|
| T O P I C | |
|
"HAHAHAH FUNCOM U FAGOTS ILL KILL U I HOPE ULL SHUT DOWN AND ROT IN HELL AND NOT MAKE ANYMORE GAMES U LOSERS"
June 28th 2001, 18:14 CEST by Morn <b>an·ar·chy</b> n. pl. <b>an·ar·chies</b> 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. So what do you think about the clusterfuck that is Anarchy Online's launch? |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: "HAHAHAH FUNCOM U FAGOTS ILL KILL U I HOPE ULL SHUT DOWN AND ROT IN HELL AND NOT MAKE ANYMORE GAMES U LOSERS"
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
Don't care. |
|
I share jjz's sentiments. I've never even played one of these MMORPG games, so I'm not even sure what I'm missing out of. -- Dethstryk |
|
Also, I still think Funcom -- well, their development team -- has done an outstanding job with the game. It was, well, duh, released too early. Thanks, Funcom management. Well, rumours are that Funcom was almost out of money, so they didn't have much of a choice. It's still a shame. Anyway, regarding AO: compared to the other MMORPGs available, I feel it is by far the most exciting one. 90% of AO are unbelievably cool, especially when compared to its competitors. Unfortunately, the other 10% are so horribly shoddy that they almost kill the game. Let's hope they'll improve it over the next couple of weeks and months -- it's a shame they've already shipped it, but for us there's nothing to do now besides either buying it or not buying it. On a related note, I think it's funny how many former beta "testers" are now whining on the Funcom boards about "Funcom not delivering after having taken their money". I mean, at least THEY should have been able to make an educated decision regarding buying the game. Stupid m0s. - Morn |
|
I was kinda trying to get us to discuss the good old question whether it's acceptable for a company to ship a game that is so severely bugged. - Morn |
|
I tried UO in the beginning, it was such a nightmare that I vowed 'never again'. Then NWN was announced. #2 by Narcopolo Also with games like this, I feel like if you don't get in on it in the beginning you are missing out big time. I agree. That sucks, though... If you get in from the beginning, you get all of the initial release problems. |
|
Morn (#7): I was kinda trying to get us to discuss the good old question whether it's acceptable for a company to ship a game that is so severely bugged. No. Case closed. Hell, Anachronox is supposed to hit shelves tomorrow and they are already working on the 1.1 patch. That's about as wrong as you can get. -- Dethstryk |
|
I was kinda trying to get us to discuss the good old question whether it's acceptable for a company to ship a game that is so severely bugged. What's to discuss? Only in software can you COUNT ON buying a box that boasts all sorts of features that are actually missing or broken. If I were to buy a television that claims to get 100 channels, but it only gets 80 because of a bug, I going to go fucking nuts! Since downloadable patches are always considered as an option for developers the quality of software is sorely lacking. |
|
Should developers be required to send patches to customers without net connections? The assumption that users can buy a box with part of the game, and just download the rest really bothers me. |
|
In Post 5, Dethstryk spewed forth the following; "I've never even played one of these MMORPG games, so I'm not even sure what I'm missing out of. " You're missing out on being a level 3 dwarf stealth thief with a +11 sword who can hypmotize sirens and can fly, but only in the forbidden zone of Zeldar. |
|
I think that in the case of the online only game releasing then patching is more acceptable. Single player patches are much less acceptable, though I am resigned to their inevitability. I played EQ for a while, and I was more put out by Verant saying that some things were "impossible" to change, than by their inevitable sometimes weekly patches. When I was playing a patch would come every other week. If you did a complete reinstall of the game, God help you if you were on a dialup, what with all the patches you'd have to dl. But if they come incrementally it's not so painful. The truth is that they aren't going to find a lot of the problems until tens of thousands of people are turning the game world upside down. So long as Funcom doesn't have the coding attitude that Verant does, then it should be OK. Several of the things that Verant claimed that they would never do, even for technical reasons, like putting a teleport spell into the game where the wizard doesn't have to come with you, are now in the game. Two years later. |
|
Jeremy Witt (#11): Should developers be required to send patches to customers without net connections? The assumption that users can buy a box with part of the game, and just download the rest really bothers me. In my opinion, I think developers should be completely responsible for sending hard copies of patches to every user, even if they do have internet access. If a developer has to fix something they didn't catch the first time around, they should have the courtesy to supply the user with the fix. I know there are a lot of people who never patch their software because they don't know any better, and it's a shame. Sgt Hulka (#12): You're missing out on being a level 3 dwarf stealth thief with a +11 sword who can hypmotize sirens and can fly, but only in the forbidden zone of Zeldar. I haven't done anything that extreme in a game since the time I was amazed I could make a flying, fire-breathing swamp in Magic: the Gathering. -- Dethstryk |
