how short is too short?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That's because he enjoyed the beginning enough to continue to play. A good game should hook you at the start. At least the worthwhile games do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By worthwhile do you mean short ?

[Volourn]

No. I like long games. But, they have to be good throughout their 80 hours not magically become good half way through.

 

LOLOLOLOLLIPOP

[alanschu]

Eh, how do you notice something peaking out if it has become part of the "routine". If there is always a flickering on the ground at spot X and you long enough have that in you might start seeing that as part of "normal" instead of grasping it actually shouldn't be there.

 

How would the bug survive the entire duration up until it became routine?

 

Besides that if you start noticing all that peaks out it will be hard for that one as to get themselves additional content added to them...

"That monster added is a bug!!!"

 

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.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No. I like long games. But, they have to be good throughout their 80 hours not magically become good half way through.

 

LOLOLOLOLLIPOP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Name one I'm curious.

 

Half way is a huge exageration. It's more like a tenth.

[alanschu]

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

Edited April 26, 2006 by alanschu

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Takes a while to gather your party. It really depends if you explore, or you just head straight from one location to the next in order.

[Hassat Hunter]

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. -CUT-

 

In this the factory has not yet produced goods. If the factory did (if the gamedesigners have 10 hours of game) why would you not try to sell it, yet just throw it away?

If you manufactured a 1000 shoes and they don't sell, do you lower prices or burn them all down?

 

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.

 

Which is why Backups are made so there can be reverted may something go wrong...

 

 

And you know this how?  It's just as much speculation on my part.

 

Because Vampire was finished and not actually altered way before HL2's release, where code was changed due to the leak?

 

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?

 

Like you already mentioned at the tools editing if you alter something it may cause problems if done wrong. I don't know what was altered, but I doubt they kept using the same dangerous leaked code... (but didn't get an other version)

 

This is exactly why he said an increase in designers would help.  As they could spend time fixing the bugs in the code.

 

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".

 

How would the bug survive the entire duration up until it became routine?

 

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...

 

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.

 

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)

[Volourn]

"Name one I'm curious."

 

BG series.

 

Arcanum.

 

Choose a FF (most of 'em anyways).

 

Some of the earlier Dragon Warriors.

 

The list goes on...

[alanschu]

In this the factory has not yet produced goods. If the factory did (if the gamedesigners have 10 hours of game) why would you not try to sell it, yet just throw it away?

If you manufactured a 1000 shoes and they don't sell, do you lower prices or burn them all down?

 

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 is why Backups are made so there can be reverted may something go wrong...

 

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.

 

Because Vampire was finished and not actually altered way before HL2's release, where code was changed due to the leak?

 

Vampire was finished? It sure looks like it, given its buggy release. What code in Source was changed after the leak?

 

Like you already mentioned at the tools editing if you alter something it may cause problems if done wrong. I don't know what was altered, but I doubt they kept using the same dangerous leaked code... (but didn't get an other version)

 

Why would the leak of Source be "dangerous?" Especially for a game like Bloodlines?

 

This is exactly why he said an increase in designers would help.  As they could spend time fixing the bugs in the code.

 

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.

 

How would the bug survive the entire duration up until it became routine?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[kirottu]

Maybe you should mention to BattleWookie that you

[Spider]

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

 

In regards to Vampire not being finished, this is what I've been able to piece together from reading various message boards and interviews. Nothing is confirmed, but it makes sense.

 

I'm not sure that Vampire was done when the leak occured (iirc that was a year before actual release) but I am fairly certain that Vampire was completed from Troika's side quite some time before actual release.

 

Someone mentioned that when WW announced they were ending the World of Darkness, Activision got cold feet and wanted to cancel the game altogether, but Troika managed to convince them to allow development to continue, although with six months cut from the development schedule. This is why the last part of the game turns into a hackfest that really doesn't fit well with the rest of the game. There was plans for the end game to be more involved, but it simply wasn't possible.

