Sorry if this is old but I just wanted to show my opinion

[Goofiestchief]

thanks for telling me i was implying you said things you didn't, and then doing the same thing. if you re-read my last post the only time i used the word "all" was in "all i said". so i clearly do not think that a bet test will find ALL the bugs. as a matter of fact, no one will ever find every bug in skyrim, since plenty most likely have precise and unnatural conditions. i fail to understand what your argument is then, i guess. since you "called BS" on dagmar's quote saying "the more testing you run, the more bugs you can uncover and remedy", but now you are saying that beta testing will find bugs, which is what those with whom you disagree have said.

if i am correct you are saying that since skyrim is such a large game, beta testing is pointless since there are too many bugs to weed out. if you had a headache and only had a half an aspirin, would you just throw it away? i would think not, since it may not completely relieve the pain, but it would certainly help, no? in the same respect would you rather have a game come out with 500 bugs, or 450?

i never said that beta testing is completely useless. But the fact that


Dagmar is blaming Bethesda for not delaying the game and saying beta testing would have fixed that.

I'm saying that beta testing works..... too a point.

Neither you or Dagmar can prove that huge things like the civil war bug would actually be fixed even if they tested it for 100 years. For all we know, there's a gamebreaking bug in skyrim RIGHT now that is just waiting to show up.

And for all we know a game with a 100 yr beta testing time can still have gamebreaking bugs like skyrim did.

And neither you nor dagmar can say otherwise.



That the fact that you said "ALL" IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Why else would you say "ALL" if you thought that I said "ALL".









"yo all i said was that i was lucky not to experience too many bugs. not that they aren't there"

Something not being there sounds a lot like something doesn't exist.

 

[Dagmar]

Dagmar is blaming Bethesda for not delaying the game and saying beta testing would have fixed that.

I never "blamed" Bethesda for anything. It's understandable that they felt the need to release the game on 11-11-11 because they painted themselves into a corner by ultra-hyping that release date which is generally a bad idea to do with any game release date. It's also understandable given that delaying the game would have put them past the peak holiday shopping season which would have hurt their sales and it might have put them past the year which would have made it impossible to receive GOTY and use that to further boost sales.

I may not be able to prove anything definitively but neither can you. The basic difference is that when I speculate about the possiblity I'm doing it based on experience and knowledge afforded by knowing how beta testing works which is why I can point out standard protocols for beta testing games and provide an example where it's apparent that the protocol wasn't observed even if you're incapable of understanding that.

"yo all i said was that i was lucky not to experience too many bugs. not that they aren't there"

Something not being there sounds a lot like something doesn't exist.

Only to someone that lacks the ability to apply logic and reason. By that argument anything you've never personally experienced doesn't exist which is an absurd position to take.

 

[perkecet]

That the fact that you said "ALL" IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Why else would you say "ALL" if you thought that I said "ALL".



"yo all i said was that i was lucky not to experience too many bugs. not that they aren't there"

Something not being there sounds a lot like something doesn't exist.

i didn't say 'all' while talking about bugs though... i said the phrase "all i'm saying is..." as in the same meaning "what i'm saying is..." and of course nobody can prove that more testing would have discovered any certain bug, but it would have made the possibility larger. are you so impatient for video games that you'd rather the developers not TRY to find as many bugs as possible without delaying the game's release an unnecessary about of time? if you read my last post, which i'm starting to doubt, i said that "no one will EVER find all the bugs in this game". you say "100 years of beta tests could still leave a game breaking bug". how can you be so defensive about people disagreeing with you when, get this, HALF the stuff were saying is the SAME THING. you've been talking in circles for a whole page of this thread man, let's agree to (sorta) disagree =)

 

[Goofiestchief]

Whether I beta tested Skyrim isn't relevant because the purpose and desired results for beta testing any game, in fact any software application, is the same across the board. The fact that I have beta tested software and you haven't is relevant because I'm speaking from an informed position while you're speaking from a position of total ignorance as evidenced by your post above. The fact that you think that I was asserting that the bugs in Skyrim are the same bugs that I documented and report for the games I beta tested merely emphasizes your ignorance and inability to grasp what beta testing is all about.

It's a logical fallacy to conclude that because software was released with lots of quality issues and bugs that beta testing didn't keep those issues from being even worse or that the duration of beta testing wasn't relevant to a quantification of how much worse those issues would have been.

Nothing I have posted is inconsistent with any of the other posters you mentioned. You're the only one who is taking issue with what I've stated.

No but you did say further beta testing wouldn't have changed anything which wasn't true when you first said it and still isn't true notwithstanding anything you've posted in this thread since then.

