alanschu

What is level 16 in Fallout compared to level 6-8 in D&D though? When dealing with already arbitrary numbers, it doesn't make much sense to compare them with the arbitrary numbers of a different ruleset.

Falcon 4.0's manual was a D-Ring binder!

Uh huh.

Then why did Lucasarts cut so much from KOTOR 2? Why did they cut mounts from NWN2 already? Why does anything get cut? Seriously, take an economics class, and learn about sunk costs. Which means you are just wasting time by bouncing back and forth. It still doesn't do anything, because if you can't load something with the latest toolset, there's little point in loading it up with an old toolset. Especially if the new toolset has the features that you need to continue development. Which means, as I've been saying all along, you'll need to fix things and create additional work that was never necessary to begin with. As a result, you end up gaining very little. Vampire was finished? It sure looks like it, given its buggy release. What code in Source was changed after the leak? Why would the leak of Source be "dangerous?" Especially for a game like Bloodlines? But who says they are needed? The problem (according to you) was the QA not finding them, not the fact that fixing them may cost some time. There was never the factor "devs did not have time enough to fix" but "longer game made it harder to find the bugs for said devs". Yes there was, if you actually read Tigranes post. It's the entire point of why he was saying developers need to be hired. It doesn't matter what the problem was according to me, because I was clarifying what you obviously did not understand about Tigranes' post. Because it would not be noticed? " Or maybe because it was up for fixture but not yet fixed (and no longer on the list) by the time the tester got used to it... WHY WOULD IT NOT BE NOTICED? If it's up for fixture, I guaran-fricken-tee you it's on a list of bugs to be fixed. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Agreeding here... (and I still wan't to mention that a bug may not have to be a change... if you play through a gamemap 50x the bug may always be present, but you only "spotted" it on a certain occassion) Right.... Seriously...go do some bug testing for a large scale application.

Installing SP2 is an adventure...but I'm not sure if it's a game :D

A tenth is still pretty optimistic (or pessimistic?). If a game hasn't grabbed me in 8 hours, I'd be concerned.

Not too surprising. As much as I find "the chosen one" cliche, it seems just as weird to consider a game that doesn't really focus on the PC either. Though, my idea of "chosen one" is probably more general than most people's.

How would the bug survive the entire duration up until it became routine? No, but I guarantee he'll take notice of the new monster added to the level. Noticing something different does not mean the QA will report it as a bug, and I never said it would. You are just grasping at straws.

Why let so many hours of work go to waste then due to an easy to solve bottleneck. That makes no sense and you know it... that it takes this long talking about QA while there is no reason to believe that that is a bottleneck at all It does make sense. Why do factory managers shut down factories even though people can still work in them? Because sometimes it's cheaper and more economically viable for the company to NOT build stuff, especially since labour is so important. Take an economics course, and make sure to pay attention when the idea of sunk costs comes up. You're following the sunk cost fallacy. "Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources. This is called "loss aversion". Many people, for example, would feel obligated to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they passed the point of no return. This is sometimes called the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. This line of thinking, in turn, may reflect a nonstandard measure of utility, which is ultimately subjective and unique to the consumer. When a ticket-buyer purchases a ticket in advance to a bad movie, he has still made a semi-public commitment to watching it. The ticket-buyer may "save face" by sticking it out, a satisfaction he cannot draw if he leaves. To leave early is to make his lapse of judgment manifest to strangers, an appearance he may rationally choose to avoid. He may, in fact, find some amusement in how bad the movie turned out to be, and take pride that he recognised it to be bad. Or he may feel qualified to criticize the movie in front of his peers. Either way, this mitigates the decision to view the movie, not the decision to purchase the ticket" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost Then you have to alter the tools as to make them work. Not always the system has to change with the tools, the tools can also change with the system... *gasp* It is still changes. And if you're working with tools that aren't static, it increases the possibility of things not working properly in the future. Because HL2's Source was finalised and Vampire's not... And you know this how? It's just as much speculation on my part. Tell me, you are the one who knew ALL about Vampire and it's use of Source... And yes, Vampire was done when the leak occured and had to be delayed since Valve wanted HL2 to be the first Sourcegame Then why was the game such a horrible buggy mess? Furthermore, you are the one that there claimed there were code alterations, so what were they? This is exactly why he said an increase in designers would help. As they could spend time fixing the bugs in the code.

Wow...who would have thought that a larger military force would require more money. In what ways is SAS better than Delta Force? And do they continue their dominance when compared against the Navy Seals? Honest questions, as I'm not sure how you can rate the effectiveness of a special operations unit. I mean, the Navy SEALs have different teams with different capabilities within themselves. If you could provide me with a link so I can look this stuff up, I'd be most grateful!

Oh, apparently I missed something: No, I don't. And this goes against basic psychology too. If you're now "in routine," you'll notice bugs easier. Because it's something different. It is the natural way our senses work.

Having an expansive M-16, expansive nightgoggles, expansive bulletproofvest, expansive grenades etc. etc. etc. and 2 years of training etc. doesn't mean an awfull lot if some AK-47 terrorist blows your head of. An 10 million chopper is nice... but a $1000,- rocket shooting it down is nicer... " EDIT: PS. Also you can WASTE cash. JSF anyone? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok, since apparently the quality of the US military isn't actually that good, who would be able to beat them in direct combat?

