62 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

You can make them accountable by not buying their games, you know?

People need to stop acting like Bioware forced them to play the game.

But that doesn't really make them accountable. Not buying what you don't like is a good idea but the notion of voting with your wallet doesn't work since there's no way to tell the company why you're not buying their product.

That's all information the developer has to guess. And they could easily decide it was because they didn't go far enough with their design.

[Rawgrim]

A dev was explaining to me, and others, how customizing the keeps would work in the game on this very board. This was 2-3 days before the game was released... I wonder how they managed to remove that feature two days before release.

[Benman1964]

My opinion (and i am self-employed in small construction also ):

Bioware should not have released a game in beta-state! Period!
It's not just a few bugs and glitches we are talking about.

Second: If i offer a bathroom, complete with bath, shower, toilet and i 'forget' to deliver the toilet, guess what happens. Some will say that this is the gaming industry and so this is what we have to deal with. I say no, because after a few months it is obvious that Bioware knew about lots of bugs and glitches and thus wittingly send a 'beta' to sales, probably with the underlying reason just to hit Christmas sales. Shame on them!
 

[In Exile]

My opinion (and i am self-employed in small construction also ):

Bioware should not have released a game in beta-state! Period!
It's not just a few bugs and glitches we are talking about.

Second: If i offer a bathroom, complete with bath, shower, toilet and i 'forget' to deliver the toilet, guess what happens. Some will say that this is the gaming industry and so this is what we have to deal with. I say no, because after a few months it is obvious that Bioware knew about lots of bugs and glitches and thus wittingly send a 'beta' to sales, probably with the underlying reason just to hit Christmas sales. Shame on them!

Software isn't quite as simple as a physical product. Games have relied on patching too much for stability fixes in the last while but speaking as an old PC gamer the stability of games today is still leagues beyond what we were dealing with in the 90s.

[DragonKingReborn]

Software isn't quite as simple as a physical product. Games have relied on patching too much for stability fixes in the last while but speaking as an old PC gamer the stability of games today is still leagues beyond what we were dealing with in the 90s.

Memories of Sierra just shrugging at the game breaking bugs in quest for glory IV in particular cause mild snarling...

[Benman1964]

Software isn't quite as simple as a physical product. Games have relied on patching too much for stability fixes in the last while but speaking as an old PC gamer the stability of games today is still leagues beyond what we were dealing with in the 90s.

Not saying it is and i know it isn't. But it is still so that Bioware wittingly released a bug-infested game instead of delaying sales till fixed. Thus, shame on them.

[Requiemslove]

The game we got on the release of Inquisition [and I didn't even buy it on the exact date BTW, but about a month later...] was messed up to a similar level the recent Elder scrolls MMO was. The only variation was just a different catalogue of problems.  Both companies promised their product would be this thing they plainly are not, and BOTH companies ought to be bought to task over these things.

[Draining Dragon]

This is what happens when you try to build a bigger game in the same amount of time.

[Dai Grepher]

A question to everyone here...

 

It is more likely that the pre-alpha promises, the choice between the fort and the town, the burning of boats, the customization of keeps, etc., were collectively just part of a well crafted deception to make it look like those things were in the game when in reality the devs never actually programed any of it into the actual game? In other words, they didn't remove features from the game, they made a fake demo for false advertising purposes.

 

Thoughts?

[Insaner Robot]

A question to everyone here...

 

It is more likely that the pre-alpha promises, the choice between the fort and the town, the burning of boats, the customization of keeps, etc., were collectively just part of a well crafted deception to make it look like those things were in the game when in reality the devs never actually programed any of it into the actual game? In other words, they didn't remove features from the game, they made a fake demo for false advertising purposes.

 

Thoughts?

 

It was not a fake demo or deception.

 

It was leaked footage obtained by a shaky camera, recorded at a trade fair. Never was it meant to be shown to the public or used for advertising.

 

The leaked video can be found here:

http://www.pcgamer.c...t-and-questing/

[Dai Grepher]

Then why did they make the demo? Why the narration describing features that they knew would not be in the game?

[Rawgrim]

Then why did they make the demo? Why the narration describing features that they knew would not be in the game?

 

You had to pay for the demo, actually. It was only available via EA Access, a service you have to pay money for.

 

The first time I have seen anyone charge money for a demo. Nice going, EA. Stay classy.

[In Exile]

Then why did they make the demo? Why the narration describing features that they knew would not be in the game?

 

It was a vertical slice. There's absolutely no reason to believe they thought - at the time - those features would be missing. There's an interview with Mike Laidlaw talking about the features they had to cut because of the multi-platform release.