 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
The Viceroy
|
 |
tu mumbai se, mai Bombay se
Nov 2000 time: 05:16
|
|
As a software developer myself, I read this thread with interest .. and I have mixed feelings for both sides here .. I understand why games are produced the way they are, and also why that can really annoy people ..
One of the things which hasn't been brought up is the software development methodology which has been used, and to be honest the same methodoliogy gets used in almost all medium sized software projects these days .. That is, DSDM .. (Dynamic Systems Development Methodology) ... The idea of this is that the time frame for delivery is more important than the functionality .. Each development phase is timeboxed, and you must deliver on-time .. so if your not making it, you cut functionality......
The whole aim is to get something out, and patch it later .. that way the customer gets the product on time (if not fully functional), but can at least start using it ... then later when its perfected, it can be patched ..
This method allows Developers to budget and organise better, knowing that programmers will be available for specific tasks ...
Obvious disadvantage of all this is we get a game that is lacking functionality, if the timeframes given were unrealistic to start with.
This is no excuse for bugs however ... which is simply bad testing, but it will give you an incite to why many modern games require patches ... Patches are not simply for bug fixing (although that is its primary function), it is for releasing promised functionality.
Where it all falls over is when you get a company like Activision, who pulls a GRAB & RUN with your money .. They never got CTP2 finished, and pulled the plug cos we had all bought it.... so no wonder the customers do not like this way of developing things ... even if it does deliver the goods on time, and makes for a better development team, it often leaves us with sub-standard products.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tzar Alex III.
|
|
Hi to all,
patch or update, for me it doesn't matter to improve the game BUT AT LEAST IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY A GAME TO THE END WITHOUT CRASHING ! I never made it to the end because all my games crashed as someone or myself wanted to build a new city. Sometimes after 70 Cities anothertime after 400 Cities (HUGE MAP) and after THIS IS FIXED, we could discuss about unbalanced things or air superiority and coastal defense and so on, because at this issues I could use countermeasures, simple don't relay on it and try to win the game different. But when it always crashes to the desktop, no work around.
SO WE WANT AND DEMAND A PATCH WHICH ADDRESSES HARDWARE AND OS BUGS.
And by the way I had to pay 65 USD$ (for shipping and taxes and special import version) here in Austria ... at the moment I really think I should have loaded it down with morpheus !
Come on Firaxis, repair the city build bug and the killing the settler in a ship bug ... better to release every week a patch, which fixes one more bug, than let us wait 5 months for the big patch !
With greetings to all suffering CIVIII Players ALEX
PS: By the way everybody is shouting about the poor quality of Pools of Radiance, but this game is technical running okay (very seldom it crashes to the desktop, but when you restart, you could continue), it is always able to fix it yourself, of course the gameplay is very boring after some time. But I will have to continue to play it now UNTIL THEY FIX THIS CIV III
|
|
|  |
 |
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001 time: 23:16
|
|
Does anyone know what the QA process if for game companies today? When a new release comes out, and there is a bug like that air superiority one in Civ III, it leads me to believe that most of their QA is preformed directly by the programmers. Not to knock on developers, but sometimes the most obvious bugs seem to slip by them because the guy testing it knows that he put the code there, or worse the guy testing it didn't do that part of the code and so is unaware what it is supposed to do.
With a game like this, the documetation of features would be very important to the QA process, and if this broke down at any point (which seems to ALWAYS happen), features (especially late additions) do not get tested correctly, if at all. Then take into account that they are working with a deadline...of course, if you don't staff a QA department, you cut that expense right out, and it's cheaper to go back and patch than to pay 4 testers in the first place. Unless they came to my company...they could get me cheap! My solution...massive Beta tests! I would like to sign up for Civ 4...no charge! Of course, if they took them from this site, the game would never be released and the "bug" list would be the size of an encyclopedia...
(that's a good thing, btw)
Anyway, thanks for listening. If anyone knows anything about how this game was tested I would love to hear about it!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Barnacle Bill
|
 |
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by sachmo71
Does anyone know what the QA process if for game companies today? |
Well, I have exactly 1 data point.
I was a beta tester for the recently-released EU2. There were a rather large set of volunteer beta testers. We were given CD's with the game on them months before the product went gold. We had a private forum on the developer's (Paradox, in Sweden) web site, as well as an official bug reporting system on another site which specializes in that ("Bugzilla"). If we found a bug, we reported it in "Bugzilla" and someone on the development team was assigned to work it. Bugs could be updated as duplicate (of a previously reported bug), verified, fixed, verified fixed, etc... Duplicates were pretty common - you had to search the bug database before entering one and sometimes you still missed it. The programmer could also designate a bug "won't fix", which pretty much means it's not a bug it's a feature Anyway, the programmer had a new beta patch for us almost every working day (and sometimes on weekends) with bug fixes, new feature implimentations and balance tweaks to existing stuff. Because the developer & a lot of the beta testers were in Europe (about 4 hours ahead of EST), mostly by the time I got home from work, finished the daily "honey do" list & got down to serious playing & found a bug, somebody else already had it reported. They were usually fixed within days of being reported. This process has continued since the game went gold, and folks who bought it got patch 1.01 to the released game posted on the US distributor's web site three days after the official release.
Another thing that was cool was that a couple of individuals who had been very active developers of well-researched mods for the original EU were officially made members of the development team (not just beta testers) for EU2.
Anyway, that's how Paradox does it (right, IMO).
Last edited by Barnacle Bill on 27-11-2001 at 19:01
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|