16 réponses à ce sujet

[Wishpig]

First off, let me say, the more new pics, info, ect released on DA2, the more hyped I get. It just keeps looking and sounding cooler and cooler. While I had faith bioware would make a good product, I certainly had my worries at first... allot of them. But they are almost all dead and buried at this point

I do have one big worry still left though, and one that just seems to be getting more and more prevelent in bioware products.

Bugs. And not the creepy crawly kind. The game breaking, fun raping, experiance ruining kind.

I get it. You cannot avoid bugs, especially with PC games (with systems you have pretty consitent tech to test... not so with PCs which range extremely).

But, as of late, bioware games are f*in plagued with issues big and small. DA:O was pretty bad. My first playthrough had several game-breaking bugs and many other annoying smaller ones. Awakening was even worse, to many, almost unplayible. And the DLC has been plagued with bugs as well, to the point I don't buy them on release (a good call with Witch Hunt...)

Also, as of late, it seems games and DLC are coming out faster and faster... I have no doubt that has a very bad effect on bugs as less time = less time spent cleaning up and finding bugs. Rushed games = buggy games. Fact.

People called it with Awakening, many said it seemed rushed and would must likley suffer from bugs. They were right. Now people are saying the same with DA2. Like I said, I think DA2 looks fantastic, but even if they started making the game before DA:O was even finished (which I doubt), the game would have a very short development time compared to other sequels.

Anyone else worried, and any devs willing to give a few comforting words?

[Stanley Woo]

i'm surprised that I agree so strongly with someone named "Upsettingshorts."

[Stanley Woo]

LucianTansey wrote...

"they have no choice but to rush, EA is keeping bioware on a tight leash"

Thats Bioware's fault, not ours, why should the gameplay for the gamer suffer as a result? If it wasnt for us there would be no Grey Wardens!

Actually, you've got it a little backwards. If it wasn't for us, there'd be no Grey Wardens. And I'd think twice about spouting off on what you think you know about the internal business decisions of companies you're not a part of. Speculation is all well and good, but far too many people think they know how businesses work when they've only been on the consumer side of things.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 09 septembre 2010 - 12:54 .

[Stanley Woo]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Excuse me, sir! I make flash games such as tic-tac-toe or count the numbers!

You're funny. i like you!

[Stanley Woo]

distinguetraces wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
I'd think twice about spouting off [...] far too many people think they know how businesses work [...]

Interesting choice of tone.

it's true nonetheless. Armchair developers, armchair quarterbacks, backseat drivers--we all want to think that we know how things work, and where others are going wrong. Generalizing and assuming helps us to deal with our frustrations and our inability to know everything about every subject all the time. for instance, I'm "generalizing and assuming" that there aren't any small business owners or employees of large corporations in this discussion, even though, logically and statistically, there must be one or two.

But I'm not afraid to be called out on my shenanigans or outright pedantic douchebaggery. i just want to discourage the general forum trends of "if I believe it and say it often enough and loudly enough, it's going to be true" and "the customer is always right."

EDIT: I just wanted to edit this to say that I don't think anyone in this thread is outright WRONG or that they HAVEN'T experienced severe bugs or that it's NOT important to fix them. That kinda stuff, i think, we all agree on. I'm just disagreeing on some of the other points being discussed such as a PATTERN of buggy games or a TREND towards buggier games or bugs being GAME-BREAKING.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 09 septembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[Stanley Woo]

I don't want to denigrate the awesome work that modders do, but since I hear it all the time, here are some reasons why: modders aren't restricted in many of the ways professional developers are. Modders don't get paid, so they can work on what they want, when they want, with no expectation of quality or completeness. They also aren't expected to ensure their fixes are compatible with all versions on every platform in every language. They answer to no one, and are accountable to no one.



To put it simply, expectations are different when dealing with modders as compared to professional developers with presumably the backing of a major multinational corporation.

[Stanley Woo]

zahra wrote...
With all due respect and kittens and rainbows, does that mean that these bug fixes are in the foreseeable future? Because I assumed that since no dev has directly addressed the storyline bugs (the patches tend to deal with combat and loading times etc), these glitches have been left in the game as a sort of charming defect that we will have to learn to live with.

