He actually used New Vegas as example of a game that had a lot of bugs but was still acceptable? New Vegas was not acceptable. It had too many bugs to be acceptable. He is trying to argue that Black Ops is acceptable because New Vegas was acceptable, despite having more bugs, but it was not acceptable. New Vegas was broken on multiple levels at launch. Hence, his point is wrong.
Pachter in Major Tizzy With Advocacy Group Over Black Ops
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
I agree 100% with Pachter. I play Black Ops just fine on my PS3, I don't know what these people are complaining about. Just people finding an excuse to argue for no reason.
YDI for buying Black Ops in the first place. Maybe now you'll think twice before you buy the next Call Of Duty. They're certainly not going to put any more effort into their game the next time around.
This is my chance, finally, to say: "I informed you thusly".
Activision as a company is being a large corporate dick, but they are perfectly within their rights. Gamer's Voice is, at it's core, a group of gamers trying to exploit the ignorance of the legal and political world to make money off of their own poor consumer decision-making.
There's nothing more I can really say without ranting about my distaste for the most recent Call Of Duty games. I'll end on an advisory note: When you play a video game like Call of Duty, nobody will pity you when you run into "drop-shot"ers, "noob-tube"ers, modded lobbies, or people with rapid-fire modified controllers. The community for Call of Duty is a wretched hive of noobs, campers and cheaters. The publishers and developers for this series have a track record for ignoring the players once the game is released. If you decide to play it anyways, like the world's best example of a consumerist zombie, you revoke your right to complain when you encounter these staples of Call of Duty online gameplay.
While you get extremely angry at my forum post and quote me endlessly calling me a troll or a poor FPS player, I'll be playing the finely balanced Halo: Reach multiplayer quite happily.
This is my chance, finally, to say: "I informed you thusly".
Activision as a company is being a large corporate dick, but they are perfectly within their rights. Gamer's Voice is, at it's core, a group of gamers trying to exploit the ignorance of the legal and political world to make money off of their own poor consumer decision-making.
There's nothing more I can really say without ranting about my distaste for the most recent Call Of Duty games. I'll end on an advisory note: When you play a video game like Call of Duty, nobody will pity you when you run into "drop-shot"ers, "noob-tube"ers, modded lobbies, or people with rapid-fire modified controllers. The community for Call of Duty is a wretched hive of noobs, campers and cheaters. The publishers and developers for this series have a track record for ignoring the players once the game is released. If you decide to play it anyways, like the world's best example of a consumerist zombie, you revoke your right to complain when you encounter these staples of Call of Duty online gameplay.
While you get extremely angry at my forum post and quote me endlessly calling me a troll or a poor FPS player, I'll be playing the finely balanced Halo: Reach multiplayer quite happily.
Seems like there should almost be a seperate quality control company. A seperate entity like the ESRB but for regulating and judging a game based solely off its technical execution as apposed to its content.
Or add a seperate technical score to indipendant reviewers. Realizing that most of the time they take the technical glitches into account when reviewing them, it would be nice if they designed a seperate scoring system regarding the technical flaws of the product vs. how fun and inovative it is to begin with.
Patching through DLC is and will always be a horrible idea, at least for glitches that have been discovered prior to the release. I can understand hot fixes for small bugs that only came to light after thousands of people played the game for countless hours, but major ones that prevent gameplay most of the time should be worked out prior to launch... Thats what beta testing is for...
Or add a seperate technical score to indipendant reviewers. Realizing that most of the time they take the technical glitches into account when reviewing them, it would be nice if they designed a seperate scoring system regarding the technical flaws of the product vs. how fun and inovative it is to begin with.
Patching through DLC is and will always be a horrible idea, at least for glitches that have been discovered prior to the release. I can understand hot fixes for small bugs that only came to light after thousands of people played the game for countless hours, but major ones that prevent gameplay most of the time should be worked out prior to launch... Thats what beta testing is for...
New Vegas has had a few patches to fix bugs, quite soon after it was released. Is it still that buggy? I've had the great fortune of not encountering any bad bugs during my time playing it - and I spent way too much time playing it. Unless it's still broken I'd say the bugs were fixed in a timely manner, although I do agree with some that say it should have been pushed back to actually work them out before release.
And after the BS predictions he's made, he shouldn't really get any attention.cocoro67 said:
Seriously. If I was that bad at my job, I'd be living out of a cardboard box.
Wow i'm just surprised that Kotick hasn't walked out of his Mega Doom Fortress and farted in whoever runs Gamers Voice's face.
OT: Yeah people are well within their rights to complain about a apparently broken game (haven't played the PS3 version myself) but i'm pretty sure about 80-90% of people who complained will still buy COD: EXPLOSIONS AND BULLETS! When it comes out in November
OT: Yeah people are well within their rights to complain about a apparently broken game (haven't played the PS3 version myself) but i'm pretty sure about 80-90% of people who complained will still buy COD: EXPLOSIONS AND BULLETS! When it comes out in November
Filing a complaint is uncivilized? That strikes me as funny, given that we were talking about lawyers receiving death threats in another thread on this very page...I'm sure that lawyer guy would have been ecstatic over a complaint compared to what he got.
Sounds to me like this guy is worried something is going to come out and he's trying to intimidate GV into backing down.
Sounds to me like this guy is worried something is going to come out and he's trying to intimidate GV into backing down.
Maybe. Bugs for a console game can be bad mojo. I remember when Enter the Matrix came out and there was a big outcry because it would crash midgame for just about everybody. Of course these days you can download software onto a console to fix any bugs that came on the disc like you would get with a PC release. Though I have to wonder how many publishers and devs follow up on such things for console releases yet?Tom Goldman said:
Frankly that travesty called Fallout:New Vegas should have been held back til Summer '11. Gives a bit more time for fixes and guarantee better sales and response. As it is, even with news of patches, I ain't wasting my money on bricks and coasters.
However, I have a better question to ask. Is this argument alone to validate giving any kind of an ear to Pachter?
Edit:
My answer is....
Y'see, this is something that gets me wonderin', Activision, has a hard-on for the 360, it loves it some xbox, it's the reason you get the DLC a month and a half before I do, Now, Don't get me wrong, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but before patch 1.04, the game worked fine for me on the PS3, no horrid server and connectivity issues, no host dominated games and no lag time outs, then the patch self described as 'fixing certain bugs and sound effect issues" comes along and Boom, the online is damn near unplayable unless you happen to be the host.ryai458 said:
I'm just hoping the LA Niore port they get will be as bugged out and laggy as my PS3 Activision games have been for me, then maybe a little sympathy will be shown.
Blops freezes every single time I try and respond to someone's game invitation. It freezes when I try and play zombies. It freezes when I try and have a private match. It lags every single round, to the point of being unplayable.
BC2 rarely lags (1 in ten games, as opposed to 10 in 10 games with Blops), never freezes, and it rarely kicks me from matches. I only play Blops because all my friends have it.
BC2 rarely lags (1 in ten games, as opposed to 10 in 10 games with Blops), never freezes, and it rarely kicks me from matches. I only play Blops because all my friends have it.
For the amount of money Activision has made from the Call Of Duty series, the least they could do is fix the bugs after release if they are to lazy to do it before.