Slashdot Mirror
"Fallout 4" Release Raises Questions About Reviews of Buggy Games (kotaku.com)
RogueyWon writes: Fallout 4, the latest instalment in the long-running video-game series and one of the most hyped titles of the year, was released on 10 November. The game has generally been reviewing well, currently holding a Metacritic score of 89. However, a number of reviewers have noted the very large number of bugs present in all versions of the game and have, in some cases, reflected on the difficulty that these pose for reviewers, despite still awarding positive overall write-ups. Can it be ethical to recommend a product to consumers on the basis of its strengths, despite knowing that it contains serious faults?
And have no bad bugs to report. A couple instances of things disappearing and reappearing, but no hard crashes or getting stuck.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
"Can it be ethical to recommend a product to consumers on the basis of its strengths, despite knowing that it contains serious faults?"
Yes. Are you disclosing those flaws honestly, so consumers can make an informed choice? Unless you're lying about your endorsement, what's the problem?
>> Can it be ethical to recommend a product to consumers on the basis of its strengths, despite knowing that it contains serious faults?
Yes, as long as the first words of your review are something like, "you might like [product] in a few years, but don't plan on buying it now...[reasons for hope]...[reasons why it's currently broken]."
I think we need to look a little deeper than is it ethical to review a broken/buggy game. This stems way back to when games had to be right when they were released. If you fudged up somewhere in your game, you had to recall all your cartridges/disks/whathaveyou and eat that loss. Now you can push out a broken game in half the time and work on it as the company sees fit, it's almost like renting out a home before you even put the drywall in. Makes no sense to me.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
If it's fit to release, it's fit to review, warts and all. If the devs don't want bugs to bring their average down, perhaps they should spend more time on QA.
Release now patch later give CEO big bonus for laying off QA (we have end users that pay to due that) and working people 60-80 hour weeks to save on man power.
there is, it's called don't line up at midnight to buy a video game. don't pre-order it and change your store to australia just to play it at the first possible moment. wait a month after release to buy it after the first half dozen of patches have been released. i've bought games for my kids that they didn't like and they won't touch the next one in the series after that. some idiots out there continue to pre-order this stuff and put up with the first month problems. it's like stockholm syndrome or battered wife syndrome.
...isn't possible for most mainstream websites with a deadline. More likely, these guys are just getting 10-20 hours in and doing a write-up. Bear in mind, this is for a popular game. Less popular games probably only get an hour or two.
Think about the volume a movie-review site can pump out since movies are usually around two hours long. Most games are longer than that, so the output is going to be less. This may also cause reviewers to favor shorter indie games since it allows them to pump out reviews.
Add to that the fact that publishers/developers sometimes give different versions to reviewers and you've got a recipe for a dissonance between review and reality.
...and yes, it was buggy. But it was still fun, and patches came out pretty quickly. I don't have a problem with reviewers giving a good review as long as they note that there are bugs. If it's so buggy as to be unplayable, that's another story.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
- Goat simulator devs
They cannot break their streak now. Not a single TES or Fallout game they released was ready on release date, why would they want to tarnish that pristine record?
Can it be ethical to recommend a product to consumers on the basis of its strengths, despite knowing that it contains serious faults?
Critics are panning the latest James Bond movie, yet movie watchers gave it an A- grade. How do we explain this gap?
There is, and once they figure out how to solve the problem of ethics in games activism then maybe they can move on to dealing with journalism next.
Sorry, but do we still believe reviewers are honest, objective, and tell us all of these things?
Aren't they basically put under a gag order, told they can't release reviews early, and pretty much told they won't get access to future games if they give a bad review?
I was kind of under the impression game reviewers have been glossing over crap like this for years.
And if I'm aware of it, it's gotta be a pretty open secret. Because I don't read video game reviews, because I don't buy brand-new releases.
From the sounds of it, game companies are now so reliant on shipping a broken product and then patching it later, getting a new release is like being the beta testers.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I believe there is a rational basis for giving Bethesda the benefit of the doubt that the bugs WILL be fixed. In all of their previous games -- Fallout 3, Oblivion, Skyrim, etc. -- Bethesda has released a huge number of patches fixing bugs, bolstered further by an ardent community of modders to fix yet more bugs with their own patches, that make the polished game pretty close to bug-free 1-2 years later, and still quite playable and workable even after 2 or 3 months of major patches from Bethesda.
