how short is too short?

[alanschu]

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.

[Morgoth]

I read those inteviews when BL was released (or before). No chance I could find those. Maybe you get lucky at planetvampire.com or some Troika fanboys sites, like Duck-n-Cover.

But I'm pretty sure Tim and Leon spoke about that.

[alanschu]

I'll look into it.

 

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

[Morgoth]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure about that, maybe Troika didn't have time to implement those new builds.

Besides, Source wasn't officially completed or offered for licensee yet, since even HL2 wasn't released there. I guess they must have had an exclusive deal with Troika or something.

[Hassat Hunter]

QA *finds* bugs. Then programmers / designers have to fix these bugs. Fixing these bugs make more problems. Each time you get a bug report you have to spend time fixing, retesting, fixing, retesting. This means that unless you hire more QA *and* more designers, which of course bloats up logistical nightmares and design inconsistencies, simply hiring cheap QA won't solve th eproblem. It helps, though - but OE is a young company and ain't made of cash.

 

Till your notion here it was only about "finding" them... NOT fixing them. You and alanschu claimed that with a 40 hours game it would be far harder for the QA-crew to find all bugs than with a 20 hour game. That really depends on the amount of glitches presented in the map and quest and such that make that additional 20 hours. A comat-code-issue is the same with 20 hours of gameplay as with 40. If Action X crashes the game in 20 hours it does so in 40. If a quest in that additional 20 hours is bugged however, yes, they need to find it. But I doubt it is twice as hard to find all bugs with twice the content, since alot of bugs overlap each other. Besides EVEN if they find less bugs the chance they these will be smaller and more insignificant is bigger, as it will likely be bugs like in the graphics, little quest issues etc.

And if a bug is fixed why can't QA do anyhting else? With a 40 hours game they also have alot more to choose from what to do else then if they cannot continue with their main part they were working on. Even if they manage to break the entire game by, for example, make the PC a placeholderbox bigger than the level (thus making it impossible for him to move anywhere) they can always try testing things like Pazaak and Swoop Racing. Do I have to mention the Bio-testers on occassion had to be ripped away from Pazaak to test the game? That one is 40 hours and relatively bug-free...

 

Oh, that post was a response to the discussion??    Listen, "losing attention" is something players do. If you are a QA it's your JOB to test things over and over again. You go to an area and find that the game crashes when an orc is on 16 health. You replicate the situation of 16 health over, and over, and over again, write down what happens, and try it differently, trying different combinations of attacks. Then a dev changes some things, and you have to try it AGAIN. That's how QA works. It's supposed to be monotonous, and sometimes you don't even test the entire game, you only test one section of it (as a single QA member).

 

Wow. I probably wonder what people would have thought of you begin 20th century. OFCOURSE working on mind-dumbing jobs in the car factory was the same as being able to construct an entire chair... The fact you did nothing else for long times was no health risk...nay.

If you have a 40-hours game and a 20-hours and (to make things easy, as this is not as it goes in RL) spread it among 15 employers, would you expect the dumbing down like in those factories would get in effect sooner or later? You might not call it "loosing attention" but if you just start going into routine you might not notice that little bug since it became part of the routine you got used too... NOT good. Good thing thus that they get other assignments from time to time, but it is a fact that there probably more versility in a 40hours game than a 20hours for them too.

"and sometimes you don't even test the entire game"

LOLZ... you tell me to get a grip on a QA-testers life... "sometimes" is more like "almost always"...

Anyways like with any job if something repeats and repeats and repeats into what then becomes like a rithme, that is NOT good, as they might start seeing issues as "supposed to be" and we don't wan't that do we?

 

As an earlier example, there was a game that took 30 minutes to an hour to 'finish'. However, I played it a multitude of times making the playing time I got out of it almost imeasurable.

 

You compare a RPG (Story-intensive) to a Arcade game like Pong, Pacman or Spaceinvaders (action intensive)?

r00fles indeed... if you wan't that kind of replayability play a hack&slash. Wait... that was not good enough because of the lack of story, eh

 

IF (big big if) NWN2 is a 20 hour game with massive replay value, then it'd be ok for it to be a shorter game.

 

Because replay value adds to the total length of the game... thus a 20 hour game with enough content for 2-3 plays is a 40-60 hour game in my book.

 

Do I have to mention several 40 hour games ALSO have a 2/3 times replay value. And thus the gameplay time of that one expentinally grows compared to the 20 hours game?

20x20x20 VS 40x40x40... Hard choice... NOT

 

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.

 

See this post

 

Little things like money?

 

Yeah, cause hiring a few QA testers is really more expansive than making 10 hours of content you gonna scrap due to lack of testing time... suuuuuure

 

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.

 

What was it about "bad design". Ah, yes...

If you work with editing tools you probably keep in mind IF there has to be compatability needed with previous versions; and make sure that one ain't broken...

 

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.

 

Well, yup, Epic and ID seem to do so... but do you REALLY think that despite being released simultaniusly HL2 and Vampire used the same version of the Sourcecode? By the looks of it after the leaking of Source Vampire was already done (and thus the code alterations that V. used yet HL2 not and where thus not standerd in Source) and any alterations done to HL2 code where not implented in Vampire... thus the Troika's had to alter the Source code themselves to fix the mess...