|
The most insane thing about the launch was the lack of a secure connection to the registration page. Funcom's response was that if you don't feel comfortable sending your CC number over an unsecure connection, you should just wait until they get around to fixing it. Saw that on Lum's yesterday I think. I have not played AO, but I still have a barely active EQ account. I'm not looking to have my life sucked away by another of these games but it's like a car wreck I guess, can't turn away from the carnage even when I'm not a participant. Microbe long time PC lurker |
|
If you were to replace EQ's magic with nano, you'd have AO. :-) |
|
If PC gamers weren't so spoiled and constantly screaming "NOW! NOW!", then perhaps games wouldn't be forced to market completely broken. When I buy a console game I'm reasonably confident it's going to work, I don't feel that way about PC games. My favorite bugs are the level design ones where you can't finish the fucking level. Here's a thought; play the game before you ship it. A close second are the bugs where the QA folks haven't even bothered to test on AMD machines, so the game simply wont run because developers have used Intel-specific opcodes. |
|
Microbe in 15: The most insane thing about the launch was the lack of a secure connection to the registration page. Boy, that's really insane. Let's bash them some more for this. OH MY GOD, THEY DON'T HAVE A SECURE REGISTRATION SITE YET. I hope they'll rot in hell. Those evil people. OH MY GOD. Quick, let me hide my credit card. THEY DON'T HAVE HTTPS. THAT IS SO RIDICULOUS. HAHAHAHA. FUNCOM OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO MAKE A GAME. OR SET UP HTTPS. HAHAHAHA. THAT IS SO INSANE. THE IDIOTS. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. OH MY GOD. THE INSANITY. :-) - Morn |
|
Dethstryk (#9): Hell, Anachronox is supposed to hit shelves tomorrow and they are already working on the 1.1 patch. That's about as wrong as you can get. To a degree. If it's just tweaks, I don't mind so much. If they're fixing things which prevent me from finishing the game ... that's wrong. Jeremy Witt (#11): The assumption that users can buy a box with part of the game, and just download the rest really bothers me. I didn't want to do this, but ... How many games are incomplete in the box? Most patches that I've seen address a few bugs, do a few tweaks, etc. I've never once seen a patch that had, "the last half of the game" in it. The only thing that comes close to this is the DM patch for Quake2. Not to defend buggy software, but don't let yourself fall into the internet fanboy syndrome of thinking that patches are "the rest of the game". They aren't. Dethstryk (#14): In my opinion, I think developers should be completely responsible for sending hard copies of patches to every user, even if they do have internet access. If a developer has to fix something they didn't catch the first time around, they should have the courtesy to supply the user with the fix. I know there are a lot of people who never patch their software because they don't know any better, and it's a shame. This requires people to register their software so the developer knows who they are. How many here send in the registration cards? A show of hands ... *a lonely wind blows through the room* Morn (#18): :-) I must say Morn, your "forum speak" gets better every day. :P |
|
The only game that I ever got a patch in the mail for was Sin. At least they had the common courtesy to give me a reach around as they were fucking me in the ass. :P |
|
#19 "Warren Marshall" wrote... This requires people to register their software so the developer knows who they are. How many here send in the registration cards? A show of hands ... Well, I do most of the time, though I give a fake phone number. Origin was supposed to have sent out completely new patched CDs for Ultima IX, but I never got one (yes, I'm one of the simple bastards who bought the game when it was initially released). |
|
#21 Ergo Origin was supposed to have sent out completely new patched CDs for Ultima IX, but I never got one I bought it when it came out as well, and I did get the cd. It didn't help much (I had been downloading the patches all along). The "plus" that they gave out with it was a free copy of UO, but I had no interest in playing it, and to continue to hand over money to a company that screwed me with Steely Dan, wasn't appealing. Funk. |
|
If PC gamers weren't so spoiled and constantly screaming "NOW! NOW!", then perhaps games wouldn't be forced to market completely broken. I could be wrong, but I don't think that it has anything to do with the gamers, it's the publishers who are screaming. When I buy a console game I'm reasonably confident it's going to work, I don't feel that way about PC games. Again, that has nothing to do with the gamers, but the fact that you are developing for one video card, processor, memory configuration... If it runs perfectly at the office, it will run perfectly on the home machine. |
