gaming industry get away with such rubbish.
For printed press, you have to get the advertisements to them 3 months prior to the issue coming out. When the publisher is spending that coin, the developer has given them the expected release date. That release date is based on educated guess work. If something goes wrong at the last minute, stuff happens... like patches.
Like it or not, while it IS the developers game and they have full control over it to a certain point - once you cross that point, other forces take over and run with it. So far my games are sold straight from my website and even then once they are released they take on a new life. Demos start popping up all over the place like shareware sites, file front, gamershell, etc. If a bug crops up, or the demo isn't making any waves because of other factors (maybe it wasn't long enough? Maybe I shouldn't have locked so many options, etc.), then it is next to impossible to go back and have those sites updated with a newer demo version. I can only imagine that once you have publishers and contracts involved, then the issues become a 100 times more complex and the developer really loses control over what is happening.
Personally I could care less about release dates that slip. No one will remember if a game was late - but they will never forget if it sucks or is buggy.
|
| 7 OCT 2008 at 6:46am |
onemanandhisdroidIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 16
Joined: 13 AUG 2008
Status : Online | Haven't played a game that was seriously bugged in ages, but then I don't play that many freshly squeezed games these days. With that many people being connected to the internet these days, one can witness pretty strange things occuring that weren't possible some odd ten+ years ago. Like patches getting released the very day a game starts lining the shelves. Occasionally. Technology is a-changing. So are times.
About software being rushed out the door: this has always been the case as far as consumer software is concerned, sometimes more, sometimes less, mind you. Games are no different. In a parallel universe far far away, every developer would be in a situation such like Blizzard's, where time really doesn't matter at all. But this is Earth. Things are kinda different here. Even hardware is affected: fat chance the processor running in your system came with more than a bug or two. Shocker, ain't it?
Bugs. Kind of a broad term it is. It's also topic that never gets old. Whether bugs are as serious an issue as this thread makes them out to be or not I cannot tell. They've never really been to me, even during times when I bought a lot more games. From personal experience it was the odd case you could easily single out that had me grumbling. A bloody lot at times. That I must confess.
Rather than just pointing fingers to publishers, deadlines and developers, I'd like to bring customers into the picture too. It has been done before, but this is something that cannot be stretched enough. For they belong in there as much as anybody else. Consumers who rush out to buy each game on release day ASAP, probably hitting an all-night-waiter outside the shop the night before... exist. Heck, if you've never once felt some kind of anticipation for game - what the hell brought you here, for a start? Still, it's not like games may occasionally get rushed out the door because it doesn't work out. Yet, unlike many a bug, this can be easily fixed. No one is forced to buy the pig in the poke these days. The times they are a-ch... oops, been there before, haven't I? Information is all over the place - and if it's just the web, be aware that this can be the source most misleading of all.
Originally Posted By Cultura (1 OCT 2008 10:50am)
But many people don't bother to do those things and they're often disappointed in their purchases. A lot of that IMO is their own fault - but obviously not all of it.
Obviously, I don't agree. Why should I have to wait for reviews and patches to come online before I buy a game? Sometimes reviews take forever, so I don't want to wait. I shouldn't have to anyway. I should be able, as a consumer, to trust the product that is being sold to me.
You shouldn't have to wait for patches for software to work, yes. I think nobody'd argue against that, not even developers and publishers involved. But to simply put trust in something borderlines on allegiance. Allegiance is creepy. Allegiance breeds contempt. "I don't care about quality anyway, give me the game!"
|
| 7 OCT 2008 at 11:13am |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | Although the above is probably one of the best written posts I'have read in a long, long time, I also must disagree.
Trusting a product (i.e. trusting the company that publishes it) should be a common practice in a sane world.
But alas, I'm arguing that these companies are not worthy of our trust (anymore), when even multi-billion giants such as EA or UbiSoft cannot be trusted to put a flawless product on the shelve.
Bugs that can easily be fixed with a small patch, I can live with (although it still shouldn't be necessary). But the case is unfortunately that products reach the shelves that have dealbreaking bugs - games that crash to desktop every 20 minutes or so.
