I didn't feel like I was baiting, nor did I feel like he was baiting. Was it a disagreement? Yep. Is there some dislike there? On a certain level. But we were still arguing about the quality of launches, polish of games, and were on topic...for the most part.
It is a touchy subject, discussing different games. You know that well - most of us that have posted here over any period of time (or anywhere for that matter) - know how it ends up. Might as well be out at the mud pit with the Ford and Chevy guys arguing (both of them are laughing at the Dodge guys, btw).
I don't think that we'd reached any level of rabid fanism as seen in some threads.
It's a case of trying to cut through the PR BS, acknowledge that history is no guarantee of failure nor success, and basically realize that to an extent we are left with a comparitive thread that has taken on a competitive edge that will be inherent in the games...
...at least imho.
My apologies to the boards though, if I did cross any lines.
I had a post deleted earlier in the evening when I took exception to another poster, so I'm sure that played a role in my subsequent post getting deleted.
I think you're a skilled debater and I felt like I needed to work extra hard to try to get definitive answers from you. For instance, you post GW1 critic scores. Someone instead offers user scores and adds Bioware user scores. Instead of debating the numbers, you counter with questioning whether the numbers are relevant. I didn't take part in that, but I think that's an example of where it can easily take 2-3 rounds of posts to get anywhere.
I wouldn't consider myself a GW or ArenaNet fanboy. I only liked, not loved, GW1 and I believe that some of the aspects of it are clunky. You pretty much hated GW1 as far as I can tell. This being a thread about polish I was trying to pin down an answer to whether you thought the game itself was buggy or whether you just didn't like it. I'm fairly certain you would have countered by suggesting that clunky mechanics suggest a lack of polish, and I probably would have asked again whether it was buggy, and so on and so on...
I honestly don't feel either that I was trying to bait you, but obviously that's not my call to make and I don't blame the mods for shutting it down. I'm sorry that things got to the point where they felt the need to step in.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
You just have to look to Duke Nukem Forever to realize development time has no bearing on game quality.
Well said. Who the developers are matter more than any of the less than correct facts OP posted and even really great devs can release a bad game just like great musicians can release a bad album or great directors can make a bad movie.
I like the concept of all 3 of the games, but a few hours playing them would give me more than all known facts put together.
Let the games speak for themselves, try them all out and see which if any you like instead of overthinking things.
I didn't feel like I was baiting, nor did I feel like he was baiting. Was it a disagreement? Yep. Is there some dislike there? On a certain level. But we were still arguing about the quality of launches, polish of games, and were on topic...for the most part.
It is a touchy subject, discussing different games. You know that well - most of us that have posted here over any period of time (or anywhere for that matter) - know how it ends up. Might as well be out at the mud pit with the Ford and Chevy guys arguing (both of them are laughing at the Dodge guys, btw).
I don't think that we'd reached any level of rabid fanism as seen in some threads.
It's a case of trying to cut through the PR BS, acknowledge that history is no guarantee of failure nor success, and basically realize that to an extent we are left with a comparitive thread that has taken on a competitive edge that will be inherent in the games...
...at least imho.
My apologies to the boards though, if I did cross any lines.
I had a post deleted earlier in the evening when I took exception to another poster, so I'm sure that played a role in my subsequent post getting deleted.
I think you're a skilled debater and I felt like I needed to work extra hard to try to get definitive answers from you. For instance, you post GW1 critic scores. Someone instead offers user scores and adds Bioware user scores. Instead of debating the numbers, you counter with questioning whether the numbers are relevant. I didn't take part in that, but I think that's an example of where it can easily take 2-3 rounds of posts to get anywhere.
I wouldn't consider myself a GW or ArenaNet fanboy. I only liked, not loved, GW1 and I believe that some of the aspects of it are clunky. You pretty much hated GW1 as far as I can tell. This being a thread about polish I was trying to pin down an answer to whether you thought the game itself was buggy or whether you just didn't like it. I'm fairly certain you would have countered by suggesting that clunky mechanics suggest a lack of polish, and I probably would have asked again whether it was buggy, and so on and so on...
