Quality control & Gaming

Krieg

This is more related to PC gaming

More and more often we are getting games that have far too many bugs upon release. Recent example of STALKER:clear sky, Great game imo, but was unplayable for 3 weeks due to the number of bugs and basically ruined the game for me.

Now I don't mind minor bugs (floating objects , pixelated objects etc.)
I understand that PC games can be more difficult to fix due the complexity of gfx engines, different hardware, operating systems and so on. I don't mind downloading a zero day patch. I understand that Publishers can be bastards toward the developers, demanding early release dates so their pockets get filled quicker. But when there are bugs present that prevent you from playing/completing games, its unacceptable.

More often than ever, we seem to be getting too many unfinished games thrown on the market. Again you could point finger at the publisher, but why is it I see mod communities creating and releasing fixes for games quicker than the developers?

My ultimate point is that unfinished games should not be on the market. A game is a product and therefore should be subject to quality standards that other products must meet. Something along the lines of a CE mark (I know the CE mark is more related to H&S, but you get the idea). Perhaps there should be some Org. that requires mandatory testing of games before allowing release? While it would result in a longer lead time, I wouldn't mind an extra 2 weeks added on to the release date

The half-arsed quality of some games today are driving me closer toward piracy

Opinions?

Kiith

We cant really blame the developers for releasing buggy products. Its the producers that force them to release the games early. They dont see the bugs that are still in the game, and are only worried about the $ they can make.

But i agree, there have been far too many buggy games released lately.

Mr Bloat

I agree, it's a bloody disgrace, what with the price of games and the inability to return them if it isn't up to scratch. But it's the old saying, isn't it - it's cheaper to release a buggy game and patch it after the users 'playtest' it, rather than pay proper testers to check it out before launch. Especially, as you said, when the mod community does the work for them once the game is out.

Doodee

I wouldn't point the finger solely at the publishers.
If a dev team has a good Project Manager / Production team then they will be well aware of what issues currently exist in the project. One big issue is over specification. they try and do too much / add too many bells and whistles and end up adding more knots to the stringy mess.

You the consumer have a duty too. If a game is buggy then don't buy it. Sale figures are what generate sequels and if a Dev team aren't getting them then they are less likely to impress any future investors/Publishers.


As regards the Mod scenes picking up the flak well I don't think its fair, but I do think its a good thing, as its something they can use to make their way into the industry.

Silenceisbliss

I totally agree. Games are relativly overpriced enough as is. It's not often that I can say "yeah, that game was worth 50, €60, whatever". And that basis soley goes on what the game should have been! Throw in patch after patch after patch of annoyance, and the manufacturer should pretty much really be paying for your internet bills for the month.

although, I do like how game makers throw a new map in a patch if they have been realeasing so many as a cover up

thelordofcheese

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

although, I do like how game makers throw a new map in a patch if they have been realeasing so many as a cover up

That's hardly a new practice. It was standard, back in the day.

Seeing as games are generally bigger and more complex these days than they were even a few years ago, and publishers are still expecting projects to be done in the same time scale, is it any wonder that we're seeing more launch day bugs?

L31mr0d

"good enough" is something that has become the mantra for everything PC related. If you bought a TV with an OS as buggy as Windows you'd take it back immediately, but with a PC you just accept it as a natural result of using it.

The same goes for software and hardware. I guess since its always in a state of flux so they can get away with it by saying it will be fixed in the next release or patch.

Also, Krieg, you say you wouldn't mind a longer lead time of 2 weeks. How is that different to them releasing the game and then patching it 2 weeks later.

Frankly I think it makes better business sense to have the gamers beta test the software. The costs of testing the game that thoroughly before release would make the price of getting games sky rocket.

I'd rather get a cheap game earlier with the hope of a patch then get an expensive game later.

Mr Bloat

L31mr0d wrote: »

Frankly I think it makes better business sense to have the gamers beta test the software. The costs of testing the game that thoroughly before release would make the price of getting games sky rocket.

I'd rather get a cheap game earlier with the hope of a patch then get an expensive game later.

I have no problem with gamers beta testing software, it makes perfect sense as we know what we want to do to push a game to it's limits. My problem is when a game goes gold, it should be pretty clean. If I sign up for beta testing, I know it's going to be buggy and will have more patience with it. If I fork out €40-60 for a pc game, I expect it to be playable and not to have to wait a couple of weeks for the devs to patch it to a playable state.

