New NWN2 OC estimate of 30-40 hrs

[Spider]

Oh? You disputing BIO's claim that the majority of people only play games once and do so the good way only?

 

You are so quick to accept their other asertions but that one?

 

It's not the fact that doesn't make sense, it's the analogy. If we're talking about cutting completely it works, but if we're talking about cutting at release and patching it in at a later date, then it falls apart at the seems.

[Hassat Hunter]

What are you saying?  What are you talking about with respect to going backwards and reverting?  Because it's quite obvious that they did not do that with respect to the DM Client, because the DM Client doesn't work any more.

 

*Sigh* And it seemed to make so much sense to me.

Anyways; in the "How short is too short" you commented the crew can hardly make any map and quest progress with a half-done engine. I responded with a Why not? If they get conflicting issues they just return to an older copy of the engine and try it a different way or they adjust the content so it did work. You said that was not possible since that way there was no way for advancement and it would overly complicate things. It would also take more time than to just make the engine first and then all that later. Conclusion being engine had to be almost completely finalised before work on content and toolset could begin.

Now the current thread steps in. IF they had so much engine adjusting etc. that the DM client of the original NWN didn't work, why didn't they find out sooner? As that had to be discovered then pretty soon at the begin of dev cycle? Or was there some content or toolset issue that made the DM client unworkable? Seems odd to me since these 3 are pretty much supposed to be independant (ofcourse the toolset is needed to make the OC, but that is not the point now ). Either they were really sloppy or your statement that the engine is near-fully-functionality (to the point of no adding of stuff that can cause inconsistencies; only minor things easy to adapt to all available stuff...) was wrong.

Which would it be?

Or did OE did do some major engine change so late that caused inconsistencies, not only dooming the DMC, but also being the cause of the major cuttings?

 

Why not? They just call it a content patch, and pimp it as and now you can play NWN2 the evil way... just download it for free!!!

 

Clearly you haven't learned yet. Content "patches" are supposed to cost between $1.99 and $2.49

 

It's not the fact that doesn't make sense, it's the analogy. If we're talking about cutting completely it works, but if we're talking about cutting at release and patching it in at a later date, then it falls apart at the seems

 

There is even a worse part than these 2. The cutting of things without re-adding where the costumer can notice the cutting. So in order of being worse (lease worse on top):

1. Just cutting it. If that happens without a dev. EVER noticing it would be ingame it causes no damage to anyone. Afterall we didn't know about it; so how could we complain?

2. Cut it and then offer it later. Face it; Folks don't like to get incomplete games. Even if they get the content later they rather have it right away. And who blames them? The longer it takes the more annoyed costumers get too and that isn't good for buisness...

3. Cut it and leave it noticable ingame (patch version). Worst a dev can have is actual cutting being visible ingame. Everybody cuts content out of there game but when you hide it really bad people expect to actually get it. If there are loads of hints to Factory X people expect to get there and finish that storyline. Patching it up helps to heal the wounds a bit but severe damage is already caused.

4. Cut it and leave it noticable ingame (non-patched version). Well, you cannot get any worser than this. Costumers notice missing stuff and not getting what they deem they deserved won't make for happy costumers. See the Kotor2 forums in May for example. Lockdown of the entire forums announcement and stuff remember?

Edited May 13, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[Volourn]

"It's not the fact that doesn't make sense, it's the analogy. If we're talking about cutting completely it works, but if we're talking about cutting at release and patching it in at a later date, then it falls apart at the seems."

 

Why not? They just call it a content patch, and pimp it as and now you can play NWN2 the evil way... just download it for free!!!

Edited May 13, 2006 by Volourn

[alanschu]

Anyways; in the "How short is too short" you commented the crew can hardly make any map and quest progress with a half-done engine. I responded with a Why not? If they get conflicting issues they just return to an older copy of the engine and try it a different way or they adjust the content so it did work. You said that was not possible since that way there was no way for advancement and it would overly complicate things. It would also take more time than to just make the engine first and then all that later. Conclusion being engine had to be almost completely finalised before work on content and toolset could begin.