|
There's a final, unsupported U9 patch somewhere on the net (can't remember where) that improves D3D by quite a bit. |
|
How many *YEARS* have people been waiting for NWN? Sure graphics don't mean everything but isn't the game going to be extremely dated? Thats the problem with polygons, if the game doesn't get churned out quickly the game looks like Baby's First Poser Scene. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see NWN bring back roleplaying, graphics be damned, but most of the people touting NWN as the next best thing are the type of people I wouldn't want to play NWN with. Or speak to. Or otherwise interact with. --jmc |
|
Jeremy Witt (#23): Again, that has nothing to do with the gamers, but the fact that you are developing for one video card, processor, memory configuration... If it runs perfectly at the office, it will run perfectly on the home machine. And that's the appeal of consoles ... and why so many developers are defecting to console development. |
|
I could be wrong, but I don't think that it has anything to do with the gamers, it's the publishers who are screaming. The same publishers are releasing polished console games. the fact that you are developing for one video card, processor, memory configuration... No doubt. A static hardware configuration is a big advantage (which is why I conciously didn't mention videocard annoyances, etc.), but that doesn't explain the plain boneheaded bugs found in nearly every PC game like the level design errors and basic CPU incompatibilities. |
|
this going to be mmorpgcrap or planetmmorpg now? :) |
|
#19 by Warren Marshall I've never once seen a patch that had, "the last half of the game" in it. The only thing that comes close to this is the DM patch for Quake2. For me, Fallout [1 or 2, can't remember] certainly had "the last half of the game" in a patch, because a show stopper triggered every time I finished a certain quest. I could not finish Black and White because of a bug in the fifth island. Daggerfall is another (older) example of a game that I could not complete for a long while, and by the time the patch came out to fix the quest bug, I had long since stopped playing. Listen, you know I sympathize - I develop manufacturing/accounting software for a living. If I send a program out the door that fucks up, I screw up a large company's live financial data. Sure, the company can usually restore from backup, but you will lose at least an entire day's transactions, and in a 64+ user system, that's a lot of money. Not to defend buggy software, but don't let yourself fall into the internet fanboy syndrome of thinking that patches are "the rest of the game". They aren't. Okay, so I was a little dramatic... but don't call me a goddamn fanboy! :) |
|
Warren Marshall: To a degree. If it's just tweaks, I don't mind so much. If they're fixing things which prevent me from finishing the game ... that's wrong. If it's just tweaks, then why didn't that get done during the 4 year development time? It seems to me that the best way to release a patch is as a release which adds tons of content. (as in extra NEW content). That way people don't get ripped off. Not to defend buggy software, but don't let yourself fall into the internet fanboy syndrome of thinking that patches are "the rest of the game". They aren't. It depends how it was marketed. Quake2, following Quake, was very wrong in not releasing DM with the original release. On the other hand, Valve was very right in releasing TFC, DMC, etc, as new content add ons. If you market a game as a single player only, and release DM later, that's ok. If you market a game as Single Play with DM, and release teamplay later, that's good too. - Paul |
|
I think the most shocking thing about the Anarchy Online launch that I've discovered is that Dynamix didn't have anything to do with the fiasco. |
|
this going to be mmorpgcrap or planetmmorpg now? :) is shacknews going to be linkstootherpeoplesinterviewsnews or shugamediocrescreenshots now? |
|
#27 by szcx but that doesn't explain the plain boneheaded bugs Hey, you're preaching to the chior! Did anyone play all the way through B&W? I'm a lot more forgiving about hardware incompatibilities than glaring gameplay bugs. |
|
Warren Marshall (#19): To a degree. If it's just tweaks, I don't mind so much. If they're fixing things which prevent me from finishing the game ... that's wrong. Anachronox is something to do with Windows 2000 compatibility, so I imagine it's a pretty serious problem that could prevent people from finishing, or even playing, the game. This requires people to register their software so the developer knows who they are. How many here send in the registration cards? If there were incentives to register your software, such as free software patch CDs mailed to you, then I'm sure more people would be sending them in. Evi|ivE (#20): The only game that I ever got a patch in the mail for was Sin. At least they had the common courtesy to give me a reach around as they were fucking me in the ass. :P Sin is a classic example of a game that fucked people over in the beginning and of why you shouldn't rush a game out. In it's stage now, it's a wonderful game... but it should have been that from the time it was released. -- Dethstryk |