If you'd bothered to stop being so unnecessarily defensive you would realize that much of the content of my posts and yours are in agreement about nature of bugs and glitches, and the impossibility of preventing all or even a lot of them depending on the games design, which makes the reiteration of them post after post by you unnecessary. Where you and I disagree is on whether Skyrim was released prematurely without sufficient time to beta test it.

I also pointed out that disparaging those that were not fortunate enough to share your relatively bug free experience with Skyrim was narrow minded and insensitive. It still is yet you apparently haven't taken that to heart as you continue to do so while simultaneously displaying that, like many people who post ad hominems in forums, you don't have a firm grasp on the meaning of what an internet troll is.

Oh my God.


OK.

You call me ignorant.

You say my logic is a fallacy.

You accuse me of multiple things.

And I'm the one being defensive?


OK please read my next paragraph cause it's obvious that all this hate is based on a misunderstanding.


When I said that beta testing wouldn't change anything, I wasn't referring to the game. I was referring to people. In fact this whole thread was supposed to be about PEOPLE. Not beta testing or the quality of the game. YOUR the one that brought up beta testing. What I meant was no matter how much beta testing we'd give it, people would still hate it.

I never said that we shouldn't have testing at all. All I meant was that you can't prove that things like the civil war bug would be gone if they delayed it.

Just like I can't prove that it wouldn't.

Maybe it could. And I never said it couldn't.

Testing gives it a chance to work but it also gives it a chance to not work.

But how long would it take to find that out, and fix it? How many delays? Cause if a game like diablo can have a 11 yr timespan and still be buggy, then what does that say for skyrim?
What I'm saying is how long would that take? The game was probably being tested for about a year. Then they release it and bugs are found instantly in a few months. Compare that to a year.





Also to point this out from me: BETA TESTING IS ESSENTIAL.









I only brought up other peoples names cause that's exactly what YOU did.






I said it was BS because the idea that long beta testing can fix problems enough that they're noticeable fixes EVERYTIME is contradicted by the problems diablo 3 had.

I never called anyone in here a troll.

But what do you call someone who writes one sentence in caps on youtube saying "OMG THIS GAME SUCKS AND ANYONE WHO LIKES IT IS AN IDIOT"( A real quote by the way).

This thread is about THESE people. Not beta testers.

 

[Medea]

I think this thread is getting heated, so here's something to get everyone to chill-out a little....

This is what I think of Skyrim's bug issues:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="Evil Fart - YouTube" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Goofiestchief]

i didn't say 'all' while talking about bugs though... i said the phrase "all i'm saying is..." as in the same meaning "what i'm saying is..." and of course nobody can prove that more testing would have discovered any certain bug, but it would have made the possibility larger. are you so impatient for video games that you'd rather the developers not TRY to find as many bugs as possible without delaying the game's release an unnecessary about of time? if you read my last post, which i'm starting to doubt, i said that "no one will EVER find all the bugs in this game". you say "100 years of beta tests could still leave a game breaking bug". how can you be so defensive about people disagreeing with you when, get this, HALF the stuff were saying is the SAME THING. you've been talking in circles for a whole page of this thread man, let's agree to (sorta) disagree =)

Of course they couldn't find all the bugs. OK please read my next paragraph cause it's obvious that all this hate is based on a misunderstanding.


When I said that beta testing wouldn't change anything, I wasn't referring to the game. I was referring to people. In fact this whole thread was supposed to be about PEOPLE. Not beta testing or the quality of the game. YOUR the one that brought up beta testing. What I meant was no matter how much beta testing we'd give it, people would still hate it.

I never said that we shouldn't have testing at all. All I meant was that you can't prove that things like the civil war bug would be gone if they delayed it.


Just like I can't prove that it wouldn't.

Maybe it could. And I never said it couldn't.

Testing gives it a chance to work but it also gives it a chance to not work.

But how long would it take to find that out, and fix it? How many delays? Cause if a game like diablo can have a 11 yr timespan and still be buggy, then what does that say for skyrim?
What I'm saying is how long would that take? The game was probably being tested for about a year. Then they release it and bugs are found instantly in a few months. Compare that to a year.


The "chance" of something happening means nothing.

A spinner has 3 red quarters and 1 green quarter.

One would say that it has a 75% CHANCE of landing on red but then the spinner lands on green 10 times in a row.

You can say that the chances that bugs will be fixed will go up but that doesn't mean that there's a 100% that they actually will be fixed.

 

[Dagmar]

You call me ignorant.

I called you ignorant with regards to subject of beta testing because your posts can only be explained in that context. There's nothing defensive about making that observation.

You say my logic is a fallacy.

