Assassins Creed Series

[MiTT3NZ]

See, this is what pisses me off about games. They're products. And as products, the dev studios and publishers have a responsibility to make sure there are as few or little defects as possible, and to later iron out any other bugs/issues that come to light.

Instead of regulating content, more emphasis should be put on regulating the development process itself. If I'm to pay full retail price for a game, only to be told "sorry, you can't progress anymore coz you spoke to NPC 2 before NPC 1" or "nah, you can't access any features of your game coz we're doing 'maintenence' work on the server", then I want something done about it.

Be it money back, money off future products, or direct assistance that will categorically lead to a perfect solution, this should be expected and enforced. If I buy my nephew a toy and the cables that connect the batteries to the speaker fry, I expect the manufacturer to refund me in full and send me a new one, and they'd have to comply with that (well, they would if I pushed em enough which usually doesn't take much from me)

The point is though that developers, publishers, and indeed the console companies themselves should be pulling out all the stops in order of good customer service. It seems to be completely lost on the video game industry, and it's something that needs to change. Sure, it'd be a massive pain in the arse for them, but we as the consumers deserve that kinda guarantee. Not "sorry, but it costs too much to give you a patch, you'll have to make do", I want to be able to use the product I've bought with my fucking money.

Nob eds.

[Who Really Cares?]

Sadly too many are happy to release now patch later and you see too many bugs carry over from 1 game to the next.

[MiTT3NZ]

I think it's predominantly in open world/sandbox titles that it becomes a major issue. With straight-forward type games, it shouldn't be a problem to find the bugs, because there isn't as much to do. When it comes to open world titles though, there are so many variables that could cause a subtle chain of effects that completely break the game it's astounding.

It's these types of games that should go through rigorous testing. Hell, surely it'd be an idea that once the game is considered "finished", the testers take it through 6-24 months of additional tests (the time it usually takes for such bugs and glitches to become prevalent in games), whilst the rest of the team works on DLC which could be available on launch day. More money, plus a sounder product. I mean, for fuck sake, it may sound simple and a little impractical, but the studio and publisher would get some publicity through it, and would become one of the most trusted amongst hardcore gamers. You can never underestimate the power of a loyal fanbase

Either that, or there should be codes embedded in the game like cheats are, so that the character models/game flow defaults back to a certain section (like checkpoints, but taking into consideration all current progress, items, etc.) Just so many ways around it that peeps with a sever lack of common sense can't even see. And it's fucking angin that it costs so much to actually put up a patch update for download. It should be considered an ongoing service. From developer, publisher, and console manufacturer. A little harmony never hurt anybody.

[Tuffty]

It's these types of games that should go through rigorous testing. Hell, surely it'd be an idea that once the game is considered "finished", the testers take it through 6-24 months of additional tests (the time it usually takes for such bugs and glitches to become prevalent in games), whilst the rest of the team works on DLC which could be available on launch day. More money, plus a sounder product. I mean, for fuck sake, it may sound simple and a little impractical, but the studio and publisher would get some publicity through it, and would become one of the most trusted amongst hardcore gamers. You can never underestimate the power of a loyal fanbase.

I agree that there should be more rigorous testing on sandbox games but you will never iron out a game to perfection before releasing it. No matter how big the test team is, or for however long they do it, it doesn't compare to the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands who buy the game at retail and discover things that you won't pick up in QA. Take Skyrim, you could keep that game in QA for a solid year, and you'll still have people finding bugs with it on Day One. So do we compromise? Games that are smaller in scope and ambition if it means a more polished experience?

I'm of the opinion that so long as the bugs aren't game breaking or at the very least, don't impact on my progression through the game, then I'm fine with it at launch so long as they can patch it later.

[Bluecast]

Call me a fanboy or whatever for this statement. I may not like some of the their games anymore but one thing I can't take away from Nintendo is they put great attention to every title they release. They may fuck up online and other things but the one thing they have always gotten right is they polish everything they put out to the point the reflection can blind you. It's very rare you encounter bad bugs. There was a time Capcom was like this also..not to the same degree but close.

