Broken Games

tok9

Just thinking. Sony and Microsoft should be taking a bit of sh*t for this too right?

I can forgive them for the likes of Halo and Driveclub which have online issues.

But all games have to go through QA from Sony and Microsoft before going gold. Clearly the standards they have aren't good enough if games with really choppy framerates and bugs are going through this process.

I've noticed a few indie games being delayed but never a triple A game.

Stone Deaf 4evr

tok9 wrote: »

Just thinking. Sony and Microsoft should be taking a bit of sh*t for this too right?

I can forgive them for the likes of Halo and Driveclub which have online issues.

But all games have to go through QA from Sony and Microsoft before going gold. Clearly the standards they have aren't good enough if games with really choppy framerates and bugs are going through this process.

I've noticed a few indie games being delayed but never a triple A game.

Definitely - I'd say you're back to the issue of getting popular games on shelves in time for christmas / thanksgiving with the intention that they'll sell consoles as well.

CastorTroy

When Sony made the big deal that you didn't have to be connected to play games, they should've let the third parties know that. Seems if you don't have a decent connection, then there's not much point upgrading.

And I know the bigger games make things more complicated to test every possible scenario, but when you have games like Arkham Origins where everyone encountered the bug for not being able to get into the vent that had to be done to progress in the main story, then there's something wrong.

People laugh when Nintendo use the "Please Understand" line when they announce a delay to carry out further QA, but if more companies went with that approach, consumers would have more confidence.

I also agree about reviews. I saw some AC Unity reviews yet they didn't seem to mention the issues encountered by people playing it

Retr0gamer

tok9 wrote: »

But all games have to go through QA from Sony and Microsoft before going gold. Clearly the standards they have aren't good enough if games with really choppy framerates and bugs are going through this process.

Their QA isn't the same as the developers. All they care about is if it doesn't expose security loopholes in their system or break the OS. They usually just run diagnostics to see if there's no major memory leaks and usually fast track big games.

ZiabR

It is odd though, the reviewing websites are clearly under some kind of embargo or being paid off so they give good reviews. Everywhere I read it is getting 8/10, 8.5/10 and in some cases 9/10. That is complete bull****. In its launch state and current state, the game should be a 5/10.

Ubisoft are clearly stopping "real" reviews from being published.

EDIT - I would have ten times the respect for Ubisoft if they came out and admitted it. Companies are to quick to bury their heads in the sand.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Their QA isn't the same as the developers. All they care about is if it doesn't expose security loopholes in their system or break the OS. They usually just run diagnostics to see if there's no major memory leaks and usually fast track big games.

The platform holders each have their own set of Technical Requirements which need to be passed before the game can be certified. Some deal with those security loopholes while others deal with minimum performance levels over their network and general platform specific functionality. Game performance does play a role in these tests however, as you correctly point out, developer side QA is different and far more game-content centric when it comes to testing. An older TCR doc from the 360 leaked awhile back and may prove to be an interesting read for some folk.

logik wrote: »

It is odd though, the reviewing websites are clearly under some kind of embargo or being paid off so they give good reviews. Everywhere I read it is getting 8/10, 8.5/10 and in some cases 9/10. That is complete bull****. In its launch state and current state, the game should be a 5/10.

Ubisoft are clearly stopping "real" reviews from being published.

It's clearly not the case though. Some sites are giving it good reviews with some reviewers saying that despite seeing some bugs during their playthrough they didn't encounter issues as severe as others are reporting. Giant Bomb, on the other hand, gave it 40, Joystick 50, Polygon 65 and Destructoid 70. Kotaku have also given it a fairly scathing NO as part of their non-score based review too. It currently has one of the lowest Metacritic scores of any mainline Assassins Creed title to date with 73 and 76 for the XBox One and PS4 versions respectively.

ZiabR

I stand corrected then. Seems the sites I have read reviews on were higher than the ones you have listed. E.G. Eurogamer, Gamespot, IGN etc.