128 réponses à ce sujet

[Unichrone]

RykerrK wrote...


Yes, because it's an excellent practice to release a half-finished patch, and then patch the patch and patch the subsequent patches until they get it right.

Well they released a half-finished game, so I don't see your point.

[Sylriel]

blahq34653 wrote...

I used to work at a software company and it took a few weeks for a patch to be made just because of the cycle it had to go through, and that was for a much more simple program than this. If I had to guess, Bioware's development cycle probably goes something like the following:

7. Development execs throw in a last minute curveball asking for something completely irrelevant and obscure to be added to the latest patch.
9. The development execs get angry that a patch hasn't been released yet without realizing that every time code is changed in the engine, testing needs to start over completely.
10. Dev execs finally lose patience and force a sub-par patch into release stages.

I work directly with executives and I can confirm this:

Executives are retarded.  The few who have somewhat of a clue retard themselves through a process known as executive ass kissing.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Sylriel wrote...

blahq34653 wrote...

I used to work at a software company and it took a few weeks for a patch to be made just because of the cycle it had to go through, and that was for a much more simple program than this. If I had to guess, Bioware's development cycle probably goes something like the following:

7. Development execs throw in a last minute curveball asking for something completely irrelevant and obscure to be added to the latest patch.
9. The development execs get angry that a patch hasn't been released yet without realizing that every time code is changed in the engine, testing needs to start over completely.
10. Dev execs finally lose patience and force a sub-par patch into release stages.

I work directly with executives and I can confirm this:

Executives are retarded.  The few who have somewhat of a clue retard themselves through a process known as executive ass kissing.

sounds like Executives act stupid because its cool. I wish they would be honest.

[Arian Dynas]

Unichrone wrote...

RykerrK wrote...


Yes, because it's an excellent practice to release a half-finished patch, and then patch the patch and patch the subsequent patches until they get it right.

Well they released a half-finished game, so I don't see your point.

 Sir, would you like some cheese with your whine?

[Arian Dynas]

RaenImrahl wrote...

The first significant, in-game story bug patch for both Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2 hit about a month after their respective North American launch dates. No reason to think the same will not be true for DA2.

Considering that the first few attempts to patch DA:O lead to additional bugs being introduced (and subsequent revised versions of the patches to fix them)... I'd prefer that they take their time.

 This^

[BlackMamba9000]

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...

Sylriel wrote...

blahq34653 wrote...

I used to work at a software company and it took a few weeks for a patch to be made just because of the cycle it had to go through, and that was for a much more simple program than this. If I had to guess, Bioware's development cycle probably goes something like the following:

7. Development execs throw in a last minute curveball asking for something completely irrelevant and obscure to be added to the latest patch.
9. The development execs get angry that a patch hasn't been released yet without realizing that every time code is changed in the engine, testing needs to start over completely.
10. Dev execs finally lose patience and force a sub-par patch into release stages.

I work directly with executives and I can confirm this:

Executives are retarded.  The few who have somewhat of a clue retard themselves through a process known as executive ass kissing.

sounds like Executives act stupid because its cool. I wish they would be honest.

well executives are executives can't really say i'm surprised they would rush the game developing process

[Unichrone]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Unichrone wrote...

RykerrK wrote...


Yes, because it's an excellent practice to release a half-finished patch, and then patch the patch and patch the subsequent patches until they get it right.

Well they released a half-finished game, so I don't see your point.

 Sir, would you like some cheese with your whine?

Aww, I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to make you cry with my reality.  

Inappropriate cliche' is inappropriate.  There's no whining in that post.  It's just a statement of fact, and that you got so defensive indicates that I hit a nerve.  They released the game with lots of bugs to meet a deadline, so it doesn't follow that the company would have scruples on patches either.  It's a very, very simple path of thought.

You might not agree that this is the case, but hopefully you can at least understand that this is a rational method of reasoning.

Modifié par Unichrone, 07 avril 2011 - 05:33 .

[Funker Shepard]

Unichrone wrote...
It's a very, very simple path of thought.

Yeah, too simple.

[Thaumiel]

Yeah, IT Master and Noob are fighting with each other and the fight will end like it was never started when patch will be released.

[Fetacheese]

Thaumiel wrote...

Yeah, IT Master and Noob are fighting with each other and the fight will end like it was never started when patch will be released.

The fact of the matter lies in the state of the current game, not the current patch.

anyone remember the new medal of honor? oh that's right - the game came out so broken no one even plays it. 

[JediMB]

Unichrone wrote...

There's no whining in that post.  It's just a statement of fact

Gee, I could have sworn that was dissatisfied hyperbole.

