Vampire- SAVE ANYWHERE patch is coming soon!
Jeff Jones
Hats off to Nihilistic!
Vampire patch status 3:05 PM (your time) Billy "Wicked" Wilson (0)
TheMasquerade (yep, more Vampire news) spotted a post to the official
Vampire forums by Nihilistic's Raymond Gresko on the upcoming patch:
Hello Everyone, just a note on the current status of the patch-
The team is working on a feature patch that contains the following
fixes/enhancements:
- Save Anywhere
- Pause Combat (allows pausing of the game in single player to issue
commands)
- Greatly improved network play, supporting lower bandwith connections
- Support for ST modification of generation, humanity, and lowering of
attributes
- Various AI fixes/tweaks (includes boss difficulty, coterie blood usage and
guard alertness)
There are a bunch of other issues addressed in the patch, but these are the
high points. This patch will take about 2-3 weeks to complete and test.
We've decided to roll the mini network patch we were going to put out this
week into this larger patch, so we can have one definitive update that
solves all the issues. The release of the Nod SDK will be delayed until next
week because of the focus we're putting on the patch (tools are basically
ready, some documentation still remaining).
We'd like to thank everyone for their feedback, we'll keep you posted on our
progress!
Ryan Franklin
> Kevin McGuire <kevi...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:8i6iv8$pbo$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>> Jeff Jones (jeff....@home.com) wrote:
>> : You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what a doozy!
>> : Hats off to Nihilistic!
>>
>> For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that should have been
>> there in the first place?
>
> yes, exactly. better late than never.
Not to mention that it was an awfully graceful way of doing it. Contrast
this with Fox/Rebellion's stance on Aliens vs. Predator (where the
developer's public stance was 'The game should not have save games
available, this was our decision,' and eventually they--very grudgingly,
it seemed to me--agreed to put out a limited-save patch after weeks of
bitching). In contrast, Nihilistic responded very quickly (it's been,
what, a week since the game was released?) and clearly, and seem genuinely
interested in addressing any and all concerns that people have with their
game. That's worth congratulating, I think.
--
i'm tempted to take a look at it now, and really wasn't before
ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net
John Reynolds
John
Ryan Franklin <ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote in message
news:3946...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net...
Bo
Kevin McGuire
: You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what a doozy!
: Hats off to Nihilistic!
For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that should have been
there in the first place?
--
Kevin McGuire
University of Pennsylvania
Looking Glass Forever!
Brian H.
Jeff Jones <jeff....@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xaz15.400$Yr4....@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what a
doozy!
> Hats off to Nihilistic!
>
>
runamok101
"Brian H." <bh1234...@nospam.please.ismart.net> wrote in message
news:8i6pbm$4c...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
Jeff Jones
doozy!
> : Hats off to Nihilistic!
>
> there in the first place?
They made a design decision that people didn't like. Now they are changing
it to please those people. I don't see where the problem is. I am grateful
that they are willing to listen and change things to please their customers.
Bunboy
Gamer's are so conditioned for the basic crumbs that obvious fixes to
problems that had to or should have been dealt with in the QA process; no
excitement here. Being greatfull for the patch and expressing it (which is
of course your right and opinion) is going to do nothing to get them to deal
with issues like this before the game comes out on the next one they make.
Usenet people being more sophisticated in the gaming area than the
general public don't understand that in all likelyhood the majority of
people who bought the game don't even now what a patch is let alone be able
to download it off the net. And then even if they get that far not realize
that you have to install it. American car manufacturers when they were
getting there butts kicked by the foreign competition tried to give
outrageously good waranty to get people to buy their crap cars. It didn't
work and until they started making goods cars and QA did they reacpture and
boost sales. I contend that every patch is one more step twoards consol
gaming destroying the Computer Gaming world which when it works to me is
themost special gaming experience of all!
--
Bunboy, The people who can smile when things go wrong has found someone
else to blame!
John Reynolds <mjo...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3946e51d$0$1505$53a6...@news.erinet.com...
> Exactly.
>
> John
>
>
>
> Ryan Franklin <ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote in message
> news:3946...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net...
> > Bo <b...@att.net> wrote:
> > > Kevin McGuire <kevi...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:8i6iv8$pbo$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > >> Jeff Jones (jeff....@home.com) wrote:
> > >> : You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what
a
> doozy!
> > >> : Hats off to Nihilistic!
> > >>
> > >> For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that should have
> been
> > >> there in the first place?
> > >
> > > yes, exactly. better late than never.
> >
Hong Ooi
>I too am glad for the patch but greatfull or applaud the company no.
>Gamer's are so conditioned for the basic crumbs that obvious fixes to
>problems that had to or should have been dealt with in the QA process; no
>excitement here. Being greatfull for the patch and expressing it (which is
>of course your right and opinion) is going to do nothing to get them to deal
>with issues like this before the game comes out on the next one they make.
As far as this thread is concerned, though, this isn't a bug-fix patch.
This is a design-decision patch -- the only "issue" being discussed here
is the problem with saving games.
--
Hong Ooi | "I used to use my real name many years ago. I
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | got just as much disrespect then as I do now."
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | -- T.
Canberra, Australia |
Quatoria
kevi...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Kevin McGuire) wrote:
>Jeff Jones (jeff....@home.com) wrote:
>: You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what a doozy!
>: Hats off to Nihilistic!
>
>For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that should have been
>there in the first place?
No, for listening to the concerns of their players and changing
fundamental aspects of the game engine and experience in order to meet
those requests and complaints. Damn, some people are fucking
impossible to please. Making a perfect game is impossible, and I'd far
rather have a group of programmers committed to fixing errors and
improving their product.
-Quatoria
--
In this unpredictable, oftentimes contentious world,
sometimes you just have to sit back, take a moment to
reflect, and say "Well, I'll be a greased Jesus!"
Hong Ooi
<trigg...@mailhost.chi.ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>I know that the logical answer is #2, but that choice seems beyond the
>ken of most of the petulant, emotionally retarded mutants in this
>newsgroup. I constantly see people around here who'd rather rage
>against the darkness than light a fucking candle.
Thrasher does this much better than you.
triggercut
1. Don't change the save game feature. Defend it as a "design
decision" and continue to piss off the game's audience, or
2. Fix it. Fix a few other bugs. Make a pretty decent game better.
Respond to your consumers and give them what they want.
I know that the logical answer is #2, but that choice seems beyond the
ken of most of the petulant, emotionally retarded mutants in this
newsgroup. I constantly see people around here who'd rather rage
against the darkness than light a fucking candle.
I'd imagine that in this case, while Activision approved the final Gold
Master, the game, design decisions, internal coding, and everything else
was done by Nihilistic. I also applaud them for springing into action
so quickly. It's my hope that if consumers continue to give a
developer honest feedback in a polite and genuinely helpful manner that
we'll see more of this (I've been impressed by the developers who did
Majesty, PS:T, and Tzar, among others for being so accessible and
responsive during the past few months...) Perhaps if such an
environment continues, the likelihood of another plague like Ultima IX
will be greatly reduced.
My .02
Kevin McGuire wrote:
>
> Jeff Jones (jeff....@home.com) wrote:
> : You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what a doozy!