I honestly don't feel either that I was trying to bait you, but obviously that's not my call to make and I don't blame the mods for shutting it down. I'm sorry that things got to the point where they felt the need to step in.
Definitive answers are a tough one at times on forums - I suppose I get defensive because they are often taken out of context or perhaps there was not a clear agreement on terms being used. How many times have you said one thing, feeling it was pretty clear what you were saying - only to have somebody respond as if you had something entirely different - the literal /facepalm trying to figure out how they thought you said that.
In regard to the critic vs. user ratings - obviously the critics are simply a form of user, in a sense. There are many critics out there that I would not trust to give me a review of whether a cup of hot coffee was hot or cold, lol. However, I generally feel that critics have to maintain some form of objectivity in order to maintain their jobs - otherwise they lose credibility. I might think them complete idiots...but they are credible complete idiots. Users on the other hand are not subject to that in the least. I not only discounted the positive user reviews, but I also discounted the negative user reviews. There are going to be fanbois and there are going to be haters.
The main gist of that particular argument was in regard to ArenaNet's QA system - the historical perspective involved with GW1 (while simultaneously being told by the same person that history did not matter) - and the fact that ArenaNet has stated they would not take the same approach with GW2 that they did with GW1 (thus, quite literally - that historical perspective in regard to GW1 was moot). While I did not really see what I was doing there as baiting, it was definitely an elusive dance to get that particular user to realize the folly of what they were stating. It matters. It does not matter. It actually did not matter, but somehow it still matttered. Etc, etc. The lack of reasoning and logic behind it...well, it perturbed me...meh.
As for hating GW1...that is a tough one. Had I the opportunity perhaps to have approached the game as ArenaNet wanted me to do so rather than how the game was portrayed by...hrmmm, users - then my experience may have been different. ArenaNet did not offer me a plate of baby back ribs and instead hand me a bag with a McRib in it. ArenaNet was always offering the McRib, but the person that passed me the bag, said there was a plate of baby back ribs in it. So my expectations were way off. It was a case of going into it with expectations that could not be met...thus, it would have had the appearance of not being polished. I tried to weasel out of that discussion by stating, rather rudely upon further reflection, that it may have been a polished X, but in the end it was still an X. It was not the Y I was expecting, so it was never a polished Y.
In regard to GW2, I tried to put aside my experience with GW1. I did a fairly decent job there, I believe. My issues with GW2 actually arose from information that ArenaNet themselves continued to provide. At least this time though, I knew what GW2 would actually be. Even though it is definitely not the game for me...there is no bad taste, even though it was not actually ArenaNet's fault, as there was with GW1.
With regard to this particular thread, I'm pretty sure most of us have discounted the discussion on focusing simply on math - there have been several comments on how quantity simply does not equate to quality. In turn then, we could turn to the simple discussion of which is most likely to have the most polished launch...
...which in turn, well - becomes that difficult conversation.
Funcom has had some pretty terrible launches in Anarchy Online and Age of Conan. BioWare has never launched a MMO. ArenaNet is doing something different with GW2 than they did with GW1 (which oddly enough is to change what people were praising them for doing with GW1). So it goes around and around...
...an item I've found lacking in this thread, and something that I have not personally brought up - is what do we consider to be a polished launch? What is a good launch? Oddly enough, should we not have defined that first before getting into that discussion? If we have not even agreed to the terms with that, how could we discuss the rest?
It is curious, because even with a somewhat recent game like RIFT - there will be those that said it had a good launch and those that said it had a bad launch. Some will be looking at bugs, some will be looking at server loads/queue times, some will try not to joke about all the phishing that took place, etc.
Beyond that, we also run into the issue of how different these three games are. What might be a polished/good launch for GW2 might not be the case for SWTOR or TSW.
I hope that I'm being objective in saying this, but I believe that TOR is the most complex of the three games and has the most things that might go wrong. I believe GW2 is the simplest of the games and has the least things that might go wrong. That being said though, I believe that something going wrong in GW2 would have a larger impact than something going wrong in TOR. There's not as much to go wrong, so if something goes wrong...it would be bigger.
What of TSW? Strangely enough, with TSW being in the middle in my opinion...it actually presents the greatest opportunity for there being a bad launch in comparison to the other two games. They have more to worry about than GW2, but they do not have the cushion to carry them like TOR.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
"We have a team responsible for testing each and every one of the hundreds of dynamic events. Another team combs over each map, making sure no seam goes uncovered and no gap goes unfilled. We even have a “mercenary” team, which helps any team or department facing a particularly large workload."
There isn't a singular QA team consisting of all QA people. There are several teams all doing QA and all focussing on different tasks. The QA team I mentioned in my post is focussed on checking all the content of a planet. It doesn't consist of every single QA person Bioware has employed, it doesn't work like that with Bioware nor with ANet.
"Beyond that, individual QA members serve on ArenaNet’s strike teams. These strike teams, who are assembled from several departments, focus on one specific aspect of the game: crafting, PvP, story, and other cool things that I can’t tell you about yet."
QA people serving on teams that aren't QA teams. Teams that are made up from all kinds of departments to iterate, test and reiterate.
Let me give you an example since you seem to be having trouble with it.
We've got 5 people: Bob, Jake, Alice, Eve and Thomas.
Bob, Jake and Alice work on a QA team, once something is actually playable they test it. Thus they're near the end of a development cycle (one of many).
Eve also does QA but she's not part of the above QA team. She works with the quest writers to test basic quest paths, dialogue choices etc. as soon as the scripting is done.
Thomas does QA as well. But again he's not part of that QA team, he works with the combat team and tests singular encounters as they're being made so he can help adjust spawn counts, NPC abilities etc.
Through the development cycle Eve and Thomas are continaully doing QA work and assisting the teams they're embedded in as they go.
The actual QA team doesn't touch anything during the start of that development cycle. Only when that development cycle nears it's end, and the following one is about to begin, do they start testing everything. While they're testing and giving feedback all those other teams are still working and they'll use that feedback in the following development cycle to improve the systems they're working on.
The term "QA team" as both I and ANet are using it does not refer to all QA people. It refers of a singular team of people in the development process whose main purpose is QA.
I understand that ArenaNet's iteration process is hard to grasp and no amount of explanation will make you understand it when you're mind set is based on the "usual way" of doing QA.
In my line of work, during R&D process, we have the QA working with us (engineers) to insure that the design of our product will pass the specifications even BEFORE we build it. Because once we allocate time and money into building our product without input from the QA in the process, then when the QA checks it afterwards, we'll lose all those time and money into correcting the mistake that the QA found in the end rather than catching the mistake BEFORE everything was built. Not to mention all the time wasted into building a failed product.
I just hope you see the difference because I'm really done talking about this. Have a nice day.
That being said, Funcom has a history of bad launches...but Anarchy Online is still going 10 years later. EA signed on to co-pub the game this year. I despise EA. We'll never forget EnB, you bastards!
GW never interested me in the least. GW2 actually interests me less than GW.
BioWare has made some nifty single-player games. This is supposed to be a MMO though, right? Well, it looks to be a combination SPRPG and game lobby. So, not interested in that in the least. SWTOR should be better than pre-NGE SWG. From what I have seen, it is not... so, nevermind.
All that being said, TSW is the only game of the three (of any game on the horizon) that I am looking forward to at this point.
I understand that ArenaNet's iteration process is hard to grasp and no amount of explanation will make you understand it when you're mind set is based on the "usual way" of doing QA.
In my line of work, during R&D process, we have the QA working with us (engineers) to insure that the design of our product will pass the specifications even BEFORE we build it. Because once we allocate time and money into building our product without input from the QA in the process, then when the QA checks it afterwards, we'll lose all those time and money into correcting the mistake that the QA found in the end rather than catching the mistake BEFORE everything was built. Not to mention all the time wasted into building a failed product.