That is a disgrace, even when Í am in a forgiving mood.
|
| 7 OCT 2008 at 2:49pm |
avatar_58Private Detective
Posts : 403
Joined: 27 MAY 2008
Status : Online | Originally Posted By onemanandhisdroid (7 OCT 2008 6:45am)
Rather than just pointing fingers to publishers, deadlines and developers, I'd like to bring customers into the picture too. It has been done before, but this is something that cannot be stretched enough. For they belong in there as much as anybody else. Consumers who rush out to buy each game on release day ASAP, probably hitting an all-night-waiter outside the shop the night before... exist. Heck, if you've never once felt some kind of anticipation for game - what the hell brought you here, for a start? Still, it's not like games may occasionally get rushed out the door because it doesn't work out. Yet, unlike many a bug, this can be easily fixed. No one is forced to buy the pig in the poke these days. The times they are a-ch... oops, been there before, haven't I? Information is all over the place - and if it's just the web, be aware that this can be the source most misleading of all.
If every single person did this we wouldn't have patches. Why patch an unpopular game that isn't selling? Without sales the company will not bother supporting the nagging issues.
Also considering even no name anti-hype games are bugged on release I'm going to have to suggest it's an internal issue, not the customers. Sometimes publishers are fed up of waiting and want it done yesterday. In fact this is the #1 reason why we have so many top tier classics that have required fan patches. I sincerly doubt Arcanum was rushed out to meet demand, considering no one had any idea who Troika was nor this new IP.
Then we have games like Stalker. This game took so long "rush" is hardly the reason it's bugged. It's just incompetence. It's drilled home by the fact that Clear Sky has even MORE bugs. They didn't even learn.
|
| 8 OCT 2008 at 10:20pm |
Steve VSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 265
Joined: 16 MAR 2008
Status : Online | There are bugs,and BUGS. EA can release Madden football games with the same punt return bug built in every year because although people have been complaining about it for 11 years (seriously) it doesn't actually impact the total gameplay package that much. On the other hand many people who bought Evil Under The Sun could not play the game because of 'white screen' dropouts that froze their systems..I believe TAC released the game knowing all about that problem, because it impacted a wide range of hardware configurations, and just relied on the fact that many people WILL hang on for patches in cases like this, even though they got a lot of negative publicity (relatively speaking) at the time...
|
| 9 OCT 2008 at 6:18pm |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | In legal terms, it might be difficult to point the finger. In the end, who can be held responsible for faulty games? The gamestudio? The publisher? The distributor? The shop?
This too makes it fairly straightforward for producers to release bug-ridden games.
And even dedicated media (such as websites for gamers) never really seem to condemn a game outright becasue of bugs. There's always some sort leeway for the producers ('well, they did their best' or even worse: 'hey, you wanted the game so quickly').
|
| 9 OCT 2008 at 6:57pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
That's generally true Cultura. But there have been some notable exceptions.
Take Vampire: The Masquearde - Redemption from Nihilistic and Activision for instance.
Upon its initial release, several big game sites posted very harsh reviews almost entirely because the game had some serious bugs, gameplay balance issues and a missing save-anywhere feature in the SP mode.
Instead of pointing fingers and making excuses, the developer and publisher immediately issued a joint public apology and promised a comprehensive patch within one month to fix ALL the problems. This they did in a brilliant and very, very small official patch (under 4 mb total) that addressed all the known bugs, completely eliminated the balance issues and added that critical save feature.
With the tiny patch installed, the game went from an exercise in hairpullling to a wonderful experience.
Unfortunately, it did not address the long-awaited MP Storyteller mode that relied on a ridiculously complex set of modding tools for the creation of necessary user-made content. But that was never the main focus of the game and the SP mode was terrific. It also introduced a superb new 3D engine that used an ingeniously efficient and innovative way of handling code for real-time graphics and sound.
In the end though, none of the major game sites would agree to redo their original reviews to reflect the huge improvements and many players simply avoided the title. Their first impressions based on those reviews were very bad and the sales were very disappointing. So we never saw any other games based on that marvelous 3D engine and the MP community never took off.
In this case, everyone lost out on a great opportunity to advance CRPGs in a whole new direction and that was the fault of a pushy publisher and a studio that caved into the pressure to release an otherwise great game before it was ready.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 10 OCT 2008 at 1:31am |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (9 OCT 2008 6:57pm)
In this case, everyone lost out on a great opportunity to advance CRPGs in a whole new direction and that was the fault of a pushy publisher and a studio that caved into the pressure to release an otherwise great game before it was ready.
Sounds like it was also the fault of lazy game review sites that couldn't be bothered to update their reviews.
|
| 10 OCT 2008 at 5:31am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By Jenny100 (10 OCT 2008 1:31am)
Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (9 OCT 2008 6:57pm)
In this case, everyone lost out on a great opportunity to advance CRPGs in a whole new direction and that was the fault of a pushy publisher and a studio that caved into the pressure to release an otherwise great game before it was ready.
Sounds like it was also the fault of lazy game review sites that couldn't be bothered to update their reviews.
In the two cases I recall specifically, Gamespot and IGN, it was the decision of the senior editors who cited their standard policies not to revise reviews based on patches. They basically said that their original reviews were perfectly fair and accurately represented the game they were given at the time of release.
Both however applauded the efforts of Nihilistic and Activision, giving the patch high marks for fixing pretty much all the problems quickly and in a remarkably small file. They highlighted the patch on their home pages with quick links to the file download and if memory serves, added special notes to the review pages. But they would not revise the main reviews because the retail version of the game that was still being sold remained unpatched.
Even though those very influencial game sites made an honest effort to inform people of how complete and efficient the patch was, the damage had already been done. Evidently, most consumers who saw the original reviews and relatively low scores got scared off and the sales never recovered.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 12 OCT 2008 at 12:59am |
onemanandhisdroidIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 16
Joined: 13 AUG 2008
Status : Online | Was Redemption really that poorly received? It also appears to have received quite a bit of critique for its supposedly repetitive combat and lackluster narrative. In all fairness, I never played the game. I wanted to. The setup sounded really interesting and all, but the demo consisted of repetitive by-the-numbers hack&slash with a vampire coating. Probably cost some sales, too. The general consensus seems to be that Bloodlines is a superior game. Still, one day I might give it a go, apparently the demo's not representative of the whole game. We need more vampire games! Just as long as they're not as bonkers as Dracula:The Last Sanctuary, that is.
If every single person did this we wouldn't have patches. Why patch an unpopular game that isn't selling? Without sales the company will not bother supporting the nagging issues.
Without sales the company wouldn't bother releasing any more (buggy) games, probably.
Also considering even no name anti-hype games are bugged on release I'm going to have to suggest it's an internal issue, not the customers. Sometimes publishers are fed up of waiting and want it done yesterday. In fact this is the #1 reason why we have so many top tier classics that have required fan patches. I sincerly doubt Arcanum was rushed out to meet demand, considering no one had any idea who Troika was nor this new IP.
Ah yes, bit-off-more-than-it-could-ever-hoped-to-chew-Troika. I think aiming high is a most noble thing to do. But if only they hadn't shied away from the oddball small-scale product - something many a studio/publisher appears to be scared chicken of doing anyway. Which is also a part of the issue at hand, me thinks. I shudder to think what brilliant a game Bloodlines could have been if they had opted for a scope within their reach. It's not that Troika's leading heads had been newcomers who didn't have any experience with things going out of hand at all. These guys had a track record with that kind of thing already. Oh bliss: a game that's all killer. No tedious filler - of which there was many in Bloodlines. On top of the bugs. Hey, I like Bloodlines myself! Sigh. :-/
|
| 12 OCT 2008 at 1:17am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Vampire: TMR always was a full-3D, real-time, Action-RPG. If a few reviewers thought it was supposed to be something else, that's really not the fault of the developer or publisher. They never said it was going to be a classic-style D& type game.
The main reviews (and a lot of the negative player buzz) at release focused mostly on several bad bugs, some serious gameplay balance issues and that missing save anywhere feature. They also mentioned the fact that the MP mode / mod community might fail due to the complexity of the editing tools. But mostly they complained about the SP game.