 

So that is why the game shipped with a poor endgame and loads of bugs. The consensus (on the various places I visited) was that the game was out of Troika's hands in May the year of release and then just sitting on a shelf waiting for Valve to wrap up Half-Life 2.

 

So why did it just sit there for an extensive period of time when bugs could have been fixed? Why does anything ever happen in the corporate world? Money. Activision didn't have any faith in the game anymore and they definitely weren't going to spend another dollar on it. And Troika obviously didn't have the resources to do it on their own.

 

Again, this is only speculation, but from my perspective it seems very likely.

[alanschu]

So why did it just sit there for an extensive period of time when bugs could have been fixed? Why does anything ever happen in the corporate world? Money. Activision didn't have any faith in the game anymore and they definitely weren't going to spend another dollar on it. And Troika obviously didn't have the resources to do it on their own.

 

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.

Edited April 26, 2006 by alanschu

[Cantousent]

Well, I continue to be out of town, with only little slices of time to devote, but I'll work on a list as soon as I get home. You'd think that the comment attributed to Feargus would be newsworthy. Regardless of what alan says, companies don't universally meet issues like these with stony silence. As I said in the previous thread, there will be some word about the length of the campaign before Obsidian releases the product. The only real dilemma right now revolves around the sort of weird manner in which this matter came to light. After all, so far we only have the word of some fellow over at the RPGCodex. Hey, I don't go there often, but maybe someone could ask the fellow who posted it about his source. He cites a "German games magazine."

 

On the length issue, I can't really comment without understanding the context of Feargus' alleged comments. If the game is designed to last 20 for the full experience, then that's one thing. If the main story is designed for 20 hours, but following substantial side-quests and taking time to enjoy the fuller game takes the player to 30-40 hours, then that's another.

 

As far as cut content and the like, I'm sure virtually every game has something someone could consider "cut content." The sort of specific sorts of assumptions, however, are based on what I continue to consider a questionable source.

 

As much as I would like an answer to this issue, I can't help but feel that at least some time should be afforded to Obsidian. Even if Feargus didn't make the comments, we might not hear an answer right away. Simply put, there's no good response right now. Failing to respond is probably just as bad, but at least it puts the onus on whoever made the claim.

 

However, if this rumor is never substantiated and ends up being totally false, we should keep in mind the source. Not only that, but we should remember this the next time someone cites some sort of otherwise unidentified source for future claims.

 

Eventually, we'll know the truth. In the meantime, as long as we're reasonable about it, asking folks in the industry makes perfect sense. After all, isn't this the sort of information that any number of publications, electronic or print, would kill to get? Even if some "German games magazine" managed to get the scoop, you'd think that others would be just as interested.

[Tigranes]

HH, seriously, you need reading comprehension. I have made this argument again, and again, and again, ever since you suggested they just hire more QAs.

 

Argument: Bug Eradication requires both QA staff and Developer staff.

 

Facts:

• QA's job is to FIND bugs. The QA does NOT fix the bugs.
  
• Devs' job is to MAKE the levels, wait for QA to FIND the bugs, then FIX the bugs.
  

How does Bug Testing work?

• STEP ONE: Devs make a level.
  
• STEP TWO: QA tests this level.
  
• STEP THREE: QA finds bugs and refers the bugs to the Devs.
  
• STEP FOUR: The devs fix the bugs, then gives the level BACK to the QA.
  
• Repeat Step 2,3,4 again and again until the level is bugfree (hopefully).
  

Why can't you just hire more QA?

Because Step Four is essential to fixing bugs, and Step Four is done by DEVS, not QA. Imagine that you had 60 QA Staff and they all made bug reports to 10 Devs. 10 Devs cannot do Step Four, which can sometimes take a long time, as fast as 60 QAs do Step Two/Three. Therefore, sooner or later there will be paid QA Staff tiddling their thumbs while 10 Devs work to fix the multitudes of reported bugs.

 

What about Bulock's quote?

