29 réponses à ce sujet

[MonkeyLungs]

Just want to say that Bioware has flat out said that auto attack for consoles was already IN GAME. Then it was discovered it was omitted in a bizarre error of some kind. Supposedly this is going to be fixed as stated by numerous Bioware employees.

So is this going to be fixed?

[Paul Sedgmore]

Bioware confirmed just before the games release that the Auto-attack was omitted from the console version when it went to print and that they are including it in the first patch.

Not sure why they did not keep the post stickied though

[MonkeyLungs]

I wasn't going to buy DA2 until this was fixed and until price drop etc. However Amazon had a nice deal going a while ago and I had a $10.00 credit for some reason. Couldn't pass up the cheap game. Even though so much stuff bugged me in the demo (combat feels like a spaz fest) and MIke Laidlaw seems to love insulting Bioware's old fans I still wanted to play the full game. Now I've got it and lack of auto attack is a bummer for me. I would much rather that Hawke just auto swings his basic attacks so I don't have to press the button over and over.

Simply allowing for just holding down the button would be great.

If anyone has played Sacred 2 on console even that kind of system would be very welcome. You can hold down a key that a special attack is mapped to and it will fire off the special, while waiting for the cooldown continuing to hold the button will perform regular attacks. It is very elegant and frankly the BEST console ARPG button setup I have played.

[Farbelowaverage]

In my opinion, no, it is not a major issue.

Juxtaposed with the many features of the game that simply do not work, I can't see why has this stirred up the most outrage. It was a stylistic change, as the game is becoming more action oriented, so it made sense for the control style to reflect that. Do I think the new system is perfect? Of course not. Like you said, it could certainly benefit from a system similar to Sacred 2; but I do not miss the Origins style of combat.

[Phial]

Convenient how it made it into the review copies...

[Farbelowaverage]

Indeed. I'd like to say I'm amazed at how many game news websites received functional copies of DA2, but I hold no illusion of ethical business practices in that department.

[Paul Sedgmore]

Phial wrote...

Convenient how it made it into the review copies...

If it was in the review copies it was because it was ment to be in retail copies but wasn't due to an accident. Reviewers could have mentioned it because of notes about what will be included in the final game that isn't available in the review code.

[Phial]

An accident that couldn't  be immediately patched?

The auto-attack itself isn't a huge deal but it's the lie I'm definitely going to remember. Combined with the completely untested pre-order "bonus" dlc facebook nonsense. Meanwhile the core game itself wasn't even thoroughly play tested but they were so busy shoving this marketing crap out they couldn't be bothered.

I'm definitely no longer an automatic Bioware customer.

Modifié par Phial, 25 mars 2011 - 05:20 .

[Spanishcat]

@ Farbelowaverage - DA2's combat is essentially identical to Origins. So no, there was not some great seismic change in 'style' which warranted a change in controls. It may look flashier and handle faster, but the core mechanics and flow is unchanged.

It's subjective, of course, but I find the constant smashing of A (especially with a dual-wield rogue) to be distracting (re the overall awareness of tactics) and boring.

And the fact is, auto-attack was confirmed to us on these boards after the demo launched, so its omission understandably ruffled some feathers.

[Paul Sedgmore]

Phial wrote...

An accident that couldn't  be immediately patched?

The auto-attack itself isn't a huge deal but it's the lie I'm definitely going to remember. Combined with the completely untested pre-order "bonus" dlc facebook nonsense. Meanwhile the core game itself wasn't even thoroughly play tested but they were so busy shoving this marketing crap out they couldn't be bothered.

I'm definitely no longer an automatic Bioware customer.

Any patch needs to get approved by Microsoft before it gets released, that alone takes more than a week. Plus there are other restrictions on patches which would mean they would want to fix other issues before submitting the patch for approval.

Both DA:O and DA2 had/has annoying bugs/issues at launch but they are far better than Obsidian games at launch. The marketing bull has nothing to do with the testing of the game.

[Phial]

I really don't see how DA2 is any better than an Obsidian game. DA:O was flawless compared to this. Also Black Ops goes to show there are ways to work around that Official Microsoft Process. Of course you would have to acknowledge from the start your game will need a lot of fixing and if you do that everyone is going to be like, "Hey why'd you release this game like this in the first place?". Good question.

[Paul Sedgmore]

If you are talking about a release day patch for Black Ops then that would be because something failed Microsoft's checks and Activision and Microsoft signed an agreement to patch the issues (and tested the patch before release) so that the game did not have to re-submit the entire game.

"DA:O was flawless compared to this": glitched achievements, crashes, memory leaks, this list goes on. Most Obsidian games are near unplayable before the first patch (including Fallout: New Vegas)

[MonkeyLungs]

Just because other companies release buggy games means we have to excuse it for everyone else who comes after? If anything it should make all of us (gamers) want to push every company to test a little more and patch a little faster.

