Third Seasons Patch is out....

[dizzy]

* dizzy can't help but notice the disdainful silence Sam treats some perfectly reasonable speculations 

[Tigerlilley]

BAHA he quoted me.
And has completly taken it out of context at that.

but since then I have read posts that say things like "the game is completely unplayable because of bugs", or or comparing the bugs in the game to "a new TV that you plug it in and it doesn't turn on."

I was arguing with some dickhead who said that we should all stop bitching and be happy with what weve got.  I asked if he'd be happy if he'd brought a tv and only the sound works? Would he be satisfied with that? Deffinatly was not comparing game bugs to broken tvs.
If anyone cares that thread is here

[prattle]

BAHA he quoted me.
And completly taken it out of context at that.

but since then I have read posts that say things like "the game is completely unplayable because of bugs", or or comparing the bugs in the game to "a new TV that you plug it in and it doesn't turn on."

I was arguing with some dickhead who said that we should all stop bitching and be happy with what weve got.  I asked if he'd be happy if he'd brought a tv and only the sound works? Would he be satisfied with that?
If anyone cares that thread is here

I noticed that. How come everyone who sounds reasonably intelligent and sane on the BBS also happens to be from MATY? 

[Tigerlilley]

Hehe 
The only time i head over to the BBS is to raise all holy hell when shit like this happens.

[rohina]

Thanks for the lulz, Twain. This one was the best one for me:

And I guarantee that the creators of these mods do not test their code as much as we do before releasing them to the world. Of course, I look like a real idiot for saying that right about now, but ignoring our "crying baby screwup" for a moment...

He even admits how stupid it sounds, but he keeps on saying it. As I say to my students, doing lots of testing, or lots of work is not what you get credit for, it's doing the right work. If you test in a really stupid way 100 times, then that is not better than testing sensibly once. It just makes you an idiot.

[witch]

Ah, here's why their testing fails...

That takes lots of manpower and lots of time...

[SaraMK]

 , witch. I think you're right, there.

I think they go about testing the wrong way. I mean, there has got to be a reason why they're consistently missing major bugs that players find within minutes of loading the game. Assuming they are  testing, as they claim, there shouldn't be any reason why they don't find those bugs themselves. The question is, how  are they testing? It's kind of hard to imagine that the crying babies, for example, or the vanishing FFS clothing, wouldn't have been immediately obvious under all but the most convoluted circumstances. I just don't get it.

[witch]

When we test software at Poly, as part of the design process, we write a testing plan prior to actually doing it. If EAxis run on some sort of process like that, they may just be testing things they EXPECT might go wong or testing what they want to get right, instead of noting what really does go wrong. Also testers may not be so familiar with the game. They may just check to see if <<this thing>> works and never notice if another thing doesn't.

[KatEnigma]

They've allegedly hired Simmers to play test after the FFS fiasco.  I think part of the problem is that they hire them as temps, and I'd bet that they only bring them in for crunch times. Both Pets and Seasons were missing the huge obvious bugs from the previous releases, so that was an improvement. But they are just as obviously NOT testing the patches in regular gameplay.

[Jfederated]

They only had simmers testing the game after FFS?!     That's hilarious and gruesome.  Tho I always suspected their testing involved way too much woolpropping and not enough actual playing.

I'll smack just about anything modders here put out into my game without fear, but that fixed 2nd Seasons patch is still sitting on my desktop uninstalled.  I fear it.  I fear most everything EA puts out for this game anymore.  The anxiety is horrendous.  I need counseling or another hobby.

How many computer setups does one Pescado use to test his fixes...that always seem to work right out of the can on anyone's system?  I'm curious and cynical (of EA) all at once.

[Sleepycat]

heh

If you look at message boards of any video game out there, you will find similar complaints about bugs in games. It's unavoidable. There is no game in the history of games that has shipped bug-free.

guess he hasn't played any console games... yes, sometimes a console game bug gets missed but most of the console games I've played in the past 20something or more years didn't have any noticeable bugs. yet when it comes to computer games - anyone with a brain knows there are going to be noticeable bugs before they even buy it    and not just in computer games but in other computer software too and it's accepted... because they can always patch it. (and too bad for those that can't get the patchs)

and now we expect the patches themselves to have bugs and/or break things 

[GayJohnScarritt]

And nVidia card owners, check back soon for an update. I should have one within a week.