If Bulock was waiting for the QA, then this was because the QA was doing Step Two. What's your point? The nature of bugtesting is such that at SOME point, no matter how many or few people you have, someone is going to be waiting and someone is going to be on crunch time. You just have to minimise this 'waste'. Hiring 30 extra QAs won't help as much as you think, and it will be a serious resource drain.

[Spider]

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 really don't know either. But it's possible they were so sure they'd get to make the Post-Apoc game that they poured all their resources into that since they weren't getting paid to work on Bloodlines anyway. The Post-Apoc game was supposed to be FO3 after all, until Bethesda snagged the license. Or maybe they had to let a lot of people go once Bloodlines was done and didn't have the manpower to work on it. Or maybe Activision simply wouldn't let them ("We have the gold master we need and we want to be able to go into production with a days notice"). Or maybe my speculation is way off base and they did work on the game up until the release date.

 

I was never shown that the idea they were sitting on it was anything more than speculation though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed and for a while I discarded that as unprovable myself. But there are so many things that just don't add up in that case. I'm pretty sure that the info that dev time was cut short came from a Troika dev, or at least someone with good enough insight to be reliable to me. And the first (at least semi-)official release date given was May.

 

And so many people have said that Activision was sitting on it. Spread a rumor far enough and it becomes true.

 

But in the end it's all speculation and the only people who truly know aren't likely to tell us. And in the end, it probably doesn't really matter anyway.

 

On-topic: As for the actual topic at hand, I've got to say I'm with Gromnir. I think we (meaning we as consumers, not board geeks) deserve to know what we're expected to spend our money on. But I'm not sure getting that information now is going to be much help. As long as there is an official estimate by the time the game gets released I'm content.

 

(to use the knife analogy, before the set goes into production they could still add or remove a knife, so it doesn't matter before they hit retail)

 

How long does a crpg need to be for me to consider it worth $50? It's hard to say I guess. But I think 20 hours is too short. I thought Bloodlines and KotOR had it down pretty well, which means 35-40 hours. If it starts getting shorter than that, then I'll probably stay away. Although in the case of NWN2, there is also the toolset to consider. It's not why I'll be getting the game, but it's still a huge part of it and something that a lot of dev hours have been spent on. So yeah, the toolset does make up for some of it. So if those are 20 brilliant hours I may be interested. But they'd better be bloody amazing.

 

Then again, I'm one of those people who are amazed by the sheer size of Oblivion. I've been playing for 100+ hours and I am nowhere near done with it yet. I've done basically all the quests I've found except the main one and a few others that don't fit my character. Currently I'm dungeon crawling like crazy and I'm loving that as well. On the other hand I wouldn't really classify Oblivion as a RPG either (although I can see why people do and it is a RPG-Sandbox hybrid I guess). So length does matter and average content can be improved upon if there is simply a lot of it. Oblivion as a 40 hour game wouldn't have been the same.

[Hassat Hunter]

NOTE: This post is SPECULATION upon the fact is was 30-40 hours before and now 20 hours because of unknown cutting...

Then why did Lucasarts cut so much from KOTOR 2?  Why did they cut mounts from NWN2 already?  Why does anything get cut?

 

Even if they cut alot, did they cut 33%.... don't think so. And cutting will be used ALWAYS, but it is not often because of "no time" when there is 6 months left or because "10 hours is too many for gamers to play through so we need to dump it" or whatever other reason that makes no sense. It happens to make sure parts get away that slow down the pace (but 33% ) or make absolutely no sense, or the parts that may spoil the exiting parts plot too soon, but this...

 

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.

 

No, because during this "bouncing" you can still work and progress on other fronts while if you first have to finish this more time (and thus money) loss will be experienced...

And you still didn't get the point across that you can DOWNGRADE a toolset too if it malfunctions... "there is no point loading it up with an old toolset"; well it does if that old toolset replaces the newer due to the fact it corrupts the made data...

 

Vampire was finished?  It sure looks like it, given its buggy release.  What code in Source was changed after the leak?

