PDA

View Full Version : What about a Beta ?



Cr0wSeb
19th Nov 2010, 09:00
Hi,

Is there any Beta Test plan ?

Bye.

Kodaemon
19th Nov 2010, 09:14
Hi.

No.

Bye.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Nov 2010, 10:24
Hi

Seconded

Bye

Cr0wSeb
19th Nov 2010, 10:26
Hi

Sad

Bye

(Laughting at me because I have been over polite is a bit stupid but acceptable :-) )

Pinky_Powers
19th Nov 2010, 10:35
Politeness doesn't explain the weird space between "plan" and "?". ;)

But no, Eidos Montréal is playing this psychopathic'lly close to the chest.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Nov 2010, 10:35
(Laughting at me because I have been over polite is a bit stupid but acceptable :-) )

I'm not laughing at you, but with you. :group_hug:

Cr0wSeb
19th Nov 2010, 10:36
Accepted looooooooooooooooooool :p

kikilkiki
21st Nov 2010, 20:39
They were looking for players to test the game in their offices. Not sure if that counts.

Rindill the Red
21st Nov 2010, 20:59
I think Eidos Montreal should give Beta passes to all members of this community, and then take our feedback and work on the game for another year taking into account most of our suggestions and feedback.

Dead-Eye
21st Nov 2010, 22:53
If I was an EM game tester all I would do is complain and ***** about small things all over the place and never really give the team validity on anything because nothing would ever be good enough for my impossibly high standards of what a Deus Ex sequel should be.

K^2
22nd Nov 2010, 00:12
If you can travel to Montreal, they'd probably let you try the game. You'd have to talk to Coyotegrey about specifics. Other than that, you'd pretty much have to wait for the demo.

3rdmillhouse
22nd Nov 2010, 00:25
How about not?

LeMoN_LiMe
22nd Nov 2010, 02:20
Bethesda "in-house" tested Fallout: New Vegas and look how that went.





(It went horrible btw)

K^2
22nd Nov 2010, 02:52
I wouldn't say it went horrible. The game plays exactly the way the FO3 fans would want it to play. And the fact that they didn't catch the bugs just tells you that there is a reason for professional QA to exist.

LeMoN_LiMe
22nd Nov 2010, 03:28
I wouldn't say it went horrible. The game plays exactly the way the FO3 fans would want it to play. And the fact that they didn't catch the bugs just tells you that there is a reason for professional QA to exist.


Literal game crashes every 1-2 hours for some people and every 3-4 for others?

Being trapped in a building because ANY route you take out causes your game to freeze upon load and causing you to start over?

Freezing during Auto-save that causes corrupted data and forces you to start over?

Thats just completely unforgivable and proves that at least some "in-house" beta testing is COMPLETELY useless.

VectorM
22nd Nov 2010, 03:39
Cool Story.

Bro.

Bye.

K^2
22nd Nov 2010, 03:49
Thats just completely unforgivable and proves that at least some "in-house" beta testing is COMPLETELY useless.
No it does not prove that. It proves that it is useless for bug testing, which is, well, duh! You have a bunch of people who have no technical experience playing a game on a bunch of identical computers, and you complain that they didn't catch the bugs? No **** Sherlock.

QA testing is for catching bugs. Obsedian's QA failed miserably. Personally, I had very few crashes, but I understand I'm one of the lucky few.

But that's not the purpose of the in-house beta testing using FO3 fans. The purpose of that beta test is to see if game is balanced right. If you think the game is poorly balanced, lacks features that should have been there, has unfair perks or items, then that's the problem with the beta test. Are you showing me any evidence of that? No. Then the beta test was by no means a failure.

thedosbox
22nd Nov 2010, 04:17
I think Eidos Montreal should give Beta passes to all members of this community, and then take our feedback and work on the game for another year taking into account most of our suggestions and feedback.

Bad idea. They'd have a bunch of people complaining about how it doesn't play exactly like DX1. It's 2010, game design has moved on.

LeMoN_LiMe
22nd Nov 2010, 04:33
No it does not prove that. It proves that it is useless for bug testing, which is, well, duh! You have a bunch of people who have no technical experience playing a game on a bunch of identical computers, and you complain that they didn't catch the bugs? No **** Sherlock.

QA testing is for catching bugs. Obsedian's QA failed miserably. Personally, I had very few crashes, but I understand I'm one of the lucky few.

But that's not the purpose of the in-house beta testing using FO3 fans. The purpose of that beta test is to see if game is balanced right. If you think the game is poorly balanced, lacks features that should have been there, has unfair perks or items, then that's the problem with the beta test. Are you showing me any evidence of that? No. Then the beta test was by no means a failure.

I don't care who they are, any group of testers who miss major bugs / glitches like those do not deserve to be beta testers at all.

If your saying beta testers aren't also responsible for reporting any major (or minor) glitches or bugs that they run into, then you don't know what beta testing is. What do you think they tell them? "Okay sir please play this game and tell me what you think about it. By the way if you find any bugs or glitches in the game please ignore them entirely and pretend they didn't exist. WE DO NOT want to know about them!"

Bottom line, you know that its inexcusable.

Come on. Try and justify those bugs and glitches.

I dare you.

K^2
22nd Nov 2010, 04:37
You don't seem to understand how bugs and glitches work. Glitches that happen on any machine under any circumstance are caught by developers before the game goes into any sort of testing.

Did glitches happen in the Beta test? I'm sure they did. Were they reported? Absolutely. Was something done about it? In all likelihood.

But if you think that's going to catch all, or even majority of bugs, you don't know anything about QA.

You need people who are trained in QA running the game on a number of different hardware options on different operating systems with different settings and different things happening in the background in order to catch most of the bugs. The test that they ran with FO3 fans was simply not designed to catch bugs. And you act like it failed because it didn't do what it wasn't meant to do?

And I'm not justifying the glitches. QA didn't do their job. The whole lot of them should be kicked out. But that has NOTHING to do with the beta test.

Nyysjan
22nd Nov 2010, 04:41
Bad idea. They'd have a bunch of people complaining about how it doesn't play exactly like DX1. It's 2010, game design has moved on.

Yeah, first person stealth, melee combat and resource management are so year 2000. ;)'

Whereas now that the industry has grown, we can enojy such things as, looking at ourselves as we crouch behind desks and chest high walls, awesome cinematic takedowns where we just need to push a button and lean back as thegame does all that boring fighting for us, and health regen so we don´t eed to go around searching for health packs. :mad2:

thedosbox
22nd Nov 2010, 04:43
Come on. Try and justify those bugs and glitches.

I dare you.

I'm no fan of Obsidian's track record with QA, but how many games as complex as FO have never required a patch?

...

Heck, even "simpler" games like CODBLOPS needed a patch to get MP working properly (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/reviews/2010/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-pc-review-fun-game-with-a-broken-leg.ars/3) - in a MP-centric game.

LeMoN_LiMe
22nd Nov 2010, 04:48
You don't seem to understand how bugs and glitches work. Glitches that happen on any machine under any circumstance are caught by developers before the game goes into any sort of testing.

Did glitches happen in the Beta test? I'm sure they did. Were they reported? Absolutely. Was something done about it? In all likelihood.

But if you think that's going to catch all, or even majority of bugs, you don't know anything about QA.

You need people who are trained in QA running the game on a number of different hardware options on different operating systems with different settings and different things happening in the background in order to catch most of the bugs. The test that they ran with FO3 fans was simply not designed to catch bugs. And you act like it failed because it didn't do what it wasn't meant to do?

And I'm not justifying the glitches. QA didn't do their job. The whole lot of them should be kicked out. But that has NOTHING to do with the beta test.


*sigh*

Ya sure.

Excuse me while I go play frisbee with my copy.

thedosbox
22nd Nov 2010, 04:48
Yeah, first person stealth, melee combat and resource management are so year 2000. ;)'


As was having to write down every single password and PIN. Or watching one guard ignore the fact that his neighbour just fell to the ground. ;)

mad825
22nd Nov 2010, 05:57
I'm no fan of Obsidian's track record with QA, but how many games as complex as FO have never required a patch?

...

Heck, even "simpler" games like CODBLOPS needed a patch to get MP working properly (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/reviews/2010/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-pc-review-fun-game-with-a-broken-leg.ars/3) - in a MP-centric game.

well problems like that are always expected to occur however in Fallout NV there were game breaking problems such as incomplete dialogue options which in some cases had no exit or "goodbye" option leaving you stuck until you reloaded from save and incomplete/dodgy scripts which some are still visible [existing] to the current version.