Why do bugs persist after being fixed?

GothicKratos

Thugpatrol wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

But you can give those breaks to "homebrew" software? Sorry if I don't consider a 30-some-odd person studio "commercial" enough to be hypercritcal. Sure, it's no 5-man team, but it's certainly not Naughty Dog or Wolf Team/Namco Tales Studio - let alone Ubisoft or Square.

Yes, I'm prepared to make a distinction between custom software created by a lone designer for his wife in his spare time, which was the original example I responded to, and a small professional studio producing commercial releases for paying customers. If you want to give them a pass because they're not an industry giant and you believe them to be trying super hard, go right ahead. I'm unlikely to do the same. They're big enough to not release updates that set enemies' abilities to base value without someone noticing, for example. That these kinds of blatant errors repeatedly slip through to release is an indication that something is very wrong with their testing process, and it's not a good look when you're trying to get people to give you money.

I never said they were the same thing, I simply said they are not a big enough studio, in my opinion, to be hypercritical about a couple of errors that were fixed relatively quickly.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

But you can give those breaks to "homebrew" software? Sorry if I don't consider a 30-some-odd person studio "commercial" enough to be hypercritcal.

Yes, I'm prepared to make a distinction between custom software created by a lone designer for his wife in his spare time, which was the original example I responded to, and a small professional studio producing commercial releases for paying customers.

I never said they were the same thing, I simply said they are not a big enough studio, in my opinion, to be hypercritical about a couple of errors that were fixed relatively quickly.

You implied similarity when you posed the rhetorical question, "But you can give those breaks to "homebrew" software?" This is an attempt to discredit my argument by claiming I've applied different standards to two things which are therefor by your assertion the same. To defend my position I explained why they were not the same.

And I can't help but notice you keep throwing around the term "hypercritical". Do you believe my level of criticism is unreasonable? You're certainly free to think so. But when did criticism become the worst thing that could ever happen? There are plenty of sycophants who will deliver glowing praise whether it's warranted or not. That's nice for ego boosting but it doesn't do much for the creative process. This isn't 3rd grade soccer. I'm not here to hand out participation trophies and tell everyone what a fantastic job they did trying their very hardest. I'm a customer and a fan. What you get from me is an honest opinion and how I think things could be improved. When I see things I like, as in the Deadpool event and the X-Force changes, I issue a positive response. When I see things I don't like, as in the TU roll-out debacle and the Magneto changes, I issue what I consider constructive criticism. It's called feedback. You, the developers, and everyone else can take it or leave it.

Unknown

There's always considerable inertia from processes even for a small company, but unless someone at the top is just really against fixing certain bugs or characters that's still not an excuse for fairly obvious broken mechanisms. What usually happens is someone at the top is a champion of certain things and that gets in the way of things. The most obvious example of MPQ is the lack of useful purple powers even though this should be trivial (just shuffle some useful powers into purple and that'd be all). This isn't something that can happen due to incompetence or lack of resources. Someone clearly sees purple power should only be distributed due to some non gameplay related reasons, and even if they have 10 times the staff this wouldn't change any and stay broken.

GothicKratos

Thugpatrol wrote:

You implied similarity when you posed the rhetorical question, "But you can give those breaks to "homebrew" software?" This is an attempt to discredit my argument by claiming I've applied different standards to two things which are therefor by your assertion the same. To defend my position I explained why they were not the same.

I was trying to assert that maybe there's a sliding scale of leniency one should lead to small businesses you wouldn't lend to say, McDoanld's, by pointing out you'd give a pass to a "homebrew" but not a small business, since, you know, it's not just corporate or homebrew.

Thugpatrol wrote:

And I can't help but notice you keep throwing around the term "hypercritical". Do you believe my level of criticism is unreasonable? You're certainly free to think so. But when did criticism become the worst thing that could ever happen? There are plenty of sycophants who will deliver glowing praise whether it's warranted or not. That's nice for ego boosting but it doesn't do much for the creative process. This isn't 3rd grade soccer. I'm not here to hand out participation trophies and tell everyone what a fantastic job they did trying their very hardest. I'm a customer and a fan. What you get from me is an honest opinion and how I think things could be improved. When I see things I like, as in the Deadpool event and the X-Force changes, I issue a positive response. When I see things I don't like, as in the TU roll-out debacle and the Magneto changes, I issue what I consider constructive criticism. It's called feedback. You, the developers, and everyone else can take it or leave it.