 

Because the impression that I was getting from you in the How Short is Too Short discussion wasn't about going back and fixing the tools when an error happened and starting from the old build, but that designers could bounce back and forth between different versions of the toolsets.

 

In any case, the point I was making in the How Short is Too Short discussion with respect to evolving Toolsets, is that sometimes the Toolset evolves in such a way that stuff designed previously doesn't work (I think we can agree that this doesn't happen).

 

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 assumed here you were talking about using a Toolset Editor, and not "editing the toolset" (i.e. tweaking the toolset).

 

Even then, a problem with working with an evolving Toolset is that sometimes as the toolset evolves, it is unable to continue working with existing stuff. Content created with a toolset later found to contain bugs can easily compromise the integrity of all that content created. If you're lucky, it's not a big deal. If you're unlucky, you're redoing that content. And it's not just as simple as keeping the original idea and adding in the new idea. This may result in the error proliferating, as well as increases code bloat.

 

This also becomes a problem if the designer ends up mistaking an error in the Toolset for just how it works. For instance, a hypothetical example could involve the Script Compiler. If the parser for the compiler has a subtle error in it, scripts could be written that successfully compile and run appropriately. However, when that error is found in the Parser and fixed because of a certain situation where a script wouldn't successfully compile, the parser will have to be changed. But it cannot necessarily accept the previous implementation because there may be logical inconsistencies with how it is presented. So you'll need to change every script that has this error.

 

Though as an aside, this example is relatively minor and can be easily fixed with minimal effort. I just thought of it because of an experience I had while programming an assignment where it turns out the compiler I was using had a bug in it, and to get my code working I ended up working around it (I didn't realize it was a bug in the compiler, since I'm no expert on compilers, and assumed the error was in my code). When the new compiler came out, this bug was fixed. In the end it ended up making more sense, but I had to go back and fix all places where it was an issue.

 

There's other, much more severe details than can become an issue. It could turn out the a particular event handler is hideously slow. The Tools team could recognize this later when they start running into issues with it that weren't initially noticed. When the implementation is changed, parts of the code that used the original now break, and it needs to be updated with the optimized code. The team could decide to keep legacy support, but if they figure it's too computationally expensive, it may be in the best interests of the final product to axe the original implementation of that handler altogether, as it could help prevent issues down the road.

 

 

And since I obviously wasn't very clear, content creation does not need a 100% perfect and working toolset. But in my experience it does need to have a relatively finalized toolset, particularly with respect to various aspects. Placing abstract or conceptual designs can be possible. But when, in the middle of the project, the programming team decides it's necessary to rewrite parts of the core engine (including the entire graphics engine), suddenly there's no guarantee if the existing decisions on the toolset and how it implements things are going to continue to be useful. They could design the new parts of the engine around the existing tools and whatnot, but this creates code bloat and can affect performance. Especially when it's something that wants to be as optimized as possible such as a graphics engine.

[alanschu]

"It's not the fact that doesn't make sense, it's the analogy. If we're talking about cutting completely it works, but if we're talking about cutting at release and patching it in at a later date, then it falls apart at the seems."

 

Why not? They just call it a content patch, and pimp it as and now you can play NWN2 the evil way... just download it for free!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I suspect it's a bit of an issue with the prevalency of games getting patched (for all we know, it's still a small subset of total customers that buy a game).

[Hassat Hunter]

Thnx, that was quite an informative text.

 

But with so many things that go wrong on making things suitable doesn't it make one fearfull when they just recently started converting the DMC, and may have it only finalised after retail launch. Finalised... without the proper testing and stuff. And I doubt a DMC is easy to test with the many things that should be possible with it...

 

It may take a long while for us to DL it then; or it may be bugridden...

[Spider]

"It's not the fact that doesn't make sense, it's the analogy. If we're talking about cutting completely it works, but if we're talking about cutting at release and patching it in at a later date, then it falls apart at the seems."

