198 réponses à ce sujet

[JasmoVT]

bluewolv1970 wrote...

DO most video games have over 100 bugs at release...at least from major game designers...as far as being thankful...I should not have to thank them for anything...I mean would they be thanking me if I only paid for part of the game and then a month later told them I was working on giving them the rest of the money...Since my character became to slow to move I have been unable to play the game, and obviously I cannot get a refund...sorry If I do not feel shoddy quality deserves a thanks...

My experience is that most games take 2 or 3 patches before they are relatively stable and before most games damaging bugs or removed. Then there are a few well known gaming companies that really do not give a damn and if the game actually runs they do nothing. I much prefer the Bioware approach.

Modifié par JasmoVT, 03 avril 2011 - 01:06 .

[Ben_c1987]

Yes good were getting a patch, it’s needed. However, I don’t think gamers should be 'thankful' to EA/Bioware for this as the game should never have been released with so many bugs in the first place. Charging £40+ for a product that is essentially faulted, surely this is a trading standards and statuary consumer rights issue is it not?
If you go to a clothing retailer and spend £40+ on some clothing and find it is faulted it wouldn’t be acceptable for the retailer to say 'oh dear you keep that item sir and we will patch that up for you at a later date'. Now obviously software is a different issue to clothing, yet the principal remains similar. We should not be grateful that we have spent money on an unacceptable product (Not to mention the game is not as enjoyable in any way as much as Origins was). Over 100 bugs really calls for a recall of the product free of charge for EA to fix all the bugs and post out our product bug free. I take on board what others have said about other companies not been so responsive to patches and fixing bugs. Which is true and fair play to Bioware for fixing bugs, yet there needs to be some precedent sent and law in place where all companies have a legal obligation to fix faults as essentially it is a product quality issue.

Modifié par Ben_c1987, 03 avril 2011 - 01:29 .

[Taura-Tierno]

Ben_c1987 wrote...

Yes good were getting a patch, it’s needed. However, I don’t think gamers should be 'thankful' to EA/Bioware for this as the game should never have been released with so many bugs in the first place. Charging £40+ for a product that is essentially faulted, surely this is a trading standards and statuary consumer rights issue is it not?
If you go to a clothing retailer and spend £40+ on some clothing and find it is faulted it wouldn’t be acceptable for the retailer to say 'oh dear you keep that item sir and we will patch that up for you at a later date'. Now obviously software is a different issue to clothing, yet the principal remains similar. We should not be grateful that we have spent money on an unacceptable product (Not to mention the game is not as enjoyable in any way as much as Origins was). Over 100 bugs really calls for a recall of the product free of charge for EA to fix all the bugs and post out our product bug free. I take on board what others have said about other companies not been so responsive to patches and fixing bugs. Which is true and fair play to Bioware for fixing bugs, yet there needs to be some precedent sent and law in place where all companies have a legal obligation to fix faults as essentially it is a product quality issue.

I agree that you should be allowed to return a game if you cannot play it. Especially if the developers are no longer patching it. At least for PC games, it's really difficult to get a refund, if not impossible. But I don't think that's ever been tried in court, at least where I live. Would be interested to see the outcome of that. 

But I wouldn't say that 100 bugs warrants a recall of a product. Especially since most of those bugs, if they are all bugs, are minor and not game-breaking. It wouldn't be feasible to develop a large, complex game in a reasonable amount of time and ship it without any bugs. It's almost possible for critical systems, like avionics equipment and such, but it isn't for games. 

[Cybermortis]

I remember years ago buying a game, finding it was defective to the point that it just wouldn't run and trying to return it to the shop.

They refused, stating that wasn't their policy.

My mother was with me, so she politely asked to see the manager. He said the same thing with a smooth offensive air. My mother asked, in a very loud voice in the middle of the packed shop, if he was telling her that the company policy was to ignore the consumer rights act (this being the UK). Naturally the manager suddenly found himself the centre of attention by a lot of people who were slowly putting items back on the shelves.

We got the refund.

[Night Prowler76]

Persephone wrote...

Shiny Things wrote...

bluewolv1970 wrote...

 ...so we paid 60.00 for DA II beta edition? 

Pretty much.  Over a hundred in just the 1st patch alone means they shipped a game with way over 100 bugs.  Pitiful.