|
Damn Morn(#18), I was just pointing out how rushed the launch must have been if they couldn't bother to have a secure connection for all those CC numbers floating around. Those kind of things don't inspire confidence in AO for me, but it's just part of the deal these days when you play games on the PC. Games will be rushed and buggy, this wasn't the first and won't be the last. Funcom doesn't deserve any extra beatings for the HTTPS snafu, but it should be pointed out in case any here didn't know and wouldn't like their info floating around. I certainly wouldn't have registered without HTTPS. That is all. |
|
is shacknews going to be linkstootherpeoplesinterviewsnews or shugamediocrescreenshots now? They would, but VE's quick witted editors already registered those domains. |
|
Jeremy Witt (#29): Okay, so I was a little dramatic... but don't call me a goddamn fanboy! :) I didn't, I just said don't fall into the syndrome. :P Paul (#30): If it's just tweaks, then why didn't that get done during the 4 year development time? Because sometimes it's not apparent ... or it gets overlooked ... or there's not enough time to make "Magic Spell 257" as pretty as it could be. Dethstryk (#34): Sin is a classic example of a game that fucked people over in the beginning and of why you shouldn't rush a game out. In it's stage now, it's a wonderful game... but it should have been that from the time it was released. SiN was in one of those rare situations where your game is similar to someone elses and are coming out within weeks of each other. Activision felt that they had to rush SiN out the door to get ahead of Half-Life. Was it a good decision? Hell no, but that's the reason it was made. |
|
#30 "Paul" Quake2, following Quake, was very wrong in not releasing DM with the original release One could argue that Quake2 did have DM - just no maps that were designed specifically for DM... #19 "Warren Marshall" This requires people to register their software so the developer knows who they are. How many here send in the registration cards? NEVER!! But I don't mind filling in the online registration page. #3 "Morn" I'm gleefully awaiting the flames yuo are a twat. brun in hell yuo mohterfkcuer. ahem. deadlock |
|
#34 "Dethstryk" wrote... Anachronox is something to do with Windows 2000 compatibility, so I imagine it's a pretty serious problem that could prevent people from finishing, or even playing, the game. Works great for me on W2K. I think the problems are arising from the fact that many people are installing from accounts that don't have admin rights. |
|
deadlock (#38): One could argue that Quake2 did have DM - just no maps that were designed specifically for DM... And one would be flamed incessantly. :) "Our game has this feature ... you'll never be able to use it, but hey, it's there." |
|
Warren - I fill out the registration info on games I buy... if they let me send it online. Others - Why do I submit to this *horrendous breach of privacy* and let the *maniacal, evil companies collect data on me*? Because they might actually use the data to make games that appeal more to me. And for the record, of the 30-or-so games I own, I've finished almost all of them without downloading a single patch (this includes Unreal, Blood2 and Sin), and none of them *needed* a patch to be completed. So the idea that games are shipping totally broken and unplayable doesn't hold much water for me. That said, I wish game developers would just move to consoles entirely, and stop wasting their time with the finicky, hardware-obsessed, bitch-about-everything PC audience. Oh, and as far as the grand and glorious clusterfuck that is Anarchy Online - I don't care. AC was the last MMORPG I expect to play for probably at least five years. They're not where I want them to be yet. -shai |
|
Warren Marshall (#37): SiN was in one of those rare situations where your game is similar to someone elses and are coming out within weeks of each other. Activision felt that they had to rush SiN out the door to get ahead of Half-Life. Was it a good decision? Hell no, but that's the reason it was made. Good point, but unfortunately the results of them rushing out of the door to beat Half-life hurt them a lot more than it should. It really sucks too, since Sin is a great game... after they decided to finish it. (By finish, I mean the programming process, which includes debugging. ;) ) -- Dethstryk |
|
I find it amusing that, for what is likely the first time, two planetcrap topics in a row have featured the psuedo-word "fagots." |
|
#41 by shaithis I've finished almost all of them without downloading a single patch (this includes [...] Sin) And you're a bloody masochist! |
|
shaithis: "I've finished almost all of them without downloading a single patch (this includes Unreal, Blood2 and Sin), and none of them *needed* a patch to be completed." And because you've never experienced problems they clearly don't happen, right? Unreal was unplayable out of the box because I had a shitty Ati that hated me. |
