Bugs that have never been fixed for years either. Such as the one where all your windows resize to just a titlebar when you use an external monitor. But their core market are laptop only users who never use monitors.
Investigators are busy investigating. Anonymous is busy...deciding how to butt in where they're not wanted. They got impatient when after 5 minutes the investigators hadn't hacked any web sites to show their displeasure.
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.
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.
Why do those languages that use GT also use "+" instead of PLUS? a lot of times the reasons aren't about having words instead of symbols, but other pragmatic reasons. There were limitations on early punch card formats, the relevant symbols just may not have existed. IBM Model 026 keypunch did not support . And once you've got "EQ" to distinguish from "=" then it's much easier to use "GT" or "LT".
Reminds me of the Fallout New Vegas forums. They think FO:NV is the best game over, while FO3 is the worst game of all time. When they're both good, just in different ways, but both of them have things I dislike in them, just in different ways. There's left over resentment about Bethesda changing Fallout 1/2 into something else, but they forgive Obsidian because there are a tiny number of people there who worked on Fallout 2.
Immortal characters added because the players want them. Some players don't, sure, but a lot of players whined a lot in the past when they killed an important story NPC and didn't find out it broke the game until months later.
5 different enemies. Wow, did they not play Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas? Give me a break. And if they're posting just today, then they did not finish the game anyway (maybe finish main quest, but big deal, the earlier games can be finished in 10 to 20 minutes on a speed run).
Voice acting is superb. Amazingly better than you saw in earlier Bethesda games. People dissing the voice acting are like those who think the graphics are bad.
A bunch of ruins with nothing there... Wow, did they not play Fallout 3? Do they not understand the concept of post nuclear armageddon?
You can wait. You have that right. It doesn't sound like the sort of genre or game play you'd like. Meanwhile I'll be having fun.
And they've spent all the time since the announcement in June on bug fixing. They have been working harder. And yet someone will complain about how devs are lazy because a million players will find some bugs faster than the handful of QA testers.
They get bug fixes out quickly. The major bugs that stop the game from being playable are fixed quickly. Maybe an occasional crash to desktop remains, but those often happen to just a few players. The bugs that take forever to fix are the ones that really don't matter much. The vase that's floating a few inches above a table won't affect game play or enjoyment, but there are players who will notice it and post to a forum "lazy devs don't know how to code, I could fix this in a minute".
If a game is delayed players will complain. They will complain even more loudly about how a company doesn't know how to keep to a schedule and needs to get better management after a delay, then they will if the game is on time with minor bugs and a patch that comes later.
With an open world game like this the delays to fix up bugs would take a year unless they hire hundreds of QA testers. This is why all the rapidly produced games are tightly on the rails, no deviance from the story line, no popping over the hill to see what's there. And all of those rapidly produced games are crap with boring gameplaye, mere clones of everything else in their genre.
(the game from before Morrowind was a complete disaster)
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.
I was in the kickstarter for Project Eternity and we could see how all the sausage was being made. Even so, day one some people whined bitterly about minor bugs. There will *always* be the petty whiners on the forums, and *every* game is claimed to be the worst game of all time by some body.
Fallout 4 is in a huge universe. The very nature of open world games (of which there are extremely few) means there's just way too many things possible to test all possibilities. It would take a couple of years just in QA to find bugs that players will discover in the first two weeks of a release of something like Skyrim or Fallout 4. If you delay the game for bugs, the players WILL complain about delayed releases. The will complain more loudly about the delays than they will complain about the bugs.
The game frankly is not that buggy. A few people have problems, they're complaining loudly, and the major bugs will be patched quickly, and in the meantime the game is playable.
Were there lies? I never saw any. The reviews pointed out the bugs that existed, and recommended the game. I will recommend the game most likely once I get in and play it. There were no reviews that said it was bug free, all of them that I read pointed out the bugs. There are no ethical issues here.
Any game for that matter. I think console players are used to getting a game on cartridge or disc that can't be changed, and they're still new to the concept of getting patches. With Fallout 4 they're definitely going to be new to the concept of modding the game.
This is a hobby of some people. Trash a game for having bugs, calling it the worst game of all time (seriously, that was in the forums), etc. But they'll point to other games that have had bugs and praise them. There have been bugs in computer games since they first existed, and there have been patches that have come out to fix them. I don't see the big deal. There's certainly zero *ethical* problems with giving a positive review here. Fallout 3 is a great game, I highly recommend it, and it has bugs. Fallout 1 is my favorite game of all time, and it's extremely buggy.
There's also the wannabe professional reviewer corps. Even the ones at professional web sites aren't really trained critics with a journalism background. A lot of them seem to think that criticism means tearing something down. I mean if they're comparing Fallout 4 to popular console FPS shooters, which many have done, then they've sort of missed the entire concept of what Fallout is.
The ultimate problem is that you have to eventually release the game. There will be bugs. If you wait until it's perfect then it will never be released. Compound the problem by announcing a release date long before the development is seriously underway. Compare to the rushed out yearly-franchise of Assassin's Creed, the latest was vastly more buggy than Fallout 4.
Slashdot Mirror
So add noscript to the plugins also.
This story comes up a lot. I always assumed it was common knowledge amongst engineers. But not as many engineers on slashdot anymore.
Bugs that have never been fixed for years either. Such as the one where all your windows resize to just a titlebar when you use an external monitor. But their core market are laptop only users who never use monitors.