I don't think I made any statements about future patches one way or another. I was only addressing the question of "why can modders sometimes do the work that professional developers can't/won't?"

/runs like hell because Stanley Woo is super scary

Please tell my girlfriend that. She thinks I'm a helpless kitten. (stoopid language filter)

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 09 septembre 2010 - 01:47 .

[Stanley Woo]

SirGladiator wrote...
I think for all the speculation as to why modders are better bug-fixers than the 'professionals', maybe its because they care more, maybe its because they're less burdened by stupid regulations, whatever it is, the bottom line is they really get the job done right. Therefore it seems to me a wise policy to give at least some of them, maybe a half dozen to a dozen or so, an early copy of the game (after the regular bug-fixers have done their work, of course), and the toolkit they want so badly, and basicly tell them 'fix this for us', and then just sit back and see what they come up with.

I don't think that's a wise policy at all. just because some modders enjoy playing with the toolset after a game's release does not mean they would all enjoy being told to fix a game pre-release. Your science is bad here. As for the toolkit, unless it is intended for release tot he general public, it remains proprietary material, and companies are not in the habit of just giving away proprietary material in the hopes of maybe some intrepid modders would like to work as bug testers and technical designers for free.

Its really amazing the kind of stuff those guys can do, just the stuff they fixed that was related to Morrigan alone, in the main game, made a world of difference. I can't even count the total number of things those guys have fixed, its just unreal. So even if they aren't 'really' more talented than the so-called professional bug-fixers (although I'd have to say they certainly seem to be) for whatever reason they certainly do a much better job, so I'd say they should definitely be utilized as a major resource for making sure that DA2 is as bug-free as possible.

You didn't actually read my explanation of why modders might be able to fix game bugs faster or "better" than a game company, did you?

[Stanley Woo]

LucianTansey wrote...
Actually I meant "EA's" not "Bioware's", so I apologise Mr Woo.

And yes your right, I dont know about the internal business decisions. But were the bugs a business decision?

People here keep talking about a publisher "rushing out" a game despite a developer's wishes, so if something like that happened, then yes, that would be considered a business decision. not saying that's what happened here, just that there are any number of reasons you will find bugs in a released game. At some point, a developer has to drop his tools because some greater force--usually related to time or money--said "TIME!"

[Stanley Woo]

MadLaughter wrote...
Just because people make criticisms from an armchair doesn't mean they are wrong. THAT's a generalization. A hypocritical one, considering you're accusing us of making generalizations.

I didn't say people were wrong. in fact, i said quite the opposite in one of my posts--that I wasn't arguing necessarily because people were wrong. I'm arguing more because people are sometimes using bad science and lack of information to come to their foregone conclusions, like an armchair quarterback seeing an open receiver but forgetting that he has a vastly different perspective of the field than the actual quarterback.

There are a few inescapable truths:
-DAO and DAO:A were and are too buggy with no fix in sight.

Many people had no trouble with either game, and several patches have been released that fix a number of the more serious problems people were having. Not an inescapable truth. Bad science.

-The development cycle for DA2 is incredibly short, compared to what Bioware seems to be used to and compared to most big budget games.

That's an opinion, not an inescapable truth. Bad science.

-Short development cycles are positively correlated with worse games.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Bad science.

-Development cycles are determined in most cases by the publisher.

Unless you can come up witha citation for that, I'm going to call bad science once again. Also, not an inescapable truth. I'm sure the developer's opinions of its own capabilities and workflow also help to determine development cycles.

[Stanley Woo]

Lord_Valandil wrote...
That's right, although a little tweak or two would be nice before abandoning the ship and moving on to DA2, to bugs like Leliana's broken conversation, the achievements, and some other things that, in fact, were broken by the patches. I know it's not an "easy thing", but those are not new problems. Not that I'm demanding anything.
I understand that devs cannot do what they want.