 

Yes. Vampire was finished according to Troika. But we all know they are very bad in making stable games, don't we?

 

Why would the leak of Source be "dangerous?"  Especially for a game like Bloodlines?

Because it could allow hackers to take complete control of the user's PC? Download a "patch" or "mod" of a hacker who knew the source and misused it to make malifide content and you might find yourself hacked. Main reason #1 for Valve to fix it; they really don't wan't all there users to find their PC's hacked after playing their game.

 

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.

 

Repeating your point:

"If there is 40 hours game the testers may find 80% of the bugs, while with a 20 hours game they might find 95%". Notice that there is only FIND and not FIXED? Ofcourse programmers are needed to fix bugs, but hell, they could also take them away from PNJ or PG temporary if they find themselves with alot of bugs. Also any additional tester will not find the exact same amount as the previous would, since even if the # of testers increases the amount of bugs does not... If one tester has the possibility to find 50 bugs in the code (because there are 50 in the code) putting another tester on that code does not wield 2x50 (since there are 50 in the code). It helps find them faster/more efficient, but won't make more bugs... If there are 1000 bugs in a game left and you release 2000 QA testers on it to find those 1000 there won't be more to fix for the devs than if 5 QA testers find those 1000

 

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.

 

Priority. If there is a heavy crashbug don't you think they fix that one before some minor graphical glitch. Maybe the glitch is part of a larger issue (like an entire shader) and thus gets not fixed individually but with the whole package?

 

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.

 

Not what I said. If you wan't to save yourself cash by saving 10 hours of the game wouldn't you just NOT make the content instead of scraping it? If it is already made what would be more WASTE OF MONEY... adding some extra cash (minor to the already spend cash) to make the content includable (thus no waste of the already spend cash), or by just scrapping it, making all of it go to waste? Ofcourse it costs some additional cash, but you actually save ALOT of other spend money with it.

 

Facts:

• QA's job is to FIND bugs. The QA does NOT fix the bugs.
   
  
• Devs' job is to MAKE the levels, wait for QA to FIND the bugs, then FIX the bugs.
  

How does Bug Testing work?

• STEP ONE: Devs make a level.
   
  
• STEP TWO: QA tests this level.
   
  
• STEP THREE: QA finds bugs and refers the bugs to the Devs.
   
  
• STEP FOUR: The devs fix the bugs, then gives the level BACK to the QA.
   
  
• Repeat Step 2,3,4 again and again until the level is bugfree (hopefully).
  

Why can't you just hire more QA?

Because Step Four is essential to fixing bugs, and Step Four is done by DEVS, not QA. Imagine that you had 60 QA Staff and they all made bug reports to 10 Devs. 10 Devs cannot do Step Four, which can sometimes take a long time, as fast as 60 QAs do Step Two/Three. Therefore, sooner or later there will be paid QA Staff tiddling their thumbs while 10 Devs work to fix the multitudes of reported bugs.

 

Ctrl C and Ctrl V to action (or just scroll up):

"If there is 40 hours game the testers may find 80% of the bugs, while with a 20 hours game they might find 95%". Notice that there is only FIND and not FIXED? Ofcourse programmers are needed to fix bugs, but hell, they could also take them away from PNJ or PG temporary if they find themselves with alot of bugs. Also any additional tester will not find the exact same amount as the previous would, since even if the # of testers increases the amount of bugs does not... If one tester has the possibility to find 50 bugs in the code (because there are 50 in the code) putting another tester on that code does not wield 2x50 (since there are 50 in the code). It helps find them faster/more efficient, but won't make more bugs... If there are 1000 bugs in a game left and you release 2000 QA testers on it to find those 1000 there won't be more to fix for the devs than if 5 QA testers find those 1000

 

What about Bulock's quote?

If Bulock was waiting for the QA, then this was because the QA was doing Step Two. What's your point? The nature of bugtesting is such that at SOME point, no matter how many or few people you have, someone is going to be waiting and someone is going to be on crunch time. You just have to minimise this 'waste'. Hiring 30 extra QAs won't help as much as you think, and it will be a serious resource drain.