Once patched though, I had a great time playing it.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 12 OCT 2008 at 11:47pm |
Randy-JAJourneyman
Posts : 1351
Joined: 11 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | I've been following this thread for awhile and just wanted to add my two cents worth.
In my opinion, the gaming industry gets away with rubbish for 2 reasons:
1. People don't complain. I've had people write me over the years and ask me to tone down the rhetoric because they're afraid that companies won't make any more adventure games if the fans of the genre are complaining. This is beyond ludicrous.
2. The most important reason - companies make it almost impossible at times to complain. If you write a letter complaining about a game - no one responds. If you want to call them, it is impossible to find a contact number.
So if you do the common sense thing, which is not to purchase the game, then this backfires also. For example, if a movie comes out and crowds are just not there its always because it was a bad movie, or it got bad reviews. That doesn't mean a studio will never make another film of that type of genre again.
When a game does not sell, it is ALWAYS the opposite reasoning. You hardly ever hear that a game did not sell because it was bad or buggy, even though we know better, instead the publishers insist it was because 'there are not enough fans of that type of genre' or it was poorly marketed.
|
| 13 OCT 2008 at 10:53am |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | Yes, I fully agree, Randy, thanks for joining in this thread.
it easier to get the Pope to come dine with me, than get a response from multi-billion companies.
- Dreamfall (Aspyr/Funcom) - 3 emails, 3 identical standarised computer generated respones ('update your drivers' and so on) with no real solution, not even adressing the issue at hand.
- Blazing Angels 2 (Ubisoft) - 1 email, no response.
- Railroad Tycoon 3 (2K) - 1 email, ridiculous standard PC-generated response, no follow up whatsoever.
- Tomb Raider Legend (Eidos), 3 emails, no response at all.
One exception though:
Echo, secrets of the lost Cavern (Kheops).
Full response, clearly written by a living person. But this might be because the email I send was one of praise, not a complaint....
|
| 2 NOV 2008 at 6:16am |
An_InklingSpace Cadet
Posts : 171
Joined: 20 JUN 2008
Status : Online | A couple of points:
1. It is impossible to make bug-free games at a reasonable price. It's pretty much impossible to make bug-free games, period.
2. Game companies do not get away with games that are much more buggy than average, or than the consumer is willing to accept.
Some elaboration:
Software is complex, and particularly with games has many interacting components that are subject to change and to bugs of their own.
The closest we have to bug-free software are mission-critical or life-critical applications, which are produced at enormous cost (millions of dollars). Given their importance such software undergoes massive amounts of testing and is very unlikely to be installed in such a fluid and insecure environment as PC games. Despite all of this, they do still contain glitches and at times catastrophic bugs (eg. see plane crashes caused by software glitches). To think, that in this light, we should expect bug-free games, is unfair. You may say that computer games software is not as complex, but you would be incorrect in the sense that relates to bugs.
On point (2) - games that are more buggy than the norm almost always receive poor sales, and the company that makes them a bad name. Even some very good games are shunned by consumers because reviewers mention their buggy state. Rather than not being punished enough for buggy releases, I feel that some are too harshly dealt with (Arcanum, Vampire: Bloodlines and Gothic 3 some examples that come readily to mind). The dislike of bugs, and the disinclination to buy games said to be buggy is actually strong, and is a large factor in the low sales seen by many small developers.
So, whilst I do agree that some games do not receive the required degree of QA, I do not think it's the massive problem some claim it to be, and that calls for bug-free games are entirely unrealistic. I am patient enough to wait for a patch, especially for a game I know is good and is developed by a smaller company without the clout to delay their games, or with limited control over QA.
For me, it's simple - if you have a strong dislike of bugs, do not buy games close to release. We just have to hope there are some brave souls who do. This has another affect, as the more consumers who hold off on buying games early due to fear of bugs, the greater the motivation for companies to release more polished games. This is especially so, as the first couple of weeks of release is the most important sales period.