[Moose]

Under 40 hours is too short for a CRPG in the style of D&D, which is probably why I haven't bought one in a long time. I think I bought Beyond Divinity the other year, which tbh could have been a good game but I never got pass the first chapter, given that the voice acting was do unbelievabley intolerable (you've gotta hear it to appreciate how bad it was, really).

 

I see the usual two people banging on that 20 hours is enough if the story is great, but imho I disagree. Fallout 1 had an excellent storyline, but that didn't stop it feeling like a prequel expansion disc to Fallout 2. Actually I played Fallout 1 *after* Fallout 2, and probably wouldn't have bothered playing the 2nd one if I'd played them in the 'correct' order, (well I might have played it, but I certainly wouldn't have paid $50 for it, that's for sure!)

[alanschu]

See this post 

 

You're still being obtuse. Less game = less time requirements for extensive bug testing.

 

Yeah, cause hiring a few QA testers is really more expansive than making 10 hours of content you gonna scrap due to lack of testing time... suuuuuure

 

Labor is always the huge expense. The created content is also a sunk cost. Take an economics class!

 

What was it about "bad design". Ah, yes...

If you work with editing tools you probably keep in mind IF there has to be compatability needed with previous versions; and make sure that one ain't broken...

 

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.

 

Well, yup, Epic and ID seem to do so... but do you REALLY think that despite being released simultaniusly HL2 and Vampire used the same version of the Sourcecode?

 

Occam's Razor. Why not?

 

By the looks of it after the leaking of Source Vampire was already done (and thus the code alterations that V. used yet HL2 not and where thus not standerd in Source) and any alterations done to HL2 code where not implented in Vampire... thus the Troika's had to alter the Source code themselves to fix the mess...

 

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.

[Tigranes]

Again you fail to realise how QA works.

 

since alot of bugs overlap each other.

 

And all manifestations of that bug must be fixed. Listen, it's very simple - the more code, the more bugs. It's a rule every person that's ever dealt with even HTML/PHP knows. Maybe 40 hours doesnt mean double the bugs of 20 hous, but there are still a lot more.

 

And if a bug is fixed why can't QA do anyhting else?

 

Nobody said this. The point is that Bugfixing requires the prolonged attention of both QA and developers, not just QAs. Are you suggesting OE, a young company with only one released game, hire 10 more QAs and 5 more designers for NWN2?

 

but if you just start going into routine you might not notice that little bug since it became part of the routine you got used too

 

And do you t hink this minor effect is enough to overcome the increased workload? No. It is fruthermore much harder for everyone involved to get the "big picture" in their minds and make everything consistent. The "advantage" you describe cannot cancel it all out.

 

Yeah, cause hiring a few QA testers

 

and devs. I've said this earlier in this post and in previous posts. Hello??

 

If you work with editing tools you probably keep in mind IF there has to be compatability needed with previous versions; and make sure that one ain't broken...

 

That isn't even correct english, what are you saying?

[alanschu]

Oh, apparently I missed something:

 

but if you just start going into routine you might not notice that little bug since it became part of the routine you got used too

 

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.

[CoM_Solaufein]

I am not going to go through 19 pages so I will answer the topic question. Anything less than 20 hours of play time is too short. Twenty hours or less would have to include the main quests, side quests and any other situation that would take up time. Now if the main quest is 20 hours or less and does not include side quests and other stuff, than that is not a problem.

[Hassat Hunter]

You're still being obtuse.  Less game = less time requirements for extensive bug testing.

 

Indeed.

 

Labor is always the huge expense.  The created content is also a sunk cost.  Take an economics class!

 

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

 

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?

 

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*

 

Occam's Razor.  Why not?

 

Because HL2's Source was finalised and Vampire's 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.

 

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

 

Again you fail to realise how QA works.

 

Then maybe you should explain it better?

 

And all manifestations of that bug must be fixed. Listen, it's very simple - the more code, the more bugs. It's a rule every person that's ever dealt with even HTML/PHP knows. Maybe 40 hours doesnt mean double the bugs of 20 hous, but there are still a lot more.

 

If there is a "global bug" (convo system, combatcode, issues for all NPC's etc. etc.) fixing it is not needed on every single mappart, just in the code where the mistake is made. Now HOW much code really is needed as to make an additional 10 gameplay hours.. not alot since it is mostly levelcrafting and questcreating (altough that quest-creationstuff can be counted as sort of code too). Really, do you need to alter combatcode for additional areas? Do you need to alter the ruleset for additional content? Sure you have the triggers and such and there will be any additionally coded things but far less than when making a new game of even 5 hours (with the same engine)...

Edited April 26, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[Hassat Hunter]

Nobody said this. The point is that Bugfixing requires the prolonged attention of both QA and developers, not just QAs. Are you suggesting OE, a young company with only one released game, hire 10 more QAs and 5 more designers for NWN2?

