Elysian Shadows

I think they have. Because think about it. Back in the DC/PSX days and before, the developers and testers had to make sure that all performance impacting bugs were out for good. Nowadays, the X360, PS3 and PC can download and install patches.

What do you think?

Absolutely. Why? because when one can be lazy, one will be lazy.

But I would expect highly anticipated titles to perform normally, and not like a public beta.

In more recent years I've been more of a PC gamer, sans my Genesis of course, and I honestly can't name a game that has been released in FOREVER that's ran well straight out of the box. There is always some form of patch, legit or scene, just to get the product I've purchased running as intended. Now that I think about it, same goes for all modern high end gaming consoles... It seems like the producers are too busy pushing boxes with price tags to care about what is in them. I really would like to imagine it is not the development studios that are OK with the way things are; shooting for a subpar, glitchy, incomplete, templated product just to make more money faster is not something I would ever look forward to doing. Although I guess it is also important to consider that money cannot buy or even afford true passion and dedication.

Without a doubt.
I remember reading somewhere about some game dev marketing strategies. The developing companies will sometimes make the game, but instead of spending another month (for example) making sure there are no bugs, and the quality of gameplay is 900% checked and assured, they release the game early so the target audience goes sped crazy and buys the game which also analy screws their competitors who are still finishing their game. Then they basically finish off the game and release them as patches to which we are unaware is the rest of the game.
Its like buying half eaten cheese. Then being posted the rest of it.

This isnt the case for every game but it is, no joke, an actual marketing strategy.
On a side note: IMO the quality of the games these days aren't as good as the good 'ol days. Back then the lack of graphics were compensated by the gameplay and incredibly awesome storyline. It seems today that in a lot of games, it is reversed and we're given a piece of shit covered in ice-cream sprinkles. Looks nice but just a piece of crap.

I have to disagree here.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that games are orders of magnitude more complex than even DC and PS games and what have you. We're talking teams numbering over 100 responsible for creating these monoliths. The technology is also orders of magnitude more advanced as is the hardware. Moore's applies here. So the licensing costs for technology are high, the cost of production is high and most of these guys are pretty lucky to break even if they're pushing out a AAA title. The name of the game is reusability, and the more that technology can be reused the better. Unfortunately, publishers (those who fund game developers), are under the gun for release dates. Publishers can be good at anticipating the needs of a developer, but ultimately they're in the field of business. Developers are in the field of developing. There's a fundamental disconnect there and release dates are normally a compromise on part of both (more on part of the developer, usually). This does not mean the developers are "lazy" or under-motivated. That's just a complete farse....that couldn't be further off base

That said, I honestly am going to tell you that you will NEVER.......EVER.......have "bug-free" software. It simply won't happen. You simply will NEVER.......EVER.....have the #1 technology in the market. It just won't happen (3D Realms went out of business chasing that red herring). It may have been easier to hammer out these little things 10-15 years ago simply because the games were far less complex. Debugging and testing cycles run long and longer now the more complex the software becomes. What used to work in house and on tiny public betas 10 years ago now becomes several in house cycles and massive worldwide public betas. The nature of the beast.

Given all that, to be honest, I believe the QC of games has gotten BETTER. Perhaps none of you REMEMBER (or weren't born yet :P) what it was like trying to get games setup ...much less RUN....on Windows 95 boxes when gaming on PC was traditionally the domain of the DOS console (which was it's own quagmire of problems I'm sure you wouldn't miss :D) None of you probably remember or know what it was like trying to get some of this archaic hardware and software to play nice together I remember playing games on consoles where hangs, freezes, glitches were just normal. You'd just play on with your glitchy ass screen and were just glad the audio wasn't jacked up TOO bad and you could at least make out what was going on. I think the last game to actually lock up on me was Fallout3, and within a few days it was patched and fixed. That's pretty damn good and given the growing complexity of the software, closing the gap doesn't sound too bad. I'll take it.

You show your age when you ask questions like this
Lazy? FAR from it.