Actually, no. Every game receives patches like this. Because not everyone experiences the same bugs (Configuration differences etc.) and they are patching 4 platforms. I'm very happy that they're trying to fix as many of the reported bugs as possible. (Even though I only encountered 3. None of which were game breaking and I had none of the friendship bugs happening either)

Not every game ships with over 100 bugs lol, dont be so quick to defend BioWare all the time, yes most developers patch their games etc, but to ship a game with this many bugs is very ameturish on BioWares part, I mean even the huge online multiplayer games get patches sent out within the first 3 weeks to a month and there are way more variables in online play than there are in a scripted game like DA2.

We get it, you only encountered 3 bugs, good for you, what if you were one of the people that had their game slow down so slow it was unplayable? Would be like yah BioWare is kickin butt in the patch department, I dont care If I can play my game that I paid for or not. I think not.

What I truly cannot understand is people defending this game when they clearly have no real reason too other than being a game companies sheep. seriously, having over 100 bugs is really bad for  a AAA developer, and is shameful to release a product in that condition.

[Kotetsimaru]

I miss the days of fantasic customer support lol i remember years ago when I bought Rune (if anyone remembers it) and it had problems with the pc that I had back then. Called the support number and spoke to a very helpful person who took my name and address and proceeded to send me a disk with the most recent fixes for the game on it to get it working (I did not have the internet back then) that to me spoke wonders. Of course now you barely ever speak to a real person let alone get a response. I'm just glad Bioware have at least admitted there are faults and are working on fixing them, unlike say Bethesda/Obsidian and New Vegas. Who have pretty much stopped support for that game it seems, with it bugged to all merry hell.

Modifié par Kotetsimaru, 03 avril 2011 - 10:27 .

[randName]

simfamSP wrote...

Well aslong as they are FIXING it's no problem. Look at Obsidian, they REFUSE to fix FO:NV now *thats* something worth complaining about.

I'm certain they would do it if Bethesda would pay for it; and I assume its Bethesda game, and not Obsidians (they being just the developer).

IF Bethesda would pay for the manhours it would take to fix the game, or if the contract they wrote obligied Obsidian to do so, then I would think it weak of Obsidian if they didn't.

But if Obsidian did what was required of them in the contract, and Bethesda doesn't want to pay for it, I'd blame them rather than Obsidian (unless Obsidian is more than a developer, but I doubt that).


It might be weak of Obsidian if they didn't try to get more paid patch time from Bethesda when they wrote the contract then they did (since there was a few patches, that did help some), but I don't think they should do pro-bono work for Bethesdas game. 

Modifié par randName, 04 avril 2011 - 10:07 .

[randName]

As for DA2, there are some glaring bugs, and there are several smaller bugs that are eye-sores, but not terrible ~ and its one of the buggier titles from BioWare from my experience, but it doesn't come close to FO3 and FONV, or even old classics like FO1 and FO2 ~ damn Fallout and its bugs.

Still the game breaking bugs, and the story bugs are highly annoying, and lets hope this sorts most of them.


& A small addition to a previous post of mine - Valve, Valve also seems to patch their games for almost forever (and not only TF2, but Half-life 2 and so on).

[Cutlasskiwi]

As long as they fix the bugs I'm happy. I still can't play Fallout NV without the game freezing every five minutes.

[Maria Caliban]

I'm glad they're patching the game like this even though I've only encountered a handful of errors.

Also, anyone who says that a patch for over 100 issues is something every game gets is being silly. Please show me the Alpha Protocol patch that fixed a 100 quest and gameplay issues.

[Jymm]

There are a million ways that a game in development can struggle to meet its target release date. And most often if devs have their way they'd prefer to work on it forever, polishing and adding features (I'm looking at you, 3D Realms). Only in most cases the publisher holds the moneybags and usually forces them to release at some point. The way the system is set up, the developer's incentive is often to release a game knowing they did not find or fix all the bugs but hit the release date rather than to delay and make sure they got most bugs. They just keep slugging away at the QA stuff after the game has gone to be pressed and count on users to find additional unforeseen issues once it hits the streets. Sad but true. Its gotten so bad I choose not to pick up many releases until a month or two out so that the first patch or two have been released.

I'm happy they are fixing things. I honestly haven't run into very many bugs myself this time around.

[am_victory]

Bfler wrote...

Fenro wrote...

ever since PC games where made they have had bug fixes because it was possible....

