alanschu

Besides, Hades himself admitted he'd rather a company say nothing than say something that might later be recalled. He totally blew up at Obsidian for removing mounts.

So?

Didn't you just say you were against the Chosen One archetype?

As much as Half-Life 2 did. The only unfortunate thing is that Half-Life 2 wasn't announced early.

What? Seems like the contradictory statement of the decade. Or are you referring to the different style of chosen one, rather than just the chosen one idea?

Then why do so many other AAA developers not have this problem? I wonder if we're being a bit too "pro-developer" at times. We have no idea what kind of mismanagement was done. Ion Storm shows that it is certainly possible.

Believe me, I know this. Money is very important. If I was to extrapolate Battlewookiee's beliefs though, he seems to think that it would have been cheaper not to cut the content, and to hire more QA to fix the bugs...or something. I had heard that they were sitting on it as well, but I'm surprised that Troika was unable to work on it anyways, since it was clearly not fully polished. And it's not like they had much else to work on either, as their Post-Apoc idea had no takers. I'm curious what Troika did in that time. It's possible many employees were let go for cost reasons, but if the employees are there and already getting paid, why not have them continue polishing the game for another few months? I was never shown that the idea they were sitting on it was anything more than speculation though.

I would assume so, as it's military spending within recent years.

I'm not heavily into all the Tom Clancy crap, but Delta Force was modelled on the SAS, and even they themselves recognise the SAS as being superior. I have no idea why you're comparing the SAS to the Navy Seals as they're an entirely different model, but if you're looking for a comparisson I suppose you could look at the SBS. Now those are some tough bastards. As for a link to stuff, try google or wikipedia. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My google and wikipedia findings have the US Army Rangers being trained by the SAS, way back in the day. Delta Force does pick recruits from the Rangers (and Green Berets). And why are the SEALs so different, aside from the fact that their purpose is more directed to missions at/from sea? You suggested I use Wiki for links, and they list the former SEAL Team 6, now called DEVGRU, as the Navy equivalent of Delta Force. I certainly haven't seen any Delta Force admission of the SAS being a superior fighting force. Perhaps you would have more luck if you looked, as you likely have a better idea what you are looking for.

Pick one.

Yes, plenty o' opportunity to

I was unaware there was an upper bound on Fallout's ruleset. I don't think it's fair to equalize them because they don't necessarily represent the same thing. But you required much less experience (and time) to do so.

WOuldn't finishing NWN at level 10-12 actually cut you out of pretty much every NPC sidequest in the game?

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?