[Paul Sedgmore]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Just because other companies release buggy games means we have to excuse it for everyone else who comes after? If anything it should make all of us (gamers) want to push every company to test a little more and patch a little faster.

I agree to a certain extent but comming from a QA background I also understand the business decisions behind leaving bugs in a game, and, as I have previously states why the game has not recieved a patch so far.

[MonkeyLungs]

I understand them too. It's called they have my money and think it's ok to just take their time fixing their product. Video game companies are so big about getting pre-orders. That means they get people's money prior to delivering the product. Seems like they might want to work triple time to fix issues with the software.

Patching something in that apparently was supposed to be working should be a pretty quick fix. I'm pretty tired of hearing the Microsoft Certification excuse too. It's just an excuse to me and I've seen developers provide patches very quick before. I wonder if the MIcrosoft Certification team enjoys being the scapegoat for slow to patch developers.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Patches take time. MIcrosoft charges for content and they have to approve the patch

Plus there is only a 5mb limit mandated by Microsoft. So when you patch stuff on the 360 it better be small in filesize

Microsoft definately deserves the blame for releasing the console without a bloody hardrive

The PS3? No limit. Why no limit? Its open and all copies come with a hard drive.

This bull**** that MIcrosoft pulled with the 360 is seriously holding back development of games. If they do it again on the next console they deserve to get their ass handed to them by competitors as it is simply an unnacceptable move in order to get the cheapest console out.

Cheap in cost and cheap in quality

[MonkeyLungs]

I don't like the small file size restriction either but maybe the game should be tested better from the start then?

How do you miss the console version NOT having auto-attack when developers flat out said it was in game.

I'm pretty sure they have Xbox 360's at Bioware (I would assume at least one of each iteration of the console). All they would have had to do was throw the master in and give it a try. It should have been obvious.

I hear you on the limited filesize argument and I agree in alot of ways, but that does NOT excuse this specific problem. Not to mention if it was already IN GAME then it should be a quick fix.

The first Title Update including it's certification process is FREE for developers by the way. After that they have to pay.

[KingDan97]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I understand them too. It's called they have my money and think it's ok to just take their time fixing their product. Video game companies are so big about getting pre-orders. That means they get people's money prior to delivering the product. Seems like they might want to work triple time to fix issues with the software.

Patching something in that apparently was supposed to be working should be a pretty quick fix. I'm pretty tired of hearing the Microsoft Certification excuse too. It's just an excuse to me and I've seen developers provide patches very quick before. I wonder if the MIcrosoft Certification team enjoys being the scapegoat for slow to patch developers.

You clearly don't understand how 90% of preorders work. The money you put down for a preorder in store guarentees you a copy. If you buy it online they are legally not allowed to charge you until your order has been processed and is ready for shipping. If you pay it off in full in store than it can get spent by the retailer but it's not treated as a sale until you pick it up. You are allowed to get a refund on the entire price, plus tax of your preorder because it is just to reserve a copy.

Bioware doesn't get any money until you have a copy in your hands, and even then it's not even a majority of your 60$. The week one title patches that go out for a very select few games are only those that have been worked on and submitted for certification before the game launched. All content goes through certification, and bigger name titles have higher priority. It's not an excuse, it's fact.

[Phial]

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

If you are talking about a release day patch for Black Ops then that would be because something failed Microsoft's checks and Activision and Microsoft signed an agreement to patch the issues (and tested the patch before release) so that the game did not have to re-submit the entire game.

"DA:O was flawless compared to this": glitched achievements, crashes, memory leaks, this list goes on. Most Obsidian games are near unplayable before the first patch (including Fallout: New Vegas)

In what way is this game not unplayable? I mean in a serious, crank up the difficulty way. Several completely game breaking issues.

If you play it as an interactive movie it works fine I guess. Well, mostly.

[MonkeyLungs]

KingDan97 wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I understand them too. It's called they have my money and think it's ok to just take their time fixing their product. Video game companies are so big about getting pre-orders. That means they get people's money prior to delivering the product. Seems like they might want to work triple time to fix issues with the software.

Patching something in that apparently was supposed to be working should be a pretty quick fix. I'm pretty tired of hearing the Microsoft Certification excuse too. It's just an excuse to me and I've seen developers provide patches very quick before. I wonder if the MIcrosoft Certification team enjoys being the scapegoat for slow to patch developers.

You clearly don't understand how 90% of preorders work. The money you put down for a preorder in store guarentees you a copy. If you buy it online they are legally not allowed to charge you until your order has been processed and is ready for shipping. If you pay it off in full in store than it can get spent by the retailer but it's not treated as a sale until you pick it up. You are allowed to get a refund on the entire price, plus tax of your preorder because it is just to reserve a copy.

Bioware doesn't get any money until you have a copy in your hands, and even then it's not even a majority of your 60$. The week one title patches that go out for a very select few games are only those that have been worked on and submitted for certification before the game launched. All content goes through certification, and bigger name titles have higher priority. It's not an excuse, it's fact.

That sure does have alot to do with the auto-attack issue.  The fact whether or not they have the money, they certainly push for pre-order numbers. Maybe they should do some pre-release testing to back up their greed. Read up on the auto-attack debacle .. apparently it was already IN GAME at some point so it stands to reason it should be an easy fix? I mean, if all the stories we've been told are true that is.

You a Bioware employee or something?

[atxbomber]

Please explain the correlation between the 360's lack of HDD and BioWare/EA's decision to release an incomplete product. Because, and maybe I'm just not getting it, it sure seems like the easiest way to avoid the 5mb limit would be to get it right the first time and not rely on patches just to make the game playable.

[Onyx Jaguar]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I don't like the small file size restriction either but maybe the game should be tested better from the start then?

How do you miss the console version NOT having auto-attack when developers flat out said it was in game.

I'm pretty sure they have Xbox 360's at Bioware (I would assume at least one of each iteration of the console). All they would have had to do was throw the master in and give it a try. It should have been obvious.

I hear you on the limited filesize argument and I agree in alot of ways, but that does NOT excuse this specific problem. Not to mention if it was already IN GAME then it should be a quick fix.

The first Title Update including it's certification process is FREE for developers by the way. After that they have to pay.

The copies Bioware have at their studios are most likely on Development kits.  Final versions but not mastered versions.  What they were using as an excuse here is the mastering process which depends on the factory disk run.  That isd also something Microsoft has control over.  For them to test it once it had been produced they would have to get a shipment from Microsoft and try the disc version.  Since they already paid for the shipment reprinting another order would not be cost effective, and the delay would also cost money.  Since it doesn't really break the game, it is not an issue worth losing out on a ton of money for from a business standpoint.  Better to attempt to patch it in later at much less cost.  

[Onyx Jaguar]

Also I wouldn't call this a major issue, it reminds me of the difference between using a Wii Remote and a classic controller for Mario Kart Wii. While the auto-attack makes it more comfortable, the A spam allows you to attack with more frequency.

[Phenerios]

Phial wrote...

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

If you are talking about a release day patch for Black Ops then that would be because something failed Microsoft's checks and Activision and Microsoft signed an agreement to patch the issues (and tested the patch before release) so that the game did not have to re-submit the entire game.

"DA:O was flawless compared to this": glitched achievements, crashes, memory leaks, this list goes on. Most Obsidian games are near unplayable before the first patch (including Fallout: New Vegas)

In what way is this game not unplayable? I mean in a serious, crank up the difficulty way. Several completely game breaking issues.

If you play it as an interactive movie it works fine I guess. Well, mostly.

      I have to womder sometimes what you people do to break your game so quickly. I picked up my copy of Fallout:New Vegas at a midnight release and beat it with out finding any game breaking glitches. I have beat one playthrough of DA2 on hard the whole way through without running into a game breaking glitch. I had everyone as a friend and swapped party members out all the time.
  
    Now that I got that out I do agree it feels like this game was released half finsihed, and it seems EA pulled a fast one on us again. They had has buy DLC that was already on the disk. I am a big fan of EA games and Bioware, but if these underhanded business practices continue I will stop buying thier games. I am also looking into a possible class action lawsuit against both companies for fraud.

[KingDan97]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

*snip*

That sure does have alot to do with the auto-attack issue.  The fact whether or not they have the money, they certainly push for pre-order numbers. Maybe they should do some pre-release testing to back up their greed. Read up on the auto-attack debacle .. apparently it was already IN GAME at some point so it stands to reason it should be an easy fix? I mean, if all the stories we've been told are true that is.

You a Bioware employee or something?

You don't need to be a Bioware employee to know the basics of preordering a game. It was in the game, yes. The wrong DK was sent out to be mastered and now they need to find a way to change the game's code, to make it as it was before without needing to send out another master code with that inside. An auto attack may seem like a simple patch, just flip a switch right? Well that's not the case, there's currently no switch there and they need to make a patch under 5mb that puts that switch in. They push for preorders for bragging rights, games like CoD where they can make claims of having huge interest because they have septuple digit preorders. That is why preorders exist, beyond that it's conveinience for you, they let you pay some off in advance so that when launch day comes along you don't need to have a full 60$ on hand. In the case of online orders it prevents you needing to wait to be able to buy a product, because if you can't play a game on launch then how could they even claim a launch date?

I know about the auto attack ISSUE. That was a miscommunication between employees. When it went gold they likely noticed the problem but figured they may be able to get it through testing and such before launch so there was no need to alert the fans. And the patch is incoming, if you consider it "unplayable" without auto attack than wait a week. it won't kill you.