Finally, a patch for V:tMB

[Dark Wanderer]

Dude. Where Fallout meets Vampire?

 

XD. Something like that, I suppose. Haven't seen many scenarios like that through...

[roguefrog]

My statement wasn't about his enjoyment of the game. It was about his seemingly "who cares if the game plays like an alpha version despite being full price" statement that anyone complaining about the excess bugs and glitches (and there have been many) is a cry baby.

 

Which is why I made the statement about him being a business' favorite type of customer. The type that spends their money on something that is shoddy at best and never complains about it.

 

You are making far too many assumptions here. On my computer the game doesn't play like that of an Alpha build in any way. (I work in QA, I know exactly how an Alpha build plays) In fact the game is highly playable on my 3 year old system that barely meets the minimum requirements. It is choppy in most places, yes! It has some long load times, yes! But it wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be. I will argue against it being unplayable.

 

The reality of it is, most people complaing probably have low tolerance for any sort of chronic technical issues. And I'm conditioned to hell and back having been putting up with all manner of jankyness for over a year.

 

And the game is good. Not shoddy at best.

[GhostofAnakin]

You are making far too many assumptions here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Assumptions are all I can go on since your post consistent of calling people cry babies who complained about legitimate issues. You didn't exactly put forth a strong argument.

[213374U]

Basically the reality of it is,  most people complaing probably have low tolerance for any sort of chronic technical issues.

Low tolerance is an understatement. I have zero tolerance for chronic technical issues in retail products when I'm running them in a PC which is over the minimum system requirements.

[roguefrog]

You are making far too many assumptions here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Assumptions are all I can go on since your post consistent of calling people cry babies who complained about legitimate issues. You didn't exactly put forth a strong argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Post consistent? 1 post out of 5 isn't consistent.

 

Low tolerance is an understatement. I have zero tolerance for chronic technical issues in retail products when I'm running them in a PC which is over the minimum system requirements.

 

This is where you and me differ. I've developed a strong tolerance given my job. :cool:

[GhostofAnakin]

Post consistent?  1 post out of 5 isn't consistent.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was a typo. I meant "your post consisted of..."

[roguefrog]

sure...

[GhostofAnakin]

sure... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, because my typo made more sense in the context of the rest of the post, huh.

[Aegeri]

sure... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As anal as even I like to be in various debates, I do suspect he was trying to say consisted and not consistent.

[roguefrog]

Yeah, because my typo made more sense in the context of the rest of the post, huh.

 

No, not really. In fact I originally read it thinking you ment consisted but wanted to roll with it.

[kefka]

You people really need 1 Gbyte RAM, that's mandatory for playing any modern game decently today.

Yes that's true. I feel sorry for people who try to play the latest games on 256 or 512 megs of RAM.

 

No, it's not. If it was, it would be warned in the minimum system requirements. And in case you haven't been reading, people with high-end systems have been experiencing the same problems.

Minimum specs are a joke. DON'T BELIEVE THEM! And he did say decently. Sure, you will be able to play the game with 512mb but not as smoothly as 1gb. Physical memory is always better than a large swap file.

 

btw, I've just got Bloodlines and the overall performance is quite good. Load times are around 15 seconds. Not too bad. Hearing you guys complain I was expecting the worst.

 

Do yourself a favour and buy 1 GB RAM, it makes a BIG difference.

[Child of Flame]

You people really need 1 Gbyte RAM, that's mandatory for playing any modern game decently today.

Yes that's true. I feel sorry for people who try to play the latest games on 256 or 512 megs of RAM.

 

No, it's not. If it was, it would be warned in the minimum system requirements. And in case you haven't been reading, people with high-end systems have been experiencing the same problems.

Minimum specs are a joke. DON'T BELIEVE THEM! And he did say decently. Sure, you will be able to play the game with 512mb but not as smoothly as 1gb. Physical memory is always better than a large swap file.

 

btw, I've just got Bloodlines and the overall performance is quite good. Load times are around 15 seconds. Not too bad. Hearing you guys complain I was expecting the worst.

 

Do yourself a favour and buy 1 GB RAM, it makes a BIG difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually my RAM's the only part of my PC that isn't obsolete. I need to upgrade.

