Obsidian got fucked by Bethesda

[Outlander]

Skyrim has plenty of game breaking bugs, both main quests included.

Also, NWN2 was published by Atari, so it's safe to assume they did the QA.

 

[Mastermind]

Skyrim has plenty of game breaking bugs, both main quests included.

Also, NWN2 was published by Atari, so it's safe to assume they did the QA.

It doesn't matter who did QA, QA doesn't code the game. They're a last line of defence against programmer error/incompetence.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Skyrim has plenty of game breaking bugs, both main quests included.

Also, NWN2 was published by Atari, so it's safe to assume they did the QA.

It doesn't matter who did QA, QA doesn't code the game. They're a last line of defence against programmer error/incompetence.

So then you can't say that QA failed at their job? Seems like it matters who does it. Mastermind derping again.

 

[Stinger]

 

[Jaesun]

Stop quoting Masterdipshit ffs!

 

[Mastermind]

Skyrim has plenty of game breaking bugs, both main quests included.

Also, NWN2 was published by Atari, so it's safe to assume they did the QA.

It doesn't matter who did QA, QA doesn't code the game. They're a last line of defence against programmer error/incompetence.

So then you can't say that QA failed at their job?

Why are you asking me? It's not like you're not gonna say the same stupid shit you always say regardless of my opinion.

It doesn't matter when it comes to evaluating Obshitian's performance. It particularly doesn't matter when it is Obshitian who has a primary vested interest in getting a metacritic score of 85. Beth's QA did not stop Skyrim from getting a 94, or Fallout 3 from getting a 91.

But hey, the guys who made the fucking game are not to blame for the bugs in the game and the score they got, because Chris Avellone, whose tiny flaccid cock you masturbate furiously to every night works for them.

derp

 

[FeelTheRads]

So, how come Bethesda can't be blamed for their bugs but Obsidian should?

Ah, right, the fact that Skyrim got a 94 means it has no bugs. Yeah.

Why are you asking me?

Because you used your retarded logic again: QA is responsible for quality so they're not guilty for letting buggy games out the door.

 

[dextermorgan]

Because you used your retarded logic again

But that's what he does. It's who he is. It's all he is. Don't you see?

 

[Mastermind]

So, how come Bethesda can't be blamed for their bugs but Obsidian should?

Quote me where I said Bethesda can't be blamed for their bugs. Oh wait, I didn't, you're just a lying sack of shit.

Ah, right, the fact that Skyrim got a 94 means it has no bugs. Yeah.

No, it means whatever bugs it had were not detrimental to the overall enjoyment of its players. But hey, keep sucking Avellone's dick all the way to the bottom. The best part about you arrogant fucks is that you never really learn, which results in an endless cycle of entertainment for me.

 

[Kitako]

Keep in mind that for every reviewer that comes out there are 100 others that have a mortgage to pay. Make too big of a stir and not only will you lose your job, no one else will hire you because both they and the publishers won't approve. Turns out that ex-game reviewers don't have many professional prospects outside of the fast food industry. Jeff Gerstmann was lucky enough that he got fired in such a flamboyantly media-covered fashion that he could use that short second of fame to jumpstart his own site.

I don't give a damn about their mortrages. Having a family to feed is not excuse to be dishonest. Mobsters have mortgages too.
Fabricating lies on the media to keep your wallet fat really doesn't strike my compassion and empathy sides.

 

[Kz3r0]

Just to let you know guys, I put gaudaost in ignore after his first post on this website, well, maybe the second or the third, and mastermind never left my ignore list, compliments however to all who provided sources and informations.

 

[Wise Emperor]

So Bethesda wouldn't spend 5.000$ for some Johnny's trip to Bahamas or new rigs for well known gaming site to save 500.000$?


Mastermind is back in the Game of Thrones
(of biggest dumbfuck and most ignored)

 

[Alex_Steel]

I don't give a damn about their mortrages. Having a family to feed is not excuse to be dishonest. Mobsters have mortgages too.
Fabricating lies on the media to keep your wallet fat really doesn't strike my compassion and empathy sides.

 

[toro]

I.MUST.RESIST.REPLY

FUCKING. DWARF. CUNT.