There is something to be said for a developer's reputation. In this case, I believe the reputation of the developer is one that gives us reason to trust them to fix the worst of the problems, and the game should be moddable enough that the community will fix the rest.
Also, this is a 64-bit native game on PC (not sure about consoles), which means that we won't be getting crashes due to hitting the virtual address space limit like we did on 32-bit. It makes a gigantic difference. Even if there's a slow memory leak in the game that persists for a long time, you can just have a large pagefile, even if you only have 8 GB of RAM, and eventually the leaked memory pages will get swapped out to disk, freeing up RAM for the pages actively being used by the game.
And having it be 64-bit gives us the advantage of being able to scale up the number of objects and mods to a complexity level never seen before in a Bethsoft sandbox game.
Basically I would advise everyone to take a chill pill about the bugs. If you're being bitten by bugs currently, and feel that it's too buggy to play, just wait 2 or 3 more weeks for the first major patch(es) to land, and it'll be good enough to enjoy the experience, at least. Then, on your second playthrough a month or two from now, it'll be even more polished, and we might even have a community bugfix patch by that time, depending on how quickly and fervently people work on it.
I would not give this same level of trust and expectation of bugfixes for just any developer or just any community, though. Most games are not nearly as moddable out of the box as Bethsoft games, and most games don't get nearly as much post-release support as Bethsoft and their community gives their games.
It is currently sitting at 5.3 User reviews. Reading through the negative reviews, they have a point. Many immortal characters (where is the kill anyone Fallout?), game on rails, only like 5 different enemies, terrible voice acting, horribly stupid AI, same quests over and over (go kill this many of this creature), refusing quests doesn't refuse the quests, the world is empty, only one city on the map, and a bunch of ruins with nothing there.
It sounds like Bethesda forgot to actually build a game and just built an engine.
I'll wait till it is $5 on Steam and has a ton of mods.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
>> Can it be ethical to recommend a product to consumers on the basis of its strengths, despite knowing that it contains serious faults?
Yes, as long as the first words of your review are something like, "you might like [product] in a few years, but don't plan on buying it now...[reasons for hope]...[reasons why it's currently broken]."
You don't need to tell other people when to buy or not, just the facts please.
The 1-star reviews on metacritic all seem to lament the boring plot and empty world, hollow characters, crummy voice acting, etc. Some say "buggy", but they don't mention what kind of bugs. You mention disappearing items... What items? Inventory items? Items in the world? Plot critical items?
One of the funniest bugs I remember in TES4: Oblivion is when you killed a guy in a house, and came back to that house later in the game, the dead body was bouncing and flailing all over the room. Sometimes, the banging would make quite a racket. It was funny, but it didn't really stop you from playing the game.
Shoot, I'm playing (and loving) the original Witcher right now.
I did play Fallout 3 earlier this year (and New Vegas a couple of times last year), but I'm in no rush for the new one at full price.
Please note, all of the games I play are well tested and bug patched (I don't buy the games where reviews say they are still buggy).
BlameBillCosby.com
From the sounds of it, game companies are now so reliant on shipping a broken product and then patching it later, getting a new release is like being the beta testers.
It's true, the best time to buy a Bethesda game is 18 months later when it is 1/3 the cost and most of the big bugs are fixed. Nothing beats paying release prices to get access to the large public beta.
This is not quite the question that TFS poses, but it's one that interests me. Some games are awfully buggy on release, but the developers have enough integrity to fix as many problems as they can, even if they aren't getting paid for them (the studio I most associate with this good behavior is Paradox). On the other hand, there's some games that are awfully buggy on release, the developers fix a few that have simple solutions, but leave the game a mess for the rest of time. The primary example I'm thinking of here is Empire: Total War. The game was almost unplayable on release; Creative Assembly fixed a few problems, but the game was still a POS and ended up being just a beta for its "sequel", Napoleon: Total War.
Now, myself and plenty of others have since boycotted all CA products, but that only punishes them for future releases. Short of forcing a lawsuit to fix the game/issue refunds, there seems to be no other way to punish a shitty product--or is there?
"Actually, it's about ethics in gaming activism" ?
I'm confused, which group are you speaking of?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Years?? The bug fixes will be out soon. This is standard for almost all PC games ever. The only reason to wait years is if you need new hardware.
