Unless you are a practitioner, you don't really have any understanding of what is involved to write software (or design a toaster or make better-tasting toothpaste or design easy-to-understand highway signage, etc.) Consumers don't judge a product based on how hard it was to create, but by how well it meets their expectations, and there is no reason to expect that it should be any other way.
Now we get to it.
The extreme of managing expectations is what you see from the big publishers: press releases, friendly reviews, and "You'll get it when it is done". Overhaul has tried to go to the other extreme, and have been soundly punished for it.
I think the iPad situation is the perfect example of this: they commit to a iPad 1 / iOS 5 compatible release. When push comes to shove, they are having serious trouble getting it working. The openly and clearly communicate their frustration, try to describe their efforts to resolve the problem. They release for iPad2 and later, with the promise that they will get an iPad1 version working. What is the response?
"They lied" "They let us down" "They don't care" ... those who aren't technically inclined assume the worst of people who clearly are making an effort to serve and communicate with their fan base.
"They don't know how to test" "It should be obvious, all they need to do is..." and my favorite of the day, a thread where someone quotes an iOS app tester who says that if they can make an app that runs on the iPhone 3Gs as well as a iPhone 5, there's no reason why they can't get an app that looks great to run on the iPad. (cuz, you know - screen resolution has no impact on app performance)
... those who are technically inclined assuming the developers are idiots, rather than thinking that maybe they don't have all the information.
You know, if you believe for a second that the team at Overhaul are not assholes, and you try to understand the factors involved in what they are trying to accomplish - factors which they have clearly communicated through several channels - you'll find yourself a lot less angry.
I have a PC with "vanilla" default Windows 8 settings -- and does NOT use Intel graphics (known throughout the industry as bug-ridden). So far I only actually noticed one bug (couldn't leave an area) -- I quit and restarted and the bug was gone.
That single data point implies a lot -- BGEE does run on an "ordinary" PC. Its the "special case PCs and Laptops" that give it trouble -- however, the developer is working pretty fast on fixes. Thus, I agree with the OP.
I also agree with the post just above: There is no excuse for bugs. Though they are usually unavoidable in real life, the developer must allow for them. In particular, they should warn purchasers about "problematic" setups -- such as PCs and Laptops running Intel graphics.
The extreme of managing expectations is what you see from the big publishers: press releases, friendly reviews, and "You'll get it when it is done". Overhaul has tried to go to the other extreme, and have been soundly punished for it.
That's not what managing expectations means. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite. That's more along the lines of over-marketing and hyping a product for the purposes of selling as many copies as you can and hoping your customers will forget about how good you made the product sound and how good it actually was by the time you're ready to start marketing the next one.
Managing expectations is about giving potential customers realistic expectations about what (and when) they will and what they won't get, so that when they get it, they won't be disappointed. It is important in every industry, but especially important when customers' expectations of what ought to be differ significantly from what is technically feasible.
That's not what managing expectations means. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite. That's more along the lines of over-marketing and hyping a product for the purposes of selling as many copies as you can and hoping your customers will forget about how good you made the product sound and how good it actually was by the time you're ready to start marketing the next one.
I understand that, but unfortunately, that's what we get. I think Overhaul has done an amazing job of communicating what they intended. What they were going to do, and when they were going to do it. When they haven't been able to meet their targets, the let us know. The only functional point that I can think of where the Overhaul vision differed greatly from user expectation was the UI resolution, and they quickly addressed that.
The problem is that in spite of the tremendous effort made to keep everyone informed as things progressed, they are getting the clear message that they are damned if the do, and damned if they don't. I'll be very surprised if you get another hard date for anything from Overhaul again.
To clarify, I am not actually arguing that Overhaul has done a good or bad job of managing customer expectations. That isn't something I can even comment on because I don't have any good data, and a few loud complaints doesn't imply a bad job any more than no complaints implies a good job. (People can be quietly dissatisfied.) But the test of how successful they have been is simple: how well do expectations match experiences.
you are running WIn XP? really? sorry man, but just that fact invalidates all of your complaints. That is like saying you are driving a 1972 AMC Gremlin, and complaining that you are having engine issues...get a real OS on a modern computer and then maybe you can talk.