 

He IS at QA, so that would make it Step 4. If the QA is already laid of work because Devs are fixing stuff it woul indeed not be wise as to hire more QA as to give these Devs already more work since the QA is already inactive at times. In that case it would be wiser to add some more Devs who do not have to be hired, since there are 2 other teams at OE where you probably can quickly steal a dev from that is inactive at that moment for that project. Since QA is likely not spread between the 3 teams adding needs additional man-power, but then thus also helps improving the other projects, not only NWN2 (against some additional costs) and you could let them get hired to test some other games for other companies if you *really* don't need alot of testers at the moment... (atleast I think...)

[thepixiesrock]

NOTE: This post is SPECULATION upon the fact is was 30-40 hours before and now 20 hours because of unknown cutting...

Then why did Lucasarts cut so much from KOTOR 2?  Why did they cut mounts from NWN2 already?  Why does anything get cut?

 

Even if they cut alot, did they cut 33%.... don't think so. And cutting will be used ALWAYS, but it is not often because of "no time" when there is 6 months left or because "10 hours is too many for gamers to play through so we need to dump it" or whatever other reason that makes no sense. It happens to make sure parts get away that slow down the pace (but 33% ) or make absolutely no sense, or the parts that may spoil the exiting parts plot too soon, but this...

 

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.

 

No, because during this "bouncing" you can still work and progress on other fronts while if you first have to finish this more time (and thus money) loss will be experienced...

And you still didn't get the point across that you can DOWNGRADE a toolset too if it malfunctions... "there is no point loading it up with an old toolset"; well it does if that old toolset replaces the newer due to the fact it corrupts the made data...

 

Vampire was finished?  It sure looks like it, given its buggy release.  What code in Source was changed after the leak?

 

Yes. Vampire was finished according to Troika. But we all know they are very bad in making stable games, don't we?

 

Why would the leak of Source be "dangerous?"  Especially for a game like Bloodlines?

Because it could allow hackers to take complete control of the user's PC? Download a "patch" or "mod" of a hacker who knew the source and misused it to make malifide content and you might find yourself hacked. Main reason #1 for Valve to fix it; they really don't wan't all there users to find their PC's hacked after playing their game.

 

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.

 

Repeating your point:

"If there is 40 hours game the testers may find 80% of the bugs, while with a 20 hours game they might find 95%". Notice that there is only FIND and not FIXED? Ofcourse programmers are needed to fix bugs, but hell, they could also take them away from PNJ or PG temporary if they find themselves with alot of bugs. Also any additional tester will not find the exact same amount as the previous would, since even if the # of testers increases the amount of bugs does not... If one tester has the possibility to find 50 bugs in the code (because there are 50 in the code) putting another tester on that code does not wield 2x50 (since there are 50 in the code). It helps find them faster/more efficient, but won't make more bugs... If there are 1000 bugs in a game left and you release 2000 QA testers on it to find those 1000 there won't be more to fix for the devs than if 5 QA testers find those 1000

 

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.

 

Priority. If there is a heavy crashbug don't you think they fix that one before some minor graphical glitch. Maybe the glitch is part of a larger issue (like an entire shader) and thus gets not fixed individually but with the whole package?

 

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.

 

Not what I said. If you wan't to save yourself cash by saving 10 hours of the game wouldn't you just NOT make the content instead of scraping it? If it is already made what would be more WASTE OF MONEY... adding some extra cash (minor to the already spend cash) to make the content includable (thus no waste of the already spend cash), or by just scrapping it, making all of it go to waste? Ofcourse it costs some additional cash, but you actually save ALOT of other spend money with it.

 

Facts:

• QA's job is to FIND bugs. The QA does NOT fix the bugs.
   
   
  
• Devs' job is to MAKE the levels, wait for QA to FIND the bugs, then FIX the bugs.
  

How does Bug Testing work?