Constructive critique is constructive. I don't see anything constructive here. I see complaining. I never said anything was exemplary, but I can give them the slack that is the benefit of the doubt that there is more at hand than incompetence or laziness - so that they can hang themselves with it or do what needs to be done. So far I feel like, while some things have been released unpolished (and realistically, "some things" is just Team-Ups lack of a delete button), they have done right on most cases by rounding everything out effectively and in a relative haste. I have no reason to go out of my way with a superlative hypothetical to explain why something is one way or another without being prompted to do so, especially just for the sack of being "constructive". I'll be more than happy to declare the sky is falling when it is, but so far in my stay in this game, it has nowhere near been so, but while I do so, I'll also be more than happy to explain why I think things are the way they are in a truly constructive manner and offer my own advice, as well as try to guide people in a positive manner, rather than raising a pitchfork in a pitiful revolution.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

You implied similarity when you posed the rhetorical question, "But you can give those breaks to "homebrew" software?" This is an attempt to discredit my argument by claiming I've applied different standards to two things which are therefor by your assertion the same. To defend my position I explained why they were not the same.

I was trying to assert that maybe there's a sliding scale of leniency one should lead to small businesses you wouldn't lend to say, McDoanld's, by pointing out you'd give a pass to a "homebrew" but not a small business, since, you know, it's not just corporate or homebrew.

This is the danger you run when you choose to be snarky and cute rather than just saying what you have to say.

GothicKratos wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

What you get from me is an honest opinion and how I think things could be improved. When I see things I like, as in the Deadpool event and the X-Force changes, I issue a positive response. When I see things I don't like, as in the TU roll-out debacle and the Magneto changes, I issue what I consider constructive criticism. It's called feedback. You, the developers, and everyone else can take it or leave it.

Constructive critique is constructive. I don't see anything constructive here. I see complaining. I never said anything was exemplary, but I can give them the slack that is the benefit of the doubt that there is more at hand than incompetence or laziness - so that they can hang themselves with it or do what needs to be done. So far I feel like, while some things have been released unpolished (and realistically, "some things" is just Team-Ups lack of a delete button), they have done right on most cases by rounding everything out effectively and in a relative haste. I have no reason to go out of my way with a superlative hypothetical to explain why something is one way or another without being prompted to do so, especially just for the sack of being "constructive". I'll be more than happy to declare the sky is falling when it is, but so far in my stay in this game, it has nowhere near been so, but while I do so, I'll also be more than happy to explain why I think things are the way they are in a truly constructive manner and offer my own advice, as well as try to guide people in a positive manner, rather than raising a pitchfork in a pitiful revolution.

It must be wonderful to be so understanding and benevolent. I can't wait to read this mythical constructive criticism of yours in the future, I'm sure it will be tempered and insightful. Odd though that the critique you've issued here is rather heavy-handed and bordering on rude.

I made a comment about their testing being poor and you've turned it into a holy war. I do try to be constructive when I'm critical, and I've been as constructive here as I can be without knowing what goes on in their building. I can only judge what I see, and what I glean from what they release is that their testing process is very flawed. I don't know if it's lack of ability, poor management and organization, apathy, all of the above, or something else entirely. Whatever the cause, I believe they're a big enough professional studio to not allow errors that anyone would noticed within five minutes of playing the game into a public release. If you want to label me a complainer for that, fine. If you want to defend them every step of the way, fine. But nobody here said anything about incompetence or laziness other than you. You've escalated the argument by using inflammatory language of your own choosing and then worked yourself into a fervor of righteous indignation. Either you're being extremely oversensitive or you're just here to pick a fight, and either way I want no part of it.

GothicKratos

Thugpatrol wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

You implied similarity when you posed the rhetorical question, "But you can give those breaks to "homebrew" software?" This is an attempt to discredit my argument by claiming I've applied different standards to two things which are therefor by your assertion the same. To defend my position I explained why they were not the same.

I was trying to assert that maybe there's a sliding scale of leniency one should lead to small businesses you wouldn't lend to say, McDoanld's, by pointing out you'd give a pass to a "homebrew" but not a small business, since, you know, it's not just corporate or homebrew.

This is the danger you run when you choose to be snarky and cute rather than just saying what you have to say.