In many ways I agree with qpHalcy0n, almost entirely. Although I UNDERSTAND your point. It doesn't really compare to the fact that software is just so much more powerful in general now, not just gaming. If I were to make a Doom or Duke rip now days, compared to modern games, it would be easy as hell (Strictly in comparison). If I made a game like Fallout 3 or Oblivion back then (the time of Duke and Doom) people would be pissing them selves going insane no matter HOW shit glitchy it was, if you had updates like that. Just by releasing patches frequently on games like this it makes up for that in my opinion, because of the complexity of the game. However, if my Half-Life 2 patched as often as Duke Nuke 'em when it came out, I probably would never have played again. When that game was first released it basically worked about as well as eating egg drop soup with a fork

Okay, both sides are criminally oversimplifying here. This needs to be regulated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hms5vmekId4

Okay, now that that's done...

qpHalcy0n wrote:The unfortunate fact of the matter is that games are orders of magnitude more complex

True, but by the same token, technology to develop these games has vastly improved, offsetting complexity with convenience. Hell, many games purchase engines, middleware, and other tools, greatly cutting development time. There are also more people working on games, which you acknowledge - yet you seem to seem to think this is a point against it. While it's true that it's more difficult to manage large teams, that's mainly a communication issue (go to any video game post mort, that will unfailingly be the number one issue brought up), and if it weren't beneficial overall, that many people would never be hired to create a game.

qpHalcy0n wrote:The name of the game is reusability, and the more that technology can be reused the better.

And so it is. Not many games are made from the ground up these days; more and more software is being reused. Are you saying this isn't happening, or that it's simply not making things easier?

qpHalcy0n wrote:Unfortunately, publishers (those who fund game developers), are under the gun for release dates.
...
There's a fundamental disconnect there and release dates are normally a compromise on part of both (more on part of the developer, usually).

This is absolutely true, but it's why other things happen, like feature cuts. It's not an excuse for bugs, particularly of the magnitude we've been seeing as of late. And that brings me to the next point.

qpHalcy0n wrote:That said, I honestly am going to tell you that you will NEVER.......EVER.......have "bug-free" software.

This is a damningly hyperbolic response. No one is asking for perfect software, or the absolute best technology on the planet - just a game that isn't constantly tripping over its own feet. More and more games recently have bugs that lock up the console, get stuck in an infinite loop, or wipe save files. Saying that your release date was tight really isn't an acceptable excuse.

qpHalcy0n wrote:Debugging and testing cycles run long and longer now the more complex the software becomes. What used to work in house and on tiny public betas 10 years ago now becomes several in house cycles and massive worldwide public betas. The nature of the beast.

Precisely: strategies for testing and debugging have evolved, and when that's done properly, developers don't end up with a messy release. Again, it's not an excuse for game-breaking bugs.

qpHalcy0n wrote:You show your age when you ask questions like this

You show your arrogance when you make comments like this. Even with the winky face.


I'm not saying that there's any big trend in QC for games, but there are unmistakably companies that have been relying too heavily on patches, and not getting the polished product they should at launch.

Hey, slow down there, cowboy. Nobody's getting personal here, so let's try to keep the jabs to a minimum. Those who frequent the *IRC CHANNEL*....know that I take joking jabs at those who I know are younger and sometimes show it. The joke is that I often act far more immature than even the youngest on the forum/irc channel, should you frequent the IRC channel you would know this is not a personal jab, it's a tongue in cheek comment (against myself). So, if you wouldn't have taken it out of context like that, perhaps your post would not have been so caustic. If you want to impart wisdom, then don't direct the post at me. Address the audience.

I'm aware that you develop commercially, and you should know that I'm no spring chicken myself. I've shipped several titles....perhaps even some you've heard of or played. That said, I don't wield it like a sword of intellectuality or try to go over people's heads. I try to keep things "criminally simple".