I liked PC Gamer's review of Extreme Paint Brawl (lowest score ever at the time mainly due to the fact that the game wasn't fun and was buggy as hell). That was a game that was so buggy as to be unplayable. a few glitches, crashes etc that are common in modern games, I can over look them as I know they'll be fixed. Another problem with reviews is that the game they get to play, isn't the same game you buy on day one. It's pre-release, so it has MORE bugs. What is the point of saying the game sucks because of this one bug that is at the beginning of the game blah blah blah... focus on that bug, but if that bug isn't in the final release, you look petty as a writer.
Your reasoning at the end is flawed. The pre-order system is predatory. When you're presented with two options for the same price and one comes with additional content, it's only logical (all else being equal) to chose the option with additional content. Collector's editions expand upon this by there being limited supply of CE goods. You cannot completely blame the consumer for this. In theory, it would be in everyone's best interest to curb the pre-order problem. In practice, nobody wants to be the one without the extra content.
But the negative reviews are from the habitual malcontents. Player reviews are always by one of two types of people, those who love it 10/10, and those who hate it 1/10. The average player will never review. You get shitty unreliable reviews this way, just like you do with Yelp. The game is new, people are still playing it. Anyoen who's submitted a review to Metacritic already is doing so prematurely. I know there are indeed players who have the hate/love reviews ready to go before they've even touched the game. Just witness all those losers who proclaimed how awful the graphics were just from videos.
your comments, while interesting, don't come close to addressing the point.
The question being asked here is, is it ethical for reviewers to not mention that a bunch of bugs exist in the game they are reviewing? I would say hell no.
Are you saying that you haven't personally encountered any bugs?
Hey look, a radroach!
It is only "apparent" if you can't read.
While that is true... if we all do that, then we won't get any more of these games...
If you really want more of these games to come, someone has to pay launch day prices...
I do get the vast majority of my games from Steam sales. I'm playing Witcher 2 right now. Aside from the annoying "no drinking potions during combat" rule, I'm liking it a lot more than its predecessor.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Bethesda has a solid track record of releasing patches. I would agree that a release from an unknown publisher shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
part of the facts is that bethesda games are eventually fully playable, it just takes time getting there.
If those people were smart, they would wait a year and get the entire game plus, the day-0 DLC, and all the expansions for half the price.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
you're forgetting that it tells you the ratio of lovers and haters. If the user review is really 5.5, and we go with your conceit that people either gave it a 1 or a 10... then that's a lot of haters. more so than a lot of other games it seems.
I think the fact that reviewers fail to mention obvious bugs is:
1) unethical
2) Proof of how widespread the control/corruption of these reviewers by the game companies is.
3) If it already isnt, it should be illegal if reviewers misrepresent themselves as being an independent authority/in a position of trust that puts consumers interests first, as we look to these people for advise on spending wisely. Them being complicit in what amounts to misrepresenting and misadvertising a product is clearly fraudulent.
Just because they are reviewing a pre-release version is no excuse either, they should still mention the bugs but then say its still in beta or whatever, not just pretend it didn't happen.
I know Bethesda has a long history of releasing very buggy games, but expecting all consumers to necessarily know that and make a judgement before buying the product is unreasonable.
If you were reviewing any other product (say a car) and it failed in some way, of course you'd mention it. I don't go along with the apparently common sheep-like misconception that software somehow gets a magic get-out-of-jail card, so that when we buy a clearly substandard product its somehow now the consumers responsibility to just suck it up and accept crap for good money.
I don't want more of these games where launch day features include broken quests, random crashes, missing plot points, and other things that would have been caught if QA wasn't cut the make the launch schedule. I am willing to see fewer of these games made if that is the price of me waiting 18 months to buy them.
Not every publisher/developer offers that as an option. That being said, even without the pre-order bonuses.. waiting for a price reduction isn't a terrible idea. I'm one of the pre-order people. However, I do try to limit it as much as possible to only collector's editions with physical rewards. In those cases, my payoff is the statue or whatever it is.The game, while usually something I want as well, is a secondary. Except for the few CEs I can purchase a year, I try to get as much as I can on discount on steam or humble bundle.
