Fallout 2 - what a dog
Thrasher
play it again and found that interplay's website is a dead FTP,
apparrently. Anyway, I found this wonderful review link page. Here's
how some of our favorite game sites reviewed Fallout 2:
- IGN - 8.9/10
- Adrenaline Vault - 3.5/5
- Game Revolution - B+
- Game Center - 8/10
A solid B!! One of the few classic games of the last 5 years got rated
as just about average by our oh-so-knowledgeable internet reviewers!
I'd be pretty pissed if I saw these reviews when the game was new, but
now that it's been over 4 years since it came out and is firmly
entrenched in the PC Game hall of fame, it's just funny to see how
badly our self-proclaimed game gurus blew it. There's games that came
out last year that I can't even remember the name of now that got
better scores than that.
Go net dorks!
Zeitman
game killing bugs, including at one that occurred every time you tried to
complete a certain quest which froze your computer completely. Eventually
the game was patched, by you can't blame game review sites for knocking off
points for a non-functional release.
"Thrasher" <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5q8rivcf15j75p0ae...@4ax.com...
Knight37
The game was extremely buggy at launch, I wouldn't be surprised if some of
those reviewers were taking that into consideration when they gave the game
the scores they did.
--
Knight37
If you wake up at a different time in a different place, could you wake up
as a different person?
-- Narrator played by Edward Norton, "Fight Club"
CCF
> The game was extremely buggy at launch, I wouldn't be surprised if some of
> those reviewers were taking that into consideration when they gave the game
> the scores they did.
Also, for reasons I've never understood, most game sites use a
gameplay/grahics/sound score and Fallout didn't rate really well on the
latter two. It is why the raw numbers rarely mean anything and you
actually, gasp, have to read the review to see what someone thought.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
person Knight37 <knig...@email.com> said
<snip>
>The game was extremely buggy at launch, I wouldn't be surprised if some of
>those reviewers were taking that into consideration when they gave the game
>the scores they did.
The game is still somewhat buggy even with the final patches - at least
the 'sanitised' UK version I played was.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
chainbreaker
> Also, for reasons I've never understood, most game sites use a
> gameplay/grahics/sound score and Fallout didn't rate really well on
> the latter two. It is why the raw numbers rarely mean anything and you
> actually, gasp, have to read the review to see what someone thought.
Besides, the ratings Thrasher cites aren't all *that* bad; they're certainly
above average and nothing to make me think a particular reviewer thought the
the game was a real stinker.
--
chainbreaker
Augustus
> play it again and found that interplay's website is a dead FTP,
> apparrently.
If you didn't find the patch, its still out there... some of the fan sites
have links to it
> A solid B!! One of the few classic games of the last 5 years got rated
> as just about average by our oh-so-knowledgeable internet reviewers!
>
> I'd be pretty pissed if I saw these reviews when the game was new, but
> now that it's been over 4 years since it came out and is firmly
> entrenched in the PC Game hall of fame, it's just funny to see how
> badly our self-proclaimed game gurus blew it. There's games that came
> out last year that I can't even remember the name of now that got
> better scores than that.
I don't know... the game didn't really get bad reviews, and I can kind of
see
it not getting GREAT reviews.
When it came out, it was what... 2 years after the first Fallout was out,
and the
game didn't really have any big improvements in the way of graphics (the
game
play was much better) and the designers themselves, in an interview about a
year after the game came out, said they thought they really over did the
sex, swearing
and bathroom humour... and that it detracted from the original feel and
storyline
of Fallout
In all too, when somebody asks me what I rate as my favorite RPG I've
played,
I usually say "Fallout 1 & 2" (as do a few people here), even though they
are 2
seperate games, they often get clumped together as one (I usually do this
because
I found Fallout to be funnier and overall better in the textual sense of the
game...
but Fallout 2 was such an improvement in the game engine itself... and it
had
the car)
CCF
Well and given that graphics scored poorly the reviws were likely:
Gameplay 10
Graphics 6
Overall 8..........
Jones
wrote:
>Besides, the ratings Thrasher cites aren't all *that* bad; they're certainly
>above average and nothing to make me think a particular reviewer thought the
>the game was a real stinker.
Correct. It just wasn't quite the follow-up to Fallout that
everybody was hoping for.
I think Thrasher is mistaken in thinking that "Fallout 2"
became a hall-of-fame legend. That's "Fallout" that did that.
"Fallout 2" was public-demanded follow-up that was somewhat
over-ambitious and was pushed out the door too soon. (That car trunk
["boot" for the Brits] *never* worked correctly for me, even with the
patches.)
Fallout was innovative, "ground breaking", bug-free, and the
documentation was _very_ well done - carrying the theme of the game
into the docs. One of the best things about Fallout when brand-new
was sitting down and reading through the manual before starting the
game; it set the mood and the mind-set for the game rather than just
telling you the key-mapping.
Fallout 2 was, sadly, none of those things. The flaws and
shortcomings did make it rather... average.
-Jones
Military Phonetic version of my address to spoof spam: jones at
November Echo Tango Sierra Echo Tango dot Charlie Oscar Mike
El Senor
> A solid B!! One of the few classic games of the last 5 years got
rated
> as just about average by our oh-so-knowledgeable internet reviewers!
Fallout 2 was one of the most overrated games of the last 5 years.
They apparently hired a different team of writers to do the sequel
since the writing sucked giant glowing brahmin turds from beginning to
end. The game also had no atmosphere. It did NOT feel like being in a
post-nuclear holocaust. It felt like being in a really, really bad
Douglas Adams novel set in a post-nuclear holocaust.
It wasn't really a bad game, but did not come close to being a
"classic."
-Mike
Thrasher
>Well, when Fallout 2 came out it was barely functional. There were several
>game killing bugs, including at one that occurred every time you tried to
>complete a certain quest which froze your computer completely. Eventually
>the game was patched, by you can't blame game review sites for knocking off
>points for a non-functional release.
Yes I can. An innaccurate review is an innaccurate review. They could
have given it high marks with disclaimers, but they didn't. They just
panned it instead.
Thrasher
>The game was extremely buggy at launch, I wouldn't be surprised if some of
>those reviewers were taking that into consideration when they gave the game
>the scores they did.
As I said in the other response, so what? You don't give an instant
classic two thumbs down because of a couple technical problems. You
give it two thumbs up and then point the problems out.
At least, that's what reviewers who want to be taken seriously would
do. Any game with less than 90%/4 stars/whatever is a turkey and
belongs on the bargain been. That's the rating system that game
reviewers have created for themselves the last 10 years by giving
scores higher than that to mediocre games.
Fallout 2 was shovelware?
Honestly, I don't understand how people can complain about the lack of
games *as good as Fallout 2* on the shelves today and then turn around
and justify the way *Fallout 2* itself was treated when it came out!
You gusy wanna know why there's nothing but shit on the shelves these
days? Look in the mirror.
Magius
wrote:
>CCF wrote:
And reviews are still subjective. Many reviewers may not have liked
the TB system, preferring RT and so deducted points. People in here
disagree all the time about games so it's not so far fetched to
believe that reviewers might find games you or I love to be just good
or average.
Lynley
Thrasher
<Imperia...@Rome.It> wrote:
>If you didn't find the patch, its still out there... some of the fan sites
>have links to it
I found it... I was tempted not to patch it, I played it with no
problems unpatched the first coupld times. But since the patch makes
old saves unusable, better safe than sorry I guess.
>I don't know... the game didn't really get bad reviews, and I can kind of
>see it not getting GREAT reviews.
Dunno about that, some really BAD games have gotten better reviews...
and you know what? I can't even REMEMBER any other game that came out
at the same time as Fallout 2, let alone whether they were any good or
not.
>When it came out, it was what... 2 years after the first Fallout was out
Really just a bit over a year... Fallout was a Christmas game and
Fallout two was an early year release as I recall.
>and the game didn't really have any big improvements in the way of graphics
Well, the graphics and the somewhat crude combat implementation (not
the game engine itself) were my only complaints with both Fallout
games. But, in retrospect, the complaint over the graphics wasn't
really valid. There are games coming out now that don't look any
better. And I know, because I played them, and now I'm playing Fallout
2 :p
Lionheart comes to mind. It's higher resolution but the graphics are
pretty poorly done and they don't have that certain retro Fallout
charm.
> (the game play was much better)
Dunno about that, I misplaced my Fallout 1 CD some years ago and
haven't been able to play it to compare.
>and the designers themselves, in an interview about a year after the game
>came out, said they thought they really over did the sex, swearing
>and bathroom humour... and that it detracted from the original feel and
>storyline of Fallout
Maybe so, but the story and dialogue are so much more entertaining
than newer games have been, I actually read it. Baldur's Gate 2 was
the last game I read the dialogue in, the rest of em haven't seemed
worth the trouble. I can invent better dialogue in my head on the fly,
why bother reading?
>In all too, when somebody asks me what I rate as my favorite RPG I've
>played, I usually say "Fallout 1 & 2" (as do a few people here)
I don't know any serious RPG fan who doesn't put the Fallout games in
the top 5, at least, of all time. Which is why I can't understand
people justifying the horrible treatment it got from the game press
when it came out. It took me *4 hours* of fiddling with my
configuration to get Ultima 7 to run without locking up on my system,
and even then it was unplayable to to the many dead end bugs (there
were *so* many things you could do that get you stuck) until they came
out with a major patch. Yet, Ultima 7 got more favorable press than
any other game that came out in 1992 - a year when Might & Magic 3,
Betrayal at Krondor, Wizardry 7, Ultima Underworld and others came
out, all of which installed and ran perfectly. And you know what?
That's the way it should have been. Ultima 7 was a more important game
and had a bigger impact on the industry and is better remembered than
those others. If reviewers in 1992 could differentiate Ultima 7 from
those others - and that was good company Ultima 7 was keeping - then
how come reviewers in 1998 couldn't tell the difference between
Fallout 2 and complete garbage?
Anyway, end of rant. The industry just isn't what it was in 1992, from
top to bottom, and hasn't been *since* 1992. That was the peak. 1998
made it seem briefly like the PC gaming industry was coming back, but
that was just an illussion. And no thanks to the game reviewers who
spent all of 1999 and 2000 telling us how the junk we were getting
those years was the best ever.
Zeitman
> Yes I can. An innaccurate review is an innaccurate review. They could
> have given it high marks with disclaimers, but they didn't. They just
> panned it instead.
The only way the reviews were innaccurate were in Fallout 2's favor. As
originally released, Fallout 2 was unplayable for anyone who took the
"Lloyd" quest. This quest froze your computer completely when you found
Lloyd. In fact half the New Reno quests were screwed, because you couldn't
advance in the New Reno story line until you completed the Lloyd quest.And
this was not patched until something like three weeks after the game's
release.
You could say that reviewers should have waited until after the patch to
review the game. But perhaps Interplay should have waited until the game was
fixed before they released it.
Personally I don't care. The Lloyd bug was royally annoying, especially
since I had no recent saves without the quest.And it isn't as if this bug
was the only one in Fallout 2. But ultimately I have to agree the game is
still a classic, though not quite as good as Fallout, imo.
But I still do see how you can blame reviewers for reviewing the game that
they were playing rather than the game that it MIGHT eventually become.
Werner Purrer
>
> Yes I can. An innaccurate review is an innaccurate review. They could
> have given it high marks with disclaimers, but they didn't. They just
> panned it instead.
So what I have known that for years, the discrepancy between hardcore gamers
and reviewer opinions usually is very big, after all reviewers write for
the dumb masses.
CCF
> On 4 Aug 2003 00:33:18 GMT, Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The game was extremely buggy at launch, I wouldn't be surprised if some of
>>those reviewers were taking that into consideration when they gave the game
>>the scores they did.
>
>
> As I said in the other response, so what? You don't give an instant
> classic two thumbs down because of a couple technical problems. You
> give it two thumbs up and then point the problems out.
>
It had game killing issues as well. Reviewers god damned well better
downgrade things if it is buggy as hell and can't be completed.
Reviewers have to review a game as is and not assume patching. I'd
prefer if sites took a game as is and then if patches corrected major
issues they'd do a follow up review and raise their scores ut uusally a
review is one shot and off.
Still, if a game is overly buggy I want to know becuase it changes me
from a early adopter to my more usual 6 months after release kind of
purchaser.
Lucian Wischik
>Reviewers have to review a game as is and not assume patching.
I don't think so. That seems like a completely arbitrary metric, and a
kind of pointless one. I want a review to guide me on how much I'm
going to enjoy playing the game. If the review only helps me in this
evaluation for the two weeks prior to the patch, then it's not very
useful to me.
--
Lucian
Michael Cargill
Please explain what an 'innacurate review' is. If a game is that buggy on
release, then it deserves to have points knocked off.
--
Craftily Guffed by Michael Cargill
----------------------------------
Eat My Cheese!
Michael Cargill
news:vaavivs90c4cg0mln...@4ax.com...
If a developer releases a game, then that is the version that should be
reviewed. Not everyone would have access to the patches, and what you hand
your money over the counter is the game you are going to play - if it needs
significant patches to be played properly then it should be marked down.
Not to mention that the patches may not be available when the reviewer plays
the game.
Michael Cargill
>
> Well, the graphics and the somewhat crude combat implementation (not
> the game engine itself) were my only complaints with both Fallout
> games. But, in retrospect, the complaint over the graphics wasn't
> really valid. There are games coming out now that don't look any
> better. And I know, because I played them, and now I'm playing Fallout
> 2 :p
>
> Lionheart comes to mind. It's higher resolution but the graphics are
> pretty poorly done and they don't have that certain retro Fallout
> charm.
I got Fallout 2 the other week, and I don't really see how you can say that
some games today don't have better graphics. F2's graphics look awful.
> Anyway, end of rant. The industry just isn't what it was in 1992, from
> top to bottom, and hasn't been *since* 1992. That was the peak. 1998
> made it seem briefly like the PC gaming industry was coming back, but
> that was just an illussion. And no thanks to the game reviewers who
> spent all of 1999 and 2000 telling us how the junk we were getting
> those years was the best ever.
I am glad that it isn't like 1992 anymore. The games today are far and away
better than anything that was available back then.
tritone
mikeme...@myrealbox.com says...
> better than anything that was available back then.
>
Depends on what you mean by "better'. In almost all technical aspects
the answer is a resounding "yes". Graphics quality, sound, and ease of
configuration have taken a quantum leap. The ability to create
immersive worlds and a convincing environment has increased greatly.
But when you abstract those things to consider content and the
intangible that I'll call the "gaming experience" this isn't
necessarilly true. You have to really be honest with yourself and think
about how much fun you had playing an older game and *that* is the
standard by which you measure newer games (which obviously win in the
technology department).
Michael Cargill
news:MPG.19998f90c...@news.supernews.com...
away
> > better than anything that was available back then.
> >
>
> Depends on what you mean by "better'. In almost all technical aspects
> the answer is a resounding "yes". Graphics quality, sound, and ease of
> configuration have taken a quantum leap. The ability to create
> immersive worlds and a convincing environment has increased greatly.
>
> But when you abstract those things to consider content and the
> intangible that I'll call the "gaming experience" this isn't
> necessarilly true. You have to really be honest with yourself and think
> about how much fun you had playing an older game and *that* is the
> standard by which you measure newer games (which obviously win in the
> technology department).
Todays games are far FAR superior. If they are more immersive and
convincing, then how can you say otherwise?
There are very few really old games that I can still play for more than ten
minutes. There is nothing from back then that can compare to the likes of
Medal of Honor, Morrowind, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, Halo, Baldurs Gate
2, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Splinter Cell, Wipeout 3, MotoGP and Phantasy
Star Online.
Lucian Wischik
>Not everyone would have access to the patches
Everyone who reads an online review has access to the patches. So this
argument of yours doesn't apply to online reviews.
>and what you hand your money over the counter is the game you are going to play
Rarely. I always download patches when I buy a game, and I suspect
most people who read online reviews do the same if they are available.
So, when there's an online review of a game like fallout2 whose patch
was available within two weeks, then "the game people are going to
play" is overwhelmingly likely to be the patched version.
--
Lucian
tritone
mikeme...@myrealbox.com says...
> "tritone" <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19998f90c...@news.supernews.com...
> > In article <bgoefa$ptd8f$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > mikeme...@myrealbox.com says...
> > >
> > > I am glad that it isn't like 1992 anymore. The games today are far and
> away
> > > better than anything that was available back then.
> > >
> >
> > Depends on what you mean by "better'. In almost all technical aspects
> > the answer is a resounding "yes". Graphics quality, sound, and ease of
> > configuration have taken a quantum leap. The ability to create
> > immersive worlds and a convincing environment has increased greatly.
> >
> > But when you abstract those things to consider content and the
> > intangible that I'll call the "gaming experience" this isn't
> > necessarilly true. You have to really be honest with yourself and think
> > about how much fun you had playing an older game and *that* is the
> > standard by which you measure newer games (which obviously win in the
> > technology department).
>
> Todays games are far FAR superior. If they are more immersive and
> convincing, then how can you say otherwise?
Some are superior. But some are just as good or worse when you take
into consideration the current technology level.
> There are very few really old games that I can still play for more than ten
> minutes. T
Same here. My expectations in graphics and sound have advanced.