Unichrone wrote...

They released the game with lots of bugs to meet a deadline, so it doesn't follow that the company would have scruples on patches either.  It's a very, very simple path of thought.

But a flawed path of thought. The deadline for the game was set by EA a very long time in advance, and couldn't be changed for promotional reasons, while the work on the patch didn't have such restrictions.

In fact, BioWare having released a very buggy game makes it all the more important that the patchwork for it is done properly.

[RVonE]

JediMB wrote...

Unichrone wrote...

There's no whining in that post.  It's just a statement of fact

Gee, I could have sworn that was dissatisfied hyperbole.

Unichrone wrote...

They released the game with lots of bugs to meet a deadline, so it doesn't follow that the company would have scruples on patches either.  It's a very, very simple path of thought.

But a flawed path of thought. The deadline for the game was set by EA a very long time in advance, and couldn't be changed for promotional reasons, while the work on the patch didn't have such restrictions.

In fact, BioWare having released a very buggy game makes it all the more important that the patchwork for it is done properly.

Agreed, but the problem is that most players will have moved on to something else by now. They played DAII in a less-than-optimal state and will think twice before buying DAIII.

[AgenTBC]

I think that's an important point (and I say it as someone who actually LIKES DA2). Patching a game after many of the players have finished it and moved on is roughly the same as not patching it at all.

[Thaumiel]

Guys, which solution is better?

- Keep the Official Release Date and start selling Game with so many bugs

- Move the Official Release Date to example: Next month but without so many bugs

Every option has some plus and minus.

Every point is inviting to fight why this is so bad.

From this point you should try to help fix this bugs so new patch will come quickly. Talking about patching process, fighting is going to nowhere.

[Vollkeule]

thought that i would wait for the patch for a second playthrough. now that i am through the first time, i do not realy need a patch anymore.
i found many bugs and everything seemed more bugged than da:o, me and me2 together. playing da2 was not a good experience

[JediMB]

AgenTBC wrote...

I think that's an important point (and I say it as someone who actually LIKES DA2). Patching a game after many of the players have finished it and moved on is roughly the same as not patching it at all.

Surely, but there are also plenty of people who play through the games multiple times.

There are those who will go back to the game for another playthrough before the sequel is released.

There are even those who keep playing the games over and over even a year or two after they're released.

Would these people be better off with quick and dirty fixes, or proper fixes that actually take care of all the problems? I know I'm more than a bit annoyed by the bugs that still lurk around in both DAO and ME2, since BioWare apparently just couldn't be bothered with free fixes after a while. Better to try to catch as many bugs as possible with the very first patch, I say.

[mousestalker]

I'm not there with Bioware yet, but there is one prominent game design studio whose games I refuse to buy until after the first patch. If it's severely broken, then I wait until the second. There are other gamers who are even more disciplined than I am.

It behooves a game company to patch their games.

[DeadInHell]

Seems like there's two different discussion going in this thread now. One for the patch, and one for the broken state of launch-day (or month) DA2.

Yes, the patch needs to be properly tested. Particularly because the game obviously was not, and we've all had to deal with the result: an unfinished game. Some on the forums have managed a mostly bug-free playthrough, and kudos to them, but many of us have had our games halted entirely, for weeks upon weeks now. Maybe that isn't Bioware's fault, because they answer to EA and EA doesn't care about quality because they simply don't have to. We bought the game, why should EA care what state the game is in if they already have our money? The success of their "no development time + lots of marketing" strategy has been proven by the sales of the game.

Now we have to wait for Bioware to fix up the game because they actually have the time now, and since they finally gave us an update on the patch, I'm ok with the wait, even though it's still incredibly frustrating that I've had to wait an entire month just to continue my playthrough (and the wait isn't near over yet). I just hope the patch is worth the wait, because if I boot up my game and Merill is still broken, or any of the other major game-stopping issues are still present, this will be my last Bioware pre-order.

[Noahsdadiscool]

WHERE?

[Noahsdadiscool]

BeLikeHan wrote...

Seems like there's two different discussion going in this thread now. One for the patch, and one for the broken state of launch-day (or month) DA2.

Yes, the patch needs to be properly tested. Particularly because the game obviously was not, and we've all had to deal with the result: an unfinished game. Some on the forums have managed a mostly bug-free playthrough, and kudos to them, but many of us have had our games halted entirely, for weeks upon weeks now. Maybe that isn't Bioware's fault, because they answer to EA and EA doesn't care about quality because they simply don't have to. We bought the game, why should EA care what state the game is in if they already have our money? The success of their "no development time + lots of marketing" strategy has been proven by the sales of the game.