First off, I'm acknowledging the fact that of currently published AAA games, you'd be hard pressed to find companies that develop technology from the ground up. Most of it is licensed, this is what I'm acknowledging. What I was trying to get to is that I acknowledge in some cases this can greatly reduce the time of production. However, I can't attest for those startup companies who purchase technology that is complex beyond their means of maintainability. When I speak of "game developers" I cover all those who publish games, not all of which are in positions to be addressing issues of codebases that extend beyond their means having introduced monolithic licensed engines into a minimal codebase. There is an inherent problem here and it does happen. That problem is that you DO have small startups purchasing major technology, this introduces a gap between the complexity/convenience deal. Where it becomes convenient for them, it becomes prodigiously more complex because the manpower just is not present. The "unfortunate" part of this, is that for the most part, if you want to succeed you need to go strong from the get-go. This doesn't play well into the hands of start up companies that seek to break into the market by purchasing expensive technology, at least not in the regard of closing the complexity vs convenience gap. The unfortunate result is that you have a large number of games slipping through the cracks that are buggy simply by way of "learning curve". Now whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, that's not really for me to judge. My point is that it does happen, and it happens more than many might care to admit. So, no, in many cases it does not close the gap.

We realize that nobody's trying to make a case to develop perfect bug-free software. I think even someone taking a glancing interest in this topic can see that. Unfortunately, I have been involved with groups where this decision is NOT so clear cut as to say "We'll just cut feature X and Y and move resources to pest control". In a perfect world I'll agree with you. Consider, though, that for some titles there are some features that simply MUST work. They are central to the game's or franchise's identity. As I've found in my case to be on at least one occasion. So what would happen is that resources would have to be overextended throughout the programming group to fix features rather than bugs. The result, which is not a proud one, is buggy software. If it's one of those things were we can ship with a feature and do pest control later, it would behoove us in terms of marketing to do so. "Our software is not very buggy!" doesn't work as a marketing catch

So while I'm not trying to make an all-encompassing excuse for excessively buggy code, I *AM* trying to point out cases where bug control can slip through the cracks. So just as I can say that there are reasons for this to happen, you can just as easily say that it's not excusable. As you know this is something developers and publishers go through routinely. Perhaps you misunderstood the intent of my post and thought I was being snide. But the reality is that I'm just offering some cases as to why this CAN be the case and taking cutesy jabs at myself.

So I'm overlooking that, and hopefully we can keep this thread productive, not destructive

Man, you start your post off with Warren G song, and are still taken too seriously.

While we're on the subject of context, those who frequent other mediums of interaction that I do are fully aware that I was making no real personal attack or accusation, and your ignorance of such a blindingly obvious fact is enough to suggest you took my entire post out of context.

Do you see how that doesn't work? While the above is true (the part about me not making a personal attack), it would be asinine of me to accuse you of taking what I said out of context - it was never in context, since the context you speak of didn't exist in your post, this thread, or even this forum. In the non-existent context, my comment was no more caustic than your own. Down, boy!

Secondly, my post was "addressed" to you because it dealt with specific points I was countering. Yet it wasn't actually addressed to you, but rather everyone - otherwise it would have been a PM, and not a public post. And I multi-quoted to give a quick point-by-point, and remember what the hell I was talking about as I was writing, as I was doing other things between responses. And this isn't nearly as much about personal experience as it is a general awareness of the state of games today and the reasons for it. In fact, I made no mention of my own experience, so I'm not sure exactly how my sword of intellectuality was wielded or by what means I was attempting to go over anyone's head. I'm sensing a dagger of defensiveness behind that shield of innocence. But let's set our seasonal chickens aside: there's a difference between making things simple and arguing from only one side.

On to the substance then?

We're generally not talking about startup companies; I (and I'm sure most people here) would give them more slack in that case. Big companies with historically high-quality titles appear to be slacking in some cases. Does that mean they are? Not necessarily, but you'd be hard pressed to make a case that there aren't more game-breaking bugs at launch in several titles this year than there have been, say, five years ago. Before the majority of current-gen consoles and PCs were expected to be perpetually connected to the internet, patching was impossible, and thus games had to be more polished - complexity be damned. You had to make it work before it was shipped, end of story. In any case, again, it's far more acceptable for startups, so I'm setting them aside in the discussion. And I don't really think anyone expects them to be exactly on par with AAA developers, so I think that's only fair. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

And I know that you don't actually think that anyone is expecting 100% bug-free software, but that's why I pointed it out when you mentioned it. Because just like we're not really talking about startup companies, we're not really talking about smaller bugs that don't really affect the game. As epicasian said: "performance impacting bugs" - bugs that prevent you from continuing to play the game. That's what made your assertion of the impossibility of "bug-free software" hyperbolic. No one is asking for that, and you acknowledge that fact. So why devote a paragraph to it as a defense in your post?