> here is nothing from back then that can compare to the likes of
> Medal of Honor, Morrowind, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, Halo, Baldurs Gate
> 2, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Splinter Cell, Wipeout 3, MotoGP and Phantasy
> Star Online.
Step ahead into the future. New innovations will eventually cause these
games (Splinter Cell, Deus Ex, SS2,etc) to become obselete and no longer
interesting to play. Are they still good/great games as you claim? Of
course. That's my point. You take the gaming expereince you had AT
THE TIME as a reference by which to judge future games. This means
that games that break new ground or add new ways to have "fun" actually
DO become superior to older titles (that didn't) while those that are
fun, but still stay within the bounds of what's possible at the time
(i.e. what you're used to seeing in games) are still good games, but not
necesarrily "better" than older games if you're basing it on the
intangible I call "gaming expereince."
For exmample, I really enjoyed Baldur's Gate 2. But did I have a
greater experience when I played Ultima 7 and Ultima 7: Part 2 back in
the early 90s? I did. What about Gothic? I loved that game. As much as
"Starflight?" -- not quite.
Of course, maybe all this is just the BS ramblings of a jaded gamer.
Cause honestly, I can't see myself going back and playing Starflight
again without updated graphics and sound. But 10 years from now when
games have mega-polygons, even more life-like enviornments, and sensory
devices that give your body realtime feedback -- will I be able to go
back to "old" stuff like Half Life 2 or Doom 3?
Probably NOT. But the FUN, the EXPERIENCE I had with game at the time
is locked in my mind. *That* is what counts.
tritone
elk...@yahoo.com says...
> Step ahead into the future. New innovations will eventually cause these
> games (Splinter Cell, Deus Ex, SS2,etc) to become obselete and no longer
> interesting to play. Are they still good/great games as you claim? Of
> course. That's my point. You take the gaming expereince you had AT
> THE TIME as a reference by which to judge future games. This means
> that games that break new ground or add new ways to have "fun" actually
> DO become superior to older titles (that didn't) while those that are
> fun, but still stay within the bounds of what's possible at the time
> (i.e. what you're used to seeing in games) are still good games, but not
> necesarrily "better" than older games if you're basing it on the
> intangible I call "gaming expereince."
>
> For exmample, I really enjoyed Baldur's Gate 2. But did I have a
> greater experience when I played Ultima 7 and Ultima 7: Part 2 back in
> the early 90s? I did. What about Gothic? I loved that game. As much as
> "Starflight?" -- not quite.
Ok, I want to add more thoughts. See, I think this is the problem with
game reviewers whose only experience is with "recent" games. They end
up overrating stuff because they don't have enough years of playing
games to know how to gauge the "gaming experience". This is why you end
up seeing so much overrating (like Planescape: Torment), and "Best xxx
EVAR" type stuff.
When this happens, it becomes tougher to figure out what is truly
exceptional, and what is just "good". This is a big problem.
There have only been a handful of really exceptional games within the
last 5 years that I would gladly hold up to my "classics" (that being:
Wasteland, Starflight, System Shock, Ultima Underworld, Ultima 5&7,
HOMM2). These games are Wizardy 8, Gothic, and Jagged Alliance 2. I
can say without hesitation that these are exceptional games. And that is
taking into account this "gaming experience" I refer to.
Michael Cargill
> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >Not everyone would have access to the patches
>
> Everyone who reads an online review has access to the patches. So this
> argument of yours doesn't apply to online reviews.
First of all, I didn't say that it applied to only online reviews.
Secondly, you are assuming that everyone who reads an online review either
owns that PC or has a decent connection to download large patches - which
will not always be the case.
> >and what you hand your money over the counter is the game you are going
to play
>
> Rarely. I always download patches when I buy a game, and I suspect
> most people who read online reviews do the same if they are available.
>
> So, when there's an online review of a game like fallout2 whose patch
> was available within two weeks, then "the game people are going to
> play" is overwhelmingly likely to be the patched version.
And if the patch isn't available?
If someone reviews the game as it is given to them and slates it, then the
developer cannot moan 'but the patch fixed that problem!'. They should have
fixed the problems BEFORE releasing it.
A game should really be reviewed as it is, because that is how the game is
being bought. When you buy the game, you don't get a sign on the box saying
'Warning! This game is unfinished, and you will not be able to complete it
without first going to www.plop.com and downloading the 20Mb patch!'.
Someone on dial up is going to have to wait a few hours downloading that
patch, or spending another £5 on a PC mag that might already have it - which
is a disgusting practice for PC developers to get into.
If developers don't want want reviewers to judge the game as they get it,
then they should finish the game before releasing it.
chainbreaker
> Ok, I want to add more thoughts. See, I think this is the problem
> with game reviewers whose only experience is with "recent" games.
> They end
> up overrating stuff because they don't have enough years of playing
> games to know how to gauge the "gaming experience". This is why you
> end up seeing so much overrating (like Planescape: Torment), and
> "Best xxx EVAR" type stuff.
>
> When this happens, it becomes tougher to figure out what is truly
> exceptional, and what is just "good". This is a big problem.
>
> There have only been a handful of really exceptional games within the
> last 5 years that I would gladly hold up to my "classics" (that being:
> Wasteland, Starflight, System Shock, Ultima Underworld, Ultima 5&7,
> HOMM2). These games are Wizardy 8, Gothic, and Jagged Alliance 2. I
> can say without hesitation that these are exceptional games. And that
> is taking into account this "gaming experience" I refer to.
I feel much the same and have evidently played as long as you have, since
I've played every single one of the games you mention. Couldn't argue with
your exceptional list at all.
I'd have to add Diablo2/Lod to your "recent" list, though--IMO it's just as
much RPG as some of the others, and I've never come close to playing a game
3+ years before, and probably never will again.
I assume you've limited your list to RPG and "RPG-type" games, otherwise I'd
add a few more to both your "classics" and "recents". :-)
--
chainbreaker
Xocyll
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Heh, went looking for a Fallout 2 patch on the web since I decided to
>play it again and found that interplay's website is a dead FTP,
>apparrently. Anyway, I found this wonderful review link page. Here's
>how some of our favorite game sites reviewed Fallout 2:
>
>
>- IGN - 8.9/10
>- Adrenaline Vault - 3.5/5
>- Game Revolution - B+
>- Game Center - 8/10
>
>
>A solid B!! One of the few classic games of the last 5 years got rated
>as just about average by our oh-so-knowledgeable internet reviewers!
It might have been classic, but it had more bugs than any 3 other games
combined.
I never finished Fallout 2, since it crashed to desktop and/or
completely froze the machine about every 15-20 minutes.
Add to that quests that _had_ to be accepted instantly or be lost
forever, characters that wouldn't talk to you at all if you refused a
quest and the game was just a BORE.
Don't talk to anyone unless you're ready to instantly run off and do a
quest for them pretty much blew the RPG part all to hell.
>I'd be pretty pissed if I saw these reviews when the game was new, but
>now that it's been over 4 years since it came out and is firmly
>entrenched in the PC Game hall of fame, it's just funny to see how
>badly our self-proclaimed game gurus blew it. There's games that came
>out last year that I can't even remember the name of now that got
>better scores than that.
Personally I think they rated it high, but maybe they were luckier and
didn't have it crash all the time.
Fallout 2 still holds the record as the buggiest game I ever played, and
is one of a very few games I never finished.
I simply couldn't face the hundreds of crashes and lockups that would
have been required to finish it. No game, however "classic" it may be,
is worth that trouble.
Xocyll
Julie d'Aubigny
The myth of the "dumb/unwashed masses" really needs to be addressed in a
scholarly paper at some point.
--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kalima...@attbi.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes me!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
Julie d'Aubigny
Reviews come out as close to the same time as the games come out, which
means they get reviewed pre-patching. Now, a lot of online sites are
fairly hostile to the idea of doing a second review with patches in
mind, and that's another story. However, it's unrealistic to wait for
patches to do a review at all.
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>In article <bgoefa$ptd8f$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Fun then and fun now aren't necessarily the same thing.
Half a loaf seems like a lot until you've had the whole loaf.
Doom sprites and it's pseudo 3d environment were impressive then, but
they're crap now that we've actually seen fully 3d environments with
fully 3d critters in them.
Look at old TV shows which were very enjoyable to watch when they came
out and are _painful_ to watch now. Battlestar Galactica for just one
example - loved it as a kid when it was new, looked at it a couple years
ago when they started rebroadcasting it and could not watch it, it was
so bad.
Ataris, colecovisions etc were great game systems in their time, but
that time has long since passed.
As the old aphorism says "you can't go back again".
Xocyll
Thrasher
<mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Todays games are far FAR superior. If they are more immersive and
>convincing, then how can you say otherwise?
Says you... I've already played Fallout 2 about 4 times and I'm
*still* enjoying it more than most the games I've played so far this
year.
>There are very few really old games that I can still play for more than ten
>minutes.
Well, that's your problem not mine. Was XXX with Vin Diesel a better
movie than the original Terminator with Arnold Shwarzenegger just
because it was 20 years newer and had better special effects? Is there
*any* Star Wars fan who thinks the new "Episode One" is better than
the old original "Star Wars", even though they were made by the same
people and Episode One is 25 years newer?
Yours is a shallow and low brow way of looking at the world. I suppose
you think your physics prof is smarter than Albert Einstein too. How
could he not be? Albert Einstein died over 40 years ago, whatever he
had to say is irrelevant in today's world.
Thrasher
<ilovebri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It wasn't really a bad game, but did not come close to being a
>"classic."
Tell that to the people who run sites like this:
That guy posting on the news page is apparrently a retard, by the way.
A vacuum tube based computer that could do what my desktop P4-2.4 Ghz
can do would be the size of a football field, and there's never been a
9mm pistol round that will out-penetrate a .45 - it's chosen
exclusively for it's low recoil and higher magazine capacity, not it's
ballistics. Just a couple of the flaws in his "I am expert of all"
commentary - but that doesn't change the fact that Fallout and Fallout
2 have a dedicated and active fan following even after all this time.
What needs to happen, in your eyes, for a game to be a classic?
>Fallout 2 was one of the most overrated games of the last 5 years.
Overrated by players? That must be what you mean since it obviously
*wasn't* overrated by critics. How can players overrate a game they
play? Can movie goers overrate a movie?
Ridiculous. If you don't agree with them, say they have no taste,
don't try to make a claim that they have somehow overrated the game.
You could always just call them retards, that's what I like to do when
people praise a game I despise.
Thrasher
>It had game killing issues as well. Reviewers god damned well better
>downgrade things if it is buggy as hell and can't be completed.
Yeah. Right. SO a movie reviewer would say something like this:
"Well, I just saw "Movie X" and I must say, I haven't enjoyed a movie
so much in years. However, there was a scene where I couldn't make out
the dialogue and there was another scene that seemed to drag on too
long, so I'm going to rate it lower than the other 3 movies I'm
reviewing this week even though I didn't even like them"
Makes sense to me :p
>Reviewers have to review a game as is and not assume patching.
Why? They never did in the past, even when people had to use a 2400
modem and dial a BBS to get patches. Do you have *any* idea how many
classic games were unplayable unpatched? Ultima 7 is not the only one,
though it probably had the all time record for game breaking bugs.
>Still, if a game is overly buggy I want to know becuase it changes me
>from a early adopter to my more usual 6 months after release kind of
>purchaser.
That's fine. That's exactly what I said about reviewing the game on
it's content and then qualifying your review by laying out any
technical problems the game may have. That tells *you* what you want
to know without telling the rest of us that a great game is a crap.
Lucian Wischik
>Ok, I want to add more thoughts. See, I think this is the problem with
>game reviewers whose only experience is with "recent" games. They end
>up overrating stuff because they don't have enough years of playing
>games to know how to gauge the "gaming experience". This is why you end
>up seeing so much overrating (like Planescape: Torment)
That's just down to your sour grapes!
I've been playing computer games since the early 1980s, and still
regularly replay games from the latish 80s because I still find them
interesting -- Laser Squad and Psytron particularly. And even despite
this long history of game-playing I say that PST is one of the very
best games ever...
--
Lucian
Russell Wallace
<we...@operamail.com> wrote:
>So what I have known that for years, the discrepancy between hardcore gamers
>and reviewer opinions usually is very big, after all reviewers write for
>the dumb masses.
It's the other way around. Reviewers tend to be obsessed with novelty
and technical virtuosity for their own sake; this is understandable
given that games are their profession, but I'd find a lot of reviews
more useful if they'd pay a bit more attention to little things like
"is this game actually any fun for amateurs to play?".
--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
Russell Wallace
wrote:
>I don't think so. That seems like a completely arbitrary metric, and a
>kind of pointless one. I want a review to guide me on how much I'm
>going to enjoy playing the game. If the review only helps me in this
>evaluation for the two weeks prior to the patch, then it's not very
>useful to me.
A review is, more or less by definition, an evaluation of the product
the writer has in his hands. An evaluation of the product the writer
_hopes_ he will have in his hands two weeks from now is a fine thing
to write, but it's a _pre_view not a _re_view, and should be labelled
as such.
Now, if the patch is available by the time the review is written, then
by all means it should be taken into account (provided of course the
writer is clear about the need to obtain the patch, and the procedure
for doing so). However, most reviews are written ASAP. Presumably the
publishers figure most of their customers want it that way; perhaps
they're right.
Lucian Wischik
>A review is, more or less by definition, an evaluation of the product
>the writer has in his hands.
True. So any reviewer or review site who fails to update a review when
a patch comes out, has basically resigned him/herself to providing
unuseful reviews. (at least, for those games like Fallout2 that were
significantly improved by their patches).
I really liked the old Gamesdomain when they had their "second
opinions".
--
Lucian
Russell Wallace
>But when you abstract those things to consider content and the
>intangible that I'll call the "gaming experience" this isn't
>necessarilly true. You have to really be honest with yourself and think
>about how much fun you had playing an older game and *that* is the
>standard by which you measure newer games
If you use that standard of comparison, it will tell you nothing
whatsoever about the games themselves; all you'll achieve is to
discover that nothing can ever be as much fun as it was back when you
were young and it was all new and exciting.
And we knew that already.
Russell Wallace
wrote:
>True. So any reviewer or review site who fails to update a review when
>a patch comes out, has basically resigned him/herself to providing
>unuseful reviews. (at least, for those games like Fallout2 that were
>significantly improved by their patches).
>
>I really liked the old Gamesdomain when they had their "second
>opinions".
Not sure I'd go so far as to call a typical review "unuseful", but I'd
certainly agree that where a patch makes a significant difference, an
update to the review is good to have.
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> Ataris, colecovisions etc were great game systems in their time, but
> that time has long since passed.
>
> As the old aphorism says "you can't go back again".
I still enjoy Doom and Adventure. What does that say?
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> wallacet...@eircom.net (Russell Wallace) wrote:
> >A review is, more or less by definition, an evaluation of the product
> >the writer has in his hands.
>
> True. So any reviewer or review site who fails to update a review when
> a patch comes out, has basically resigned him/herself to providing
> unuseful reviews. (at least, for those games like Fallout2 that were
> significantly improved by their patches).
That would be pretty much all the review sites. I have seen only one
exception (Starfleet Command on Gamespot), although others may exist. If
they do, it's on a case-by-case basis, and not as a policy.
And what about magazine reviews? Do you expect editors to fill up space
with "post-patch reviews?" And at what stages should a patched product
be reviewed? How many times would Diablo 2 have been reviewed by now
under that policy?
Knight37
> Ok, I want to add more thoughts. See, I think this is the problem with
> game reviewers whose only experience is with "recent" games. They end
> up overrating stuff because they don't have enough years of playing
> games to know how to gauge the "gaming experience". This is why you end
> up seeing so much overrating (like Planescape: Torment), and "Best xxx
> EVAR" type stuff.
I have been playing RPG games since Wizardry 1 and Planescape: Torment is
not an overrated game, if anything it was underrated. It is quite simply
the best RPG that has been released to date. It ranks right up there with
Fallout and the Ultimas.
--
Knight37
"When you have to shoot, SHOOT, don't talk!"
-- Tuco, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
Knight37
> On 4 Aug 2003 00:33:18 GMT, Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>The game was extremely buggy at launch, I wouldn't be surprised if
>>some of those reviewers were taking that into consideration when they
>>gave the game the scores they did.
>
> As I said in the other response, so what? You don't give an instant
> classic two thumbs down because of a couple technical problems. You
> give it two thumbs up and then point the problems out.
I don't see an 80% score to be two thumbs down, I see it as above average.
> Fallout 2 was shovelware?
That's not what those reviews you mentioned said, no.
> Honestly, I don't understand how people can complain about the lack of
> games *as good as Fallout 2* on the shelves today and then turn around
> and justify the way *Fallout 2* itself was treated when it came out!
I remember a different Fallout 2 launch than you did, I remember a lot of
pissed off players with game-breaking bugs.
> You gusy wanna know why there's nothing but shit on the shelves these
> days? Look in the mirror.
Shit is in the nose of the beholder.
--
Knight37
When I need a drug in me
And it brings out the thug in me
Feel something tugging me
Then I want the real thing not tokens
-- Depeche Mode, "Sweetest Perfection"
Knight37
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:11:02 GMT, CCF <c...@XsprintmailX.com> wrote:
>
>>It had game killing issues as well. Reviewers god damned well better
>>downgrade things if it is buggy as hell and can't be completed.
>
> Yeah. Right. SO a movie reviewer would say something like this:
>
> "Well, I just saw "Movie X" and I must say, I haven't enjoyed a movie
> so much in years. However, there was a scene where I couldn't make out
> the dialogue and there was another scene that seemed to drag on too
> long, so I'm going to rate it lower than the other 3 movies I'm
> reviewing this week even though I didn't even like them"
>
> Makes sense to me :p
If the movie had a 20% chance to stop working about 2/3 of the way into it,
then I'd expect that movie to get panned by the critics.
>>Reviewers have to review a game as is and not assume patching.
>
> Why? They never did in the past, even when people had to use a 2400
> modem and dial a BBS to get patches. Do you have *any* idea how many
> classic games were unplayable unpatched? Ultima 7 is not the only one,
> though it probably had the all time record for game breaking bugs.
Reviews presumably are done before the patch comes out. I don't expect
reviewers to go back and replay the game with patches just to update their
reviews. If publishers want patches taken into account in their reviews
then they should fix their games before they release them.
>>Still, if a game is overly buggy I want to know becuase it changes me
>>from a early adopter to my more usual 6 months after release kind of
>>purchaser.
>
> That's fine. That's exactly what I said about reviewing the game on
> it's content and then qualifying your review by laying out any
> technical problems the game may have. That tells *you* what you want
> to know without telling the rest of us that a great game is a crap.
IMHO, a buggy game deserves lower scores. Period.
--
Knight37
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
-- Narrator played by Edward Norton, "Fight Club"
El Senor
> Just a couple of the flaws in his "I am expert of all"
> commentary - but that doesn't change the fact that Fallout and
Fallout
> 2 have a dedicated and active fan following even after all this
time.
It seems that when you say "classic," you are refering to what is
normally called a "cult classic," that is a work which retains a small
but loyal following for many years after its production. If you mean
to say that Fallout 2 is a "cult classic," then I agree with you.
> What needs to happen, in your eyes, for a game to be a classic?
A classic work must either increase the knowledge of techniques
available for use in works in its category, or perfect the use of
techniques which are already known. Masaccio's virgin with chld is a
classic because it demonstrates the introduction of the one-point
perspective. Leonardo's mona lisa is a classic because it demonstrates
the perfection of this and other techniques.
Fallout was a classic because it introduced a new, highly effective
skill system and combat system, combining this with a great storyline
and interesting characters. Fallout 2 was just a mediocre Fallout
clone, whose team of writers apparently had no knowledge of basic
theatrical storytelling techniques. Its gameplay was good, but no
better than the original Fallout's. Since Fallout 2 neither innovated
nor remotely achieved perfection in any unique way, it cannot be a
classic.
> Overrated by players? That must be what you mean since it obviously
> *wasn't* overrated by critics. How can players overrate a game they
> play? Can movie goers overrate a movie?
To be a critic, all one needs is a computer, an internet connection,
and a basic grasp of the English language. Reviews of games are posted
to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.* all the time, and several (including yours)
have been posted in this thread. Reviews can overrate games by
focusing narrowly on their strong points while ignoring their flaws.
In my opinion, Fallout 2 is generally overrated.
> Ridiculous. If you don't agree with them, say they have no taste,
> don't try to make a claim that they have somehow overrated the game.
Why not? A reviewer's personal taste is unrelated to the
contents of his review. It is possible enjoy a game even if it sucks.
-Mike
Lucian Wischik
>And what about magazine reviews? Do you expect editors to fill up space
>with "post-patch reviews?"
No, I just don't expect magazines to be read for the usefulness of
their reviews...
--
Lucian
Michael Cargill
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:28:52 +0100, "Michael Cargill"
> <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >Todays games are far FAR superior. If they are more immersive and
> >convincing, then how can you say otherwise?
>
> Says you... I've already played Fallout 2 about 4 times and I'm
> *still* enjoying it more than most the games I've played so far this
> year.
To qoute a recent fool... "Says you...".
I have played the games released in recent years far more than the old
games.
> >There are very few really old games that I can still play for more than
ten
> >minutes.
>
> Well, that's your problem not mine. Was XXX with Vin Diesel a better
> movie than the original Terminator with Arnold Shwarzenegger just
> because it was 20 years newer and had better special effects? Is there
> *any* Star Wars fan who thinks the new "Episode One" is better than
> the old original "Star Wars", even though they were made by the same
> people and Episode One is 25 years newer?
If you are going to try and use a film analogy, then don't be so stupid
about it. Choosing a below par modern film, and comparing it with a good
old film is a poor comparison.
Though I do have to say, I find the original Terminator film to be very
cheesy now. I haven't actually seen XXX, though.
> Yours is a shallow and low brow way of looking at the world. I suppose
> you think your physics prof is smarter than Albert Einstein too. How
> could he not be? Albert Einstein died over 40 years ago, whatever he
> had to say is irrelevant in today's world.
And you are just a fucking idiot.
So I am shallow, merely because I prefer the new modern games am I? Don't
make me laugh.
tritone
says...
> tritone <elk...@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:
>
> > Ok, I want to add more thoughts. See, I think this is the problem with
> > game reviewers whose only experience is with "recent" games. They end
> > up overrating stuff because they don't have enough years of playing
> > games to know how to gauge the "gaming experience". This is why you end
> > up seeing so much overrating (like Planescape: Torment), and "Best xxx
> > EVAR" type stuff.
>
> I have been playing RPG games since Wizardry 1 and Planescape: Torment is
> not an overrated game, if anything it was underrated. It is quite simply
> the best RPG that has been released to date. It ranks right up there with
> Fallout and the Ultimas.
>
;-) Yall must understand that I am out to get PS:Torment. I will never
forgive it for not being the great classic it was held up to be (in my
eyes at least). I thought ---well, how could so many RPG experts be
wrong? And what do I get -- ok, a good game maybe. But nothing that
kind of "WOW" good game.
To be fair, you can get back at me by derailing anything related to the
Gothic series.
Michael Cargill
news:MPG.1999afe21...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <bgoihg$qmm60$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> mikeme...@myrealbox.com says...
> >
> > Todays games are far FAR superior. If they are more immersive and
> > convincing, then how can you say otherwise?
>
> into consideration the current technology level.
Todays 'best' games are far superior to yesterdays 'best' games. You can't
'take into consideration' the technology level either - things like
graphics, sound and physics are all important parts of a game and the better
they are then the better a game will be.
Whilst they cannot make a poor game playable, they make a top quality game
even BETTER.
> > There are very few really old games that I can still play for more than
ten
> > minutes. T
>
> Same here. My expectations in graphics and sound have advanced.
It is not just in graphics and sound, though. Going back to many games is
painful to PLAY, not just to look at.
> > here is nothing from back then that can compare to the likes of
> > Medal of Honor, Morrowind, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, Halo, Baldurs
Gate
> > 2, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Splinter Cell, Wipeout 3, MotoGP and
Phantasy
> > Star Online.
>
> Step ahead into the future. New innovations will eventually cause these
> games (Splinter Cell, Deus Ex, SS2,etc) to become obselete and no longer
> interesting to play. Are they still good/great games as you claim?
Once it gets to a point, those games will no longer be any good.
> Of
> course. That's my point. You take the gaming expereince you had AT
> THE TIME as a reference by which to judge future games. This means
> that games that break new ground or add new ways to have "fun" actually
> DO become superior to older titles (that didn't) while those that are
> fun, but still stay within the bounds of what's possible at the time
> (i.e. what you're used to seeing in games) are still good games, but not
> necesarrily "better" than older games if you're basing it on the
> intangible I call "gaming expereince."
Even if a new game is similar to an old one, chances are that it will play
far better. For example, look at Rez on the Dreamcast - it is VERY similar
to Space Harrier but is a far better game to play.
Even Tempest 2K on the Jaguar is better than the original Tempest game,
despite there not being a great deal of difference between them.
> For exmample, I really enjoyed Baldur's Gate 2. But did I have a
> greater experience when I played Ultima 7 and Ultima 7: Part 2 back in
> the early 90s? I did. What about Gothic? I loved that game. As much as
> "Starflight?" -- not quite.
>
> Of course, maybe all this is just the BS ramblings of a jaded gamer.
>
> Cause honestly, I can't see myself going back and playing Starflight
> again without updated graphics and sound. But 10 years from now when
> games have mega-polygons, even more life-like enviornments, and sensory
> devices that give your body realtime feedback -- will I be able to go
> back to "old" stuff like Half Life 2 or Doom 3?
>
> Probably NOT. But the FUN, the EXPERIENCE I had with game at the time
> is locked in my mind. *That* is what counts.
But that is a false way of looking at it, and is just down to nostalgia.
It's like people who look back 40 years ago, and rabbit on and on about the
'golden age' when there was no crime anywhere.
Michael Cargill
news:3F303BE6...@comcast.net...
> Xocyll wrote:
> >
> > Ataris, colecovisions etc were great game systems in their time, but
> > that time has long since passed.
> >
> > As the old aphorism says "you can't go back again".
>
> I still enjoy Doom and Adventure. What does that say?
I don't know, what DOES it say?
Michael Cargill
news:n8d0jv0vb42emo3l9...@4ax.com...
But how much should a reviewer be expected to replay a game after a patch
has been released?
Michael Cargill
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:11:02 GMT, CCF <c...@XsprintmailX.com> wrote:
>
> >It had game killing issues as well. Reviewers god damned well better
> >downgrade things if it is buggy as hell and can't be completed.
>
> Yeah. Right. SO a movie reviewer would say something like this:
>
> "Well, I just saw "Movie X" and I must say, I haven't enjoyed a movie
> so much in years. However, there was a scene where I couldn't make out
> the dialogue and there was another scene that seemed to drag on too
> long, so I'm going to rate it lower than the other 3 movies I'm
> reviewing this week even though I didn't even like them"
>
> Makes sense to me :p
If there was some reason why you couldn't watch the whole film from
beginning to end then the film should get marked down for that reason.
> >Reviewers have to review a game as is and not assume patching.
>
> Why? They never did in the past, even when people had to use a 2400
> modem and dial a BBS to get patches. Do you have *any* idea how many
> classic games were unplayable unpatched? Ultima 7 is not the only one,
> though it probably had the all time record for game breaking bugs.
Because a game should NOT be released unfinished, and it doesn't matter how
long it has been happening - it is a disgusting practice that should be
stopped. A good start would be for ALL reviewers to play a game unpatched,
and use ONLY the code sent to them by the developers.
A game that is not finished and is unplayable - how on earth can that be a
classic? It is nothing more than a piece of shit that doesn't work
properly.
> >Still, if a game is overly buggy I want to know becuase it changes me
> >from a early adopter to my more usual 6 months after release kind of
> >purchaser.
>
> That's fine. That's exactly what I said about reviewing the game on
> it's content and then qualifying your review by laying out any
> technical problems the game may have. That tells *you* what you want
> to know without telling the rest of us that a great game is a crap.
If a game keeps crashing and cannot be finished due to a bug, then it IS
crap and should be marked down accordingly. I buy a game to be entertained,
and if a game keeps crashing then it gets in the way of my entertainment.
I am currently playing the Bloodmoon expansion for Morrowind and despite it
being patched up, it STILL keeps crashing to the desktop. This is
unacceptable, as it is extremely frustrating and ruins my gaming enjoyment.
CCF
> CCF <c...@XsprintmailX.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> kind of pointless one. I want a review to guide me on how much I'm
> going to enjoy playing the game. If the review only helps me in this
> evaluation for the two weeks prior to the patch, then it's not very
> useful to me.
>
> Lucian
>
I think that kind of psychic behavior isn't what I want in a reviewer.
They have no idea the game will be patched or if the patch will reslve
any issue. In that case, BC3K might have been the best game ever
assuming it was patched right.
No, to have any credibility you have to review the game that is in your
hands and not make any future assumtpions.
CCF
> Yeah. Right. SO a movie reviewer would say something like this:
>
> "Well, I just saw "Movie X" and I must say, I haven't enjoyed a movie
> so much in years. However, there was a scene where I couldn't make out
> the dialogue and there was another scene that seemed to drag on too
> long, so I'm going to rate it lower than the other 3 movies I'm
> reviewing this week even though I didn't even like them"
Umm, yes since you evaluate the overall product.
Hell what makes a good film are the technical aspects- editing,
cinematography etc. So yes, you could say about a film, "Wow, great
story and brilliant characters but the director shot the film so poorly
all I could see were the actors' knees so I have to give it thumbs down."
In fact, I'd expect that rather than just telling me it was really,
really good.
> Why? They never did in the past, even when people had to use a 2400
> modem and dial a BBS to get patches. Do you have *any* idea how many
> classic games were unplayable unpatched? Ultima 7 is not the only one,
> though it probably had the all time record for game breaking bugs.
I again ask, what are they supposed to do...assume that company X will
fix 8 of the 10 bugs they found and asjust their score up? I mean WTF
kind of journalism is that? It'd be like reviewing a film and saying,
"Well yea the ending sucked but I know they'll release the alternate
ending soon (ahem 28 Days Later) so I'll review it based on that ending
whihc I've never seen.
Myabe you'd like your newscasters to guess at what will happen tomorrow.
>
> That's fine. That's exactly what I said about reviewing the game on
> it's content and then qualifying your review by laying out any
> technical problems the game may have. That tells *you* what you want
> to know without telling the rest of us that a great game is a crap.
Og course if you read the reviews and not just the number/letter grades
you'll get that info.
Clogar
>
[snip]
> Yes I can. An innaccurate review is an innaccurate review. They could
> have given it high marks with disclaimers, but they didn't. They just
> panned it instead.
Even without the bugs, I still thought the game was extremely
disappointing
and just a shadow of the original title. Everyone's got an opinion. :)
Lucian Wischik
>But how much should a reviewer be expected to replay a game after a patch
>has been released?
There isn't any "expectation". It's a simple fact. If the patch
affects the things that the reviewer's judgement was based on, then
the review has become out-of-date and un-useful when the patch comes
out. How people respond here is up to them. Reviewers might decide to
write a more useful review. Readers may decide to discard the review.
It's up to them. No expectation.
--
Lucian
Werner Purrer (Memory Dragon)
>
> The myth of the "dumb/unwashed masses" really needs to be addressed in a
> scholarly paper at some point.
>
I'm not sure if this really is a myth :-(
But back to gaming, the problem I see is that the hardcore gaming crowd is
rather small and magazines, at least many over here in germany tend to
ignore them, they usually write after the masses which arent hardcore and
havent been gaming for ages. Add to that the fact that many magazines favor
the big publishers ratingwise and you will see where things end up. US
magazines used to be better in this regard.
Face it, besides the bug problems, even back then the Fallout series was as
hardcore as it could be, the hype back then was into real time left and
right and the 3d craze also was already running, now you have an excellent
game, but buggy, lots of stats, extreme violence dark humor often on the
sexual side and often on the toilet side, an rpg system which couldnt be
more hardcore and no 3d and you have a classic which simply cannot get more
than 70-75% by the average reviewer who is paid to write half ads for the
next shooter and dumb clickfest by a big publisher. Torment had the same
fate.
disgruntled goat
news:Xns93CEC5A02...@130.133.1.4:
> IMHO, a buggy game deserves lower scores. Period.
Why should that be? Bugs are an almost unavoidable consequence when
designing complex games with multiple paths, non-linear gameplay and tons
of in-game objects.
All recent software development literature stress the importance of
software maintenance to fine tune and patch the product, and there is no
sane reason why games should be different. If you want to see fewer bugs,
try less complex efforts like card games, racing games or simple shoot-em-
ups. Demanding full blown RPGs be bug free upon release isn't a suitable
approach. We have a fully functional channel for distributing patches (the
Internet) and I for one see no reason why we shouldn't exploit that fact.
BTW, according to your logic, no MMORPG should ever be awarded a better
grade than "D". They all suck upon release.
Chris Proctor
news:Xns93CE7DA636...@212.83.64.229:
> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote in
> news:Xns93CEC5A02...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> IMHO, a buggy game deserves lower scores. Period.
>
>
> Why should that be? Bugs are an almost unavoidable consequence when
> designing complex games with multiple paths, non-linear gameplay and
> tons of in-game objects.
Just to be annoying, I think that games should be reviewed based on the
shipping CD, and then amended as patches are released that fix problems
with the game.
Of course, getting most reviewers to revisit old reviews and update them
has got to be difficult ;-)
--
Chris Proctor
Michael Cargill
news:Xns93CE7DA636...@212.83.64.229...
> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote in
> news:Xns93CEC5A02...@130.133.1.4:
>
> > IMHO, a buggy game deserves lower scores. Period.
>
>
> Why should that be? Bugs are an almost unavoidable consequence when
> designing complex games with multiple paths, non-linear gameplay and tons
> of in-game objects.
Because it is broken.
> All recent software development literature stress the importance of
> software maintenance to fine tune and patch the product, and there is no
> sane reason why games should be different. If you want to see fewer bugs,
> try less complex efforts like card games, racing games or simple shoot-em-
> ups. Demanding full blown RPGs be bug free upon release isn't a suitable
> approach. We have a fully functional channel for distributing patches (the
> Internet) and I for one see no reason why we shouldn't exploit that fact.