> : Hats off to Nihilistic!
>
> For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that should have been
> there in the first place?
>
No_spamJohn macvie
as the lack of the save anywhere feature which should be *standard* for PC
games is preventing me from buying it at present. I expect to be able to
save a game to suit *my* playing style and also when my "real" life dictates
to me that I have to exit the game and get on with some work :(
However, much as I applaud the designers' decision to issue a patch, they
are clearly fuckwits for imposing this console like feature on us in the
first place!
John
--
John Macvie
Dumfries, Scotland
To reply by e-mail remove "No_Spam"
Christoph Nahr
<ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>In contrast, Nihilistic responded very quickly (it's been,
>what, a week since the game was released?) and clearly, and seem genuinely
>interested in addressing any and all concerns that people have with their
>game. That's worth congratulating, I think.
Uh oh. Methinks you are very naive. This massive patch fixes very
annoying defects and contains features that we could have expected out
of the box. I don't believe for a second that Nihilistic is reacting
quickly to complaints they hadn't heard before release. I bet QA had
brought up the exact same issues as the reviewers, and Nihilistic has
been working on the patch ever since Vampire went gold. Activision
had to shove it out of the door to beat Diablo 2 and Icewind Dale.
--
Visit http://uuhome.de/christoph.nahr/ for Might & Magic information
and game projects with source code for download: Star Chess & Hexkit
SyNiC
trigg...@mailhost.chi.ameritech.net says...
> Jesus. The choices are these:
>
> 1. Don't change the save game feature. Defend it as a "design
> decision" and continue to piss off the game's audience, or
>
> 2. Fix it. Fix a few other bugs. Make a pretty decent game better.
> Respond to your consumers and give them what they want.
>
> I know that the logical answer is #2, but that choice seems beyond the
> ken of most of the petulant, emotionally retarded mutants in this
> newsgroup. I constantly see people around here who'd rather rage
> against the darkness than light a fucking candle.
>
> I'd imagine that in this case, while Activision approved the final Gold
> Master, the game, design decisions, internal coding, and everything else
> was done by Nihilistic. I also applaud them for springing into action
> so quickly. It's my hope that if consumers continue to give a
> developer honest feedback in a polite and genuinely helpful manner that
> we'll see more of this (I've been impressed by the developers who did
> Majesty, PS:T, and Tzar, among others for being so accessible and
> responsive during the past few months...) Perhaps if such an
> environment continues, the likelihood of another plague like Ultima IX
> will be greatly reduced.
>
> My .02
>
Meh. I don't usually congratulate people for fixing a poorly designed
game *after* i bought it.
After all, that's what beta testing is for...
my $.02
Frail2k
how many times did you re-write this before you were happy with it?
Quatoria
Christoph Nahr <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>I bet QA had
>brought up the exact same issues as the reviewers, and Nihilistic has
>been working on the patch ever since Vampire went gold.
Actually, Chris, you're wrong. Nihilistic had been working on a patch
to fix glitches with WON.net revealed when a large amount of people
began playing on their servers. In response to requests and complaints
by purchasers of the game, they scrapped plans to release a multi-only
patch and instead rolled it into a larger patch.
Unless, of course, you think that Nihilistic was lying, both to the
consumers and to the staff at White Wolf, who seemed quite convinced
they had intended to release a small multiplayer-only patch. Yeah,
your theory is more plausible, Chris. They shoved a buggy game out the
door to beat Diablo 2 and then began weaving an intricate web of lies
to defraud and befuddle us.
Hey, Chris, why don't you go back to your N64? "Mario Slumber Party
II" probably doesn't need any patches.
No_spamJohn macvie
SyNiC <pan...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13b136f03...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> > My .02
> >
>
> Meh. I don't usually congratulate people for fixing a poorly designed
> game *after* i bought it.
>
> After all, that's what beta testing is for...
>
> my $.02
John
Jim
I think this annoyance was more frustrating than the save game feature.
Another problem which they didn't address is the inability to make my group
attack different enemies. Maybe I just don't know how to do it but
everytime I click on an enemy to fight, switch characters and goto another
enemy, they all start attacking the 2nd enemy and leave the first one alone.
Plus when I try to suck the blood out of someone running, my other idiots
are trying to kill. I have my stance set to neutral. Again, it might be
just a misunderstanding on the interface on my part. ?????
These guys definitely don't deserve praise for implementing this stuff, all
they deserve to hear is it is about time.
"Hong Ooi" <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1pvdksson96bv638n...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:19:10 GMT, "Bunboy" <bun...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >I too am glad for the patch but greatfull or applaud the company no.
> >Gamer's are so conditioned for the basic crumbs that obvious fixes to
> >problems that had to or should have been dealt with in the QA process;
no
> >excitement here. Being greatfull for the patch and expressing it (which
is
> >of course your right and opinion) is going to do nothing to get them to
deal
> >with issues like this before the game comes out on the next one they
make.
>
> As far as this thread is concerned, though, this isn't a bug-fix patch.
> This is a design-decision patch -- the only "issue" being discussed here
> is the problem with saving games.
>
>
Sam Lowry
> trigg...@mailhost.chi.ameritech.net says...
> > Jesus. The choices are these:
> >
> > 1. Don't change the save game feature. Defend it as a "design
> > decision" and continue to piss off the game's audience, or
> >
> > 2. Fix it. Fix a few other bugs. Make a pretty decent game better.
> > Respond to your consumers and give them what they want.
> >
> > ken of most of the petulant, emotionally retarded mutants in this
> > newsgroup. I constantly see people around here who'd rather rage
> > against the darkness than light a fucking candle.
> >
> > Master, the game, design decisions, internal coding, and everything else
> > was done by Nihilistic. I also applaud them for springing into action
> > so quickly. It's my hope that if consumers continue to give a
> > developer honest feedback in a polite and genuinely helpful manner that
> > we'll see more of this (I've been impressed by the developers who did
> > Majesty, PS:T, and Tzar, among others for being so accessible and
> > responsive during the past few months...) Perhaps if such an
> > environment continues, the likelihood of another plague like Ultima IX
> > will be greatly reduced.
> >
> >
>
> Meh. I don't usually congratulate people for fixing a poorly designed
> game *after* i bought it.
>
> After all, that's what beta testing is for...
>
out there who have helped in creating a game that I now want to play. Too
bad you had to pay for being a beta-tester. I thought only Pathesda did such
things. Dracon would be incensed.
--Lowry
Jim
"Quatoria" <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0ARHObX17MvE9FCf831htEb=Gq...@4ax.com...
> In the swirling mists of history, on 14 Jun 2000 00:17:44 GMT,
>
> >Jeff Jones (jeff....@home.com) wrote:
> >: You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what a
doozy!
> >: Hats off to Nihilistic!
> >
> >For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that should have been
> >there in the first place?
>
> fundamental aspects of the game engine and experience in order to meet
> those requests and complaints. Damn, some people are fucking
> impossible to please. Making a perfect game is impossible, and I'd far
> rather have a group of programmers committed to fixing errors and
> improving their product.
None of this stuff was an error, it was just piss poor design.
