Slashdot Mirror


Bethesda Criticized Over Buggy Releases

SSDNINJA writes "This editorial discusses the habit of Bethesda Softworks to release broken and buggy games with plans to just fix the problems later. Following a trend of similar issues coming up in their games, the author begs gamers to stop supporting buggy games and to spread the idea that games should be finished and quality controlled before release – not weeks after."

58 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Black Ops by devbox · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not only Bethesda, the today-released Black Ops game is unplayable on multiplayer. Huge lag for every player and there's no point playing it until patch.

    1. Re:Black Ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't buy games before 1 or 2 patches have been released. Buying shortly after release means, you're asking for it.

    2. Re:Black Ops by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem therein is that all the publishers really give a crap about is first-month sales. Chances are, if everyone is waiting for the game to be patched, then the patch will never see the light of day because they will assume the game failed and that's the end of it.

      There was a time that the main rallying cry of the console gamers who didn't want to play on PC was "it just works" when they put the disc into the console. But now, with the advent of online-enabled consoles, so much for that. Xbox and PS3 gamers are forced to sit through the old "ship now, patch later" setup, and woe to someone who has an offline console and simply has to suffer through the bugs - since none of the companies are interested in putting their fucking game patches in a USB-storage compatible file for offline updating.

      I'd say that the Wii doesn't have so much of this, but then there was the game-breaking Metroid: Other M bug, as well as the 5-6 other bugged doors that wouldn't "break" the game but would prevent 100% completion. And of course, most of the 3rd-parties writing for the Wii these days aren't doing quality control since they're simply shovelware houses putting out crappy knockoffs.

    3. Re:Black Ops by Moryath · · Score: 2, Informative

      Game-Breaking Bug.

      Officially acknowledged by Nintendo. What's worse, their "solution" involved gamers actually mailing an SD card to them to have the savefile "repaired."

      Insanity.

    4. Re:Black Ops by Moryath · · Score: 2, Informative

      Other M was worse, though, in that they actually had ammo pickups you had to find AFTER the last boss was dead.

      Not quite. There's a "secret boss" in the after-game "run around to find the rest of the crap" setup.

    5. Re:Black Ops by Stick32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...There was a time that the main rallying cry of the console gamers who didn't want to play on PC was "it just works" when they put the disc into the console. But now, with the advent of online-enabled consoles, so much for that. Xbox and PS3 gamers are forced to sit through the old "ship now, patch later" setup...

      I think you need to take off the rose colored filter off your nostalgia. There has always been buggy console games. There has always been good games that were ruined by game breaking bugs. Are there games that get released today that would have spent another month in QA 10 years ago? Maybe...

    6. Re:Black Ops by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because Nintendo's policy on updating Wii games via patches is to simply not allow it. Good, in that in should help ensure quality if companies don't get to patch their buggy-ass game later to save themselves, but bad when something like this happens.

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    7. Re:Black Ops by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There have always been buggy games, but we're talking major bugs (and not bugs that are buried away and hard to find, serious bugs that are apparent while playing the basic game as intended) in what should be the year's A-list games. Fable III and Fallout New Vegas are huge games with budgets that reflect that and yet both were released with blatant issues and promises of patches almost immediately. That's not a few bugs slipping through the net, that to me is evidence of companies knowingly releasing broken games because they know they can patch them post release and still meet their pre-order deadlines/the Christmas rush. It's greed trumping quality assurance, plain and simple. Now 10 years ago you certainly saw buggy games, but they felt like bugs that were missed during the development/QA process, today many of the bugs are so obvious they simply couldn't have been missed and must point to the release-then-patch culture in action.

    8. Re:Black Ops by The+Moof · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was a time that the main rallying cry of the console gamers who didn't want to play on PC was "it just works" when they put the disc into the console.

      It's funny how the roles have reversed. I chat with my friends who purchased Fallout: New Vegas for their consoles, and we trade stories about bugs. The "release now, patch later" mentality has resulted in bugs getting fixed quicker for the PC since there's no certification process. Combine that with the bugs can be fixed via entering console commands on the PC, and the PC version of the game ends up being more playable than the console counterparts.

    9. Re:Black Ops by rgviza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every game has a budget in a publicly traded company. When the budget money is gone the game gets released whether or not it's finished. That's just how big software works. Bethesda Softworks was one of the companies that actually cared and used to release quality games. Then they got bought by Zenimax media. Now they have to answer to investors and stock holders. A nearly instant reduction in game release quality was the result. Game design quality is next. IMHO Zenimax will destroy this company, just like EA destroyed every company they've bought. id software and Bethesda Game Studios will be pooched too. Watch...

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    10. Re:Black Ops by Golddess · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, then the company thinks "!@#$ pirates ruined our sales!"

      ftfy

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
  2. My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by RogueyWon · · Score: 3, Informative

    While the article summary doesn't mention Fallout: New Vegas, it's clear from both the context and TFA itself that this is really a New Vegas issue.