No, until the end of the 90s there was hardly a game which has needed a patch. 

Uh, no.  Daggerfall was HORRIBLY buggy, Axis and Allies is another one.  And those are just two examples off the top of my head.  The only difference was you'd call tech support and they'd send you a patch disk in the mail.  I'm pretty sure if I dug around in a junk box I could probably find at least one old patch disk.

[am_victory]

Packofpickledpeppers wrote...

Recent games with less than 100 bugs that required patching upon PC release

Amnesia
all 3 Assassins Creeds
Batman Arkham Asylum
BBC2
Bejeweled 3
Bioshock 1 & 2
Bulletstorm
Black Ops
MW2
All 3 Crysis games
Darksiders
both Dead Space games
Devil May Cry 4
Dirt 2
Far Cry 2
FIFA 11
GTA IV
GRID
James Bond 007 Bloodstone
Just Cause 2
Via Domus
Mafia 2
Medal of Honnor

etc etc etc etc etc

It's the small small minority of games that anywhere even close to as many bugs as DA2.  Thats why all you shills keep saying New Vegas and BG2 and TOEE because you're straining to think of many more.  You're making yourselves sound dumb trying to act like it's the norm for games to be in as bad a shape as DA2 is, when it's really the exception.

Nobody believes you.  So stop lying.  Trolls.

Did you really include Bejeweled on your list?  Really?  LMFAO...

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm glad they're patching the game like this even though I've only encountered a handful of errors.

Also, anyone who says that a patch for over 100 issues is something every game gets is being silly. Please show me the Alpha Protocol patch that fixed a 100 quest and gameplay issues.

M'lady, it is not unusual for PC games to need a patch. Daggerfall alone was hideously bugged, along with the original fallout games, plus morrowind and the original witcher. I think the reason this patch is so large is because it is for multiple platforms.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

JediMB wrote...

Mass Effect 2 still has that bug where you'll randomly bounce off of terrain and start flying into the air.

That's not a bug. That's entertainment.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

jerzeycj wrote...

Shiny Things wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Shiny Things wrote...

bluewolv1970 wrote...

 ...so we paid 60.00 for DA II beta edition? 

Pretty much.  Over a hundred in just the 1st patch alone means they shipped a game with way over 100 bugs.  Pitiful.

Actually, no. Every game receives patches like this. Because not everyone experiences the same bugs (Configuration differences etc.) and they are patching 4 platforms. I'm very happy that they're trying to fix as many of the reported bugs as possible. (Even though I only encountered 3. None of which were game breaking and I had none of the friendship bugs happening either)

Bull.  Not every game has over 100 bugs to fix right off the bat, and certainly not all of them have bugs as crippling and glaring as the ones in this game.  I dont know who you're trying to fool, but just stop.

*cough*Fallout: New Vegas*cough*

Fallout Vegas is every game now.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Packofpickledpeppers wrote...


Recent games with less than 100 bugs that required patching upon PC release

Amnesia
all 3 Assassins Creeds
Batman Arkham Asylum
BBC2
Bejeweled 3
Bioshock 1 & 2
Bulletstorm
Black Ops
MW2
All 3 Crysis games
Darksiders
both Dead Space games
Devil May Cry 4
Dirt 2
Far Cry 2
FIFA 11
GTA IV
GRID
James Bond 007 Bloodstone
Just Cause 2
Via Domus
Mafia 2
Medal of Honnor

etc etc etc etc etc

It's the small small minority of games that anywhere even close to as many bugs as DA2.  Thats why all you shills keep saying New Vegas and BG2 and TOEE because you're straining to think of many more.  You're making yourselves sound dumb trying to act like it's the norm for games to be in as bad a shape as DA2 is, when it's really the exception.

Nobody believes you.  So stop lying.  Trolls.

Given that DA2 has much more gameplay time and more different ways to play the game (no matter if you like the kind of diversity that DA2 provides or not)......

Diversity? Interesting choice.

[Taura-Tierno]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Packofpickledpeppers wrote...