I just hope you see the difference because I'm really done talking about this. Have a nice day.
Do you know the difference between a team and a department?
If you have QA working with you then you're still working in an engineering team (provided you work in teams of course), because the main thing your team is doing is engineering.
However not all members from your team are from the engineering department even though it's an engineering team.
I see the difference between ANet and "imaginery MMO company doing it totally wrong" just fine. You however don't seem to grasp that ANet's way of working isn't something totally unique and special. There's plenty of developers that work mostly the same way, any smart company will continually do QA during development. That however doesn't mean that those teams developing are suddenly called QA teams, even though they do have QA members and perform QA.
What those other companies however haven't done is bringing out a blog claiming how differently they're doing it and as such cause easily impressionable people to believe that every single other company is doing it totally differently because they haven't brought out a similair blog.
All the knowledge we have points to QA being performed continually during the devolpment of SWToR and likely TSW as well. Just because they haven't brought out a fancy blog boldly claiming how special they are doesn't mean they're not doing it.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
I understand that ArenaNet's iteration process is hard to grasp and no amount of explanation will make you understand it when you're mind set is based on the "usual way" of doing QA.
In my line of work, during R&D process, we have the QA working with us (engineers) to insure that the design of our product will pass the specifications even BEFORE we build it. Because once we allocate time and money into building our product without input from the QA in the process, then when the QA checks it afterwards, we'll lose all those time and money into correcting the mistake that the QA found in the end rather than catching the mistake BEFORE everything was built. Not to mention all the time wasted into building a failed product.
I just hope you see the difference because I'm really done talking about this. Have a nice day.
Do you know the difference between a team and a department?
If you have QA working with you then you're still working in an engineering team (provided you work in teams of course), because the main thing your team is doing is engineering.
However not all members from your team are from the engineering department even though it's an engineering team.
I see the difference between ANet and "imaginery MMO company doing it totally wrong" just fine. You however don't seem to grasp that ANet's way of working isn't something totally unique and special. There's plenty of developers that work mostly the same way, any smart company will continually do QA during development. That however doesn't mean that those teams developing are suddenly called QA teams, even though they do have QA members and perform QA.
What those other companies however haven't done is bringing out a blog claiming how differently they're doing it and as such cause easily impressionable people to believe that every single other company is doing it totally differently because they haven't brought out a similair blog.
All the knowledge we have points to QA being performed continually during the devolpment of SWToR and likely TSW as well. Just because they haven't brought out a fancy blog boldly claiming how special they are doesn't mean they're not doing it.
So are you saying that Bioware take advantage of minor girls in their off hours? Because according to you, "Just because they haven't brought out a fancy blog boldly claiming how special they are doesn't mean they're not doing it."
You see, we can all speculate what they do and don't do. But at least to those who reveals what they do, they have nothing to hide. And we, except one particular user, all know how ArenaNet do their iteration process.
But since your basis is simply speculation rather than facts, I'm out.
So are you saying that Bioware take advantage of minor girls in their off hours? Because according to you, "Just because they haven't brought out a fancy blog boldly claiming how special they are doesn't mean they're not doing it."
You see, we can all speculate what they do and don't do. But at least to those who reveals what they do, they have nothing to hide. And we, except one particular user, all know how ArenaNet do their iteration process.
But since your basis is simply speculation rather than facts, I'm out.
No, I'm asking you to not make assumptions.
Don't assume Bioware's QA process is a bad one.
Don't assume Bioware is taking advantage of minor girls in their off hours.
Stop making assumptions. The only facts we have is the blog I linked you and that clearly points in the direction of Bioware having a good QA process. That blog is what I'm basing my views of Bioware's QA process on.
What are you basing your views of Bioware on exactly? Because you haven't brought up anything at all to support it, anything but mindless assumptions that is.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
It's tough to say... In all honesty TSW will probably have the roughest launch, followed by TOR, then GW2... simply looking at track-records and not numbers.
And that is where most of us are kind of going back and forth...does that history matter?