    I stuck some of my early (and mostly positive) thoughts on New Vegas's PC version in my journal a few days ago. Being in Europe, I only got the game after the first PC patch had been released, so I never got to see the PC version at its worst. Having now finished a 35 hour playthrough of the game, I can offer a slightly more comprehensive run-down of the bugs I did hit. Obviously, this is just my experience; your mileage may vary depending on your hardware and luck-stat.

    The most common of the bugs is the Nvidia slowdown issue. This is annoying, particularly because my PC is massively ahead of the recommended specs, and because it often seems to occur at random, rather than just at "busy" times (though a few particular busy scenes will consistently cause slowdown). However, it's not going to stop you from completing the game and only had a minor impact on my enjoyment.

    I had a few crashes to desktop - maybe a dozen over the course of the 35 hour playthrough. These almost always seem to happen in specific areas. The killer area for me was the "outer" section of Freeside, particularly near the door to the Old Mormon Fort. At least half of my crashes happened while walking towards the Fort. After a while, I just got used to tapping quicksave before walking through that area. It was an irritation, but not a massive one.

    Quest bugs are potentially extremely serious. There are plenty of reports of quests being rendered uncompletable. In some cases, this can apply to main-plot quests, which is potentially game-breaking. I had three quests glitch on me over the course of the game. In two cases, it was a case of an NPC getting stuck in the middle of a scripted sequence and loading a quicksave fixed the problem without losing me more than 60 seconds or so of progress. The third case was more serious; several NPCs involved in a major sidequest refused to acknowledge my existence. This one cost me 45 minutes, as I had to go back to a proper save from before I started the quest (plus factor in additional time for trying to fix things before reverting to an old save).

    I had a fourth quest incident that may have been a bug or may have been sloppy script work. I pushed a quest towards a very specific resolution, but when I handed it in, the quest-giver seemed to be assuming that I'd engineered a slightly different set of outcomes. As I say, this might not be a bug, it might just be a (rare) incidence of bad writing.

    Beyond that, I didn't hit any of the other big bugs that have been reported. My followers worked as advertised (and are much improved from those in Fallout 3) and, most importantly, I had no problems with loading savegames. I think that the initial PC patch fixed those issues. There were a few small problems; monsters that sunk half way into the ground and stuff, but I don't tend to sweat that too much so long as it's only rare occurences.

    In short, the bugs are an irritation, but the game is very, very good. If even small bugs irritate you, then the game is probably best avoided for now. Otherwise, I would say that the PC version is playable enough right now to be worth your money and time. One of the advantages of the PC as a platform is that patches can be pushed much faster; if I was still waiting for the PS3 or 360 version patch, I'd probably be rather irritated by now.

    1. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      And so the game publishers have convinced you that bugs are not an issue. I hate to break it to you, but there are bugs reported on almost every quest (checkout the quests on fallout.wikia.com and see). Performance issues with a major video card manufacturer are also not a minor issue. The worst is that every Bethesda game (Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3) has had issues like this which shouldn't have made it past quality control. This isn't a one time thing. I've played all of these games, they are great games, but I will not buy Bethedsa games anymore until they release the Gamne of the Year edition which has the final patch (and usually a community patch to fix what Bethesda hasn't)

    2. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by wildstoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check the Bethsoft forums for a fix for the slowdown issue. It involves dumping a DirectX9 dll in your game directory.

      I was skeptical about the fix, and about running a random dll from the internet, but it really works.

      In busy areas I went from 30fps in Medium settings to 60fps in Ultra settings.

      The only side-effect I found was in alt-tabbing out of the game, the audio no longer continues playing, but rather it loops as if the game has stalled. I have no idea what happens if you alt-tab out for an extended period - perhaps the game crashes hard - but I was able to alt-tab out and in for short periods with no problems. There was some very minor audio skipping introduced as well, but you'd be hard pressed to notice it.

      For me, this was a small price to pay for the massive performance increase. This makes me suspect that the slowdown issue is due to some horrible DX10/11 "optimization" of background tasks or something, or maybe a change in the way the engine's subsystems are threaded.

      Either way, it's well worth a try.

    3. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I think you're exactly the kind of person that lets them get away with that crap. Hell, you've put me off the game for life in a few short paragraphs. I've played PC games for decades - I've seen my share of weird bugs and had to manually debug / patch quite a few myself. I also program myself so I know the avenues that things can take and know it's not really possible to have a "bug-free" game. But what you describe is *disgusting* for a retail product. I can't remember the last time I had any of the 200+ games on my Steam account crash - possibly a weird issue with Zombie Driver not likely a "fake" joystick driver I installed that I had to debug with the programmers because they hadn't seen it before.