It is not unreasonable to expect a game to simply WORK when you buy it. To
have a patch available for a game that fixes game-killing bugs on it's day
of release is a shocking practice.
> BTW, according to your logic, no MMORPG should ever be awarded a better
> grade than "D". They all suck upon release.
So don't release a broken product, then.
disgruntled goat
news:Xns93CFD80CF16A6ch...@203.16.214.244:
>
> Just to be annoying, I think that games should be reviewed based on the
> shipping CD, and then amended as patches are released that fix problems
> with the game.
>
shipping product, and advice the reader to "postpone buying until a patch
fixing these bugs is out" or something to that effect. Or (s)he could slap
on a postscript to the review whenever a patch is released to note which of
the issues have been fixed.
> Of course, getting most reviewers to revisit old reviews and update them
> has got to be difficult ;-)
>
Well, it's a good strategy to weed out the lazy ass reviewers, then :)
Michael Cargill
> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >But how much should a reviewer be expected to replay a game after a patch
> >has been released?
>
> There isn't any "expectation". It's a simple fact. If the patch
> affects the things that the reviewer's judgement was based on, then
> the review has become out-of-date and un-useful when the patch comes
> out.
On the contrary - a review based upon an unpatched game will never be out of
date, or un-useful. The game will always be sold in it's 'raw' state, and
so the review will be perfectly valid.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Michael Cargill <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>On the contrary - a review based upon an unpatched game will never be out of
>date, or un-useful. The game will always be sold in it's 'raw' state, and
>so the review will be perfectly valid.
Later print runs of games very often incorporate patches. And by the time
they show up as "budget" titles or in "gold" packs with expansions etc.
they're usually up to final patch level (in fact of all the games I've
bought like that -- which is quite a few since my poor old computer can
only dream about running most *new* games -- not a single one has *not*
been patched right out of the box).
--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.
Michael Cargill
news:bgqsr5$bns$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <bgqs1u$rfj58$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Michael Cargill <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >On the contrary - a review based upon an unpatched game will never be out
of
> >date, or un-useful. The game will always be sold in it's 'raw' state,
and
> >so the review will be perfectly valid.
>
> Later print runs of games very often incorporate patches. And by the time
> they show up as "budget" titles or in "gold" packs with expansions etc.
> they're usually up to final patch level (in fact of all the games I've
> bought like that -- which is quite a few since my poor old computer can
> only dream about running most *new* games -- not a single one has *not*
> been patched right out of the box).
And by that time, they are usually re-reviewed anyway.
disgruntled goat
news:bgqq7k$rj7pc$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de:
> It is not unreasonable to expect a game to simply WORK when you buy
> it. To have a patch available for a game that fixes game-killing bugs
> on it's day of release is a shocking practice.
>
It may not be as reasonable as you seem to think. It's simply very
difficult and time consuming to make grand immersive worlds like in, say
Morrowind and Gothic, without having some bugs remaining in the shipping
product. Post-shipping patching is *a part of the development process*,
without it they'd simply have to limit the scope of their games.
Analogies to other products, like the often used car analogy, are simply
misleading. This is not how software development works in most cases.
Annoying? Yes. But if you don't like it, try different games, or simply
postpone buying them until the patches are in.
>> BTW, according to your logic, no MMORPG should ever be awarded a
>> better grade than "D". They all suck upon release.
>
> So don't release a broken product, then.
>
Sadly, real life factors often prohibit this. Years get spent in
development, and often you need to get your product out because: a)
further real life testing will be too time consuming and expensive, b)
the marketing cycle has peaked and most will be wasted if you don't
strike now, c) if you postpone, competitors may steal your thunder, the
graphics will start looking too dated, all the features will be "old
hat" etc., d) developers are getting frustrated and want feedback from a
bigger audience to see which direction they should head in, e) cash flow
problem demanding sales income *now*,, etc etc
If you as a customer want complex features and state of the art graphics,
bugs will most likely be part of the bargain. If all we wanted were
whack-a-mole games, *then* your demand of bug free gaming would be
reasonable...
Martin Thelen
>But back to gaming, the problem I see is that the hardcore gaming crowd is
>rather small and magazines, at least many over here in germany tend to
>ignore them, they usually write after the masses which arent hardcore and
>havent been gaming for ages.
I think the problem simply is time. One German Magazin admitted that
their rating for Torment was to low, because they didn't have the time
to get into the game. This pattern is seen in other reviews as well.
Look at the high scores Black&White or Dungeon Keeper had. They simply
didn't have the time to see the fundamental flaws in the game design.
This is also where the big campanies come in. If a game is hyped beyond
believe, than they have to play long enough to find the good aspects of
the game (and there are always good aspects in a game - even Moo3 was
fun after some time). So a popular game gets a second and third chance
where some unknown game simply gets a low score.
Znegva
Michael Cargill
> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:bgqq7k$rj7pc$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > It is not unreasonable to expect a game to simply WORK when you buy
> > it. To have a patch available for a game that fixes game-killing bugs
> > on it's day of release is a shocking practice.
> >
>
> It may not be as reasonable as you seem to think. It's simply very
> difficult and time consuming to make grand immersive worlds like in, say
> Morrowind and Gothic, without having some bugs remaining in the shipping
> product. Post-shipping patching is *a part of the development process*,
> without it they'd simply have to limit the scope of their games.
That is not really true. Console games very rarely ship with such bugs, yet
it is part and parcel of just about any PC game - no matter how simplistic
it may be.
> Analogies to other products, like the often used car analogy, are simply
> misleading. This is not how software development works in most cases.
> Annoying? Yes. But if you don't like it, try different games, or simply
> postpone buying them until the patches are in.
And why should I HAVE to do that?
> > So don't release a broken product, then.
> >
> Sadly, real life factors often prohibit this. Years get spent in
> development, and often you need to get your product out because: a)
> further real life testing will be too time consuming and expensive, b)
> the marketing cycle has peaked and most will be wasted if you don't
> strike now, c) if you postpone, competitors may steal your thunder, the
> graphics will start looking too dated, all the features will be "old
> hat" etc., d) developers are getting frustrated and want feedback from a
> bigger audience to see which direction they should head in, e) cash flow
> problem demanding sales income *now*,, etc etc
>
> If you as a customer want complex features and state of the art graphics,
> bugs will most likely be part of the bargain. If all we wanted were
> whack-a-mole games, *then* your demand of bug free gaming would be
> reasonable...
I am well aware of all this, but it isn't my problem. The
developers/publishers are releasing something that is unfit for purchase -
they are forcing THEIR problem onto ME.
John Henders
>Fallout 2 still holds the record as the buggiest game I ever played, and
>is one of a very few games I never finished.
>I simply couldn't face the hundreds of crashes and lockups that would
>have been required to finish it. No game, however "classic" it may be,
>is worth that trouble.
This was very system dependent I think. I bought it the day it came out
and played 3/4 of the way though without any crashing to desktop or
locking up that I can recall. Granted, I didn't do a lot of quests in
Reno the first time through. The only place I got bitten was the car
trunk bug and I had a save game from before it bit me I was able to go
back to and work around losing the trunk.
This was on a fairly basic early pentium system if I recall, with a sb16
and either a mach64 or matrox mystique video card.
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
Zeitman
crap, just because it is buggy at release. You should mention the bugs in
your review, state whether a patch is forthcoming, then rate the game based
how much fun it is. If the game is unplayable, however, then a reduction in
score is only fair. Being unplayable reduces the fun factor for games
considerably.
"> >>The game was extremely buggy at launch, I wouldn't be surprised if
> >>some of those reviewers were taking that into consideration when they
> >>gave the game the scores they did.
> >
> > As I said in the other response, so what? You don't give an instant
> > classic two thumbs down because of a couple technical problems. You
> > give it two thumbs up and then point the problems out.
>
> I don't see an 80% score to be two thumbs down, I see it as above average.
>
> > Fallout 2 was shovelware?
>
> That's not what those reviews you mentioned said, no.
>
> > Honestly, I don't understand how people can complain about the lack of
> > games *as good as Fallout 2* on the shelves today and then turn around
> > and justify the way *Fallout 2* itself was treated when it came out!
>
> I remember a different Fallout 2 launch than you did, I remember a lot of
> pissed off players with game-breaking bugs.
>
> > You gusy wanna know why there's nothing but shit on the shelves these
> > days? Look in the mirror.
>
> Shit is in the nose of the beholder.
>
> --
>
> Knight37
>
> When I need a drug in me
> And it brings out the thug in me
> Feel something tugging me
> Then I want the real thing not tokens
> -- Depeche Mode, "Sweetest Perfection"
disgruntled goat
> bugs, yet it is part and parcel of just about any PC game - no matter
> how simplistic it may be.
>
Well, on a console you usually *can't* patch them, so you need to design
and test your games accordingly. One saving grace of the console is that
you don't have to worry about different hardware, OS configurations and
different driver issues - this saves tons of time (*guaranteeing* a bug
free product in such a heterogenous environment as the PC market is
extremely hard, even bordering on impossible.) You rarely see new and
complex ideas in console games, though. I highly doubt you would have
had, for example, Morrowind or Arx Fatalis for Xbox without a prior PC
version.
The fact that you *can* patch games on a PC makes it easier to try new
stuff, and soften the amount of time and money you have to spend game
testing (see previous section to see why I think this is necessary).
>> Analogies to other products, like the often used car analogy, are
>> simply misleading. This is not how software development works in most
>> cases. Annoying? Yes. But if you don't like it, try different games,
>> or simply postpone buying them until the patches are in.
>
> And why should I HAVE to do that?
You don't HAVE to do anything. I finished the non-patched version of
Fallout 2, and enjoyed it thoroughly. I can't say the numerous crashes to
desktop didn't detract from the experience, but it was great
nevertheless.
>> If you as a customer want complex features and state of the art
>> graphics, bugs will most likely be part of the bargain. If all we
>> wanted were whack-a-mole games, *then* your demand of bug free gaming
>> would be reasonable...
>
> I am well aware of all this, but it isn't my problem. The
> developers/publishers are releasing something that is unfit for
> purchase - they are forcing THEIR problem onto ME.
>
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'd say the problem
belongs to *the domain*, and that it is reasonable to accept it to allow
for more variety and innovation in games. I believe I understand your
position, but it just doesn't agree with me...
Xocyll
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:11:02 GMT, CCF <c...@XsprintmailX.com> wrote:
>
>>It had game killing issues as well. Reviewers god damned well better
>>downgrade things if it is buggy as hell and can't be completed.
>
>Yeah. Right. SO a movie reviewer would say something like this:
>
>"Well, I just saw "Movie X" and I must say, I haven't enjoyed a movie
>so much in years. However, there was a scene where I couldn't make out
>the dialogue and there was another scene that seemed to drag on too
>long, so I'm going to rate it lower than the other 3 movies I'm
>reviewing this week even though I didn't even like them"
Did you never watch the Siskel and Ebert reviews?
They did exactly that.
Overall feel of the movie, and quibbles about problems they felt lower
the impact or made the movie not-so-great, and then they rated it based
on the whole thing, problems included.
>Makes sense to me :p
>
>>Reviewers have to review a game as is and not assume patching.
>Why? They never did in the past, even when people had to use a 2400
>modem and dial a BBS to get patches. Do you have *any* idea how many
>classic games were unplayable unpatched? Ultima 7 is not the only one,
>though it probably had the all time record for game breaking bugs.
Because that's what they've actually played, and there is no guarantee
that the game company will ever release a patch.
Saying that it's great when it's unplayable or unfinishable at release
is nonsense.
It assumes the company will fix the problems, and it screws every
consumer who buys the game based on that review and doesn't have the
patch.
Remember Wizards & Warriors, the game Activision REFUSED to patch?
It has an unofficial patch created by the developers, but that doesn't
change the fact that the publisher refused to issue a patch.
It's not like that's the only game to go unpatched either.
>>Still, if a game is overly buggy I want to know becuase it changes me
>>from a early adopter to my more usual 6 months after release kind of
>>purchaser.
>
>That's fine. That's exactly what I said about reviewing the game on
>it's content and then qualifying your review by laying out any
>technical problems the game may have. That tells *you* what you want
>to know without telling the rest of us that a great game is a crap.
Except you seem to want something like:
This game has an imaginative storyline, superb graphics and sound and
fantastic background music so we're rating it 10/10.
Disclaimer: the game at release is buggy and will crash every 10 minutes
for those few people that can get it to run at all.
But we're hoping a patch will come out sometime that will fix these
issues.
You know that disclaimer would be in small print and tucked off to the
side somewhere, while the 10/10 score would be in bold print at the very
start of the review.
Really, how is that any different from
Graphics 10
Sound 10
music 10
Gameplay 2 (since it's almost completely unplayable)
giving an 8/10
Which surprise, surprise is exactly the kind of score Fallout 2 got.
What good are fantastic graphics, sound, music and story if the game
can't actually be played as released?
Xocyll
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> And by that time, they are usually re-reviewed anyway.
Or at least *should* be re-reviewed.
Michael Cargill
> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:bgqv7v$rc87i$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de:
> > That is not really true. Console games very rarely ship with such
> > bugs, yet it is part and parcel of just about any PC game - no matter
> > how simplistic it may be.
> >
>
> Well, on a console you usually *can't* patch them, so you need to design
> and test your games accordingly. One saving grace of the console is that
> you don't have to worry about different hardware, OS configurations and
> different driver issues - this saves tons of time (*guaranteeing* a bug
> free product in such a heterogenous environment as the PC market is
> extremely hard, even bordering on impossible.)
Yes, you will always get some compatibility problems with some combinations
of PC hardware - but that is a totally different kettle of fish to a game
that is notorious for crashing and freezing, though. A game that does that
is down to poor development practice.
> You rarely see new and
> complex ideas in console games, though. I highly doubt you would have
> had, for example, Morrowind or Arx Fatalis for Xbox without a prior PC
> version.
You certainly DO get new ideas and things on console games - but the
hardware tends to be a more limiting factor than anything.
But being complex does not give a developer an excuse for being sloppy -
Morrowind is VERY sloppy with all it's crash to desktop problems.
> The fact that you *can* patch games on a PC makes it easier to try new
> stuff, and soften the amount of time and money you have to spend game
> testing (see previous section to see why I think this is necessary).
Sorry, but going slack on testing and then releasing an unfinished game is
BULLSHIT.
> > And why should I HAVE to do that?
>
> You don't HAVE to do anything. I finished the non-patched version of
> Fallout 2, and enjoyed it thoroughly. I can't say the numerous crashes to
> desktop didn't detract from the experience, but it was great
> nevertheless.
And someone should have to put up with lazy developers because...?
> > I am well aware of all this, but it isn't my problem. The
> > developers/publishers are releasing something that is unfit for
> > purchase - they are forcing THEIR problem onto ME.
> >
> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'd say the problem
> belongs to *the domain*, and that it is reasonable to accept it to allow
> for more variety and innovation in games. I believe I understand your
> position, but it just doesn't agree with me...
Sorry, but you are totally and utterly WRONG.
Why does 'more variety and innovation' have to result in sloppy development?
I fail to see how Morrowind being so big allows the developers to get away
with leaving it so prone to crashing. The fact that the Crash to Desktop
occurs so frequently and to so many people means that it should be an easy
problem to identify and fix.
disgruntled goat
> Yes, you will always get some compatibility problems with some
> combinations of PC hardware - but that is a totally different kettle
> of fish to a game that is notorious for crashing and freezing, though.
> A game that does that is down to poor development practice.
>
several cases where people complain that a game is buggy and crash prone,
yet it runs perfectly on my setup. Either these people don't know how to
set up a stable gaming environment, or they have rare hardware
combinations that produces unforseen bugs. It's bloody hard to safe guard
against both of these instances. Someone have to report these issues
before they can fix them.
>
> You certainly DO get new ideas and things on console games - but the
> hardware tends to be a more limiting factor than anything.
> But being complex does not give a developer an excuse for being sloppy
> - Morrowind is VERY sloppy with all it's crash to desktop problems.
>
Oh well, I don't have a console, but there seems to be a lot of simple
racing games and shooters on them. Most recent RPG to be ported I think
was Enclave, and that was hardly very complex fare. When you add
complexity, your code *will* be more bug prone. This is not debatable.
The question is whether you can catch them all and fix them.
>> The fact that you *can* patch games on a PC makes it easier to try
>> new stuff, and soften the amount of time and money you have to spend
>> game testing (see previous section to see why I think this is
>> necessary).
>
> Sorry, but going slack on testing and then releasing an unfinished
> game is BULLSHIT.
All code is unfinished. Have you seen the number of patches released on a
regular basis for operating systems, web servers, application servers,
database servers, etc? It's not necessarily because they are all sloppy
testers...
>
>
> And someone should have to put up with lazy developers because...?
Because having a buggy Fallout 2 was much better than having no Fallout
2. Maybe it was laziness, maybe the budget was too tight, maybe the
developers were simply incompetent. If you can't stand buggy games, read
the reviews and then make up your mind. Some of us don't care if the
product is perfect or not, perfection isn't necessarily a very productive
goal. Real life factors matter. Sloppiness is a fact of life. My Unreal
Tournament still crashes to desktop every now and then, after several
years of patching, I don't care.
>> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'd say the
>> problem belongs to *the domain*, and that it is reasonable to accept
>> it to allow for more variety and innovation in games. I believe I
>> understand your position, but it just doesn't agree with me...
>
>
> Sorry, but you are totally and utterly WRONG.
> Why does 'more variety and innovation' have to result in sloppy
> development? I fail to see how Morrowind being so big allows the
> developers to get away with leaving it so prone to crashing. The fact
> that the Crash to Desktop occurs so frequently and to so many people
> means that it should be an easy problem to identify and fix.
>
Sloppiness is your term. Working with a big code base and complex designs
is more difficult and takes more effort over a longer period of time. The
risk of getting bogged down with bugs increases. Of course, you don't
have to think big to be innovative, but some people will want to try.
BTW, why is your Morrowind crashing all the time? Mine crashed *once*
during the two months I played it. And that crash was due to a known bug
I presume is fixed now. Just because something happens frequently to many
people, doesn't mean it's easy to pin down. It just means that it should
be given high priority.
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> Julie d'Aubigny <kalima...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >And what about magazine reviews? Do you expect editors to fill up space
> >with "post-patch reviews?"
>
> No, I just don't expect magazines to be read for the usefulness of
> their reviews...
That's strange. They're not wrong nearly as often as sissypig orthodoxy
would believe.
Of course, if no one's reading them, I can see why people would believe
this.
Now, whether the magazines are *useful* in a broader sense is another
issue.
Still, you're asking for a complete overhaul in the review process.
--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kalima...@attbi.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes me!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> "Julie d'Aubigny" <kalima...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3F303BE6...@comcast.net...
> > Xocyll wrote:
> > >
> > > Ataris, colecovisions etc were great game systems in their time, but
> > > that time has long since passed.
> > >
> > > As the old aphorism says "you can't go back again".
> >
> > I still enjoy Doom and Adventure. What does that say?
>
> I don't know, what DOES it say?
It says "old games are still fun, if you're not hung up on technology."
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>
> >
> > The myth of the "dumb/unwashed masses" really needs to be addressed in a
> > scholarly paper at some point.
> >
> I'm not sure if this really is a myth :-(
Of course it is. It's just elitism. "I'm more educated/have better
taste/smoke better cigarettes than those poor fools." Add to that the
assumption that you're somehow more important than they are because they
don't smoke the same cigarettes as you, and what do you have?
> But back to gaming, the problem I see is that the hardcore gaming crowd is
> rather small and magazines, at least many over here in germany tend to
> ignore them, they usually write after the masses which arent hardcore and
> havent been gaming for ages. Add to that the fact that many magazines favor
> the big publishers ratingwise and you will see where things end up. US
> magazines used to be better in this regard.
Hard core gamers aren't really a strong market to aim for, I don't
think. The people who might be interested in these games are going to
read the reviews. The hardcore gamers will hang out online and see how
other hardcore gamers react.
> Face it, besides the bug problems, even back then the Fallout series was as
> hardcore as it could be, the hype back then was into real time left and
> right and the 3d craze also was already running, now you have an excellent
> game, but buggy, lots of stats, extreme violence dark humor often on the
> sexual side and often on the toilet side, an rpg system which couldnt be
> more hardcore and no 3d and you have a classic which simply cannot get more
> than 70-75% by the average reviewer who is paid to write half ads for the
> next shooter and dumb clickfest by a big publisher. Torment had the same
> fate.
Actually, here are the scores Thrasher posted again:
- IGN - 8.9/10
- Adrenaline Vault - 3.5/5
- Game Revolution - B+
- Game Center - 8/10
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the 70% is the *low*
score, not the highest. I honestly don't know what Thrasher's
complaining about. These are good reviews.
Planescape: Torment didn't fail because it was a bad game - it received
good reviews as well. It likely failed due to a lack of decent marketing
and an ugly box.
Julie d'Aubigny
There's also the fact that some of the patches will require complete
replays to get a sense of how well they work (MoO3 for example), and
this is also problematic.
I'm not sure the review model discussed here is viable.
Werner Purrer
>
> I think the problem simply is time. One German Magazin admitted that
> their rating for Torment was to low, because they didn't have the time
> to get into the game. This pattern is seen in other reviews as well.
> Look at the high scores Black&White or Dungeon Keeper had. They simply
> didn't have the time to see the fundamental flaws in the game design.
> This is also where the big campanies come in. If a game is hyped beyond
> believe, than they have to play long enough to find the good aspects of
> the game (and there are always good aspects in a game - even Moo3 was
> fun after some time). So a popular game gets a second and third chance
> where some unknown game simply gets a low score.
>
That explains some things, but at the time I stopped reading the mags I
already could remember several reviews where a clear bugged almost
unplayable lemon was pushed into the 90ies just because there was a big
name behind it.
I think what you mention is only one aspect of the whole thing, I still have
the bad taste in my mouth that some reviews are simply sellouts.
After all after 12 months of constant hype you cannot give a 40s score.
As for B6W well lets say it that way, Dungeon Keeper was a lemon
gameplaywise. But the whole thing basically happened again with B&W with
Molineux getting constant 90s even if the game stunk (or not, I really dont
care since I didn bother with B&W after being burned with Dungeon Keeper)
So I don't think the time factor here really was the problem, a game stunk,
ok it was overrated, bit name that can happen, forgivable, the next game
stunk as well, but still got good ratings, I rather doubt the time there
really was the full problem.
Michael Cargill
> Michael Cargill wrote:
> >
> > I don't know, what DOES it say?
>
> It says "old games are still fun, if you're not hung up on technology."
And why on earth are jumping to the conclusion that people not playing old
games has anything to do with technology...?
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> "Julie d'Aubigny" <kalima...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3F314BBD...@comcast.net...
> > Michael Cargill wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know, what DOES it say?
> >
> > It says "old games are still fun, if you're not hung up on technology."
>
> And why on earth are jumping to the conclusion that people not playing old
> games has anything to do with technology...?
Look at that goalpost run!
Michael Cargill
> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:bgra79$rl1gf$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de:
> >
> > Yes, you will always get some compatibility problems with some
> > combinations of PC hardware - but that is a totally different kettle
> > of fish to a game that is notorious for crashing and freezing, though.
> > A game that does that is down to poor development practice.
> >
> I don't think the compatibility issues are quite that minor. I've seen
> several cases where people complain that a game is buggy and crash prone,
> yet it runs perfectly on my setup. Either these people don't know how to
> set up a stable gaming environment, or they have rare hardware
> combinations that produces unforseen bugs. It's bloody hard to safe guard
> against both of these instances. Someone have to report these issues
> before they can fix them.
You get with any product, but when it gets to a point where such a large
number of people experience the same problem then it is not going to be user
error.
> > You certainly DO get new ideas and things on console games - but the
> > hardware tends to be a more limiting factor than anything.
> > But being complex does not give a developer an excuse for being sloppy
> > - Morrowind is VERY sloppy with all it's crash to desktop problems.
> >
>
> Oh well, I don't have a console, but there seems to be a lot of simple
> racing games and shooters on them. Most recent RPG to be ported I think
> was Enclave, and that was hardly very complex fare. When you add
> complexity, your code *will* be more bug prone. This is not debatable.
> The question is whether you can catch them all and fix them.
Something as frequent as Morrowinds CTD problem is not something that could
have been missed by the testers - not by a long shot. Since when did being
complex allow you to be sloppy?
> > Sorry, but going slack on testing and then releasing an unfinished
> > game is BULLSHIT.
>
> All code is unfinished. Have you seen the number of patches released on a
> regular basis for operating systems, web servers, application servers,
> database servers, etc? It's not necessarily because they are all sloppy
> testers...
It is in a lot of cases. Something that frequently crashes on release has
obviously not been tested properly. What other explanation is there?
> > And someone should have to put up with lazy developers because...?
>
> Because having a buggy Fallout 2 was much better than having no Fallout
> 2.
Who said anything about not having a Fallout 2 game? A working Fallout 2
would have been immeasurably more desireable than a faulty Fallout 2.
> Maybe it was laziness, maybe the budget was too tight, maybe the
> developers were simply incompetent. If you can't stand buggy games, read
> the reviews and then make up your mind. Some of us don't care if the
> product is perfect or not, perfection isn't necessarily a very productive
> goal.
Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that you don't mind handing over your money for
a faulty, defective product? Would you stand for it in anything other than
software?
> Real life factors matter.
Like something working properly, you mean?
> Sloppiness is a fact of life.
Not when people are having to pay good money for something it isn't.
> My Unreal
> Tournament still crashes to desktop every now and then, after several
> years of patching, I don't care.
That is a unique and infrequent case, though. Developers and publishers
KNOWINGLY releasing a shoddy, unfinished product is another matter.
> > Sorry, but you are totally and utterly WRONG.
> > Why does 'more variety and innovation' have to result in sloppy
> > development? I fail to see how Morrowind being so big allows the
> > developers to get away with leaving it so prone to crashing. The fact
> > that the Crash to Desktop occurs so frequently and to so many people
> > means that it should be an easy problem to identify and fix.
> >
> Sloppiness is your term. Working with a big code base and complex designs
> is more difficult and takes more effort over a longer period of time. The
> risk of getting bogged down with bugs increases. Of course, you don't
> have to think big to be innovative, but some people will want to try.
Again, this is NOT an excuse to knowingly release an unfinished and
substandard product. What other word is there, other than 'sloppy' in this
case?
> BTW, why is your Morrowind crashing all the time? Mine crashed *once*
> during the two months I played it. And that crash was due to a known bug
> I presume is fixed now. Just because something happens frequently to many
> people, doesn't mean it's easy to pin down. It just means that it should
> be given high priority.
Are you telling me that you don't know of the legendary CTD 'feature' of
Morrowind?
It normally happens when it is loading an area from the hard drive. If that
isn't easy to pin down, then I don't know what is.
Chris Proctor
@comcast.net:
> Chris Proctor wrote:
>>
>> disgruntled goat <phant...@killer.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns93CE7DA636...@212.83.64.229:
>>
>> > Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote in
>> > news:Xns93CEC5A02...@130.133.1.4:
>> >
>> >> IMHO, a buggy game deserves lower scores. Period.
>> >
>> >
>> > Why should that be? Bugs are an almost unavoidable consequence when
>> > designing complex games with multiple paths, non-linear gameplay and
>> > tons of in-game objects.
>>
>> Just to be annoying, I think that games should be reviewed based on the
>> shipping CD, and then amended as patches are released that fix problems
>> with the game.
>>
>> Of course, getting most reviewers to revisit old reviews and update them
>> has got to be difficult ;-)
>
> There's also the fact that some of the patches will require complete
> replays to get a sense of how well they work (MoO3 for example), and
> this is also problematic.
>
> I'm not sure the review model discussed here is viable.
I'm entirely sure it isn't.
It would be the best type of review from a reader's point of view, but is
far too much work for most reviewers.
--
Chris Proctor
Knight37
> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote in
> news:Xns93CEC5A02...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> IMHO, a buggy game deserves lower scores. Period.
>
>
> Why should that be? Bugs are an almost unavoidable consequence when
> designing complex games with multiple paths, non-linear gameplay and
> tons of in-game objects.
>
> All recent software development literature stress the importance of
> software maintenance to fine tune and patch the product, and there is
> no sane reason why games should be different. If you want to see fewer
> bugs, try less complex efforts like card games, racing games or simple
> shoot-em- ups. Demanding full blown RPGs be bug free upon release
> isn't a suitable approach. We have a fully functional channel for
> distributing patches (the Internet) and I for one see no reason why we
> shouldn't exploit that fact.
I didn't say "bug free" I said buggy games (meaning games with lots of
bugs) deserve to have lower scores.
> BTW, according to your logic, no MMORPG should ever be awarded a
> better grade than "D". They all suck upon release.
I'm not sure they shouldn't.
--
Knight37
So you lie to yourself to be happy - there's nothing wrong with that, we
all do it. Who cares if there's a few little details you'd rather not
remember.
-- Leonard Shelby, "Memento"
Knight37
The simple fact is that most reviewers are moving on to the next game and
the next one after that by the time these patches come out and they are not
likely to have time to go back to an older game to ammend their scores. If
companies want good reviews they need to release games that have as few
bugs as possible. Sheesh I can't believe this is even a question, to me
it's just common sense.
--
Knight37
If every poster who'd ever posted to this group bothered to thoroughly
research what they were posting about, there'd be like, 3 posts here since
Jan 1, 1995. And they'd all be a sentence long.
-- Adrian Jackson on csipg.rpg
Michael Cargill
news:Xns93CFCABC0...@130.133.1.4...
> > It would be the best type of review from a reader's point of view, but
> > is far too much work for most reviewers.
> >
>
> The simple fact is that most reviewers are moving on to the next game and
> the next one after that by the time these patches come out and they are
not
> likely to have time to go back to an older game to ammend their scores. If
> companies want good reviews they need to release games that have as few
> bugs as possible. Sheesh I can't believe this is even a question, to me
> it's just common sense.
Very much so.
I have just started 'working' as a reviewer at www.boomtown.net - I have now
had two games sent to me, one of which is the Bloodmoon expansion for
Morrowind.
If they expected me to replay the game each time a patch came out, then I
would tell them to stuff it! I have made a vow to myself that I will NOT
patch a game before reviewing it, though I did patch Bloodmoon.
I simply do not have the time nor the inclination to replay through a game
just because a patch has been released for it. Some games are not the sort
that I could play through more than once anyway - the likes of Morrowind,
Deux Ex and Baldurs Gate 2 among them. Fantastic games, but the second time
round I just find very boring as I pretty much know most of the content.
Because of this, I would actually find it very hard to review these games
and subsequently give them a new score. Can you imagine asking a game
tester to review a game that he has spent 3 months debugging...? They would
be utterly sick of it...
disgruntled goat
>
> Something as frequent as Morrowinds CTD problem is not something that
> could have been missed by the testers - not by a long shot. Since
> when did being complex allow you to be sloppy?
As I'm a living example of, it's perfectly possible to not find the
Morrowind CTD problem.
>> All code is unfinished. Have you seen the number of patches released
>> on a regular basis for operating systems, web servers, application
>> servers, database servers, etc? It's not necessarily because they are
>> all sloppy testers...
>
> It is in a lot of cases. Something that frequently crashes on release
> has obviously not been tested properly. What other explanation is
> there?
In the case of Fallout 2, I think it's likely that it was not very well
tested. The point is that even with more proper testing, bugs can slip
through. And some game types are more difficult to test than others.
>
> Who said anything about not having a Fallout 2 game? A working
> Fallout 2 would have been immeasurably more desireable than a faulty
> Fallout 2.
>
Look, Interplay is notorious for their cash problems. The alternative to
releasing FO2 in a buggy state might have been scrapping it altogether.
From what I hear, the game was still riddled with bugs after the final
patch. The developers must have dug themselves into a hole they couldn't
get out of. It's not like hard core RPGs are big sellers or anything, so
you're not looking at a huge return on investment by doing more review of
the code.
BTW, have you noticed that there aren't many games like the Fallouts
around? They are difficult to make and don't sell very well. Those who
will want to make them anyway are enthusiasts and smaller firms, which is
why you get "sloppily tested" products like FO2, Arx Fatalis and Gothic
II.
>
> Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that you don't mind handing over your
> money for a faulty, defective product? Would you stand for it in
> anything other than software?
I do mind, it's just that my definition of faulty is different from
yours. Most games are playable despite having bugs.
>> Sloppiness is a fact of life.
>
> Not when people are having to pay good money for something it isn't.
>
We must be living in entirely different worlds, because I see sloppiness
everywhere I turn: house construction, journalism, the restaurant
business, airport security, politicians etc.
>
> Again, this is NOT an excuse to knowingly release an unfinished and
> substandard product. What other word is there, other than 'sloppy' in
> this case?
>
It's a result of trying to do something really difficult and not
succeeding 100%. I'd call it foolhardy, overambitious, stupid or naive.
Sloppy is your term.
>
> Are you telling me that you don't know of the legendary CTD 'feature'
> of Morrowind?
That is *exactly* what I am telling you. If I had tested the product pre-
shipping, I would have given it two thumbs up.
disgruntled goat
130.133.1.4:
> I didn't say "bug free" I said buggy games (meaning games with lots of
> bugs) deserve to have lower scores.
Fair enough. This qualification doesn't really affect my argument that
much, though.
>
>> BTW, according to your logic, no MMORPG should ever be awarded a
>> better grade than "D". They all suck upon release.
>
> I'm not sure they shouldn't.
>
As boring as I find MMORPGs, I don't think such a zero tolerance stance is
very productive in the long run. The buyer should definately beware,
though.
Michael Cargill
> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:bgs1p0$rp9sg$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >
> > Something as frequent as Morrowinds CTD problem is not something that
> > could have been missed by the testers - not by a long shot. Since
> > when did being complex allow you to be sloppy?
>
> As I'm a living example of, it's perfectly possible to not find the
> Morrowind CTD problem.
And since when was game testing only ever done by one person, on one
machine?
