Funny, on PS2 all games worked. The reason? You could not patch them!!! You made a mistake printing the game, you lost a lot of money.
But today you can sell an untested, faulty product, and then abuse the ability to patch. We have all paid for our game, why can't we play it?!?
The game works fine, there's a few bugs with multiplayer, but most PS2 games didn't rely on multiplayer, so there wasn't as many bugs with it. The truth is all games include bugs when they come out, you should be glad they're fixing them instead of just letting them be.Originally Posted by The_World
That's a funny one. I imagine they have the courage to state publicly they'll just "let it be".
thats just silly, not ALL game comes with bugs. Well, that is... NOW they all come with bugs because they can be patched. And its fine to let some minor or super rare bugs to be in a new game, as long as they are patched soon thereafter.
Agreed.
Games on the 2 main current-gen platforms tend to be far more complex in nature than games on older platforms. This means that there are more lines of code, and consequently more bugs. No software immune from this.
That's not to say that older games were perfect. Many have bugs of one sort or another. Gamers just get used to them because they know the bugs can't be fixed.
And it's not like the games aren't being tested before release. Aside from in-house testing, Sony/Microsoft perform their own lot of testing before allowing a game to be published. Games with major glaring issues aren't allowed to be released.
The other thing to think about here is the time and cost involved with releasing a patch. It takes time to create a patch and time to test it. This time costs money, and the effort involved isn't making any money. It's not in a development company's best interests to release buggy games. But if they do, at least now there's the chance to fix the problems.
That's not entirely accurate.
There have been several infamous console games plagued with bugs on the Xbox, PS2, and possibly the Gamecube (I'm uncertain about the NGC because I never owned one).
I have the Xbox 360 version of Civ:R and its MP works fine. From what I've heard and read about the PS3 version, the problems appear to be caused by the non-standard multiplayer of the PS3 in general. Xbox 360 games have to comply with the Xbox Live standard, whereas PS3 multiplayer games are unstandardized, which is probably the cause of the problem.
Perhaps the PS3 version of Civ:R should've been delayed so 2K could fix it's apparent MP issues, but chances are that if they delayed the PS3 version Sony would've compelled 2K to postpone the Xbox 360 version's release as well, which would've been unfair to Xbox 360 gamers. So IMO Sony shares an equal amount of the blame for not standardizing the PS3's multiplayer-matching system; so it's not entirely 2K's fault.
I've commented on this before on these forums and elsewhere. Games do seem to be displaying more bugs on release than they used to. I remember playing games on the original Xbox (SP and MP) and they had few to none. Now it seems like every game I buy needs multiple patches.
A lot of times these are very minor issues, and/or there are very few of them, so it's not as big a deal. But some games just seem to have A LOT of bugs and glitches, some of them major and not minor, and that's not cool. CivRev really seems to have a lot of little bugs and issues, and of course some larger ones. It seems like every day there is a new issue or glitch to report on here.
There's a lot of talk about how much pride the 2K development team has and how hard they work for us, but either the QA process was not very effective or they just don't care as much as they say. Personally, I think they had a lot of issues developing this game (thus the various release pushbacks), and that in the end they decided to just get the game out the door and work on some fixes post-release. Just my opinion.
All of you also have to take into account that games are getting more and more complicated. The more variables and options and details crammed into each aspect of a game the harder it is to keep track of ever possible scenario and not only predict possible problems but anticipate the crazy and obscure things a player may attempt that to them may not have seemed logical or even viable enough to test. Especially when you have small companies producing games you're inevitably going to have more issues. This isn't because people are just slacking off and deciding to patch everything later (though that might partially be in some companies minds) but it is primarily about a lack of resources and manpower to fully go through and test absolutely everything. A small company simply cannot afford to spend the time required to nit pick every single possible aspect of every single game they make. So in the Gaming Community as a whole I do not see this as a real issue.
