What's your opinion of bugs?

[Niten_Ryu]

Bugs don't matter that much to me (Unless we are talking about end of Anarchy Online beta amount of bugs) but generally if I know that some game is buggy (like Troika games by defeault), I'll wait few months to few years (it depends how many patches and how much patches fix or bargain bin) before I buy the game.

[Loof]

Bugs dont bother me if there is a way around them either through tweeking or patching.

If I can't get around them on the other hand I can get pretty uppset about it. Fallout 2 comes to mind ... that was a hell of a bugy game when it first came out... but then it was a superb game when they finaly got it patched.

 

So I'm fine with buggy games as long as it gets fixed, but can get pretty irritated while waiting for said patch/fix...

[Child of Flame]

I won't touch a Troika game because of their bug-infested software.  After ToEE I know better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, True. You see where the arrow is pointing in the Troika logo? Faaaar away from "Code". Nah, I like their games anyway.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The design and art ARE awful nice though.

[mkreku]

The only bugs that really bother me are the game stopping ones. Or when there are enough bugs to make it feel like I'm walking on a mine-field (you never know when the game just blows up in your face). Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines is a good example. I was having a blast until I had to board that boat and was greeted by my own desktop image.

[Alien_77]

The design and art ARE awful nice though. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No question about it.

[~NightWolf~]

The Xbox seems bug prone for some reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's because it's made by Microsoft.

 

 

Bugs don't really bother me a lot, as long as I can play the game from beginning to end I'm fine with it. After all, nothing is ever perfect.

[roguefrog]

It's the lousy QA work that allowed those bugs to be in the final pruduct in the first place...

 

This is not always true. QA more so than not does their job aka "covers their own asses." It is ultimately the Producers decision to push the a game through with all the bugs left unfixed to meet ship dates. Remember, QA just documents the bugs. They can't fix them. That's the programmers job, and the programmers can't fix them if they aren't given the time to. The idea that lots of bugs are left unfixed due to time constraits (sometimes even "A" bug crash/locks) is a reality.

[213374U]

Yeah. Ultimately it's the greedy shareholders fault for wanting their money NOW.

Call it what you will, I don't care. It's not the bugs themselves that bother me, it's the fact that, for whatever reasons, somebody didn't do their job.

[NeverwinterKnight]

just imagine how much better a lot of these games mentioned would have been if they were given even 2 extra months of bug fixing instead of being released when they were. kotor2 is a prime example, and i think bloodlines can fit in that category too, as a few of the "bugs" in bloodlines has been fixed or improved upon in a patch that only took a month to do.

[213374U]

i think bloodlines can fit in that category too, as a few of the "bugs" in bloodlines has been fixed or improved upon in a patch that only took a month to do.

The funny thing about that is that Bloodlines wasn't rushed. It was finished about a month before release date. It couldn't be released though due to the agreement Valve had with VU that prevented anything using the Source engine to be released before HL2 hit the shelves. Somebody would think that they could have used that extra month to polish the game... but no.

 

As I said, funny. <_<

[Deraldin]

I rarely run into bugs with games or if I do I just don't notice them. I may have run into a few with KotOR which I'm currently playing or it could just be my graphics card which is limping along towards it's inevitable death.

 

Unless the bug is gamestopping or is performance related I don't really care all that much. For example when I first started KotOR whenever I moved underneath or out from underneath a roof in the uppercity of Taris I would get major slowdown and when it did return to normal I would be on the opposite side of the map because my character didn't stop running when the game was frozen. That kind of bug really get's to me.

 

That and the huge slowdown with anything over 10k people in Simcity 4.

[NeverwinterKnight]

The funny thing about that is that Bloodlines wasn't rushed. It was finished about a month before release date. It couldn't be released though due to the agreement Valve had with VU that prevented anything using the Source engine to be released before HL2 hit the shelves. Somebody would think that they could have used that extra month to polish the game... but no.

 

As I said, funny. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

true. bloodlines might not be the best example, since it was actually finished well before actual release and was just waiting for hl-2 to release first (or at the same time). but still, another 2 months of actual fixing would have been beneficial, and i believe most games that are considered "buggy" would be much better if they had just that extra bit of time.