      How you can then sum it up into a "mostly positive" review, I have no idea. To me, it reads:

      - The game has issues with the majority manufacturer of PC gaming graphics cards. This causes even way over-specced machines to run the game noticeably slow to the user.
      - The game crashes - a lot. Over 12 crashes in 35 hours is a crash every 2-3 hours. I don't accept that from buggy shell script glue, let alone a professional game. That stops any potential purchase for me dead in the water. Hell, I get annoyed if a game crashes 12 times in its LIFE on my machine that I can't attribute to something I did wrong (I can't name a single time that Half-life (any version) or the Doom series or the Quake series or the Unreal series has ever crashed on me and they all pushed the boundaries at the time - I can name some isolated incidents of crashes in L4D2 (when I run out of swap space and kept-Alt-Tabbing to try to fix it before something went wrong) and GTA3 (when it crashed twice on me and nearly got uninstalled for doing so).
      - The game has obvious, easily worked around bugs in poorly scripted cut sequences that render the game unplayable unless you happen to have an earlier save. It takes a second to write check-scripts for uncompletable quests and "somehow" fix them (by respawing the items in question, or just letting the user continue). You experienced three quests which glitched to the point the game was unplayable in the single run through of the game. God knows how many a testing team should have caught on random hardware.
      - You had display issues with sinking monsters that could easily make it possible for you to be attacked by invisible beings that the game is drawing in the wrong place.
      - There are other reports besides yours that almost every aspect of the game has bugs - from display to AI to sound to loading games to just plain crashing at random.

      And that's AFTER it's received a post-release patch! That's so bad that if I worked at the company, I'd be cringing and disassociating myself from it. When Frontier:Elite II was released, it had a reputation for being a very buggy game and that was nothing in comparison to what you describe.

      "In short, the bugs are an irritation, but the game is very, very good."

      The *gameplay* may be good, when it's not crashing, making you reload or just displaying everything in the wrong place. The game, however, sounds like shit. And those sorts of bugs are NOT an irritation - if I have to restart a program more than twice, I stop trusting it and start doing things like checking my hardware. I don't tolerate it from the operating system, I don't tolerate it for my firewall, or my office suite, why should I tolerate it from the one thing that I pick up and expect to work without me having to debug the damn machine? A crash a day is too much, for any single program. Hell, I get concerned about my machine if I get a crash each month and I run an XP image that's been following me around for the last 5 years without reinstallation on three different sets of hardware.

      Stop buying and tolerating this buggy crap. If a game crashes, that means that it nearly wrote over memory it shouldn't have and could corrupt your data, your operating system, even your hardware. You were "saved" by things like DEP and similar but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.

    4. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have to agree with both parents. ledow is right in thinking that a finished product should not contain this many bugs, but being a fan of Bethesda games myself, I understand the point that RogeyWon is trying to make. Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout are very good, and especially, huge games. After all the patches, Oblivion and Fallout 3 still crash randomly on me about every 3 hours on average, but I find the games so enjoyable, that I have learned to live with and forgive this nuisance, using the quicksave feature judiciously. While this may seem outrageous to some, I think it is unfair to compare an Oblivion/Fallout type game to Doom, Quake or Half-Life.

      A Bethesda game is much more complex and much bigger than a first-person shooter such as Doom or Half-Life. A shooter has the core game mechanic of running around and shooting, with a few scripted sequences scattered about. In an Oblivion/Fallout type game you have shooting, close combat, inventory management, movable objects in the world, an RPG system, NPCs with scripts and dialog, a persistent world, followers, quest lines, complex world interactions and scripts controlling everything from the behavior of items and locations to quests and NPCs. And not only are Bethesda-RPGs much more complicated than an average shooter (or any other game), they are huge as well. I am sure that I have invested at least 150 hours playing Oblivion, and I still have not seen or completed some of the mayor side quests that are available (such as Arena and Fighters Guild).

      So yes, buggy games are a nuisance. But I am willing to be more lenient towards Bethesdas RPGs because I know that they are much more complex than your average game and that I am getting a game package that will keep me occupied for years.

    5. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Totally agreed. Try applying those low standards to any other product.

      • Would you accept a television that switched itself off 12 times in 35 hours?
      • Would you accept a CD player that switched itself off 12 times in 35 hours?
      • Would you accept a car that has an engine that cuts out 12 times in 35 hours?
      • Would you accept a light fitting that switched the light off 12 times in 35 hours?

      Any other product category, you'd consider the product to be broken and return it.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    6. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The worst is that every Bethesda game (Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3) has had issues like this which shouldn't have made it past quality control.

      To be fair, these are all massive sandbox games, which is likely the gametype most prone to bugs due to the possibility of sequence breaking and the sheer number of scripts you need to write. Add to this a complex, massive 3D world and the requirements of realtime, and it should come as no surprise that the end result is very fragile.