Yes, well, obviously the lead dev on Fallout 4 was not female, otherwise there would have been more noise than a single thread in KiA.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
I have not seen any glaringly obvious bugs. But maybe I'm just not looking close enough, or I'm just too busy enjoying the game to focus on nit picking out collision errors and texture pop-in. I guess a "bug" I noticed could be the time Codsworth was hovering over some garbage in a ruined building and he clipped through the ceiling while I was talking to him? The only issue I have had were horrible frame rate drops until I updated the nvidia drivers.
And to be on topic: I think that review embargoes are unethical, I think reviewers being provided golden samples of hardware and early access to software is unethical. I think it would also be unethical for a reviewer to not mention any game breaking bugs. Minor glitches and things like that are expected, especially in such a massive game. Take GTA:V for example. Massive open world (62GB) its still completely riddled with bugs, and to no surprise it holds a 7.8 on metacritic, and many of the negative user reviews center around the fact that the game is available across 3 platforms.... This isn't nearly as bad as the AC:Unity fiasco where the entire reviewing community knew about horrible bugs but was unable to mention them until after people bought the game and found out for themselves, or the Arkham Knight shit storm that "will never be fixed" according to the developers.
If its very minor stuff then its fair to ignore it or make a brief mention however if they're bugs affecting gameplay to any extent and/or system stability should be taken into account and the marks given adjusted accordingly. Its because reviewers are all too willing to overlook some seriously show stopping bugs that allows companies to think its OK to continue to release games like COD and BF series which are notorious for taking at least 3-4 patches before major "wanna throw my controller at the screen" issues are resolved.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Actually, I don't ever buy AAA titles on release, and I never pay attention to early reviews. This problem has been known in the game industry for years, and has cost one reviewer his job, but 'gamers' are, curiously, relatively silent about it; some minor grumbling as on this thread is it. And yet for imagined faux-pas by women they bring out the torches and pitchforks.
In short, I was being sarcastic about GamerGate's professed motivation.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
If those people were smart,
I'm not sure smart is the word here. Naïve, sold, sheep, lacking wisdom...
There's plenty of smart people that succumb to the hype of getting or experiencing "something".
The hype is what motivates people to line up for products and events. It's the price they are willing to pay for a moment of glory or fun.
This shit is why APK is a troll who should not be fed. Any dumbass who offends APK while posting under his own slashdot name is responsible for the resulting APK shitposting trail they will drag around behind themselves, cluttering up stories where APK would otherwise not post at all.
If you respond to APK, do it the way he does, as an AC.
APK is a worthless faggot. I don't post about him under my name and thus he never has stalked me and never will. To do otherwise is to act foolishly.
Remember Fallout 1? Fallout 2? Heck, I'm just guessing here, but Fallout 3?
Why mess with a successful formula.
How about raising questions of not using spell-check?
I think I bought it the night before it was released and I don't really remember that many bugs. It's possible that I just didn't encounter anything bad enough to notice it as a bug or was lucky. The only thing I can remember standing out was the mouse controls being borked as a console port, looking up or down required a hugely disproportionate amount of mouse movement, which was readily fixable through an ini file change. Now that I think of it though, I don't think I ever finished the civil war quest line.
Maybe there's a market for someone who buys their own games (refuses press versions and the likes) after release and does honest reviews? Such may well exist. I have no idea if it exists or not, for I am not a gamer. However, if it doesn't exist then maybe someone should make it. It could be funded in a whole host of different ways. It could even have community driven content. :/ Hmm... Such has to exist, at least partially. But the idea that there are no reviews of anything not purchased by the author, only after release, and with honest reviews might be a good starting point - more so, considering the latest drama that is that gamergate stuff.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I never finished the first Witcher, I hit a point in the fourth or fifth chapter that CTD'd every time. Even tried installing on another machine, still couldn't get past that point. Hope you have better luck.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I would just give out a score lowering it how unplayable the game is because of bugs. The witcher 3 was released in may and it still is way too buggy. My guess is at this rate i will play both by half of 2016
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
On the other hand, no one can really have gotten very far in the game. The game lovers will be playing it still, and it's too early to review it. The game haters have given up early without waiting even for the day 1 patch, and so did their reviews already.
As long as you adequately highlight the faults, then yeah, it's ethical.