> > It is in a lot of cases. Something that frequently crashes on release
> > has obviously not been tested properly. What other explanation is
> > there?
>
> In the case of Fallout 2, I think it's likely that it was not very well
> tested. The point is that even with more proper testing, bugs can slip
> through. And some game types are more difficult to test than others.
So you admit that F2 was not very well tested, yet you STILL don't think it
is case of being sloppy?
Proper testing would get rid of all the major, game killing bugs. I doubt
if anyone would complain if a small, obscure one got through.
> > Who said anything about not having a Fallout 2 game? A working
> > Fallout 2 would have been immeasurably more desireable than a faulty
> > Fallout 2.
> >
> Look, Interplay is notorious for their cash problems. The alternative to
> releasing FO2 in a buggy state might have been scrapping it altogether.
> From what I hear, the game was still riddled with bugs after the final
> patch. The developers must have dug themselves into a hole they couldn't
> get out of. It's not like hard core RPGs are big sellers or anything, so
> you're not looking at a huge return on investment by doing more review of
> the code.
Oh, and like customers can't have their own cash flow problems? If someone
cannot afford to buy games very often, then they are not going to be very
happy when the games that they DO get are sloppy and unfinished.
Not having much money is not an excuse to release a poorly constructed
product. I do not want to have to deal with the developers problems, much
in the same way a company doesn't want someone stealing their product if
they cannot afford it.
> BTW, have you noticed that there aren't many games like the Fallouts
> around? They are difficult to make and don't sell very well. Those who
> will want to make them anyway are enthusiasts and smaller firms, which is
> why you get "sloppily tested" products like FO2, Arx Fatalis and Gothic
> II.
This has got nothing to do with it, as many PC games are released with
horrible bugs.
> > Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that you don't mind handing over your
> > money for a faulty, defective product? Would you stand for it in
> > anything other than software?
>
> I do mind, it's just that my definition of faulty is different from
> yours. Most games are playable despite having bugs.
That doesn't stop them being faulty, though.
> > Not when people are having to pay good money for something it isn't.
> >
> We must be living in entirely different worlds, because I see sloppiness
> everywhere I turn: house construction, journalism, the restaurant
> business, airport security, politicians etc.
And what happens when the sloppiness is discovered in those instances...?
> > Again, this is NOT an excuse to knowingly release an unfinished and
> > substandard product. What other word is there, other than 'sloppy' in
> > this case?
> >
> It's a result of trying to do something really difficult and not
> succeeding 100%. I'd call it foolhardy, overambitious, stupid or naive.
> Sloppy is your term.
No, not succeeding with your ideas is different to having major bugs. Many
developers say that the game didn't turn out how they had planned it - but
that does NOT mean it is full of bugs.
> > Are you telling me that you don't know of the legendary CTD 'feature'
> > of Morrowind?
>
> That is *exactly* what I am telling you. If I had tested the product pre-
> shipping, I would have given it two thumbs up.
Yes, but developers don't use just one person on one machine to test their
game.
disgruntled goat
>> As I'm a living example of, it's perfectly possible to not find the
>> Morrowind CTD problem.
>
> And since when was game testing only ever done by one person, on one
> machine?
Are you suggesting that I'm the only one not to have bugs? How many
testers do you think one needs to emulate the spectrum of different PC
configurations? Each tester costs money, and it may not be so easy to get
people wanting to do a proper job cause I can imagine it's frightfully
boring.
> So you admit that F2 was not very well tested, yet you STILL don't
> think it is case of being sloppy?
There might not have been sufficient funds or developer time at hand to
do further debugging. Maybe the development itself was sloppy since the
game got to be in such a state, but from the accounts I've read of games
development, this is pretty much true of all projects. The thing, which
you seem to absolutely deny acknowledging, is that games development is
difficult, and although better methodologies are evolving, they're still
in their relative infancy.
The case of FO2 might very well have been that the project had come to a
point where a) you could release it and try to patch up the worst along
the way, or b) kill the project entirely. Sometimes the code will be in
such a state that only a complete rewrite can salvage it, this might take
months and years to accomplish. Economic realities may dictate that this
is *not viable*. You may want to paint the world black and white and say
that a) is *wrong* and b) is *right*, but I for one don't agree with that
line of thinking.
> Proper testing would get rid of all the major, game killing bugs. I
> doubt if anyone would complain if a small, obscure one got through.
Ohh, you can be damn sure that someone would be all over that bug.
Complaining in this very forum. People love to complain, you see.
> Not having much money is not an excuse to release a poorly
> constructed product.
It may be a reality, not an excuse. Sometimes economic realitites will
force your hand. All software development is in a painfully flawed state.
To coin a phrase: "It is like a dog's walking on it's hinder legs. It is
not done well; but you are surprised to see it done at all".
>> BTW, have you noticed that there aren't many games like the Fallouts
>> around? They are difficult to make and don't sell very well. Those
>> who will want to make them anyway are enthusiasts and smaller firms,
>> which is why you get "sloppily tested" products like FO2, Arx Fatalis
>> and Gothic II.
>
> This has got nothing to do with it, as many PC games are released with
> horrible bugs.
I don't play as many games a year as I used to, but I don't see very many
with horrible bugs. In fact, I've yet to see a game which I wasn't able
to complete. Now, of course, I apply the patches as they become
available, and this strategy works well for me.
If you don't like the "release -> patch -> patch -> works ok!"-cycle,
there's nobody forcing you to buy or even play computer games at all. If
the sight of a bug makes your skin crawl, check the reviews and news
postings to see if any particular game is a safe purchase. There are no
governenmentally supervised quality standards dictating which games
should or should not be released, so everyone should use the information
available before splashing out their cash. If failure to do so causes you
to be frustrated and disappointed, you might as well point the finger at
yourself.
>> I do mind, it's just that my definition of faulty is different from
>> yours. Most games are playable despite having bugs.
>
> That doesn't stop them being faulty, though.
>
Again, by your definition. It seems that you're experiencing more
problems with your games than I do with mine, so maybe that explains why
I'm more willing than you to accept the flaws.
>> We must be living in entirely different worlds, because I see
>> sloppiness everywhere I turn: house construction, journalism, the
>> restaurant business, airport security, politicians etc.
>
> And what happens when the sloppiness is discovered in those
> instances...?
With housing, they need to get the workers back in to "patch" the house.
Restaurants get a slap on the wrist (sometimes shut down, at which point
the owner will start anew under his grandfather's name), politicians and
journalists never accept any blame for anything.
>> It's a result of trying to do something really difficult and not
>> succeeding 100%. I'd call it foolhardy, overambitious, stupid or
>> naive. Sloppy is your term.
>
> No, not succeeding with your ideas is different to having major bugs.
> Many developers say that the game didn't turn out how they had planned
> it - but that does NOT mean it is full of bugs.
Well, most games start out with a fresh happy vision of what the product
will be like and how much time it will take to get there. It is widely
accepted that these visions and time schedules are next to impossible to
get right on the first try, and will usually be adjusted heavily along
the way.
All sorts of unforeseeable mayhem may ensue once you start tinkering with
the design, sometimes severely derailing the project. It's a game of risk
management, and the more ambitious your original vision is, the higher
the risk that you will lose control of the project. Sometimes this
results in a buggy state. Even though there isn't an absolute correlation
between complexity and bugginess, it doesn't mean they're not linked at
all.
>> That is *exactly* what I am telling you. If I had tested the product
>> pre- shipping, I would have given it two thumbs up.
>
> Yes, but developers don't use just one person on one machine to test
> their game.
>
Of course not, but the number of different testers you would need to get
a representative sample is likely way too high for it to be economically
viable. Which is why the patching process is such a blessing that
*should* and *is* being exploited as part of the development process.
Michael Cargill
> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:bgtgi5$rhi8d$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >> As I'm a living example of, it's perfectly possible to not find the
> >> Morrowind CTD problem.
> >
> > And since when was game testing only ever done by one person, on one
> > machine?
>
> Are you suggesting that I'm the only one not to have bugs? How many
> testers do you think one needs to emulate the spectrum of different PC
> configurations? Each tester costs money, and it may not be so easy to get
> people wanting to do a proper job cause I can imagine it's frightfully
> boring.
When a problem as widespread as Morrowinds CTD occurs, then it is not
something that could have been missed.
Yes, testing costs money but then so does everything else. The money that
they save when scrimping on testing - is that saving passed onto the
customer, or do they charge full price for the product still...?
> > So you admit that F2 was not very well tested, yet you STILL don't
> > think it is case of being sloppy?
>
> There might not have been sufficient funds or developer time at hand to
> do further debugging. Maybe the development itself was sloppy since the
> game got to be in such a state, but from the accounts I've read of games
> development, this is pretty much true of all projects.
So what? If I play a console game, then the chances of me coming across a
bug that stops me completing a game is almost zero. Console development can
be harder and more expensive than PC development - new hardware takes time
and money to learn about. Console games require expensive development kits
to be purchased, licensing issues to be paid and sorted out with
Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, and the games also need to be submitted to those
companies before they can be released.
Once again, I am not talking about PC games with hardware compatibility
issues - that is something that can be excused to a degree. But when games
have recurring bugs that do not let you complete the game, then that is
shoddy.
> The thing, which
> you seem to absolutely deny acknowledging, is that games development is
> difficult, and although better methodologies are evolving, they're still
> in their relative infancy.
Oh, the poor developers! Their job is hard is it...?!? Sorry, but that
doesn't wash. There are THOUSANDS of 'difficult' jobs in the world, but it
is not an excuse.
Do they put a notice on the game box, saying "Sorry, our job is hard and we
couldn't get any testers - so this game might be buggy".
> The case of FO2 might very well have been that the project had come to a
> point where a) you could release it and try to patch up the worst along
> the way, or b) kill the project entirely. Sometimes the code will be in
> such a state that only a complete rewrite can salvage it, this might take
> months and years to accomplish. Economic realities may dictate that this
> is *not viable*. You may want to paint the world black and white and say
> that a) is *wrong* and b) is *right*, but I for one don't agree with that
> line of thinking.
If it wasn't fit for release, then it shouldn't have been released. Or,
alternatively, put a notice on the front of the box stating that it is
likely to be buggy.
> > Proper testing would get rid of all the major, game killing bugs. I
> > doubt if anyone would complain if a small, obscure one got through.
>
> Ohh, you can be damn sure that someone would be all over that bug.
> Complaining in this very forum. People love to complain, you see.
But to the reasonable person, something that unforseenly affects a very
small percentage of people, could be forgiven. That doesn't take away the
right for those affected people to complain, though.
> > Not having much money is not an excuse to release a poorly
> > constructed product.
>
> It may be a reality, not an excuse. Sometimes economic realitites will
> force your hand. All software development is in a painfully flawed state.
> To coin a phrase: "It is like a dog's walking on it's hinder legs. It is
> not done well; but you are surprised to see it done at all".
Again, I don't want someone passing their problems onto me when I am paying
for it.
> > This has got nothing to do with it, as many PC games are released with
> > horrible bugs.
>
> I don't play as many games a year as I used to, but I don't see very many
> with horrible bugs. In fact, I've yet to see a game which I wasn't able
> to complete.
Neither have I, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
> Now, of course, I apply the patches as they become
> available, and this strategy works well for me.
If you haven't got the problem in the first place, then of course it
would...
> If you don't like the "release -> patch -> patch -> works ok!"-cycle,
> there's nobody forcing you to buy or even play computer games at all. If
> the sight of a bug makes your skin crawl, check the reviews and news
> postings to see if any particular game is a safe purchase. There are no
> governenmentally supervised quality standards dictating which games
> should or should not be released, so everyone should use the information
> available before splashing out their cash. If failure to do so causes you
> to be frustrated and disappointed, you might as well point the finger at
> yourself.
I shouldn't have to spend time and money reading articles and reviews just
to find out if something does it's job. Not to mention that it is not
possible for reviewers to know about all the bugs either.
Many people buy things on impulse when they are out, and so reading up about
it isn't always an option. It is not unreasonable for them to assume that
the game works properly.
> > That doesn't stop them being faulty, though.
> >
> Again, by your definition. It seems that you're experiencing more
> problems with your games than I do with mine, so maybe that explains why
> I'm more willing than you to accept the flaws.
Not at all, I experience very few problems with games. Morrowind is the
first one with a big problem that affects me.
> > And what happens when the sloppiness is discovered in those
> > instances...?
>
> With housing, they need to get the workers back in to "patch" the house.
> Restaurants get a slap on the wrist (sometimes shut down, at which point
> the owner will start anew under his grandfather's name), politicians and
> journalists never accept any blame for anything.
People get fired, companies get fined, guilty parties can get jailed,
lawyers get rich. Nothing happens in the software world, as it is normal.
> > No, not succeeding with your ideas is different to having major bugs.
> > Many developers say that the game didn't turn out how they had planned
> > it - but that does NOT mean it is full of bugs.
>
> Well, most games start out with a fresh happy vision of what the product
> will be like and how much time it will take to get there. It is widely
> accepted that these visions and time schedules are next to impossible to
> get right on the first try, and will usually be adjusted heavily along
> the way.
As with anything in life.
> All sorts of unforeseeable mayhem may ensue once you start tinkering with
> the design, sometimes severely derailing the project. It's a game of risk
> management, and the more ambitious your original vision is, the higher
> the risk that you will lose control of the project. Sometimes this
> results in a buggy state. Even though there isn't an absolute correlation
> between complexity and bugginess, it doesn't mean they're not linked at
> all.
Again, not my problem. The only involvement I have with all this, is
parting with my money at the shop - and I don't want a shoddy product.
> > Yes, but developers don't use just one person on one machine to test
> > their game.
> >
> Of course not, but the number of different testers you would need to get
> a representative sample is likely way too high for it to be economically
> viable. Which is why the patching process is such a blessing that
> *should* and *is* being exploited as part of the development process.
So explain why console games have so few problems with regards to not being
able to finish a game. Remember, I am NOT talking about hardware
incompatibility issues and you cannot use the 'complexity' excuse either as
it affects all kinds of games.
disgruntled goat
> When a problem as widespread as Morrowinds CTD occurs, then it is not
> something that could have been missed.
> Yes, testing costs money but then so does everything else. The money
> that they save when scrimping on testing - is that saving passed onto
> the customer, or do they charge full price for the product still...?
The point is that they choose an economical model where they do not pay
1000 testers to try the product, but have a limited number of test
platforms that will hopefully catch *most* bugs. Once the product reaches
the larger spectrum of the actual market, the remaining bugs will be
reported and hopefully fixed in a patch to be released after the product
has shipped. This is a pragmatic approach that functions fine for *most*
people, and makes for a more economically viable development process. The
gaming industry might have a huge turnover, but not that much money is
actually made. A lot of developer houses are struggling financially,
meaning you have to cut corners where you can.
> So what? If I play a console game, then the chances of me coming
> across a bug that stops me completing a game is almost zero. Console
> development can be harder and more expensive than PC development - new
> hardware takes time and money to learn about. Console games require
> expensive development kits to be purchased, licensing issues to be
> paid and sorted out with Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, and the games also
> need to be submitted to those companies before they can be released.
> Once again, I am not talking about PC games with hardware
> compatibility issues - that is something that can be excused to a
> degree. But when games have recurring bugs that do not let you
> complete the game, then that is shoddy.
In the case of consoles, any extra testing costs need to be offset by
higher sales figures. Not having to take hardware/software configurations
into account cuts down the costs by several orders of magnitude, though
(it also saves a lot of development woes as you don't have to worry about
how the game will perform on dated machines, or try to guess which
features will be commonly available when the game is finally released.
Some games released today might have been started when the TNT 1 was
state of the art).
>
> Oh, the poor developers! Their job is hard is it...?!? Sorry, but
> that doesn't wash. There are THOUSANDS of 'difficult' jobs in the
> world, but it is not an excuse.
> Do they put a notice on the game box, saying "Sorry, our job is hard
> and we couldn't get any testers - so this game might be buggy".
Shit happens in all cases where something is hard to do. Doctors
misdiagnose their patients all the time, many newly constructed houses
come with surprisingly many defects, toys are made that can choke
children, people lose control over their car and crash, NASA lose contact
with their mars rovers, weather forecasts are often way off, etc. If your
tooth breaks while your dentist is drilling it, (s)he will indeed say
"sorry, nothing to do about that. go to this adress and have it
extracted". In short: humans are flawed and science was born yesterday.
> If it wasn't fit for release, then it shouldn't have been released.
> Or, alternatively, put a notice on the front of the box stating that
> it is likely to be buggy.
>
*I* think it was fit for release. I played it and enjoyed it. Putting a
sticker on it would only have been a costlier way of killing the project
outright.
>> > Not having much money is not an excuse to release a poorly
>> > constructed product.
>>
>> It may be a reality, not an excuse. Sometimes economic realitites
>> will force your hand. All software development is in a painfully
>> flawed state. To coin a phrase: "It is like a dog's walking on it's
>> hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to see it
>> done at all".
>
> Again, I don't want someone passing their problems onto me when I am
> paying for it.
Stick to console games, then. Really. You have obviously decided that you
think the patching model is unacceptable, so why continue to torture
yourself by buying offending software? Don't pay for it! Don't let lazy
retards pass their problems onto you! If you suspect a product isn't up
to a standard you find acceptable, why on earth buy it?