Silenceisbliss

thelordofcheese wrote: »

That's hardly a new practice. It was standard, back in the day.

???...i just said i love how they do it...never said anything about being new practice...


Public Beta testing is the best way to find the bugs in a short period of time....it needs to be larger though I think

PogMoThoin

Steam FTW

DirkVoodoo

Some games suffer from internal problems and the developer seems under pressure to produce a game, even if they no it is not actually playable on any level.

My lasting memory of this is Mater of Orion 3, the game was a complete mess.

I don't think anyone should pay good money to a developer when it is only playable after the following:

Several fan-made modifications have been made in an attempt to resolve many of the broken features and bugs that plague the game, even after applying the two official patches by Quicksilver, and to add new content. The game is now in a fully playable state thanks to unofficial fan-made patches.

Krieg

L31mr0d wrote: »

"good enough" is something that has become the mantra for everything PC related. If you bought a TV with an OS as buggy as Windows you'd take it back immediately, but with a PC you just accept it as a natural result of using it.

The same goes for software and hardware. I guess since its always in a state of flux so they can get away with it by saying it will be fixed in the next release or patch.

I agree but I have personally found that its becoming more and more of a problem with each year, to the point where we should not be accepting it. Like say 5 years ago a game will generally be buggy on release (Minor bugs that don't prevent your gameplay) but usually cleaned up in a patch within a few days. While today, Some games we have to wait weeks until they have been ironed out to the point where we can play it properly.
thelordofcheese mentioned increasing complexity which is a valid point, but I still don't personally believe it provides the developer with an excuse

L31mr0d wrote: »

Also, Krieg, you say you wouldn't mind a longer lead time of 2 weeks. How is that different to them releasing the game and then patching it 2 weeks later.

Because its the first impression that counts. If the game is too buggy upon release, I will get sick of and throw it into the cupboard. Even after 2 weeks id be reluctant to download a patch because my original experience with the game has been tainted.
Sounds childish I know, but Im sure there are many others that feel the same way

L31mr0d wrote: »

Frankly I think it makes better business sense to have the gamers beta test the software. The costs of testing the game that thoroughly before release would make the price of getting games sky rocket.

Silenceisbliss wrote:

Public Beta testing is the best way to find the bugs in a short period of time....it needs to be larger though I think

Mr Bloat wrote:

I have no problem with gamers beta testing software, it makes perfect sense as we know what we want to do to push a game to it's limits.

+1
Beta testing; Everyone wins

Pyr0

Stalker : Clear Sky is still pretty annoying after two or so patches, I don't know what to story is over there but they should really get there act together when it comes to patching the game and making saved games unplayable, that just isn't on at at all.

Silenceisbliss

Pyr0 wrote: »

Stalker : Clear Sky is still pretty annoying after two or so patches, I don't know what to story is over there but they should really get there act together when it comes to patching the game and making saved games unplayable, that just isn't on at at all.

crap...and I've just started clear sky....

PogMoThoin

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

crap...and I've just started clear sky....

Buggy, crashes the odd time, sometimes gamesaves don't load.........but still very enjoyable, just make sure to manually make a save every so often and don't trust the quicksave.

Pyr0

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

crap...and I've just started clear sky....

Install the patches before you start playing, and indeed save very often as you'll find yourself miles back at the last autp save which only happens when traveling to a new area afaik.

j0e

just wait till christmas when every1 is pushin unfinished games

TomCo

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

crap...and I've just started clear sky....

Whatever you do, don't save on the bridge.

When you reload you fall to your death from a few hundred feet up in the air.

Benzino

Well to be fair to the devs of STALKER, it was their first ever commerical game iirc and a pretty ambitious project at that as well. I even recall one of the devs saying that while making STALKER they made every mistake possible.

Not excusing them of anything, just saying...

TomCo

Benzino wrote: »

Well to be fair to the devs of STALKER, it was their first ever commerical game iirc and a pretty ambitious project at that as well. I even recall one of the devs saying that while making STALKER they made every mistake possible.

Not excusing them of anything, just saying...

We're talking about the sequal.

PogMoThoin

TomCo wrote: »

We're talking about the sequal.

Prequel actually :P

Clear Sky is just released tho as a followup to the first game Shadow of Chernobyl. Even patched the game is still buggy, but still very enjoyable.