   That right there is what interests me.  Tho i'll have to wait for the 'volunteer' testers here to check it before i download anything.   lol

[Orikes]

heh

If you look at message boards of any video game out there, you will find similar complaints about bugs in games. It's unavoidable. There is no game in the history of games that has shipped bug-free.

guess he hasn't played any console games... yes, sometimes a console game bug gets missed but most of the console games I've played in the past 20something or more years didn't have any noticeable bugs. yet when it comes to computer games - anyone with a brain knows there are going to be noticeable bugs before they even buy it    and not just in computer games but in other computer software too and it's accepted... because they can always patch it. (and too bad for those that can't get the patchs)

Not to really agree or disagree with anything MaxoidSam said, there is a really large difference between making games for consoles and making games for the PC.

Consoles are going to be standard across the board. The pieces inside an Xbox are going to match any other Xbox out there, generally speaking (hacked harddrives aside). Designers for a game on the Xbox only need to test it against one machine configuration to make sure the game is going to perform as expected. PCs on the other hand, it's nearly impossible to find two that are put together the exact same way. Motherboards, video cards, ram, processor, etc.

I used to do tech support for a company where I supported photo software that came with digital cameras. The designers for the software had dozens of machines that they tested the software on, and still the new versions would end up going out the door and within a week of the release, we'd find some stupid bug that only happened on machines from Dell (or HP or etc.) with a particular configuration.

And that's not even taking into consideration the crap that people put on their computers. That takes it out of hardware concerns and into software concerns. There's no telling what's going to cause a conflict or a problem.

I'm not trying to defend EA on this one, but comparing putting out games for a console to a PC is a little misleading.

[Hook]

Bullshit.  A bug caused by weird hardware configurations is one thing, but the Crying Babies had nothing whatsoever to do with hardware.  At least test the damn gameplay on some standard system to make sure it works.  It almost looks like they weren't testing gameplay at all, but just possible configuration problems.  This is not acceptable.

Hook

[trancejeremy]

I think part of the problem is, they test it, then try to fix bugs, but sometimes when they fix the bugs, they break more stuff. But they don't test it again to see if there are new bugs, only if the old bugs are fixed.

Like the Crying baby.

It's not just PC games,  in the PSP game Puzzle Quest, it somehow shipped with a major feature disabled.  And apparently, my scenario is what happened. They went to fix something, broke the feature, but didn't notice until too late. At least on PC, they can patch it. But I think developers are just skimping on testing these days (or publishers are)

[KatEnigma]

The DS version of Urbz has a major game-stopping bug, right at the end.

EA sucks.

[jrd]

The problem is that companies like EA think testing is optional, and can be delegated to an external team, in the last month of development.
In the past QA was a process that ran from the start, so by the time something was released, it was already thoroughly tested for any errors by well-paid people who knew what they were doing.
Nowadays some external team is hired, given a week or two to run through the beta of a game, and find as many bugs as possible. Anything that is found and fixed before the release date goes in, the other bugs (unfound and unfixed) are shipped to be solved with downloadable patches.

With very few exceptions all recent games have had day zero patches. This should be unacceptable: a day zero patch means that the publisher knowingly shipped a broken product. No game should require a patch to be playable, or even get a bugfix patch within a month.

It is very much mentality by the way. Virtually all EA & Activision (US companies) games ship broken, whereas most Ubisoft and Atari (European companies) games work from the box.

[Kyna]

And trust me. Giving ourselves more time would not give us more time to test. As anyone who has ever worked in game development knows, more time for a game team just means more time to squeeze more cool stuff into the game. :-) Bugs will find their way into games no matter how much time we test it.

Disclaimer: my game testing is limited to testing one game for an indie game developer (www.spiderwebsoftware.com if you're into standalone RPGs with retro graphics), so I accept it will be different to bug testing for a big game developer.  Additonally, the game developer writes games for macs first, then ports to windows.   I was one of the testers for the windows version, so he wasn't going to add any new features that weren't in the mac version.

