What games has stpnmass been buying?

One of the most popular games out there right now is Battlefield 2 which is far more buggy today with real bugs, bugs that affect everyone than anything described by anybody here. BF2 has had unforgiveable, embarassing bugs.

Civ 4 shipped with tons of bugs in some really embarassing areas too. Played the first version where the buttons on the game replay didn't work? Their solution was to remove the buttons in a patch. yay. Civ 4 wasn't very buggy either in the grand scheme of things.

I've seen Brad write this somewhere else and it bears repeating here, perfect is the enemy of good.

I was in the gamma program for GalCiv II. I accused Brad and his team of having seperation anxiety because I, and the other gamma testers felt the game was ready to release. You don't seem to agree. That's nice. But even if they had sat on it iplaying another 3 months, you'd still have people able to find some little thing here or there.

those who are refuting my pc console link seem to be missing the stipulation that compatibility bugs fall outside this comparison (i believe a made this stipulation a bit after I made the comparison). I completely understand the difference between developing for a single piece of hardware with consoles and developing for thousands of possible system configurations with PCs. My commentary is that it is far more likely to see typo and game play related bugs in PC games than it is with console (and yet they sell for almost the same price, new xbox games withstanding) which falls completely outside the realm of compatibility.

And I'll state again so I dont have people flaming me, Stardock is far better about this than most PC game developers and has shown to be extremely responsive in releasing patches and support yada yada yada (read my other posts in this thread for all this stuff)....

Compatibility bugs cannot fall outside of this comparison. When funding a project you staff a QA and development, you don't staff 10 people for compatibility development and 10 people for minor bugs. As things progress you always have everyone focusing on the most serious bugs first. This means that more compatability related bugs - which are almost always more serious - will result in more cosmetic bugs in the final product.

Every hour that someone has to spend trying to reproduce an elusive problem that only happens on a few system configurations (but may make the game completely unplayable on those systems) is an hour they can't spend on minor bugs. Basically, console titles have less resulting bugs of any category because they have less bugs total.

what bugs? nothing serious for me really, must be just lucky Im enjoying the game since day 1

Coming here and accusing the staff of bad QA testing (especially when most people seem to disagree with you) will not get positive results. This is one of the most devoted group of game designers *and* gamers I've ever seen. Why would you even say such things to them? Can't you see how different they are than most companies? Please don't do this anymore.

While it would be wonderful to get bugless games, it's just not feasible in the software market. This is one of the only products in the world that has to work on 1,000s of different configurations. I'd say we're lucky programers, for the most part, do a spectacular job of coding for multiple system specs.

Thanks Brad and crew for giving us this gift to PC gaming. Just fix the minor annoyances and this game will be the model for future space 4x software. Not bad for an indy company right?

How many people work at Stardock? 40?
And how many copies of GalCiv II have they sold? Thousands?
Statistically, I would imagine it'd be impossible for there to NOT be people that run across bugs, no matter what "day and age" it is.

How many movies have you seen where there was an obvious screw-up? The boom in the shot, or someone's shirt magically changing color? How many multi-million dollar movies have webpages dedicated to pointing out all the screw-ups in the movie?
How many cars have had to be recalled, or have had to be sent in due to faulty parts? I personally have owned a car that got recalled.
And, as others have pointed out, how many video games have been released (especially by big-name companies with 4 times the manpower and funding of Stardock) with serious bugs?
And, out of any of those examples, how many times have you seen the owner of the company personally speak with customers in order to help fix the problems?

So, now you bought a game that you have already said you really enjoy... and decide to come dump on the guys that made it, just because a SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT THE GAME experience a serious error during gameplay or less-serious graphical/gameplay bugs? You don't give any detail of an error you experience yourself, so you obviously don't want any help.
i have a computer I built myself, and I have yet to experience one CTD, or one serious graphical error. The most serious problem I've encountered in-game are typos.

Having to deal with tech support myself, I can honestly say it's people like you that make the job hell. Congratulations on being the champion of the gamer.
While you're busy doing that, i'm going to go play some more.

At one point shortly after it's release Diablo 2 had around 200 known bugs.

Although there are a few gameplay bugs in GC 2 that I think there may be no good excuse for, the overall number and severity is not bad.

I've had fewer problems with GCII's release than I had with CivIV.

doesn't this guy have a star trek convention to go to where he can demand that the whoever gave Kirk the wrong prop in scene 32 in episode "mirror mirror" be fired?

outside teh hardware stuff a few people have mentioned themselves having (i have had none), the kinds of things you're listing are piddly crap things that every game out there has and gets addressed.

if galciv2 is buggy, what's your idea of a game that isn't buggy that's remotely as complex? i can think of none?

Stpinmass,

I believe most of us that have been around for the beta cycle were happy the game came out when it did. I paid my money long ago. I guess we could have waited another couple months for a much more polished version, but I would much rather have the game in hand. I think Stardock knows their customers well. As you can see by this post most of us are content, even happy with the game. We know the patches are coming. That some are unhappy is the nature of the business, can't make everyone happy.

If a poll would have been taken the day before release that asked:

Play now with some minor issues

Or

More waiting while all these small issues are resolved

How would you answer?

My vote play now!

Every hour that someone has to spend trying to reproduce an elusive problem that only happens on a few system configurations (but may make the game completely unplayable on those systems) is an hour they can't spend on minor bugs. Basically, console titles have less resulting bugs of any category because they have less bugs total.

In my experience the core QA team doesnt spend that much time on compatibility bugs for a PC title. A typical QA team is usually assigned one machine each with each machine embodying as wide a range of options as possible. If they find bugs under this setup that's great. The real compatibility testing, however, takes place with the departments compatability specialist (and to some degree the team lead to guide them) who is in charge of running the game through a wide range of hardware. Normaly this takes the form of running the game on every possible video card with some additional hardware types thrown in. Based on my experience (which is technicaly from two publishers as the company I started working for was bought out by a larger) and from what I used to hear around the industry, this is the norm for PC game publishers. So in summary PC QA makes up the difference with console with an added specialist.

I've seen the beta test plans that the folks at SD listed out ages ago when GalCiv 2 beta developement had started to kick in and ppl were invited to test. IMHO, it was one of the more *open and thought-out* software testing document I seen. I been in other betas (from A-title developers and publishers) before and *none* had that sort of detail.

Exactly, which is why it boggles the mind that there are so many in-your-face bugs that you would have to be blind to miss and why it equally boggles that there are a large number of bugs of all varieties, minor glitches here and there, and oddly functioning features.

Fanbois can get worked up all they want - it doesn't change reality. I'm a huge fan of Stardock and GalCiv but I was a bit disappointed in the game's state at release. I'm a demanding gamer and I expected fewer bugs and glitches.

First, Stpinmass is being incredibly unfair here. Not because the developers deserve some kind of medal for being quick to patch their game. And not because his position is fundamentally wrong. But because his claim is factually inaccurate. The game doesn't have 100's of bugs. Period.

It has some bugs. It has frequent crashing for little apparent reason on some systems, typcially considered due to overheating or overstressing the equipment on said system. Crashes may also be caused by memory leaks in longer games.

The game may have some balance isses (which is where the 100's number came from), and there may be better UI's for the game. I can't speak on that subject, since I can't play the game for more than 5 minutes. However, these are not crash bugs, and they aren't preventing anyone from playing the game. These are gameplay concerns; the primary problem (from my perspective) is getting to the point where I can actually play the game.

Second, the idea that console games are more stable, on average, than PC games due to being one platform is falacious; most multiplatform console games are developed simultaneously for multiple platforms, which requires multiplatform testing. To be fair, this testing is smaller in scope than the number of PC platforms, but the complexity is still there. Indeed, it is more complex, because each platform has wonderfully different APIs for accessing hardware (and, in some cases [Sony], no API at all. Just hardware manuals). So there is a tradeoff that I would consider relatively even.

The reason console games are more stable is because game developers cannot afford to make buggy games. You ship a buggy console game, it dies. Period. You ship a buggy PC game, PC gamers are used to that, so they'll give you a month or two to fix it. Which means you can now shave a month or two off of your development cycle. Remember: once upon a time, PC games didn't get patched either. And back then, games went directly to the hardware, and there were entirely different kinds of hardware out there. It was harder back then, but they didn't release patches at all. Software was more stable back then. Once the Internet made patches possible, the quality of PC software at ship time dropped significantly, despite the fact that things like DirectX made multi-hardware game development easier

Third, I fully understand that some stuff slips through. And I fully understand that most people are up and running. However, I am reminded of the time when Link Penny Arcade gave World of Warcraft the 2004 GotY award. After a few months of horrific server problems, they Link formally revoked it until Blizzard fixed the problems. This Link despite the fact that plenty of WoW players were able to play the game just fine.

Granted, the proportions of broken WoW players to working WoW players was very different than this issue with GC2. However, it does demonstrate the point: just because it's working for you or someone else doesn't mean that one shouldn't complain about the problem. And it's not like Blizzard didn't know about the problem either. And they were certainly working on it. But nothing pushes you more than having a group of customers complaining vocally about your product.

Sorry posted in the wrong thread

Stpinmass, you are a loose cannon. Firing blindly.

GC2 has so few bugs that you would be startled, because you define "bugs" wrong. A BUG is a problem, mishandling or error in the code. No more. You assign problems stemming from an XML typo, graphics glitch, GFX card problem and even modeling mixup the name of "bug".

Excuse me?

Systems aren't congruent, and worse still they are very different. From build, to software, to registry. All that plays a part in the problem. So how do you gather the user's computer into a file to troubleshoot without violating privacy, system protection protocals and antivirus utilities? Answer me that one. Since there's no way to know everything about someone's computer, there's no way to troubleshoot every problem. The fact that Stardock has released a patch already and has another in the final stages says something: they care.

Battlefield 2 was so buggy I couldn't play, nor could almost 20 of my friends. Fun? Heck no. GC2 has such a low error margin you need to just bail out of this arguement.

i can't even play the game - can never get past that "loading game" screen that you get after you've already selected all the civ and galaxy parameters and what-not, cuz it crashes out for me and i gotta restart the computer
and i do have the directx 9.0c, and ny conmputer meets the system requirements

for $40 and to not even be able to play it? i'm gonna be criticizing, cuz i paid my money and i can't even use the product, and if the store doesnt take it back cuz the box is opened, i just threw out $40
or at least they better come up w/ a patch within 2 weeks or so like civ4 which itself as well was riddled with problems upon initial release

for $40 and to not even be able to play it? i'm gonna be criticizing, cuz i paid my money and i can't even use the product

Criticizing who exactly? Because the game doesn't work on your machine? When there are thousands of other people who bought the game and it is working for them. There is most likely a problem on YOUR computer, possibly a memory issue or a problem with your video card. If you run over a nail in your car and your tire goes flat, do you blame the tire manufacturer? They put that nail in your driveway there with malicious intent, right? Before you go blaming the game developers, you should make sure that the problem isn't with your computer. Just because you have the minimum specs means nothing if you have serious spyware issues, or if one of your RAM chips is bad.

or at least they better come up w/ a patch within 2 weeks or so like civ4

They did come up with a patch... within 3 days, and another one as well. If you have downloaded the latest one, and you still can't play the game, you might want to try fixing things on your end. Because like I said earlier, spyware, bad hardware, old vid card drivers could very well be what's stopping your game from loading.

Three hours, one crash that may have been due to video card heat (not sure, but it corrupted the display for a few seconds) but only stopped the game.

I have no spyware, which is helped by not using IE. I have a virus scanner that's always off unless I'm running something I downloaded. No software firewall. Very few background apps. Good RAM. Fine cooling, when I turn on a fan that's pointed in the case. Latest drivers. And so forth. Most, though not all, of the complaints I've heard have been from inexperienced computer users who likely have some issue that is outside the game's bounds.

for $40 and to not even be able to play it? i'm gonna be criticizing, cuz i paid my money and i can't even use the product, and if the store doesnt take it back cuz the box is opened, i just threw out $40 or at least they better come up w/ a patch within 2 weeks or so like civ4 which itself as well was riddled with problems upon initial release

The developers know that a game that wouldn't run means the consumers (and their supports) lose money over it. They would help you in any way can if you only let them help. Complaining and tossing the game out is not helping.

If you can get the debugger and send them a report, I'm sure they will try their best to diagnosis the problem. If that's too much to ask for, no one can help you with the problem because you won't help yourself.

GC2 has so few bugs that you would be startled, because you define "bugs" wrong. A BUG is a problem, mishandling or error in the code. No more. You assign problems stemming from an XML typo, graphics glitch, GFX card problem and even modeling mixup the name of "bug".

Literally everything you list there is in fact a bug, at least from the point of view of a game publisher. Most people (and game publishers) define a bug as something wrong with the game. An xml typo, graphics glitch, video card problem or modeling mixup are all typically something wrong with the game. I don't know where you got your deffinition of a bug from (within the context of a computer game) but I'm afraid it's just plain wrong (not trying to be rude but it is) wicked flea.

I really hate coming out (at least seemingly) in support of Stpinmass since he has proven to be so inflammatory but I do so loath inaccuracy and I think there are some valid ideas beneath what he is saying so here's some more...

I really do not think that it is unreasonable to expect a roughly equal number of bugs (outside of compatibility issues) in a PC title than in a console title. There are many issues that have been raised outside of compatibility issues since release of this game that simply would not stand in most console titles.

Given all of this I would certainly describe Stardock as a "progressive" PC developer as the game was released with very few significant bugs and their tech support and interaction with the games community has proven to be both prompt and thorough. Still, the case can still be made that even in as "progressive" of game as GalCiv 2 that a console maker would probably not approve the release of the title based the bugs contained within (and again, not talking about compatibility issues). These are not major bugs by PC standards but they are certainly enough for any of the major console makers to send back for fixing.

So in summary, I think Stpinmass raises some perfectly valid ideas about GalCiv 2 even though I think his comments would be better aimed at other developers.

Ignore, was a Dup. Forum gave me an error on the first post so I did a second but my first post went up anyways.

See I realize that Stardock doesn't prune it's forums. Being openly honest, is appreciated.

But seeing this type of post on the forums, when the guy hasn't responded in ... two days. It's dead. And the thread should be locked and moved on. It wouldn't be seen by most people as a forum dictatorship. But as a cleaning up of the refuse left behind by folks whos only goal was to keep his annoyingly titled thread up here by the those tired of folks moaning and their melodrama.

See, here at Stardock y'all have been fixing bugs, and testing them AND answering questions all the time. Say take Lionheads games. Those buttheads, kept trying to get folks who couldn't get the game to work to deal with the PUBLISHER. Instead of the developers who write the code. See there was this wee little bug in the game that wouldn't let you actually play it if your computer didn't have SSE enabled on it. Which for the record was many AMD processors pre 1.6 gigahertz.

The code to bypass that call was relatively simple to determine, and locate and fix.

And you know who figured it out.. THE CUSTOMERS. We had to figure out what was exactly wrong. ONLY to be told by the dev's that initially that it was NOT their software, but our hardware that was the problem. And that it wasn't the SSE call issue.

Yet it turned out later, that it was the SSE issue, and we were right all along. And their complete disrespect of myself and many other customers, makes it easy for me to boycott crappy dev behavior.

But let's see Stardock has addressed a ton of USER specific issues. In a very timely manner. Has put up with totally disrespectful behavior by simple trolls.

All I'm asking for is some of these over the top melodramatic threads to be locked. (Yes I realize the irony of me posting in this thread which then causes it to go up instead of down the list.)

All I'm asking for is some of these over the top melodramatic threads to be locked. (Yes I realize the irony of me posting in this thread which then causes it to go up instead of down the list.)

yes! let us censor material in game forums! Forum posts contrary to your views cant possibly contain useful or pertinent information! They must all be banned! People shoudnt speak their minds!

well tell me this: how come i can play civ4 which is supposed to have even higher sysreq just fine, with only occasionally it taking a second to move some units to the next square, but i can't even start a game on this.
that's why i don't think it's an issue with my computer, because civ4 which has just the same, if not higher, standards, runs fine
so don't go jumping on me cuz there's a reason i posted and said what i said. i didnt just come to ***** and moan cuz my computer is 5 years old or something like that

Well yami, why not post your debug.err here then?  I understand you're mad. But do you want to solve the problem or do you want to complain?

There are bunches of stickies in this forum on how to try to resolve each issue.  If we can find out what the deal is, then we can solve it.

I don't know the issue in your case. But in nevery every case where someoen comes in, screams about how horrible the game is and how buggy it is, I finally get them to give me a debug.err and they have 2 year old video drivers or something.