 

No, since I don't believe this to be the bottleneck. But if there is the issue of "testers having trouble getting through it all" then additional testers will be needed.

Now onto your devs (who are only in this argument this and your previous post ) why should there be any additional added. The creator of the code will alter it and then the QA can once again attack. If the code isn't fixed yet the QA can't really do alot so how can they give this coder more work then? As you might have noticed in the Dev. Center place Bulock said once he hanged around here often because he couldn't work cause bugs where being fixed...

Really; why need more coders to alter existing code than there were needed to write the code in the first place? Sure, it sucks for a dev when their code seems to malfunction and have to alter it, but how do they figure out their code doesn't work (on special occassions); due to the testers ofcourse! You act like if you add in an additional tester he forces code alterations like every 10 min. Really depends on what is broken, how, and the complexity of the code...

 

And do you t hink this minor effect is enough to overcome the increased workload? No. It is fruthermore much harder for everyone involved to get the "big picture" in their minds and make everything consistent. The "advantage" you describe cannot cancel it all out.

 

Workload, eh... if the standerd in RPG-land has been 40 hours wouldn't the workload then be equal to the "standerd". A 20 hour game would already been a great reliever...

And on the "big picture" you before commented how everybody was seperated onto their own part etc. etc. so WHAT "big picture"?

 

That isn't even correct english, what are you saying?

 

That if your new tools alter so much as that the existing content is no longer functioning you can try alter the tools differently than to remake all the content; how hard it may seem that a step back can ALSO be taken with tools...

 

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.

 

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.

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!!!"

"Eh, no, we found this battle too easy and added a monster" "

 

Sorry for double post...quoting broke with so many...

[Dark_Raven]

well, first thing tomorrow Gromnir is gonna send off emails to every internet gaming magazine we can gets an email addy for... asks them if they know the truth behind the rumors that the nwn2 oc will only be 20 hours long... reference the german gaming magazine article. 

 

emails is wasteful to get developers or publishers to do something, but perhaps we can puts the people at gamespot and ign to good use for a change.

 

please join Gromnir in his reasonable efforts to shed a teeny-weeny bit o' light on this issue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is Gromnir still in the dark after all of the posting that has transpired? We think Gromnir needs to reread through all nineteen pages.

[Dark_Raven]

Replay value is a nice bonus. But it is just that. It shouldnt be used to make a short game appear longer than it is.

 

Less people replay games, than play games for more than 20 hours.

 

I just finished a particularly taxing sidequest and now we are kicking back in the casino

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Replay value is a big thing with me. I have replayed the Fallout, Baldur's Gate series, Icewind Dale, Kotors to the point I have lost track of how many times I played them.

[poolofpoo]

20 hours for the main quest is about right, if it's 20 hours when doing _everything_ in the game it's a tad too short.

 

A crpg must be extremely good to keep the average player going after 20 hours. And even if it's a great game you come to a point where you just want it to be over with so you can get on with you life. BG2 was clearly too long, i didn't feel any satisfaction after completing it, i felt dirty for having spent 200 hours playing a computer game.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Replay value is a big thing with me. I have replayed the Fallout, Baldur's Gate series, Icewind Dale, Kotors to the point I have lost track of how many times I played them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The thing with replay value is you really dont know if you are going to replay the game till you actually play it.

[Llyranor]

And you don't know if you'll finish it till you play it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And you don't know if you'll finish it till you play it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True.That was one of the reasons Feargus gave for making a 20 hour game.

 

Whether you get more value from a 60 hour game you abandon after 40 hours, or a 20 hour complete game.

[Gromnir]

am working on puting together a list of useful email addys for game magazine writers/editors. is tougher to track these guys down than we first thought.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[astr0creep]

Replayability!

[alanschu]

Labor is always the huge expense.  The created content is also a sunk cost.  Take an economics class!

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

Occam's Razor.  Why not?

 

Because HL2's Source was finalised and Vampire's not...

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

Now onto your devs (who are only in this argument this and your previous post ) why should there be any additional added. The creator of the code will alter it and then the QA can once again attack. If the code isn't fixed yet the QA can't really do alot so how can they give this coder more work then? As you might have noticed in the Dev. Center place Bulock said once he hanged around here often because he couldn't work cause bugs where being fixed...

 

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

Edited April 26, 2006 by alanschu

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Then why was the game such a horrible buggy mess? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Previous two games were horrible buggy messes too. Troika trademark.

[Volourn]

"The thing with replay value is you really dont know if you are going to replay the game till you actually play it."

 

Eh? You don't even know a game is good until you play it. Afterall, before I played DQ8, I thought I would like it. I was wrong. Wasted time, and money. Well.. wasted time for my brother, anyways. Well.. not really.. he actually liked it.. the fool. :D

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Eh? You don't even know a game is good until you play it. Afterall, before I played DQ8, I thought I would like it. I was wrong. Wasted time, and money. Well.. wasted time for my brother, anyways. Well.. not really.. he actually liked it.. the fool. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do , with the odd exception. But whether or not I would replay it, well thats a different matter.

 

Well he probably played it long enough to actually unlock some skills.

[Volourn]

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.