Who is this great burdensome slavering dog-thing that mediocres my every thought? ([i]Nick Cave - We Call Upon the Author[/i])
|
| 4 NOV 2008 at 3:12pm |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | For me, it's simple - if you have a strong dislike of bugs, do not buy games close to release. We just have to hope there are some brave souls who do. This has another affect, as the more consumers who hold off on buying games early due to fear of bugs, the greater the motivation for companies to release more polished games. This is especially so, as the first couple of weeks of release is the most important sales period.
This is ludicrous and says it all really. So customers that do want to buy close to release (you don't have much of a choice during the festive season) have to put up with bugs? And other brave souls should take the heat? They should pay the price for being enthusiastic about buying a game? What a weird (but not wonderful) world. Or, in fact, a wordl that has spun out of control. We, the customers, have a RIGHT to buy products that work.
|
| 7 NOV 2008 at 3:13am |
AkhillesPrivate Detective
Posts : 581
Joined: 21 JUL 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By TAS (30 SEP 2008 10:11pm)
Defending bugs? Fascinating. I would think a publisher would be appalled that bugs slipped through, and there'd be crisis control, then a fix, a patch, or a public apology. Book publishers publish billions of words and typos drive them bonkers. Yes, they are inevitable, but never, ever acceptable or rationalized with a shrug. Perhaps this is one reason consoles are popular and supported.
Not so much a defense of bugs, but an explanation.
It's the same problems OS's have -- Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows.
The Mac OS has to work on the same identical machine that every single Mac owner has. Windows has to work any random combination of components.
For games, if it's a console game, the amount of money spent to design a game, make it work, run it through quality assurance and test it excessively.. is FAR cheaper when it comes to having to design for a single platform.
For PC development... anything goes. What works on someone's box, may not work on someone else's even though they have nearly the same hardware.
Originally Posted By Cultura (4 NOV 2008 3:12pm)
This is ludicrous and says it all really. So customers that do want to buy close to release (you don't have much of a choice during the festive season) have to put up with bugs? And other brave souls should take the heat? They should pay the price for being enthusiastic about buying a game? What a weird (but not wonderful) world. Or, in fact, a wordl that has spun out of control. We, the customers, have a RIGHT to buy products that work.
Granted, you should get what you pay for, and that is a working product. But, like I stated previously, it's more likely that PC games are going to have more bugs but that all depends on who plays the game (in other words if your set of hardware wasn't tested, etc).
We're fortunate that adventure games are still being produced. With that in mind, the amount of money the current adventure game developers can get, the number of employees they can pay... isn't as much as the people making say... Madden 2010.
So, some things are going to suffer... and testing games to run on every single possibility of hardware simply isn't possible.
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
|
| 11 NOV 2008 at 11:39am |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | Perhaps game developers that cannot afford to pay for extensive testing and recoding, should focus on storytelling, rather than advanced graphic options and such.
I do not suppose indy Jonathan Boakes has the means to pay for extensive testing, so he opts (and has done in his earlier games) for a very low-spec way of presenting his games, such as DarkFall and (a bit more advanced) TLC. It works, and it pays. Nobody will blame him, and nobody does. His games run flawless, at least on my PC and look great too. Smaller publishing hoses/studio's such as Kheops abide to that principle as well: keep it (technically) simple.
The multinational companies such as EA, Ubisoft, or (publishing company) TAC however should be held accountable for the rubbish they put on the market. And my point is: nobody actually does (hold them responsible, that is).
They do not answer email, they are not very forthcoming with patches, they make a joke out of specifications they put in the packaging and they are in no way willing to refund customers who have bought a flawed game. That is what is bothering me.
|
| 12 NOV 2008 at 1:15am |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Cultura (11 NOV 2008 11:39am)
The multinational companies such as EA, Ubisoft, or (publishing company) TAC however should be held accountable for the rubbish they put on the market. And my point is: nobody actually does (hold them responsible, that is).
How do you propose people hold them responsible?
Gamers essentially have no rights.
|
| 12 NOV 2008 at 9:06am |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | well, that is exactly my point, isn't it?
When I buy a microwave-oven that is faulty, I get my money back from the store.
When I buy a game that has gamebreaking bugs (but does sort of run) I have no rights.
Can't say that is fair. The companies should have a refund policy. They do not, because we 'have no rights'.
(And should be happy that we get to play AG's at all. We may not complain, or else... they will stop making these game at all.... don't you dare complain! What where you thinking?)
|
| 13 NOV 2008 at 8:47am |
An_InklingSpace Cadet
Posts : 171
Joined: 20 JUN 2008
Status : Online | I don't believe that companies do routinely "put out rubbish", and feel some in this thread are overstating the problem. There are very few games released that simply can not be completed due to bugs. Those that are released with such critical bugs are usually quickly patched.
I'll return to my earlier point - it is impossible to make bug free games, certainly to do so at a reasonable price.
We have much more important software, developed at greater cost, and with much more exhaustive testing than any game, that still contain bugs on release. Some bugs can take years of operation before they become manifest. Bugs are a fact of life in software development. The comparison to microwaves or other less complex, less flexible post-purchase products is an unfair one.
So, rather than asking to eliminate bugs, we can ask for games to be adequately tested, and for any major bugs to be promptly fixed. On the whole, I think the industry does quite well on both counts. Most exceptions to this come about when a company is unable to provide the post-release support it would like, rather than unwilling.
The record on minor bugs is more patchy, big companies (like EA) can do without fixing them and will often ignore consumer demands, whereas smaller companies just do not have the resources (in fact, often patching of these games is the responsibility of the publisher).
The argument that some companies at times skimp on testing is a fair one (happens in all forms of software development, as "the suits" simply lack an understanding and appreciation of how long good testing takes (longer than development)). Though, I'd direct such criticism more towards publishers than developers. Rather than bashing developers as lazy or uncaring, I'd be advocating for a change in the developer-publisher model, even if only as a separate stream in the industry (much like indie or art films). It is this model that is largely the cause of games being developed simply as product, with quality and advancement at best a secondary concern.
Having said that, I strongly disagree that companies are not punished for game-breaking bugs. A game's sales (especially if developed by a smaller company) are often drastically affected by the buggy label.
Given this, I can assure you that no developer wants to produce buggy games. However, along with bugs, another fact of life in software development is delays. Software development time is notoriously difficult to schedule, and can be seriously set back for any number of reasons. The problem is, publishers are not accepting of such setbacks, and most developers do not have the power to demand extra time. It is for this reason that smaller developers often produce more buggy games. They are simply unable to delay their game for a year (ala Valve), and usually have a much shorter overall development time (often half or more). It is for this reason that I am more accepting of bugs from smaller companies.
Perhaps game developers that cannot afford to pay for extensive testing and recoding, should focus on storytelling, rather than advanced graphic options and such.
This would be very sad indeed.
I can do without the advanced graphics, but they are not the major source of bugs.
The industry already suffers from a lack of ambition.
We can not look to larger, mainstream developers for this ambition as they are shackled by a mass audience. Smaller developers are our only real hope. I certainly do not want them to forsake this ambition for stability.
I'll take an initially unstable, but eventually great and ambitious game, over a safe, stable, middle of the road product any day.
One of my favourite developers of the last decade (Troika), produced two games I consider amongst the best I've played (Arcanum, Vampire: Bloodlines). Both games were buggy on release, even unacceptably so. Do I which they'd scaled back their ambition in favour of stability? No. For me, these are the two best RPGs released this decade, and a few bugs do not change that. It may have been better for Troika to be less ambitious (they have since closed their doors), but it would not have been better for me.
I support quality games, whether they are buggy initially or not, and am happy to do so. Bugs are usually temporary, bad design is forever.
So yeah, bugs are bad, frustrating, enjoyment-killing (even more so for developers than consumers ), but they are a fact of life. We can discuss the testing and patching practises in the games industry, but it's unrealistic to demand bug-free or even game-breaking-bug-free games. It's my opinion that on the whole, the industry does a good job, and that consumers are demanding, often shunning a game said to be buggy (the reason why the industry does a good job, if they could get away with very buggy games, they would - talking game-breaking bugs, minor bugs are another story). In other words, I disagree with both of the OP's assertions.
Who is this great burdensome slavering dog-thing that mediocres my every thought? ([i]Nick Cave - We Call Upon the Author[/i])
|