Recent games with less than 100 bugs that required patching upon PC release

Amnesia
all 3 Assassins Creeds
Batman Arkham Asylum
BBC2
Bejeweled 3
Bioshock 1 & 2
Bulletstorm
Black Ops
MW2
All 3 Crysis games
Darksiders
both Dead Space games
Devil May Cry 4
Dirt 2
Far Cry 2
FIFA 11
GTA IV
GRID
James Bond 007 Bloodstone
Just Cause 2
Via Domus
Mafia 2
Medal of Honnor

etc etc etc etc etc

It's the small small minority of games that anywhere even close to as many bugs as DA2.  Thats why all you shills keep saying New Vegas and BG2 and TOEE because you're straining to think of many more.  You're making yourselves sound dumb trying to act like it's the norm for games to be in as bad a shape as DA2 is, when it's really the exception.

Nobody believes you.  So stop lying.  Trolls.

Given that DA2 has much more gameplay time and more different ways to play the game (no matter if you like the kind of diversity that DA2 provides or not)......

Diversity? Interesting choice.

Diversity, a large amount of different paths to take, etc. Whether you like it or not, or see the choices as different enough to be interesting, they are technically different paths, and as such, it's entirely possible that a certain combination of those would produce a bug. Since there are many, many more such combinations in DA2 than in Devil May Cry 4, for instance (not to mention Bejeweled), that would make DA2 more prone to bugs. 

[Maria Caliban]

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm glad they're patching the game like this even though I've only encountered a handful of errors.

Also, anyone who says that a patch for over 100 issues is something every game gets is being silly. Please show me the Alpha Protocol patch that fixed a 100 quest and gameplay issues.

M'lady, it is not unusual for PC games to need a patch. Daggerfall alone was hideously bugged, along with the original fallout games, plus morrowind and the original witcher. I think the reason this patch is so large is because it is for multiple platforms.

I am unsure as to what in my post you're responding to. I do agree that the vast majority of PC games need patches after they ship.

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm glad they're patching the game like this even though I've only encountered a handful of errors.

Also, anyone who says that a patch for over 100 issues is something every game gets is being silly. Please show me the Alpha Protocol patch that fixed a 100 quest and gameplay issues.

M'lady, it is not unusual for PC games to need a patch. Daggerfall alone was hideously bugged, along with the original fallout games, plus morrowind and the original witcher. I think the reason this patch is so large is because it is for multiple platforms.

I am unsure as to what in my post you're responding to. I do agree that the vast majority of PC games need patches after they ship.

He's addressing the part where you say saying "a patch for over 100 issues is something every game gets" is silly.

I'm a little confused myself. Did Alpha Protocol need a patch that fixed 100 quest and gameplay issues? That would clear up the confusion. Are you saying that every game needs 100 fixes, but not every game gets them; or are you saying that not every game needs this many fixes?

[Maria Caliban]

I mean exactly what I said: Not every game gets a patch for over 100 issues.

Why do I bring this up? Because on the very first page someone said...

Persephone wrote...

Every game receives patches like this.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Did Alpha Protocol need a patch that fixed 100 quest and gameplay issues?

Possibly. I wouldn't know. It certainly had a wide range of gameplay issues. The only patch that was released was the one to remove the DRM.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 04 avril 2011 - 07:11 .

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I mean exactly what I said: Not every game gets a patch for over 100 issues.

Why? Because on the very first page someone said...

Persephone wrote...

Every game receives patches like this.

Right, but why doesn't every game get a patch like this? Because not every game needs one? Or because the support isn't as good?

I'm just not sure if the direction of your statement is "This is good support" or "The game has too many bugs"

[AllThatJazz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

 I can't believe people are complaining about the fact that there's going to be a patch! Jeez, some games are almost or actually unplayable without community fixes even months or years after release. VtM: Bloodlines, Alpha Protocol, Fallout 3, Oblivion, New Vegas, DA:Origins and Awakening are all still glitchy as hell. There are still bugs in Baldur's Gate 2 and Arcanum that I get on every single playthrough. 

I appreciate that it's annoying, that for a lot of people the game shipped with so many bugs - and complaining about bugs in general, or about the lack of a patch is entirely appropriate. But complaining about a patch that is forthcoming seems unconstructive at best. Maybe the complaints should be saved for when/if the patch doesn't solve your problem or creates a whole bunch of new ones? 

I agree 100%. Comments like those are unproductive. You are always a voice of reason. Well... Most of the time.

Thanks! I think ... ;P

[Mr.House]

I wonder if Bioware can beat NV? The first patch in NV fixed over a hundred quest bugs and exploits, the patch that came after that fixed over a hundred bugs XD