[taks]

just imagine how much better a lot of these games mentioned would have been if they were given even 2 extra months of bug fixing instead of being released when they were.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

unfortunately, the game i wish had more time was toee, and it needed more than just bug fixing. it needed content. story. something. anything. bugs were almost a side issue once the boredom of the underlying game set in (i did like the combat, however).

 

TAKS

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

true.  bloodlines might not be the best example, since it was actually finished well before actual release and was just waiting for hl-2 to release first (or at the same time).  but still, another 2 months of actual fixing would have been beneficial, and i believe most games that are considered "buggy" would be much better if they had just that extra bit of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Same for Arcanum.. Troika just dont seem to be very good at the technical side of games making.

 

I dont think developers wrap the project up early enough to devote time exclusively to hunting down bugs. Perhaps they should but thats easier said than done.

 

Think of it like this. If you havnt got your roof on yet, that your roof might have a leak or two is the least of your worries...

[Volourn]

Quit frankly, I don't think giving devs an extra month or two will fix the bug issue. Why? Simple. The devs will just use that time to add new content anyways.

[Morgoth]

The problem with most software companies out there is that they don't take their time to plan enough their game code (making an analysis, writing down the specifications, planning all features that get into the game (not adding some in the end as Volo said), and then implement the code and test it). If programmers are frowsily during the planning stage, there's a much higher possibility the game code will become buggy and it is more difficult to maintenance it later, which is probably caused due to 1) laziness/lack of knowledge or b) time restrictions or c) both. So just only relying on QA doesn't really mean the game will become less buggy. If you give your programmers 2 more months time FROM THE BEGINNING to plan out their features (not immediately implementing them) I'm betting the game code is far less buggy than giving those 2 months for QA afterwards.

[Alien_77]

I think its also a matter of budget, if a software studio isnt get paid from a publisher to do a patch, they probable dont write one. Therefore I think if Activision didnt pay a dollar more on Troika, they didnt really work in their "extra time" on Vampire Bloodlines. Or do you work a month or two for your firm for free? It's not a fact, It's just what I think.

[Zach Morris]

Do you guys think they should review games and then if an important patch is released re-view the game again? I mean some of the games you guys are talking about might gain a really good score after the fix.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Do you guys think they should review games and then if an important patch is released re-view the game again?  I mean some of the games you guys are talking about might gain a really good score after the fix.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most of the time thats pretty much irrelevent to how well the game will do. In most cases the initial run of the game is over long before a patch is released which would significantly improve the score.

 

The real problem is that reviewers dont include the bugs in their overall scores. TOEE should have never scored more than about 40% based on it's bugginess at release yet some places rated it up in the 90's.

[mkreku]

Most of the time thats pretty much irrelevent to how well the game will do. In most cases the initial run of the game is over long before a patch is released which would significantly improve the score.

 

The real problem is that reviewers dont include the bugs in their overall scores. TOEE should have never scored more than about 40% based on it's bugginess at release yet some places rated it up in the 90's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but there are examples of when a patch will almost change a game. Devastation comes to mind. That game, when I reviewed it, suffered from horrible physics that made the game very annoying to play, which in turn affected the final score. A month after I'd reviewed it, they released this 102 MB patch that completely changed the physics to the better and the game became much more playable. I would have given the game a better score if I had reviewed it after the patch.

 

Also, I always take bugs into account when reviewing a game. I gave Bloodlines 78% and I probably lowered the final score by 10% because of all the bugs (especially the game-stopping one).

[Sammael]

My overall attitude towards the bugs depends on their nature.

 

I don't mind graphics glitches (people standing on air, parts of models showing through walls, textures not loading properly), although they do reduce my general opinion of the game.

 

I don't mind rules bugs as long as they are not numerous, such as they were in ToEE. A large number of small bugs can be more irritating than one or two major bugs.

 

Bugs that affect side-quests in RPGs are annoying, but since these aren't critical path, they can be somewhat forgiven, if they are fixed in a patch reasonably soon after the game is released. I've encountered at least one such bug in Vampire: Bloodlines, and it annoyed the hell out of me and made me break my character concept to be able to finish the quest.

 

Game-stopping bugs that have a workaround (Sacred's water bug) aren't as annoying nowadays as they were in the days before the internet became so prevalent. Still, a game with a game-stopping bug pretty much assures that I'll never buy another product from that developer again.