BioWare has not put out a MMO. They've done well with other games. They've got EA folks that are going to be there for this as well, presumably. Speaking of EA, they signed on as a co-pub for TSW earlier this year.
EA-BioWare...SWTOR
EA-Funcom...TSW
Funny, eh? Yes, the relationship between BioWare and EA is different than EA and Funcom...but there you go all the same.
Funcom's had some bad launches - some of the worst. Yet one game is going 10 years later and the other still 3 years later. How bad could those launches have been, eh?
AutoAssault had a great launch...but the servers were empty. Meh. Game got pulled pretty damn fast.
ArenaNet and GW2... folks want to point to GW1, but not everybody agrees that was as good as everybody else. Then you have GW2 trying to do their actual first MMORPG...kind of. Kind of in the sense that they do not claim GW1 to be a MMORPG, and while GW2 is going to be more of a persistent world...more MMORPGish...they're still not really, well - you know, right? They've also changed the process for GW2 from GW1. So though we have history there, it is debatable history and it is not really applicable because of changes ArenaNet has made...oddly enough, changes away from what people are citing as the reason that GW2 will be good. Kind of...mind boggling.
But yep, yep - definitely the point that has come up in this thread multiple times...
...how can we do this by the numbers?
...how can we do this with just math?
I'm hanging around in the hopes that somebody breaks out some sort of funkafied math to do it... lol, maybe? Meh...
But you were the one that was insisting that Anet's previous game wasn't polished, and because of that GW2 probably woudln't be.
You were the one that posted the metacritic scores for all of the GW games to validate a point that GW2 wouldn't be that good.
Every MMO that funcom has put out has had horrible launches, as well as post launches. They've set a president with both their previous games as a studio that releases games in a bad state, and then spend the next few months fixing them.
AO is listed as one of the worst launches in MMO history. It wasn't just bad, or awful, it's one of the worst. They also turned it free to play, with no cash shop in order to get people playing.
It would be rather foolish to think that Funcom will have a smoth launch with TSW.
Bioware has never released an MMO, so it stands to be seen how it will go.
I wasn't a fan of GW, but Anet is one of the better companies when it comes to releasing a game polished and relatively bug free. I'm not really sure how you can even imply that GW2 isn't really an MMO, because you didn't think that GW was. Also, EA coming on bored with Funcom doesn't mean good. They released two MMO's without having to sign on a big name publisher, why now do they need EA's support? Nor does EA as the publsher mean that Funcom won't have a repeat of their two previous launches.
If I was putting money on wich game was going to release with the most polish, it would be GW2. Anet is the only company of the three that has shown the ability to polish a game prior to release. Bioware has never done an MMO so who knows, and Funcom has a very well documented history of very bad launches, and not just very bad, one of the worst ever.
It doesn't matter how long they spend on it, or how big their studio is. It espcially doesn't matter if it's the game you're most excited about playing.
Be careful to use cold, hard facts and figures for products in a genre where subjective opinion reigns supreme.
When I was in college, a good friend of mine was convinced that one could come up with criteria that would prove that a certain piece of music was a work of genius.
His example was "The Rite of Spring" by Igor Stravinsky. Which I actually do think is a work of genius. however, it wasn't well recieved when it premiered.
My friend was convinced that there were probably other works out there that suffered the same fate and that by careful study one could pin point which works were really works of genius.
fast forward many years, I asked him about his thoughts about the same subject and his response was "nah, it's not possible, too many subjective elements".
And you're right. If "math" was considered then wow is the greatest mmo of all time. That I don't play.
Because "there are too many subjective elements".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
Well, um... what I know is that I've played several games by Funcom and many games by BioWare. I did a trial of GW and uninstalled it shortly after entering the game.
So uh, what "most of us" know... is not to speak for everybody.
The thread is about which game is going to be most polished at release.
Did you uninstall GW because you didn't like it, or did you uninstall it because it was unplayably buggy? The latter is relevant to this thread, the former is not.