The irony is that BGEE probably works for more people using XP than new computers, especially those using new computers with Intel chipsets.
Your analogy is so flawed that I'm surprised anyone can take it seriously. Also, I have BGEE running on two computers, Win 7 and XP and they both work. However, my WIn 7 dual monitor computer set up can't minimise the game but my XP computer with one monitor can.
They both worked fine for me out of the box, on a win95 system.
I agree. I don't understand all these people saying the original games were crashing, game breaking bugs everywhere, etc. They worked perfectly for me and finished the games many times.
They both worked fine for me out of the box, on a win95 system.
I agree. I don't understand all these people saying the original games were crashing, game breaking bugs everywhere, etc. They worked perfectly for me and finished the games many times.
I just have to point out the irony of this statement in the context of all the other statements being made about specific systems having issues running the game. If "It never crashed on my system in 1998" is a valid argument to describe how not-buggy the original game was, then "it hasn't crashed yet on my system in 2012" is a valid argument to describe how not-buggy the enhanced edition is.
And the truth is, neither argument is valid. Because some people did have issues running the original game because of hardware incompatibilities that weren't worked out right at launch and had to be overcome over the course of several years. Just as some people are having issues now.
The difference, I think, is in how quickly those issues are being resolved (in an era where the developers can actually communicate with the players more directly and more efficiently) in comparison to how quickly they were resolved with the original.
That's not a criticism of the original developers--mostly it has to do with the availability of communication, which wasn't nearly as prevalent in the late 90s as it is today--but it does make a difference.
"it hasn't crashed yet on my system in 2012" is a valid argument to describe how not-buggy the enhanced edition is.
The problem is that BGEE is a buggy mess even if it you get the game to work. I got BGEE to work on Win 7 and XP without any problems. However, the glaringly obvious bugs you can't avoid. The original games didn't have glaringly obvious bugs that stuck out before you left Candlekeep.
The amount of minor and major bugs that the Beta testers seem to have ignored or kept saying on these forums, 'it's a feature not a bug', 'it was intended that way', etc, the amount of minor bugs that should have been squashed and would never get past the most mediocre of QA departments is truly astounding.
@Metal_Hurlant Been a while since someone's quoted me to me. Much less out of context. (Sorry, folks; rant ahead.)
"It's a feature, not a bug" - that's a reference to me talking about the zoom's reset, right? Don't pretend that's a bug, because it's not. It's a missing feature (the ability to lock the zoom). One that would be great to have, but that doesn't make it a bug, and not pointing it out doesn't mean that the beta testers weren't doing their (voluntary) job.
"It was intended that way" - that's a reference to me talking about the spawn scaling, right? Setting aside the fact that there was a bug in the spawning algorithm, now that the bug has been fixed it is working as intended, and you still have a problem with it. At that point, it's not a bug; it's a design choice you don't agree with. And that's well and good, but don't mislead people by calling it a bug.
There are bugs in the game, sure. With four developers instead of thirty, there's going to be some discrepancies. And when you're gutting an engine to make it more efficient, there's also bound to be some scratch-marks left behind that will need to be buffed down.
What you didn't see in 1998 was four patches in the first week that do fix a lot of bugs. You didn't see communication from the developers being up-front and apologetic about the issues people have with installation and the like. You didn't see any of that, in part because the community wasn't as fully developed and the tools to communicate didn't exist like they do now.
And what's more, for all the minor bugs in the game, and even some of the major ones, the vast majority of players enjoy the game quite a bit and either don't notice or aren't bothered by the bugs that they do encounter. The bugs are going to be fixed. Many of them already are. And in addition to those bugs being fixed, the game itself is being improved every day.
And that's despite the (relatively) small demographic of players who, in the three days following the game's release, spent most of their time flaming the developers in emails and new threads, demanding refunds and expecting no answers, calling Overhaul's employees and quite a lot of the fans names, raging into what they think is the vacuum of the internet but what is actually Overhaul's front lawn.
I know if it were me, I'd probably pick up my proverbial toys and go home, say "screw this, I'm not having fun anymore", and tell the internet I'll come back when it calms itself down. Instead, they've been on the forums trying to help people find solutions, helping people to get the game working while they figure out a more permanent solution on their end, and then also fixing bugs as they're reported (some of them several times) so that those who can run the game can run it well.
