I wasn't going to jump in and say this, being a newbie and all...

[John Channing]

And he wasn't the only Beta tester that posts on these forums.

Everybody has a different approach as to how they react in these situations.

There is a reason that Beta testers sign an NDA (many actually).

JCC

[ryuzu]

Originally Posted by Chiller1064

I've been on the publishing and development side of this (8+ years in the industry, primarily at Atari and currentlly teaching Game Design at the college level) and know what it is like to spend 14+ hour days working on something for 10+ months only to see people who have never, ever worked in the industry or have ever designed, developed and published a single interactive title flame the hard work other and myself put in to the project.

In my development experience I found this attitude most amusing - like working long days and doing lots of overtime is a badge of honour. It's in fact a sign of poor skills - either the project manager(s) under estimated the time and complexity of the task, or the developers are not able to do the job efficiently.

Personally, I never worked regular overtime (in fact the only time I did was as part of the integration team due to the slow delivery of code) and my parts of the project were generally on time, and worked first time.

My reward for doing the job properly? Usually ended up with the buggy code from someone else being dumped on me to knock it into shape.

Software development doesn't have to be a continual race against time requiring heroic efforts - if the team decides to approach it that way, that is up to them.

As for not commenting on things you haven't experienced - that is a very poor argument. The product has to be suitable for the audience - it is for the audience to decide if the product is acceptable. This can apply to anything - I don't make films but I can decide whether I think a film is good or not. I don't build cars, but I can decide if a car is fit for purpose or not.

The people who play SH4 may never have written a line of code in their lives - that doesn't matter, they can still say whether it is acceptable to them or not - they don't deserve to be told they don't "know what it is like to spend 14+ hour days working on something for 10+ months only to see people who have never, ever worked in the industry or have ever designed, developed and published a single interactive title flame the hard work other and myself put in to the project."

Originally Posted by Chiller1064

PC game development is VERY complex. It's not like developing titles for consoles (which is a whole different can of worms) for the simple reason that it is impossible to squash every bug you find and to test the software on every concieveable combination of CPU, Motherboard, Sound Card, Video Card, etc. that are currently floating around in people's homes (not to mention hardware driver versions).

<snip>

Incompatibility between hardware and software I can understand. If those were the only issues, I don't think there would have been nearly so much noise since those things are beyond the control of the development team in many cases.

However, the bugs evident in V1 of SH4 are not about hardware incompatibilities - they are broken features of the simulation engine. Features which even a minimal amount of user testing would highlight, and features which in the original code base (SH3) were working.

If, with all that extra work and effort, those central feature bugs are still present in the quantity they are, there is no defence and those people picking out those bugs, highlighting them and complaining about them are well within their rights.

r.

[3Jane]

Gunner


Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 97



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiller1064

I've been on the publishing and development side of this (8+ years in the industry, primarily at Atari and currentlly teaching Game Design at the college level) and know what it is like to spend 14+ hour days working on something for 10+ months only to see people who have never, ever worked in the industry or have ever designed, developed and published a single interactive title flame the hard work other and myself put in to the project.


In my development experience I found this attitude most amusing - like working long days and doing lots of overtime is a badge of honour. It's in fact a sign of poor skills - either the project manager(s) under estimated the time and complexity of the task, or the developers are not able to do the job efficiently.

Personally, I never worked regular overtime (in fact the only time I did was as part of the integration team due to the slow delivery of code) and my parts of the project were generally on time, and worked first time.

My reward for doing the job properly? Usually ended up with the buggy code from someone else being dumped on me to knock it into shape.

Software development doesn't have to be a continual race against time requiring heroic efforts - if the team decides to approach it that way, that is up to them.

As for not commenting on things you haven't experienced - that is a very poor argument. The product has to be suitable for the audience - it is for the audience to decide if the product is acceptable. This can apply to anything - I don't make films but I can decide whether I think a film is good or not. I don't build cars, but I can decide if a car is fit for purpose or not.

The people who play SH4 may never have written a line of code in their lives - that doesn't matter, they can still say whether it is acceptable to them or not - they don't deserve to be told they don't "know what it is like to spend 14+ hour days working on something for 10+ months only to see people who have never, ever worked in the industry or have ever designed, developed and published a single interactive title flame the hard work other and myself put in to the project."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiller1064
PC game development is VERY complex. It's not like developing titles for consoles (which is a whole different can of worms) for the simple reason that it is impossible to squash every bug you find and to test the software on every concieveable combination of CPU, Motherboard, Sound Card, Video Card, etc. that are currently floating around in people's homes (not to mention hardware driver versions).





Incompatibility between hardware and software I can understand. If those were the only issues, I don't think there would have been nearly so much noise since those things are beyond the control of the development team in many cases.

However, the bugs evident in V1 of SH4 are not about hardware incompatibilities - they are broken features of the simulation engine. Features which even a minimal amount of user testing would highlight, and features which in the original code base (SH3) were working.

If, with all that extra work and effort, those central feature bugs are still present in the quantity they are, there is no defence and those people picking out those bugs, highlighting them and complaining about them are well within their rights.

r.







Well said

[DragonRR1]

An excellent factual post Chiller.

I can only comment that games shouldn't be released with major bugs (excluding the odd compatibility issue). I know and understand the reasons why they do but this doesn't make it OK.

The industry as a whole needs to work out how to avoid this problem. The computer games industry is not the ONLY industry to have problems like this but it is one of the few industries to actually allow a products to hit the market knowing that they just aren't finished.

While ever the status quo continues people will complain and I personally can't really blame them.

[Faamecanic]

For the most part I agree with the thread starter.

BUT... I totally disagree with the way SH3 (which if not for the modders) STILL has blatant bugs that were never fixed even after 4 patches (ie IX-D2 range being way wrong, battery charge on XXI), and these bugs are so readlily apparent that all you had to do is play the game for a few hours to see them.

SH4 suffers from this also (ie using the "a" button to maintain depth causes a CTD for most people if not all).

These are bugs that if UBI would allow the devs to have a open beta with the community, it would be found and fixed. And the cost for having the community beta sign a NDA and download the beta would be minimal.

Releasing games with bugs that are hardware/software interaction generated or bugs that are deeper in the code (only happen when circumstances are just right) happens. Its the nature of software. But bugs that pop out at the user after only a hour of play (or as soon as you boot up the game...ie the horrible jaggies for almost all LCD/high res users) is unexcusable from UBISOFTs side.

[JackChen]

let's just say that if I didn't support the game it is, I wouldn't have bother to get the Deluxe edition and having it shipped to my place.

Anyway, visually, SH4 is better than previous editions, but previous editions were great in terms of game performance. Of course no PC game don't require improvement, and I feel that the SH4 team is trying to address many things in their patch.

To a better and better game!

[OneTinSoldier]

Well ComradeP,

I think it'd be interesting to see what beta testers such as ACSoft have to say about your post if they read it. I think you should do a search for posts with his username and read a few of them. He would not say what he thought of SHIV prior to it's release due to being under an NDA. But after it was released it seemed to me he was being honest with his opinion concerning the 'state of SHIV as released' and it wasn't good. I'll leave you to figure out why that might be.

[DaMaGe007]

"State of the forum addresses" concerning other users opinions are technically of topic and belong in the general forum. Not refering just to this thread in particular.

Posts complaining about the game are at least on topic and have a place here even if some people dont like it, due to thier percieved *hurting the sales* viewpoint which is a bit arroagnt imo.

I dont think this or anyother forum contribute to sales greatly in either a positive or negative respect.

[OneTinSoldier]

Originally Posted by DaMaGe007

I dont think this or any other forum contribute to sales greatly in either a positive or negative respect.

Sorry, but I disgree with that. I think a lot of people read through forums in order to form an opinion on whether or not they should purchase a piece of software. I think you get quite a bit more informed from reading forums than from even reading reviews.

I think you could say I'm a case in point. I was very close to deciding to not buy SHIV because it has a 3D Rendered World that is 'upscaled from 1024x768' and not the true resolutions that are advertised in the game(selectable in the graphics options), and no Anti-Aliasing. Then the Dev's made a post on here announcing they were aware of the issue and that they hope to fix it. Even though it was hard for me to believe they would pull such a stunt to begin with, the admission/acknowledgement made me feel a whole lot better about the matter and I bought the game.

Regards

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by DaMaGe007

Posts complaining about the game are at least on topic and have a place here even if some people dont like it, due to thier percieved *hurting the sales* viewpoint which is a bit arroagnt imo.

My argument is merely that Im going to puke if I see another whinge about things that has been whinged over in 100s of threads. What is the point?

I also enjoy knowing that the devs read these forums. And Id hate to know they've stopped because they feel everyone is hostile towards them.

[codmander]

YOU KNOW whats really wierd is they probly could of done a lot better just changing((adjust)) models and maps and turn sh3 into sh4 instead I think they tryed to outdo themselves and it didn't work I think the game problems lies with all the video and sound options((gamma)) etc etc... and the higher config. than again I don't own sh4 so i am totally guessin......... ...........................................and I don't see it in the near future

[Hazelwood]

[QUOTE=Chiller1064
PC game development is VERY complex.
So it is impossible to find every bug and fix it before GM- no matter how hard we try or how much we want it to be perfect.

Gamers want their games and they want it now! They post on publisher, developer and fan site message boards constantly pressing for a game to get done NOW! Gamers call retailers and pester them on when the game is going to be at the store (almost to the minute). [/QUOTE]

Hi Chiller,

I agree. I would also add gamers want their games and sims for next to nothing. Even then it's not good enough and some of us (not I) devote countless hours to hacking and trying to get around the protection schemes so as to save the cost of a bottle of cheap Scotch. It's my view this is what killed the air combat sim market, which I sorely miss. Just try finding an authentic air combat sim these days. I lost all my pals in this area years ago when the air combat sims disappeared.

I have given all the business I can to the guys providing Falcon "Allied Force" these days but as they do not protect their CD in any way I know they are going to vanish. It saddens me how folks take advantage of them. Get it while you can. We ought to be more responsible in regard to serious simming or we may lose it altogether. After that it's "kiddie games" and "shoot-em-ups".

Sims are a remarkable entertainment and educational value. I am just old enough to remember a few WWII incidents and SH makes a real effort to recreate the atmosphere of those days. The patched SH4 is just fine. I even got the RADAR working although it is a flawed process I am happy to accept in view of the sim's outstanding virtues.

We have to point out flaws and, in fact, the developers invite this, but - as you say - let's be constructive about it. I used to be a developer too and appreciate the challenges involved with putting together a robust major application. If you want it perfect the first time, be prepared to pay $250 - not pocket-change - is my advice

regards,
Cpt. J. Hazelwood