In my limited testing experience the game developer used the testing period to fix bugs the testers found and to start work on his next game.  He didn't keep tweaking to add new features to the game that was already in beta testing.  Earlier, during the mac testing period, it was bug fixes and working on the windows port - again the priority was getting this game working and then moving on to the next project.  It was not on tweaking to add features at this late stage of the process.

EA isn't a one-man coding team, sure.  But as a company they need to consider their attitude towards the buyers of the game, who deserve a playable, enjoyable game (@MaxoidSam: as a customer, my definition of unplayable is when the bugs make playing the game an exercise in frustration rather than fun).  Extra features are always neat, but surely there comes a time when the development team could say "We're well into beta testing now.  Let's save any more features for the next EP and only work on this one to fix the bugs."

[MyPrecious]

And I guarantee that the creators of these mods do not test their code as much as we do before releasing them to the world. Of course, I look like a real idiot for saying that right about now, but ignoring our "crying baby screwup" for a moment...

Ok, what I know about the code for this game is exactly zero…but that said when it's wrong it's well…wrong. Pes has said—

—"Fixes the biotech station medicine so that it will actually work. It was previously broken"
—and again—
"This is the most strangulated and awful piece of Maxian code I have ever seen anyone write. Whoever wrote this is without honour and needs to be taken out back and shot. I really should have just rewritten it from scratch rather than trying to fix it."

Why then do the creators not see this? Yes Mr MaxoidSam you do look like a dickhead but I suspect its' become part of the job description at EA Games. I for one would never load anything from this company without coming here first, nor will I ever buy any other game from them, I have enough grey hair as it is. 

As for H&M? Well my experience of this shop is, 12 year old shop assistants with an orange tan chewing gum ignoring that most of the merchandise is actually on the floor, then after I've found that damn top/thingy for my daughter trying to sell me a storecard with an interest rate that will eventually lead me to owing them an amount that equals the national debt…When I combine the psychological impression of the real life shop with the EA bugs I find that I have no urge to add more stress to an already crowded game experience. A little harsh of me perhaps but I think I'll sit this one out.

[KatEnigma]

It is very much mentality by the way. Virtually all EA & Activision (US companies) games ship broken, whereas most Ubisoft and Atari (European companies) games work from the box.

I have two words for you: Guild 2. ROFL Made by Jowood, a German company. It was virtually unplayable when it released. It made UNI and FFS look like perfectly designed and tested games. 3 1/2 patches later, it's better.

[J. M. Pescado]

It's playable now? JoWood is notorious for releasing buggy crap. They rarely, if ever, patch their crap. They are a blight on the good name of German engineering.

[jrd]

Jowood is a budget label. Doesn't count.
Besides, it's Austrian, not German =p

[KatEnigma]

Yes, it's playable now. I'd recommend acquiring the EP. Not only is it relatively bug free (some pathing issues, and a couple other small annoyances but nothing game-breaking) but they improved the gameplay.  I've heard some complaints about the latest patch for the main game still having issues with multiplayer, but I can't be bothered playing with humans. Oh, and the AI still sucks at running businesses, but as a Simmer, I don't find the micromanaging a chore. At least in Guild 2, my characters don't usually go off and get themselves killed.   

And I apologize- Austrian.  My point remains that it's not just American game companies. Microsoft's game division, for instance, doesn't seem to have these massive problems. Mainly because as piracy-insane as they are, they actually do extensive Beta testing with real players.  Oh, and Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 was made by Atari- not only did Soaked not work from the box- didn't even want to install properly or run on ATI machines-  instead of patching, they abandoned it. There were similar install problems with Civ4 and ATI, but not only did they have a work-around up the day after release, but the patch to fix it within a week. 

[J. M. Pescado]

Yes, it's playable now. I'd recommend acquiring the EP.

There's an EP now, too?

[KatEnigma]

Yes, it's playable now. I'd recommend acquiring the EP.

There's an EP now, too?

Yes, Pirates of the European Seas, officially out in the US as of the 19th.  You get to PLUNDER. And the workers for the Pirate Cove are Prostitutes.    And if pathing is screwed up so that ships pile up around the counting house going in circles, that just makes it easier to pillage them, instead of chasing them around the North Sea. Once they've been attacked, they move on.