When talking about "little tweaks," consider that many times, a game is a very fragile Jenga tower, with some parts of the tower glued together, some taped together, and some pieces made of chocolate and some of bacon. Sure, it's possible to take "just a little" bite of chocolate or, if you prefer, bacon, but you get enough of those "little tweaks," and the tower might grow unstable. One of those glued together sections might be resting on a piece of bacon and bring a huge chunk crashing to the table.

Consider also that when we fix something in a ptach, we have to re-test the entire game to make sure that fix doesn't break anything else. Not only that, but we have to make sure the patch works for each and every version of the game that's been released, PLUS each platform, which may require additional certification or approvals. And all of that takes time and WORK. Work by testers, work by programmers, and producers that have the unenviable job of determining where the patch and fix efforts are going to go. They have to weigh the severity of each bug, the cost to fix it, and the stability of the system that needs to be worked on.



P.S. i had to remove a bunch of off-topic conversation, and inappropriate images and comments. Let's try to keep it clean, and on-topic. i don't mind the occasional joke or tangent, but let's not let it get out of hand if you want this thread to remain open. I'm enjoying this conversation. Thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

A bunch of off-topic tangents removed.

[Stanley Woo]

I wish i could drop the gloves, take the microphones off and destroy the recording devices, and speak as plainly and bluntly as I would like. Unfortunately, being employed as i am, and where and by whom, i am unfortunately restricted in what i can say. And because I am ultimately a nice guy, I can't even be really mean and snarky to y'all. Sarcastic, yes, but not really mean.



But despite all that, I'm still enjoying the conversation. i just wish people would quit trying to quantify the magic number of man-hours of development it would take to make a game "good". Game development is all about compromise. You compromise your vision when it starts to get too expensive or would take too much time, you compromise when different departments can't agree on priorities, you compromise on content when time becomes a factor, you compromise on detail when manpower is short, you compromise for a lot of reasons.



But you always TRY to do the best you can. And i think we've done pretty well for ourselves. Since the NWN days, we've more than doubled the size of the company, been acquired twice, expanded to be able to work on more than one project simultaneously, and developed 2 original properties, releasing games to tremendous critical and commercial appeal.



Being dismissive to problems? Considering we can't adequately answer every question posed to us, or solve every problem that every player is experiencing, yes, I do believe that we can be seen as dismissive by some. no one is perfect, no thing is perfect, and developers are only as good as their last game. But as long as we keep putting out great games, i'm more than happy to be your punching bag, because I love participating in our community and I'm a thick-skinned, forthright kinda guy. I still don't like a lot of the bad science floating around, and believe some folks need to chill out, but i understand that as long as we appear to be listening, you'll continue to make your thoughts known, good or bad.

[Stanley Woo]

*holds hands out in front of him* about yea big.

[Stanley Woo]

You're right, i forgot Jade Empire. Weird, too, because Jade empire was, for a long time, the only BioWare game I worked on that i could still play after ship. I don't know if i could still play it now that Mass effect and Dragon Age are out, but it'd be fun to find out. Thank you.

EDIT: I suppose i should add this so I'm not spamming a thread in which i'm participating. David Gaider in another thread mentioned that fans are very eager to throw someone else's money at problems. It seemsd to be the case here, with folks suggesting we take more time or make the team bigger or hire dedicated personnel for this or that. It's not a bad idea, but I'm sure players might get a little peeved at having any of those costs passed down in the form of higher game prices at retail or digital point-of-sale. Just sayin'.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 10 septembre 2010 - 09:15 .

[Stanley Woo]

Sorry, folks, but after pages of my company being accused of being lazy, careless, malicious, incompetent, greedy, and/or stupid, I think I'm done in this thread. My own opinions and thoughts are in the thread, and I've tried to be as open honest as I can be, but it seems people would much rather be accusatory than supportive or helpful. This thread will remain open as long as the bashing stays at a minimum.



Again, thanks for the discussion.

[John Epler]

It is possible for someone to feel that a game had negative aspects without being a whiner or a troll. Just as it is possible for someone to feel that a game lacked negative aspects without being a fanboy.



Let us all try and keep this in mind as we continue this discussion! Everyone has the right to their opinion, but no one has the right to flame or insult each other.