 

<hugs GB of PC4000 DDR RAM>

[213374U]

Do yourself a favour and buy 1 GB RAM, it makes a BIG difference.

I have 768 Mb RAM and still the game runs and load like CRAP even in minimum graphic detail. This game has a serious memory leak problem which hasn't been addressed. Sure, it runs fine on a NASA computer, but that's not the way it was supposed to be.

 

And if the publisher/developer lies about the minimum system specs, that's not my problem. Yet another reason not to pay for it.

[kefka]

I have 768 Mb RAM and still the game runs and load like CRAP even in minimum graphic detail.

I use max settings and 4x AA and the performance is good. Not great I admit, but much better than the complaints would imply. The longest load so far was 20 seconds. Most of the time it's less than 15. A memory leak would cause the game to get worse slowly. If it runs like crap when it first loads it isn't a leak.

 

And if the publisher/developer lies about the minimum system specs, that's not my problem. Yet another reason not to pay for it.

They aren't lying.

 

The minimum specs mean the game will run on that machine. Which is true. It does not mean it will run well.

 

It's the 'recommended' and 'optimum' specs that count. Of course, they rarely put those on the box, it would hurt sales.

[213374U]

A memory leak would cause the game to get worse slowly. If it runs like crap when it first loads it isn't a leak.

It does get worse slowly. After an hour of playing or so, walking around in a hub area is not hard, it's *impossible*.

 

I didn't make the memory leak issue up, you can look up any number of other BL forums and you will see it as well.

 

The minimum specs mean the game will run on that machine. Which is true. It does not mean it will run well.

No. The minimum specs are supposed to run the game and make it playable. No extras, no eye candy, but you will be able to play the game. Which actually is the case with most games, HL2 comes to mind.

 

Valve used their engine well, Troika didn't. 'Nuff said.

[kefka]

It does get worse slowly. After an hour of playing or so, walking around in a hub area is not hard, it's *impossible*.

I played for a few hours yesterday and didn't notice anything. But I'm not going to dispute what you say. I'll play a bit longer and then see.

 

I didn't make the memory leak issue up, you can look up any number of other BL forums and you will see it as well.

I've heard about BL eating up over 1.2GB but I've yet to experience that. That would obviously cause severe problems on low RAM machines.

 

No. The minimum specs are supposed to run the game and make it playable. No extras, no eye candy, but you will be able to play the game. Which actually is the case with most games, HL2 comes to mind.

HL2 is one of the best for hardware scaling. So the minimum specs are reasonably accurate. For most games tho, I would never trust the min specs.

 

Valve used their engine well, Troika didn't. 'Nuff said.

Now that I agree with.

 

Bloodline's performance is acceptable (for me) but nowhere near the level of HL2.

[GhostofAnakin]

It's the 'recommended' and 'optimum' specs that count. Of course, they rarely put those on the box, it would hurt sales.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, I'm looking at the box right now and I clearly see the RECOMMENDED RAM of 512 MB. I meet that requirement and the game still chugs along at slow speeds. I'd hate to see how the game works on someone's system who meets the REQUIRED RAM of 384 MB.

 

Either Troika produced a crappy performance game or they should have put the RECOMMENDED RAM at 1 GB or higher.

[kefka]

Actually, I'm looking at the box right now and I clearly see the RECOMMENDED RAM of 512 MB

Yes, they do list the recommended RAM, which IMO should have been the minimum.

 

Anyone with less than 1GB isn't going to get the best out of Bloodlines.

 

And don't forget video RAM. I think 128mb is realistic, especially if you plan to use AA.

[213374U]

Yes, they do list the recommended RAM, which IMO should have been the minimum.

 

Anyone with less than 1GB isn't going to get the best out of Bloodlines.

 

And don't forget video RAM. I think 128mb is realistic, especially if you plan to use AA.

That's pretty rich. It's a rather poor argument to say that the game's hardware requirements should be higher than what the devs expected them to be just because the game is suffering from memory leaks and other code flaws. First, optimize the code, then, optimize the hardware. Doing it the other way around is plain stupid.

 

And I do have a 128 Mb card which runs every other game just fine. No, there is no excuse for this game being screwed so badly.