I'm sorry "But you can give those breaks to "homebrew" software? Sorry if I don't consider a 30-some-odd person studio "commercial" enough to be hypercritcal. Sure, it's no 5-man team, but it's certainly not Naughty Dog or Wolf Team/Namco Tales Studio - let alone Ubisoft or Square." wasn't a good enough explanation to my standpoint. Perhaps I didn't extrapolate perfectly in my original post, but I certainly followed up with an adequate explanation.

Thugpatrol wrote:

It must be wonderful to be so understanding and benevolent. I can't wait to read this mythical constructive criticism of yours in the future, I'm sure it will be tempered and insightful. Odd though that the critique you've issued here is rather heavy-handed and bordering on rude.

Yes, I do apologize, my not agreeing with you is so gosh darn rude. I'll try to insult you or something next time to tone it down a bit!

...Oh wait...that was a bit sassy, huh? In all seriousness, I don't see the smarminess you saw and I apologize if it came off sarcastic or elitist. That was not my intent.

Thugpatrol wrote:

I made a comment about their testing being poor and you've turned it into a holy war. I do try to be constructive when I'm critical, and I've been as constructive here as I can be without knowing what goes on in their building. I can only judge what I see, and what I glean from what they release is that their testing process is very flawed. I don't know if it's lack of ability, poor management and organization, apathy, all of the above, or something else entirely. Whatever the cause, I believe they're a big enough professional studio to not allow errors that anyone would noticed within five minutes of playing the game into a public release. If you want to label me a complainer for that, fine. If you want to defend them every step of the way, fine.

You basically just reiterated my point. You don't know the circumstances. It's pretty easy to assume, with no real basis other than your own displeasure, that there's some negative thing wrong here (inability, apathy, what-have-you). What other example of poor handling of updates or what-have-you can you give me?

Character balancing is an issue, of course, no one can argue otherwise, but that's a slippery slope, in my opinion. "Balancing" one thing leads to other things shifting in the paradigm, thus you have to balance new things. It's truly a never ending cycle.

True Healing? I know a lot of people feel like it's a money grab, but as it's been pointed out by others, I feel like it was their way of addressing people's complains about how "over-powered" 2* Widow was and how Prologue Healing was gregarious and we all hate how it's "required" to play. It wasn't a "balance" to any particular characters, directly, but a "balance" via game mechanics. Was it also a cash grab? Probably, but they are a business, after all, and they do need to write the paychecks for their team. Would you expect Wendy's to introduce a new sandwich that lost them money? Certainly not.

I guess the core of my confusion is I simply don't understand why there is such a disdain (in general, not just form you) for D3. I don't see (or "get") the overall negative attitude. Some of that may have spilled over in my discussion and points.

Thugpatrol wrote:

But nobody here said anything about incompetence or laziness other than you. You've escalated the argument by using inflammatory language of your own choosing and then worked yourself into a fervor of righteous indignation. Either you're being extremely oversensitive or you're just here to pick a fight, and either way I want no part of it.

I was originally just going to cut this out and ignore it, because I find it pretty over-the-top and nonsensical, but I just want to point out that as far as I am concerned we are simply addressing either others' points. It's a practical debate or discussion in my eyes.

My point is I feel like they deserve at least a little bit of leniency and respect as a smaller studio. I feel like it's a little dubious to assume they have the resources at hand at the drop of a dime to do everything perfect. I did go as far as stating that the lack of inclusion of a delete function for Team-Ups was disappointing, but I also went on to state that I felt it was fixed in a relatively adequate amount of time. I feel that's fair. It shouldn't have seen the light of day that way, but it did, and they addressed it.

Your point is basically the opposite. You seem to feel like they don't need to get any kind of leniency. It is what it is and that's what it is. It's a fair and logical standpoint. Team-Ups shouldn't have seen the light of day and that's that.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

But nobody here said anything about incompetence or laziness other than you. You've escalated the argument by using inflammatory language of your own choosing and then worked yourself into a fervor of righteous indignation. Either you're being extremely oversensitive or you're just here to pick a fight, and either way I want no part of it.

I was originally just going to cut this out and ignore it, because I find it pretty over-the-top and nonsensical, but I just want to point out that as far as I am concerned we are simply addressing either others' points. It's a practical debate or discussion in my eyes.

