Big patches after release?

[daven]

I am not sure if this thread is pure gold or just rubbish…

 

Well done everyone! Or is it well done⸮

 

…

 

☺

Too much verbiage!

Edited January 23, 2018 by daven

[JerekKruger]

And you'd be surprised learning how many of the best creative works, innovations and inventions have come about by pure chance, mistakes, the use of contingency plans, or just ad-libbing.

Also how many great works of art were hard by their creators because they never felt they could get them right. Apparently they lacked "vision".

[Sedrefilos]

tbh, I don't want them to release any patches is the sense that I want the game to be as good as it can get from the start. I just want, if they're into doing so of course, a meaty expansion that would continue the story. You know, like it used to be

[Mannock]

tbh, I don't want them to release any patches is the sense that I want the game to be as good as it can get from the start. I just want, if they're into doing so of course, a meaty expansion that would continue the story. You know, like it used to be

 

When was it ever like that? There's always been patching. Even before the general introduction of Internet. They sent floppydisks to you with patches via the regular mail. 

 

So yes, there will be patches. And it's a good thing because it will mean a better product for all of us.

[Wormerine]

tbh, I don't want them to release any patches is the sense that I want the game to be as good as it can get from the start. I just want, if they're into doing so of course, a meaty expansion that would continue the story. You know, like it used to be

That would be ideal yes. Its true than ability to easily release patches after release led to attitude "lets release it and see what happens." Another thing is that patches were always a thing (I remember having to download patches for my copy of BG2 everytime I installed it) and another is that if game had issues those would be left unfixed. For that reason I tend to wait for "Game of the Year" edition of most games unless I am really interested in the product. Buying on day 1 you get the worst product for the highest price. That's just how it is. The same is true with physical products as well.

[Sedrefilos]

 

tbh, I don't want them to release any patches is the sense that I want the game to be as good as it can get from the start. I just want, if they're into doing so of course, a meaty expansion that would continue the story. You know, like it used to be

 

When was it ever like that? There's always been patching. Even before the general introduction of Internet. They sent floppydisks to you with patches via the regular mail. 

 

So yes, there will be patches. And it's a good thing because it will mean a better product for all of us.

 

I never ever patched a game during the before steam era and noone ever mentioned them. Unless you were really involved in a game community you'd never notice. I usually would download or buy a years later edition of a game and be like "oh, includes patch 1.01. Cool whatever it is". Developers were making them, yes, but the games didn't really need them - they were complete and played good. Now most games are blatantly unfinished or unpolished on release and patches are mandatory. Pillars 1 was good at release and, although patched made it better, if they never made them, it would still be good and most wouldn't care that much.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Sedrefilos

[Mannock]

I never ever patched a game during the before steam era and noone ever mentioned them. Unless you were really involved in a game community you'd never notice. I usually would download a years later edition of a game and be like "oh, includes patch 1.01. Cool whatever it is". Developers were making them, yes, but the games didn't really need them - they were complete and played good. Now most games are blatantly unfinished or unpolished on release and patches are mandatory. Pillars 1 was good at release and, although patched made it better, if they never made them, it would still be good and most wouldn't care that much.

 

 

 

 

Well, games have become much more complicated over the years. You can't compare a game made in 1989 to PoE2. They were not more polished back then, just a lot more simple than compared today. That's why in some cases you could live without a patch.

[Lord_Mord]

 

Sibelius’ Violin Concerto in D minor, op. 47

 

I don't know. Seems a little bit ... fuzzy to me. Visionwise.

 

Strong start but whole passages of that thing only consist of meandering around, sometimes the oboes or other instruments kick in a bit, as if they don't really know if it's already time. During the Adagio it gets worse. Like the soundtrack to a sad romantic movie about two undecided persons with a very short attention span.

 

Unless ... unless the vision was that of a violin that was being shot at and is dying lonely in the woods. Small glimpses of hope here and there, but deep down we know the wound is terminal and in the end the oboes will get it. (OK, not the oboes. The other violins. But that is kind of sick and not that funny.)