|
One could argue that Quake2 did have DM - just no maps that were designed specifically for DM... Was the Tokay's Towers map in the box on release, or was it an add-on? Damn fine DM map. |
|
Warren - "I've never once seen a patch that had, "the last half of the game" in it" Tribes 2? :) That was missing a lot of its community features when it shipped, and was generally buggy. Black & White had a few game-stopping bugs and some annoying minor ones, and a lot of the wilder features we had been promised either weren't there or didn't work out of the box, presumably because someone at Lionhead realised that they actually had to release the game and that e-mail integration and giant animals that dance to your Spice Girls MP3s really weren't vital features. ;) Z : Steel Soldiers was a good one as well. That has a bug which causes the anti-piracy check not to shut down properly, resulting in the game itself ending up in a background window. Unless you work out what's going on and click on the almost-invisible greyed-out window it will just sit there without ever loading. Whoops. deadlock - "One could argue that Quake2 did have DM - just no maps that were designed specifically for DM" There was a problem with servers crashing during map transitions out-of-the-box as well though wasn't there? And very few of the single player maps were any good for deathmatch, so it was pretty pointless anyway. |
|
#34 "Dethstryk" wrote... Anachronox is something to do with Windows 2000 compatibility, so I imagine it's a pretty serious problem that could prevent people from finishing, or even playing, the game. Windows 2000 was never intended to be a gaming platform. It is not even for the home user, it's an operating system for business and business applications. Use it for gaming and all bets are off. Infact, to knock a PC game for not running in Windows 2000 is akin to knocking it for not running on the Mac. The fact that some games work in Win2k is actually a bonus, rather than games not working is a negative. Now, that said, does Anachronox say on the box it's Windows 2000 compatible? Because if that is the case... |
|
HOT DAMN! *uninstalls Windows 2000* |
|
Tribes 2's community features worked, very briefly, right from the start. The problem with them was that they were overloading Sierra's servers by a massive amount, so they turned them off for a while until they could get some more power/bandwidth behind it. Not really a user-patch issue. The real problems with T2 have been (a) the persistant memory leaks and UE errors and (b) the really poor performance on lower-end (but better than 'minimum recommended') spec machines. For (a), the patches have (eventually) fixed that - they latest beta patch is pretty good. For (b), while they've made some improvements, the only real answer is to upgrade. The most recent real culprit for 'buy game box to let you download the game' has been WWII Online, which required a 60-odd Mb patch from day one, and still has only approximately 30% of the on-the-box features implemented. -- Bob |
|
#48 "Pacer Dawn" wrote... Windows 2000 was never intended to be a gaming platform. It is not even for the home user, it's an operating system for business and business applications. Ok, that's all well and good, but what do you do if a good percentage of your audience uses that operating system, regardless of the marketing-speak that Microsoft uses to sell its products? (Make no mistake, it is marketing-speak and marketing-speak only) If you're a good business, and you respect your customers, you hunker down and make it work, you don't tell them to install a different operating system.. And you can make it work, 'cause it's been done before, by companies that had far less to work with. So that little excuse simply doesn't fly. At all. |
|
Pacer Dawn (#48): Windows 2000 was never intended to be a gaming platform. It is not even for the home user, it's an operating system for business and business applications. Windows 2000 might not be intended to be used as a gaming platform, but it's damn good one, even if it's some "fluke" in the design or something. I think developers know this as well, and more and more of them are going to be making sure their games work in Windows 2000. With Windows XP coming out soon, you also don't really have a choice. Is that a bad thing? Hell no! Windows 2000 and Windows XP are both great gaming platforms. I'm sure there are many here who can testify to that. (No, I don't want to hear bitching about your older games not running properly.) Morn (#49): HOT DAMN! *uninstalls Windows 2000* It's official: I love Morn. -- Dethstryk |
|
Back to the original question, I thought the launch wasn't as bad as say, UO's, or even EQ's - though granted EQ's was more beyond their control with UNNet and all that. Still could have been better, but if you are out of money, what can you do...at least it's playable...highly playable, and if they kill the damn server knocking me off for no reason, I'll be in heaven. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: "HAHAHAH FUNCOM U FAGOTS ILL KILL U I HOPE ULL SHUT DOWN AND ROT IN HELL AND NOT MAKE ANYMORE GAMES U LOSERS"
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|