[kefka]

That's pretty rich. It's a rather poor argument to say that the game's hardware requirements should be higher than what the devs expected them to be just because the game is suffering from memory leaks and other code flaws.

Who says the devs are setting the hardware requirements? That's most likely the publisher to maximize sales.

 

First, optimize the code, then, optimize the hardware. Doing it the other way around is plain stupid.

In a perfect world that might happen.

 

PC code is a load of unoptimized crap. Get used to it.

 

And I do have a 128 Mb card which runs every other game just fine.

So do I. And this game runs fine so far. I haven't encountered half the problems other people are moaning about. It's early days yet but I think there must be some lousy PCs floating around.

 

Hell, take a look at Valve's hardware poll. The vast majority are still using Geforce2 MX! Should we really be catering to people who never upgrade?

[GhostofAnakin]

It's early days yet but I think there must be some lousy PCs floating around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That seems to be the same misconception that Troika/Activision is under since they seem to want to pawn off their own shortcomings on "lower than recommended specs".

 

From the people posting on here (and on planetvampire, as I've followed the complaints on there quite thoroughly) the people complaining have equal or better specs needed than the recommended asks for.

 

I expect the game to barely function if my specs are below the required specs. I expect slowdowns if my specs barely meet the required specs. I do NOT expect terrible gameplay and multitude of glitches when I meet the RECOMMENDED settings. I realize that as a rule, people shoudn't necessarily use those "required" and "recommended" as the be-all and end-all of determining whether they can play the game or not. But this game is the ONLY one I've played where those "recommended" stats aren't even CLOSE to what you need in order to play this game at a relatively decent performance.

 

That's unforgiveable. I don't care whether it was Troika or Activision's doing. Either way, they lied on the box and their response to anyone who complains about it is "buying more RAM will fix the problem". That's just pathetic. <_<

[213374U]

First, optimize the code, then, optimize the hardware. Doing it the other way around is plain stupid.

In a perfect world that might happen.

 

PC code is a load of unoptimized crap. Get used to it.

Yeah, and in a perfect world I might pay for something that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, but never works as intended. In a perfect world for Craptivision, that is.

 

Some games are way more unoptimized than others anyway. You have admitted that HL2 is great at hardware scaling. Which proves that it is actually possible. Why should I expect anything less? Am I supposed to stand for anything less?

I still refuse to get a state-of-the-art PC just so a bunch of lazy/incompetent developers don't have to do their job. No way I'm going to support that kind of lousy work. Because in doing so, I would actually be encouraging them to keep doing it the same way.

 

It might not be much, but it's my silent protest against the last trend of the gaming industry of delivering games without sufficient QA. Maybe you are used to it, but I won't. If that means I won't ever buy another game again, so be it.

[Child of Flame]

BIG question for everyone having problems.......how much sh!t do you have running in the background while trying to play it? Also, I haven't had memory leaks that were noticeable in-game.....however when I try to exit the game window for a couple of minutes to look at an FAQ, I get a load of stuttering and sometimes desktop crashes when I try to reenter. This is okay, because I'm not REALLY supposed to be able to do this anyway (I have to push the Windows Menu hotkey).

 

I've even left the game on for around six hours when I had to go out unexpectedly, and it still ran just fine when I came back.

[EnderAndrew]

I have a buddy who is complaining that it takes several minutes to load a level.

 

However, I'm wondering what's running in the background on his PC as well. I'm going to attempt to help him do some maintenance and see if it helps.

[Dhruin]

You have admitted that HL2 is great at hardware scaling. Which proves that it is actually possible. Why should I expect anything less? Am I supposed to stand for anything less?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why should you expect anything less? Because HL2 took 6 years and >$40M to develop , which allowed Valve the luxury to polish everything to a nice shine. That simply isn't going to happen with many games and certainly not with most PC RPGs (try a fifth of that budget and most often much lower), so it's unrealistic to hold everything to HL2's standard. That doesn't mean lower-budget games can't be polished but they can't do it all - they need to scale down content or find some other compromise. Of course, you may like the idea of mega-blockbuster titles, carefully planned to sell the millions of copies necessary for those budgets, along with the all design choices necessary to meet those goals.