Now we have to wait for Bioware to fix up the game because they actually have the time now, and since they finally gave us an update on the patch, I'm ok with the wait, even though it's still incredibly frustrating that I've had to wait an entire month just to continue my playthrough (and the wait isn't near over yet). I just hope the patch is worth the wait, because if I boot up my game and Merill is still broken, or any of the other major game-stopping issues are still present, this will be my last Bioware pre-order.

This!
Wow, you said it all man.

[Unichrone]

JediMB wrote...

Unichrone wrote...

There's no whining in that post.  It's just a statement of fact

Gee, I could have sworn that was dissatisfied hyperbole.

Unichrone wrote...

They released the game with lots of bugs to meet a deadline, so it doesn't follow that the company would have scruples on patches either.  It's a very, very simple path of thought.

But a flawed path of thought. The deadline for the game was set by EA a very long time in advance, and couldn't be changed for promotional reasons, while the work on the patch didn't have such restrictions.

In fact, BioWare having released a very buggy game makes it all the more important that the patchwork for it is done properly.

And I'm the one with a flawed path of thought?  

I'm done with Dragon Age II.  I've played through it two and a half times.  The time for a good version of the game was in the past month, not the next.  I'm not trying to complain, I'm just stating the facts.  Many people are done with this game, and it's probably left a bad taste in their mouth, which is understandable.  

And why does a quick fix need to be "dirty"?  Why does a series of quick patches have to be inferior to a delayed, larger one?  I would rather have multiple miniature patches over the course of the month that fix a number of things, rather than wait for one patch at the end of the month that will cover the same issues. I say, the sooner something, even if it's one thing, is fixed, the better.  

You're implying that if they give us smaller, more numerous patches that it's inherently not as effective as a delayed larger patch.  And that's an unfounded assertion.

EDIT: Calling the game half-finished is not hyperbole.  Your glasses are extremely rosy, good sir.

Modifié par Unichrone, 08 avril 2011 - 02:20 .

[BlackMamba9000]

so...any news of the patch yet?

[Unichrone]

BlackMamba9000 wrote...

so...any news of the patch yet?

Guffaw!  Chortle!  

[JediMB]

Unichrone wrote...

And I'm the one with a flawed path of thought?

Yes. 1 point.

Unichrone wrote...

I'm done with Dragon Age II.  I've played through it two and a half times.  The time for a good version of the game was in the past month, not the next.  I'm not trying to complain, I'm just stating the facts.  Many people are done with this game, and it's probably left a bad taste in their mouth, which is understandable.

That's too bad, I guess.

Don't have much love for the idea that you have to burn through a game as quickly as possible and then shelve it or sell it, personally.

And, like I said, if there's one thing I know about BioWare fans, it's that they tend to keep playing the games for months or years after they're released. 

Unichrone wrote...

And why does a quick fix need to be "dirty"?  Why does a series of quick patches have to be inferior to a delayed, larger one?  I would rather have multiple miniature patches over the course of the month that fix a number of things, rather than wait for one patch at the end of the month that will cover the same issues. I say, the sooner something, even if it's one thing, is fixed, the better.

You're implying that if they give us smaller, more numerous patches that
it's inherently not as effective as a delayed larger patch.  And that's
an unfounded assertion.

Thing is, following protocol it is not possible for them to deliver a series of quick patches. Why? Becuase EA/MS/Sony certification slows down the process. A patch that alters critical components of the game can't be released until it has gone through certification, and work proper on the next patch can't start until the previous patch has been released. You'd end up with a series of small fixes that in the end only fix a fraction of the issues a bigger patch would, but within the same time span.

The only way to get a series of actual quick fixes out would be through bypassing certification, and this is only physically possible on the PC to begin with. The PC isn't even the biggest market, and the PC players are the ones most likely to hold onto the game and keep playing it. Bypassing EA certification for the PC patches would constitute as releasing a "dirty" patch.

Unichrone wrote...

EDIT: Calling the game half-finished is not hyperbole.  Your glasses are extremely rosy, good sir.

Sorry, but obvious hyperbole is still obvious hyperbole.

I've played actual half-finished games, and DA2 is not one. It needs a good deal of polish and some questionable design decisions have been made, but that's it.

[Funker Shepard]

JediMB wrote...

I've played actual half-finished games, and DA2 is not one. It needs a good deal of polish and some questionable design decisions have been made, but that's it.

Concur. I use KOTOR II as my measuring stick for half-finished. So, in comparison to that, DA2 is in the "definitely finished, and practically bug free" category.