59 réponses à ce sujet

[Rotward]

There are bugs, and then there's unfinished content. So lets rephrase: will the game actually be finished when it's released? That'd be a nice change of pace.

[ghostzodd]

superdeathdealer14 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

All games have bugs, lots of them, even BioWare games. What matters most (to most gamers) is whether they encounter those bugs, and how badly they affect the game. Game developers will do their darnedest to ensure the super-obvious game-breaking bugs are fixed, but much like battle plans, they are unable to account for every possible combination of hardware, configuration, software conflict, connection, and action that game will see in the wild.

And Rotward, the constant sniping at BioWare and its games does get old eventually. You might want to save it up for criticism of all the official info that will probably be released next year.

Ninja Stan has spoken, ALL HAIL NINJA STAN!!!
But to be serious most of the problems in BF4 was due to the servers having problems not the game, and in some cases it could be the players fault cause they may have bad internet connection or something like downloading lots of games at the same time. Also what kind bugs were there cause as I stated I haven't encountered any problems when I play.

there were bugs across all platforms, The game needed more time plain and simple

[AtreiyaN7]

Rotward wrote...

There are bugs, and then there's unfinished content. So lets rephrase: will the game actually be finished when it's released? That'd be a nice change of pace.

Well, seeing as the question was about bugs, maybe you should stick to commenting on that issue. *rolleyes* 

Not knowing how much they're tweaking the engine, who can actually even guess about what weird problems might creep in? You would think that certain basic issues might be ironed because DA:I is coming out a fair amount of time after BF4.

That being said, I think that while no one likes seeing bugs in their games (I don't), most games that come out these days have bugs. As long as they aren't gamebreaking bugs like that quicksave bug that I fumed over in FO:NV (thanks for that one, Obsidian  ), I don't particularly care about bugs that only constitute petty annoyances at best.

[AppealToReason]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Rotward wrote...

There are bugs, and then there's unfinished content. So lets rephrase: will the game actually be finished when it's released? That'd be a nice change of pace.

Well, seeing as the question was about bugs, maybe you should stick to commenting on that issue. *rolleyes* 

Not knowing how much they're tweaking the engine, who can actually even guess about what weird problems might creep in? You would think that certain basic issues might be ironed because DA:I is coming out a fair amount of time after BF4.

That being said, I think that while no one likes seeing bugs in their games (I don't), most games that come out these days have bugs. As long as they aren't gamebreaking bugs like that quicksave bug that I fumed over in FO:NV (thanks for that one, Obsidian  ), I don't particularly care about bugs that only constitute petty annoyances at best.

I think the issue is becoming for a lot of people that the release date is just a date now instead of meaning anything like a "finished" game. A lot of games seem like they launch as betas and then 6 months in they're patched up. Those six months are awful. I didn't pay my hard earned gigalo dollars for something to be ready 3 months after I was given the "finished" product.

Its a trend I, and I know a lot of others, really don't like seeing in games these days.

I'm not expecting it to be bug free, but I'm expecting it to work to damn near actual 100% functionality.

[Todd23]

More... way WAY moooooorrre.

[Skyrunner_Morgan]

No matter how much time you invest in a game bugs will still occur and will still be discovered. Most of them are ruled out during the making of the game while the rest are picked off by official patches.
Pleading to BioWare to release a bug free game is like asking Varric to shave his chest hair off.

[AtreiyaN7]

AppealToReason wrote...

I think the issue is becoming for a lot of people that the release date is just a date now instead of meaning anything like a "finished" game. A lot of games seem like they launch as betas and then 6 months in they're patched up. Those six months are awful. I didn't pay my hard earned gigalo dollars for something to be ready 3 months after I was given the "finished" product.

Its a trend I, and I know a lot of others, really don't like seeing in games these days.

I'm not expecting it to be bug free, but I'm expecting it to work to damn near actual 100% functionality.

I was rather cheesed off by Splinter Cell: Blacklist which barely functioned on my computer because it just wouldn't freaking run with dual graphics cards (and then that stupid Ubisoft update made things even worse to the point that my original workaround no longer worked). THAT is another example of something that I consider really, seriously broken to the point that it's worth being annoyed over.

In a perfect, ideal world, the Q&A people and devs would have the time to squish every bug, but good luck with that. Liike it or not, it certainly seems as if the software and programming involved is complex enough that it doesn't seem too probable that you can catch everything that might go wrong. I certianly had a few bugs in Skyrim and such as well.

If there are unanticipated problems, then I think the devs certainly owe it to the consumer to fix the problem ASAP, too. But you just can't realistically expect anything to be absolutely, 100% bug-free in my opinion. Gamebreaking stuff should hopefully be addressed before the game is released and shouldn't make it into games, but it happens. *shrugs and points at FO:NV again*

[AppealToReason]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

I think the issue is becoming for a lot of people that the release date is just a date now instead of meaning anything like a "finished" game. A lot of games seem like they launch as betas and then 6 months in they're patched up. Those six months are awful. I didn't pay my hard earned gigalo dollars for something to be ready 3 months after I was given the "finished" product.