No that would imply you're using logic. i said you've commited logical fallacies because you have. Again there's nothing defensive about that.

I haven't "accused" you of anything and the fact that you're displaying this kind of persecution complex is just more of your own defensiveness. At this point however, I am going to accuse you of being intellectually dishonest in your post because it's pretty evident from the context of your prior posts that you were not talking about changing people's attitudes with further beta testing. Aside from the silliness of trying to make such a point you specifically claimed in the context of that assertion things about what beta testing could or could not have done for Skyrim. Poor command of English can only afford you so much slack.

I only brought up other peoples names cause that's exactly what YOU did.

No it isn't. What I quoted and attributed to the other poster was exactly what they said and was on point with my post. What you did was make an unfounded and incorrect claim that other people's posts countered my position which was incorrect and a vapid and ineffective appeal to authority of the masses.

I never called anyone in here a troll.

Uh Wow. You sound just like one of those trolls.

Also my observation wasn't limited to just the participants in this thread. Calling people in general who criticize the game trolls because of bad things they experienced that you didn't is what I was talking about. That does not make them trolls. A troll is a person who makes an assertion for the purpose of eliciting a reaction for their amusement. It doesn't even have to be for a negative reaction and it often involves adopting a false persona to help elicit the reaction. People ranting about bugs in the game that made it not enjoyable or even unplayable for them certainly may be inflammatory but its not trolling.

 

[Goofiestchief]

I never "blamed" Bethesda for anything. It's understandable that they felt the need to release the game on 11-11-11 because they painted themselves into a corner by ultra-hyping that release date which is generally a bad idea to do with any game release date. It's also understandable given that delaying the game would have put them past the peak holiday shopping season which would have hurt their sales and it might have put them past the year which would have made it impossible to receive GOTY and use that to further boost sales.

I may not be able to prove anything definitively but neither can you. The basic difference is that when I speculate about the possiblity I'm doing it based on experience and knowledge afforded by knowing how beta testing works which is why I can point out standard protocols for beta testing games and provide an example where it's apparent that the protocol wasn't observed even if you're incapable of understanding that.

Only to someone that lacks the ability to apply logic and reason. By that argument anything you've never personally experienced doesn't exist which is an absurd position to take.

You called them sloppy.






But the reality is that no matter how much experience you have, you still can't prove that things like the civil war bug would be gone. That's all I'm saying. I don't understand why you're being so angry about and aggressive about this. I've told you that I was referring to the possibility that increasing the time wouldn't work and you instantly insult my intelligence.

It's great that you spent 100 years beta testing but people still did had to wait 100 years and you didn't even get any big bugs.

If they delayed skyrim for 5 years on a mission to get several big bugs but they weren't able to do that and all they got was a few small bugs that aren't even noticeable, I would certainly call that a failure.


Actually what I said takes a lot of logic.

If something can only exist in one place that never changes and you go to that place and it isn't there then it doesn't exist. Where else could it be? It's not like the civil war quest bug can suddenly move to a daedric quest since there's only one Civil war quest and that bug is built into that quest.

 

[perkecet]

yeah man i read your last post before this one, mine you just quoted was typed while you typed that to dagmar. your spinner metaphor works well. think about it this way though, chances mean quite a bit. we're talking about quality here. if this wasn't the quality of a game, but the quality of your life, would you say chances mean nothing? if the red was living comfortably and green in the gutter, wouldn't you want a couple extra red sections? i agree that it's a bad idea to postpone a game's release by very much, i'm not saying they should have taken another year to put it out. but another month wouldn't hurt too much, that is, if bethesda hadn't gotten themselves into the whole 11/11/11 hype that dagmar was talking about. i understand that they COULDN'T push back the release without consequence. major bugs were found almost immediately after the game came out. i think there would be a good chance of 200 testers (don't know how beta works, number could be way off, not important though) finding a few of the serious ones over the course of two or three weeks of serious play with varying styles of playing.

alas, i think we can just put this to bed, at least i'm ready to. a lot of this has been a miscommunication. if you start reading the thread halfway through you wouldn't even know it was about people hating on the game, lol. you're correct, no matter how much effort the developers put into skyrim, the vocal minority would still be flapping their jaws about its flaws. we're cool man.

 

[Goofiestchief]

I called you ignorant with regards to subject of beta testing because you're posts can only be explained in that context. There's nothing defensive about making that observation.

No that would imply you're using logic. i said you've commited logical fallacies because you have. Again there's nothing defensive about that.

I haven't "accused" you of anything and the fact that you're displaying this kind of persecution complex is just more of your own defensiveness. At this point however, I am going to accuse you of being intellectually dishonest in your post because it's pretty evident from the context of your prior posts that you were not talking about changing people's attitudes with further beta testing. Aside from the silliness of trying to make such a point you specifically claimed in the context of that assertion things about what beta testing could or could not have done for Skyrim. Poor command of English can only afford you so much slack.

No it isn't. What I quoted and attributed to the other poster was exactly what they said and was on point with my post. What you did was make an unfounded and incorrect claim that other people's posts countered my position which was incorrect and a vapid and ineffective appeal to authority of the masses.

How am I dishonest? I wrote in the thread didn't I?

In the thread that I wrote, when did I ever say anything about beta testing? In fact I actually did say a lot of things about people.

I don't see how saying that beta testing can either help or not help means I was dishonest.

I'm not picking a side because either thing could happen no matter what the company did or how much experience they have.







I'm sorry if my typing confuses you.

I suffer from a nerve disorder that makes my hands hurt and twitch. This has caused things like having words and sentences get written out of place and copy and pasting words that end up wrong. Not to mention the OCD.


Saying that someone sounds like a troll and actually IS A TROLL are 2 very different things.

And you say I'm the one with logic problems? You seem to come to too many conclusions.

Why do you think I mentioned that I have OCD? Cause I do.

OCD causes people to obsess over little things and it can also cause paranoia and a sudden urge to take anything said to you to heart.

 

[Uther Pundragon]

Live and let live all. We all love games. Let us agree on this much and move on.

 

[Goofiestchief]

yeah man i read your last post before this one, mine you just quoted was typed while you typed that to dagmar. your spinner metaphor works well. think about it this way though, chances mean quite a bit. we're talking about quality here. if this wasn't the quality of a game, but the quality of your life, would you say chances mean nothing? if the red was living comfortably and green in the gutter, wouldn't you want a couple extra red sections? i agree that it's a bad idea to postpone a game's release by very much, i'm not saying they should have taken another year to put it out. but another month wouldn't hurt too much, that is, if bethesda hadn't gotten themselves into the whole 11/11/11 hype that dagmar was talking about. i understand that they COULDN'T push back the release without consequence. major bugs were found almost immediately after the game came out. i think there would be a good chance of 200 testers (don't know how beta works, number could be way off, not important though) finding a few of the serious ones over the course of two or three weeks of serious play with varying styles of playing.

alas, i think we can just put this to bed, at least i'm ready to. a lot of this has been a miscommunication. if you start reading the thread halfway through you wouldn't even know it was about people hating on the game, lol. you're correct, no matter how much effort the developers put into skyrim, the vocal minority would still be flapping their jaws about its flaws. we're cool man.

I called you ignorant with regards to subject of beta testing because your posts can only be explained in that context. There's nothing defensive about making that observation.

No that would imply you're using logic. i said you've commited logical fallacies because you have. Again there's nothing defensive about that.

I haven't "accused" you of anything and the fact that you're displaying this kind of persecution complex is just more of your own defensiveness. At this point however, I am going to accuse you of being intellectually dishonest in your post because it's pretty evident from the context of your prior posts that you were not talking about changing people's attitudes with further beta testing. Aside from the silliness of trying to make such a point you specifically claimed in the context of that assertion things about what beta testing could or could not have done for Skyrim. Poor command of English can only afford you so much slack.

No it isn't. What I quoted and attributed to the other poster was exactly what they said and was on point with my post. What you did was make an unfounded and incorrect claim that other people's posts countered my position which was incorrect and a vapid and ineffective appeal to authority of the masses.


Also my observation wasn't limited to just the participants in this thread. Calling people in general who criticize the game trolls because of bad things they experienced that you didn't is what I was talking about. That does not make them trolls. A troll is a person who makes an assertion for the purpose of eliciting a reaction for their amusement. It doesn't even have to be for a negative reaction and it often involves adopting a false persona to help elicit the reaction. People ranting about bugs in the game that made it not enjoyable or even unplayable for them certainly may be inflammatory but its not trolling.

You called them sloppy.






But the reality is that no matter how much experience you have, you still can't prove that things like the civil war bug would be gone. That's all I'm saying. I don't understand why you're being so angry about and aggressive about this. I've told you that I was referring to the possibility that increasing the time wouldn't work and you instantly insult my intelligence.

It's great that you spent 100 years beta testing but people still did had to wait 100 years and you didn't even get any big bugs.

If they delayed skyrim for 5 years on a mission to get several big bugs but they weren't able to do that and all they got was a few small bugs that aren't even noticeable, I would certainly call that a failure.


Actually what I said takes a lot of logic.

If something can only exist in one place that never changes and you go to that place and it isn't there then it doesn't exist. Where else could it be? It's not like the civil war quest bug can suddenly move to a daedric quest since there's only one Civil war quest and that bug is built into that quest.

Why do you continue to insult me behind my back and talk to perkecet?

yeah man i read your last post before this one, mine you just quoted was typed while you typed that to dagmar. your spinner metaphor works well. think about it this way though, chances mean quite a bit. we're talking about quality here. if this wasn't the quality of a game, but the quality of your life, would you say chances mean nothing? if the red was living comfortably and green in the gutter, wouldn't you want a couple extra red sections? i agree that it's a bad idea to postpone a game's release by very much, i'm not saying they should have taken another year to put it out. but another month wouldn't hurt too much, that is, if bethesda hadn't gotten themselves into the whole 11/11/11 hype that dagmar was talking about. i understand that they COULDN'T push back the release without consequence. major bugs were found almost immediately after the game came out. i think there would be a good chance of 200 testers (don't know how beta works, number could be way off, not important though) finding a few of the serious ones over the course of two or three weeks of serious play with varying styles of playing.

alas, i think we can just put this to bed, at least i'm ready to. a lot of this has been a miscommunication. if you start reading the thread halfway through you wouldn't even know it was about people hating on the game, lol. you're correct, no matter how much effort the developers put into skyrim, the vocal minority would still be flapping their jaws about its flaws. we're cool man.

Good to know. Although I'm not sure if we can apply a game to life but it doesn't matter.

 

[Goofiestchief]

I called you ignorant with regards to subject of beta testing because your posts can only be explained in that context. There's nothing defensive about making that observation.

No that would imply you're using logic. i said you've commited logical fallacies because you have. Again there's nothing defensive about that.

I haven't "accused" you of anything and the fact that you're displaying this kind of persecution complex is just more of your own defensiveness. At this point however, I am going to accuse you of being intellectually dishonest in your post because it's pretty evident from the context of your prior posts that you were not talking about changing people's attitudes with further beta testing. Aside from the silliness of trying to make such a point you specifically claimed in the context of that assertion things about what beta testing could or could not have done for Skyrim. Poor command of English can only afford you so much slack.

No it isn't. What I quoted and attributed to the other poster was exactly what they said and was on point with my post. What you did was make an unfounded and incorrect claim that other people's posts countered my position which was incorrect and a vapid and ineffective appeal to authority of the masses.


Also my observation wasn't limited to just the participants in this thread. Calling people in general who criticize the game trolls because of bad things they experienced that you didn't is what I was talking about. That does not make them trolls. A troll is a person who makes an assertion for the purpose of eliciting a reaction for their amusement. It doesn't even have to be for a negative reaction and it often involves adopting a false persona to help elicit the reaction. People ranting about bugs in the game that made it not enjoyable or even unplayable for them certainly may be inflammatory but its not trolling.

Why do continue to insult me and talk to perkecet behind my back?

I do get it.

Your saying that delaying a game would allow a better chance to find bugs.

I'm saying that you can't actually say 100% that you would find what your looking for.

Yet you say that I said that there's no way whatsoever that they could fix the bugs.

I didn't mean that when I wrote it and I apologize if it appeared that way. OCD and CMT does that.

What I was trying to talk about was how people react to bugs. I even wrote in the thread.
I apologized and you respond to perkecet by saying I don't get it. How is an apology call for insult? I think you're being ignorantly defensive since you can't say agree or disagree cause you want to pretend you "won" this argument.

 

[DdraigGwyn]

Having been involved in writing and testing games for over thirty years, I agree with Dagmar on most points. I would agree that extensive beta testing is needed with any game and the more complex the game, the greater the need. However, the practicality is that a limited number of testers are unlikely to uncover all of the problems: so, the solution is often to increase the number of 'testers' by releasing the game, and making us all testers. Of course this is annoying, but it does speed up the discovery of problems and, we hope, the rate at which they get fixed.
The problem is not limited to games (think Microsoft Office), but gamers tend to be rather more vocal.

 

[Punz]

“Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” More formally: "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone." Linus Law - Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel.

We've all become the beta testers for the gaming industry. All the hype for a great game and once we get it's Bug City. A $60.00 game at that. Kills the joy. I play Skyrim on PS3. The main issue I get almost every other week is the game will freeze on me. The other in-game bugs I've encountered were not so much quest breaking as just annoying. Bugs are something we just have to live with. The coding is getting complex as we demand more realistic games. Deadlines need to be met. Money needs to be made. It's a no-win situation because the consumer is pissed, the programmers have to fix issues, create patches. It's a all-around bad experience.