417 réponses à ce sujet

[Anathemic]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I can't imagine any developer spending time on hair physics. Maybe a few years from now. Technology is moving too fast for them to ever catch up.

Geralt from the Witcher had dem hair physics

[Dave of Canada]

Blasto the jelly wrote...
Shepards head missing,,,WTF... i fail to see how that would'nt impact the story.Its hard to fight collecters if You have no Head just saying 

I used to pretend he was a turtle and his head was in the armor...

But in all honesty, most of the ME bugs were fixed by reloading. Dragon Age's big bugs were never fail.

[Atmosfear3]

I'm pretty curious as to how long the QA department tests their product...or even if a QA department exists.

Whatever happened to releasing games when they are done and polished? Spare me the budget and time constraint rant. Everyone (companies included) should always strive for perfection. Or at the very least get 90% of the way there.

Modifié par Atmosfear3, 10 septembre 2010 - 10:41 .

[Phoenixblight]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

I'm pretty curious as to how long the QA department tests their product...or even if a QA department exists.

Whatever happened to releasing games when they are done and polished? Spare me the budget and time constraint rant. Everyone (companies included) should always strive for perfection. Or at the very least get 90% of the way there.

When publishers and companies found out that they need to put a cut off date otherwise you get a Duke Nukem. 

[Haexpane]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Well, one solution that I've seen other players mention is to release a patch as free DLC for consoles.  That way they could fix more stuff at once.

"Free DLC" and "Consoles" in the same sentence?!??!?!

HAHAHAHAHAHHA

and I'm not even going to remind you that Bioware is part of EA (oops looks like I did)

AHem.. SOny and Microsoft are the ones who don't allow much free DLC.  All you need to do is read a few posts from developers to learn that.

[Haexpane]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.
 

JE is playable and just as fun as it was on launch day.  I just played it again this year, but somehow this time on my 2nd playthrough I missed a chance at Silk Fox, even tho I was intentionall trying to romance her.  Meanwhile I ignored that d00d character and at the pre-tent scene he still wanted to sex up my toon.  

The SHUMP mini game is fantastic, but too short.  Never did get all the power ups from the SHUMP side missions until playthroughx2.  Very satisfying.

Silk Fox 4 LIFE!

Just talking about JE makes me sad that there will likely never be a JE2   I know the Bieber crowd loves Mass Effect 2 but... for ART's sake we demand another Jade Empire!

We need something NON GUNS | NON SPACE MARINES in the gaming RPG world plzkthxbye!

[Haexpane]

Pzykozis wrote...

 

Seems like some of the art departments in the industry (not suggesting bioware are guilty of this) regularly put in (by regular I mean during crunch time) 80 hour weeks. Just get the QA team to do the same! No extra cost since you're paid salary wise anyway.

*disclaimer* I am joking.. sort of..

Oh damn I sound like Kotick.

Ever work in QA on software?  90% of them are just temps.  The QA manager and test design planner / arch (whoever has that role) are really the key.  You can have QA testers working 17 hour days and it won't matter if the test plan is lite.

I deal with this every day, arguing QA strategy for software testing is an ongoing theme.  Seems like everyone has a different opinion on how to approach it and it never works out the way anyone wanted... every single release, and we aren't even a software company.  I can't imagine the tension for QA review for a company that depends on the software for revenue, or maybe I can

[Haexpane]

Saibh wrote...

It's difficult to believe, from a fans' perspective, you simply didn't notice. To a lot of us it seems more like you just didn't care. I'm don't think that's true, but at the same time it's hard to believe you didn't notice.

 

Have you ever worked in a software development environment or have you done QA?   Honest question.  To suggest that a software company is intentionally releasing known bugs, critical bugs... that' is quite an accusation to make without having any inside info/facts.

The story of "how did that bug get to production" in my experience is rarely the same story twice.  Bad script, wrong test script, no test script, wrong version of the script, late database changes, testing cycle, migration cycle, environment differences, PSN/XBL/STEAM differences, the list goes on and on as to how/why/when a bug can make it to production undetected.

I can tell you this, the answers always share one thing in common.  They bum people out.