      Bethesda's problem is having too much ambition and thus always biting more than they can chew. Which, I suppose, is preferable to the sad lack of ambition a typical game shows...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by ledow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never seen a program fill up disk because it just doesn't stop writing? Never seen a program delete local files that it has permission to? Never seen a program probe hardware that it was perfectly allowed to but somehow manages to bugger things up?

      I agree that, in theory, the OS is at fault for allowing it. But there are some things that no modern OS monitors by default that can easily stop things working properly, and things that no home user would be expected to have restricted on their non-admin Windows account (which is presumably what games SHOULD be run under in the majority of circumstances). (Virtually) Nobody lives in a chroot-bottle world for all their games in real-life. Have you ever filled up your Windows so much that it can't find space for swap and hence crashes, and on reboot can't start up, requiring command-line removal of the overgrown files in order to make the system work again? I have, several times, with a buggy application that just kept allocating for log files and, when under error conditions, just kept spewing errors at the disk-write rate. How about programs responding to hotkeys in preference to the applications that handle them meaning a bad crash can cause all sorts of hell with the keyboard? Even on the best modern operating systems with the best patches, the permissions we give to games allow them to do an awful lot of damage.

      Have you ever had a piece of software probe hardware gently and manage to make it lock up either completely or to the point where it's impractical to wait for things to terminate? It's not that tricky when you're pushing things into GPU's. And you only need to slag the hard disk on certain machines and it will kill the responsiveness to the point where people will just hard-off the system rather than wait. That's "damaging" to the machine - anything that causes a filesystem check is potentially incredibly dangerous.

      What about a program that deletes your savegames, or deletes files in your home directories, or modifies the registry in perfectly innocent (but unmonitored) ways that cause buggy programs to run at startup, or destroys your file associations, or just causes Windows to go nuts when you read those entries?

      It's piss-easy to make a program that can bring almost any OS to its knees if executed as any user unless you're on an extremely well-managed system with a good admin. It's also trivial for such things to happen in the normal course of a badly-written program running (where it doesn't MEAN to do those things, e.g. it just wants to log errors, but then it gets errors while logging, which it then dutifully logs, etc.). Hell, it's usually possible to make the desktop almost unusable just playing with screen resolutions, mouse control and things like hiding the mouse cursors, ignoring termination requests, playing a looping sound that won't quit, etc.

      In an "ideal" operating system, it would be trivial to recover from a damaging program. In real-life ones, it's not so easy (How's the OOM killer on Linux doing? They were on about their 18th rewrite last time I looked... minor program with permissions can causes DoS and kill processes that were never intended to be killed unless the machine is managed perfectly). In home setups, just about anything can take down the system, and it's always PARTLY the fault of the application too, because other games / programs DON'T do that.

      Windows has a bad idea of what programs should be allowed to do and doesn't cover 1% of the avenues it should - but equally games should NOT be crashing so hard with filesystem handles open without at least attempting to clean up first, but I've seen programs do exactly that (and thus render those files undeletable - even if they are causing problems - without a reboot).

      A program crash is so named because the results can still be catastrophic. Otherwise we'd just call it a program "bump".

    8. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      How the patch works is described by the patch readme file and the forums threads that offer it for download:

      It overrides the detection of the video-card and forces the face-render tool to select an efficient engine for all cards. The problem was that most NVidia cards had problems, but a few didn't. If you faked the other cards to be one of those without problems, the problem went away.

      The same problem affects ATI by the way.

    9. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good luck with that. I don't know any store that will let you return a game for being buggy, if the packaging is open the best they'll do is let you swap it for a new copy of the same game (in case the disk is scratched or the data corrupted on that pressing, etc). I wonder at what point a game becomes unfit for purpose - if I've invested 60 hours in a game and a game breaking bug not only means I can't complete the game, but that I basically have to start right back from the beginning, I wonder if that would be sufficient grounds. Probably not, we seem to have been conditioned to give software a free pass when it comes to poor QA.

    10. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by BigSes · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would you accept a car that has an engine that cuts out 12 times in 35 hours?

      I already own a Volkswagen, thanks.

    11. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suspect it has more to do with the fact that their engine is poorly designed/implemented. Anyone who has had a go at using the construction kit will know that the scripting engine is problematic, at one point I was making a mod for Morrowind and sometimes parts of the script would not work (there were undocumented fuzzy limits on nesting levels. As I understand it the scripting tends to work better in Oblivion but the inherent model for it tends to lead to problems, the scripts are global (i.e. if you write a script to deal with a quest in a cave at the far north end of the map it will still be evaluated constantly while you're in a town at the far south end of the map).