I uninstalled it because it was fugly... a polished turd is still a turd. It was simply fugly. The graphics, the GUI, etc, etc. The game play was awkward, etc, etc. I did not experience enough of the game to determine whether I liked it or not, because of how poorly it presented itself.
Actually, the game was not fugly when it was released, it had better graphics than WoW or any other MMO I was currently playing at the time. Your opinion is noted, but most people don't share it. I didn't end up playing GW1 for more than a year or so because of issues NOT related to its quality of design, which is what others are debating. ANet makes sure the games they've designed are polished, that doesn't mean you'll enjoy them. The game was not clunky, or buggy. You admit you didn't even play it long enough to form a real opinion.
Comments
I had a post deleted earlier in the evening when I took exception to another poster, so I'm sure that played a role in my subsequent post getting deleted.
I think you're a skilled debater and I felt like I needed to work extra hard to try to get definitive answers from you. For instance, you post GW1 critic scores. Someone instead offers user scores and adds Bioware user scores. Instead of debating the numbers, you counter with questioning whether the numbers are relevant. I didn't take part in that, but I think that's an example of where it can easily take 2-3 rounds of posts to get anywhere.
I wouldn't consider myself a GW or ArenaNet fanboy. I only liked, not loved, GW1 and I believe that some of the aspects of it are clunky. You pretty much hated GW1 as far as I can tell. This being a thread about polish I was trying to pin down an answer to whether you thought the game itself was buggy or whether you just didn't like it. I'm fairly certain you would have countered by suggesting that clunky mechanics suggest a lack of polish, and I probably would have asked again whether it was buggy, and so on and so on...
I honestly don't feel either that I was trying to bait you, but obviously that's not my call to make and I don't blame the mods for shutting it down. I'm sorry that things got to the point where they felt the need to step in.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Well said. Who the developers are matter more than any of the less than correct facts OP posted and even really great devs can release a bad game just like great musicians can release a bad album or great directors can make a bad movie.
I like the concept of all 3 of the games, but a few hours playing them would give me more than all known facts put together.
Let the games speak for themselves, try them all out and see which if any you like instead of overthinking things.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Definitive answers are a tough one at times on forums - I suppose I get defensive because they are often taken out of context or perhaps there was not a clear agreement on terms being used. How many times have you said one thing, feeling it was pretty clear what you were saying - only to have somebody respond as if you had something entirely different - the literal /facepalm trying to figure out how they thought you said that.
In regard to the critic vs. user ratings - obviously the critics are simply a form of user, in a sense. There are many critics out there that I would not trust to give me a review of whether a cup of hot coffee was hot or cold, lol. However, I generally feel that critics have to maintain some form of objectivity in order to maintain their jobs - otherwise they lose credibility. I might think them complete idiots...but they are credible complete idiots. Users on the other hand are not subject to that in the least. I not only discounted the positive user reviews, but I also discounted the negative user reviews. There are going to be fanbois and there are going to be haters.
The main gist of that particular argument was in regard to ArenaNet's QA system - the historical perspective involved with GW1 (while simultaneously being told by the same person that history did not matter) - and the fact that ArenaNet has stated they would not take the same approach with GW2 that they did with GW1 (thus, quite literally - that historical perspective in regard to GW1 was moot). While I did not really see what I was doing there as baiting, it was definitely an elusive dance to get that particular user to realize the folly of what they were stating. It matters. It does not matter. It actually did not matter, but somehow it still matttered. Etc, etc. The lack of reasoning and logic behind it...well, it perturbed me...meh.
As for hating GW1...that is a tough one. Had I the opportunity perhaps to have approached the game as ArenaNet wanted me to do so rather than how the game was portrayed by...hrmmm, users - then my experience may have been different. ArenaNet did not offer me a plate of baby back ribs and instead hand me a bag with a McRib in it. ArenaNet was always offering the McRib, but the person that passed me the bag, said there was a plate of baby back ribs in it. So my expectations were way off. It was a case of going into it with expectations that could not be met...thus, it would have had the appearance of not being polished. I tried to weasel out of that discussion by stating, rather rudely upon further reflection, that it may have been a polished X, but in the end it was still an X. It was not the Y I was expecting, so it was never a polished Y.