I will not list all the complaints about Vampire but they are all Design
factors, not errors. I could really like this game, and might after the
design patch.
I am not looking for a perfect game, just a playable one that is fun, not
frustrating.
Clogar
>
[snip]
> Yes, a hearty thank you to all the Vampire beta-testers and impulse
> shoppers out there who have helped in creating a game that I now want
> to play. Too bad you had to pay for being a beta-tester. I thought
> only Pathesda did such things. Dracon would be incensed.
What is REALLY funny are those rip-top box lids. You can just
hear the corporate types saying to themselves, "Buggy?! Just release
it in a box that rips so it can't be returned and re-shelved, and
they will HAVE to keep it. Forcing people to pay to beta test! What
a great country!"
So, what was the "official" reason they decided to go with
those lids, anyway?
-= Clogar
Clogar
>
[snip]
> Unless, of course, you think that Nihilistic was lying, both to the
> consumers and to the staff at White Wolf, who seemed quite convinced
> they had intended to release a small multiplayer-only patch.
Lying is PART of developing software! Like, when someone asks
me when the next version of Project X will be in, I usually say "two
weeks" or "any day now" no matter what. "Two weeks" usually translates
out to either a day or 6 months...
> Yeah, your theory is more plausible, Chris. They shoved a buggy game
> out the door to beat Diablo 2 and then began weaving an intricate web
> of lies to defraud and befuddle us.
Damn straight! Glad to see that you are on-board!
> Hey, Chris, why don't you go back to your N64? "Mario Slumber Party
> II" probably doesn't need any patches.
Yeah! Stable games SUCK!
Mmhanlon
>No, for listening to the concerns of their players and changing
>fundamental aspects of the game engine and experience in order to meet
>those requests and complaints. Damn, some people are fucking
>impossible to please. Making a perfect game is impossible, and I'd far
>rather have a group of programmers committed to fixing errors and
>improving their product.
>
Actually, the lack of save game made the Vampire Clock Tower mission much more
suspenseful for me. Perhaps I would have been frustrated had I died once or
twice, lost electric power, had my kids pop the <esc> key ... whatever. And
playing Vampire meticulously takes lots of real time, something I don't have.
Anyhow, I do see the other side of the save game coin.
How should a game developer make death matter to the single game? Anyone have
constructive suggestions to make. Surely there should be consequence beyond "Aw
shit!" <reload>, or thoughtful play is not rewarded. But backing WAY up can
just toast the gameplay.
Permanantly harming your character kinda sucks, which, I suppose, is why
Baldur's Gate passed on following the AD&D rule of reducing CON on
resurrections.
I noticed Baldur's Gate gave me extra monster encounters when I abused
<reload>, which I found both very pleasing and frustrating. Daggerfall too,
although the effect was insidious. But even here, if you are having trouble
with a level, NOT FUN to have the game developer get on your case. The rest of
the time it is more like "Yeah, ha ha, I deserve that. Bring it on.".
Some kind of nonlinear feed back might work. The game usually gets temporarily
harder when you reload, BUT. Maybe if you reload thrice in an hour the game
should pop up a window: "Do you need Divine Intervention? Y enables 10 minutes
of Mercy Mode, or type N to skip." Such behavior mimics typical real life DMs,
doesn't it?
Jim
"Mmhanlon" <mmha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000614105043...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> >
> >No, for listening to the concerns of their players and changing
> >fundamental aspects of the game engine and experience in order to meet
> >those requests and complaints. Damn, some people are fucking
> >impossible to please. Making a perfect game is impossible, and I'd far
> >rather have a group of programmers committed to fixing errors and
> >improving their product.
> >
> >-Quatoria
>
>
>
> Actually, the lack of save game made the Vampire Clock Tower mission much
more
> suspenseful for me. Perhaps I would have been frustrated had I died once
or
> twice, lost electric power, had my kids pop the <esc> key ... whatever.
And
> playing Vampire meticulously takes lots of real time, something I don't
have.
> Anyhow, I do see the other side of the save game coin.
>
> How should a game developer make death matter to the single game? Anyone
have
> constructive suggestions to make. Surely there should be consequence
beyond "Aw
> shit!" <reload>, or thoughtful play is not rewarded. But backing WAY up
can
> just toast the gameplay.
Why is it so bad to just reload? Why am I allowed to save, increase my
stats, then say crap...reload I want different stats... but it is not ok to
save, fight, then say crap I want to fight again? Why is it bad to say, it
is time to go into the sunlight, I want to save....hmm if i leave now i just
wasted the past x minutes because i CANT save!
The best way is to just let me save whenever I want. If I want to only use
the autosave feature, I can! If I want to save every 2 seconds, I can as
well.
Quatoria
SyNiC <pan...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>Meh. I don't usually congratulate people for fixing a poorly designed
>game *after* i bought it.
>
>After all, that's what beta testing is for...
>
>my $.02
That's not always true.
First, try to remember that "poorly designed", specifically in terms
of a decision to limit or not limit saves, is a matter of opinion. For
example, it's my opinion that it was a horrible design decision in
AVP, in which there were dozens of areas that could instantly kill
you. Vampire, lacking those 'instant kill' situations, did not
frustrate me with the limited saving. By the same token, I don't think
unlimited saving will harm the game, and I'm pleased the developers
are patching it.
Second, I've had extensive experience as an external beta tester, and
I've found that quite frequently, the publisher/developer is NOT
seeking gameplay feedback. Usually, your feedback to the developers is
limited to bug submission forms. I'm always delighted when I see that
the developer of a game I'm testing is actively requesting feedback on
elements of gameplay from their beta testers, but that's the
exception, not the rule.
[ . v/jek . ]
reread the initial post.
>This is a design-decision patch -- the only "issue" being discussed here
>is the problem with saving games.
once again.. reread the initial post.
(:: qiB ::)
Fred Q
system. I have not had any problems with it. I think that it is great that
they are not only adding the new savegame feature but also the Pause button.
I commend nihilistic.
FQ
"Quatoria" <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0ARHObX17MvE9FCf831htEb=Gq...@4ax.com...
> In the swirling mists of history, on 14 Jun 2000 00:17:44 GMT,
> kevi...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Kevin McGuire) wrote:
>
> >Jeff Jones (jeff....@home.com) wrote:
> >: You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what a
doozy!
> >: Hats off to Nihilistic!
> >
> >For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that should have been
> >there in the first place?
>
> No, for listening to the concerns of their players and changing
> fundamental aspects of the game engine and experience in order to meet
> those requests and complaints. Damn, some people are fucking
> impossible to please. Making a perfect game is impossible, and I'd far
> rather have a group of programmers committed to fixing errors and
> improving their product.
>
Kevin McGuire
: In the swirling mists of history, on 14 Jun 2000 00:17:44 GMT,
: kevi...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Kevin McGuire) wrote:
: >Jeff Jones (jeff....@home.com) wrote:
: >: You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what a doozy!
: >: Hats off to Nihilistic!
: >
: >For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that should have been
: >there in the first place?
: No, for listening to the concerns of their players and changing
: fundamental aspects of the game engine and experience in order to meet
: those requests and complaints. Damn, some people are fucking
: impossible to please. Making a perfect game is impossible, and I'd far
: rather have a group of programmers committed to fixing errors and
: improving their product.