I know none of this makes the bugs themselves easier to deal with, but good lord, you make it sound like the beta team and the development team have been spending the last seven months sipping martinis in our lawn chairs watching Trent do backflips into a swimming pool filled with Jell-O (and I promise, we only did that once). Do you realize how insulting that sounds?
"This bug is awful, I can't believe the beta testers didn't catch this, they must have just spent the whole time playing the game instead of testing it..."
No, actually, we spent our time finding all the bugs that you don't see, helping to find root causes for the bugs that you do see, and facilitating discussions to help people understand what's going on a little better. And sometimes, yes, that means explaining that what you think is a bug is actually just a feature that's not fully implemented yet.
Sorry, but I'm just a bit tired of hearing people complain about the beta team. I personally might not be the best QA guy in the world (if I'm honest, I spent most of my time building the manuals), but the rest of the team worked their butts off to make this release as stable as it is and to help squash as many bugs as possible. And none of them got paid to do it. So maybe show a little less venom when you talk about those guys.
"It's a feature, not a bug" - that's a reference to me talking about the zoom's reset, right? Don't pretend that's a bug, because it's not. It's a missing feature (the ability to lock the zoom). One that would be great to have, but that doesn't make it a bug, and not pointing it out doesn't mean that the beta testers weren't doing their (voluntary) job.
No I wasn't referring to you.
So it's a feature that's missing a feature. Sounds like a bug to me. Also, I have spoken to software developers about this bug and they laughed. No zoom lock? Having the zoom reset everytime? They couldn't believe how a game could be shipped with such a 'feature'.
"It was intended that way" - that's a reference to me talking about the spawn scaling, right? Setting aside the fact that there was a bug in the spawning algorithm, now that the bug has been fixed it is working as intended, and you still have a problem with it. At that point, it's not a bug; it's a design choice you don't agree with. And that's well and good, but don't mislead people by calling it a bug.
Again, not referring to you. I was actually referring to avenger_teambg's comment with his 'it was intended that way' comment when the game was released.
So now you have one beta tester saying 'it was intended that way' and now I have you saying it was a bug but it's been fixed. I have been referring to when the game was released. So who's taking people out of context now? You are.
There are bugs in the game, sure. With four developers instead of thirty, there's going to be some discrepancies. And when you're gutting an engine to make it more efficient, there's also bound to be some scratch-marks left behind that will need to be buffed down.
What you didn't see in 1998 was four patches in the first week that do fix a lot of bugs. You didn't see communication from the developers being up-front and apologetic about the issues people have with installation and the like. You didn't see any of that, in part because the community wasn't as fully developed and the tools to communicate didn't exist like they do now.
You're forgetting that Beamdog didn't have to write the story in its entirety. They didn't have to do full motion cinematics, they didn't have to do a lot of game development to create a new game since they already had a finished game. They also had access to the community mods, modders and volunteers. The original game is stable. The GoG release also works on Win 7 for a lot of people.
So it wasn't just 4 people doing this game. How many were doing this game including the modders and volunteers? 40? 50? 60? There's at least 50 people in the credits. And if what you say with the modders and volunteers working their butts off fixing bugs, that's a lot of people doing something.
So comparing beamdog to the original Bioware team in 1998 is no comparison at all, since Bioware had to start from scratch and Beamdog already have a finished game with mods at their hands.
I know if it were me, I'd probably pick up my proverbial toys and go home, say "screw this, I'm not having fun anymore", and tell the internet I'll come back when it calms itself down. Instead, they've been on the forums trying to help people find solutions, helping people to get the game working while they figure out a more permanent solution on their end, and then also fixing bugs as they're reported (some of them several times) so that those who can run the game can run it well.
I know none of this makes the bugs themselves easier to deal with, but good lord, you make it sound like the beta team and the development team have been spending the last seven months sipping martinis in our lawn chairs watching Trent do backflips into a swimming pool filled with Jell-O (and I promise, we only did that once). Do you realize how insulting that sounds?
"This bug is awful, I can't believe the beta testers didn't catch this, they must have just spent the whole time playing the game instead of testing it..."
No, actually, we spent our time finding all the bugs that you don't see, helping to find root causes for the bugs that you do see, and facilitating discussions to help people understand what's going on a little better. And sometimes, yes, that means explaining that what you think is a bug is actually just a feature that's not fully implemented yet.
Sorry, but I'm just a bit tired of hearing people complain about the beta team. I personally might not be the best QA guy in the world (if I'm honest, I spent most of my time building the manuals), but the rest of the team worked their butts off to make this release as stable as it is and to help squash as many bugs as possible. And none of them got paid to do it. So maybe show a little less venom when you talk about those guys.
Nice incoherent rant with the usual red herrings thrown in. And no, I have never said the beta team were sipping martinis and not doing anything. What I have pointed out is Beta testers coming onto the forum and making excuses for bugs and saying 'they're not bugs, it's a feature' or 'working as intended'.
So what do we have when people are making mod's to add to the game, to replace the gui with the BG2 gui, and to play the game zoomed out because of the zoom reset? Seems similar to BGT.
Ok 2 things I REALLY need to say here because reading this thread and others, some of the arguments being made are starting to drive me nuts.
First of all, can we please cut the ad hominem fallacies on this topic and others on this board. They're old on both sides and do nothing but further increase the likelihood of flaming.
Second of all,
"It's been out a little over a week and they've already patched 4 times. Even the original release was filled with bbootsugs."
Initial statement
Response:
"I ran Windows XP and it worked fine for me." Therefore it wasn't buggy.
This is anecdotal evidence. You had one copy of Baldur's Gate at release and there were multiple millions of them purchased. Saying that "It works for me, therefore it was not buggy and must have worked perfectly for everyone" is not evidence, yet you present it as such.
To give you a note of comparison of a similar argument:
"I installed BGEE and have not had one graphical glitch or bug yet in my game. It works fine thus there are no bugs."
The problem is there is empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. I'm glad BG1 worked for you on Win95 back in 1998 when it was released and I'm sorry that this one does not. You cannot however, use that data point to try to counter an argument that BG1 was not buggy at launch, just like I cannot use the same argument that BGEE is not buggy at launch. We are but one data point upon tens or hundreds of thousands or even possibly millions.
Hmm. Just because it worked for you means it worked flawless for everyone else, right? Your logic is flawless!
The game had issues with certain hardware just like this version. And it worked fine for others ... just like this version.
And yet you said it took 14 years to have the original game fixed. Nice logic there. Your logic is flawless!
Really? I never said it TOOK 14 years to fix I said it has HAD 14 years to be fixed. There is a difference. Bioware's last official patch came out a year or so after the release & the community has been fixing stuff since then. And Bioware didn't have the game fully patched 2 days after its release like people are expecting for the EE.
I only said that comparing this release (two days after the release) which had a ton of engine changes to the original PATCHED version (which was fully patched) on GOG was not fair. Everytime you change something you introduce bugs regardless how well you test it. And it really sounded like they made a ton of changes. It was more fair to compare to the original version released in 1998 which had its own issues.
Congrats that you didn't see any of those issues. However some people did. I've seen a lot of people say the same thing on these forums about the 1998 release. Just because you saw/didn't see something doesn't mean the rest of us were just seeing things.
I'm not disagreeing with about about this version being buggy. It is but it is not as bad as other games have been. But I'm giving Beamdog the benefit of the doubt because they are working hard to fix stuff. I would probably be more upset if they weren't taking it so seriously.
If this is so upsetting to you then maybe you should put it down for a few months and then come back to it. Or just ask for your money back. It is a game after all. It is not worth being so worked up over.
It's also worth mentioning that unlike the Star Wars trilogy, BG:EE being out does not prevent you in any way to keep playing the old version. It doesn't even prevent you to purchase it from GoG or Amazon.
From the way some folks get worked up you'd believe this is a mandatory patch/add-on to every copy of BG1 installed throughout the world.
I have a question: was improving the engine (and I mean what they did, not just taking it from BG2, like e.g. in BGT) necessary to run the game on different platforms?
If yes, was it necessary to re-done it in a such extensive way? Wouldn't be enough - for example- slightly improving GOG version?
Maybe lot of time could be spent on something else (new content?) and it wouldn't be so many bugs?
But if it had to be done, i can understand the risks and bugs and have no complaints about them, especially they're very fast releasing patches.
But I will never understand this: how, with so little new content, beta testers could not see so many BASIC bugs (like unidentified belt in Adoy's map being common belt)? Noob modder could fix that. I know this was quickly fixed, but i wonder: did they created this new content 2 days before release?
Well, we are just re-hashing the argument at this point. The made some design choices and followed through on them. You aren't happy with the release day product, and we get it. It is fixed, get over it.
I have a question: was improving the engine (and I mean what they did, not just taking it from BG2, like e.g. in BGT) necessary to run the game on different platforms?
If yes, was it necessary to re-done it in a such extensive way? Wouldn't be enough - for example- slightly improving GOG version?
Maybe lot of time could be spent on something else (new content?) and it wouldn't be so many bugs?
But if it had to be done, i can understand the risks and bugs and have no complaints about them, especially they're very fast releasing patches.
But I will never understand this: how, with so little new content, beta testers could not see so many BASIC bugs (like unidentified belt in Adoy's map being common belt)? Noob modder could fix that. I know this was quickly fixed, but i wonder: did they created this new content 2 days before release?
From what I've read yes they needed to make extensive changes. There was a ton of windows-specific code that wouldn't work on other platforms so they had to rework it to be platform specific. Plus it was done badly. It sounded like they opened a can of worms -- every time they changed something it broke something else & they had to go chase that down. I saw Trent curse the original programmers multiple times on Twitter when they found some horrible hack they had to deal with.
I think the original plan was to have more content, but they underestimated the scope of the engine changes and that sucked up a ton of time. They simply ran out of time to add more new content. There was a plan to have an 'Adventure-Y' which would have been an in-game quest (possibly main plot related) but that wasn't completed for the release. They are hopefully doing that plus a bunch of other new content as DLC after things wind down with bugs.
Comments
The extreme of managing expectations is what you see from the big publishers: press releases, friendly reviews, and "You'll get it when it is done". Overhaul has tried to go to the other extreme, and have been soundly punished for it.
I think the iPad situation is the perfect example of this: they commit to a iPad 1 / iOS 5 compatible release. When push comes to shove, they are having serious trouble getting it working. The openly and clearly communicate their frustration, try to describe their efforts to resolve the problem. They release for iPad2 and later, with the promise that they will get an iPad1 version working. What is the response?
"They lied" "They let us down" "They don't care"
... those who aren't technically inclined assume the worst of people who clearly are making an effort to serve and communicate with their fan base.
"They don't know how to test" "It should be obvious, all they need to do is..." and my favorite of the day, a thread where someone quotes an iOS app tester who says that if they can make an app that runs on the iPhone 3Gs as well as a iPhone 5, there's no reason why they can't get an app that looks great to run on the iPad. (cuz, you know - screen resolution has no impact on app performance)
... those who are technically inclined assuming the developers are idiots, rather than thinking that maybe they don't have all the information.
You know, if you believe for a second that the team at Overhaul are not assholes, and you try to understand the factors involved in what they are trying to accomplish - factors which they have clearly communicated through several channels - you'll find yourself a lot less angry.
That single data point implies a lot -- BGEE does run on an "ordinary" PC. Its the "special case PCs and Laptops" that give it trouble -- however, the developer is working pretty fast on fixes. Thus, I agree with the OP.
I also agree with the post just above: There is no excuse for bugs. Though they are usually unavoidable in real life, the developer must allow for them. In particular, they should warn purchasers about "problematic" setups -- such as PCs and Laptops running Intel graphics.
The problem is that in spite of the tremendous effort made to keep everyone informed as things progressed, they are getting the clear message that they are damned if the do, and damned if they don't. I'll be very surprised if you get another hard date for anything from Overhaul again.
Your analogy is so flawed that I'm surprised anyone can take it seriously. Also, I have BGEE running on two computers, Win 7 and XP and they both work. However, my WIn 7 dual monitor computer set up can't minimise the game but my XP computer with one monitor can.
And the truth is, neither argument is valid. Because some people did have issues running the original game because of hardware incompatibilities that weren't worked out right at launch and had to be overcome over the course of several years. Just as some people are having issues now.