So a Gawker property is posting an article about ethics and journalism? Wow. Pot meet Kettle.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Still thinks his HOSTs is worth a shit when more and more programs every day are coming with hardcoded stuff to directly bypass HOSTs, even the Operating System itself has bypasses for HOSTs.
Given HOSTs can be BYPASSED, it's NOT FUCKING SECURE.
Do not listen to APK nor purchase or use any AV product he may recommend, or any AV product from companies that recommend his INSECURE HOSTs file.
They are simply untrustworthy.
Virustotal is untrustworthy. Virscan is untrustworthy, any entity APK mentions is not trustworthy.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Look at APK as he has serious mental breakdowns.
http://www.thorschrock.com/200...
No wildcards, no NXDOMAIN, nothing that actually works with any actual speed.
APK is a cheap hack that relies upon old outdated technology to try to make himself look like a security expert.
He is not.
He is a failure and so is any company or individual championing him.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
No one lives forever had a map hole the designers couldn't or wouldn't fix so they put a sign on it. It's a real map hole. If you ignore the sign you're reloading your game :P
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Or, if well all refuse to preorder broken games that have zero-day DLC, they will start to fix the games and reduce the bullshit.
Right now there is no incentive for companies to even release good games, let alone working ones.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I had the backward flying dragons a couple of times, and a texture pop-in or two, but I never encountered a game breaking bug in the vanilla version.
.ini file as well, as my trackball seemed to be a really good advanced arthritis simulator.
I had to tweak the
Then I started modding it, and now that I think about it, I never finished the game at all. With a little over a hundred mods, it sure was pretty, and oh so much more dangerous. Time to re-visit it I think.....
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Totally related "Game development in Heaven and Hell": https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...
APK, we know it's you. You might think you are capable of fooling people, but it's insulting to everyone. You are pissing people off with this incessant childish behaviour, and you will not win any allies.
Maybe there's a market for someone who buys their own games (refuses press versions and the likes) after release and does honest reviews?
yes, and no.
If you ask people if they would like to see that, they say yes. But...then they all want the new hotness and don't want to wait months for an "honest review"
I've seen that sort of thing in the Second Life fashion community (virtual fashion is a thing, a very BIG thing in SL). The people the fashion community pays the most attention to are the ones that get the new stuff given to them from the designers themselves. Those who buy their own stuff and write about it after "test driving it around and kicking the tires" (to use a car analogy) are pretty much nobodies.
that may be another issue entirely, but, is it really too early?
must you play all the content to know how you feel about something? :) let me kick you in the balls for 40 hours... wait what do you mean you feel you hate this experience after an hour, you haven't experienced my game fully.
Really, that's what the game is like so far? People have posted that it's the worst game of all time before it was even unlocked in many places. Vitriol is being spewed because they didn't like the anti-aliasing options.
I'm more worried about changes to games through patches.
You read a review of a one year old game, because it's much cheaper to buy now, but because of the immense amount of patches and features added/removed the game has changed a lot form the inital reviewed game. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
i'm just saying, you're assuming your definition of a valid criticism should be correct. If someone's idea of AA options being a deal breaker are what they base their review on, that's one point of view. If some people think they can review a game before playing it, that's their prerogative. But, that is generally going to be true across the board too. Unless you're telling me, you believe people are reviewing this especially negatively because of the property, because they're being paid to bash it, or because people think bethesda sucks... I'm really not seeing your point.
premature reviewers bring down the average... but they bring down the average for all games
I've had a couple of annoying bugs...dog getting stuck in the doorway, the elevator at the end of the arcjet mission not leading outside like it was supposed to, and I fell through the map once.
But still, finding the whole ethics in gaming journalism thing funny considering...you know....that was the point of Gamergate? Before the social justice crowd started bleating and making false accusations.
Funny, but nowhere in there did you actually say what you are using that isn't a proxy/VPN. You love to prognosticate about how awsome you are, but you seem like a total noob that loves to talk about their skillz.
So, when you decide to actually have a point to make, feel free, but for now, it is obvious you are making shit up.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So, yeah, I am right, you made it up. You are using your mystical god like skillz to bypass the post limit on ACs. It is called a proxy, and it is what you use. You can try and make this out to be that you are some kind of genius if you want, it doesn't make it true.