Its a trend I, and I know a lot of others, really don't like seeing in games these days.

I'm not expecting it to be bug free, but I'm expecting it to work to damn near actual 100% functionality.

I was rather cheesed off by Splinter Cell: Blacklist which barely functioned on my computer because it just wouldn't freaking run with dual graphics cards (and then that stupid Ubisoft update made things even worse to the point that my original workaround no longer worked). THAT is another example of something that I consider really, seriously broken to the point that it's worth being annoyed over.

In a perfect, ideal world, the Q&A people and devs would have the time to squish every bug, but good luck with that. Liike it or not, it certainly seems as if the software and programming involved is complex enough that it doesn't seem too probable that you can catch everything that might go wrong. I certianly had a few bugs in Skyrim and such as well.

If there are unanticipated problems, then I think the devs certainly owe it to the consumer to fix the problem ASAP, too. But you just can't realistically expect anything to be absolutely, 100% bug-free in my opinion. Gamebreaking stuff should hopefully be addressed before the game is released and shouldn't make it into games, but it happens. *shrugs and points at FO:NV again*

The product shouldn't feel unfinished. Battlefield 4 felt unfinished. Its a multiplayer game and they couldn't make it work. Thats bad. Splinter Cell didn't feel finished and neither did Tomb Raider, Aliens, MOH, other games.They're probably patched up now but I don't feel like playing them anymore.

When was the last time a Resident Evil game played properly? Or Final Fantasy? Both seem to release so screwed up you're better of waiting 6 months and by then you're hype has probably died off.

I know they can't get everything, but some games are getting ridiculous. If I wanted to pay for early acces, I would. If I wanted to play a beta, I would. But I'm not. I'm giving you 60 bucks on Monthober Xnd, 201X so that I can playa finished, complete game and enjoy it.

So far Biower has been pretty good with things. The only big bug I can remember is faces not working from ME1-ME2-ME3 which was utterly ridiculous that it managed through testing on every platform. Most Bioware games have been good and playable. So I'm hoping they keep that up.

A late game comes out eventually, a bad game is bad forever. - some dude I heard on a podcast.

[bEVEsthda]

There is, in recent times, often a great over-perceiving impact of bugs. Media creates it with articles, and people don't seem to relate rationally to 'lists of bugs' either. People don't seem to know or realize that all software have bugs, continuously. Usually, the games actually play just fine on most platforms.
I've enjoyed, thremendously, some of the - if we believe the hype - most bugridden games of all time.
If they really are buggy, it can be a genuine problem, and one has to take a step back and be patient for patches. But mostly, just save often.

[Eralrik]

Bioware has released the least buggiest games I've ever played so they know their jobs and they have a good quality assurance and testing group. I haven't seen that any of Bioware's games haven't been completed only reason we got the extended cut in ME3 was for clarity otherwise they felt it was complete.

For the most part Bioware is thee company and sometimes they stumble but they get right back up on the horse and try again and that means a lot in these times.

An Bioware is usually prompt with patches if something isn't working well on a set type of system setups.

[Solaria]

The Dragon age series are some of the games I own that rarely give any problems with glitches and bugs and the worst has to be Fallout and Skyrim with their constant freezing, crashing and glitching- though some of the glitches are amusing.

Hopefully the extra time has been put to good use in getting as many of the bugs out as possible, however no game is 100% bug free.

Modifié par solaria, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:29 .

[coldflame]

From my experience Dragon age games rarely had major game breaking bugs. However, that was until the subsequent patches broke something...

[bEVEsthda]

solaria wrote...

and the worst has to be Fallout and Skyrim with their constant freezing, crashing and glitching-

PS3, perchance?

[superdeathdealer14]

bEVEsthda wrote...

solaria wrote...

and the worst has to be Fallout and Skyrim with their constant freezing, crashing and glitching-

PS3, perchance?

Yes it was horrible on the PS3, it is so so horrible on the PS3.

Modifié par superdeathdealer14, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:45 .

[The Elder King]

Rickets wrote...

I have no idea about BioWare's experience with the FrostBite engine. But it sure is rather worrying.

Bioware had plently of experience with DA2's engine, and yet the game had a lot of bugs, one of which was kind of game-breaker (Isabela's friendship bonus bug). I'd say that the reasons why a game presents a lot of bugs are generally a really short dev cycle (which results in a rushed game), or a practically non-existant beta testing. 

[Sanunes]

Each game has a different set of circumstances around it regarding the bugs. I will guarantee there will be bugs in the game, but in the past BioWare has done a decent job stamping out a good number of the bugs expect for a few. The ones that really annoy me are ones that cause me to require to reload my game because I am unable to progress. Such as the clipping bug in Mass Effect 2 or during Omega using a Vanguard's charge at a certain point will instantly kill you.

I think Battlefield 4 had a unique set of issues that cause more bugs then others as well since it felt like they rushed the release of the game to be a "launch title" for the new consoles and trying to be released near the same window as Call of Duty: Ghosts.  I could be wrong for I didn't buy Battlefield 4, but my understanding is that most of the bugs are more to deal with the online aspects of the game and not the single player campaign.

As long as the game doesn't feel like a Bethesda release, which to me is a better comparison for they have more similarities then just the engine and there aren't any easily repeatable bugs that will require me to reload my game for I am either stuck or dead I will be satisfied.

Modifié par Sanunes, 11 janvier 2014 - 02:06 .

[TKavatar]

superdeathdealer14 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

solaria wrote...

and the worst has to be Fallout and Skyrim with their constant freezing, crashing and glitching-

PS3, perchance?

Yes it was horrible on the PS3, it is so so horrible on the PS3.

That's mostly because the PS3 with it's 256MB VRAM couldn't handle large open levels with many textures loaded at once, and also because of the way Gamebyro Creation engine handles it's savegames.

And to be fair Beth would have to rewrite chunks of the engine again just for one platform to work.  So I can see why they didn't port over the DLCs for Skyrim, the game would be more unstable then. 

But I do agree they should ditch that old unoptimised engine of theirs and get a new one.

[Sanunes]

TKavatar wrote...

That's mostly because the PS3 with it's 256MB VRAM couldn't handle large open levels with many textures loaded at once, and also because of the way Gamebyro Creation engine handles it's savegames.

And to be fair Beth would have to rewrite chunks of the engine again just for one platform to work.  So I can see why they didn't port over the DLCs for Skyrim, the game would be more unstable then. 

But I do agree they should ditch that old unoptimised engine of theirs and get a new one.

The problem I have with saying its their engine versus poor programming is that Fallout 3 worked fairly well on the PS3 compared to how the game worked on the 360, Skyrim on the other hand just failed on the PS3 at launch and was reasonable on the 360, it almost feels like they decided not to try until shortly before release to port the game.

I do agree their engine needs overhaul and especially their save game system, but I wonder if they have decided to stay with what they have because of the investment to develop a new engine that could support mods.

[TKavatar]

Sanunes wrote...

TKavatar wrote...

That's mostly because the PS3 with it's 256MB VRAM couldn't handle large open levels with many textures loaded at once, and also because of the way Gamebyro Creation engine handles it's savegames.

And to be fair Beth would have to rewrite chunks of the engine again just for one platform to work.  So I can see why they didn't port over the DLCs for Skyrim, the game would be more unstable then. 

But I do agree they should ditch that old unoptimised engine of theirs and get a new one.

The problem I have with saying its their engine versus poor programming is that Fallout 3 worked fairly well on the PS3 compared to how the game worked on the 360, Skyrim on the other hand just failed on the PS3 at launch and was reasonable on the 360, it almost feels like they decided not to try until shortly before release to port the game.

I do agree their engine needs overhaul and especially their save game system, but I wonder if they have decided to stay with what they have because of the investment to develop a new engine that could support mods.

I haven't played the games on either console but since Skyrim is much larger than D.C and has a lot more demanding features unlike FO3, I can see why there could be problems. 

And yeah, I also feel that Beth is being lazy with fixing bugs and letting modders fix bugs for them. 

[Angrywolves]

Bethesda largely has fixed the PS3 issues with it's Legendary release of Skyrim.Some occasional hesitation but that's it.No freezing or other issues.

Most of the DAO bugs were things like conversations, epilogues, stuff like that.
Haven't played DA2 nearly enough to id its bugs.

I expect some bugs but they should be patched rather quickly.

[Rotward]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Well, seeing as the question was about bugs, maybe you should stick to commenting on that issue. *rolleyes* 

Bugs these days are a misnomer. The vast majority of "bugs" are just unfinished content. 

[Leanansidhe]

I, too, have been playing BF4 with absolutely no problem.

It's probably the usual case of people complaining about things that DICE has no control over.  Crappy internet, crappy rigs, etc.

I'm not saying there aren't any bugs, but they've most certainly been overblown.

But, then, that seems to be standard operating procedure these days.  Something minor gets turned into a major crap storm because spreading outrage seems to be the internet's sole purpose.

[addiction21]

Rotward wrote...

 Bugs these days are a misnomer. The vast majority of "bugs" are just unfinished content. 

No, just no. Not even close to being true in any way at all.