 

But what do I know? Maybe I'm just a little simple-minded. I'm a guy that mixes Bach with Captain Beefheart. But both of them got vision, nobody can deny that. So had Keith Emerson, Moondog, Meredith Monk, James Joyce, Burroughs, even Ayn Rand that stupid maniac and tons of other people, that simply didn't give a **** about customer feedback.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Lord_Mord

[Sedrefilos]

 

I never ever patched a game during the before steam era and noone ever mentioned them. Unless you were really involved in a game community you'd never notice. I usually would download a years later edition of a game and be like "oh, includes patch 1.01. Cool whatever it is". Developers were making them, yes, but the games didn't really need them - they were complete and played good. Now most games are blatantly unfinished or unpolished on release and patches are mandatory. Pillars 1 was good at release and, although patched made it better, if they never made them, it would still be good and most wouldn't care that much.

 

 

 

 

Well, games have become much more complicated over the years. You can't compare a game made in 1989 to PoE2. They were not more polished back then, just a lot more simple than compared today. That's why in some cases you could live without a patch.

 

I was talking mostly about the late 90's and early 00's (that were closer to what Pillars is) but anyway

[Wormerine]

 

 

Sibelius’ Violin Concerto in D minor, op. 47

 

I don't know. Seems a little bit ... fuzzy to me. Visionwise.

 

Strong start but whole passages of that thing only consist of meandering around, sometimes the oboes or other instruments kick in a bit, as if they don't really know if it's already time. During the Adagio it gets worse. Like the soundtrack to a sad romantic movie about two undecided persons with a very short attention span.

 

Unless ... unless the vision was that of a violin that was being shot at and is dying lonely in the woods. Small glimpses of hope here and there, but deep down we know the wound is terminal and in the end the oboes will get it. (OK, not the oboes. The other violins. But that is kind of sick and not that funny.)

 

But what do I know? Maybe I'm just a little simple-minded. I'm a guy that mixes Bach with Captain Beefheart. But both of them got vision, nobody can deny that. So had Keith Emerson, Moondog, Meredith Monk, James Joyce, Burroughs, even Ayn Rand that stupid maniac and tons of other people, that simply didn't give a **** about customer feedback.

HOW DARE YOU! Also whose performance did you listen to. I personally, like my violinists vintage, russian and, probably by now, dead.

 

Therefore, Papa Oistrakh everyone:

 

lol Sibelius was very much nationalistic composer. Many of his works are promoting Finnish "spirit" often painting landscapes. I think this concerto doesn't wonderful job at that, with chilly, icy but lyrical opening and lots of storm within the concerto. Also we, classical musicians, are all bleeding hearts - the more depressing and sad the better:-D.

[Tigranes]

 

 

tbh, I don't want them to release any patches is the sense that I want the game to be as good as it can get from the start. I just want, if they're into doing so of course, a meaty expansion that would continue the story. You know, like it used to be

 

When was it ever like that? There's always been patching. Even before the general introduction of Internet. They sent floppydisks to you with patches via the regular mail. 

 

So yes, there will be patches. And it's a good thing because it will mean a better product for all of us.

 

I never ever patched a game during the before steam era and noone ever mentioned them. Unless you were really involved in a game community you'd never notice. I usually would download or buy a years later edition of a game and be like "oh, includes patch 1.01. Cool whatever it is". Developers were making them, yes, but the games didn't really need them - they were complete and played good. Now most games are blatantly unfinished or unpolished on release and patches are mandatory. Pillars 1 was good at release and, although patched made it better, if they never made them, it would still be good and most wouldn't care that much.

 

 

No. That may well be your personal experience, but patches, and bugs, have been a part of PC gaming for almost its entire history.

 

It's true that in the 80s, you didn't exactly have weekly updates, and sometimes they'd just start selling newly patched versions in stores without even really bothering to tell people it's been updated. But as Mannock says, even in the floppy disk era you had a convention of getting replacement disks - and in some cases, you were an individual user encdountering a game-breaking bug, mailing in your own disk and save to the creators for a specific fix.