      An example of how this can go bad is what caused me to break out the construction kit for Oblivion, I had gotten to the last quest of one of the major side quest chains and was going to have to fight some big baddie but I decided to put it off for a while. Once I finally got to it and he'd done his evil bad guy rant at me I found him to be completely invulnerable. The script had made him invulnerable in order for him to do his rant, but failed to unset it afterwards. After digging through the scripts myself I discovered it was using the fact sometimes they will set the player into something like a paralyzed state in order to play out some in game cut-scene without the player interfering, in addition scripts will also use the fact that the player is in this state to modify quest variables. What had happened was while I was off questing on the other side of the continent this state had been triggered and modified my quest variables without the proper conditions being true, the fix is of course to put some state variable guards around such tests (and most places Oblivion scripts do have these). Of course it is easy to miss one and have it still work most of the time.

    12. Re:My experiences of Fallout: New Vegas bugs by Raenex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you understood anything about programming and Operating Systems

      Do you, except to defend the existing crap around you?

      I mean, if it were that easy then why are there still Buffer Overflow Attacks, an attack originally discovered in 1988?

      Why indeed, when they are completely preventable in languages that don't allow buffer overflows. But, OK, even if think you absolutely need the performance of C or C++, there's no reason why a buffer overflow in a game should trash a user's machine.

      Or maybe, just maybe, its much more technical with HOW THE HARDWARE WORKS

      You mean hardware that disallows processes from stomping on each other's memory?

      unless you want a crippled machine running much much slower as it checks and double checks and triple checks even the simplest things like adding variables together, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Operating System itself to protect the user like you are saying

      Asinine. For instance, there's no reason why a game should have any ability to corrupt a file system, read or write files that don't belong to it, or probe hardware beyond specified limits. This isn't even a performance issue as much as it is a permission issue. Programs are just given way too much authority by default, and it's not because of performance.

  3. Doesn't everybody do that? by mcvos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought most major game developers nowadays released beta versions, only to patch it after release (if you're lucky).

    1. Re:Doesn't everybody do that? by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Nowadays"? Penny Arcade was mocking this back in 1998. Hell, anyone remember Pac-Man for the Atari 2600? Game developers have been putting out buggy releases since time immaterial, I'm a little surprised that everyone angry at Bethesda thinks this is some emergent phenomenon.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    2. Re:Doesn't everybody do that? by gman003 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bethesda is exceptionally bad about it. See Oblivion, where the user-made patch to fix things has a changelist several dozen pages long, and that's just what can be fixed with the public SDK. There's an entire wiki full of workarounds for the other bugs. Some of the bugs are minor - subtitles not matching the dialog, objects out of place - but some are game-breaking - there's dozens of ways to make the game "unwinnable" - and some are just program-breaking - there's a long-standing bug that makes interior cells pitch-black on nVidia cards. At least other companies would have the decency to eventually fix the bugs.

    3. Re:Doesn't everybody do that? by Kalroth · · Score: 2, Informative

      When game developers can see that people are willing to pay for beta access to games, what is their incentive to ship a polished game? Most consoles have online connectivity as well, so patching up later is usually not a problem either. I don't see this changing anytime soon, with quarterly budgets being more important than quality.

      As for Fallout: New Vegas; the bugs were totally expected from anyone that played Fallout 3, which was also full of bugs. And it is not just gameplay bugs, the entire engine is extremely buggy and the game was neigh unplayable for a lot of PC players, but thankfully a very clever developer at http://www.transgaming.com/business/swiftshader made a custom D3D9.dll which corrects some of the engine bugs (like NOP all debug calls, ignore some buggy shaders, etc.):
      http://www.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=34778 for the nVidia version.
      http://www.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=34970 for the ATI version.
      (The custom dll was made for Fallout 3 and not Fallout: New Vegas. Yet it fixes the same issues in both games.)

      Note: the game is very, very good -- without the bugs. Too bad that it is the community that has to fix the bugs.

    4. Re:Doesn't everybody do that? by anUnhandledException · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While bugs have been around as long as software. Bethesda gets the ire because they bring it to new levels of crap. I mean 4 of their latest (and largest) releases have been essentially unplayable at launch.

      Oblivion after a dozen patches and years still has hundreds (not an exaggeration) in the latest version.

      So all software has bugs however you have some companies like Blizzard which at least make a token effort to release quality software and on the other extreme you have Bethesda who must have a sign hanging that says "if it compiles it ships".

      Eventually they will release game partially completed w/ stubs for the portions that wouldn't compile and you need to download them if/when they ever get that portion working. "sorry you can't enter this area yet. Bethesda regrets to inform you that components necessary for this gameplay area were not ready at launch time".

  4. Re:Obsidian by devbox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And what does that have to do with anything? It's usually the publisher that releases the game, and often also tries to hurry up the developer.

  5. Tip: by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never, ever buy a game without the chance to test it first. I've lost count of the number of game demos that I've installed only for them to not work, be incredibly slow, to have fatal bugs, to be so dull as to be unplayable, or just be annoying/crap in their execution. I don't go on to buy the games and save myself a lot of money.