The difference, I think, is in how quickly those issues are being resolved (in an era where the developers can actually communicate with the players more directly and more efficiently) in comparison to how quickly they were resolved with the original.
That's not a criticism of the original developers--mostly it has to do with the availability of communication, which wasn't nearly as prevalent in the late 90s as it is today--but it does make a difference.
The amount of minor and major bugs that the Beta testers seem to have ignored or kept saying on these forums, 'it's a feature not a bug', 'it was intended that way', etc, the amount of minor bugs that should have been squashed and would never get past the most mediocre of QA departments is truly astounding.
The game had issues with certain hardware just like this version. And it worked fine for others ... just like this version.
Been a while since someone's quoted me to me. Much less out of context. (Sorry, folks; rant ahead.)
"It's a feature, not a bug" - that's a reference to me talking about the zoom's reset, right? Don't pretend that's a bug, because it's not. It's a missing feature (the ability to lock the zoom). One that would be great to have, but that doesn't make it a bug, and not pointing it out doesn't mean that the beta testers weren't doing their (voluntary) job.
"It was intended that way" - that's a reference to me talking about the spawn scaling, right? Setting aside the fact that there was a bug in the spawning algorithm, now that the bug has been fixed it is working as intended, and you still have a problem with it. At that point, it's not a bug; it's a design choice you don't agree with. And that's well and good, but don't mislead people by calling it a bug.
There are bugs in the game, sure. With four developers instead of thirty, there's going to be some discrepancies. And when you're gutting an engine to make it more efficient, there's also bound to be some scratch-marks left behind that will need to be buffed down.
What you didn't see in 1998 was four patches in the first week that do fix a lot of bugs. You didn't see communication from the developers being up-front and apologetic about the issues people have with installation and the like. You didn't see any of that, in part because the community wasn't as fully developed and the tools to communicate didn't exist like they do now.
And what's more, for all the minor bugs in the game, and even some of the major ones, the vast majority of players enjoy the game quite a bit and either don't notice or aren't bothered by the bugs that they do encounter. The bugs are going to be fixed. Many of them already are. And in addition to those bugs being fixed, the game itself is being improved every day.
And that's despite the (relatively) small demographic of players who, in the three days following the game's release, spent most of their time flaming the developers in emails and new threads, demanding refunds and expecting no answers, calling Overhaul's employees and quite a lot of the fans names, raging into what they think is the vacuum of the internet but what is actually Overhaul's front lawn.
I know if it were me, I'd probably pick up my proverbial toys and go home, say "screw this, I'm not having fun anymore", and tell the internet I'll come back when it calms itself down. Instead, they've been on the forums trying to help people find solutions, helping people to get the game working while they figure out a more permanent solution on their end, and then also fixing bugs as they're reported (some of them several times) so that those who can run the game can run it well.
I know none of this makes the bugs themselves easier to deal with, but good lord, you make it sound like the beta team and the development team have been spending the last seven months sipping martinis in our lawn chairs watching Trent do backflips into a swimming pool filled with Jell-O (and I promise, we only did that once). Do you realize how insulting that sounds?
"This bug is awful, I can't believe the beta testers didn't catch this, they must have just spent the whole time playing the game instead of testing it..."
No, actually, we spent our time finding all the bugs that you don't see, helping to find root causes for the bugs that you do see, and facilitating discussions to help people understand what's going on a little better. And sometimes, yes, that means explaining that what you think is a bug is actually just a feature that's not fully implemented yet.
Sorry, but I'm just a bit tired of hearing people complain about the beta team. I personally might not be the best QA guy in the world (if I'm honest, I spent most of my time building the manuals), but the rest of the team worked their butts off to make this release as stable as it is and to help squash as many bugs as possible. And none of them got paid to do it. So maybe show a little less venom when you talk about those guys.
So it's a feature that's missing a feature. Sounds like a bug to me. Also, I have spoken to software developers about this bug and they laughed. No zoom lock? Having the zoom reset everytime? They couldn't believe how a game could be shipped with such a 'feature'.
Again, not referring to you. I was actually referring to avenger_teambg's comment with his 'it was intended that way' comment when the game was released.
