PDA

View Full Version : Final Version thoughts



BigPun
31st Jan 2007, 21:57
Well I was crossing my fingers that the final version would in some way be imrpoved. I was wrong. The single player is ok I am on like the 6th level but I got this game for MP and guess what... Same problems if not more. For starters..
1) The game lobby still has all the games that are being hosted by people who only have the demo.??! I don't want to play the same damn map that I have been playing I want to play the new ones. Would it have been hard to have like a seperate channel for people that have the demo and the people that have the final version??
2) I have only seen a few games being hosted by people that have the full version because I can see that the map is not the same but when I try to click on it guess what? Game Freezes.
3) I still can't host... I even did the DMZ option under router settings and it still says I need to open port 6500... Isn't the main reason for selecting the option of DMZ to open ALL ports or am I wrong?? BTW I have a Linksys WRT300N Router so if anyone else has that and has gotten it to work please let me know. Thanks!
4) Why isn't there a mode to play against the AI on the new maps?? Like a skirmish version.. This is an essitential part of a game in my opinion so I can learn the new maps and just have fun practicing. It is also nice to have this if you don't have internet or it's down for some reason...

That's all for now but I really hope this crap gets fixed soon or this game will be collecting dust until there is a fix for it which hopefully is soon but we will see. Anyone else still having problems I'm sure I am not the only one.
-Pun

antiSniper07
31st Jan 2007, 22:16
Of course those issue's wouldn't be fixed in the Final version, the Demo was released a week ago. Any fixes will come in the form of a Patch after release. Closed beta can only reveal so much.

Enter the Era of Public Live Beta! (Sounds like a Bruce Lee movie)

So those of you who complain that it should never have been released, I have a solution for you. Pretend it hasn't been released and wait 6 Months. Then Buy it and play! All the bugs will be fixed and enjoy the benefit of having your own Release Date!! :lol:

Slim Vision
1st Feb 2007, 00:10
Some people (like me for instance) have been looking forward to this game for ages. You have any idea how hard it would be to just 'forget' that it got released. I understand you're probably saying that in jest (well I hope so) but even so, the game's multiplayer has problems. And for it to be in the making for several years, most of which it was delayed, only to wind up with it being released with these problems indicates completely shoddy beta testing and/or a completely unwilling attitude towards fixing them.

Okay cutting the devs some slack, it's likely not their fault. Let's blame Gamespy for being crap. That'd work. But then again, the server browser in the demo looked about as sophisticated as Worms 2 and that was released in 1998. This was a game built for PS2 and Xbox with a PC getting a port of one of the two. The online code probably hasn't changed since those early days before the game got put on hold and things have become a lot better since then. Gamespy arcade obviously hasn't though.

kezza
1st Feb 2007, 00:30
Of course those issue's wouldn't be fixed in the Final version, the Demo was released a week ago. Any fixes will come in the form of a Patch after release. Closed beta can only reveal so much.

Enter the Era of Public Live Beta! (Sounds like a Bruce Lee movie)

So those of you who complain that it should never have been released, I have a solution for you. Pretend it hasn't been released and wait 6 Months. Then Buy it and play! All the bugs will be fixed and enjoy the benefit of having your own Release Date!! :lol:

sarcastic response...i like it lol
is the full game out ???

Slim Vision
1st Feb 2007, 01:13
Yes in the US. Odd really, that a British based publisher and a Hungarian based developer wouldn't release the game to UK & Europe either on the same day or even first.

It's disheartening to see that even our home grown companies are putting us to the back of queue these days even though Europe's a bigger gaming economy than the US...

justin3d
1st Feb 2007, 02:00
For what it is worth this also uses Securom encryption, which is very sensitive to anything related to emulation software. Right now I am trying to figure out what is conflicting with and I can't find anything. So the game is installed but I cannot run it :(...

FusionC5
1st Feb 2007, 02:05
And for it to be in the making for several years, most of which it was delayed, only to wind up with it being released with these problems indicates completely shoddy beta testing and/or a completely unwilling attitude towards fixing them.