> I shouldn't have to spend time and money reading articles and reviews
> just to find out if something does it's job. Not to mention that it
> is not possible for reviewers to know about all the bugs either.
> Many people buy things on impulse when they are out, and so reading up
> about it isn't always an option. It is not unreasonable for them to
> assume that the game works properly.
Buying things on impulse is a ridiculous idea unless you're willing to
accept that what "seemed like a good idea at the time" in fact wasn't. If
you let your impulses dictate your shopping habits you have a much bigger
problem than buggy software to deal with (and I don't mean "you" in a
direct sense here).
> Again, by your definition. It seems that you're experiencing more
>> problems with your games than I do with mine, so maybe that explains
>> why I'm more willing than you to accept the flaws.
>
> Not at all, I experience very few problems with games. Morrowind is
> the first one with a big problem that affects me.
>
So maybe, just maybe, the patching model serves a function after all?
>> All sorts of unforeseeable mayhem may ensue once you start tinkering
>> with the design, sometimes severely derailing the project. It's a
>> game of risk management, and the more ambitious your original vision
>> is, the higher the risk that you will lose control of the project.
>> Sometimes this results in a buggy state. Even though there isn't an
>> absolute correlation between complexity and bugginess, it doesn't
>> mean they're not linked at all.
>
> Again, not my problem. The only involvement I have with all this, is
> parting with my money at the shop - and I don't want a shoddy product.
Wrong. Every time you buy something you're taking a (small) risk. Maybe
the TV you just bought has a faulty wiring in it causing a fire some time
in the future, the airbags in your new car might not work according to
specifications (when this is discovered, the model will be recalled, but
someone might have to experience first hand just how bad this can be
first), the imported vegetables may contain unhealthy doses of
pesticides, and so on. When something is wrong with whatever you buy, it
is very much *your problem*. If you get fat by eating too many BigMacs,
you shouldn't point the finger at others. *You* have a responsibility for
*your* life. Other people's incompetence at the wheel can directly affect
*you*.
> So explain why console games have so few problems with regards to not
> being able to finish a game. Remember, I am NOT talking about
> hardware incompatibility issues and you cannot use the 'complexity'
> excuse either as it affects all kinds of games.
>
As stated above, the patching model is superior to working out everything
in advance. You can't use it on a console, but you can and should on a
PC. In many cases post-shipping patching is *part of the process*, not
some after thought.
Michael Cargill
> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:bgu1pk$s4bvq$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > When a problem as widespread as Morrowinds CTD occurs, then it is not
> > something that could have been missed.
> > Yes, testing costs money but then so does everything else. The money
> > that they save when scrimping on testing - is that saving passed onto
> > the customer, or do they charge full price for the product still...?
>
> The point is that they choose an economical model where they do not pay
> 1000 testers to try the product, but have a limited number of test
> platforms that will hopefully catch *most* bugs. Once the product reaches
> the larger spectrum of the actual market, the remaining bugs will be
> reported and hopefully fixed in a patch to be released after the product
> has shipped.
This is incorrect, as developers often release games that they KNOW haven't
been properly tested and contain bugs that they KNOW about. That is called
negligence.
> This is a pragmatic approach that functions fine for *most*
> people, and makes for a more economically viable development process. The
> gaming industry might have a huge turnover, but not that much money is
> actually made. A lot of developer houses are struggling financially,
> meaning you have to cut corners where you can.
Cutting corners = negligence. Sorry, but it isn't an excuse.
> > So what? If I play a console game, then the chances of me coming
> > across a bug that stops me completing a game is almost zero. Console
> > development can be harder and more expensive than PC development - new
> > hardware takes time and money to learn about. Console games require
> > expensive development kits to be purchased, licensing issues to be
> > paid and sorted out with Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, and the games also
> > need to be submitted to those companies before they can be released.
> > Once again, I am not talking about PC games with hardware
> > compatibility issues - that is something that can be excused to a
> > degree. But when games have recurring bugs that do not let you
> > complete the game, then that is shoddy.
>
> In the case of consoles, any extra testing costs need to be offset by
> higher sales figures. Not having to take hardware/software configurations
> into account cuts down the costs by several orders of magnitude, though
> (it also saves a lot of development woes as you don't have to worry about
> how the game will perform on dated machines, or try to guess which
> features will be commonly available when the game is finally released.
> Some games released today might have been started when the TNT 1 was
> state of the art).
But the sales figures are certainly not guarauranted, and coding for three
different platforms (PS2/Xbox/GC) brings it's own costs and problems. It is
still more expensive to develop for a console, so the money issue is
balanced. So again, that is not an excuse for PC developers to use when
console developers can get it right first time.
> > Oh, the poor developers! Their job is hard is it...?!? Sorry, but
> > that doesn't wash. There are THOUSANDS of 'difficult' jobs in the
> > world, but it is not an excuse.
> > Do they put a notice on the game box, saying "Sorry, our job is hard
> > and we couldn't get any testers - so this game might be buggy".
>
> Shit happens in all cases where something is hard to do. Doctors
> misdiagnose their patients all the time, many newly constructed houses
> come with surprisingly many defects, toys are made that can choke
> children, people lose control over their car and crash, NASA lose contact
> with their mars rovers, weather forecasts are often way off, etc. If your
> tooth breaks while your dentist is drilling it, (s)he will indeed say
> "sorry, nothing to do about that. go to this adress and have it
> extracted". In short: humans are flawed and science was born yesterday.
The difference here is that if any of those people had KNOWINGLY released
unsafe/unfinished products, then the repurcussions would be huge. If NASA
purposefully did that, or if a doctor knowingly misdiagnosed a patient then
they would be in deep shit. If it happened because of their own negligence,
then it would certainly not be tolerated.
> > If it wasn't fit for release, then it shouldn't have been released.
> > Or, alternatively, put a notice on the front of the box stating that
> > it is likely to be buggy.
> >
> *I* think it was fit for release. I played it and enjoyed it. Putting a
> sticker on it would only have been a costlier way of killing the project
> outright.
That is an amazing point of view. Perhaps some other companies would be
interested in this type of advertising, and just blatantly lie about
something so they can sell their products.
Remember those new, anti-piracy CD's that have come out recently? The
record companies released them KNOWING that they don't work on all CD
players - and didn't provide a warning sticker. The result? Large chains
of shops refusing to stock them, thousands of customers getting refunds, a
big backlash against the artists and record companies and they were forced
to display warning stickers on these types of CD's. The "we are running out
of money" excuse didn't work on them, so why should it work on anyone else?
Think about what you are saying here - you are happy for a company to
release an unfinished product, and not have to tell you about it.
> > Again, I don't want someone passing their problems onto me when I am
> > paying for it.
>
> Stick to console games, then. Really. You have obviously decided that you
> think the patching model is unacceptable, so why continue to torture
> yourself by buying offending software? Don't pay for it! Don't let lazy
> retards pass their problems onto you! If you suspect a product isn't up
> to a standard you find acceptable, why on earth buy it?
And how do I find this out before the game is released? Do you think if I
asked the developers if there was a high chance of me not being able to play
the game, they would tell me?
> > I shouldn't have to spend time and money reading articles and reviews
> > just to find out if something does it's job. Not to mention that it
> > is not possible for reviewers to know about all the bugs either.
> > Many people buy things on impulse when they are out, and so reading up
> > about it isn't always an option. It is not unreasonable for them to
> > assume that the game works properly.
>
> Buying things on impulse is a ridiculous idea unless you're willing to
> accept that what "seemed like a good idea at the time" in fact wasn't. If
> you let your impulses dictate your shopping habits you have a much bigger
> problem than buggy software to deal with (and I don't mean "you" in a
> direct sense here).
Amazing. Are you telling me that you haven't ever bought something just out
of the blue? Never bought a music CD or a DVD in a sale? You are mistaking
someone buying an 'As seen on TV!' gadget and finding that they don't need
something that holds 20 times more water than a tea-towel, for someone
buying something that doesn't work properly. The two things are totally
different.
If I buy a DVD, then I expect it to play from beginning to end properly no
matter how crap the film itself maybe. Likewise, I expect a game to play
properly from beginning to end (I am not talking about hardware
compatibility issues here) no matter how good or bad it is.
If I buy a film/game on impulse then I cannot complain if it is not to my
tastes - however, I CAN complain if it doesn't work properly.
> > Not at all, I experience very few problems with games. Morrowind is
> > the first one with a big problem that affects me.
> >
> So maybe, just maybe, the patching model serves a function after all?
No, because it should have been sorted before it was released.
> > Again, not my problem. The only involvement I have with all this, is
> > parting with my money at the shop - and I don't want a shoddy product.
>
> Wrong. Every time you buy something you're taking a (small) risk. Maybe
> the TV you just bought has a faulty wiring in it causing a fire some time
> in the future, the airbags in your new car might not work according to
> specifications (when this is discovered, the model will be recalled, but
> someone might have to experience first hand just how bad this can be
> first), the imported vegetables may contain unhealthy doses of
> pesticides, and so on. When something is wrong with whatever you buy, it
> is very much *your problem*. If you get fat by eating too many BigMacs,
> you shouldn't point the finger at others. *You* have a responsibility for
> *your* life. Other people's incompetence at the wheel can directly affect
> *you*.
If the TV manufatcurer KNOWINGLY sold their products with faulty wiring,
then they would be in deep trouble.
> > So explain why console games have so few problems with regards to not
> > being able to finish a game. Remember, I am NOT talking about
> > hardware incompatibility issues and you cannot use the 'complexity'
> > excuse either as it affects all kinds of games.
> >
> As stated above, the patching model is superior to working out everything
> in advance. You can't use it on a console, but you can and should on a
> PC. In many cases post-shipping patching is *part of the process*, not
> some after thought.
Whoa. So you admit that PC games are knowingly shipped unfinished? It is
quite incredible that you are PRAISING this method, to be honest. PC
developers should be under just as much pressure to properly test a game as
much as console developers are - and if something is found after all this
then a patch should be issued.
Why, exactly, SHOULD the current method be used? Would you not rather have
games properly finished before they are released? Just because you CAN
patch games on the PC, this does not mean that it should be an advantage to
be abused.
disgruntled goat
> This is incorrect, as developers often release games that they KNOW
> haven't been properly tested and contain bugs that they KNOW about.
> That is called negligence.
It could be that, or it could be that the bugs are deemed to be minor. Or
it could be that the money man decided that the game be released, and the
developer had no say. Or maybe they were simply intending to patch this and
other bugs in time for the release (the master may be sent off a good while
before the game hit the shelves).
The patching model is a good one. If some developer doesn't test at all,
then that is not the fault of the model.
>
>> This is a pragmatic approach that functions fine for *most*
>> people, and makes for a more economically viable development process.
>> The gaming industry might have a huge turnover, but not that much
>> money is actually made. A lot of developer houses are struggling
>> financially, meaning you have to cut corners where you can.
>
> Cutting corners = negligence. Sorry, but it isn't an excuse.
It is a viable strategy employed in lots of development projects. You
cannot do it in critical systems, but it's a good trade off with
entertainment products such as games.
> But the sales figures are certainly not guarauranted, and coding for
> three different platforms (PS2/Xbox/GC) brings it's own costs and
> problems. It is still more expensive to develop for a console, so the
> money issue is balanced. So again, that is not an excuse for PC
> developers to use when console developers can get it right first time.
The term "excuse" is yours. Console developers can't use this model, while
the PC developers can. They do it because they can, and because it is well
suited to the domain.
>> Shit happens in all cases where something is hard to do. Doctors
>> misdiagnose their patients all the time, many newly constructed
>> houses come with surprisingly many defects, toys are made that can
>> choke children, people lose control over their car and crash, NASA
>> lose contact with their mars rovers, weather forecasts are often way
>> off, etc. If your tooth breaks while your dentist is drilling it,
>> (s)he will indeed say "sorry, nothing to do about that. go to this
>> adress and have it extracted". In short: humans are flawed and
>> science was born yesterday.
>
> The difference here is that if any of those people had KNOWINGLY
> released unsafe/unfinished products, then the repurcussions would be
> huge. If NASA purposefully did that, or if a doctor knowingly
> misdiagnosed a patient then they would be in deep shit. If it
> happened because of their own negligence, then it would certainly not
> be tolerated.
Certainly. But in the case of, say, misdiagnosis, it is often correct to
say that a more thorough examination might have uncovered the real cause of
the symptoms. A more thorough examination might have been painful and
costly, or maybe the tests necessary to make the proper diagnosis simply
didn't occur to the doctor because the ailment was particularly rare. It's
a bitter lesson, but one would tend to forgive the doctor because of the
human factor.
Not all bugs are known at the time of shipping. In Arx Fatalis there was
supposedly this bug where, if you had cheese in your inventory, a mouse
might follow you into the tavern and the clientele would become hostile to
you (it was something along these lines, my memory fails me...) After that
the game would turn nearly unplayable, because all the guards would attack
you on sight. The developer tried to do something cool, but had it
backfire. It probably wouldn't occur to you to tell your testers to "play
through the entire game, every nook and cranny, while having cheese in the
inventory". That wouldn't make you sloppy in my book, although a lot of
players got upset because of this bug.
>
>> > If it wasn't fit for release, then it shouldn't have been released.
>> > Or, alternatively, put a notice on the front of the box stating
>> > that it is likely to be buggy.
>> >
>> *I* think it was fit for release. I played it and enjoyed it. Putting
>> a sticker on it would only have been a costlier way of killing the
>> project outright.
>
> That is an amazing point of view. Perhaps some other companies would
> be interested in this type of advertising, and just blatantly lie
> about something so they can sell their products.
Fallout 2 is one of the best games I've played. It's tendency to crash to
desktop didn't make it unplayable. You cannot stand CTDs, but I can (there
is an upward limit of how frequent they can be, though, but FO2 didn't
exceed it). In short: the game was functional, and I'm happy it was
released. I've seen quite a few people praising Fallout 2, so I don't think
I'm the only one who feels this way.
> Remember those new, anti-piracy CD's that have come out recently? The
> record companies released them KNOWING that they don't work on all CD
> players - and didn't provide a warning sticker. The result? Large
> chains of shops refusing to stock them, thousands of customers getting
> refunds, a big backlash against the artists and record companies and
> they were forced to display warning stickers on these types of CD's.
> The "we are running out of money" excuse didn't work on them, so why
> should it work on anyone else?
Can't any shop refuse to stock items they deem unfit to sell? One aspect of
the anti-piracy CDs, btw, were that they might actually *damage* certain
DVD players (maybe cd players too, cant remember), which is quite a bit
worse than just having to return the cd and get a refund. I don't know the
reason for the warning stickers in your country, but in my country, it was
the damaging aspect that caused the most fuss.
>
> Think about what you are saying here - you are happy for a company to
> release an unfinished product, and not have to tell you about it.
>
As long as they use the patching model to correct the bugs, yes. If a game
remains unplayable, I might not be quite as happy, but luckily I've not had
that happen, and to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't happen very often
with other games either.
>> Stick to console games, then. Really. You have obviously decided that
>> you think the patching model is unacceptable, so why continue to
>> torture yourself by buying offending software? Don't pay for it!
>> Don't let lazy retards pass their problems onto you! If you suspect a
>> product isn't up to a standard you find acceptable, why on earth buy
>> it?
>
> And how do I find this out before the game is released? Do you think
> if I asked the developers if there was a high chance of me not being
> able to play the game, they would tell me?
I really couldn't answer that, but you are fully aware that a lot of PC
game releases will be patched a few times before the developers call it a
day and move on to their next project. Console games, as you've stated,
have all the functionality out-of-the-box. Just seems that you would be
happier with console games, is all.
>> Buying things on impulse is a ridiculous idea unless you're willing
>> to accept that what "seemed like a good idea at the time" in fact
>> wasn't. If you let your impulses dictate your shopping habits you
>> have a much bigger problem than buggy software to deal with (and I
>> don't mean "you" in a direct sense here).
>
> Amazing. Are you telling me that you haven't ever bought something
> just out of the blue? Never bought a music CD or a DVD in a sale?
Sure I buy sale items, but I'm pretty much aware that the risk that I won't
like the item is bigger since I can't pre-listen to the CD's or know
anything about the DVD except I like the actors. I'm willing to take this
risk if the price is right. I certainly don't buy full price games or
costlier items on impulse. I have no control of whether or not my impulses
will steer me in a right direction, so I certainly try to not follow them -
both when it comes to shopping and otherwise. Blindly following your
impulses can cause you a lot of grief.
> You are mistaking someone buying an 'As seen on TV!' gadget and
> finding that they don't need something that holds 20 times more water
> than a tea-towel, for someone buying something that doesn't work
> properly. The two things are totally different.
> If I buy a DVD, then I expect it to play from beginning to end
> properly no matter how crap the film itself maybe. Likewise, I expect
> a game to play properly from beginning to end (I am not talking about
> hardware compatibility issues here) no matter how good or bad it is.
> If I buy a film/game on impulse then I cannot complain if it is not to
> my tastes - however, I CAN complain if it doesn't work properly.
