
Originally Posted by
Relight
I've been trying to figure out the best way to post this information, and I've re-written this post 3 times in 3 different ways.
It's the ambiguity of "technical and timing issues" that has been bothering me. Which is why many of us have been asking for more details, and I posted those specific questions. But some further discussion:
First of all, what does "timing issues" even mean?
That's a huge conversation and I'm not even going to get into that half of the discussion, simply because it's so ambiguous and I'm not going to post unfounded speculation.
Secondly, I wanted to speak to the "technical" side of things.
There's no way that 2K is not capable of quickly solving anything technical related. There's just no excuse for the abysmal (lack of) support that 2K has given BioShock 2.
First let's look at the overall approach of 2K getting things done and issuing patches, and any potential objections.
2K has already issued patches of significant size, so 2K is fully capable of issuing patches that finally fix the things we've been asking them to fix.
As other fans have posted specific examples of before, other companies issue patches quickly. You can't say "don't compare us to other companies" because 2K is a major game company. You can't blame GFWL on the PC side in terms of patch delivery, because all that GFWL does is deliver the patch. Users have downloaded the patches from third party sites hosting the patches and have had no problem. If it's a certification issue, then obviously I can't speak to that, but if that's the case, then you should tell us exactly what's up.
And you can't blame it on the engine, because other games use Unreal engine as well.
These excuses that we've heard before - "we're different than other companies" and "our game is different from other games" and "don't compare" - are not valid excuses in any way.
You're in the games industry. You're basically a major publisher. In *everything* that you do, you should expect to be compared to other publishers and held to similar standards by fans, media, your shareholders, etc.
So with all of that preamble out of the way - yes, we're only now getting to the good stuff! - we go on to the actual technical aspects of the game itself.
Let's take one particular issue of contention - the way that the Rapture Metro maps were handled.
Now granted, I'm not aware of everything that's happening technically, but for my own curiosity and satisfaction, I spent over an hour last night looking at BioShock 2 Multiplayer's actual code, in order to familiarize myself with a *significant* amount of the *relevant* technical material.
I can tell you that it would obviously take a bit of work to implement some kind of option to only play on Rapture Metro maps - it would likely have to be done by creating new game modes, as I'm pretty sure 2K Elizabeth herself informed us IIRC - but I can also tell you that it wouldn't be hard.
As someone else pointed out, the Multiplayer was developed by DE. Now if 2K was looking at this themselves, and they couldn't figure it out (which I honestly can't imagine) and they didn't want to pay DE, so they decided they wouldn't be able to do this for technical reasons... well then, that's just silly.
If I can look at the code and understand it, then... I'm just scratching my head why, when immediately faced with player complaints on this and many other aspects of BioShock 2, 2K has seemed consistently *unwilling* to properly fix the issues that fans are most concerned with.
Don't make me spend the time to write out exactly, with excerpts of BioShock 2 game code, how to fix the vending machine voices, add Rapture Metro map game modes, etc.