RPG Codex - 2008 In Review

Squeek said:

I remember sitting in a meeting of the Southern California Software Association sometime around 1991, back when most PC software companies were small and their VPs of marketing and development used to attend. One of them pissed off half the group when he stood up and called out a few people by name, challenging them to stop the practice of shipping software before it was ready. We're talking really pissed as in standing up and having to be restrained.

That guy spoke up at that meeting and called out those particular people as an act of what I assume he considered leadership. It helped me shape my own informed opinions about the industry and its players. I came away from that thinking it's up to the industry's leaders to lead and lead well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a nice story.

I can be as idealistic as the next guy, and you're definitely right it would be nice if a product was ready before it shipped. Actually, it would be nice if a product was bug-free before it shipped.

There's only one way this can come true - and let me give you the secret:

Separate the art from the business.

Sadly, there aren't too many stars in the sky that form signs to indicate this will happen any time soon.

That's sad, but it's reality.

Reality is where a pragmatic person such as myself must contend to call home. It's not always pleasant, but it's not going away so I might as well accept it.

Making games costs money, and time is one of the most deciding factors when determining this cost.

For this reason, and pretty much for this reason alone, products are constantly shipped before they're ready.

Now, this could be because all publishers are greedy and they don't care about the quality of their releases. However, you could think of human nature and consider if most people wouldn't prefer to please people AND get some profit at the same time.

There are those who care mostly about the profit, and these guys eventually end up working on AAA mass market games - if they get the chance.

However, and this is where we get down to The Witcher:

Some people don't mind limiting their audience for the sake of art, and some people don't mind improving their game and offering those improvements for free. Can you guess who I'm talking about?

Do you SERIOUSLY think that the developers were totally free to work on this game indefinitely? Don't you understand the VERY simple reality that time costs money, and that they HAD to release at some point?

The Witcher had problems with loading times - true - but they were more or less fixed even BEFORE the EE entered the picture.

Standing up in a crowd and saying that products should be finished before being shipped, is like saying everyone should have true love in their life. It's very true, but it's also not very original. It doesn't just happen because we want it to be so, and making a profit from non-mass market top quality titles isn't QUITE as trivial as you dreamers like to think.

Brother None said:

I apologize, but I'm done now. There's no point in continuing talking with you as long as you insist on these kinds of claims. After I've clarified my viewpoint and actually quoted myself saying from the start that this is more than a fix, you continue attributing the view to me that it's "nothing but a fix"? Again, I'm sorry, but I don't see any point in continuing.

Click to expand...

You don't have to apologize and I would never want you to continue if you don't see the point.

It was interesting while it lasted, anyway.

I find it extremely ignorant that you voice your opinion on the state of a game, which you've hardly played. Unless you actually experienced the state of The Witcher prior to the release of the EE, you are not qualified to rightfully judge the quality of The Witcher's post-EE dialogues. They did not need fixing. You insist on using that word, which is also obvious otherwise you would not have a case. What you fail to realise is that the EE was literally enhancements/improvements rather than fixes. Let's get a definition of the word "fix" in the right context: "repair: restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken; "She repaired her TV set"; "Repair my shoes please."
How can you judge whether or not something in The Witcher needed to be fixed instead of improved, when you haven't - in reality - played it? Unfinished means it is not ready to be played. Right? Do we agree on that? Do you honestly postulate that The Witcher was not ready to be played prior to the release of the EE? I consider it strange that it got 5/5 stars in its review here at the Watch if that was the case.
What it boils down to is that you can't criticise The Witcher for a lack of character diversity, when adding character diversity is not to fix something but to improve something. The loading times were fixed with an actual patch before the release of the Enhanced Edition. The fact that The EE improved it even more doesn't make it a fix but rather an enhancement or optimisation, hence the title of the release.
What else is there to criticise? The dialogues? That makes a trivial case, when the dialogues were fully functioning, hence nothing to fix but always room for improvement.

Can't you see that CD PROJEKT wanted to make a perfect game (I'm not saying it is perfect. I'm just explaining their motivation behind creating the EE)? I have a couple of rhetorical questions:
- What did people criticise after the release of TW?
The dialogues and lack of character diversity.
- What did CD P do?
They improved upon a 5/5 rated game in order to make it the best possible experience.
I see no other publisher doing this and I see nothing wrong in releasing an updated version of TW to retail under a new name in order to make it clear to people that this game is the ultimate edition of the game.
That is also the reason why I prefer to buy GotY editions, because they include all the patches including potential expansion packs in one ultimate release.

Asbjoern said:

I find it extremely ignorant that you voice your opinion on the state of a game, which you've hardly played.

Click to expand...

I have played TW and TW:EE, just not a lot of it. And my opinion isn't actually on the state of the game, as I've repeated multiple times

DArtagnan said:

You don't have to apologize and I would never want you to continue if you don't see the point.

It was interesting while it lasted, anyway.

Click to expand...

I don't like debates in which people are just trying to undercut each other's views. It's inevitable that such debates occur, but I prefer honest sharing of opinions. I do not think we disagree as much as we seem to, tho', and have edited my message up there (while you were replying I think) to see if I'm right.
EDIT: wait, I do see one way to resolve this. You make the point of being practical vs idealist. I've already said I do see DU's point but disagree with his blowing it out of proportion and would never do the same; DU might do so for idealist reasons, but I won't for practical reasons. Now, as I specifically said, in a relative sense there is little to be concerned with - and it seems to me you're agreeing with me there - but that doesn't make it right in an absolute sense. Do you at least see what I'm saying there or do you refuse to see anything wrong in the idea of game-fixes being represented as something they're not?
EDIT2: I don't know if this is the case internationally, but here the Witcher: Enhanced Edition is being treated as a GotY edition: TW's price has dropped (to 30 EUR right now I think), but TW:EE is about 40 EUR. As such, in judging it I'm treating it as if rereleased at a higher price than its normal market value, which it was here and which is reasonable to do as the box is CE style. As I stated, were it released as a GotY I would've felt that was less disingenuous.

Brother None said:

EDIT: wait, I do see one way to resolve this. You make the point of being practical vs idealist. I've already said I do see DU's point but disagree with his blowing it out of proportion and would never do the same; DU might do so for idealist reasons, but I won't for practical reasons. Now, as I specifically said, in a relative sense there is little to be concerned with - and it seems to me you're agreeing with me there - but that doesn't make it right in an absolute sense. Do you at least see what I'm saying there or do you refuse to see anything wrong in the idea of game-fixes being represented as something they're not?

Click to expand...

Let me tell you what I don't like:

Deliberate misrepresentation of truth.

Whether it applies to marketing campaigns or the inability to stand by an opinion, or at least retract it.

Maybe my ability to publicly admit when I'm wrong - which I've done on several occasions on forums like this - is an example of being both pragmatic AND idealistic. One doesn't exclude the other, you know.

EDIT2: I don't know if this is the case internationally, but here the Witcher: Enhanced Edition is being treated as a GotY edition: TW's price has dropped (to 30 EUR right now I think), but TW:EE is about 40 EUR.

Click to expand...

In Denmark, the EE is priced exactly the same as the normal release, which is around 300 danish kroner.

DArtagnan said:

Whether it applies to marketing campaigns or the inability to stand by an opinion, or at least retract it.

Click to expand...

Frith. See, this is why I hate internet-debates, it's all about winning, never about actually talking...Let's give it a try anyway...

The viewpoint I expressed there is the same viewpoint I've expressed from the start: I see a bad precedent and don't like the idea of game-fixes being represented as something they're not, even if packaged together with additional bits as EE was. If I've been unclear somewhere I apologize for that, but as far as I know I've been stating this same opinion from the start. So I'm going to ask you again; produce quotes.

Brother None said:

I have played TW and TW:EE, just not a lot of it. And my opinion isn't actually on the state of the game, as I've repeated multiple times.

Click to expand...

That is vital to our debate. How can you say something needs fixing when you don't even know or have experienced the quality of what "supposedly" needs fixing? That is fundamentally important to our discussion. I thought you cared about principles?

The state of TW prior and post EE is centre of it all, because you need to put the alterations into a relative measurement. That is also - in my view - the reason why you misuse the word "fix" in this context. You wouldn't be arguing otherwise, because you would find it just as trivial as we do.

Brother None said:

Frith. See, this is why I hate internet-debates, it's all about winning, never about actually talking...Let's give it a try anyway...

Click to expand...

Well, if it's all about winning, that's on you in this case. I've been completely honest from the start, and I simply told you how I felt about not being able to admit you're wrong. I think it's an unattractive aspect of human nature, and I've worked hard to shed it myself, though I admit I'm not 100% free from it.

The viewpoint I expressed there is the same viewpoint I've expressed from the start: I see a bad precedent and don't like the idea of game-fixes being represented as something they're not, even if packaged together with additional bits as EE was. If I've been unclear somewhere I apologize for that, but as far as I know I've been stating this same opinion from the start. So I'm going to ask you again; produce quotes.

Click to expand...

You don't have to apologize all the time, as we're all entitled to an opinion and we're all limited by the imperfections of language.

I, myself, have done what I could to detail why I think you're being unreasonable and why there's no precedent for misrepresenting anything.

I've already told you that you said The Witcher EE was nothing but a fix hiding as a significant upgrade, and you're still insisting it represents game-fixes and "bits".

This is why I gave you the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake, because after detailing exactly what's included in the EE and how it's priced - I honestly thought there was a chance you might change your mind.

But at least you're sticking to your opinion. As uninformed and unreasonable as it is, I still think it's more admirable than claiming you never had it.

Anyway, I have zero intentions of pretending you never said what you very clearly said - so if you were done before, what makes you not done now?

Asbjoern said:

That is vital to our debate. How can you say something needs fixing

Click to expand...

It was fixed, and in so doing CDP:Red itself claims it needs fixing. What I'm talking about is how the fix is represented - CDP:Red hyped TW:EE and in so doing got a bunch of extra sales out of it (good for them), but EE got more coverage in trailers, interviews, and even reviews than a normal GotY edition would, even though it offers less extra content than a normal GotY edition does (AFAIK). It was embraced and celebrated, and my perspective is that this does not really make all that much sense. If your perspective is that fixing the script was above and beyond the call of duty then yes, naturally you'll disagree, but that's not my perspective. If your perspective is that the script didn't need fixing, then another issue crops up because the EE looks unnecessary.

DArtagnan said:

Anyway, I have zero intentions of pretending you never said what you very clearly said - so if you were done before, what makes you not done now?

Click to expand...

If I so clearly said it, why are you still not producing quotes? I already pointed out the EE is priced differently in my country, and I own it so I know very well what it includes - so neither of those two points really addresses my argument.

I'm continuing because I thought our disagreement was overstated and hoped to reach a normal level of human conversation with you, but instead you just keeping saying "you can't admit you're wrong" for some reason that's not clear to me. What exactly have I said that's wrong?

The Witcher:EE was primarily neither patch, nor fix. It was primarily exactly what it said - the enhanced edition of the game and as such was marketed.
At the latest, by the release of patch1.2 The Witcher was a perfectly playable and polished product.
End of story.

DArtagnan said:

It doesn't just happen because we want it to be so, and making a profit from non-mass market top quality titles isn't QUITE as trivial as you dreamers like to think.

Click to expand...

Everyone has their own individual opinion about quality, I suppose. But in terms of business product quality is a set objective. That threshold and the costs involved with it should be part of a product plan and considered from the very beginning.

Based on my own experience, the current state of a product under development is always taken into consideration before it's shipped. Whoever has ownership of it, maybe a product manager, will make the call as to whether or not it's ready. But I've found that most heads of marketing and development consider that decision theirs as well.

Thanks for your rhetoric on the subject, DArtagnon.

DeepO said:

The Witcher:EE was primarily neither patch, nor fix. It was primarily exactly what it said - the enhanced edition of the game and as such was marketed.

Click to expand...

I've never heard of enhanced editions as a gaming standard so I wouldn't know how to judge them.