Now I just want to clarify my overall point, so as not to be accused of e-slaughtering anyone: I'm arguing a middle ground here. Yes, things have gotten more complex, and thus developers have to do more to polish games. But on the flip side, there are more resources available for them to do so. Yes, old games had their issues too - but most of them weren't to the magnitude we see in quite a few launch titles these days. And again, the complexity is partly to blame there, and so on. The reason I felt the need to respond to your post in particular is that it seemed one-sided. I mean, your post could be summed up as: "All of the odds are stacked against developers: everything is more complicated, more expensive, tight time constraints, and bug-free code is impossible. Yet developers work as hard as possible, and as a result, things are way better than they ever have been." Does that really seem like a balanced and honest view? You made no concessions as to any developers not living up to your idealized view, and that made it seem a little naive. So either I did, in fact, misunderstand the intent of your post, or you weren't making the point you intended. You second post suggests the latter, as it's more moderate when it's not personally defensive.

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

"Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?"

"At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet ut et voluptates repudiandae sint et molestiae non recusandae. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat."

Lmfao.

This whole first paragraph is you just putting words in my mouth. You must have be pegged ALL wrong. That wasn't the intent at all. I don't believe your post is out of context, I believe that you misread the TONE of my post, and since you called me arrogant...I can't help but believe this is the case. If it walks and talks like a duck.....

Furthermore, the "sword of intellectuality" was not in any way, shape, or form directed at you whatsoever. That was NOT my intent. I'm making a reference to the rampant ego that seems to collect in the indy development channels (this NOT being one of those). Sometimes when you have an opinion and have experience, it makes you a lightning rod for criticism. I try to make myself very approachable and understandable so that I can be an asset to whatever community I am a part of. This is what I was referring to, that I don't try to over-intellectualize things in avenues where it's evident that the dominant audience does NOT have professional or perhaps even extensive experience. I go out of my way to try to help anyone who wants it. This is an attempt to try to make it clear that I am not here to flaunt myself or to be arrogant. So this is a simple misunderstanding.

Anywho, the OP (as it appeared to me) wasn't necessarily speaking of your top 10 companies in the field in particular. Cases that you and I may dismiss as cursory, such as a startup company, others may not. I'm not making that assumption in my post and am simply using this as a particular case against a perceived notion of laziness on part of the developer. If you were to look at some of the major online distribution media, some of the hottest titles are from startups and many franchise sequels get pawned off to startup companies. So I simply can't make the assumption that we're only talking about the Epics, iD's, Valves of the world.

Either way you slice it, nobody was really talking at any great length before my post. So I can't be entirely sure as to WHAT we were talking about as nobody was really talking This is why I chose to be non-presumptuous and just provide a couple of ideas as to why buggy code sometimes finds its way through.

It seems like you want to extract blood from a turnip on this one. You may be looking for some deeper meaning in a post that was never meant to go deep into the matter. This post was never intended to be accusatory or arrogant. It was also not meant to cover the gamut of all those things that contribute to the perceived decline of a game developer's ability to churn out relatively bug-free work. I'm not writing essays here...so I make no claim to be "fair and balanced" 100% of the time. I'm not fox news Fact of the matter is that you can have a field day on a topic like this and I would have a lot to say. I'm more concise verbally than I am on paper and so I think if we were to sit down in a room you might find we're probably saying the same thing but differently. Things like this happen all the time, and it's to be expected on a medium like a forum. So in absence of a perceived attack (being called arrogant) I am very willing and able to toss ideas around and concede and compromise on ideas. So, yes you're seeing a bit of defensiveness because I'm seeing a bit of offensiveness If the shoe were on the other foot...?