I'm glad you like the game. Really. It seems like you're taking
criticism of the game a bit personally. That seems to happen a lot on
usenet, for reasons that I still don't understand.
But including a "save anywhere" feature is hardly "fucking impossible".
It is a very basic feature that almost all computer games have. It does
not require a suupaah-genius to figure out that it is an important
feature to have. Let's look at recent games without the save anywhere
feature: AvP, Daikatana and Die By The Sword. Did it help gameplay in any of
them? No.
By not including this feature, Nihilistic made a big mistake. They are
now correcting it. Great. But for Jeff to say "hats off" to Nihilistic
seems a bit much.
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>Another problem which they didn't address is the inability to make my group
>attack different enemies. Maybe I just don't know how to do it but
>everytime I click on an enemy to fight, switch characters and goto another
>enemy, they all start attacking the 2nd enemy and leave the first one alone.
>Plus when I try to suck the blood out of someone running, my other idiots
>are trying to kill. I have my stance set to neutral. Again, it might be
>just a misunderstanding on the interface on my part. ?????
Set their stance to Defensive to prevent them from interfering with
your feeding. Also, your party members will switch to other enemies
on their own unless you control-click on someone; however, as usual
with this "AI", their decision making is not really foreseeable.
>These guys definitely don't deserve praise for implementing this stuff, all
>they deserve to hear is it is about time.
They should have delayed the game until fall for debugging and
fine-tuning. Damn shame for this fine engine.
Christoph Nahr
<quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>Actually, Chris, you're wrong. Nihilistic had been working on a patch
>to fix glitches with WON.net revealed when a large amount of people
>began playing on their servers. In response to requests and complaints
>by purchasers of the game, they scrapped plans to release a multi-only
>patch and instead rolled it into a larger patch.
Do you believe everything they tell you? And why didn't they do a
stress test on their servers before the game was released?
>Unless, of course, you think that Nihilistic was lying, both to the
>consumers and to the staff at White Wolf, who seemed quite convinced
>they had intended to release a small multiplayer-only patch.
Why is White Wolf an authority on the technical state of the game?
They are only concerned with keeping the computer game system faithful
to the spirit of the pen & paper system. For implementation issues
I'd rather have the opinion of respected reviewers like Greg Kasavin,
as opposed to pen & paper RPG makers with a vested interest in the
game's commercial success.
>Yeah,
>your theory is more plausible, Chris. They shoved a buggy game out the
>door to beat Diablo 2 and then began weaving an intricate web of lies
>to defraud and befuddle us.
This being an Activision release I don't see why this is implausible.
Or have you already forgotten about Star Trek: Armada?
>Hey, Chris, why don't you go back to your N64? "Mario Slumber Party
>II" probably doesn't need any patches.
Actually, I'd go back to Zelda: Ocarina of Time which is one hell of a
better game than Vampire in any respect. But right now I'd like to
play some more Vampire. You see, there are more than two categories
of gamers in the world. It's not just fanboys and detractors.
There's also this strange kind of folks that has a realistic
appreciation of a game, both the good and the bad aspects.
Christoph Nahr
> So, what was the "official" reason they decided to go with
>those lids, anyway?
I'd like to know that, too. You know what, even the glue they used on
the cardboard box is defective! My collector's edition box basically
fell apart when I tried to open it. On the other hand, I didn't have
to open this ripcord thing because of that...
Christoph Nahr
<No_sp...@dumfpc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>However, much as I applaud the designers' decision to issue a patch, they
>are clearly fuckwits for imposing this console like feature on us in the
>first place!
Speaking of the save-game misfeature, I recently bought a Nintendo 64
and the two action-adventures I've since played on it (Jet Force
Gemini and Zelda 64) both have a *BETTER* save-game feature than
Vampire! Saves are much more frequent and you'll retain stuff like
keycards so that you can use shortcuts when restarting.
It makes the mind boggle that this puny 1996 console can provide a
better save game feature than a cutting-edge computer game. Must have
something to do with not having that patented Activision "Fuck you"
attitude towards your customers...
noman
Jones" <jeff....@home.com> wrote:
>> : You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done,
>> : but what a doozy!
>> : Hats off to Nihilistic!
>>
>> For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that
>> should have been there in the first place?
>
>are changing it to please those people. I don't see where the
>problem is. I am grateful that they are willing to listen and
>change things to please their customers.
Broken AI and pathfinding don't seem design issues to me.
The patch will be answering these *technical* problems with the
game as well.
If anything, Nihilistic should be grateful that people paid
40$ to buy their game, which needs such immediate and
substantial fixing.
--
Noman
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ryan Franklin
> On 13 Jun 2000 17:34:52 -0700, Ryan Franklin
> <ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>>In contrast, Nihilistic responded very quickly (it's been,
>>what, a week since the game was released?) and clearly, and seem genuinely
>>interested in addressing any and all concerns that people have with their
>>game. That's worth congratulating, I think.
>
> Uh oh. Methinks you are very naive. This massive patch fixes very
> annoying defects and contains features that we could have expected out
> of the box. I don't believe for a second that Nihilistic is reacting
> quickly to complaints they hadn't heard before release. I bet QA had
> brought up the exact same issues as the reviewers, and Nihilistic has
> been working on the patch ever since Vampire went gold. Activision
> had to shove it out of the door to beat Diablo 2 and Icewind Dale.
Perhaps. I doubt that either of us will ever know which is the case. I'm
sure save-anywhere was being worked on pre-release. Pausing and issuing
orders? Maybe not.
Still, look at the situation: here we have a game on the market that
people feel was done wrong. And here we have game developers whose public
response was "Here's what we are putting in this patch"--listing most of
the things that people feel was done wrong. Is this something we should
praise? Probably not--it would be best if all games were only released
when they were done right. Should we bash them for providing a patch?
Fuck, no. We congratulate them for doing a patch, for standing up and
saying "We are changing this game to reflect what _you_ want." Or is
heaping scorn on them when they release a patch supposed to teach them
some kind of lesson (other than "don't release a patch because we'll
still give you shit about it")?
I much prefer the up-front here's-what-we're-fixing approach Nihilistic is
taking to the adversarial stance of Fox/Rebellion (regarding Aliens vs.
Predator) or the "what, me worry?" happy face Origin wore through most of
the Ultima: Ascension fiasco. If they pushed up their release date to get
out before Diablo 2 (or if they got squeezed by the deadline and had to
get the game on the shelves) and didn't do the game the way they wanted it
done, well, they blew it. The key difference, then, is that they're doing
something to FIX it and not just giving their customers the finger and
telling them to deal with it. Don't you think that we should be
encouraging developers to fix their mistakes when they make them? Isn't
the additional time they need to spend now to fix the mistakes enough of
an incentive for them to try not to make these mistakes with their next
game? Would it be better if they just left Vampire "as-is"? (for the
folks at home, the answers are yes, hopefully, and absolutely not.)
--
'methinks'? sheesh.
ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net
triggercut
Hong Ooi wrote:
> Thrasher does this much better than you.