Investigators are busy investigating. Anonymous is busy...deciding how to butt in where they're not wanted. They got impatient when after 5 minutes the investigators hadn't hacked any web sites to show their displeasure.
Hint: "Ihealz4u" is not a role player.
And any MMO.
Good thing you have no ancestors in you phylogenetic tree that were immigrants.
Because it's confusing. And apparently not in English.
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.
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.
Those who can, do it. Those who can't, write articles about how to do it.
Why do those languages that use GT also use "+" instead of PLUS? a lot of times the reasons aren't about having words instead of symbols, but other pragmatic reasons. There were limitations on early punch card formats, the relevant symbols just may not have existed. IBM Model 026 keypunch did not support . And once you've got "EQ" to distinguish from "=" then it's much easier to use "GT" or "LT".
Reminds me of the Fallout New Vegas forums. They think FO:NV is the best game over, while FO3 is the worst game of all time. When they're both good, just in different ways, but both of them have things I dislike in them, just in different ways. There's left over resentment about Bethesda changing Fallout 1/2 into something else, but they forgive Obsidian because there are a tiny number of people there who worked on Fallout 2.
Immortal characters added because the players want them. Some players don't, sure, but a lot of players whined a lot in the past when they killed an important story NPC and didn't find out it broke the game until months later.
5 different enemies. Wow, did they not play Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas? Give me a break. And if they're posting just today, then they did not finish the game anyway (maybe finish main quest, but big deal, the earlier games can be finished in 10 to 20 minutes on a speed run).
Voice acting is superb. Amazingly better than you saw in earlier Bethesda games. People dissing the voice acting are like those who think the graphics are bad.
A bunch of ruins with nothing there... Wow, did they not play Fallout 3? Do they not understand the concept of post nuclear armageddon?
You can wait. You have that right. It doesn't sound like the sort of genre or game play you'd like. Meanwhile I'll be having fun.
And they've spent all the time since the announcement in June on bug fixing. They have been working harder. And yet someone will complain about how devs are lazy because a million players will find some bugs faster than the handful of QA testers.
They get bug fixes out quickly. The major bugs that stop the game from being playable are fixed quickly. Maybe an occasional crash to desktop remains, but those often happen to just a few players. The bugs that take forever to fix are the ones that really don't matter much. The vase that's floating a few inches above a table won't affect game play or enjoyment, but there are players who will notice it and post to a forum "lazy devs don't know how to code, I could fix this in a minute".
If a game is delayed players will complain. They will complain even more loudly about how a company doesn't know how to keep to a schedule and needs to get better management after a delay, then they will if the game is on time with minor bugs and a patch that comes later.
With an open world game like this the delays to fix up bugs would take a year unless they hire hundreds of QA testers. This is why all the rapidly produced games are tightly on the rails, no deviance from the story line, no popping over the hill to see what's there. And all of those rapidly produced games are crap with boring gameplaye, mere clones of everything else in their genre.
(the game from before Morrowind was a complete disaster)
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.
Ethical lapses in the movie journalism industry!
I was in the kickstarter for Project Eternity and we could see how all the sausage was being made. Even so, day one some people whined bitterly about minor bugs. There will *always* be the petty whiners on the forums, and *every* game is claimed to be the worst game of all time by some body.
Fallout 4 is in a huge universe. The very nature of open world games (of which there are extremely few) means there's just way too many things possible to test all possibilities. It would take a couple of years just in QA to find bugs that players will discover in the first two weeks of a release of something like Skyrim or Fallout 4. If you delay the game for bugs, the players WILL complain about delayed releases. The will complain more loudly about the delays than they will complain about the bugs.
The game frankly is not that buggy. A few people have problems, they're complaining loudly, and the major bugs will be patched quickly, and in the meantime the game is playable.
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.
Were there lies? I never saw any. The reviews pointed out the bugs that existed, and recommended the game. I will recommend the game most likely once I get in and play it. There were no reviews that said it was bug free, all of them that I read pointed out the bugs. There are no ethical issues here.
Any game for that matter. I think console players are used to getting a game on cartridge or disc that can't be changed, and they're still new to the concept of getting patches. With Fallout 4 they're definitely going to be new to the concept of modding the game.
This is a hobby of some people. Trash a game for having bugs, calling it the worst game of all time (seriously, that was in the forums), etc. But they'll point to other games that have had bugs and praise them. There have been bugs in computer games since they first existed, and there have been patches that have come out to fix them. I don't see the big deal. There's certainly zero *ethical* problems with giving a positive review here. Fallout 3 is a great game, I highly recommend it, and it has bugs. Fallout 1 is my favorite game of all time, and it's extremely buggy.
There's also the wannabe professional reviewer corps. Even the ones at professional web sites aren't really trained critics with a journalism background. A lot of them seem to think that criticism means tearing something down. I mean if they're comparing Fallout 4 to popular console FPS shooters, which many have done, then they've sort of missed the entire concept of what Fallout is.
The ultimate problem is that you have to eventually release the game. There will be bugs. If you wait until it's perfect then it will never be released. Compound the problem by announcing a release date long before the development is seriously underway. Compare to the rushed out yearly-franchise of Assassin's Creed, the latest was vastly more buggy than Fallout 4.
It's just like an all-you-can-eat buffet. Everyone knows you're not able to eat ALL of the food. Plus if you abuse it too much you get banned.