So I'm not sure if I struck a nerve with you or what, but hopefully we can call this a misunderstanding and move on here because I think the reality is that we're blowing by each other on the freeway headlong and missing by inches.

I do not know if I call it lazy but I personally think that most of the big name companies have been taking less "risks" and just repackaging previous games into the franchise. *cough*Madden*cough* I mean yes, it is guaranteed to sell to at least the fan base and more and its a lot easier to just modify the rosters and may be just add a feature or two. I rather have EA just release a $10 patch every year and a new game every 3 years or so in the Madden franchise, but I guess money is on their mind. I do not know the logistics, but I think a digital distribution of a DLC is a lot more cost effective than buying millions of blu rays then the cost of burning them and shipping. Who knows they might only break even with the $10 patches, I do not know. You have to keep in mind they are companies, but more importantly they are in the entertainment industry. They have to appeal to the audience or they don't make money. That is why I kind of want to work at JPL instead, just feels less shady business. (don't go into conspiracy theories)

qpHalcy0n wrote:This whole first paragraph is you just putting words in my mouth. You must have be pegged ALL wrong. That wasn't the intent at all. I don't believe your post is out of context

Well, this seems to be our last remaining misunderstanding then, because I was assuming that when you said this:

qpHalcy0n wrote:So, if you wouldn't have taken it out of context like that

that you were saying that I was.. well, taking your post out of context. With the context you were referring to being your behaviour on IRC. More specifically, it was about your age comment; my response to which was the only thing I could understand being taken offensively - unless you took my quoting of you as some kind of attack, which it certainly wasn't meant to be. And so if I misread the tone of your post, it was only that one line, and had no bearing on anything else I responded to. So I'm a little perplexed by your defense of the tone of your entire post when we're really only talking about the misunderstanding of a single sentence. So let me try to clear this up: I have no reason to believe that you are arrogant. One comment you made came off that way, but as you have explained, it actually wasn't. The point of the beginning of my last post was simply to point out that I wasn't taking the comment out of context, as you appear to have said I did above, because your explanation for the comment wasn't found in the post I replied to. In any case, we move on yet again.

qpHalcy0n wrote:Furthermore, the "sword of intellectuality" was not in any way, shape, or form directed at you whatsoever. That was NOT my intent. ... So this is a simple misunderstanding.

Fair enough, but I hope you can understand how easy it would be to see it that way. I mean, imagine me saying: "I see that you are an artist. I am myself. But I'm not a dick about it." You would probably assume that I was essentially calling you a dick - and rightfully so; most of the time when someone presents something in that manner, you would be correct. And to top it off, you contrast it by quoting what I said about your position. But like you said, it was in fact a misunderstanding, so hopefully now we've established that we're not attacking one another personally, and won't have to bloat this thread any longer over it.

qpHalcy0n wrote:Anywho, the OP (as it appeared to me) wasn't necessarily speaking of your top 10 companies in the field in particular. Cases that you and I may dismiss as cursory, such as a startup company, others may not. ... So I simply can't make the assumption that we're only talking about the Epics, iD's, Valves of the world.

I understand completely, and the point of my response was not to narrow the discussion, but rather to keep it open. In other words, if you're only making your case on behalf of those smaller companies, it's important to keep in mind that many of the bugs for "highly anticipated titles" (as epicasian said) aren't coming from those companies. That's what I mean about your post seeming one-sided. It wasn't "well, sure, some developers are going to take advantage, but...", but rather "no, developers aren't lazy, they're just under the gun, and have harder jobs now". So we're not only talking about the Epics, Valves, etc., but they certainly are included.

qpHalcy0n wrote:I think if we were to sit down in a room you might find we're probably saying the same thing but differently.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say we're saying the same thing, but we don't actually disagree; we're just focusing on opposite scenarios within the discussion. My post was not meant to try and prove anything you said wrong, but simply to point out the situations where it wasn't the case. And I know you know those situations exist, but I didn't see it mentioned in what you were saying, so I simply meant to provide that counterweight.