When I make the comment that "Either they're understaffed, underqualified, or not given the time and resources necessary to do their job properly," and part of your response is "It's easy to assume they're just lazy pricks," you have misrepresented my statement as a personal attack. The first time you did it I let it slide. Then you did it again in response to my comments about the nature of criticism, and polished it off with "I'll also be more than happy to explain why I think things are the way they are in a truly constructive manner and offer my own advice, as well as try to guide people in a positive manner, rather than raising a pitchfork in a pitiful revolution." I particularly like the pitiful revolution part at the end. Very classy. Whether you intended it or not, the whole thing reads as smug, superior, self-righteous, and just a little mean. You're obviously smart enough to use pointed language for effect, you can't really be surprised when that effect is achieved.

I think I've shown I'm more than willing to butt heads and argue a bit in the spirit of healthy discourse, but if you're going to take liberties for dramatic effect while dropping petty barbs along the way you're going to have to find someone else to play with. That's not my definition of "practical debate or discussion" and it's not something I have any interest in participating in.

GothicKratos wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

It must be wonderful to be so understanding and benevolent. I can't wait to read this mythical constructive criticism of yours in the future, I'm sure it will be tempered and insightful. Odd though that the critique you've issued here is rather heavy-handed and bordering on rude.

Yes, I do apologize, my not agreeing with you is so gosh darn rude. I'll try to insult you or something next time to tone it down a bit!

...Oh wait...that was a bit sassy, huh? In all seriousness, I don't see the smarminess you saw and I apologize if it came off sarcastic or elitist. That was not my intent.

Apologies work better when they're not one sentence removed from condescension. If that's the best you've got I'll accept it in good faith, but your technique needs work.

For my part in this I apologize as well, but for the time being I've lost my taste for this particular conversation. I may revisit it at some point should the mood strike me, or I maybe I won't. Regardless I'm sure we'll run into another one of these at some point in the not too distant future, hopefully with less drama.

GothicKratos

After re-reading my posts, there are a few times (including the time you mentioned) were I was not just addressing your standpoint, but what seems to be the general consensus (i.e. that D3/Demuirge are money grabbing white collars) and it got lumped into one statement. I do apologize for that, especially since I did not make that clear at the time. Very poor form on my part.

Also, I probably did go a little overboard with the revolution/pitchfork comment, but it really goes back to my above statement. I was trying to speak far too broadly without emphasizing as much - and you kind of got dragged along in the process. For that, I also apologize, generally I try to be civil and mannered, but I let my not-so-formal instincts get the better of me and just posted what I wrote the first go-round. However, my point is there, in that, I try not to make statements that imply one thing or another without all the information. It's difficult to be constructive without all the information (you can try to be, but generally it's futile).

For the last part of this, I want to make clear, as a lot of people seem to think it is the case when I don't see eye-to-eye with them; I'm truly not trying to undermine your opinion. You're entitled to it. I didn't enter this line of conversation with the intention of climbing onto a soapbox, but I did, and I was a bit of an ****. Give my condolences to my manners if you seen them?

I will be happy to concede to drop the topic at hand. Hopefully the next time I will maintain to my mantra and manners.

emaker27

I'd like to give some insight into the potential failings in the process and why bugs persist after being fixed at all (90% of) game studios. My background is that I used to work at EA for a few years on the QA department, and still work in/with development.

Management: There is pressure applied to all departments to 'get it done'. This can (and does) lead to people taking shortcuts to meet deadlines. There is a greater focus on deadlines, and 'good enough' over quality.
Development: There are code mistakes which reintroduce previous bugs when working in the same area. Code isn't properly updated and good code is overwritten. There are not proper unit tests, which test changes at the code level.
QA: They just make a mistake and miss an issue. Test plans and regression is not comprehensive enough and/or completed with each build. A seemingly minor issue goes unreported instead of being investigated further.

Specific to smaller companies, there are less people to do the work, which leads to a greater workload for each person. This can also cause fatigue in the best employee after a long day.

The company culture is also very important. If they do not recognize good work, and only call out employees for mistakes, moral is lowered and people don't feel appreciated which often causes their work quality to drop. But that's true of any business.

As you can see, there can be many points of failure. Even if QA gets the tinykitty because they are last in the process. The best companies treat the entire team as one, which increases accountability across all groups instead of pointing fingers and assessing blame to someone else.

EDIT: I really liked my job at EA, but was vastly underpaid. It was still a job and work, but the best one I've had (other than the pay). Having the ear of the lead designer of a game that makes millions is pretty cool stuff.