You're still being obtuse. Less game = less time requirements for extensive bug testing. Labor is always the huge expense. The created content is also a sunk cost. Take an economics class! All very nice to talk about. If the tools you are using are constantly evolving, there's no guarantee that the next time you try to load the aspect of the game, or apply the tools is even going to work. How on Earth are you "keeping in mind" what things need to be "compatible" if you're not sure what the tools are going to look like the next time they are updated on the repository? Especially when designers do not make the tools? You're grasping at straws. Occam's Razor. Why not? What code alterations did Vampire use? And, given the unstable nature of Vampire, I'm not sure how anyone can actually claim that Vampire was "already done." Unless they sat on it for a year for ****s and giggles.

I'll look into it. I wasn't expecting too much, as it has been quite a while. Thanks for the tip though.

Interesting. If you could direct me to any links that'd be great! I'd still be surprised if Valve didn't offer support, as it certainly is not the status quo for engine licensing. Though it is possible.

Errr, horrible examples. Money has a high correlation to quality when dealing with military. It's what funds the R&D for pete's sake. AEGIS didn't come along by pure luck. Nor did F-14s, F-18s, etc. On a side note, given the large amount of arms that the US exports, the net difference is probably quite a bit smaller. Canada's C7 rifle is the Canadian variant of the Colt AR-15 assault rifle, for example.

you know, Gromnir has never been able to decide if josh is any good at the craft of making games. circumstances has surely conspired 'gainst him, but is still hard to say much 'bout his design skills so far. his portions o' iwd were ok, but not our favorites... but that were his first game. HoW? we gave him some serious heat over HoW, but sounds like fergie hamstrung HoW development from day 1. iwd2? never finished, but again, what fergie wanted from iwd2 were simply to get a product out the door... am recalling that josh had a single day to come up with basic story. BG3? FO3? josh may have some good managerial skills... we assume so if fergie brings him in to try and gets nwn2 out by september, but is a shame we never has ever gotten a chance to see what josh could do with actual game design... and circumstances that not seem stacked 'gainst him. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was referring more to the fact that Sawyer posts on this message board.

See previous post I did. And it only makes me even more convinced you have no idea what you are talking about. If you can't recognize that having less content to verify in the same amount of time would mean a greater chance of finding bugs, then it's because you're being obtuse. So if that IS the problem what stops them of hiring some more people as backup? Little things like money? Ofcourse that can happen, but that is why they are also tested... long before the actual testing of the content... that is being made around the same time It doesn't matter. If your tools are evolving, it's possible that the content created in parallel no longer matches the spec of the tool, causing errors. Do you know in what state they got it. Did it function correctly? How many issues and leaks and whatever did they ironed out themselves? Did it actually already looked like Vampire now did when they got it? I suspect that, like most engine licensees (including those that work with Epic, as well as idSoftware back in the days), many engine "tweaks" involve the company that developed the software. Companies don't just buy the engine and not receive any support. Epic provides fantastic support for their engine issues, as does id. I'd be very surprised if Valve, who could use Source as another revenue stream, just left Troika to their own devices. I also question people that say they had an "early" build of Source. Daikatana for instance, received the updated versions of their engines....from both id when they were using the Quake engine and Epic when they were using the Unreal engine.

Great game to be at. A good win for the Oilers as they battled back from some adversity. Played well for pretty much the entire game, but some quick goals by a talented Detroit team and they could have been packing.

NO No... why would it do "better" at 20 hours? Is the additional 20 hours more complicated to seek through than the first. And besides that you can always hire more if the current bunch does not know enough. They'd do it "better" because there'd be less content. If there's less content, they can spend more time on other areas to find the bugs. They do not have an unlimited amount of time to test the game. They're trying to fit things within schedule, and not release a buggy game. The time is finite. Less content, means more bug testing per section of game. Rewriting is just a far more advanched way of "expanding". Especially if (like Volourn already noted) there is only a part rewritten... Really, DX:IW's alteration of the Unreal 2 engine was also pretty near rewriting... No it doesn't. And it's not just "a part." It's an entire graphics engine. Indeed. And I doubt that during this time game-design came to a complete stop. The created works could just advanche with the tools... Which still means that additional time is required, since the tools aren't finite and may introduce new problems. It's the joy of creating new tools. LOL, no it's not. You know in what state Troika aquired the Source Engine? If yes...then you can post stuff like this... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because it was still the Source engine. And they didn't have to make their tools. The burden of proof is on you, since there's no reason why you or I should assume that they did significantly alter anything. They certainly did not rewrite the graphics engine.

I already clarified. It's broken because it doesn't work, and trying to play it has issues. But I already said that I don't blame Bioware (or anyone). Trying to play it in MP has problems, and I'm now curious to finding out how other people have been able to play it. Especially without tweaking it.

100% vanilla?

Hard Drives are already humongous bottlenecks. CPUs are good because they are all purpose, but that fancy dual core you have doesn't mean as much if it's wasting cycles waiting for your hard drive to retreive information.

Haha. I don't know why I went with Gerber over Brodeur for goalies. New Jersey was on an insane winning streak.

Hehe, MP in HotU