 

Games were being rushed out the door due to the same pressures as today - set marketing schedules, budget issues, etc. - at least as early as the early 90s, and you already had many reports of high profile games shipping with bad / unplayable bugs needing patches.

 

Of course, the Internet, then rising bandwidths and paltforms like Steam, would then facilitate higher frequency patching. And although some people now see it as an annoyance, it's important to note just how many benefits that brought. Games, as a whole, are buggy and always have been, and frequent patching did not 'cause' companies to feel it's ok to release bad games. At best, that's a minor side effect. What frequent patching does allow is for these games to be corrected and improved in ways that gamers and devleopers could only wish for in the past.

 

POE specifically made a huge amount of 'modifications' to balance / systems rather than bugfixes, which of course raises understandable frustration from certain kinds of gamers. But it's also important to note that there are many people who thought the game had improved measurably through these patches, and that this not only made the final product far superior to 1.01, but also improved the game's longevity. No, I can't give you a statistical breakdown of which group is larger. I doubt you can, either. In the absence of any such evidence, I think the wise thing is to take both groups seriously, rather than make the unprovable claim that 'most wouldn't care'. (if anything, it might be that 'most' buyers don't care or notice either way, and don't actively support either position.)

Edited January 23, 2018 by Tigranes

[the_dog_days]

This thread is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. Thanks guys.

[Ninjamestari]

Pigeons are funny creatures, and there's a whole flock of them here. The only thing you have to do in order to attract them is bring in a chessboard. they think they're good at the game. ^^

 

After you've attracted the initial flock, they'll bring in others who are too afraid to play but they love to watch and comment.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Ninjamestari

[TheisEjsing]

Pigeons are funny creatures, and there's a whole flock of them here. The only thing you have to do in order to attract them is bring in a chessboard. they think they're good at the game. ^^

I'm curious. Sorry if you wrote it before, but what line of work are you in? I'm asking because in my line of work a pure vision is an impossibility to execute. There are way too many external factors, and random elements etc. for something like purity to ever function.

[Boeroer]

Then what attracted the peac0ck?

Edited January 24, 2018 by Boeroer

[Lord_Mord]

 

HOW DARE YOU! Also whose performance did you listen to. I personally, like my violinists vintage, russian and, probably by now, dead.

 

Therefore, Papa Oistrakh everyone:

 

Wow. That makes a big difference. I almost like it that way. Still not my taste, but I think I can dig it now. I listened to Soyoung Yoon with Poznań Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Marek Pijarowski. She plays it way to nicely. Compared to Oistrakh it sounds like the soundtrack to a fantasy movie.

 

 

lol Sibelius was very much nationalistic composer. Many of his works are promoting Finnish "spirit" often painting landscapes. I think this concerto doesn't wonderful job at that, with chilly, icy but lyrical opening and lots of storm within the concerto.

Being nationalistic doesn't automatically mean that you have a vision. Many people confuse that these days. You can't just borrow a vision.

 

 

Also we, classical musicians, are all bleeding hearts - the more depressing and sad the better:-D.

 

I am using Xan as a profile pic, so as you can imagine, I can pretty much identify with that. It is not the tone that I don't like about Sibelius, it is the pathos. In my opinion pathos buries the vision under theatrical gestures and inappropriate emotional overstatements. But then again... How do you musically paint a finnish landscape without pathos?

 

(Sry, if I sound pretentious. I can't always find the right words in english)

Edited January 24, 2018 by Lord_Mord

[Lord_Mord]

 

Pigeons are funny creatures, and there's a whole flock of them here. The only thing you have to do in order to attract them is bring in a chessboard. they think they're good at the game. ^^

 

After you've attracted the initial flock, they'll bring in others who are too afraid to play but they love to watch and comment.

 

I'm kind of on your side on the vision topic, but man: You are an arrogant son of a bitch.