>
Again, assess the risks. Computer games may contain bugs. This is not some
well kept secret known to a select few. Also, if the game turns out to be
an absolute mess, couldn't you take it back to the store and trade it for
something else?
...
>> Wrong. Every time you buy something you're taking a (small) risk.
>> Maybe the TV you just bought has a faulty wiring in it causing a fire
>> some time in the future, the airbags in your new car might not work
>> according to specifications (when this is discovered, the model will
>> be recalled, but someone might have to experience first hand just how
>> bad this can be first), the imported vegetables may contain unhealthy
>> doses of pesticides, and so on. When something is wrong with whatever
>> you buy, it is very much *your problem*. If you get fat by eating too
>> many BigMacs, you shouldn't point the finger at others. *You* have a
>> responsibility for *your* life. Other people's incompetence at the
>> wheel can directly affect *you*.
>
> If the TV manufatcurer KNOWINGLY sold their products with faulty
> wiring, then they would be in deep trouble.
Sure, but this fact doesn't mean that you're not taking a risk.
>> > So explain why console games have so few problems with regards to
>> > not being able to finish a game. Remember, I am NOT talking about
>> > hardware incompatibility issues and you cannot use the 'complexity'
>> > excuse either as it affects all kinds of games.
>> >
>> As stated above, the patching model is superior to working out
>> everything in advance. You can't use it on a console, but you can and
>> should on a PC. In many cases post-shipping patching is *part of the
>> process*, not some after thought.
>
>
> Whoa. So you admit that PC games are knowingly shipped unfinished?
If by "knowingly shipped unfinished" you mean that the developers are aware
that the full extent of possible hardware/software conflicts and hard-to-
find bugs has not been determined: Yes. (I can, of course, not "admit"
anything on behalf of anyone.)
> It is quite incredible that you are PRAISING this method, to be
> honest. PC developers should be under just as much pressure to
> properly test a game as much as console developers are - and if
> something is found after all this then a patch should be issued.
I'm praising this method because it works well (most games run perfectly
fine), and because it fits well with the PC market where it is a) easy to
distribute patches and b) very difficult to uncover bugs due to unforeseen
conflicts with hardware/software/drivers.
> Why, exactly, SHOULD the current method be used? Would you not rather
> have games properly finished before they are released? Just because
> you CAN patch games on the PC, this does not mean that it should be an
> advantage to be abused.
>
Since you couldn't possibly test your game on all existing configurations,
there is a remarkably high risk that you will have to patch your game so
that it will function properly for as many users as possible. The patching
model makes it possible to correct bugs, make improvements in game balance,
introduce new features - in short: improve the things that didn't work as
you had hoped.
Russell Wallace
<mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Proper testing would get rid of all the major, game killing bugs.
That turns out not to be the case. It's well known in the software
industry that you can't test quality into a flawed product. A common
pattern when people try to write complex, state of the art software on
an inadequate schedule is:
- Important design decisions (I'm talking about the design of the
program code itself, not of the game content) get made early, because
you have to make them before you can get much code written.
- Since this point is early, it's also before you really know much
about the program you're trying to write, so you probably get some of
those design decisions wrong, particularly since you're in a hurry.
- By the time you find out what's wrong, there's a lot of code
written. It seems like you don't have time to go back and redo them.
Continuing as things are may cost you more time in the long run, but
everyone's been working overtime so they're too tired to think
straight, let alone focus the willpower to say "We've got to scrap
module X and rewrite it" and deal with the inevitable "We don't have
time to do that" argument.
- So you have a fundamentally flawed architecture that you try to
patch with extra code, thus adding to the complexity. Meanwhile the
gameplay and user interface are being tweaked: more additions and
amendments required to the code, perhaps enough that they'd break the
integrity of the architecture even if it had been properly designed in
the first place, which it wasn't.
- Then the testing reports come in. Finding bugs is easy. The bug
count quickly hits the hundreds, maybe thousands if you're tracking
them properly. People run around frantically trying to fix bugs, but
the code is so complex and flawed at this stage that nobody could
understand it even if they were working normal hours and therefore
able to think coherently, which they're not. Making changes to a
complex, brittle artifact you don't understand tends to break things.
- The originally scheduled shipping date is a month in the past, then
two, then three. The product still isn't ready to ship, but it's
already past the point where shipping it would qualify as a success.
Everyone's exhausted and demoralized. Some of the outstanding bugs
nobody knows how to reproduce let alone fix. Some of them would
involve rewriting half the code to fix. Some get fixed, introducing
more bugs in the process. Testing isn't the problem. Testing's job is
to find bugs, and by God are they finding some.
- In the middle of all this, management says "We've got to ship now
because we're going to run out of money; half the marketing money we
spent has already been wasted because the product wasn't ready. We're
getting to the point where nobody will care about it when we do ship."
Hardly surprising people throw up their hands and say "fuck yeah,
let's call this project done with so I can get some sleep". The
surprising thing is that any complex program written under such
conditions ever works at all. And that people are masochistic enough
to sign up for a second project.
(Let me be clear about one thing: I'm not excusing buggy software - I
personally have a policy of not buying software that I've heard has a
lot of bugs - merely explaining that lack of testing isn't the issue.)
--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
Russell Wallace
<mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>So explain why console games have so few problems with regards to not being
>able to finish a game.
I suspect the main reason is that the console companies keep the
supply of titles under control, so that the market isn't glutted to
the point where getting into it is slow suicide, and the developers
have space and time to do things more methodically.
Michael Cargill
> "Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:bgui1n$stt37$1...@ID-108275.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > This is incorrect, as developers often release games that they KNOW
> > haven't been properly tested and contain bugs that they KNOW about.
> > That is called negligence.
>
> It could be that, or it could be that the bugs are deemed to be minor. Or
> it could be that the money man decided that the game be released, and the
> developer had no say. Or maybe they were simply intending to patch this
and
> other bugs in time for the release (the master may be sent off a good
while
> before the game hit the shelves).
Either way, it is negligence to knowingly ship the game with such bugs.
> The patching model is a good one. If some developer doesn't test at all,
> then that is not the fault of the model.
I never said I was against patching - I am against developers knowingly
releasing the game with bugs, and your statement there proves that you
acknowledge that this happens. This is negligence.
> > Cutting corners = negligence. Sorry, but it isn't an excuse.
>
> It is a viable strategy employed in lots of development projects. You
> cannot do it in critical systems, but it's a good trade off with
> entertainment products such as games.
Viable for the developer perhaps, but not for me. They certainly do not
tell me of the potential problems when I buy the game, and you don't see
this sort of thing so brazenly occuring in other industries.
> > But the sales figures are certainly not guarauranted, and coding for
> > three different platforms (PS2/Xbox/GC) brings it's own costs and
> > problems. It is still more expensive to develop for a console, so the
> > money issue is balanced. So again, that is not an excuse for PC
> > developers to use when console developers can get it right first time.
>
> The term "excuse" is yours. Console developers can't use this model, while
> the PC developers can. They do it because they can, and because it is well
> suited to the domain.
Burglars break into houses 'because they can', but that doesn't make it
right. I fail to see how shipping an unfinished product is well suited to
ANY kind of domain.
I fail to see why you are advocating the 'release and patch' system over the
'do it right first time' system. I also see that you accept the 'it's too
expensive' issue is invalid for PC developers?
> > The difference here is that if any of those people had KNOWINGLY
> > released unsafe/unfinished products, then the repurcussions would be
> > huge. If NASA purposefully did that, or if a doctor knowingly
> > misdiagnosed a patient then they would be in deep shit. If it
> > happened because of their own negligence, then it would certainly not
> > be tolerated.
>
> Certainly. But in the case of, say, misdiagnosis, it is often correct to
> say that a more thorough examination might have uncovered the real cause
of
> the symptoms. A more thorough examination might have been painful and
> costly, or maybe the tests necessary to make the proper diagnosis simply
> didn't occur to the doctor because the ailment was particularly rare. It's
> a bitter lesson, but one would tend to forgive the doctor because of the
> human factor.
Not testing a game properly is laziness and negligence, whilst the
occasional misdiagnosis is normal. So many games being shipped with so many
bugs should not be 'normal', and for you to say that this is fine and dandy
is ludicrous.
Once again - if a doctor knowingly misdiagnosed someone, then it would not
be tolerated. The same should be applied to games.
> Not all bugs are known at the time of shipping. In Arx Fatalis there was
> supposedly this bug where, if you had cheese in your inventory, a mouse
> might follow you into the tavern and the clientele would become hostile to
> you (it was something along these lines, my memory fails me...) After that
> the game would turn nearly unplayable, because all the guards would attack
> you on sight. The developer tried to do something cool, but had it
> backfire. It probably wouldn't occur to you to tell your testers to "play
> through the entire game, every nook and cranny, while having cheese in the
> inventory". That wouldn't make you sloppy in my book, although a lot of
> players got upset because of this bug.
That is an obscure bug, and so isn't something that may have been picked up.
However, the constant CTD problems could NOT have been missed in the games
it affects due to the frequencey with which they occur.
> > That is an amazing point of view. Perhaps some other companies would
> > be interested in this type of advertising, and just blatantly lie
> > about something so they can sell their products.
>
> Fallout 2 is one of the best games I've played. It's tendency to crash to
> desktop didn't make it unplayable. You cannot stand CTDs, but I can (there
> is an upward limit of how frequent they can be, though, but FO2 didn't
> exceed it). In short: the game was functional, and I'm happy it was
> released.
You didn't actually provide any sort of reply with that statement at all.
You stuck up for a company that failed to warn it's customers about the
problems that it knew about with it's own product, which is totally absurd.
Would you stick up for a company in a different field who did the same
thing?
> I've seen quite a few people praising Fallout 2, so I don't think
> I'm the only one who feels this way.
And? Plenty of people have also slated it for those very same problems.
> > Remember those new, anti-piracy CD's that have come out recently? The
> > record companies released them KNOWING that they don't work on all CD
> > players - and didn't provide a warning sticker. The result? Large
> > chains of shops refusing to stock them, thousands of customers getting
> > refunds, a big backlash against the artists and record companies and
> > they were forced to display warning stickers on these types of CD's.
> > The "we are running out of money" excuse didn't work on them, so why
> > should it work on anyone else?
>
> Can't any shop refuse to stock items they deem unfit to sell? One aspect
of
> the anti-piracy CDs, btw, were that they might actually *damage* certain
> DVD players (maybe cd players too, cant remember), which is quite a bit
> worse than just having to return the cd and get a refund. I don't know the
> reason for the warning stickers in your country, but in my country, it was
> the damaging aspect that caused the most fuss.
Another non-response.
If the 'running out of money' excuse didn't work for the record companies,
then why should it work for game developers? The record companies knowingly
released a product that either wouldn't work, or would damage the equipment
it was used on. They then had to use warning labels - why shouldn't game
developers have to do the same thing?
> > Think about what you are saying here - you are happy for a company to
> > release an unfinished product, and not have to tell you about it.
> >
> As long as they use the patching model to correct the bugs, yes. If a game
> remains unplayable, I might not be quite as happy, but luckily I've not
had
> that happen, and to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't happen very often
> with other games either.
So you are totally FOR allowing companies to release unfinished products,
WITHOUT being forced to inform their customers of this beforehand? Does
this not strike you as totally insane? You berate someone for impulse
purchases, and yet you support this...?
If you bought a brand new car whose boot wouldn't open, what would your
response be when the company says "Oh yes, we knew about that the whole time
but didn't tell you in case you didn't buy it. We will fix it when we can
be bothered"?
> > And how do I find this out before the game is released? Do you think
> > if I asked the developers if there was a high chance of me not being
> > able to play the game, they would tell me?
>
> I really couldn't answer that, but you are fully aware that a lot of PC
> game releases will be patched a few times before the developers call it a
> day and move on to their next project.
I am aware that some games will have bugs, but I have no idea as to what
those bugs are or how they will affect me until I encounter them. How am I
supposed to know before I buy the game?
> Console games, as you've stated,
> have all the functionality out-of-the-box.
Oh? And what else do PC games require? Exactly why shouldn't a PC game
function as it should (baring obscure hardware configurations)?
> Just seems that you would be
> happier with console games, is all.
I couldn't give a toss what format a game is on - the fact that I play PC
games is proof of this. I just want them to WORK.
> > Amazing. Are you telling me that you haven't ever bought something
> > just out of the blue? Never bought a music CD or a DVD in a sale?
>
> Sure I buy sale items, but I'm pretty much aware that the risk that I
won't
> like the item is bigger since I can't pre-listen to the CD's or know
> anything about the DVD except I like the actors. I'm willing to take this
> risk if the price is right. I certainly don't buy full price games or
> costlier items on impulse. I have no control of whether or not my impulses
> will steer me in a right direction, so I certainly try to not follow
them -
> both when it comes to shopping and otherwise. Blindly following your
> impulses can cause you a lot of grief.
In most respects, impulse buying will only affect you in the 'actually, I
didn't need that/I don't have everything I need for this to work'
department - which is the fault of the buyer. If it affects you in the
'erm, this thing doesn't work properly' department, then that is the fault
of the manufacturer.
> > You are mistaking someone buying an 'As seen on TV!' gadget and
> > finding that they don't need something that holds 20 times more water
> > than a tea-towel, for someone buying something that doesn't work
> > properly. The two things are totally different.
> > If I buy a DVD, then I expect it to play from beginning to end
> > properly no matter how crap the film itself maybe. Likewise, I expect
> > a game to play properly from beginning to end (I am not talking about
> > hardware compatibility issues here) no matter how good or bad it is.
> > If I buy a film/game on impulse then I cannot complain if it is not to
> > my tastes - however, I CAN complain if it doesn't work properly.
> >
> Again, assess the risks. Computer games may contain bugs. This is not some
> well kept secret known to a select few.
The bugs that actually affect the games certainly ARE a well kept secret -
if people knew about them before buying them, then many people would not buy
it. I have no 'risks to assess' when buying something - the fact remains
that it should work properly.
> Also, if the game turns out to be
> an absolute mess, couldn't you take it back to the store and trade it for
> something else?
Probably not, because the shops fear for piracy, not to mention that having
to repeatedly take things back because they do not work is an absurd thing
to put up with.
> > If the TV manufatcurer KNOWINGLY sold their products with faulty
> > wiring, then they would be in deep trouble.
>
> Sure, but this fact doesn't mean that you're not taking a risk.
It is not an acceptable risk. If I buy something, then it should work. If
the money I handed over 'didn't work', then they would clamp down on me soon
enough. Businesses who get ripped off are not told "well, you took the risk
so it is your own fault".
I have every single right to expect that when I buy something it should work
properly, and not fail due to negligence.
> > Whoa. So you admit that PC games are knowingly shipped unfinished?
>
> If by "knowingly shipped unfinished" you mean that the developers are
aware
> that the full extent of possible hardware/software conflicts and hard-to-
> find bugs has not been determined: Yes. (I can, of course, not "admit"
> anything on behalf of anyone.)
Once again, I am NOT talking about hardware incompatibilities. Though it is
a good point - do they even put a warning stating that the game may not work
on some PC's? The closest you get is the 'minimum requirments' tab. If
someones PC meets those requirments, then they have every single right to
expect it to work - yet the developers will know that it may not.
> > It is quite incredible that you are PRAISING this method, to be
> > honest. PC developers should be under just as much pressure to
> > properly test a game as much as console developers are - and if
> > something is found after all this then a patch should be issued.
>
> I'm praising this method because it works well (most games run perfectly
> fine),
It works well for WHOM? Only the developers, but certainly not the
customer. The console method works even BETTER.
> and because it fits well with the PC market where it is a) easy to
> distribute patches and
Easy for the developers to distribute, but not always easy for the customer
to obtain.
I wonder how many people who needed the huge patch for Sin felt when they
were faced with the choice of downloading it on a 56k modem, or paying £5
for a PC mag the next month with the patch on the coverdisk...?
> b) very difficult to uncover bugs due to unforeseen
> conflicts with hardware/software/drivers.
I am NOT talking about this, so STOP referring back to it.
> > Why, exactly, SHOULD the current method be used? Would you not rather
> > have games properly finished before they are released? Just because
> > you CAN patch games on the PC, this does not mean that it should be an
> > advantage to be abused.
> >
> Since you couldn't possibly test your game on all existing configurations,
> there is a remarkably high risk that you will have to patch your game so
> that it will function properly for as many users as possible. The patching
> model makes it possible to correct bugs, make improvements in game
balance,
> introduce new features - in short: improve the things that didn't work as
> you had hoped.
I am not talking about hardware incompatibilities, and improving a game is
always welcomed.
You seem to be under the impression that I am against all kinds of patches,
but I am not - I am against developers not testing their games properly, and
shipping it early so they can perhaps fix it later. If console developers
can get their games working properly first time, then so can PC developers.
The gameplay bugs shouldn't exist in the first place.
Really it is just a common sense issue - the game should be finished
properly so that it works, and if console developers can do it then so can
PC developers.
Michael Cargill
news:3f32ec60....@news.eircom.net...
>
> (Let me be clear about one thing: I'm not excusing buggy software - I
> personally have a policy of not buying software that I've heard has a
> lot of bugs - merely explaining that lack of testing isn't the issue.)
Well, I know this - but it is easier to just say 'testing' rather than all
the stuff that you said...