madorosh
Posts: 390
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sarge
Why are you so upset ?
We all know your not out a dime
I have not been around for sometime but I am certain nothing has changed.
(your not purchasing anything above the bargain bid anyway)
And how is your dislike relevant anyhow, you don’t even own the title ( right?)
Every game gets patched that’s hardly a reasonable assumption the game is crap.
I just read this whole thread Kind of weird how your getting off on the bad press
This is a good post, Sarge, but let me elaborate on the point(s) I was trying to make. I think it is significant to note that there is indeed a demo and that the internet has evolved a system of review sites to allow consumers to make informed choices. The use of internet forums are also part of that process. In fact, I've recommended a couple of times now that anyone with specific concerns need only read battlefront's own forum to gain a deeper understanding of the issues at play regarding the state of the CM:SF release and the shift in design philosophy of the CM line - and the latter consideration is I think one of the key components in a lot of the vocal dissatisfaction with the new product.
I certainly didn't come here to make excuses for battlefront, and the number of incomplete features and bugs has been discussed in depth at BF.C - no one has attempted to hide anything. Yet I think it is fair to say that as a consumer not only have I yet to buy a game "out of the box" (assuming it was more complicated than "Minesweeper" in concept or execution) that was 100 percent perfect, but I stopped expecting it years ago. My question is - why haven't the reviewers? The point was raised at BF.C, and if this sounds like apologist talk, you can judge for yourself, but having the consumer's input into bug fixes may actually be beneficial - more eyes on the changes, so to speak. I can understand the criticisms there, too - "I didn't pay to be part of a public beta" seems to be the more loudly heard complaint. I'm not in a position to speak on behalf of BF.C or their intent; I'm fairly certain every developer out there shoots for 100 percent. I think any developer will probably tell you it's not achievable - unless someone can point me to a recent release on the same scale of complexity of CM:SF with the same amount of new code (it was written from the ground up, and by one person, essentially) which didn't require any patching after release? Again, this isn't to make excuses - there was a lot wrong with the product, and some of it drastically wrong, but that has been acknowledged and the developer is actively working to fix it.
This is where I wonder if the review system we have has evolved. If people (some of us, anyway) are finally getting wise to the fact that games are simply too complex to be perfect out of the box - too many hardware configurations these days, for example, to be tested adequately, I think, by volunteer testers in the smaller companies, as just one example - why aren't reviewers getting wise to that and treating game releases as developing stories instead of as scoops? The "bad press" as Sarge describes it resulted in many cases from reviewers so anxious to get a "scoop" that they reviewed a 1.0 version which was obsolete on the day of release. I'm not saying the 1.01 release day version was flawless - 1.02 still has problems and 1.03 is not out for a couple of weeks, this has all been acknowledged - but what I'm saying is why the rush? Consumers would be foolish to buy games in this day and age without trying demos or reading reviews or checking forums first. So what good is a review going to be if the review simply "scoops" everyone with a release day look at a buggy pre-release beta version, when a month or two later a polished gem belatedly appears? It seems to me the review system doesn't reflect the new realities of software releases - and we can say high-minded things all we want about how we need to make game developers "accountable" for the state of their releases, etc., but I don't think that will happen. And as far as that goes, BF.C's devotion to making things right has been second to none.
So ravinhood, I can understand your ire - I don't understand your personal animosity towards me, which is unfortunate - but I feel your thinking is, frankly, behind the times. I don't think it is realistic to expect software to be released flawlessly. If that sounds like I'm making excuses for BF.C, I'm not, my remarks are in general. I've bought software from many companies, and have never been upset to learn that it needed to be patched. I've expected it, and rationalized it as simply part of the process. The alternative, I think, is no software at all. In the end, they're "just" games in any event.
I should add a note on my "credentials" - I was just one of many testers for BF.C, and to be honest my input was weighted more towards the scenario design end of thing, which is where I felt my strengths lie. Whatever responsibility the testers bear for whatever flaws CM:SF is perceived to have, I am happy to bear equally with my fellows - who come from a diverse background in gaming and the real world military, including those with recent U.S. Army combat experience, those with extensive scenario design credits in other published titles, etc. I should also note that those who have never participated in a beta test team, and in particular for a company like BF.C, are probably in no position to judge what it is they think the testers do or how they do it. I am not inclined to discuss that - even if I wasn't under an NDA I wouldn't be - nor defend myself since any kinds of accusations simply ring hollow from anyone who has never been part of the process themselves. I do recommend it though. As hard as it is to read uninformed and almost libelous criticism of something one was intimately involved with for several months, the scraps of praise one runs into along the way do make it worthwhile. For anyone lucky enough to be chosen for such a project or team, you won't be sorry - even when total strangers who don't know what they're talking about call you an asshat. :)
< Message edited by Michael Dorosh -- 8/14/2007 4:03:34 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: Another PREVIEW - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread