Re: Wayward Son Quest, (360) still glitching after TWO YEARS!?
Not DA2 specific, but the following posts from Dusty Everman (via BSN) may provide some insight into bug fixing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/325/index/10147092/3#10569444
I’ve heard a couple people ask that if a fix is easy, why would a patch be difficult? That’s a very good question. Here are a few reasons why.
1. Fixing a bug could accidentally introduce worse bugs.
The Gabby/Ken bug is a great example of this. It turns out that just before ship QA found a bug where an Ashley dialog on the Citadel could get stuck under certain import/game mode situations. The person who fixed that bug unknowing introduced the Gabby/Ken bug, and this was after Gabby/Ken had been tested. The Ashley fix was tested on the Citadel, but of course the whole game of 30+ hours with many import and choice variations can’t be retested for every small change. That portion of the Normandy wasn’t retested because we believed it hadn’t been changed and was solid.
2. There can be technical issues.
In this case, the bug was introduced in a tool we call Story Manager. As of today, changes in Story Manager content can’t really be put into a patch due to some technical limitations. Our programmers are fixing those limitations, but until that work is actually successful, we can’t be 100% sure that Story Manager fixes can happen.
3. Content fixes in DLC bloat downloads.
Sometimes we can do fixes in the content instead of the code. However, this adds to the size of download on your disk, and due to how the content is structured, you don’t just get the fix. You get a copy of a bunch of other stuff, so depending on the situation, the amount added could be large.
4. The people who notice the fix may be so small as to not offset the risks and costs of a fix.
For example with the Ken/Gabby bug, the only people who notice that bug are those that imported a save game from ME2 where Ken and Gabby survived the Collector base, and they care enough about Ken and Gabby to recruit them again and go down and visit them in engineering. Though I’d like to believe that is a huge number of people, truthfully it’s probably a small fraction of the players. As with everything in life, our resources aren’t infinite, so we need to make judgment calls of were to apply our QA and development efforts.
I’m in no way saying that the Ken/Gabby bug won’t be fixed. Actually, I’m more encouraged than ever that the fix will get put into a future patch or DLC. We just can’t make any promises. I just wanted to shed some light on why knowing about a fix isn’t the same as being able to deliver a fix. I know that any answer that isn’t “We will fix 100% of the known bugs” will make some people angry, and I apologize for that. If we followed that, it would be impossible for us to make a large, rich game for you. I can say that everyone on our team cares deeply about the quality of experience we are providing to you. We do try our best.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/325/index/10147092/4#10663496
I don’t need a picture to know what 1% of our customer base is. You are missing my point. Our team just doesn’t sit back and smoke cigars when a project is done. We are not undedicated developers as you seem to be implying with your “motivator”. We continually focus on the next highest priority work. Things that affect 2%, 10%, or 100% of the players obviously have higher priority.
Though try as we might, we can’t make a 100% bug free game. Let’s look at two great AAA games: Skyrim and Uncharted. Skyrim gives the player incredible freedom. It’s huge and sprawling… and full of bugs; some of them horrendous. Is that because Bethesda is full of undedicated developers? No, it’s just that their game is so complex with so many variables it would be near impossible to catch and fix them all and not introduce new bugs. Then look at Uncharted. It still has bugs, but for the most part it is very solid. It’s also a very linear experience. It is a much easier game to polish and test. Mass Effect 3 lies somewhere in between. And guess what? We have fewer bugs than Skyrim and more bugs than Uncharted. That shouldn’t be a surprise.
Would it have been impossible to fix all the known bugs in Mass Effect 3? No, but what would it have taken?
* Less Content
* More Linear Content (which is another way of saying less content)
* Later Ship Date
* Larger Team
The first two solutions in my opinion make for a worse game. We would rather give you as rich and varied of content as we can if the price is a few bugs slipping through. The second two affect profit margins…. Whoa whoa whoa, I see you opening your mouth to spout the evils of EA’s money grubbing ways. Give me a second please. If you have a job, your salary is paid by the money your employer brings in. If you like a game, and you want to see more of it, you want it to be as big a financially success as possible. Why? Cause more money will go back into the project and team. Compare Jade Empire to Mass Effect. And if we got a later ship date or a larger team for Mass Effect 3, we would have just made a larger game with the same number of little bugs, because we believe that is the best experience we could give you.
For example, if early in the project Casey came to me and said “Dusty, you need to ship the Normandy on time but with zero bugs”, this is what I would have done. Cut Steve Cortez, cut Ken and Gabby (the irony), cut the memorial wall, cut the moving elevator (which sadly did have to get cut), and all henchmen would have stayed in one location like they did in ME1 or ME2. With that, I think I would have had enough time to polish the heck out of the content, and gotten very close to zero bugs.
For patches, the same logic holds. Effort spent on patches is work that isn’t spent on the next project.
I’m still trying to get the Ken and Gabby bug fixed. I just wanted to share how game development, as with most everything in life, is full of tradeoffs and shades of grey.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