    Download demos first. Play your friend's copy. Don't be the guinea pig, because in a few weeks everyone will KNOW if there are problems with the game anyway. It's really not that important or practical to have the game for the first week - the servers will be overloaded, the software will need to be patched, and other gamers won't get an "advantage" over you in the space of a week or two. Plus, the price will come down and you'll be able to get second-hand copies (if the activation system even allow you to do that).

    Stop pre-ordering. Stop buying games that you can't try out first. Stop buying games from companies that screw you over. Stop listening to the hype and paid reviewers. Start being an intelligent consumer who actually makes informed purchases. It's very simple. When something is in the "under £10" category, then it can be worth a punt even if you can't find any reviews, but a full-price game? I want a demo, or at least play on a friend's machine.

    Such techniques mean that I've avoided many of the big-name flops and saved myself an awful lot of wasted money. The last big disappointment for me was Black & White and then I learned not to waste money on things without waiting for others to find the problems. Now I buy my games a year or two after they come out - the initial period of zero games is hard (but with the current indie scene, that's made much easier, and a recession helped) but after that you get the best games, on hardware capable of getting their full value, avoiding all the known flops, fully patched, with still-active servers (if the servers empty within the first year, it's hard to call a game a big success) and you don't have to pay full-price.

    Stop pissing your money away on crap.

    1. Re:Tip: by omglolbah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. Download pirated version.
      2. Test pirated version.
      3. If good? Buy. Alternatively: if shite, delete.

      This serves me well as it makes me look at my game library with fondness and not vile hatred ;)

  6. Oh, so Bethesda is improving? by MSojka · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, they are improving from their old practice of releasing broken and buggy games with no plans at all to fix any but the most glaring problems later?

    See the glitches list for Oblivion on the UESP wiki for a start; continue to the Unofficial Oblivion Patch where the modding community fixed over a thousand bugs left by Bethesda to rot; and that's not even including still unpatched bugs in the engine, for which you need some additional software made by modders ...

  7. Re:Obsidian by Legion303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's funny because Obsidian is the developer of New Vegas

    ,,,using Bethesda's engine. Nice try, though.

  8. Bethesda fixes bugs? by Per+Wigren · · Score: 4, Informative

    What is this nonsense? Bethesda fixes bugs? As far as I know, they never released a single update for neither Oblivion nor Fallout 3 for PS3 ever, only a few expensive DLCs.

    Some pretty damn serious bugs too. Oblivion: Game of the year edition is almost incompletable on the PS3 when using English unless you have the EU release. To cure vampirism, at one point you have to save your game, exit, change the OS language settings to German or French, start the game again, fumble through the buggy (now working) dialog, save again, exit, change back to English and restart the game again. If you have the US release you are out of luck. They never released a patch for this...

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    1. Re:Bethesda fixes bugs? by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not being able to do the "remove vampirism" quest doesn't make the PS3 version un-winnable since the vampire quest is an optional one.

      Spoken like a true apologist. Do you think it is likely that players would be aware of the need to avoid this quest until they had encountered the bug? Just because it is possible to enjoy the product without running into this pitfall does not mean that the pitfall is not dangerous. It's like letting your kid play with a tiger. The tiger doesn't ALWAYS attack humans, only once every year or so. Quality matters.

  9. Pre-ordered. by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I pre-ordered New Vegas because I knew it would be an amazing game in spite of the bugs. It uses the same engine as Fallout 3 and Oblivion, and they were riddled with bugs, too. And a lot of the bugs in New Vegas existed in those 2, also. I don't blame Obsidian for those bugs.

    However, the new bugs... I totally blame Obsidian for those. I experienced a lot of bugs relating to quests and story line, and that's all on Obsidian.

    I definitely think I got my money's worth. Most $60 games aren't nearly this good, even if they have fewer bugs.

    So how can Bethesda/Obsidian prevent these bugs in the future? It seems obvious that their internal testing didn't catch them, as the bugs are just too serious. Maybe they should sell pre-release 'beta' copies and let players test it. Anyone that doesn't want a beta-quality game can wait until the proper release, and everyone that buys the beta can just deal with the bugs. And help fix them.

    One of my favorite MMOs did this like 15 years ago. Sierra's The Realm had an alpha that was free, then sold the beta client and charged monthly. When it was ready, they released the full version, and the beta testers didn't have to buy another copy, since they had already paid for one.

    A lot of people won't like that, but the don't -have- to buy the beta. They can just wait for the release.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    1. Re:Pre-ordered. by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So how can Bethesda/Obsidian prevent these bugs in the future?

      You can help prevent it, by not buying buggy games. You are voting for bugs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Pre-ordered. by anUnhandledException · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would they?

      You (and million others) just proved yet again they don't have to. Hell they don't need to EVER fix the bugs.
      You likely will buy the new fallout title prerelease and it will be bug ridden as well.

      Companies don't write good software to get karma points. They write software to get paid. If you are willing to pay for bug ridden software why should they take extra time/resources/money to produce better code.

      I mean if I told you that I would pay you $10,000 in advance to build an addition on my home and you could do a good job for $5,000 in material and 2 weeks of labor or a half ass job for $2,000 in material and 4 days in labor which would you do?

      What if I sweetened the pot by:
      a) giving up right to sue for faulty product
      b) promise to keep using your services no matter how bad it is.
      c) tell you and other people it is routine to accepts bugs in large construction. I mean there are thousands of nails, hundreds of feet of wiring, and all that lumber which needs to be cut exactly right. It is simply impossible to have a bug free wall on the first try.

      You would be a fool to take twice as long for less profit under those conditions. Those are the EXACT conditions you are giving game developers. They would be idiots to spend more time, offer beta copies, offer discounted tester copies, etc. You will pay 100% full price on launch day for bug ridden code.

      Why should they provide you anything more than what you want at the price you want it?

  10. Re:Obsidian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So by that logic, the bugs in any of the dozens of games that use the Unreal engine are Epic's fault? Obsidian is the developer, they took the contract for the game and agreed to timeline, it's their responsibility to get the game out.

  11. But you don't know... by Burnhard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't know its buggy until you've bought and played it.

    1. Re:But you don't know... by risinganger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which is why the author of the linked article also asked people to "Stop giving quality reviews to broken games".

    2. Re:But you don't know... by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FNV has an 85% average review on PC according to Game Rankings. Isn't that the problem - the reviews should penalize bug ridden games more strongly?

      Surely the problem is that anyone still actually believes PC game reviews?

    3. Re:But you don't know... by omglolbah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why testing the pirated version first is unfortunately the only way to go these days.

      I wish there was a better way, but there isnt.

  12. Re:Obsidian by am+2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's the publisher's task to check the game for bugs before releasing it, though.

  13. Re:Obsidian by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So how do you explain New Vegas being FAR more buggy than Fallout 3? In theory, New Vegas should be LESS buggy, since the Gamebryo engine has been given time to be perfected.

  14. Obsidian in the land of complex software by Tei · · Score: 2

    Obsidian make buggy or uncomplete games, but is about the only company that write decent characters and story. The people that know anything about gaming know this, so wen you buy a obsidian game, you know you will see a lot of bugs, but also a excellent game. "Ugly, but the sex is fantastic".

    I have played New Vegas for about 45 hours, and I have loved it. It works any cents I have invested in it.

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  15. And yet they never completely fix them. by X3J11 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And yet Bethesda never completely fixes their games. Ever.

    Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and now New Vegas (not to mention their old DOS TES games). They receive a handful of patches that mostly fix issues with scripts, leaving the game engine seemingly untouched. I remember being disappointed with FO3 when one of the patches was released where, according to the patch notes, all they did was add a few achievements!

    They are great story tellers, and quite adept at crafting expansive and interesting worlds that draw you in, but their programmers certainly leave much to be desired.

    I wonder how much blame can be placed upon the engine they license. I also wish that someone like Carmack offered some sort of consultation service to whip cappy code, and coders, into shape.

  16. Sims 3 aka My Pet Fireman by Clovis42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been playing the Sims 3, which has been out for quite awhile now. There are several expansion packs for it. It is an extremely popular PC franchise with a large rabid community. Despite all that, the game is still buggy.

    My first playthrough featured a loss of two hours when I hit "Error Code 16". Basically you can't save your game. Game save bugs are amongst the worst types of bugs.

    I have a pet fireman. One of my Sims wanted to "be in a fire". So I had him start grilling some hot dogs and then sit down nearby to play some chess. Cue fire and ridiculous Sims jumping around. The Fireman shows up in a little red firepickuptruck and puts out the fire. Then he stands there. You can't interact with him. I thought he was stuck on the grill that burned, but I moved that out of the way. Even once in awhile he will stumble and look sheepish.

    One day while a Sim was watching TV I randomly clicked on the fireman. "Join: Watch TV" was there! I clicked and the fireman moved! Hooray! Problem solved. Except now he is permanently on my couch. That was worse, so I used the same technique to move him back out to the lawn. You can't talk to him, but he will join you in activities.

    Having a pet fireman is fine. There's always a chess opponent nearby. He never seems to get hungry/dirty. However, his truck is a problem. First, the garish light is always on. Luckily, no sounds. The big problem is that it blocks the street. Any time a car comes to pick someone up they park really far away.

    Anyway, you'd think they'd fix this stuff after several expansions. Actually, the Word Adventures expansion apparently created the "Error Code 16" problem, even for players who didn't buy the expansion.

    --
    Clovis
    ^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
  17. You don't need to be technical to test by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, you don't need to be technical to test a game. (Or a web site, or anything else.) You just need to try every combination and write a bug report for everything that doesn't work.