Side note used to say this. Capcom at one time had such strong IP's they could have been a console maker and get away with pretty much first party games.

[Segata Sanshiro Jr.]

It's these types of games that should go through rigorous testing. Hell, surely it'd be an idea that once the game is considered "finished", the testers take it through 6-24 months of additional tests (the time it usually takes for such bugs and glitches to become prevalent in games), whilst the rest of the team works on DLC which could be available on launch day. More money, plus a sounder product. I mean, for fuck sake, it may sound simple and a little impractical, but the studio and publisher would get some publicity through it, and would become one of the most trusted amongst hardcore gamers. You can never underestimate the power of a loyal fanbase.

I agree that there should be more rigorous testing on sandbox games but you will never iron out a game to perfection before releasing it. No matter how big the test team is, or for however long they do it, it doesn't compare to the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands who buy the game at retail and discover things that you won't pick up in QA. Take Skyrim, you could keep that game in QA for a solid year, and you'll still have people finding bugs with it on Day One. So do we compromise? Games that are smaller in scope and ambition if it means a more polished experience?

I'm of the opinion that so long as the bugs aren't game breaking or at the very least, don't impact on my progression through the game, then I'm fine with it at launch so long as they can patch it later.

you're right that not everything can be found, and that if something isn't game breaking its not a huge deal, most of these companies are just having a laugh when it comes to QA. Skyrim didn't need to be as buggy as it was, doing solid QA on it, real actual solid hardcore QA that they're supposed to be doing, would make it almost completely flawless. See most companies don't even really put much though into QA until the game is mostly done anyway. There are certain games that will remain nameless, that I logged bugs for, but even now, months after release still have the same easily re-creatable bugs that can actually kill an online match.

[Bluecast]

Ok I beat the game. Now will replay missions to collect everything. I watched a couple hours of AC2 and fuck me I want that game now. Seems like a massive improvement and Ezio is very likable and I can only assume as he ages through the games he becomes a more mature man. Cliche but likable as a young man. Altiar was a total dick start to finish.

[Samanosuke Akechi]

Ezio has been the best developed character in the series thus far.The setting for ACII was simply astonishing,beautiful in every aspect.

[Bluecast]

I imagined the fight with Master Splinter would have been more fair. Instead he pulled some Shredder like trickery to cheat. All my life ha been a lie about Master Splinter. He was never Japanese and never a good guy. WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!

[Who Really Cares?]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq_ZgQ7uLdE[/youtube]

[Bluecast]

Cam Clarke in ACII? So Leo from TMNT in ACII and Master Splinter in AC1. Any other TMNT actors in the series?

[MiTT3NZ]

I loved Altair because he was a dick. Revelations kinda retcons that, which was a real shame, and kinda pissed me off. Got a lotta love for Ezio n'all though. One of the most likeable characters in video game history.

[OL]

I don't know that Revelations necessarily retconned Altair's being a dick, so much as it mostly just showed him as he got older and wiser. In the first, he's kind of a pompous young dickhead. In Revelations we mostly see him as a much older man, after he's become the head of the Masyaf Assassins, become more well-traveled, been exposed to other cultures (the Mongols, Nicolo Polo), etc.
It's the same as how Ezio starts out as a girl-addicted, gang-associated ruffian and eventually becomes an old man searching the world for answers about his heritage.
That's one thing I love about the AC series, how we can see these characters from all angles, all points in their lives, and understand how they matured from one thing into another.

[MiTT3NZ]

Yeah, but Ezio retained his playboy-type persona well into his latter years, and it would've been nice for Ezio* to still be an arrogant twat. Especially when he goes and you know whats to you know who in you know which game.

EDIT: *I meant Altair. See, this is why I hate it when peeps insist on talkin to me when I'm readin or typin...

[Who Really Cares?]

First 4 games and their DLC' are dirt cheap on XBL this week for any one that wants them[£8.99-£11.99]. They also have a few other Ubisoft games on offer.