Of course Bioware is responsible for their product, but to accuse them of maliciously releasing critical bugs is a huge leap.

[Haexpane]

Maverick827 wrote...

Since this thread has gained sort of a second wind, I guess it's time to reiterate my core complaint:
I'm not upset that bugs exist, as bugs are always to be expected. I'm not upset that we do not receive weekly or even monthly patches, as this is not an MMORPG or a game with similar upkeep requirements.
What I am upset about, however, is that your modding community has pointed out many small and easy fixes - fixes the console players would love to see but are unfortunately unable - and proven them to be stable and unconflicting through months of testing. I am upset that I have to keep track of a slew of mods, overrides, and script edits when an official patch - merely a compilation of known fixes - would be clean and succinct.

FreeWare vs. $$Software  Bioware didn't invent the model and they don't control it, Sony and MS control the console side.

[Saibh]

Haexpane wrote...

Have you ever worked in a software development environment or have you done QA?   Honest question.  To suggest that a software company is intentionally releasing known bugs, critical bugs... that' is quite an accusation to make without having any inside info/facts.

The story of "how did that bug get to production" in my experience is rarely the same story twice.  Bad script, wrong test script, no test script, wrong version of the script, late database changes, testing cycle, migration cycle, environment differences, PSN/XBL/STEAM differences, the list goes on and on as to how/why/when a bug can make it to production undetected.

I can tell you this, the answers always share one thing in common.  They bum people out.

Of course Bioware is responsible for their product, but to accuse them of maliciously releasing critical bugs is a huge leap.

I don't think I'll ever hear an explanation good enough.

Play a character making Anora the sole queen.

Once.

Do it once, I dare ya.

They must have noticed. There is no way they did not. If they didn't notice, they couldn't be bothered to check their own game for a major plot point.

I'm not sure if you read my entire post, but I said I'm not sure it was deliberate maliciousness. But, at the same time, I can't justify them simply not noticing. No matter which way you look at it, this is a gigantic and glaring bug that has never been fixed.

[Haexpane]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

I'm pretty curious as to how long the QA department tests their product...or even if a QA department exists.
 .

Most industries consider QA unnecessary overhead.  It's a battle every day to get QA budget in my industry and in my industry QA is mandatory, not an option.  And still 90% of the companies in this industry look to cut QA costs first. 

QA is so important in my industry there every major country or region of countries has their own agencies that ensure our industry follows a good quality model and can prove it, on any day of the week, without any notice. 


I have no idea what Bioware's QA model is.  But to simply get in house QA and not get outsourced to some lame QA farm w/ horrible practices is a constant battle, the "extra cost" of in house QA must constantly be justified/defended.

CEO bonuses? not so much those are easy :innocent:  

Look at the game industry layoffs news, QA is always the first to go.  The reason being, "testing is done/game shipped"  QA is either laid off or was on contract to begin with.  

"Just in time" employment is the model many are following for software development.  Hire people you need for a few months, then scrap them and hire another set of specialists for the next phase.

[Blastback]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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'.

Well, my mentality has always been that I will pay more for a superior product....

[Anathemic]

Haexpane wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

I'm pretty curious as to how long the QA department tests their product...or even if a QA department exists.
 .

Most industries consider QA unnecessary overhead.  It's a battle every day to get QA budget in my industry and in my industry QA is mandatory, not an option.  And still 90% of the companies in this industry look to cut QA costs first. 

QA is so important in my industry there every major country or region of countries has their own agencies that ensure our industry follows a good quality model and can prove it, on any day of the week, without any notice. 


I have no idea what Bioware's QA model is.  But to simply get in house QA and not get outsourced to some lame QA farm w/ horrible practices is a constant battle, the "extra cost" of in house QA must constantly be justified/defended.

CEO bonuses? not so much those are easy :innocent:  

Look at the game industry layoffs news, QA is always the first to go.  The reason being, "testing is done/game shipped"  QA is either laid off or was on contract to begin with.  

"Just in time" employment is the model many are following for software development.  Hire people you need for a few months, then scrap them and hire another set of specialists for the next phase.

Most game industries? More like the mediocre ones, lemee pull out some that puts QA first.

Bungie
Blizzard Entertainment
CD Projekt
Infinity Ward (gone sadly)
Square Enix
From Software
Games Workshop
Mythic Entertainment
NCsoft
Disney Interactive Studios
Valve Corporation

The list goes on...

[RyuAzai]

I had no idea there were bugs in Witch Hunt. I played through it with no problem what so ever.



I even unlocked some achievements, and I had for my laptop.



I am curious what bugs have people been facing?

[Atmosfear3]

This is why closed/open betas are so important. I'll bet anyone that if DA:O had a closed beta, the game released to the public would have been very different.



Take blizzard ent. for example. Every game since Warcraft 2 that I've played from Blizzard has always had a beta for testers to find bugs, suggest balance changes, etc. Every blizzard game I've played, aside from some initial balance issues (race x is too good for example), the singleplayer experience has always been bug-free for the most part. If some unforeseen bug does find its way into the release, it is almost always patched within a week or less.



If its too costly to maintain a QA department, at the very least allow your own staff to play and bug-test the games. Releasing bugged products is just sloppy and unprofessional.

[Anathemic]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

This is why closed/open betas are so important. I'll bet anyone that if DA:O had a closed beta, the game released to the public would have been very different.

Take blizzard ent. for example. Every game since Warcraft 2 that I've played from Blizzard has always had a beta for testers to find bugs, suggest balance changes, etc. Every blizzard game I've played, aside from some initial balance issues (race x is too good for example), the singleplayer experience has always been bug-free for the most part. If some unforeseen bug does find its way into the release, it is almost always patched within a week or less.

If its too costly to maintain a QA department, at the very least allow your own staff to play and bug-test the games. Releasing bugged products is just sloppy and unprofessional.

Race X being terran

But yes, Blizzard does an excellent job on quality assurance with their games, not to mention they actually let the community in and do beta tests and value the feedback given to them. I mean one would think that it takes more to manage a RTS than a single palyer RPG right? So wouldn't BioWare have an easier time patching up their games?

Edit: Spelling

Modifié par Anathemic, 11 septembre 2010 - 03:18 .

[Mecha Tengu]

Anathemic wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

This is why closed/open betas are so important. I'll bet anyone that if DA:O had a closed beta, the game released to the public would have been very different.

Take blizzard ent. for example. Every game since Warcraft 2 that I've played from Blizzard has always had a beta for testers to find bugs, suggest balance changes, etc. Every blizzard game I've played, aside from some initial balance issues (race x is too good for example), the singleplayer experience has always been bug-free for the most part. If some unforeseen bug does find its way into the release, it is almost always patched within a week or less.

If its too costly to maintain a QA department, at the very least allow your own staff to play and bug-test the games. Releasing bugged products is just sloppy and unprofessional.

Race X being terran

But yes, Blizzard does an excellent job on quality assurance with their games, not to mention they actually let the community in and do beta tests and value the feedback given to them. I mean one would think that it takes more to manage a RTS than a single palyer RPG right? So wouldn't BioWare have an easier time patching up their games?

Edit: Spelling

I think it is because RTS have compeitive multiplayer, and will be played on a general, daily-weekly basis. Single player RPGs are played once, then a few more playthroughs every week or so.

There is more incentive to patch up and balance an RTS, than a single player RPG that can truly be enjoyed once.
Why spend money patching up DAO when Bioware could be spending on DA2 development and DLC

I do hope Bioware learns the importance of patching once their MMO TOR comes out

[Anathemic]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

This is why closed/open betas are so important. I'll bet anyone that if DA:O had a closed beta, the game released to the public would have been very different.

Take blizzard ent. for example. Every game since Warcraft 2 that I've played from Blizzard has always had a beta for testers to find bugs, suggest balance changes, etc. Every blizzard game I've played, aside from some initial balance issues (race x is too good for example), the singleplayer experience has always been bug-free for the most part. If some unforeseen bug does find its way into the release, it is almost always patched within a week or less.

If its too costly to maintain a QA department, at the very least allow your own staff to play and bug-test the games. Releasing bugged products is just sloppy and unprofessional.

Race X being terran

But yes, Blizzard does an excellent job on quality assurance with their games, not to mention they actually let the community in and do beta tests and value the feedback given to them. I mean one would think that it takes more to manage a RTS than a single palyer RPG right? So wouldn't BioWare have an easier time patching up their games?

Edit: Spelling

I think it is because RTS have compeitive multiplayer, and will be played on a general, daily-weekly basis. Single player RPGs are played once, then a few more playthroughs every week or so.

There is more incentive to patch up and balance an RTS, than a single player RPG that can truly be enjoyed once.
Why spend money patching up DAO when Bioware could be spending on DA2 development and DLC

I do hope Bioware learns the importance of patching once their MMO TOR comes out

Exactly, so RPGs are more easier and not as code-heavy and stressing to patch as RTSs are.

As for having the incenitive, look at The Witcher, not many patches but the patches have fixed the game in large and positive ways and as the Witcher 2 and CDProjekt is a near-rival and/or already a rival of BioWare, wouldn't basic marketing be enough to implement CDProjekt's ideal attributes?

Or is BioWare simply being ignorant?

[Mecha Tengu]

Anathemic wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

This is why closed/open betas are so important. I'll bet anyone that if DA:O had a closed beta, the game released to the public would have been very different.

Take blizzard ent. for example. Every game since Warcraft 2 that I've played from Blizzard has always had a beta for testers to find bugs, suggest balance changes, etc. Every blizzard game I've played, aside from some initial balance issues (race x is too good for example), the singleplayer experience has always been bug-free for the most part. If some unforeseen bug does find its way into the release, it is almost always patched within a week or less.

If its too costly to maintain a QA department, at the very least allow your own staff to play and bug-test the games. Releasing bugged products is just sloppy and unprofessional.

Race X being terran

But yes, Blizzard does an excellent job on quality assurance with their games, not to mention they actually let the community in and do beta tests and value the feedback given to them. I mean one would think that it takes more to manage a RTS than a single palyer RPG right? So wouldn't BioWare have an easier time patching up their games?

Edit: Spelling

I think it is because RTS have compeitive multiplayer, and will be played on a general, daily-weekly basis. Single player RPGs are played once, then a few more playthroughs every week or so.

There is more incentive to patch up and balance an RTS, than a single player RPG that can truly be enjoyed once.
Why spend money patching up DAO when Bioware could be spending on DA2 development and DLC

I do hope Bioware learns the importance of patching once their MMO TOR comes out

Or is BioWare simply being ignorant?

nah just lazy

[Anathemic]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...



This is why closed/open betas are so important. I'll bet anyone that if DA:O had a closed beta, the game released to the public would have been very different.



Take blizzard ent. for example. Every game since Warcraft 2 that I've played from Blizzard has always had a beta for testers to find bugs, suggest balance changes, etc. Every blizzard game I've played, aside from some initial balance issues (race x is too good for example), the singleplayer experience has always been bug-free for the most part. If some unforeseen bug does find its way into the release, it is almost always patched within a week or less.



If its too costly to maintain a QA department, at the very least allow your own staff to play and bug-test the games. Releasing bugged products is just sloppy and unprofessional.

Race X being terran



But yes, Blizzard does an excellent job on quality assurance with their games, not to mention they actually let the community in and do beta tests and value the feedback given to them. I mean one would think that it takes more to manage a RTS than a single palyer RPG right? So wouldn't BioWare have an easier time patching up their games?



Edit: Spelling

I think it is because RTS have compeitive multiplayer, and will be played on a general, daily-weekly basis. Single player RPGs are played once, then a few more playthroughs every week or so.



There is more incentive to patch up and balance an RTS, than a single player RPG that can truly be enjoyed once.

Why spend money patching up DAO when Bioware could be spending on DA2 development and DLC



I do hope Bioware learns the importance of patching once their MMO TOR comes out

Or is BioWare simply being ignorant?

nah just lazy

Well then, to BioWare people, get off your asses and make DA2 a good game {smilie}

[Merci357]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Take blizzard ent. for example. Every game since Warcraft 2 that I've played from Blizzard has always had a beta for testers to find bugs, suggest balance changes, etc. Every blizzard game I've played, aside from some initial balance issues (race x is too good for example), the singleplayer experience has always been bug-free for the most part. If some unforeseen bug does find its way into the release, it is almost always patched within a week or less.

If its too costly to maintain a QA department, at the very least allow your own staff to play and bug-test the games. Releasing bugged products is just sloppy and unprofessional.

But each and every Blizzard game has a multiplayer/online part, and in these cases a Beta makes much more sense. Just take the most recent Beta, for Starcraft 2. They got feedback how the game will run on various systems, and they used it to balance the multiplayer part.The single player campaign wasn't part of the Beta, at all. What are BioWare games essentially - just a huge single player experience.
I don't say BW games could be improved if they would do Betas for them - ToR absolutely requires a thorough Beta.

Regarding patches - again, Blizzard is a different beast. They are PC only - BioWare is (dare I say sadly?) a multiplatform developer. They can release patches as fast as they want to, and as many as they want to. That's simply not possible with console certification processes. However this indicates that the games need to be as polished and bugfree when released as possible, since they can't change as many thing as they'd like to once shipped.

[Anathemic]

Merci357 wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Take blizzard ent. for example. Every game since Warcraft 2 that I've played from Blizzard has always had a beta for testers to find bugs, suggest balance changes, etc. Every blizzard game I've played, aside from some initial balance issues (race x is too good for example), the singleplayer experience has always been bug-free for the most part. If some unforeseen bug does find its way into the release, it is almost always patched within a week or less.

If its too costly to maintain a QA department, at the very least allow your own staff to play and bug-test the games. Releasing bugged products is just sloppy and unprofessional.

But each and every Blizzard game has a multiplayer/online part, and in these cases a Beta makes much more sense. Just take the most recent Beta, for Starcraft 2. They got feedback how the game will run on various systems, and they used it to balance the multiplayer part.The single player campaign wasn't part of the Beta, at all. What are BioWare games essentially - just a huge single player experience.
I don't say BW games could be improved if they would do Betas for them - ToR absolutely requires a thorough Beta.

Regarding patches - again, Blizzard is a different beast. They are PC only - BioWare is (dare I say sadly?) a multiplatform developer. They can release patches as fast as they want to, and as many as they want to. That's simply not possible with console certification processes. However this indicates that the games need to be as polished and bugfree when released as possible, since they can't change as many thing as they'd like to once shipped.

Consoles haven't been a problem for Bungie.

What you said is true however, that consoles are different story when coming ot patches, but shouldn't that make the incenitive to patch a game even more? What we got from DA:O is like they made the story and basic gameplay and went "okay we done, ship it". I would say Super Mario Galaxy 2 is better in terms of QA than DA:O was.

[AlanC9]

Anathemic wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...
I think it is because RTS have compeitive multiplayer, and will be played on a general, daily-weekly basis. Single player RPGs are played once, then a few more playthroughs every week or so.

There is more incentive to patch up and balance an RTS, than a single player RPG that can truly be enjoyed once.
Why spend money patching up DAO when Bioware could be spending on DA2 development and DLC

Exactly, so RPGs are more easier and not as code-heavy and stressing to patch as RTSs are.

That conclusion doesn't at all follow from what you're replying to. It's also untrue.

[Anathemic]

AlanC9 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...
I think it is because RTS have compeitive multiplayer, and will be played on a general, daily-weekly basis. Single player RPGs are played once, then a few more playthroughs every week or so.

There is more incentive to patch up and balance an RTS, than a single player RPG that can truly be enjoyed once.
Why spend money patching up DAO when Bioware could be spending on DA2 development and DLC

Exactly, so RPGs are more easier and not as code-heavy and stressing to patch as RTSs are.

That conclusion doesn't at all follow from what you're replying to. It's also untrue.

Back it up, I can:

StarCraft Patches

Dragon Age: Origins Patches

Looks like Starcraft the RTS has not only more but heavily extensive patches than DA:O the RPG does

Modifié par Anathemic, 11 septembre 2010 - 04:36 .