P.S.=> Besides: You can't keep your word as you're replying to me yet again:
"I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @04:27PM (#50858983)
PS. LEARN TO READ.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I have this super secret method of blocking ads, and it is 200 X better than hosts files, but I'm not going to tell you what it is, you have to figure it out on your own.
My method is so awesome, it even fixes all the bugs in Fallout 4, and hides all APK posts from the comment section, but it is secret, you have to be an awesome security expert like APK to figure it out.
Give me a break, I don't have to figure out what you are using to get around Slashdot's blocks, that is your choice, and it doesn't make you an uber leet programmer, network technician and systems administrator. It makes you sad and pathetic.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Now you are double posting again? You also seem to be admitting to being a horrible troll.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Thanks for more ammo for "Coren22's 'Greatest Hits Fails' vs. me" 1-5 for your next upmodded post so everyone can see it - can't wait, lol!
Feel free, since I haven't actually said anything that could be considered a fail, I can't wait to see what you have. It will be hilarious when you make even more of a fool of yourself.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You can start there if you like, it is currently +4 Interesting, maybe you can start the comment about your Batman sheets your mom gave you for Christmas to go in your "basement hideout".
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Meh, do whatever you want, it does nothing to harm me. You are just showing your inability to have adult discussions with people. I try to help you out, and you throw it back at me, and post garbage all over Slashdot. It is your choice to do so, it isn't like I can do anything to prevent you posting. You just seem to have forgotten that I was trying to help you, not attacking you.
That is ok though, do whatever you like, I don't care. I just find it funny that you feel the need to make me "eat my words" when you are the one with all the insults and attacks on everyone else, but as you said, more fuel to the fire!
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Customers do not pay for quality! They expect some level of quality to be there, but many of glitches and flaws that clearly show the laziness and lack of care by the developers are no longer a reason for users to not see value. As for a game, as long as it entertains the player it will be fine the broken way it is. That is reflected in the reviews. It all comes down to how easily even annoying flaws can be overcome. If it takes just a second to reset to the point of where things went off the rails many will not even consider this to be a significant quality issue. While I understand that point of view I wished users would be more critical. I've seen plenty of apps with misaligned UI controls, spelling errors, and flawed validation. If developers don't bother with lining things up to cut down on optical noise for the sake of reducing visual fatigue how much effort did they put into fixing things that are a magnitude more difficult to correct? How much did they bother with security measures? How much effort did they put into preventing SQL/JS/HTML injections and XSS vulnerabilities? Companies ship mediocre software because as long as they can make money on it the quality is good enough. Getting to market quickly is more important that delivering a product that the customers paid for. None of that will change as long as customers do not ask for their money back when they encounter craptastic software. It all gets worse when software companies decide to be Agile now....Agile as implemented is the death of software quality, especially when using scrum. That's a different discussion....
How would you know what my skills are, have you ever worked with me? But that is ok, you are perfectly allowed to insult others like you are some leet haxor with skillz!
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Me? You are funny. Even if it was me, why would you have any room to complain, you do the exact same thing when you post agreeing with yourself despite using the same style.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"first half dozen of patches" This is Bethesda we are talking about. Likely the two interns working on patches have been fired three months ago or are working on DLC.
Been playing since release... It has crashed a few times, but I've not lost anything/much, and it has been infrequent enough not to care too much. If I unplug my earphones, I lose all sound and have to restart the game which is a bit lame. Some of the mouse movements in menus are clunky. It randomly lost all mouse movement at one point also.
About the only "bug" I've noticed that is truly annoying is that when I am in the Armor Workshop, and I have some awesome stuff I am wearing, and some stuff I want to scrap for parts, it will sometimes seemingly decide that if I am going to scrap my some armor, I should also scrap my good stuff also, even though I definitely didn't say to do that. My solution is for now, either not to scrap any armour, and just store it someplace for later, or make damn sure I save it every time I decide I want to scrap armour, take off all my good stuff and put it somewhere else, then scrap what I have in my inventory. Annoying to be sure.
On another note, there is of course some dumb AI every now and again which can be frustrating... Like sneaking around disarming landmines, and having your AI follower, just run in all over the place blowing all the mine and you up to kingdom come, several times... Then blocking your retreat when facing off against a a boss... I'll admit to trying to kill her several times in frustration.
In all I wouldn't say it is too buggy, but they really need to figure out the UI stuff with the Armour Workshop, I assume they'll patch it at some point.