Tom's Hardware smack downs BF2 patching.
polycounter lvl 18
Love this part:
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to sit someone down from places like EA and DICE and ask them just what they're playing at. Of course I'd probably get the boilerplate answer telling me about their commitment to the highest standards in their thorough testing processes.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20050813/index.html
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to sit someone down from places like EA and DICE and ask them just what they're playing at. Of course I'd probably get the boilerplate answer telling me about their commitment to the highest standards in their thorough testing processes.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20050813/index.html
Replies
A patch should make a game easier to play by fixing bugs, not put new ones in it!
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh u r rite, LOL man, LOL!
I find no evidence of anything other than bog standard armchair criticism. It's certainly valid criticism (yes, games these days have a lot of bugs, sometimes patches make things worse) but is he hurting so much for a column topic that he has to parrot back a universal sentiment in the most general of terms? It's typical for outside commentary on the subject.
Put together a website, maybe a bitchin' casemod or two even, and suddenly you are in a position to criticize how a billion dollar company handles what is, despite all valid criticisms, a very fun and successful title?
There are plenty of people on these boards that have been on projects that have been far more poorly handled than BF2. This is not to excuse all the bugs that the article brings up... but seriously, it's not like there's someone at the top who's willfully sabotaging the game. It's a complex operation, and it's a little tiring to deal with people going around with their "when I am King" fantasies of game development. We know better.
And please, don't give us the "we the consumers" routine. If you think BF2 is that fucked up--which I don't--then don't play it, to take your brave stand against EA shitting on your high standards of quality. Boy, if only EA could put together a game like the people who put together the unrated cut of White Chicks! Now that's quality entertainment!
People always talk about voting with the wallets, etc. etc. but very few people seem to really follow through with that rather hollow threat. Yes, it's a shame that a great game like BF2 shouldn't be even better and be clear of these bugs from the get-go.
Who at EA or Dice would disagree with that statement? You think they got together and had meetings about how exquisitely they could fuck up the release of their hotly anticipated title? How there are probably a ton of people in both EA and Dice who feel the exact same way?
Let's have just a liiiiittle bit more sympathy for the people in question, and try and think of them as people, not just some strange and faceless corporation that is ruining games just to see if you, the valiant Consumer, will stand for it. Many of us are working for companies, we can give them the same consideration we would like to be given in their situation.
Anyhow, the caveman paints a cave wall scene with animals and hunting. The voice over describes him as the first artist. Then another caveman on a rock above looks up and down at the painting while the artist and crowd wait in expectation. The voice over comes back speaking darker and says, "But then, came the first critic." The caveman on the rock then pulls down his furs and proceeds to piss all over the painting.
My point is that someone is always going to criticize something. Always have, always will. In this case I would say at least having a larger site rant about it might be good in that this patch annoyance is happening more and more often, if no one else, EAs marketing and business side cant simply play it off as a small select group.
In the future they might be embarrased financially to allow the developers to have more time to crush bugs before unrealistic releases.
You don't serve food before it's properly cooked, and you don't release software until it works (this goes for everyone all the way up to the source (Windows)). If that's not possible, then we're all going to be knee deep in shit in the PC world.
I just went and read this clowns article about the subject and it's obvious he is a tool that has no idea what goes on behind the scens of making a game,
even if they test on a hundred machines for 6 months , you would not find a fraction of the bugs as the hundreds of thousands of computers running the game on the day of release,
the first patch while everyone claims it to be a horrible nightmare, worked fine for myself and pretty much everyone at work that plays bf2 with me, we hadno problems at all after that patch, i used it up untill the newer patch came out,
bf2 is pretty much the only game i am playing currently, and hey its heaps loads of fun.
we get the same thing witht he mod tools, when they were not released on time because dice said they were not ready, everyone was furious demanding for them pronto, but then they are released, and not ready, and everyone complains that they are not useable.. morons
There are over a billion combinations of hardware at any one given time. Trying to make things work correctly on all of them is a pain in the arse, and not entirely the developers fault.
As good example is that on my desktop, I've not had any issues with Steam since release. Yet other people seem to have mountains of problems with Steam calling it crap.
Perhaps I have more generic hardware, or I have the same hardware as Steam was tested on, or a number of other reasons.