>
And my girlfriend does *that* much better than you. Thanks though.
erimess
>
>Why is it so bad to just reload? Why am I allowed to save,
increase my
>stats, then say crap...reload I want different stats... but it
is not ok to
>save, fight, then say crap I want to fight again? Why is it
bad to say, it
>is time to go into the sunlight, I want to save....hmm if i
leave now i just
>wasted the past x minutes because i CANT save!
>The best way is to just let me save whenever I want. If I want
to only use
>the autosave feature, I can! If I want to save every 2
seconds, I can as
>well.
>
I have to totally agree. Sometimes I feel like some people
don't get that different people enjoy playing games in different
ways. If you're playing with other people then everyone should
have to follow some set of rules, but for a game you play by
yourself, you should be able to do anything that pleases you,
whether it regards saving or walkthrough's or what have you.
It's a _game_. It's supposed to be fun, and "fun" is different
to different people.
Obviously no game can be perfect to everyone, but putting in
save game features is no big deal and no one has to use them if
they feel it ruins the challenge or whatever. I like a game to
have different features that can be turned off or on, like
autosave, bookmarks, and just regular save slots. That way each
player can set it how they see fit.
(coming off my soapbox) OK, so I used that as an excuse to rant
about one of my pet peeves.
-erimess
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
triggercut
SyNiC wrote:
>
> Meh. I don't usually congratulate people for fixing a poorly designed
> game *after* i bought it.
>
> After all, that's what beta testing is for...
>
> my $.02
Well obviously choice three would be "Turn back the clock two weeks,
don't release the game in it's current state, patch the game before it's
release, and make most happier." Unfortunately, that's not a valid
choice. The cows are out of the barn, so to speak, so all that can be
done is to either address the game's problems or blow 'em off. The
patch pretty much admits that the save system or lack thereof was a
design flaw, and Nihilistic deserves some sort of kudos for their tacit
conceding of this. It isn't often that a commercial entity says "We
were wrong, and we're going to fix it", especially when the product has
a large enough built in audience to recoup it's development cost in its
current, flawed state without ever releasing a patch.
My point is this...obviously Vamp should've had some design decisions
questioned well into the development cycle. It isn't the best example
to use, but I just hope that if the relationship between consumers and
producers remains civil, we can get better games released, and flawed
games fixed. I remember the way Sid Meier and crew patched and fixed
and featured the initial release of Civ; I remember the way the
Quicksilver staff tweaked Conquest Of the New World until it was one of
the best strategy titles of the pre-win95 era. I'd much rather see this
kind of response than the indifferent shrugs that accompanied the
release of U9.
Jeff Jones
> >are changing it to please those people. I don't see where the
> >problem is. I am grateful that they are willing to listen and
> >change things to please their customers.
>
> Broken AI and pathfinding don't seem design issues to me.
> The patch will be answering these *technical* problems with the
> game as well.
I was referring to the ability to save anywhere, but I'm sure you knew that,
it's the subject header after all.
> If anything, Nihilistic should be grateful that people paid
> 40$ to buy their game, which needs such immediate and
> substantial fixing.
What games aren't? And I'm sure they are grateful.
Quatoria
Christoph Nahr <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>Do you believe everything they tell you? And why didn't they do a
>stress test on their servers before the game was released?
Do you believe everything they tell you is a lie?
>>Unless, of course, you think that Nihilistic was lying, both to the
>>consumers and to the staff at White Wolf, who seemed quite convinced
>>they had intended to release a small multiplayer-only patch.
>
>Why is White Wolf an authority on the technical state of the game?
>They are only concerned with keeping the computer game system faithful
>to the spirit of the pen & paper system. For implementation issues
>I'd rather have the opinion of respected reviewers like Greg Kasavin,
>as opposed to pen & paper RPG makers with a vested interest in the
>game's commercial success.
The White Wolf staffers I've played with and talked with were not
"authorities on the technical state of the game", but they were aware
that a multiplay patch was being developed, and, in fact, one of them
tabled a game for a day, expecting the patch to be released on the
next (before the announcement for the gameplay tweak patch.) Of
course, I guess Nihilistic was lying to him, too, as you say.
>>Yeah,
>>your theory is more plausible, Chris. They shoved a buggy game out the
>>door to beat Diablo 2 and then began weaving an intricate web of lies
>>to defraud and befuddle us.
>
>This being an Activision release I don't see why this is implausible.
>Or have you already forgotten about Star Trek: Armada?
Except that ATVI isn't the developer, and it's the developer you're
accusing of lies.
>>Hey, Chris, why don't you go back to your N64? "Mario Slumber Party
>>II" probably doesn't need any patches.
>
>Actually, I'd go back to Zelda: Ocarina of Time which is one hell of a
>better game than Vampire in any respect.
Yeah. I LOVE multiplayer Zelda. Can't tell you how much it gets my
juices are flowing. Oh, wait...
> You see, there are more than two categories
>of gamers in the world. It's not just fanboys and detractors.
>There's also this strange kind of folks that has a realistic
>appreciation of a game, both the good and the bad aspects.
Yes. And they don't frequently spend their time thread-hopping looking
for a chance to post about how much a game sucks. Nor do they
frequently run around accusing developers of defrauding the consumers
when they respond to a request to alter the game.
I think it's incredibly sad, Chris, that you've become so jaded over
the years you honestly believe that it's impossible any developer in
existence would actually care enough about their customers to be
willing to make a patch, on their request, to fix design issues they
disagree with.
LHeilb8013
>hear the corporate types saying to themselves, "Buggy?! Just release
>it in a box that rips so it can't be returned and re-shelved, and
>they will HAVE to keep it. Forcing people to pay to beta test! What
>a great country!"
So open the bottom like I did...........
Lloyd Heilbrunn
PS I'm keeping the game anyway:)
Quatoria
kevi...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Kevin McGuire) wrote:
>I'm glad you like the game. Really. It seems like you're taking
>criticism of the game a bit personally. That seems to happen a lot on
>usenet, for reasons that I still don't understand.
I'm just baffled at the tenor of some of the criticism, Kevin. I've
rarely seen a game or a group of developers receive such venomous
attacks, and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why.
I mean, I get not liking a game. I don't get actively seeking out
every thread about that game to post how much it sucks, but that's
nothing new to usenet.
What I REALLY don't get is attacking the developers for beginning work
on a requested patch, calling them liars, and whipping up a conspiracy
theory to vilify them. That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
Nor does it make sense to me that people who have never played the
game are claiming that there are problems with pathfinding and AI that
make the game unplayable. This comes as quite a shock to me, you will
understand, as I've beaten the game. Not without frustration, but
never frustration to the degree these people who neither own nor have
played the game claim 'everyone' is experiencing.
And, of course, I also have a personal agenda for supporting the game.
Aside from the fact that I really enjoy it, I also want everyone to go
out and buy it, get online, and start joining in the multiplayer
chronicles. I want everyone to buy it so that Nihilistic makes enough
money to go on and make their next WoOd game.
And beside that, believe it or not, I honestly think it's a really
fucking kick ass game, hard as that is for some people to believe.