 

Regarding your argumentation style you are the pigeon here. I even took back a like yesterday, because I didn't wan't to support that anymore.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Lord_Mord

[Wormerine]

 

HOW DARE YOU! Also whose performance did you listen to. I personally, like my violinists vintage, russian and, probably by now, dead.

Therefore, Papa Oistrakh everyone:

 

Wow. That makes a big difference. I almost like it that way. Still not my taste, but I think I can dig it now. I listened to Soyoung Yoon with Poznań Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Marek Pijarowski. She plays it way to nicely. Compared to Oistrakh it sounds like the soundtrack to a fantasy movie. 

 

Ah yeah. She is a very capable violinist but... well, they don't make violinist as they used to. Today, there is tendency to flat everything out, play in tune, nice sounds, do what dynamics are in the music, but it's rare to find conviction and impact older players had. 

 

 

 

lol Sibelius was very much nationalistic composer. Many of his works are promoting Finnish "spirit" often painting landscapes. I think this concerto doesn't wonderful job at that, with chilly, icy but lyrical opening and lots of storm within the concerto.

Being nationalistic doesn't automatically mean that you have a vision. Many people confuse that these days. You can't just borrow a vision.

I guess, this is where years of history of music kickes in for me. I do see how ideal of XVIII/XIX century can clash with more modern sensibilities. At that time, being able to incomperate ones origin, folk music and national identity was a big deal. For many centuries music was dictated by few "centers of culture" - Vienna being one of them for a long time. When individual composers decided not to cater to foreign standards but to write music which was close to them and their local audience it was  a big deal - we got guys like Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, Smetana etc. It brought new sounds, forms, rhythms and flavour into an established and old structure and widened up the musical world. This trend to some extend continues to this day, with new and new cultures marrying old tradition of "western" music making with local tradition and sounds - chinese compositons like the "Butterfly Concerto" in XX century or more recently mixing in Persian music.

 

Before World Wars arts tend to be much more optimistic, proud. At the start of XXc we got Richard Strauss and Wagner, which I personnaly can't stand, as their music so closely resembles arrogant and selfcentered philosophies, which led to the Wars. After the Wars we all went a bit coocoo:

 

[Wormerine]

Now I am like that guy posting videos of IMCF - my passions has hijacked the thread!

[JerekKruger]

Now I am like that guy posting videos of IMCF - my passions has hijacked the thread!

 

Given the way this thread has gone that's not necessarily a bad thing 

 

That said this thread has been highly entertaining.

[Lord_Mord]

 

Now I am like that guy posting videos of IMCF - my passions has hijacked the thread!

 

I would love to continue, but enough is enough, I guess However your view on nationalist composers was very interesting. I never saw it that way. I always subsumed those kind of composers under "Naziguys like Wagner, but from elsewhere". Thanks for the talk.

[Wormerine]

 

 

Now I am like that guy posting videos of IMCF - my passions has hijacked the thread!

 

I would love to continue, but enough is enough, I guess However your view on nationalist composers was very interesting. I never saw it that way. I always subsumed those kind of composers under "Naziguys like Wagner, but from elsewhere". Thanks for the talk.

 

Anytime.

[Ninjamestari]

 

Pigeons are funny creatures, and there's a whole flock of them here. The only thing you have to do in order to attract them is bring in a chessboard. they think they're good at the game. ^^

I'm curious. Sorry if you wrote it before, but what line of work are you in? I'm asking because in my line of work a pure vision is an impossibility to execute. There are way too many external factors, and random elements etc. for something like purity to ever function.

 

 

Software. Games, like software, are essentially just math and logic, allowing for a rather clear vision. I'm talking about mechanics here of course, Obsidian has never had problems with their artistic vision.

[algroth]

After the Wars we all went a bit coocoo:

 

And Penderecki is downright *accessible* compared to some others too! (Love that piece by the way)

[Wormerine]

And Penderecki is downright *accessible* compared to some others too! (Love that piece by the way)

Yeah, I do love Penderecki. Quite powerful. But there are some I never comprehended. Apparently the following isn’t supposed to be funny.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOIkT1-QWY