So now you have one beta tester saying 'it was intended that way' and now I have you saying it was a bug but it's been fixed. I have been referring to when the game was released. So who's taking people out of context now? You are.
You're forgetting that Beamdog didn't have to write the story in its entirety. They didn't have to do full motion cinematics, they didn't have to do a lot of game development to create a new game since they already had a finished game. They also had access to the community mods, modders and volunteers. The original game is stable. The GoG release also works on Win 7 for a lot of people.
So it wasn't just 4 people doing this game. How many were doing this game including the modders and volunteers? 40? 50? 60? There's at least 50 people in the credits. And if what you say with the modders and volunteers working their butts off fixing bugs, that's a lot of people doing something.
So comparing beamdog to the original Bioware team in 1998 is no comparison at all, since Bioware had to start from scratch and Beamdog already have a finished game with mods at their hands.
Nice incoherent rant with the usual red herrings thrown in. And no, I have never said the beta team were sipping martinis and not doing anything. What I have pointed out is Beta testers coming onto the forum and making excuses for bugs and saying 'they're not bugs, it's a feature' or 'working as intended'.
So what do we have when people are making mod's to add to the game, to replace the gui with the BG2 gui, and to play the game zoomed out because of the zoom reset? Seems similar to BGT.
First of all, can we please cut the ad hominem fallacies on this topic and others on this board. They're old on both sides and do nothing but further increase the likelihood of flaming.
Second of all,
"It's been out a little over a week and they've already patched 4 times. Even the original release was filled with bbootsugs."
Initial statement
Response:
"I ran Windows XP and it worked fine for me." Therefore it wasn't buggy.
This is anecdotal evidence. You had one copy of Baldur's Gate at release and there were multiple millions of them purchased. Saying that "It works for me, therefore it was not buggy and must have worked perfectly for everyone" is not evidence, yet you present it as such.
To give you a note of comparison of a similar argument:
"I installed BGEE and have not had one graphical glitch or bug yet in my game. It works fine thus there are no bugs."
The problem is there is empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. I'm glad BG1 worked for you on Win95 back in 1998 when it was released and I'm sorry that this one does not. You cannot however, use that data point to try to counter an argument that BG1 was not buggy at launch, just like I cannot use the same argument that BGEE is not buggy at launch. We are but one data point upon tens or hundreds of thousands or even possibly millions.
I only said that comparing this release (two days after the release) which had a ton of engine changes to the original PATCHED version (which was fully patched) on GOG was not fair. Everytime you change something you introduce bugs regardless how well you test it. And it really sounded like they made a ton of changes. It was more fair to compare to the original version released in 1998 which had its own issues.
Congrats that you didn't see any of those issues. However some people did. I've seen a lot of people say the same thing on these forums about the 1998 release. Just because you saw/didn't see something doesn't mean the rest of us were just seeing things.
I'm not disagreeing with about about this version being buggy. It is but it is not as bad as other games have been. But I'm giving Beamdog the benefit of the doubt because they are working hard to fix stuff. I would probably be more upset if they weren't taking it so seriously.
If this is so upsetting to you then maybe you should put it down for a few months and then come back to it. Or just ask for your money back. It is a game after all. It is not worth being so worked up over.
From the way some folks get worked up you'd believe this is a mandatory patch/add-on to every copy of BG1 installed throughout the world.
If yes, was it necessary to re-done it in a such extensive way? Wouldn't be enough - for example- slightly improving GOG version?
Maybe lot of time could be spent on something else (new content?) and it wouldn't be so many bugs?
But if it had to be done, i can understand the risks and bugs and have no complaints about them, especially they're very fast releasing patches.
But I will never understand this: how, with so little new content, beta testers could not see so many BASIC bugs (like unidentified belt in Adoy's map being common belt)? Noob modder could fix that. I know this was quickly fixed, but i wonder: did they created this new content 2 days before release?
I think the original plan was to have more content, but they underestimated the scope of the engine changes and that sucked up a ton of time. They simply ran out of time to add more new content. There was a plan to have an 'Adventure-Y' which would have been an in-game quest (possibly main plot related) but that wasn't completed for the release. They are hopefully doing that plus a bunch of other new content as DLC after things wind down with bugs.