• STEP ONE: Devs make a level.
   
   
  
• STEP TWO: QA tests this level.
   
   
  
• STEP THREE: QA finds bugs and refers the bugs to the Devs.
   
   
  
• STEP FOUR: The devs fix the bugs, then gives the level BACK to the QA.
   
   
  
• Repeat Step 2,3,4 again and again until the level is bugfree (hopefully).
  

Why can't you just hire more QA?

Because Step Four is essential to fixing bugs, and Step Four is done by DEVS, not QA. Imagine that you had 60 QA Staff and they all made bug reports to 10 Devs. 10 Devs cannot do Step Four, which can sometimes take a long time, as fast as 60 QAs do Step Two/Three. Therefore, sooner or later there will be paid QA Staff tiddling their thumbs while 10 Devs work to fix the multitudes of reported bugs.

 

Ctrl C and Ctrl V to action (or just scroll up):

"If there is 40 hours game the testers may find 80% of the bugs, while with a 20 hours game they might find 95%". Notice that there is only FIND and not FIXED? Ofcourse programmers are needed to fix bugs, but hell, they could also take them away from PNJ or PG temporary if they find themselves with alot of bugs. Also any additional tester will not find the exact same amount as the previous would, since even if the # of testers increases the amount of bugs does not... If one tester has the possibility to find 50 bugs in the code (because there are 50 in the code) putting another tester on that code does not wield 2x50 (since there are 50 in the code). It helps find them faster/more efficient, but won't make more bugs... If there are 1000 bugs in a game left and you release 2000 QA testers on it to find those 1000 there won't be more to fix for the devs than if 5 QA testers find those 1000

 

What about Bulock's quote?

If Bulock was waiting for the QA, then this was because the QA was doing Step Two. What's your point? The nature of bugtesting is such that at SOME point, no matter how many or few people you have, someone is going to be waiting and someone is going to be on crunch time. You just have to minimise this 'waste'. Hiring 30 extra QAs won't help as much as you think, and it will be a serious resource drain.

 

He IS at QA, so that would make it Step 4. If the QA is already laid of work because Devs are fixing stuff it woul indeed not be wise as to hire more QA as to give these Devs already more work since the QA is already inactive at times. In that case it would be wiser to add some more Devs who do not have to be hired, since there are 2 other teams at OE where you probably can quickly steal a dev from that is inactive at that moment for that project. Since QA is likely not spread between the 3 teams adding needs additional man-power, but then thus also helps improving the other projects, not only NWN2 (against some additional costs) and you could let them get hired to test some other games for other companies if you *really* don't need alot of testers at the moment... (atleast I think...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But seriously fellas, I mean how short is too short?

 

Am I right fellas? I mean, am I right?

[Nick_i_am]

Actually, the question should probably be, 'how long is too long?'

[Hassat Hunter]

29 hours and 59 minutes is too short for any RPG...

 

Above is required

[thepixiesrock]

You're full of

 

 

 

Edit: I mean organs and blood.

Edited April 28, 2006 by thepixiesrock

[Nick_i_am]

lengh is irrelivent, whichever game is more fun is the better game.

 

Vagrant Story is more fun on replays when it only takes 6 hours to complete as opposed to the 40 hours the original playthrough took me.

[kirottu]

I still think RPG

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I think thats true of any games with characters.

 

I wasnt expecting Phoenix Wright to be as long as it was (I played case 5 over yesterday and today) but I'm glad that it was.

 

If I'd been playing handheld time, It would have probably been the middle of may.

[Volourn]

"Then why did Lucasarts cut so much from KOTOR 2?"

 

LA didn't cut it anything. That was Obsidian. LA may have asked for the game to be made by a certain date; but Obsidian is the develoepr, and they should (and do) take some responsibilities. I wish Obsidian fanboys would understand that.

[alanschu]

Obsidian fanboy?

 

In any case, it was a gaffe on my part, but my point still stands. In fact, I think it stands even better now.

Edited April 28, 2006 by alanschu