Quatoria
Hong Ooi
>Sam Lowry wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> Yes, a hearty thank you to all the Vampire beta-testers and impulse
>> shoppers out there who have helped in creating a game that I now want
>> to play. Too bad you had to pay for being a beta-tester. I thought
>> only Pathesda did such things. Dracon would be incensed.
>
> What is REALLY funny are those rip-top box lids. You can just
>hear the corporate types saying to themselves, "Buggy?! Just release
>it in a box that rips so it can't be returned and re-shelved, and
>they will HAVE to keep it. Forcing people to pay to beta test! What
>a great country!"
What is it with all these Thrasher clones that are popping up all of a
sudden? Is it someone putting angry pills in the water, or what? Maybe
it's a secret "Fight Club" cult that's showing mass screenings all
around the country? Whatever it is, the abrupt rise in testosterone
levels in this newsgroup can't be just a random event. I just hope it
doesn't happen to me, but I smell a conspiracy somewhere to taint our
precious bodily fluids. The Illuminati must be behind it all. Now I
don't know about you, but it does makes me angry that they're conspiring
like this to taint my PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS. Oh, FUCK this. Why am I
posting this FUCKING BULLSHIT when no-one CARES anyway. What kind of
FUCKED UP COUNTRY IS THIS where people can be turned into MINDLESS
ANIMALS and nobody gives a DAMN. It's those FUCKING LIBERALS and their
POLITICALLY CORRECT BULLSHIT. This is so FUCKED, man. I'm telling you,
it's FUCKED. FUCKED, that's what it is. DAMN, now I want to HIT
something. Hey, some of my best friends are liberals, but I've had it UP
TO HERE with that FUCKING LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR CRAP. Some days I just want
to take a SHOTGUN and....
... um, yeah, so anyway, simmer down and stuff, okay?
Hong "Cleve does this much better than me" Ooi
Sheitan
> But including a "save anywhere" feature is hardly "fucking impossible".
> It is a very basic feature that almost all computer games have. It does
> not require a suupaah-genius to figure out that it is an important
> feature to have. Let's look at recent games without the save anywhere
> feature: AvP, Daikatana and Die By The Sword. Did it help gameplay in any
of
> them? No.
I think it did help gameplay in AvP, making it MUCH more suspenseful,
particularly the marine missions. As soon as you hear one of those
insta-death facehuggers crawling around you start to break out in cold
sweat. Flamethrower out, night vision on... where is it... WHERE IS IT....
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
- Sheitan
SyNiC
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au says...
Heheheh. Well, what can I say. Its not fun being the "fool" from the
phrase: "A fool and his money are soon parted". It pisses some people
off (mostly at themselves).
I know I am.
Brian H.
Jim <jimg...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#DRg#Eh1$GA.320@cpmsnbbsa07...
>
(*snip*)
>
> Why is it so bad to just reload? Why am I allowed to save, increase my
> stats, then say crap...reload I want different stats... but it is not ok
to
> save, fight, then say crap I want to fight again? Why is it bad to say,
it
> is time to go into the sunlight, I want to save....hmm if i leave now i
just
> wasted the past x minutes because i CANT save!
> The best way is to just let me save whenever I want. If I want to only
use
> the autosave feature, I can! If I want to save every 2 seconds, I can as
> well.
>
>
The only games I can think of that is possible of not frustrating me if they
implemented limited save is the Monkey Island games designed by LucasArt.
You won't die and the puzzles can be redone at anytime you like. But for
others, they had better to implement the save anywhere feature unless of
course, they are NOT intended for casual gamers.
Brian H.
Fred Q <fre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AIN15.8831$xX4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I feel the same way. The game is NOT unplayable with the current save game
> system. I have not had any problems with it. I think that it is great that
> they are not only adding the new savegame feature but also the Pause
button.
> I commend nihilistic.
>
> FQ
> "Quatoria" <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:0ARHObX17MvE9FCf831htEb=Gq...@4ax.com...
> > In the swirling mists of history, on 14 Jun 2000 00:17:44 GMT,
> > kevi...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Kevin McGuire) wrote:
> >
> > >Jeff Jones (jeff....@home.com) wrote:
> > >: You may want to hold off playing till this patch is done, but what a
> doozy!
> > >: Hats off to Nihilistic!
> > >
> > >For patching to include a feature (or two or three) that should have
been
> > >there in the first place?
> >
> > No, for listening to the concerns of their players and changing
> > fundamental aspects of the game engine and experience in order to meet
> > those requests and complaints. Damn, some people are fucking
> > impossible to please. Making a perfect game is impossible, and I'd far
> > rather have a group of programmers committed to fixing errors and
> > improving their product.
> >
Brian H.
SyNiC <pan...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13b1eb99b...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Those people just play too many games. They can even think of conspiracy due
to some posters express their modest request for a save anywhere feature.
LHeilb8013
>rarely seen a game or a group of developers receive such venomous
>attacks, and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why.
Interesting column on this issue in PC Gamer, by Rob Smolka, who agrees that
flaming developers is pretty pointless......
Lloyd Heilbrunn
Hong Ooi
<trigg...@mailhost.chi.ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>Hong Ooi wrote:
>
>> Thrasher does this much better than you.
>>
>
>And my girlfriend does *that* much better than you.
What, deflate?
Christoph Nahr
<quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Do you believe everything they tell you? And why didn't they do a
>>stress test on their servers before the game was released?
>
>Do you believe everything they tell you is a lie?
Hello? Why didn't they stress test on their servers before the game
was released? Blizzard could do that, couldn't they?
>The White Wolf staffers I've played with and talked with were not
>"authorities on the technical state of the game", but they were aware
>that a multiplay patch was being developed, and, in fact, one of them
>tabled a game for a day, expecting the patch to be released on the
>next (before the announcement for the gameplay tweak patch.) Of
>course, I guess Nihilistic was lying to him, too, as you say.
Well gee, and how do you (or the White Wolf people) know that they had
not been planning a second patch for gameplay issues? All you say is
they decided to wrap two patches into one.
>Except that ATVI isn't the developer, and it's the developer you're
>accusing of lies.
So now we're down to hair splitting. The game is sold as a complete
product, developed by Nihilistic and published by Activision. If it
makes you happy you can believe that your newfound deities at
Nihilistic never did any wrong, and Activision is the great evil that
shielded them from the world until the game was released, at which
point Nihilistic suddenly emerged from their conclave (apparently
conducted without beta testers) and saw to their great surprise that
reviewers and customers alike pointed out numerous technical flaws in
their game. Befuddled and grieved, the good people of Nihilistic hung
their heads in shame and quickly decided to amend all these flaws.
This is a rather unlikely scenario, to say the least, but even if it
was true the blame would simply go to Activision who didn't ensure
proper testing and polishing.
Most likely it was the usual combination of greed and overconfidence
where developers make up impossible schedules and publishers shorten
them even further. And then everyone claims innocence and ignorance
of the inevitable defects the game is shipping with.
All this isn't even particular scathing criticism of Nihilistic and/or
Activision, it's just sadly the way things are in this industry.
Heck, at least they *are* quickly putting out a patch which is more
than some others have done!
>Yes. And they don't frequently spend their time thread-hopping looking
>for a chance to post about how much a game sucks.
This coming from someone who floods the group with posts about how
great and flawless Vampire is...
>I think it's incredibly sad, Chris, that you've become so jaded over
>the years you honestly believe that it's impossible any developer in
>existence would actually care enough about their customers to be
>willing to make a patch, on their request, to fix design issues they
>disagree with.
Stop that silly word-twisting. There are still plenty of developers
whose word I would trust. But guess what? These are the same
developers that don't put out defective products in the first place.
Your whole tirade about poor Nihilistic relies on mislabeling
technical defects as "design decisions."
Christoph Nahr
<ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>I much prefer the up-front here's-what-we're-fixing approach Nihilistic is
>taking to the adversarial stance of Fox/Rebellion (regarding Aliens vs.
>Predator) or the "what, me worry?" happy face Origin wore through most of
>the Ultima: Ascension fiasco. If they pushed up their release date to get
>out before Diablo 2 (or if they got squeezed by the deadline and had to
>get the game on the shelves) and didn't do the game the way they wanted it
>done, well, they blew it. The key difference, then, is that they're doing
>something to FIX it and not just giving their customers the finger and
>telling them to deal with it.
I agree with all of your points. I still think Vampire is a good game
as it stands, all the defects are minor and really just annoying
because of their sheer number. Nihilistic definitely deserves more
respect for their stance than Rebellion or, God forbid, Origin. The
Vampire release wasn't a U9-like manifestation of great evil, just
another near miss. I'm looking forward to their next game, let's just
hope they'll have more realistic deadlines this time around!
Kevin McGuire
: In the swirling mists of history, on 14 Jun 2000 15:44:55 GMT,
: kevi...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Kevin McGuire) wrote:
: >I'm glad you like the game. Really. It seems like you're taking
: >criticism of the game a bit personally. That seems to happen a lot on
: >usenet, for reasons that I still don't understand.
: I'm just baffled at the tenor of some of the criticism, Kevin. I've
: rarely seen a game or a group of developers receive such venomous
: attacks, and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why.
: I mean, I get not liking a game. I don't get actively seeking out
: every thread about that game to post how much it sucks, but that's
: nothing new to usenet.
: What I REALLY don't get is attacking the developers for beginning work
: on a requested patch, calling them liars, and whipping up a conspiracy
: theory to vilify them. That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
: Nor does it make sense to me that people who have never played the
: game are claiming that there are problems with pathfinding and AI that
: make the game unplayable. This comes as quite a shock to me, you will
: understand, as I've beaten the game. Not without frustration, but
: never frustration to the degree these people who neither own nor have
: played the game claim 'everyone' is experiencing.
: And, of course, I also have a personal agenda for supporting the game.
: Aside from the fact that I really enjoy it, I also want everyone to go
: out and buy it, get online, and start joining in the multiplayer
: chronicles. I want everyone to buy it so that Nihilistic makes enough
: money to go on and make their next WoOd game.
: And beside that, believe it or not, I honestly think it's a really
: fucking kick ass game, hard as that is for some people to believe.
Great. Preach it. I think that it is great that people fall in love with
games and want to sing their praises to the heavens. This is one of the best
features of usenet.
However, you're hardly helping your cause by attacking people who
disagree with you, either by building up straw men, or twisting their
words. It's a warning sign that you're turning into a fanboy.
Christoph Nahr raised some, imho, very reasonable criticisms and
speculation on why Vampire might have been rushed out the door. Flying
off the handle and attacking him as if he's proposed eating babies seems
way out of line to me.
triggercut
Hong Ooi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:37:23 -0500, triggercut
> <trigg...@mailhost.chi.ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Hong Ooi wrote:
> >
> >> Thrasher does this much better than you.
> >>
> >
> >And my girlfriend does *that* much better than you.
>
> What, deflate?
>
No, combine an annoyingly cloying whiney voice with an easy-to-dismiss
nagging tone that I will, from this point on, ignore completely.
Fred Q
FQ
"Brian H." <bh1234...@nospam.please.ismart.net> wrote in message
news:8i9gtp$1p...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> Playable does not mean enjoyable.
>
> Fred Q <fre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:AIN15.8831$xX4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > I feel the same way. The game is NOT unplayable with the current save
game
> > system. I have not had any problems with it. I think that it is great
that
Ryan Franklin
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:37:23 -0500, triggercut
>> <trigg...@mailhost.chi.ameritech.net> wrote:
>> >Hong Ooi wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thrasher does this much better than you.
>> >
>> >And my girlfriend does *that* much better than you.
>>
>> What, deflate?
>
> No, combine an annoyingly cloying whiney voice with an easy-to-dismiss
> nagging tone that I will, from this point on, ignore completely.
How many other people first thought that triggercut meant that his
girlfriend said "Thrasher does this much better than you" better than Hong
Ooi did? Not to encourage this tiny outbreak flame-trading to go on, of
course, but so far it's been the most amusing series of posts in this
entire thread.
--
i say that with love, of course ;-)
ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net
Quatoria
Christoph Nahr <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:27:02 GMT, Quatoria
><quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>Do you believe everything they tell you? And why didn't they do a
>>>stress test on their servers before the game was released?
>>
>>Do you believe everything they tell you is a lie?
>
>Hello? Why didn't they stress test on their servers before the game
>was released? Blizzard could do that, couldn't they?
I imagine the situation is a bit different, since Blizzard owns and
runs its own servers. I didn't know that ATVI owned WON.
>>The White Wolf staffers I've played with and talked with were not
>>"authorities on the technical state of the game", but they were aware
>>that a multiplay patch was being developed, and, in fact, one of them
>>tabled a game for a day, expecting the patch to be released on the
>>next (before the announcement for the gameplay tweak patch.) Of
>>course, I guess Nihilistic was lying to him, too, as you say.
>
>Well gee, and how do you (or the White Wolf people) know that they had
>not been planning a second patch for gameplay issues? All you say is
>they decided to wrap two patches into one.
No, what I said is that the first patch existed. What you said is that
there was never any first patch, the people from Nihilistic were
liars, and had obviously been working on a patch weeks before the game
was released.
>>Except that ATVI isn't the developer, and it's the developer you're
>>accusing of lies.
>
>So now we're down to hair splitting. The game is sold as a complete
>product, developed by Nihilistic and published by Activision. If it
>makes you happy you can believe that your newfound deities at
>Nihilistic never did any wrong, and Activision is the great evil that
Deities. Right. Because I DON'T assume that they must be lying to us.
Pleasant little world you live in, Chris.
>Most likely it was the usual combination of greed and overconfidence
>where developers make up impossible schedules and publishers shorten
>them even further. And then everyone claims innocence and ignorance
>of the inevitable defects the game is shipping with.
Why do you even make purchases from these "greedy, overconfident
liars" that you seem to hate so much? Seriously, Chris. If you're as
disgusted with the state of the gaming industry and have such vile
contempt for developers and producers, why don't you do what you said
you were going to do, exclusively play your N64 and piss off to the
console newsgroups?
>All this isn't even particular scathing criticism of Nihilistic and/or
>Activision, it's just sadly the way things are in this industry.
>Heck, at least they *are* quickly putting out a patch which is more
>than some others have done!
And receiving an incredible amount of contempt from you and others for
daring to fix their mistakes.
>>Yes. And they don't frequently spend their time thread-hopping looking
>>for a chance to post about how much a game sucks.
>
>This coming from someone who floods the group with posts about how
>great and flawless Vampire is...
Right. Great and flawless. As I said in a previous reply to you, it's
remarkable how swiftly you forget the messages you've QUOTED from me
in which I criticize the inconsistent pathfinding and numbskull single
player AI.
>>I think it's incredibly sad, Chris, that you've become so jaded over
>>the years you honestly believe that it's impossible any developer in
>>existence would actually care enough about their customers to be
>>willing to make a patch, on their request, to fix design issues they
>>disagree with.
>
>Stop that silly word-twisting. There are still plenty of developers
>whose word I would trust. But guess what? These are the same
>developers that don't put out defective products in the first place.
>Your whole tirade about poor Nihilistic relies on mislabeling
>technical defects as "design decisions."
Oh, you mean all those developers that put out games that require no
patches. Like... hmm. Gee, you know, I'm coming up with a blank here,
Chris.
Hong Ooi
McGuire) wrote:
>attacking him as if he's proposed eating babies
Dheanainn sugradh ris an nigh'n dubh.
'n deidh dhomh eirigh as a 'mhadainn.
dheanainn sugradh ris an nigh'n dubh!
Dheanainn sugradh ris a' gruagaich!
nuair a bhiodh a' sluagh nan cadal!
Dheanainn sugradh an am dusgadh!
'n am na siuil a bhith 'gham pasgadh!
Di-Luain an deidh Di-Domhnaich,
dh'fhalbh sinn le seonaid a Arcaibh.
Bha muir gorm a' ruith fo cuinnlein,
's i cur still a grunnd an aigeil.
Riof 'gha ceangal 's riof 'gha fuasgladh!
muir ma guallain fuaim is fead oirr!
NULL MA CHAOLAS NA ROIMH!
B'FHEUDAR DHUINN AM BOM A LEAISADH!
NULL MA CHAOLAS NA FRAING!
MAIDE 'NA LAIMH 'S GAOTH 'GHA GREASAD!!!
Brian H.
mentioned that the game is not unplayable with the current save game system.
That is true. It won't be unplayable. Old games that don't have unlimited
saves & automapping are still playable. But I wouldn't find them enjoyable
if I play them now. As a customer I certainly won't buy games that simply
only "playable" but not "enjoyable" for me. I am only talking in general.
Fred Q <fre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9r525.32506$hp4.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
FredQ
Vampire. I gave up console gaming because almost all of the games have that
sort of system. I guess I just found a few work arounds for Vampire.
FQ
BH News
controllable. However I'm wondering if the difficulty needs to be bumped up
for this, as you will be much more precise.
This will really change the whole game, in an overall positive way.
Obviously this won't be of use in the multiplayer mode but if we actually do
get some quality SP chronicles this will prove a very effective add-on. I
personally believe the upside of this game is still ahead of it's present
self.
Honestly I probably should stop playing and wait.
BH
"Jim" <jimg...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OOPIJDg1$GA.77@cpmsnbbsa08...
> No the ability to issue commands during pause is VERY important.
>
> I think this annoyance was more frustrating than the save game feature.
>
> Another problem which they didn't address is the inability to make my
group
> attack different enemies. Maybe I just don't know how to do it but
> everytime I click on an enemy to fight, switch characters and goto another
> enemy, they all start attacking the 2nd enemy and leave the first one
alone.
> Plus when I try to suck the blood out of someone running, my other idiots
> are trying to kill. I have my stance set to neutral. Again, it might be
> just a misunderstanding on the interface on my part. ?????
>
> These guys definitely don't deserve praise for implementing this stuff,
all
> they deserve to hear is it is about time.
>
> "Hong Ooi" <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1pvdksson96bv638n...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:19:10 GMT, "Bunboy" <bun...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I too am glad for the patch but greatfull or applaud the company no.
> > >Gamer's are so conditioned for the basic crumbs that obvious fixes to
> > >problems that had to or should have been dealt with in the QA process;
> no
> > >excitement here. Being greatfull for the patch and expressing it
(which
> is
> > >of course your right and opinion) is going to do nothing to get them to
> deal
> > >with issues like this before the game comes out on the next one they
> make.
> >
> > As far as this thread is concerned, though, this isn't a bug-fix patch.
> > This is a design-decision patch -- the only "issue" being discussed here
> > is the problem with saving games.
Quatoria
Diesel/MindRiot <die...@mindriot.net> wrote:
>Right, and Nihilistic agrees with the players and said "Sorry about that,
>we fucked up, we'll make a patch", but I guess game designers aren't
>allowed to make mistakes anymore. So Hats of to Nihilistic for
>acknowledging their mistake and fixing it. How would you feel, if you were
>at work and made a little mistake, like letting the copy machine run out of
>toner, and then looking out the window and seeing a thousand people
>picketing your workplace DEMANDING that you be fired, calling you a liar
>and saying that you should have 'never let the machine run out of toner,
>any competent office worker wouldn't have let the machine run out of
>toner'? And you reply is "oops, I didn't think anybody would have a problem
>with that", but now everybody wants you burned at the stake for committing
>such a heinous act, no forgiveness, "you should have filled the copy
>machine in the first place, instead of letting us use it without toner, you
>suck" Gets kind of lame huh?
The whole situation actually reminds me of a "kids in the hall"
sketch. A man is having dinner with his wife, and is frustrated that
he didn't get the bill five minutes ago. He calls over a waiter to
complain, and the waiter apologizes and gives him his bill
immediately. The man isn't placated. He doesn't want his bill NOW, he
wanted it five minutes ago, and proceeds to re-state that position,
getting louder and more hysterical until he's shrieking about it and
generally making an ass of himself.
This situation seems largely the same, to me. It doesn't matter what
Nihilistic does NOW, as far as some people are concerned. They didn't
ship a perfect game, and now there's nothing they'll ever be able to
do to please them.
Andrew S. Davidson
>And, of course, I also have a personal agenda for supporting the game.
>Aside from the fact that I really enjoy it, I also want everyone to go
>out and buy it, get online, and start joining in the multiplayer
>chronicles. I want everyone to buy it so that Nihilistic makes enough
>money to go on and make their next WoOd game.
You should STFU then. Your support for the game is hurting it AFAIC.
I was interested in buying this game but so far it has fallen down at
three hurdles:
* hardware requirements - will not work on my current machine
* limited play environment - a flip through the strategy book made it
clear that the setting was just a few fixed rooms. I.e. "Room of
Darkness" not "World of Darkness".
* laughable atmosphere. I watched some gamers playing it on a network
in a store. They were busy wading through shopping lists of automatic
weapons, phosphorus grenades &c. This seems to be just another
shoot-'em up with little of the vampire atmosphere that I was hoping
for.
Now there's a fourth strike against it. If I go online for a MP game,
I'm likely to find that the other players are like Quatoria. No sale.
Andrew