 

[Average Manatee]

Keep in mind that for every reviewer that comes out there are 100 others that have a mortgage to pay. Make too big of a stir and not only will you lose your job, no one else will hire you because both they and the publishers won't approve. Turns out that ex-game reviewers don't have many professional prospects outside of the fast food industry. Jeff Gerstmann was lucky enough that he got fired in such a flamboyantly media-covered fashion that he could use that short second of fame to jumpstart his own site.

I don't give a damn about their mortrages. Having a family to feed is not excuse to be dishonest. Mobsters have mortgages too.
Fabricating lies on the media to keep your wallet fat really doesn't strike my compassion and empathy sides.

I didn't say it's a good excuse. But it is what actually happens and nothing will change that.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

It doesn't matter who did QA, QA doesn't code the game. They're a last line of defence against programmer error/incompetence.

It's not just the programmers, it's also the designers who are scripting things as well. The more complex you make a system, the more things need testing. That's the job of the QA department. I'm not sure how big Obsidian's in house QA is, but publishers have QA as well. It's kind of silly we get buggy games at all, considering that. Then again, the publisher also decides when to ship even though they have a QA department. So, the publisher tells a developer to make a game. The developer makes it and does some testing and ships builds off to the publisher for further testing. They test it, find some glitches, report back. That cycle continues until it ships.

Now, the developer may have some technical faults with their programmers, but it's still the publisher that does a huge chunk of their own testing and ships it. You can make the argument that the problems with the designers and programmers are inept and will never get things fixed regardless of how many times the publisher sends it back for fixing. That's a possibility.

 

[.Pixote.]

Publishers always make the final decision, so when you buy a bug riddled piece of shit you need to ask why did the publisher allow it to be so...saying that, Obsidian have a pretty poor record with buggy games, Troika was the same sadly.

 

[J_C]

Fact: Publishers do the biggest part of QA. There are internal QA teams at the devs studio, but they are nothing compared to the publisher's.

I remember to an interview which was made with a fucker at Bethesda. They asked him if New Vegas will be free of bugs, because Obsidian's last game, Alpha Protocol was riddled with them (it wasn't by the way). The Beth guy said that don't worry, this is Bethesda, not Sega, we will take QA more seriously.

Good thing they took QA seriously.

 

[Wise Emperor]

Instead on relying on some random, paid game testers, maybe more companies should provide closed beta for some esteemed members of their forums community. Win, win situation - as developer you get some insightful (and hopefully honest) opinions who will play it to death and the community consider you a Bros who listen to their fans. There always be retards who will suck developers dick and give them 11/10 ratings(Volly!) but many will probably contribute to fighting bugs, improving the mechanics and overall balance. I don't know how it looks in practice but probably Blizzard is the best example. You can say they make more and more dumbed down games, appealing to popamole crowd, but their games are well known for being bug-less (compared to competition). Or maybe I'm completely wrong because I don't play new games and visit developers official sites.

As I see it many Q&A guys are probably playing the game for couple of hours, day or two and jump to another one. When the producer asks: "Is it ready to be shipped? Because we got 3 month delay.", they probably nod head and think "Yes, its nice game and I don't exactly get the lore, I'm more of a Call of Duty fan not Fallout, so the combat looks ok. Now give me my money and another game." Waste of money.

 

[Tigranes]

It'd be easier to get random dudes in a room, version control so you can update at any point, control the systems they play on, standardize the hours they play and the feedback they give, control for leaked copies, etc. That's what I assume, anyway, since there has to be some positives that outweigh having your fans test.

 

[Wise Emperor]

I generally agree but I assume that when money are involved integrity is sitting in the far, dark corner. You pay me, I will tell you what you want, not what I think. Did recent mainstream titles flopped when some major bugs slipped into final release? Publisher don't need perfect product, they need something that will sell. If preorders and first week are largest chunk of sales, who cares if consumers after couple of days will find some major bugs.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Paradox used your fan-method, Wise Emperor, for majority of their games. It didn't work that well and after they switched to a professional QA, their games have been much more playable straight off the box. As much as I enjoyed the old method, being a beta for HoI2 myself, it makes more sense to use the professionals.

 

[Wise Emperor]

Eh if Paradox Community suck at beta testing so I definitely rest my case.