    Of course, you also need to enforce a culture where those bugs are taken seriously. From my experience with testers, well, they're humans too, basically. If you treat them badly for doing their job (and there is no shortage of people taking them for the enemy), they start doing a more half-arsed job, and if you tell them to not worry about some bug, they tend to do just that. Basically you'll have to see to it that if someone reports that clicking on the third seashell on the northern beach causes screwed up textures, they should never see an answer boiling down to "who the FUCK cares about such things? How many people go around clicking on non-highlightable objects?" Because then you stop getting that kind of bugs, which may actually be just symptoms for some issue (e.g., memory corruption) that'll be a lot more spectacular on someone's computer out there.

    Also, basically, you need to stop making excuses for why it's ok to not even try to fix some bugs. The point is, a bug is just a manifestation of something. Of something you don't know. Even something like a minor graphics glitch, it could be just a spurious bad coordinate in a mesh, which will never get worse than that on any hardware, or it could be a loose pointer that can (and on someone's machine WILL) cause a crash or a corrupt saved game. The moment you start just "knowing" that some things aren't bad enough to be worth fixing, you'll let some far worse ones slip through too.

    Anyway, TBH, I actually prefer non-technical people for testing. They shouldn't be coders, and shouldn't think like a coder. They should represent Joe Average and Jane Housewife, who just want to play the game, not to know the difference between a memory leak and a graphics slowdown.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:You don't need to be technical to test by Legion303 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have several good points, but in this particular case it isn't about clicking on the third seashell on the northern beach, it's about corrupting save files by completing a main storyline quest (as in, completing it in any way possible) and other sundries. I love New Vegas, but I'm puzzled as to why the higher-ups allowed it to go out the door with these problems.

      This era of downloadable patches seems to have made companies lazy and/or more greedy. While bugs made for some entertaining glitches in the 8- and 16-bit era, I can't recall one single game-stopping problem back then--certainly not on AAA titles.

    2. Re:You don't need to be technical to test by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You just need to try every combination and write a bug report for everything that doesn't work"

      And that mistaken belief is exactly why software is in such a poor state overall.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Re:Obsidian by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a fine balancing act. Err too far one way, and you get the bugfest that is Fallout New Vegas. Too far the other way, and you get Duke Nukem Forever.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  19. wait a year by Hohlraum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and you'll have two options:

    1. buy the original game new for 1/3rd the price and a years worth of patches.
    2. buy the deluxe version of the game new with all the DLC included and a years worth of patches.

    only negative to this strategy is that online play may be diminished.

    1. Re:wait a year by ledow · · Score: 2, Informative

      If online play diminishes after only a year, can't have been that good a game to play online in the first place.

      The original CS is over 10 years old and (unless there's a huge release of a new game) tends to sit atop the "Player minutes / month" stats on Steam most of the time, and is always in the top 10.

  20. Do NOT buy "New Vegas" on the 360 (and here's why) by jchapman16 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've spent dozens of hours trying to actually complete this game on the XBox 360, and it's impossible. Given Bethesda's track record, do NOT buy this for consoles - they will not patch these problems. Fortunately there's an active modding community on the PC, and there's a mechanism in-game (again on the PC only) for adjusting broken objects, characters, stories and plotlines on the fly. On the console, you're just screwed:

    * Game will eventually corrupt your save game with no chance of recovery.
    * Game will eventually start freezing when buying from merchants (especially if you purchase a Caravan playing card)
    * Game will crash if certain story choices are made, or will not be completable if certain story choices are made
    * Game will crash if certain gameplay choices are made (e.g. don't shoot Caleb McCafferty in the head)
    * Game will randomly crash when fast traveling (anywhere, any time. I'd suggest saving often but you'll run a greater risk of save game corruption)
    * Game will randomly cause areas of the map to be "dead zones" - entering them triggers a crash (e.g. Nipton)

    Bethesda has only acknowledged one of these problems, and it's taken them more than 2 weeks to promise a fix (which they haven't yet). This article is spot-on - don't buy buggy software. Bethesda makes buggy software. Don't buy Bethesda software Q.E.D.

  21. Re:Obsidian by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So by that logic, the bugs in any of the dozens of games that use the Unreal engine are Epic's fault? Obsidian is the developer, they took the contract for the game and agreed to timeline, it's their responsibility to get the game out.

    If the bugs are in the engine itself as designed by Epic, discovered years ago, and still never corrected, as was the case for the Fallout engine? Yes, it would be their fault. How can you argue otherwise?

  22. Software Testing... by theGhostPony · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One person's story:

    I used to test software for a living, and our team was pretty darn good at it. We took our work seriously, and personally. If something was missed, it made us all look bad. So we did our damnedest to be the best. Part of our work also involved finding bugs missed by overseas testers. And there were always plenty. Too many in fact. It was a constant battle. Then one day we learned that our team had been off-shored... to the same group of folks that we used to have to constantly keep an eye out for.

    Take from that what you will.

    --
    /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.