I've never seen a script overhaul in a patch, but I do consider it to be simply fixing something to the state it (ideally, yes) should have been in one release. The other fixes, such as recoloring generic NPC models, improved stability, redesigned inventory system and load times reduced by up to 80% are all the kind of fixes I have seen and would expect in patches. If I'm wrong in that, then yes, obviously I'm wrong in my entire argument, but I don't think I am - I consider the "majority" of what the EE represents to either be fixing a mistake the publisher made (the script overhaul) or fixing game issues that would normally be done in a patch. Not all of the EE is that, the adding of adventures and overhauling manual is more, but those are rather small addition for a full-price repackaging - which is what it was here.

Squeek said:

That threshold and the costs involved with it should be part of a product plan and considered from the very beginning.

Click to expand...

Heh, statements like these always remind me of how bad Troika was at this

Bless their hearts

How ironic to have "RPG Codex" in the thread title.

This thread degenerated into a cluster-f*ck that was almost Codex worthy.

Brother None said:

It was fixed, and in so doing CDP:Red itself claims it needs fixing. What I'm talking about is how the fix is represented - CDP:Red hyped TW:EE and in so doing got a bunch of extra sales out of it (good for them), but EE got more coverage in trailers, interviews, and even reviews than a normal GotY edition would, even though it offers less extra content than a normal GotY edition does (AFAIK). It was embraced and celebrated, and my perspective is that this does not really make all that much sense. If your perspective is that fixing the script was above and beyond the call of duty then yes, naturally you'll disagree, but that's not my perspective. If your perspective is that the script didn't need fixing, then another issue crops up because the EE looks unnecessary.

Click to expand...

How can you still miss the point after so much repetition of the same arguments? The source of conflict is, and it always was, that YOU claim it's a fix and WE claim it's a significant upgrade.

No one is disagreeing with you that fixes should be called fixes, but you're the only one having trouble with applying the term in a reasonable fashion.

If I so clearly said it, why are you still not producing quotes? I already pointed out the EE is priced differently in my country, and I own it so I know very well what it includes - so neither of those two points really addresses my argument.

Click to expand...

I don't produce quotes because I largely prefer people to be honest about what they've said, but since you insist I'll produce quotes that point out why we're having this debate:

Brother None; said:

I'm saying the PR campaign was disingenuous, yeah. A "fix" should be presented as a "fix", it wasn't, it was presented as an enhancement, which it's not - or only to a certain extent.

But at the end of the day, it's just hype for fixing a game, which no matter how you twist or turn it is just wrong.

It's just a big-ass patch. The show surrounding it was a bit much.

TW is nowhere near the worst of the lot, but by hiding a fix as a repackaging and presenting it as a gift, they're being disingenuous and setting a bad precedent.

Click to expand...

You haven't been able to clarify, though I've asked for it repeatedly, WHY they're disingenuous. I've asked you to detail how it's wrong or how it's not completely truthful. All you've been able to say is that all the enhancements are just a "fix" - which is beyond ridiculous. How can anyone call so much new and improved content merely a fix - including soundtrack, behind the scenes material, extra adventures and so on. All that ON TOP of the very significant upgrades to the main game. They already patched the game, fixing tons of bugs and reducing load times to a very acceptable level - this is before the EE enters the picture.

It represents 1 million dollars worth of investment that no one expected, and they're giving it away FREE. You're calling it a fix and saying they're not being honest about marketing it and the bonus content as a repackaging - though that's exactly what it ALSO is. You're still being incredibly unreasonable - and to me you have the exact same uninformed opinion about this as DU. The severity of your critique is completely irrelevant.

I'm continuing because I thought our disagreement was overstated and hoped to reach a normal level of human conversation with you, but instead you just keeping saying "you can't admit you're wrong" for some reason that's not clear to me. What exactly have I said that's wrong?

Click to expand...

I'm an empathic dude, or so I like to think.

I've sensed your faltering in previous posts, and I think you've realised that the EE is actually a lot more than a fix. But you're not willing to concede that it is, and you're treading down your unsteady road because of stubbornness.

I call 'em like I see 'em - and that's why I'm telling you. It's not about being able to prove it, because how can I prove something to the very person in the wrong who's not willing to admit it.

I don't do this to "win" like I'm in high school. I'm demonstrating my stance, because I believe in openness and honesty - and I believe in speaking our minds. Whether we win or lose is totally irrelevant, because the words register in our minds even if we're unable to admit defeat in public.

If I've somehow found the truth of the matter, or you have, my hope is that one day we'll think back on this kind of debate and be the wiser for it. That's why it's all worth it, and why I disagree 100% that arguing on the internet is stupid.

However, I think we've reached the point where it's all circular. I'll continue indefinitely, but I find it highly doubtful that any further good will come of it.

Squeek said:

Everyone has their own individual opinion about quality, I suppose. But in terms of business product quality is a set objective. That threshold and the costs involved with it should be part of a product plan and considered from the very beginning.

Based on my own experience, the current state of a product under development is always taken into consideration before it's shipped. Whoever has ownership of it, maybe a product manager, will make the call as to whether or not it's ready. But I've found that most heads of marketing and development consider that decision theirs as well.

Thanks for your rhetoric on the subject, DArtagnon.

Click to expand...

Of course it's taken into consideration before it's shipped.

I fail utterly to see the relevance of that.

I'm saying that in SOME cases, the decision to ship a flawed product is NOT because of greed - but because of economic necessity.

Making a game, any game, is anything but trivial. Development costs can spin out of control, and indeed the entire production can spin out of control. Things hardly ever go as planned, and this is ESPECIALLY true for deep and complex titles like The Witcher.

I remain firm in my opinion that it's nearly a miracle that a game of such ambition, with such a relatively limited audience ever got funded so well and managed to get out without game-breaking flaws. It's amazing, really.

I don't wanna get into page long quote fests, but if I understand it right the central issue Brother None has with the Witcher EE, is that its a bad precedent, because ultimately, much like the whole patching circus, it encourages developers to release unfinished or buggy games, with a fix-it-later (but only if the sales are good enough) attitude. That is a valid concern. I simply don't see the witcher and the EE as a particularly strong signal in this direction, as the witcher was as you say yourself, a rather solid release out of the box. Given that, I tend to see rather the positive aspect of setting a precedent for exemplary customer care, than the danger of setting a precedent for low quality releases.

GhanBuriGhan said:

I don't wanna get into page long quote fests, but if I understand it right the central issue Brother None has with the Witcher EE, is that its a bad precedent, because ultimately, much like the whole patching circus, it encourages developers to release unfinished or buggy games, with a fix-it-later (but only if the sales are good enough) attitude. That is a valid concern. I simply don't see the witcher and the EE as a particularly strong signal in this direction, as the witcher was as you say yourself, a rather solid release out of the box. Given that, I tend to see rather the positive aspect of setting a precedent for exemplary customer care, than the danger of setting a precedent for low quality releases.

Click to expand...

Yes that's the central issue.

The problem is that there's nothing about EE to indicate this attitude - and in fact, I see nothing but evidence to the contrary - that these guys are FIGHTING the attitude by significantly improving an ALREADY solid game FOR FREE.

If you seriously think The Witcher was broken and that the EE is just a fix, then you have absolutely no notion of the reality of business and the industry.

It's not an ideal world and it can't EVER become that until the business angle is removed. But the angle CAN'T be removed by dreaming that it's not there.

You're going to have to remove the entire concept of money and capitalism if you want to create an outlet for pure art on this scale, and I'll be right along with you if you start this fight in a meaningful way. But until then, let's not pretend it's possible to achieve this with futile dreams alone.

I don't think the EE had that big an impact on the game itself. Atleast not compared to the 1.2 patch which came quite shortly after the release iirc.

I played the 1.2 version and replayed it a year after with the EE version and there seemed to be very few things I could see was different with the main game and nothing that made me particular appreciate that they had released an EE version.

DArtagnan said:

I fail utterly to see the relevance of that...I'm saying....

Click to expand...

And I'd say that's the upshot of my attempt at adding clarification and value to this conversation. That's just how these Internet discussions sometimes go, I guess. Anyway, that's it for me. Enjoy!

Squeek said:

And I'd say that's the upshot of my attempt at adding clarification and value to this conversation. That's just how these Internet discussions sometimes go, I guess. Anyway, that's it for me. Enjoy!

Click to expand...

Have fun