 

Why not? They just call it a content patch, and pimp it as and now you can play NWN2 the evil way... just download it for free!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Simple. Acoording to what you have said in the past, most people play through the game only once. You're actually using that as the basis for this whole line of arguing. So if the stuff you're talking about isn't in the game when people start a new game, they're never going to see it at all even if it gets patched in. Also, having these things in the game affects people that don't use them as well. RPGs are about creating choices and if they for instance take out the evil option, they remove my ability to choose good. Then it becomes more of an adventure game or a hackfest.

 

The people using the DM Client are people that plan on using the game for a long time. There probably won't even be much use for the DM client for the first month or so of the games existance.

 

Edit: And as alanschu said, how many people actually apply patches to their games? That hadn't actually crossed my mind, but it's a valid point. Everyone interested in the DM Client will be online and they will be patching (ok, maybe there is one guy or five that creates mods to dm for his/her gang of friends, neither who likes or has acces to patches, but that figure is so miniscule that it can be ignored).

Edited May 14, 2006 by Spider

[mkreku]

The first thing I do when installing a new game is go online and look for patches. That's actually a sad thing, because that tells us a lot about the state of PC gaming as it is. I'm so used to buying broken software that it's become a habit for me to look for fixes before even trying the game.

 

Somehow I don't think I'm unique in that aspect.

[metadigital]

I blame Microsoft!

 

Well, I guess it was the culture of continual update, helped in no small amount by the AV industry ... but M$ is a bigger, more popular and therefore much more fun target ... "

 

I don't see it as a huge problem, though ... after all, it's not like broadband is a luxury: over half the UK have it, for example, and dowloading allows for a longer, more effective use of the development cycle (which would normally end about a month before the game ships, as DVD production takes a minimum amount of time to reproduce the gold code onto thousands of plastic platters ...)

[Haitoku]

The first thing I do when installing a new game is go online and look for patches. That's actually a sad thing, because that tells us a lot about the state of PC gaming as it is. I'm so used to buying broken software that it's become a habit for me to look for fixes before even trying the game.

 

Somehow I don't think I'm unique in that aspect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do that as well.

 

Not only that, but sometimes I won't even play a game until a patch is issued...

 

But, is it even possible for a PC game to work %100 out of the box without any issues these days?

[mr insomniac]

Blame that on the diversity of hardware configurations. Many games I've played, and followed on forums, I've seen people post about bugs/issues/crashes that I never encountered at all, and vice-versa. Unfortunately, no way way to know for sure that a game will work on every PC until after release.

[Hassat Hunter]

BW casts "Revive +1"

 

In a preview in the PCGameplay Feargus said the following about gametime;

Main-quest only 30 hours

+(large part of the) Side quests 40+ hours

 

There could be other new info in the preview, but I didn't really follow NWN2 production, so I have no idea what is already well known and what not...

[astr0creep]

30-40 hours is decent. Should please everyone.

 

Yes. Everyone.

[Arkan]

30-40 hours is decent. Should please everyone.

 

Yes. Everyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sounds good to me. I usually take my time with RPGs anyway. And since I'm a member of Chronic Restarters Anonymous, I usually get my money's worth.

[Ellester]

Patrick Mills: "We're actually not sure. Because we've been testing this, and we found that some people go through it very very quickly - we're looking at maybe 30-40 hrs for those guys. For those who want to spend more time, the campaign could possibly be 60 to even 100 hrs long."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This one is hilarious it goes from 30 hour to 100 hours. lol I just hope he is right and everyobne else is wrong.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Ellester

[Cantousent]

I don't doubt that such a long range extimate is accurate, however. The fact is, some folks will go through quickly and others will take their time. It's been about two weeks or so since the original debacle with the German mag. I'm willing to bet that a lot of folks take more than 40 hours on the first run.

 

If anything, I'm much more optimistic now about the length. Our questions are answered as best as anyone can answer them and even Feargus had something to say about length, which was inevitably going to happen as the project moved towards completion.