Considering though that many of you (myself included) are having some issues with Civilization Revolution i'm not at all surprised that you're seeing it this way. You just have to keep in mind though that they're only human and cant afford to just drop absolutely everything they have in development (that makes them money to pay the people working for them) just to work on fixing one game. Is it fair to you as a gamer? No. Is it ideal? No. However it is just a part of how life works. Not everything can be anticipated. Not everything can be perfect, not everything has a simple solution and not everything is fair. Whether you're complaining about one game or a bunch of games be patient! Put yourselves in the shoes of those working on the game and think, really think, could you really be doing a better job in their situation?
I can't do that because I'm not a programmer. But I do provide video production, and I'm a one-man show and I have to handle lighting, audio setups, set designs, concept development, script writing, shooting, directing, editing, color grading, audio enhancement, compression, capturing, exporting, DVD authoring, package and product design, company marketing, accounting, sales, customer service, equipment research and acquisition .. and the list goes on and on.
At the end of the day, though, when I deliver a product to a client, it is as near perfect as it can possibly be. THAT is MY commitment to MY customer. It doesn't matter if I estimated 20 hours for a project, if it takes 45 hours to get it perfect, then that's what I do.
So yeah, it bugs me when I purchase something that seems like it has some sloppy development or QA, because I know that company is not providing the kind of service that I provide to my customers, and that's the kind of service I want.
i'm moving this to off topic as this seems to be more of a philosophical discussion and not about CivRev in particular.
from 2K Elizabeth third to last post http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/sho...=21178&page=16i'm sorry you feel that way. i do believe this thread is going in circles, and i do recommend you take your topics to off-topic, as i stated before. i'm sorry you feel that way about the problems being reported -- i think the perception on this forum is that every problem reported it always a bug and always happening to everyone, which is not the case. i'm also sorry that you do not feel we are living up to your expectations, but if you do not believe me about how we are working, or are not satisfied, then all i can extend is my apologies for letting you down! we always try to make the most stellar product and support it fully after release, and we'll continue to do that.
thanks.
"we always try to make the most stellar product and support it fully after release, and we'll continue to do that. "
Does that mean we will be getting trophies, and music support for the PS3?
I've posted about this before, but it's been some time so I'll repeat:
If the issues at hand were the fault of Sony, then it would be logical to assume that all games on Sony's non standardized platform would be prone to these issues. And we all know that simply isn't the case. The idea behind the decision to let developers decide on who would be doing server hosting for their games, and with what technology, was that the developers could utilize the greater freedom to make intelligent choices for their games to enhance the experience for the gamers. All without charging the end user a fee. It was certainly NOT the intention of Sony to have developers utilizing the cheapest, least reliable, technology available... or to cut features (video chat anyone) rather than admit they had made a poor choice in online partners.
Fortunately, most developers Have in fact used the freedom of the PSN to deliver a full, quality online experience to their gamers. The end user has, for the most part, been given error free gaming that is the equal of its Microsoft counterpart in terms of reliable game play (though the integrated social features of Live will keep it ahead of its free counterpart for some time to come...). UNfortunately, the freedom to make choices given to developers by Sony can be abused, and in this case, undeniably has. I will concede that if Sony would limit or eliminate choices that developers make without the interest of the consumer at heart, that we would benefit. But it isn't the nature of the system at fault. It is the nature of the developers that is brought forward by the choices they make.
If the problem were systemic in nature then we wouldn't be here now. PS3 owners would have grown used to broken MP and wouldn't have bothered expecting any online functions to work. Honestly, most would be playing their 360 right now. The fact that the vast majority of titles work to the expectations of the consumers shows that the problem is with the developers, and the alliances THEY chose to make.
Welcome to the world of PC gaming. Well that's the sentiment I wanted to impart at least.
The more complicated you make something, the more you have that can break.
Get used to it, it is NOT going to get better.
Unless you wish to go back to games ala 1990.
Is it lazy programmers? Probably as much as it is gamers that are never satisfied, and expect more and more with each new game, oh and here's the best part, never at a higher price. Yep, you gamers all expect the games to never breech a specific price point. You want more and more, but refuse to ever pay more than the same ole price.
And you want the games yesterday.
So let's repeat the list.
You want an increasingly more complicated game, you want that game yesterday, and you expect the price to never go up.
Yeah I can see that being a problem.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
2K Elizabeth