Console port comes to mind.. You have to remember that the people who play consoles arn't as 'educated' ? as PC users and most likely only play the game for singleplayer, and casual multiplayer. For some developers (EA) it is not their top priority to make the game bug free, hence the reason why their full games feel like beta's.

kezza
1st Feb 2007, 04:50
why is it all the potenially great games get screwed up.i wonder does any one actually TESt anything any more.
EA takes the cake imo for that with there sell it now patch it later attitude.
But this game is in my Favourite genre( i love ww2 stuff) and i will be disapointed...sobb
Alpha=beta
Beta=Ready

Slim Vision
1st Feb 2007, 13:11
Console port comes to mind.. You have to remember that the people who play consoles arn't as 'educated' ? as PC users and most likely only play the game for singleplayer, and casual multiplayer. For some developers (EA) it is not their top priority to make the game bug free, hence the reason why their full games feel like beta's.

I had considered that, I didn't mention it though due to, as I said, cutting the devs some slack. It brings to mind however if they'd have bothered making the game online for the PS2 at all and if they've had their attention the whole time on making the game's Xbox Live version the best possible.

If that's true, the PC version was doomed from the start... In which case no one expect a patch anytime soon that fixes anything except perhaps a few crashing bugs and glitches. Bah, I'm not getting the game. I'm out.

chip5541
1st Feb 2007, 13:24
Come on. You know what they say about assuming. Instead of jumping the gun why not wait and see what the devs have going on?

FusionC5
1st Feb 2007, 14:41
Come on. You know what they say about assuming. Instead of jumping the gun why not wait and see what the devs have going on?

Well I hope they're going to bring some patches out, the current trend is to bring out a 0 day patch after the game has gone gold and then 1-2 patches after the game has been released. As for the network problems, well I'd have more chance of winning the lottery than playing an 8 player game without someone being disconnected. Staying in the game is a challenge all by itself.

As for myself, I only buy games for multiplayer, solid multiplayer at that, but with the current state of the netcode, there is no way I'll buy this game, which is really dissapointing because I love the MP when it's actually working. It's a travesty to make a game with such potential but have it let down by a few bugs and netcode issues that shouldn't be in a game released in 2007.

chip5541
1st Feb 2007, 14:47
MP is not as important as SP for me. Try playing when you have kids. "Time out! I gotta change a diaper";) but I do understand where you are coming from.

TBoss
1st Feb 2007, 14:49
One thing we all must keep in mind is that all PC's are NOT created equal. Think about how many different hardware and software configurations there are among the people registered on this forum alone. With that in mind, how can the developers test EVERY single one of those configurations to ensure the software operates? It's impossible! Look at other PC based games forums and you'll see very similar comments. I have yet to see a PC game that ran flawlessly on every users machine the day it was released.

FusionC5
1st Feb 2007, 14:52
MP is not as important as SP for me. Try playing when you have kids. "Time out! I gotta change a diaper";) but I do understand where you are coming from.

Heh, in some games you can 'pause' the game for a quick timeout, you could do this in the Supreme Commander beta, I'm not sure if you can still do it, but it is quite a nifty feature. So you could still change your kid's diaper and play :rasp:

chip5541
1st Feb 2007, 14:52
TBoss is correct. Lets face it there are so many combinations of PC in both hardware and software it really is a miricle anything runs.

chip5541
1st Feb 2007, 14:53
Heh, in some games you can 'pause' the game for a quick timeout, you could do this in the Supreme Commander beta, I'm not sure if you can still do it, but it is quite a nifty feature. So you could still change your kid's diaper and play :rasp:

Actually that is one of the reasons I played a sniper in COD2. If I had to step away no one would miss me. :nut:

Samsonov
1st Feb 2007, 14:56
MP is not as important as SP for me. Try playing when you have kids. "Time out! I gotta change a diaper";) but I do understand where you are coming from.

I have 2 kids and I buy and play games **ex-clusively** to play multiplayer like couple other posters in this thread. There's quite a lot of "MP only" players on PC. I didn't buy Medieval 2 TW which was (and still is) a top seller, because I concluded MP is laggy and buggy from what I have read on TW forums, and developers don't care, and I wasn't in the mood to "bargain with the AI" in the campaign or beat it to death in tac battles for zillionth time.

This whole GameSpy business is really insulting.... Solid server browser + solid net code = 15-20% more sales (at least!).

FusionC5
1st Feb 2007, 15:23
This whole GameSpy business is really insulting.... Solid server browser + solid net code = 15-20% more sales (at least!).

I concur. When I think of GameSpy, EA comes straight to mind for some reason.
"Solid server browser + solid net code = 15-20% more sales (at least!)" I think its got to be more than that, because good multiplayer games will sell well for years, just look at half-life or battlefield, battlefield is multiplayer only and it's a huge franchise.

Slim Vision
1st Feb 2007, 15:27
Come on. You know what they say about assuming. Instead of jumping the gun why not wait and see what the devs have going on?