Whatever the reason is. I could play-test Steam of a week on this computer and I might never find a bug that causes the application to crash becuase on this system it doesn't.
A friend has a pretty similar spec system, I think the Mobo is a different manufacturer. Steam crashes the instant he boots it up.
The only way the programmers can solve issues like this is when people make bug reports. However most people just don't. They feel it's the problem of the programmers being lazy without enough play-testing.
So as far as the programmers are conserned, everything works how it should. Of course this isn't always the case, but most of the time many bugs that slip out can be chalked up to this.
I don't play BF2, for 2 reasons. I'm not a fan of the original, and the demo ran like pap on my FX5200 system.
I have a much quicker system too, but I prefer to only use it when I want to play things in high-resolution.
As daily use slows down Windows. Easier to optimised something used only for a few hours each week than all the time.
Be nice if Microsoft released a decent OS that didn't have 90% bloat for things that most of us will never really need to use. Like Windows Lite or something. Optimised for those who only do a few repetitive tasks.
BitchMoanWhineBitchMoanWhine... It's a never-ending cycle!
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats what life is about, isnt it?
[ QUOTE ]
BitchMoanWhineBitchMoanWhine... It's a never-ending cycle!
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats what life is about, isnt it?
[/ QUOTE ]...Wasn't that sex or all the knowledge in the universe?
Besides, BF2 graphics arent that top notch.
Besides, BF2 graphics arent that top notch.
[/ QUOTE ]
I beg to differ. To say that you're failing to understand some of the graphical tricks they are pulling off.
Note how there is a subtle GI lighting effect on models in shadowed areas. Normals that face upward are tinted blue to reflect the sky, normals that face down brownish. Now find me another game that's doing that. Everything is self shadowing too. That's some serious math happening there.
From the sounds of all these bugs, I'm kinda glad I didn't buy it yet, though :P
in my opinion the majority of the hate i hear about this is just people being quick to diss EA since it has officialy become the "Microsoft" of the game industry.
Problem with bf2 is the massive balance issues with the helicopters and planes.
1."There are over a billion combinations of hardware at any one given time."
2."The only way the programmers can solve issues like this is when people make bug reports. However most people just don't. They feel it's the problem of the programmers being lazy without enough play-testing."
3."I don't play BF2, for 2 reasons. I'm not a fan of the original, and the demo ran like pap on my FX5200 system.
I have a much quicker system too, but I prefer to only use it when I want to play things in high-resolution."
4."Be nice if Microsoft released a decent OS that didn't have 90% bloat for things that most of us will never really need to use. Like Windows Lite or something. Optimised for those who only do a few repetitive tasks.
[/ QUOTE ]
1.It's really not that bad at all. Developers know that no one can run BF2 on a P2 slot processor. X86 procs, card-specific shaders, sound cards... I can't think of anything else thats specialized?
2.That's what a beta is for. And actually if the program has a semi-convenient way to report a bug (like WoW), I wouldn't be surprised if almost everyone sent in the report.
3.I don't understand your logic. You don't play it because it won't run on your outdated hardware, yet you don't want to play it on your "newer" system because it's only for high res?
4.I'm tired of uneducated fools saying this. "I HEARD A LINUX GUURU WHO WAS LIKE TEH UBER LEET SAY THAT WINDOWS SUX N SHIT YO BECAUSE ITS BLOATED YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN MAN? IT'S ALL IN DAT BLOATED SHIT AND THE FLUX R CAPACITOR MAN, YOU JUST GOTTA KNOW ELECTRONICS N SHIT TO UNDERSTAND I GUESS." XP is a great OS, and if you feel that the services are unnecessary, they can be easily removed or stopped. I would suggest educating yourself on the subject if it bothers you that much.
1.It's really not that bad at all. Developers know that no one can run BF2 on a P2 slot processor. X86 procs, card-specific shaders, sound cards... I can't think of anything else thats specialized?
[/ QUOTE ]
In my local computer store there are 14 different motherboards for the AMD AthlonXP/Duron/Semperon Processor, just within the <£50 Range.
Now there are also 5 distinctly different RAM Manufacturers and 4 different RAM types.
Combine this with 3 Processor Types (Duron/AthlonXP/Semperon) as well as there also being 2 variations of each of these type. (let alone the different speeds which react differently)
So next we combine that there are 5 GPU manufacturers each with atleast 2 Shader Generation Cards on the Market. (some have 3 Generations on the market right now!)
These are just the limited options in my local computer store, and I'm sure that's not all of them.
Yes different Ram reacts differently, so does the same chipset by different manufacturers. Processor react differently based on hardware they're on. As do the GPU.
Now weren't not even getting into the extended media required to run the computer like PSU, NiC, USB, Optical-Drives, Hard Drives, etc.
As I said there is a huge number of combinations and getting games to run the same on all of them is a near impossible task. You can get a good majority of them to work, but still you can't fix bugs where the exact same graphics processor is being used and works on one system but another manufacturers on another causes all of the textures to not load.
[ QUOTE ]
2.That's what a beta is for. And actually if the program has a semi-convenient way to report a bug (like WoW), I wouldn't be surprised if almost everyone sent in the report.
[/ QUOTE ]
Companies only have a very limited resources for testing purposes.
BattleField 2 *WAS* Beta Tested publically for a better market hit. This is becomming a bigger trend. Yet people see these as 'free play' time. Where they get to play unreleased games. Developers don't get bug reports back, obviously it works so you ship it.
[ QUOTE ]
3.I don't understand your logic. You don't play it because it won't run on your outdated hardware, yet you don't want to play it on your "newer" system because it's only for high res?
[/ QUOTE ]
dude, my 7800 requires a freaking 550watt PSU just to run without rebooting Windows XP. Unless your willing to pay my electric bill, I'm sticking with my "outdated" hardware.
Something that plays even Doom 3 on High Settings are a reasonable speed. Yet BF2 is unplayable even on the lowest settings. I've not had any issues with any other games except that dumbass Ninja Turtles Game.
You know what ticks me off. I had my GeForce 2 GTS for almost 4years, and it was still capable of keeping up with almost every game I threw at it. Now graphics cards are becomming completely obsolete within a year.
The only way to keep up and actually have enough money left over to actually buy the games your buying the hardware for, is to get a budget card. At which point almost every developer does thier damndest to make sure it's obsolete the day you buy it.
Anyone ever wonders why the PC market is bottoming out compared to the booming console market, it's simply because £350 every damn year just to make sure you can play the latest games at more than a jerky crawl quite simply isn't worth it.
[ QUOTE ]
4.I'm tired of uneducated fools saying this. "I HEARD A LINUX GUURU WHO WAS LIKE TEH UBER LEET SAY THAT WINDOWS SUX N SHIT YO BECAUSE ITS BLOATED YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN MAN? IT'S ALL IN DAT BLOATED SHIT AND THE FLUX R CAPACITOR MAN, YOU JUST GOTTA KNOW ELECTRONICS N SHIT TO UNDERSTAND I GUESS." XP is a great OS, and if you feel that the services are unnecessary, they can be easily removed or stopped. I would suggest educating yourself on the subject if it bothers you that much.
[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me, you think cause I believe that Microsoft Windows right now is 90% bloat when it comes to daily tasks that instantly I'm some children's operatering system fan?
There is only so much you can 'optimise' for Windows XP Home/Professional. I can run Half-Life 2 on it's default setting on this system on Windows XP Pro SP2, at 50fps.
I can run it on this system using Windows XP Embedded (which compiles every library for your system specifically) at over 80fps. Allowing me to push the graphics up, yes even on this 'obsolete' peice of hardware.
Yet not everyone is willing to wait the better part of a day to compile Windows XP specifically for thier computer, especially as, once you upgrade a component or drivers you have to recompile it.
Hell look at the X-Box, that's not running anything special over a standard Desktop PC. It uses Shared-Ram (which is slower than dedicated RAM even with the extra bandwidth). It's also running a slightly better GeForce 3 than your bog-standard street edition. But underneath it all is a stripped down copy of Windows 2000 and DirectX.
You cannot hope to achieve that sort of performance boost in regular Windows. Simply because quite a few of the libraries that are there specifically for your everyday takes are link to other libraries linked to other libraries. You can't simply take or disable one thing.
The services you run and can see are only a fraction of the REAL processes going on. Just to run an application Window, how much RAM and Processor time do you think it takes at a low resolution of 1024x768?
How many instances do you think you have just running the desktop with that one window?
YES, these things are there in order to provide a friendly easy interface for everyday applications and such. Yet there is nothing stopping Microsoft from releasing a hugely cut-down variation of Windows specifically for regular users.
It's like a TOCA Car. You ever looked inside a TOCA Car?
It is your regular family Coupé, like Volvo S40 or something. Yet everything unessencial to racing is stipped.
This allows them to perform better, because there is less weight. They can also be tuned more specifically to the task at hand.
It's not a dig at Windows XP being bad, it's just a simple fact. It is unoptimised. For being able to do basically anything IT has to be relatively unoptimised so it can adapt to any situation.
I don't see an issue with this changing though.
Why should Doom3 be playable on an Intel P3 733MHz / 64MB / GF3 X-Box, yet to achieve the same on a desktop you need an Intel P4 1.5GHz / 256MB / GFFX 5700 128MB.
Sure they can optimise the console more, but to the pointer where you need over double the hardware to achieve the same speed?
On the second, if everyone sees it as "free play time", why don't they stress people to give them bug info? What about closed betas?
Third, why would you shell out over 500 dollars for a graphics card, yet not be willing to pay for electricity to do occasional gaming?!
And yes, if you say Windows is 90% bloated, then yes, that's the general impression I got out of your statement.
If you get over a 50% boost with embedded, then you obviously had a stock install on the original. In fact, I've never seen a 50% boost on an embedded system. Could you show some benchmarks or proof on the web?
About Doom3, it was highly optimized for the Xbox's proprietary hardware, and it still looked worse.
Sure Windows is bloated, but if you're a hardcore gamer who absolutely needs more FPS, there's lots of things you can do. Almost all services can be removed (read this), you can store your core in memory, use your L2 cache, etc. I think there's a program called GameXP somewhere that does a lot of optimization before you go into a game.
And also, sorry for soundin like a douche on that last part of my last post. I just get into it too much sometimes
Raven, to go with the race car analogy--would you agree that a TOCA car isn't a very good for the family of four who need to pick up the kids from school and go get groceries? If XP only had to function a specific way for a specific subset of users, it might be as lean and mean as you fantasize that it could be. it being "bloated" is natural given that it's a catch-all for non-mac, non-alternative-OS-users (those together being a significant minority). that's what linux is for, is for the people who have the wherewithal or the need to somehow prove to other people that they run a more awesome, efficient operating system. just like cars. there are guys who drive totally bitching tricked-out street racers that impress other guys who do the same thing, but don't really mean much to the general public. people who make case-mods tend to impress other people who make case mods; it's kind of a closed loop. XP is a one size fits all solution so naturally it's not going to fit everyone, and that's cool, that's why there are some great alternatives (that can't run any of the apps/games you want to. oops.)
XP is a good product that does what it should, which is work reasonably well for the vast majority of computer users out there. sure it could be better, but isn't that always the case?
and thank you Rhinokey, i'm glad that people who work in this industry see the sense that people aren't willfully trying to fuck things up and that it's not a simple process.
Third, why would you shell out over 500 dollars for a graphics card, yet not be willing to pay for electricity to do occasional gaming?!
[/ QUOTE ]
I never paid for the card. Besides cards have more uses than just gaming, being able to render in half the time over my Quadro being on of the benefits.
[ QUOTE ]
About Doom3, it was highly optimized for the Xbox's proprietary hardware, and it still looked worse.
[/ QUOTE ]
Try playing the game on low-settings, I personally can't tell the difference between the X-Box and PC versions on Low-Graphics. Sure the X-Box is only going 30fps, but as I said to achieve the same speed you need to almost literally double the power for the PC.
[ QUOTE ]
Raven, to go with the race car analogy--would you agree that a TOCA car isn't a very good for the family of four who need to pick up the kids from school and go get groceries? If XP only had to function a specific way for a specific subset of users, it might be as lean and mean as you fantasize that it could be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh no Guass don't get me wrong. Windows XP Home / Professional do provide stuff that suits everyday life. I just think it would be good if Microsoft could release a Lite version as-well as the standard versions.
Something that will optimise more for gaming, and provide only the most basic front-end abilities. I just think it's a good idea.
Of course I'd still use Professional on most of my machines, probably a dual-boot. Having the option of being able to boot Windows just for random things rather than working would be good.
Frank the Avenger