 

We should be happy with this news. The German mag citation was pretty shaky on its face and the assessment from multiple sources, all of whom are more reliable, is that the campaign will be longer.

 

Some folks are cynical, but it's ridiculous to believe that Obsidian would outright lie on this issue. There is no way to insulate themselves from the backlash if the campaign comes out considerably under their assessment. Saying "it was just an estimate" won't help. For that reason, and since I firmly believe they understand this at Obsidian, I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm going so far as to say that it makes more sense to believe them.

 

....And, if I'm wrong, I'll eat crow. Should that be the case, I'll be angry as hell since I will not only be denied the campaign I thought I'd get, but I'll also have to admit I was fooled. Then I'll be part of the maddening throng out for blood.

 

However, I'm calling it now and I think the average campaign, and we'll have to agree how to assess that at the time, will be 30 hours or more.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Eldar

[Sargallath Abraxium]

Its not Bio Jr.

 

Its BIObsidian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

...that's my line, lad...I's'll let ya borrow it this time, though...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Nathaniel Chapman]

First off, I was not lying, have never lied to you guys, and have no intention of lying in the future.

 

What I did was respond to someone who said that the OC was going to be "pared down". I felt that was innacurate. Someone brought up the 20+ hours estimate, and that stuff had been cut since that estimate was made. The assumption being that we'd be left with a 10-15 hour OC. That is not the case.

 

First, 20 hours was a pre-production estimate made BEFORE any significant amount of the game was completable. Obsidian QA's current estimate was what I posted. I probably won't make any specific future posts on the subject, but if that estimate changes I'm sure we'll release further information about it. Or, if you're really concerned about it, you can always find out how long the game will be from reviews.

 

I want to stress that regardless of how many hours you complete the campaign in, it is NOT a short campaign. You visit a lot of different places, pick up lots of companions and have interesting interactions with them, complete many quests, etc. etc. A significant amount of content from cut areas has found its way into other areas, and IS in the final product - and some content has even been added since the 20+ hour estimate was made.

 

I can understand people being skeptical, but you have to understand the position I'm coming from. It's not my job to hype the game - I'm a QA manager. I was simply providing what information I can and trying to explain the difference in the original target for the length of the campaign and what we are seeing in QA.

[Volourn]

[Darque]

[Gorth]

[Volourn]

I am going to puke, and the sad irony is that's it my own damn fualt this 'trend' began....

 

 

 

P.S. We got our alignments back, our length the way it is, now we just need Obsidian to detail the bleed + death system they plan to implement.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Volourn

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...fer some reason, this li'l "discussion" reminds me o' the fun we's had wit' the rumor mill durin' IWD2's production...more's the pity... "

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[kirottu]

First off, I was not lying, have never lied to you guys, and have no intention of lying in the future.

 

What I did was respond to someone who said that the OC was going to be "pared down".  I felt that was innacurate.  Someone brought up the 20+ hours estimate, and that stuff had been cut since that estimate was made.  The assumption being that we'd be left with a 10-15 hour OC.  That is not the case.

 

First, 20 hours was a pre-production estimate made BEFORE any significant amount of the game was completable.  Obsidian QA's current estimate was what I posted.  I probably won't make any specific future posts on the subject, but if that estimate changes I'm sure we'll release further information about it.  Or, if you're really concerned about it, you can always find out how long the game will be from reviews.

 

I want to stress that regardless of how many hours you complete the campaign in, it is NOT a short campaign.  You visit a lot of different places, pick up lots of companions and have interesting interactions with them, complete many quests, etc. etc.  A significant amount of content from cut areas has found its way into other areas, and IS in the final product - and some content has even been added since the 20+ hour estimate was made.

 

I can understand people being skeptical, but you have to understand the position I'm coming from.  It's not my job to hype the game - I'm a QA manager.  I was simply providing what information I can and trying to explain the difference in the original target for the length of the campaign and what we are seeing in QA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I am going to puke, and the sad irony is that's it my own damn fualt this 'trend' began....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Edited May 26, 2006 by kirottu

[Cantousent]

:Eldar's icon: