I,for one,was very pleased at the way patches were released for BGEE.The Devs listened and then did something about it and something was on it's way out ASAP.Unlike some other franchises i could mention,who release a totally broken game and then bring out a fucking expansion or offer DLC which fixes the inital problems.Making more bucks out of you into the bargain.
These guys were very much on the ball with BGEE,shame about the legal issues that threw a spanner in the works.Still,back on course now.So here's to BG2EE.
@Illydth slight correction: there have been 8 updates to BGEE so far. There were a bunch in the first two weeks. The last was for Italian language support.
Yea, I got confused with the iPad release which I think has only been patched 3 - 4 times. There have been several more for the PC client which I haven't been taking quite as much interest in, but will be starting to.
Thanks for the correction...still, 10 more patches to go (MINIMUM) before we have at least a base comparison between BG:EE and BGT here.
It's also worth considering that BG:EE is much smaller effort at roughly 1/3 the pricetag of Skyrim/ME3.
I actually think Overhaul and Beamdog hold very little blame for what happened. Porting anything to the iPad is a huge project not to mention working with an old code base (my day job *groan*). I think if there were no legal entanglements (i.e. if Atari hadn't suddenly tanked) patches would have rolled out and most people would be very happy. I can sympathize with idea that the release was premature and more testing was needed, but I have played some really buggy games from the big guys. I'm playing Fallout New Vegas now (by no means a new game) and that is buggier than a piece of cheesecake left out on a hot day. That games hasn't improved that much from it's initial release (well, at least it doesn't CDT all the time anymore...).
Trent tweeted about path finding. I also wondered about this. Seems like it should be a straight forward thing to fix, right? Well apparently not:
@profhwalsh We looked pretty hard at the pathfinding in bgee. In the end, everything we tried simply broke the game.
@Illydth: True enough, though you must also take into account that neither Skyrim nor ME3 were direct remakes of existing games - and that BG:EE was inherently limited as to how much Beamdog could actually add/change (owing to both the loss of art assets and the contractual obligations preventing changes to existing content).
As has been said many times before, rewriting a hardcoded program is actually more exhausting work than writing it from scratch.
Add to it the debugging work of a game that hasn't received an official patch for the last 10 years and you should be able to understand the difficulty of a project like BGEE.
You should also consider taking in account the actual size of the Overhaul team, from what I understand there's not more than 15 people working on BGEE.
In my eyes, people from Overhaul have done an excellent job overcoming every difficulty they encountered and maintaining the willpower for the whole time.
@Illydth: That's a misleading comparison, though: Beamdog didn't start from scratch because BGT had years and years to refine the game. It's no secret that various fixpacks and tweaks were incorporated into the EE during its development, and that the modder community has since had both direct and indirect involvement in the game; rather than seeing them in opposition, you've got to see BG:EE as picking up where BGT left off. And from that perspective, the fact that every successive patch has introduced yet more bugs is... problematic.
Mind you, I've long stated the belief that if certain conditions were met - if the majority of bugs could be dealt with without spawning new ones, if popular mods like BG1NPC and Ascension could be incorporated (or, at the very least, if compatibility could be assured), and if additional exclusive story content were released (like the oft-rumored trip to Boareskyr Bridge) - BG:EE could supplant the original games altogether. But it's not there yet.
@Fredjo: That seems to cross the line into apologetics - customers are under no obligation to care about technical, logistic or legal difficulties involved in products. I didn't force Beamdog to pursue this project, but I did pre-order the game based on promises they made before launch. Some of those promises have been met, some have not. Do they get points for effort? Sure, I guess. But that doesn't immunize them from criticism.
@shawne In my eyes there are two paths the developers can choose when announcing their new project. They can either publicize the features of the new game that are highly viable and to be released and thus make the project more readable so people know what to expect and use this knowledge to produce their own ideas. Or they can put a mist over the project during most of its development stage only to release the features at the very end of let's say alpha version and to make sure all of the features are all in place, prolonging the production stage by another year.
A project like BGEE where money are a limiting factor and pre-order is a viable option to fund the project itself, because Kickstarter was not allowed by the publisher, the most efficient way is to publicize the features even if they are a matter of future patches and let the fans know that if they support this game by buying it, they WILL get the announced features. And this is the way it works in many projects on Kickstarter, and I use this analogy because BGEE actually made their own Kickstarter on this website by pre-selling BGEE over 7 months before the official release.
Now to get back to what I posted, comparing projects made by multi-million$ companies such as Bioware with BGEE simply doesn't comply. Bioware had all ME rights, the game itself was coded a few years before the ME sequel, they could use the same tools and the same amount of employees. Beamdog works on a new release of a 15 years old game build on an anachronistic engine, none of their employees had worked on that game and their financial options are MUCH more limited.
This is no apologetics, it's the reality, and with the information Beamdog had released long before BGEE came out, one could realistically conclude that the BGEE project have a bumpy path in front of it. But it's the passion and willpower that turns projects into reality and we should recognize that, whenever some of us feel frustrated or "cheated" that this projects doesn't have the smoothed out path like those of the large companies.
@Fredjo: Know your history: BG:EE and BG2:EE were a package deal in Beamdog's original contract. Even if BG:EE had tanked in terms of sales, BG2:EE would still have been released. So your Kickstarter analogy is, at best, fundamentally inaccurate. What was being implied in the months leading up to launch was that if Beamdog did well, they might have a shot at either enhancing other D&D games ("Planescape: Torment" was the one that most frequently came up in forum threads, largely because Trent Oster hinted that the PS:T source code was within Beamdog's grasp) or straight-up approaching Hasbro/WotC to do BG3.
Now, I happen to know these things because I'm a fan of the BG games, and I came to these forums and paid attention because I like having the occasional tidbit of "inside knowledge". But that has nothing - nothing - to do with my priorities as a customer. It's not like Beamdog marketed the game with "Yeah, we're a small group, so don't get your hopes up." And eight patches in six months isn't a good look for anyone, particularly when the latest ones are still introducing new bugs to the game.
Comparing AAA-type games to BG:EE is unfair? Fine, let's go the other way: Supergiant Games has a smaller team and they released "Bastion" with no significant hurdles. Zeboyd Games consists of two people and they managed to put out "Cthulhu Saves The World" without any problems. "Rise of the Triad" is explicitly based on a game that's even older than BG and there was no drama there.
No one's saying Beamdog completely failed in its stated goals, but let's not kid ourselves: some of the criticism directed at the EE was well-deserved. What remains to be seen is whether lessons were learned and implemented for the next one.
Comparing AAA-type games to BG:EE is unfair? Fine, let's go the other way: Supergiant Games has a smaller team and they released "Bastion" with no significant hurdles. Zeboyd Games consists of two people and they managed to put out "Cthulhu Saves The World" without any problems. "Rise of the Triad" is explicitly based on a game that's even older than BG and there was no drama there.
You're talking about completely different circumstances here. Bastion? Smaller game, modern game engine. Cthulhu Saves The World? Again, much smaller game. Rise of the Triad? You're seriously comparing the work in developing a massive RPG to remaking a 1994 First Person Shooter that used the Wolfenstein Engine?
Criticize Overhaul if you want, but don't talk about the amount of work that went into it as if you have any clue what you're talking about. Making fixes and changes in the source code is considerably more work than hacking together a mod.
@shawne Thank you for the info regarding the BGEE+2EE package, I stand corrected. But I'm repeating myself when I state that making a game from scratch is always easier than enhancing 15y years old project. This is truth in all areas where there's innovation and computing is the area with probably the steepest innovation curve. The fact that you choose to not use the whole of your knowledge on a given subject and choose to narrow your thinking into "customer-mindset" is your own decision. I can only tell you that this I-DEMAND-attitude won't help to speed up the development and critique is functional only if the receiver of such critique is also the one responsible for the problems, which Beamdog in the case of Atari's total failure clearly is not
I won't try to persuade you that 8 patches in 6 months is enough because it is highly subjective, I can only say for myself that the features added before Atari's failure were satisfactory to me and with the next patch behind the doors I can honestly say that my critique would only aim at Atari for being financially incompetent and Bioware for being reckless by loosing the source files.
@Padenton: I've said nothing about the amount of work that went into it because - as I said just one post above yours - that's not my concern. I don't buy games so I can hear about the difficulties involved in their creation. (The fact that I'm here having this conversation with you at all is because I'm slightly more invested in this game than I would be for, say, "Assassin's Creed IV").
And really, any comparison to any other game can be slanted to serve as either defense or criticism, but I brought those points up because Fredjo was justifying the problems by claiming that if "Mass Effect 3" had a problematic launch, then it's perfectly justified for BG:EE to have one too, as if the two were in any way related.
@Padenton: I've said nothing about the amount of work that went into it because - as I said just one post above yours - that's not my concern. I don't buy games so I can hear about the difficulties involved in their creation. (The fact that I'm here having this conversation with you at all is because I'm slightly more invested in this game than I would be for, say, "Assassin's Creed IV").
And really, any comparison to any other game can be slanted to serve as either defense or criticism, but I brought those points up because Fredjo was justifying the problems by claiming that if "Mass Effect 3" had a problematic launch, then it's perfectly justified for BG:EE to have one too, as if the two were in any way related.
I did not say a single statement about ME3 and I have no idea what kind of and if there even were any problems with the release of ME3 and I was actually implying how DIFFERENT the project ME and BGEE are. You should really reread my post if you want to paraphrase me from it.
@shawme - I've bought and played a lot of the AAA games. Many have had severe bugs. NWN1 comes to mind. It was only ever worth playing MP and that didn't work well for some time. Fallout New Vegas, which I like, is buggy as hell. In the case of FONV, the game engine isn't that different from FO3 but still there are a host of problems. Skyrim is the only crpg game in recent memory that didn't need a ton of patches to enjoy playing. But consider that Skyrim was released on a lot of platforms with a high ticket price. They can afford extensive testing prior to release (which obviously they did). Sure, there are several other success stories out there as well, but there are even more failures many of which were never corrected via patches.
But the real question I would ask is why do these problems happen? For other game developers the problem often had to do with someone higher up pulling the plug and insisting that an unfinished product go out the door. You can't argue with the need for a revenue stream and timing matters. In this case I think inheriting an old buggy code base has something to do with it. Anyway, I really wouldn't assume it has to do with a lack of talent or capabilities of the dev team.
@shawne It would be misleading to say BGEE "picked up" where BGT (and the community) left off. BGEE did start from scratch, right from the beginning, and the modder contributions were non-conversion related and more in the realm of bug fixes etc. much later down the track. BGT and BGEE are incredibly different, down to the filename conventions, and it is inaccurate to say it has any relation to BGT (or Tutu) whatsoever.
As for the inclusion of larger, popular mods (particularly BG1NPC), my personal opinion is that they're not at any sort of required level of quality. BG1NPC, while an impressive project that has moments of excellence, varies far too wildly in quality. It is by no means consistent. It's a great mod that many people love, but that doesn't mean it is up to professional standards. Additionally, from a legal perspective, the sheer amount of contributors Beamdog would need to get signoff from who are no longer available makes it nearly impossible anyway.
But to get back to the point @shawne is trying to make, I actually agree. To the consumer, it doesn't matter what difficulties the developers had while making the product. It doesn't matter if they had a small budget, a tiny schedule and hordes of contractual obligations and problems. At the end of the day, it's about the product in the hands of consumers, and whether that matches expectations or not.
All we can do is our best, working on a product we love, and make it the best it can be with the time and resources we have. We are very lucky to have many fantastic fans and supporters, and that's awesome, but we're under no illusions. We are all our own worst critics, after all.
@Kaeloree - thanks for chiming in. Particularly on the bits about how the project was basically from the ground up (and why).
For me, I get that everyone wants to do their best work. We all want to hit a home run every single time. We want to be seen as providing quality products out of the gate every single time.
The other side of the coin is (and this is from my own perspective), taking someone else's code and debugging/fixing/repurposing it is a TOUGH job. I give a lot of credit to those who do it as nine times out of ten in my world it is about ten times easier to simply write new code. I imagine that game making is similar (but don't know for a fact). Add to that the fact that games are insanely complex and BG even more so that a lot that is out in the market today, I'd bet that touching someone else's code takes an incredible head to make it all work out. So in that, I think the folks at Beamdog and Overhaul deserve at least some credit and some slack.
Lest people think that it is all wine and roses, I heard a story some years ago about the initial Beta for Diablo. The story (and I don't know for a fact that it was true) goes that one particular version of the beta actually ATE hard drives on certain models of computers. This was a BETA, which means that it had gone through a boatload of testing prior. Again, i can't speak to the voracity of the claim, but it stuck with me.
There is also a game company whom I shall not name here who made the famous claim "Its not a bug, it's a feature" for one game. And in still another case there was a Mech game that came out a few years ago that quite simply would not work right out of the box on any computer.
And then there is the whole mess that is Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Dranor. If you saved while invisible, it corrupted your save game. And that was just one of the many bugs and really hideously poor game design choices for that game.
My point is, yes hold the game developers to a standard of excellence. it is your money after all. Yes, call out and report bugs and issues. Yes, if issues aren't responded too, speak louder or with your wallet. For my money? BG:EE was less than half of the cost of games that I have spent less than 1/10th as much time with. I haven't encountered any game breaking bugs (though others might have) and they are working on the issues. This in my mind is head and shoulders above some games I could mention. I don't look too poorly on them for giving me a bunch of hours of game play for not insane amounts of money.
@Kaeloree: Fair enough, though it's worth pointing out that in comparing BG:EE and BGT from a purely functional/content perspective, they do share certain broad similarities such as the use of BG2's engine for BG1, inclusion of BG2 kits, etc. That's not to say the EE lacks technical improvements of its own - the lack of loading screens being the most visible example IMO - but to a non-techie such as myself, things like filename conventions aren't self-explanatory or self-evident.
Re: mods, I completely agree that BG1NPC is a variable experience, to say nothing of the fact that player preference is variable as well and not everyone wants to use it. But I would have liked to at least have the option of installing it myself. Granted, I know why most mods are incompatible with the EE, but that still counts as a point against it, particularly given the lack of newer story content to offset the loss of modded material.
All that said, I think it'll come down to what the immediate future holds; with the legal hurdles jumped and development back on track, the next move is Beamdog's.
@shawne: I actually believe I was the one who brought ME3 and Skyrim into the discussion, so feel free to aim those arrows in my direction...I probably deserve them since those games are very much night and day different from the effort here. They were used only as an example that games have problems...even the AAA games (especially the AAA games) are not immune from issues...yet rarely do I see so much vitrol about poor development in regards to AAA products like that.
Feel free to bash BG:EE on features vs. it's competition, but bugs? Everyone knows bugs are worked out over time, and that's the one thing this product has not had yet...time to get it right.
There is more they could have done at release, but all of that needs to be tempered with the understanding that they're a small development shop taking on a pretty large project with really no financial backing. This really is a boot strapping project by the dev team, and that puts really significant pressures on deadlines and time lines.
At the end of the day the dev staff has to be able to afford to pay rent, eat, and drive between their jobs and homes. And in a small development shop like this with very little financial backing, there comes a period where you must ship it, if for no better reason than you need the purchase revenue to keep the doors open and the lights on.
You suggest that as a customer you shouldn't have to worry about this, that it's not your job to be concerned over their problems. Except, it is. As consumers we do this every day of our lives...we buy Sony and Samsung TV's over Westinghouse and Avia because we trust the larger companies to produce a better product. We purchase a Seagate or Maxtor harddrive over Hitachi because we're more comfortable with the quality of the brand. We go to the mom and pop hole in the wall for burgers over that huge conglomerate down the street on the corner because the hole in the wall serves a higher quality burger.
We make choices every day about the quality of what we buy and a huge part of those choices is based around our inherent understanding of what large companies and small companies do best.
Why is it different in this case? Is it a surprise to you that a small development shop has higher financial restrictions and more / driving goals they must meet with regards to deadlines than someone like EA would with it's huge financial reserves? Is it really a surprise that OverHaul couldn't hire a thousand professional beta testers and sit in beta for months more fixing problems and bugs?
Your choice should have been clear: Pick up a new piece of software just out of the development shop or wait for a while and pick it up after it's matured. ANYONE who's purchased software before understands buying v1.0 means you're going to be dealing with bugs.
OverHaul isn't blameless, but having the expectation that this development company is going to be different than any of the hundreds of thousands of others in regards to the v1.0 rule is putting them on a pedestal to be knocked off more easily.
I'm sorry I'm too lazy to read the rather in-depth debate above... but in light of recent developments... shouldn't this thread be deleted? or at least renamed?
Maybe it's me, but the title bugs me like an eye sore.
@Heindrich1988 - I don't think threads ever die, not so long as their's one more thing to say
To all you guys, I just think about the amount of vitriol that gets spread around for a host of games that I've played and enjoyed, but were delivered with a host of problems. They weren't perfect, there was a lot of anger but we all kind of forgot about it. Usually some time after the heavy patching was done.
Comments
These guys were very much on the ball with BGEE,shame about the legal issues that threw a spanner in the works.Still,back on course now.So here's to BG2EE.
Thanks for the correction...still, 10 more patches to go (MINIMUM) before we have at least a base comparison between BG:EE and BGT here.
I actually think Overhaul and Beamdog hold very little blame for what happened. Porting anything to the iPad is a huge project not to mention working with an old code base (my day job *groan*). I think if there were no legal entanglements (i.e. if Atari hadn't suddenly tanked) patches would have rolled out and most people would be very happy. I can sympathize with idea that the release was premature and more testing was needed, but I have played some really buggy games from the big guys. I'm playing Fallout New Vegas now (by no means a new game) and that is buggier than a piece of cheesecake left out on a hot day. That games hasn't improved that much from it's initial release (well, at least it doesn't CDT all the time anymore...).
Trent tweeted about path finding. I also wondered about this. Seems like it should be a straight forward thing to fix, right? Well apparently not:
Add to it the debugging work of a game that hasn't received an official patch for the last 10 years and you should be able to understand the difficulty of a project like BGEE.
You should also consider taking in account the actual size of the Overhaul team, from what I understand there's not more than 15 people working on BGEE.
In my eyes, people from Overhaul have done an excellent job overcoming every difficulty they encountered and maintaining the willpower for the whole time.
Mind you, I've long stated the belief that if certain conditions were met - if the majority of bugs could be dealt with without spawning new ones, if popular mods like BG1NPC and Ascension could be incorporated (or, at the very least, if compatibility could be assured), and if additional exclusive story content were released (like the oft-rumored trip to Boareskyr Bridge) - BG:EE could supplant the original games altogether. But it's not there yet.
@Fredjo: That seems to cross the line into apologetics - customers are under no obligation to care about technical, logistic or legal difficulties involved in products. I didn't force Beamdog to pursue this project, but I did pre-order the game based on promises they made before launch. Some of those promises have been met, some have not. Do they get points for effort? Sure, I guess. But that doesn't immunize them from criticism.
In my eyes there are two paths the developers can choose when announcing their new project. They can either publicize the features of the new game that are highly viable and to be released and thus make the project more readable so people know what to expect and use this knowledge to produce their own ideas.
Or they can put a mist over the project during most of its development stage only to release the features at the very end of let's say alpha version and to make sure all of the features are all in place, prolonging the production stage by another year.
A project like BGEE where money are a limiting factor and pre-order is a viable option to fund the project itself, because Kickstarter was not allowed by the publisher, the most efficient way is to publicize the features even if they are a matter of future patches and let the fans know that if they support this game by buying it, they WILL get the announced features. And this is the way it works in many projects on Kickstarter, and I use this analogy because BGEE actually made their own Kickstarter on this website by pre-selling BGEE over 7 months before the official release.
Now to get back to what I posted, comparing projects made by multi-million$ companies such as Bioware with BGEE simply doesn't comply. Bioware had all ME rights, the game itself was coded a few years before the ME sequel, they could use the same tools and the same amount of employees.
Beamdog works on a new release of a 15 years old game build on an anachronistic engine, none of their employees had worked on that game and their financial options are MUCH more limited.
This is no apologetics, it's the reality, and with the information Beamdog had released long before BGEE came out, one could realistically conclude that the BGEE project have a bumpy path in front of it. But it's the passion and willpower that turns projects into reality and we should recognize that, whenever some of us feel frustrated or "cheated" that this projects doesn't have the smoothed out path like those of the large companies.
Now, I happen to know these things because I'm a fan of the BG games, and I came to these forums and paid attention because I like having the occasional tidbit of "inside knowledge". But that has nothing - nothing - to do with my priorities as a customer. It's not like Beamdog marketed the game with "Yeah, we're a small group, so don't get your hopes up." And eight patches in six months isn't a good look for anyone, particularly when the latest ones are still introducing new bugs to the game.
Comparing AAA-type games to BG:EE is unfair? Fine, let's go the other way: Supergiant Games has a smaller team and they released "Bastion" with no significant hurdles. Zeboyd Games consists of two people and they managed to put out "Cthulhu Saves The World" without any problems. "Rise of the Triad" is explicitly based on a game that's even older than BG and there was no drama there.
No one's saying Beamdog completely failed in its stated goals, but let's not kid ourselves: some of the criticism directed at the EE was well-deserved. What remains to be seen is whether lessons were learned and implemented for the next one.
Bastion? Smaller game, modern game engine.
Cthulhu Saves The World? Again, much smaller game.
Rise of the Triad? You're seriously comparing the work in developing a massive RPG to remaking a 1994 First Person Shooter that used the Wolfenstein Engine?
Criticize Overhaul if you want, but don't talk about the amount of work that went into it as if you have any clue what you're talking about. Making fixes and changes in the source code is considerably more work than hacking together a mod.
Thank you for the info regarding the BGEE+2EE package, I stand corrected. But I'm repeating myself when I state that making a game from scratch is always easier than enhancing 15y years old project. This is truth in all areas where there's innovation and computing is the area with probably the steepest innovation curve. The fact that you choose to not use the whole of your knowledge on a given subject and choose to narrow your thinking into "customer-mindset" is your own decision. I can only tell you that this I-DEMAND-attitude won't help to speed up the development and critique is functional only if the receiver of such critique is also the one responsible for the problems, which Beamdog in the case of Atari's total failure clearly is not
I won't try to persuade you that 8 patches in 6 months is enough because it is highly subjective, I can only say for myself that the features added before Atari's failure were satisfactory to me and with the next patch behind the doors I can honestly say that my critique would only aim at Atari for being financially incompetent and Bioware for being reckless by loosing the source files.
And really, any comparison to any other game can be slanted to serve as either defense or criticism, but I brought those points up because Fredjo was justifying the problems by claiming that if "Mass Effect 3" had a problematic launch, then it's perfectly justified for BG:EE to have one too, as if the two were in any way related.
But the real question I would ask is why do these problems happen? For other game developers the problem often had to do with someone higher up pulling the plug and insisting that an unfinished product go out the door. You can't argue with the need for a revenue stream and timing matters. In this case I think inheriting an old buggy code base has something to do with it. Anyway, I really wouldn't assume it has to do with a lack of talent or capabilities of the dev team.
As for the inclusion of larger, popular mods (particularly BG1NPC), my personal opinion is that they're not at any sort of required level of quality. BG1NPC, while an impressive project that has moments of excellence, varies far too wildly in quality. It is by no means consistent. It's a great mod that many people love, but that doesn't mean it is up to professional standards. Additionally, from a legal perspective, the sheer amount of contributors Beamdog would need to get signoff from who are no longer available makes it nearly impossible anyway.
But to get back to the point @shawne is trying to make, I actually agree. To the consumer, it doesn't matter what difficulties the developers had while making the product. It doesn't matter if they had a small budget, a tiny schedule and hordes of contractual obligations and problems. At the end of the day, it's about the product in the hands of consumers, and whether that matches expectations or not.
All we can do is our best, working on a product we love, and make it the best it can be with the time and resources we have. We are very lucky to have many fantastic fans and supporters, and that's awesome, but we're under no illusions. We are all our own worst critics, after all.
For me, I get that everyone wants to do their best work. We all want to hit a home run every single time. We want to be seen as providing quality products out of the gate every single time.
The other side of the coin is (and this is from my own perspective), taking someone else's code and debugging/fixing/repurposing it is a TOUGH job. I give a lot of credit to those who do it as nine times out of ten in my world it is about ten times easier to simply write new code. I imagine that game making is similar (but don't know for a fact). Add to that the fact that games are insanely complex and BG even more so that a lot that is out in the market today, I'd bet that touching someone else's code takes an incredible head to make it all work out. So in that, I think the folks at Beamdog and Overhaul deserve at least some credit and some slack.
Lest people think that it is all wine and roses, I heard a story some years ago about the initial Beta for Diablo. The story (and I don't know for a fact that it was true) goes that one particular version of the beta actually ATE hard drives on certain models of computers. This was a BETA, which means that it had gone through a boatload of testing prior. Again, i can't speak to the voracity of the claim, but it stuck with me.
There is also a game company whom I shall not name here who made the famous claim "Its not a bug, it's a feature" for one game. And in still another case there was a Mech game that came out a few years ago that quite simply would not work right out of the box on any computer.
And then there is the whole mess that is Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Dranor. If you saved while invisible, it corrupted your save game. And that was just one of the many bugs and really hideously poor game design choices for that game.
My point is, yes hold the game developers to a standard of excellence. it is your money after all. Yes, call out and report bugs and issues. Yes, if issues aren't responded too, speak louder or with your wallet. For my money? BG:EE was less than half of the cost of games that I have spent less than 1/10th as much time with. I haven't encountered any game breaking bugs (though others might have) and they are working on the issues. This in my mind is head and shoulders above some games I could mention. I don't look too poorly on them for giving me a bunch of hours of game play for not insane amounts of money.
PS: looking for the patch as well.
Re: mods, I completely agree that BG1NPC is a variable experience, to say nothing of the fact that player preference is variable as well and not everyone wants to use it. But I would have liked to at least have the option of installing it myself. Granted, I know why most mods are incompatible with the EE, but that still counts as a point against it, particularly given the lack of newer story content to offset the loss of modded material.
All that said, I think it'll come down to what the immediate future holds; with the legal hurdles jumped and development back on track, the next move is Beamdog's.
Feel free to bash BG:EE on features vs. it's competition, but bugs? Everyone knows bugs are worked out over time, and that's the one thing this product has not had yet...time to get it right.
There is more they could have done at release, but all of that needs to be tempered with the understanding that they're a small development shop taking on a pretty large project with really no financial backing. This really is a boot strapping project by the dev team, and that puts really significant pressures on deadlines and time lines.
At the end of the day the dev staff has to be able to afford to pay rent, eat, and drive between their jobs and homes. And in a small development shop like this with very little financial backing, there comes a period where you must ship it, if for no better reason than you need the purchase revenue to keep the doors open and the lights on.
You suggest that as a customer you shouldn't have to worry about this, that it's not your job to be concerned over their problems. Except, it is. As consumers we do this every day of our lives...we buy Sony and Samsung TV's over Westinghouse and Avia because we trust the larger companies to produce a better product. We purchase a Seagate or Maxtor harddrive over Hitachi because we're more comfortable with the quality of the brand. We go to the mom and pop hole in the wall for burgers over that huge conglomerate down the street on the corner because the hole in the wall serves a higher quality burger.
We make choices every day about the quality of what we buy and a huge part of those choices is based around our inherent understanding of what large companies and small companies do best.
Why is it different in this case? Is it a surprise to you that a small development shop has higher financial restrictions and more / driving goals they must meet with regards to deadlines than someone like EA would with it's huge financial reserves? Is it really a surprise that OverHaul couldn't hire a thousand professional beta testers and sit in beta for months more fixing problems and bugs?
Your choice should have been clear: Pick up a new piece of software just out of the development shop or wait for a while and pick it up after it's matured. ANYONE who's purchased software before understands buying v1.0 means you're going to be dealing with bugs.
OverHaul isn't blameless, but having the expectation that this development company is going to be different than any of the hundreds of thousands of others in regards to the v1.0 rule is putting them on a pedestal to be knocked off more easily.
Maybe it's me, but the title bugs me like an eye sore.
To all you guys, I just think about the amount of vitriol that gets spread around for a host of games that I've played and enjoyed, but were delivered with a host of problems. They weren't perfect, there was a lot of anger but we all kind of forgot about it. Usually some time after the heavy patching was done.