In regard to GW2, I tried to put aside my experience with GW1. I did a fairly decent job there, I believe. My issues with GW2 actually arose from information that ArenaNet themselves continued to provide. At least this time though, I knew what GW2 would actually be. Even though it is definitely not the game for me...there is no bad taste, even though it was not actually ArenaNet's fault, as there was with GW1.
With regard to this particular thread, I'm pretty sure most of us have discounted the discussion on focusing simply on math - there have been several comments on how quantity simply does not equate to quality. In turn then, we could turn to the simple discussion of which is most likely to have the most polished launch...
...which in turn, well - becomes that difficult conversation.
Funcom has had some pretty terrible launches in Anarchy Online and Age of Conan. BioWare has never launched a MMO. ArenaNet is doing something different with GW2 than they did with GW1 (which oddly enough is to change what people were praising them for doing with GW1). So it goes around and around...
...an item I've found lacking in this thread, and something that I have not personally brought up - is what do we consider to be a polished launch? What is a good launch? Oddly enough, should we not have defined that first before getting into that discussion? If we have not even agreed to the terms with that, how could we discuss the rest?
It is curious, because even with a somewhat recent game like RIFT - there will be those that said it had a good launch and those that said it had a bad launch. Some will be looking at bugs, some will be looking at server loads/queue times, some will try not to joke about all the phishing that took place, etc.
Beyond that, we also run into the issue of how different these three games are. What might be a polished/good launch for GW2 might not be the case for SWTOR or TSW.
I hope that I'm being objective in saying this, but I believe that TOR is the most complex of the three games and has the most things that might go wrong. I believe GW2 is the simplest of the games and has the least things that might go wrong. That being said though, I believe that something going wrong in GW2 would have a larger impact than something going wrong in TOR. There's not as much to go wrong, so if something goes wrong...it would be bigger.
What of TSW? Strangely enough, with TSW being in the middle in my opinion...it actually presents the greatest opportunity for there being a bad launch in comparison to the other two games. They have more to worry about than GW2, but they do not have the cushion to carry them like TOR.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Oh right, yes that's the one.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I understand that ArenaNet's iteration process is hard to grasp and no amount of explanation will make you understand it when you're mind set is based on the "usual way" of doing QA.
In my line of work, during R&D process, we have the QA working with us (engineers) to insure that the design of our product will pass the specifications even BEFORE we build it. Because once we allocate time and money into building our product without input from the QA in the process, then when the QA checks it afterwards, we'll lose all those time and money into correcting the mistake that the QA found in the end rather than catching the mistake BEFORE everything was built. Not to mention all the time wasted into building a failed product.
I just hope you see the difference because I'm really done talking about this. Have a nice day.
Ready for GW2!!!
Lets refrain from baiting each other into personal attacks guys. Thanks.
well said
EQ2 fan sites
Math says WoW is the best MMORPG ever made.
Be careful to use cold, hard facts and figures for products in a genre where subjective opinion reigns supreme.
Preach it, brother!
/flip
Heretic!
Do you know the difference between a team and a department?
If you have QA working with you then you're still working in an engineering team (provided you work in teams of course), because the main thing your team is doing is engineering.
However not all members from your team are from the engineering department even though it's an engineering team.
I see the difference between ANet and "imaginery MMO company doing it totally wrong" just fine. You however don't seem to grasp that ANet's way of working isn't something totally unique and special. There's plenty of developers that work mostly the same way, any smart company will continually do QA during development. That however doesn't mean that those teams developing are suddenly called QA teams, even though they do have QA members and perform QA.
What those other companies however haven't done is bringing out a blog claiming how differently they're doing it and as such cause easily impressionable people to believe that every single other company is doing it totally differently because they haven't brought out a similair blog.
All the knowledge we have points to QA being performed continually during the devolpment of SWToR and likely TSW as well. Just because they haven't brought out a fancy blog boldly claiming how special they are doesn't mean they're not doing it.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
So are you saying that Bioware take advantage of minor girls in their off hours? Because according to you, "Just because they haven't brought out a fancy blog boldly claiming how special they are doesn't mean they're not doing it."
You see, we can all speculate what they do and don't do. But at least to those who reveals what they do, they have nothing to hide. And we, except one particular user, all know how ArenaNet do their iteration process.
But since your basis is simply speculation rather than facts, I'm out.
Ready for GW2!!!
No, I'm asking you to not make assumptions.
Don't assume Bioware's QA process is a bad one.
Don't assume Bioware is taking advantage of minor girls in their off hours.
Stop making assumptions. The only facts we have is the blog I linked you and that clearly points in the direction of Bioware having a good QA process. That blog is what I'm basing my views of Bioware's QA process on.
What are you basing your views of Bioware on exactly? Because you haven't brought up anything at all to support it, anything but mindless assumptions that is.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
But you were the one that was insisting that Anet's previous game wasn't polished, and because of that GW2 probably woudln't be.
You were the one that posted the metacritic scores for all of the GW games to validate a point that GW2 wouldn't be that good.
Every MMO that funcom has put out has had horrible launches, as well as post launches. They've set a president with both their previous games as a studio that releases games in a bad state, and then spend the next few months fixing them.
AO is listed as one of the worst launches in MMO history. It wasn't just bad, or awful, it's one of the worst. They also turned it free to play, with no cash shop in order to get people playing.
It would be rather foolish to think that Funcom will have a smoth launch with TSW.
Bioware has never released an MMO, so it stands to be seen how it will go.
I wasn't a fan of GW, but Anet is one of the better companies when it comes to releasing a game polished and relatively bug free. I'm not really sure how you can even imply that GW2 isn't really an MMO, because you didn't think that GW was. Also, EA coming on bored with Funcom doesn't mean good. They released two MMO's without having to sign on a big name publisher, why now do they need EA's support? Nor does EA as the publsher mean that Funcom won't have a repeat of their two previous launches.
If I was putting money on wich game was going to release with the most polish, it would be GW2. Anet is the only company of the three that has shown the ability to polish a game prior to release. Bioware has never done an MMO so who knows, and Funcom has a very well documented history of very bad launches, and not just very bad, one of the worst ever.
It doesn't matter how long they spend on it, or how big their studio is. It espcially doesn't matter if it's the game you're most excited about playing.
When I was in college, a good friend of mine was convinced that one could come up with criteria that would prove that a certain piece of music was a work of genius.
His example was "The Rite of Spring" by Igor Stravinsky. Which I actually do think is a work of genius. however, it wasn't well recieved when it premiered.
My friend was convinced that there were probably other works out there that suffered the same fate and that by careful study one could pin point which works were really works of genius.
fast forward many years, I asked him about his thoughts about the same subject and his response was "nah, it's not possible, too many subjective elements".
And you're right. If "math" was considered then wow is the greatest mmo of all time. That I don't play.
Because "there are too many subjective elements".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Actually, the game was not fugly when it was released, it had better graphics than WoW or any other MMO I was currently playing at the time. Your opinion is noted, but most people don't share it. I didn't end up playing GW1 for more than a year or so because of issues NOT related to its quality of design, which is what others are debating. ANet makes sure the games they've designed are polished, that doesn't mean you'll enjoy them. The game was not clunky, or buggy. You admit you didn't even play it long enough to form a real opinion.
I take it your last name is Math ?
Because Math as a knowledge field only says WoW is the most successful MMORPG ever made.
And the Sun Magazine is the most successful newspaper in britain.
And McDonalds is the most successful restaurant.
And Windows is the most successful computer operating system.
That doesnt say anything about the quality of the product.
Well, it says something about the quality of the product, just not (nearly) everything.
The OP has done some solid work and a good analysis.
But we don't know the size of the teams each studio has working on each game. That is a huge variable that could make all the differance.