Now, I've worked as a game tester for almost 4 years, across 4 different companies and have put my skills to use over a myriad of games over that time. Generally our job in quality assurance is to act as, essentially, a last line of defense between product and consumer; or, to put it more literally, we work to make sure that the game that you've spent your hard earned dollars on actually works the way it is intended to. There was a time that games would have to be nearly impeccable to be released (no game can be 100% bug free, but they can come pretty damned close). However, in this age of universal online connectivity, it seems that gaming companies are simply allowing more bugs to fall through the cracks when submitting a game for release, with the safeguard that they can simply come out with a patch to fix them at a later time. I'm about to tell you why this lazy, money grubbing practice absolutely, positively sucks.
Before I get started on the disturbing trend in video games to allow their final product to ship with a serious case of techno-herpes, a brief overview on the testing process. Every game that is to be released on a major console has an insane amount of technical and functional requirements (that are unique to each console) that must be met in order for it to be released on each system. The testing process itself is a long and painstaking coordination between the testers playing each new build and reporting the bugs through some sort of database to the programmers, who then either decide to fix the bugs or can decide that particular bugs are inconsequential and not worth the time/money to fix. After the programmers have fixed a certain amount of bugs, a new build is sent to the testers and the process starts all over again. A game can go through hundreds, if not thousands of builds over it's life span from initial alpha build to the time it reaches a release candidate, otherwise known as a "gold master copy" (GMC).
Once a game has reached GMC, the testers have to make sure that the game is absolutely as bug free as humanly possibly. Every single facet of the game is checked and re-checked in order that the GMC will pass submission to whichever console it is intended to be released for. The game is then submitted to the company, who has their own highly skilled testing house, who then goes over the GMC with a fine tooth comb to ensure that the product meets all of their company's guidelines. If the GMC does not meet those guidelines, a failed submission report is sent back to the company indicating precisely what issues the game has that need to be fixed in order to pass submission. Any game publisher will do everything in their power to avoid this situation, as subsequent re-submissions can cost upwards of $10,000 and continues to cost more with every failed submission.
Stay with me people, it's really not that complicated.
Now, concerning those guidelines, they are far too numerous and many far too technical to get into here, but I will list some that even the casual gamer is probably familiar with. Perhaps the most obvious one is the dreaded "Crash". A game is actually allowed a certain number of crashes for submission, as long as they are incredibly rare, are unable to be reproduced reliably and that the crashes themselves do not in any way harm or alter settings on the hardware. If the game does crash frequently and the GMC is generally unstable, however, even if the individual crashes are unable to be reproduced reliably, these are grounds for a failed submission. The second major no-no is something called a "Progression Stopper", which, by the time most games reach a GMC, have been long since solved. These are instances in which the game continues to function normally (i.e. it does not crash), but something has occurred within the framework of the game that does not allow the player to proceed (for instance, the player requires a key that never appears). A prog stopper will almost always cause a failed submission. Finally, graphical corruption can also halt a submission, though generally a certain amount of minor corruption and graphical issues is usually forgiven.
Alright, enough with the game testing 101, I'm sure by this point you get the picture (and if not, well then, you're probably on the wrong blog). On to why I have, in the last couple of years, gotten such a bug up my ass about games being released with such glaring and numerous issues that could have never passed submission, yet somehow are on store shelves. For the bulk of this discussion, please turn your attention to one of the most lauded and award winning games of the last several years: Grand Theft Auto IV.
You can't tell from this angle, but the game is actually bleeding out of its asshole.
Is Grand Theft Auto 4 a bad game? No. As a matter of fact it's a rather ambitious and brilliant game that featured a great story line, top notch voice acting and insanely fun and varied game play. It might even be the best of the whole series. Yet somehow...I fucking hate this game. It is a perfect example of how a AAA title game can get released chock full of bugs, making it past submission simply because the publisher doesn't want to delay it any more than the console manufacturer does. There is a great amount of money to be made for both parties if the game simply gets released at its target date instead of spending the extra time and money to make sure that they are releasing a polished product. Perhaps I should elaborate. In my own experience with this game I encountered TWO major progression stoppers within the first 15 hours of game play. The first one I managed to find a workaround for so that I could continue the story line. The second progression stopper, which came at about hour 15, had me dead stopped. The bug occurs during the "Final Interview" mission, when Niko is supposed to receive a phone call to set up a job interview, though the player never receives the call and cannot progress.
I decided to hunt around online and see if others had encountered the same issue. Lo and behold, I found several forums dedicated to my exact problem. "Huzzah!!" I exclaimed as I greedily read through them, sure that I would find a solution. "MOTHERFUCKERSHITASSBALLS!!!" I exclaimed, as I came to the realization that there was no solution, the only option was to start the whole damn game over again and simply hope that it didn't occur a second time around. Now, Rockstar (the game's publisher) has clearly been aware of the two rather glaring issues for over two years now, yet has done absolutely nothing to solve them. The issues are so obvious and have been encountered by so many people, that Rockstar was probably even aware of them before release, yet did not want to push the release date. The general thinking was probably this: "we'll just release the game and patch the problems post-retail". However, due to the relatively small percentage of gamers who encountered this problem, Rockstar most likely eventually decided to not spend extra money and resources to fix a relatively isolated issue. The major problem with that line of thinking, aside from the obvious disregard for a number of their customers, is that it has brought the overall quality and polish of games down as a whole.
No, Jerry, not that kind of hole.
It's important to keep in mind that these faults do not generally lie with the testers. As I mentioned earlier, oftentimes, game testers will put a bug in the database that the programmers feel is not worth the effort to fix or are simply out of time to do so. I can almost guarantee that the testers found both of these major bugs throughout the course of testing and attempts were made at fixing them. When that all important submission date rolls around though, for a blockbuster game such as GTA 4, the longer the game is delayed equals more money being spent and less money being made off of the product, so (at least in my speculation), both game publisher and console sides say "fuck it, let's just push it out there". I have personally worked on a number of smaller games that have failed submission, several times, for far less egregious bugs. The reason those smaller games never see the light of day until EVERY submission requirement has been met, is because the console side does not exactly stand to make an enormous windfall from the release of those smaller titles, only the game's publisher. A game like "Puzzle Time USA" (fake game name, this is just an example) will not be causing the masses to rush out and buy a PS3 or an XBox 360, but a big name game like GTA4 absolutely will and therefore, the rules are relaxed in order to simply get it onto store shelves. So what you will eventually end up with (and we are already seeing more and more of this all the time) are a bunch of epic, amazing, big budget titles simply infested with bugs, but all the smaller titles that most could care less about, being the only games that manage to come out squeaky clean.
Unfortunately, right now it doesn't seem like anything can really be done about this situation and if anything, it's getting worse. Amazing games like "Batman: Arkham City" (I crashed several times on a single playthrough) and even Nintendo's (who has a reputation for releasing about the most bug free games out there) "Skyward Sword" have ended up being plagued with bugs after release. It feels like a pretty dangerous road for the industry to be heading down, as you would never see this in any other. It's not as if they make an automobile and release it to the public, knowing full well that several safety features on the car don't work. They don't release a major motion picture with scenes completely missing or audio that isn't present, only to "update" it when they have the time and technology (unless you are George Lucas, of course). If this continues to be the trend in gaming as the years go on, relying only on updating a game with patch after patch (or simply deciding not to fix a problem because only a small percentage of gamers are encountering it), instead of ensuring that they are releasing a finished product, I feel that the abuse of that method can do nothing but hamper the industry as a whole. But if anyone has managed to find a workaround for the "Final Interview" bug, make sure and send it my way, will ya?
No comments:
Post a Comment