The game's seen more problems behind the scenes, with delays, lawsuits and God knows what else... I think it's safe to assume what you see is what you get and it isn't going to change.

antiSniper07
1st Feb 2007, 15:43
I have yet to see a PC game that ran flawlessly on every users machine the day it was released.

Don't hold your breath! People don't really get it. There was some guy who posted about a Hermachi server and how easy it was to host games on. A few tried and agreed, suddenly there was a rush to get it. I started seeing posts of people that were having trouble, some couldn't get it working, even demanding help from those who started the thread. It's a Vicious Cycle :mad2:

Boss is completely right and it will only get worse in the future. Just wait till they release Crysis, you will see!

chip5541
1st Feb 2007, 15:50
speaking of which Farcry MP was fubard from the get go.

antiSniper07
1st Feb 2007, 16:05
And it's the same guys that made Farcry that is creating Crysis. The Devs said more technology went into the making of one Crysis 'tree' then went into the entire FarCry game. It's primarily targeted at DirectX 10 but will work on 9. I can't wait for that Debacle! :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

:nut:

justin3d
1st Feb 2007, 16:08
Don't hold your breath! People don't really get it. There was some guy who posted about a Hermachi server and how easy it was to host games on. A few tried and agreed, suddenly there was a rush to get it. I started seeing posts of people that were having trouble, some couldn't get it working, even demanding help from those who started the thread. It's a Vicious Cycle :mad2:

Boss is completely right and it will only get worse in the future. Just wait till they release Crysis, you will see!

That is the EXACT attitude that devs and publishers bank on so they can release buggy products on the PC. This game CRASHES when someone is hosting a LAN game! This has happened on many people's machines so far. Not to mention all of the other problems. How about filtering the server list so that Demo users can't see or connect to servers hosting the full version of the game? Last night we kept getting users popping into our game, but couldn't join because they had the demo. This stuff is covered basic QA test cases. It is not excusable. This title appears to have been rushed out the door and slapped with a lower price as an excuse.

Every game has bugs, but this game has obvious issues that a thorough and decently equipped QA team should be able to find. Please do not make excuses for poor development work like this.

antiSniper07
1st Feb 2007, 16:33
That is the EXACT attitude that devs and publishers bank on so they can release buggy products on the PC.

Maybe I missed my calling? ;)


This game CRASHES when someone is hosting a LAN game! This has happened on many people's machines so far.

I never said there wasn't a few bugs.


Not to mention all of the other problems.

Like? Name those that aren't related to Latency/Ping.


How about filtering the server list so that Demo users can't see or connect to servers hosting the full version of the game? Last night we kept getting users popping into our game, but couldn't join because they had the demo.

That would be kewl. But then I suppose I would lose the ability to play the demo with a few of the people who havnt bought the retail yet. Yes, if you have the Full Retail version, you can join a Hosted Demo game...sweet!


This stuff is covered basic QA test cases. It is not excusable. This title appears to have been rushed out the door and slapped with a lower price as an excuse.

Hey, works for me and my Wife loves it too. Cause whatever I don't spend she does haha :mad2:


Every game has bugs, but this game has obvious issues that a thorough and decently equipped QA team should be able to find. Please do not make excuses for poor development work like this.

In your Humble Opinion of course? Your entitled to it. But since this is unacceptable to you and you won't be buying the game, that means this is your last post right? I mean if your done with it why be here at all. So let me be the first to wish you the best. Take Care, Aloha, Thank You Bye Bye!! :lol:

Slim Vision
1st Feb 2007, 17:13
Might I remind you that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Iron Sound
1st Feb 2007, 17:59
There are some great posts above. I really believe there is some validity in all of them, keep up the intelligent discussion!

TBoss, I don't want to label you as an Apologetic and myself as an Aggravator, but I can think of one game which had a pretty solid release from day one - Company of Heroes. I think it depends upon what the developers consider a "solid release" too - what was their intention with the game.

I played it from the moment of its release up till about Christmas on Multi Player.

The netcode was shocking - people dropped left right and centre like flies, the ranking system was a joke, and the "Performance" column on the browser looked nice with its red-to-green bars, but was totally useless.
In fact, generally the browser looked nice but performed horribly.

I think it shares some very similar problems to the ones being experienced by people playing BS:M now.

But when it worked, in multi-player, it was a gaming wonder! I have 4 hour long battles recorded, from public 4v4s, where teams contested the entire length and bredth of a map, and a there was a real, tangible feeling of the idea of a "Front".

Single Player, with it's little glitches, was ironed out before release. So, again, we return to the "what do people predominantly buy this game for - multi or single player, or a bit of both, and if so, what's the mix!?"

Single Player in Company of Heroes had to be relatively bug free a) because of the market (I am assuming people bought this game for its single player, as reviews only reviewed single player!), and b) because of the format of the game - it was an action/RTS with intensely scripted moments. If any of these were to go "off the rails" the player's immersion would be cracked, and the idea of feeling of "being part of the company" would be deeply wounded!

This got me thinking. Yesterday in the Battlestations demo, I was the last CV, with the entire Japanese force hunting me dow... after playing around a bit I finally get sunk.
Now I LOVE the idea of zooming in on a sinking vessel. The particles in the water look great, the sombre music fitting, even if the perfectly intact hull of the vessel is slightly cheesy-looking, it was a saddening moment. Despite having some fun in the game, it was quite a striking moment; this behomoth sinking to the depths with most of its crew. Defeat was crushing and war was brutal!

But when the CV was bout 20-30 feet under water, a lone soundbyte screams from my speakers (in that whiny American accent):

"ENEMY SUBMARINE SPOTTED"
:D :lol:

I imagined some officer still standing at the bridge upside down, looking through his binoculars. And the little men still walking around the deck with their magnetic boots on...

There went that little bit of immersion the game had been begging for..

To return to the release state vs "ideal" or finished state.
So, I get the feeling that, like Company of Heroes, the Single Player has received the most testing in-house because the marketing gurus think that this is what the market will delve into, first and foremost. I'm guessing..

It might sound cycnical to some, but how else are we to understand the state of the multi player component? The consumer is the tester!

Single player has to be solid, it's as simple as that, it will therefore receive a majority of testing resources available. I think this is related to a wider trend where we are seeing the user expected to create content (Spore), provide feedback and technical assistance to other users (BF2 etc.), or just simply test and finalise the product (CoH and BS:M).
I wouldn't say in these respects developers and their financial backers/overseers totally shift the responsibilities to the end user, but increasingly so the burden is being carried by the purchaser.

It's all about shifting the costs from the private, to the public, be it from content creation to technical support to testing.

For a marketing person, it is beyond what the typical consumer might be and how to attract that sort of person, and even beyond how to expand the player base.

I think the fundamental question here is: what is the first thing the consumer is going to do after he/she gets home and turns on the xbox or installs it on the pc?

Is there are mad rush for multiplayer - what are the biggest, baddest weapons we can get our hands on? What maps are there!?
Or is there a more measured approach taken, where firstly the game mechanics are learned in Single Player, the AI mastered, and then the multi-player theatre is played.
Does Single-player, especially with its (semi) scripted as opposed to a dynamic form, have a "use-once" character to it? Is multi-player, which has a sort of endless recyclability, the answer to this?

The ultimate reason for games companies behaving like they do is because they are companies - how are they to stick to a budget, how are they to attain that projected margin, etc.?
I think in this respect there will always be an antagonism between the art and profit sides of the computer games industry!
From a creator's perspective: how can I make sure as many people as possible have access to my "art" without compromising my artistic intergrity in the process? From a business's point of view: what is going to drive sales, guarantee returns and or/maximise profits and future growth?

I think one of the priorities of art, is simply to create art itself, for no other reason. This tension might never be resolved... well it might be - it might swing to the other side and be dominated by suits selling us Sims 2 expansion packs forever!

I had a huge wander around the topic, but hopefully I threw up some points to be discussed some more!

Baluchon
1st Feb 2007, 18:04
If i wasnt able to play BS:M due to crashs to desktop (cant join a server or create one), will i be able to play retail game ?

Iron Sound
1st Feb 2007, 18:12
Who knows!? You're not giving us much of a context for your problem, so I can't really provide you much of an answer..
Is your hardware up to scratch? Drivers, etc.?

Baluchon
1st Feb 2007, 18:23
I posted my probs on appropriate threads !

antiSniper07
1st Feb 2007, 18:36
Might I remind you that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

It is some form, and when you get as old as me, you will take what you can get :rasp:

Slim Vision
1st Feb 2007, 19:08
Perhaps you should have stayed young at heart then eh? ;)

antiSniper07
1st Feb 2007, 19:11
Perhaps you should have stayed young at heart then eh? ;)

Isn't that why I'm here? :scratch: