Because PC games were much more complex.
Simpler games did not have bugs, the complex ones did.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Before patches were possible, how did console games deal with bugs?
- Thread starter frogger
- Start date
Because PC games were much more complex.
Simpler games did not have bugs, the complex ones did.
TheSpoiler
Member
PC gamers have dealt with this for years. Fucking Daggerfall was a mess on launch, but either the developers released a patch, or the fans did. It just became a thing that was accepted, not due to complexity.
But I think of this has a lot to do with how ingrained you were with gaming as a kid, and I mean that online. Offline, most mags didn't give a shit about announcing problems that a game had. Sometimes, it was too late, or sometimes it just wasn't with their narrative.
The advent of gaming forums filled that hole. You'd have people complain about console titles just as they are today. It's scary how things don't change all that much.
No, it hurts too much. There are a lot of memories I'd rather not dredge up!
I remember reading several angry reader letters in gaming mags about getting stuck in walls and under the floor in Donkey Kong Country around the time of its release. I think this title is a good example of an early rushed out game (had to get it out in time for Christmas) prone to glitches.
Elaugaufein
Member
As people have said there were plenty of minor bugs that never got fixed. They definitely did better critical path testing though, flat out game breaking stuff was much rarer, but the critical path was generally a lot simpler in those days (games with complicated critical paths like Metroidvanias and RPGs tended to have their share of sequence breaking bugs that could potential break the game).
Not necessarily, sometimes it was exactly the same game that was much more buggy on the PC version. Probably to do to having to support many hardware variations.
But a game wouldn't ship broken. Bf4 would corrupt my save practicality every time I played it. Had to beaf it in two sessions (I got lucky and it didn't currupt the save the 3rd time I played it. Online broken for who knows how long. If I actually connected to a game (that was usually stuttering) I would play until the match crashed, then tried again. It was like that for months. That wouldn't happen back then.
KarneeKarnay
Member
Now things are looking up, but do you think that when this game shipped it was in a working condition?
I never had game crashing bugs on the PC versions. If there was issues with the console versions it's news to me.
EDIT; In response to people who claim there have always been game breaking bugs regardless of generation. Yes. You are right that there have been game breaking/even console breaking bugs in the last generations. That said this and the last generation have released so many games with these game breaking bugs, that it has led to a large chunk of people refusing to pre-order anymore or at the very least not play it for the first week due to all the bugs that will come out.
In the generations before to release one game with a game breaking bug was a huge deal. Now because of Patching no one cares because it will be gone with the next patch. What I disagree with is that we have to accept that games will be broken on release. At least when I was growing up I could walk out of a store in full confidence that the game I had just purchased would be playable the moment I got home.
Morrowind on Xbox?
MadScientist
Banned
Most often you did not realize that your game had bugs since you could not read about them on the internet. There was no way to tell if a freeze was caused by the game or your hardware. You might not have encountered that strange glitch that could happen in the game. You did not have forum threads or youtube vids to go by, just your personal experience.
TheSpoiler
Member
I never read the letters second, so I probably missed all that huffing.
But it's an example of a great game that had problems. Which relates to these responses:
Which is absolute bullshit.
ghostwritingduck
Member
It's not an apples to apples comparison. There was no online option. Look back at a game like Battletoads on NES where you couldn't get past the third level if you were playing with a friend. I'm guessing everyone here is just really young, because there have always been broken games being released. People just remember the classics, but there was tons of offensive shit.
Specifically, the 'known shippable' designation has expanded its embrace and loosened its grip on what it actually allows/stops, to the point that the term now seems like something which has become less of a quality-enabling tool on the developer end and become more of a profit-enabling sluice-gate on the publisher end. Less about catching, more about letting through. It's the cloven-hoofed offspring of more aggressively chased videogame economics and the digital era's enabling of a fix-it-later approach.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
It's pretty funny to see people act like Nintendo are infallible, when at least two of the latest Zelda games (TP and SS) have had disastrous game-breaking bugs. Wii games being unpatchable didn't help Nintendo test those games thoroughly enough. I ran into the SS one, which stops you from progressing past a certain point if you talk to a certain character at the wrong time, and that was it. Game over. This was pretty far into the game, and I didn't feel like starting over at all. Luckily someone on a gaming forum had a save almost exactly where I was, so I was able to keep going (although not with quite the same upgrades and such, so it wasn't really "my" Link). I finished the game, but that whole ordeal really put a damper on the experience.
They later released a special Wii channel that would fix your SS save, but that didn't exactly help me back then.
So games being patchable is a very good thing, with how complex games are these days. Sure, it probably leads to companies testing their games a bit less than they should, but it's better than the alternative.
abstract alien
Member
Pretty much. This is why Mario tends to age so well from a design perspective in comparison to most other titles. Along with a slew of their other titles. Patches are good to have in case a situation arises, but they should NEVER be a crutch.
Depends on if you count it as a bug - it could perhaps be an intended feature, but it's certainly unconventional - but Space Invaders on the 2600 had an issue where holding reset on booting the game allowed two shots on screen at a time rather than one.
My gut is that that wasn't intentional, but without talking to the coders, it's hard to be sure.
I recall the - infamous at the time - Attic Bug for Jet Set Willy. Quite simply, the game was a collect-em-up set in a large flipscreen mansion; collect all the items and return to the Master Bedroom to win. However, there was a catch: If you entered The Attic, a bunch of other rooms scattered around the mansion would then kill you immediately if you entered them.
Interestingly, at first, Software Projects actually denied that this was a bug, instead claiming it was intended to make the game harder (stating that those rooms 'filled with poison gas' after you went there). Later on, some players found out how to fix the bug with a few POKE instructions, which were later appropriated and distributed in magazines as the Official Software Projects POKEs:
...which is, technically, possibly the first actual instance of a patch.
(The real reason for the bug? There was a special type of enemy in the game, an arrow which fired periodically from offscreen and travelled the length of the screen. The Attic had an arrow in it that was actually placed *outside* the bounds of the screen in incorrect memory, so as it 'flew' it actually corrupted the memory it travelled through!)
The Hobbit - the famous Melbourne House text adventure from the 80's - was originally intended to have the command "DO MAGIC", which was scrapped before release. However, the verb "DO" was left in, and behaved oddly. IIRC, if you were to type, say, "SMASH DRAGON DO", it would kill the dragon; and KILL <something> DO would smash an inert object.
Also on text adventures, Infocom titles were littered with bugs, and had several different revisions through the years. They were catalogued in the (now defunct) webzine XYZZYNews for a while, which is how I discovered them, but they've since been archived in a more formal database
In short, bugs have existed for ages. The more complex the game, the more likely it is for a bug to creep in. It's very easy to have rose-tinted goggles about the olden days, but back then it was, well, a lot easier to find bugs to fix.
That's not completely exonerating publishers of today. I do think there is still a bit of a culture of sacrificing robustness in the name of scale which wasn't really as pronounced in the past and I think that's unhealthy in the long run. I don't think that's down to 'the ability to patch', though, more a reflection of the demands of the audience of today.
My gut is that that wasn't intentional, but without talking to the coders, it's hard to be sure.
I recall the - infamous at the time - Attic Bug for Jet Set Willy. Quite simply, the game was a collect-em-up set in a large flipscreen mansion; collect all the items and return to the Master Bedroom to win. However, there was a catch: If you entered The Attic, a bunch of other rooms scattered around the mansion would then kill you immediately if you entered them.
Interestingly, at first, Software Projects actually denied that this was a bug, instead claiming it was intended to make the game harder (stating that those rooms 'filled with poison gas' after you went there). Later on, some players found out how to fix the bug with a few POKE instructions, which were later appropriated and distributed in magazines as the Official Software Projects POKEs:
Code:
POKE 60231,0
POKE 42183,11
POKE 59901,82
POKE 56876,4...which is, technically, possibly the first actual instance of a patch.
(The real reason for the bug? There was a special type of enemy in the game, an arrow which fired periodically from offscreen and travelled the length of the screen. The Attic had an arrow in it that was actually placed *outside* the bounds of the screen in incorrect memory, so as it 'flew' it actually corrupted the memory it travelled through!)
The Hobbit - the famous Melbourne House text adventure from the 80's - was originally intended to have the command "DO MAGIC", which was scrapped before release. However, the verb "DO" was left in, and behaved oddly. IIRC, if you were to type, say, "SMASH DRAGON DO", it would kill the dragon; and KILL <something> DO would smash an inert object.
Also on text adventures, Infocom titles were littered with bugs, and had several different revisions through the years. They were catalogued in the (now defunct) webzine XYZZYNews for a while, which is how I discovered them, but they've since been archived in a more formal database
In short, bugs have existed for ages. The more complex the game, the more likely it is for a bug to creep in. It's very easy to have rose-tinted goggles about the olden days, but back then it was, well, a lot easier to find bugs to fix.
That's not completely exonerating publishers of today. I do think there is still a bit of a culture of sacrificing robustness in the name of scale which wasn't really as pronounced in the past and I think that's unhealthy in the long run. I don't think that's down to 'the ability to patch', though, more a reflection of the demands of the audience of today.
thewhitehawk
Member
Sure, there was cut content all the time in games, but what he meant by that is that the game was functional, had very few bugs. Not that it had all the content that the devs intended.
PetriP-TNT
Member
This is a very nice post, well done. Didn't know that Jet Set Willy thing beforehand, very interesting!
That never meant anything in regards to buggy games back in the day, just counterfeit games and non Nintendo cartridges. And it definitely didn't mean much in recent years with the Wii.
eh...
It seems most companies nowadays use the day 1 customer as beta tester.
Good thing that I had literally not a single freeze on NES.
Here's one of my favorite ways that bugs were dealt with pre-patching.
http://www.insomniacgames.com/self-exploitation/
TheSpoiler
Member
Oh, then that statement would still be wrong then, since I and many others have listed numerous games with bigger issues than AC:U and co.
Do people seriously believe that there were no bugs? lol
Last week with all those speedruns was a great opportunity to see lots of them.
The PAL version of Digimon World was so broken you had to know beforehand how to avoid the bugs to be able to finish the game. As far as I know this never got fixed.
Last week with all those speedruns was a great opportunity to see lots of them.
The PAL version of Digimon World was so broken you had to know beforehand how to avoid the bugs to be able to finish the game. As far as I know this never got fixed.
TheSpoiler
Member
It's not that the games don't have glitches. It's that they aren't gamebreaking and numerous.
Which is wrong!
MrCunningham
Member
The buggy ones would drop to bargain bin prices and the developers would hope and prey that some cheap ass parents would pick them up for their kids.
These never reflected on the actual quality of the game. In Nintendo's case this badge only meant that the game met their strict guidelines and that the parts used in the cartridges would meet the standards of Nintendo. It also meant that any game that used this came from an officially licensed developer and the game would not be locked out by the Nintendo lockout chips.
I'm sure Sega followed the exact same guidelines.
But bugs like these only made the original Super Mario Bros. more awesome.Seriously, the bugs are part of this games charm.
These never reflected on the actual quality of the game. In Nintendo's case this badge only meant that the game met their strict guidelines and that the parts used in the cartridges would meet the standards of Nintendo. It also meant that any game that used this came from an officially licensed developer and the game would not be locked out by the Nintendo lockout chips.
I'm sure Sega followed the exact same guidelines.
Hey guys, remember this:
But bugs like these only made the original Super Mario Bros. more awesome.Seriously, the bugs are part of this games charm.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
A big part of it is that games just weren't scrutinized so minutely back in the day. If a game chugged at certain points people just accepted that's how it was, nowadays it seems like a moratorium gets demanded every time a frame-rate isn't high or stable enough.
I suspect this is partly a result of the collapse of the mid-tier. These days it seems like any full-price title, or even anything put out by a major publisher is treated like a AAA offering, which shouldn't be the case - it certainly never was that way historically.
Little B-tier titles and AAA's generally sold at the same price-point, they shared a standard RRP based on the delivery medium not the content. Meaning that there was much more expected variance in the quality of the software, and gamers were generally more forgiving of bugs and performance issues provided the game was still fun.
Nowadays it seems like price-point is almost irrelevant, (I can't remember the last time I read a review that gave allowances for a title shipped at a budget price), and people make judgements and expectations based solely on the publisher's name.
I suspect this is partly a result of the collapse of the mid-tier. These days it seems like any full-price title, or even anything put out by a major publisher is treated like a AAA offering, which shouldn't be the case - it certainly never was that way historically.
Little B-tier titles and AAA's generally sold at the same price-point, they shared a standard RRP based on the delivery medium not the content. Meaning that there was much more expected variance in the quality of the software, and gamers were generally more forgiving of bugs and performance issues provided the game was still fun.
Nowadays it seems like price-point is almost irrelevant, (I can't remember the last time I read a review that gave allowances for a title shipped at a budget price), and people make judgements and expectations based solely on the publisher's name.
Fallout-with-swords
Banned
I've never finished GTA: SA because of a game breaking bug.
Oh, that reminds me. Final Fantasy I is littered with bugs.
* Most weapons intended to deal increased damage against certain enemies... don't.
* TMPR and SABR spells do nothing.
* LOCK always misses.
* LOK2, intended to decrease an enemy's evasion by 20, instead increases it by 20
* HEL2, used in combat, actually acts as HEL3.
* Critical hit tests don't use the critical hit stat. Instead they use the weapon's index number.
* Fleeing from battle is meant to be based on LUCK and the character's LEVEL. Instead it's based on LUCK and
- For character 1, it's based on the status of Character 3
- For character 2, it's based on the status of Character 4
- For character 3, it's based on the identifier of the character (enemy or player) who attacks *third*
- For character 4, it's based on the final digit of their HP
* The INTELLIGENCE stat is completely unused. It's *meant* to affect the size of a spell's damage or healing
* The Peninsula of Power is, of course, a bug.
I'm sure there was *something* about the Ribbon, too, but I can't remember what.
(That's mainly from a wiki, but I picked up general information about FF1's bugs from this Let's Play by someone who knows the game well.)
NinjaBoyLao
Member
I remember Pokemon Ruby had a major berry related bug that was "patched" when you link them on newer carts)or was it FRLG)
There are some bugs that are then accepted as feature like double jump, combos and Ermac.
Overall, even though there are bugs back then, I feel like they were missed by QA team compared to now that some bugs looks like there are no QA team at all.
There are some bugs that are then accepted as feature like double jump, combos and Ermac.
Overall, even though there are bugs back then, I feel like they were missed by QA team compared to now that some bugs looks like there are no QA team at all.
Elaugaufein
Member
IIRC they didn't forget to use it, there was a bug in the code that meant that Magic Evasion was used instead of Physical Evasion even on physical attacks. Final Fantasy is littered with bugs like this (eg VII never uses an armors Magic Defence value due to a typo)
FRLG , Emerald and a bunch of GameCube pokemon games, as well as a handful of other things.
th4tguy
Member
They were though.
Most devs acted as qa back in the cart days because the teams weren't large. The games were far less complicated compared to today as well and yet there were still busted games with lots of bugs and even game breaking bugs. They either got fixed in the next print run or dropped to bargain bins quickly. If the game was a major franchise or one of the bugs caused enough controversy they would issue a recall.
Lot of rose rented glasses in this thread.
Auto-Reply
Member
I'm one of those people not having the recollection of frequently buggy games in the past (C64/Amiga/Snes etc), certainly not as cumulated as now, maybe I was not aware of them without the internet.
Shit hit the fan in the middle of last gen imo, that's when devs slowly realised that they can extend the development time beyond the release date because coneccted consoles have become the majority.
Shit hit the fan in the middle of last gen imo, that's when devs slowly realised that they can extend the development time beyond the release date because coneccted consoles have become the majority.
They were tons of major/gamebreaking bugs then too, you can find some exemples there:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameBreakingBug
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameBreakingBug
Starwolf_UK
Member
Here is one that was annoying. The internal memory in the N64 release WWF No Mercy is fucking useless in the launch version as it would erase itself periodically (which is why it got the nickname WWF No Memory). The game does support memory packs as an alternative to saving progress (but since many games on the N64 hard cart memory it is possible not to own one) and later releases fixed it.
At least game breaking bugs these days don't break other games.
The thing is the build date on v1.1 which was the first one without the song actually predates the launch of the game itself.
Great post. The PS2 Viewtiful Joe demo is another example of a game responsible for Memory Card genocide.
At least game breaking bugs these days don't break other games.
Theonik
Member
Yes, though most games shipped with less issues I think as a whole, as the planning of a release without accounting for post-release maintenance was different then, as was the size and scope of the software released.
Now it is impossible to ship absolutely error free code, and a lot of games shipped, with game-breaking errors even, most of which were never fixed, since it was much more expensive to do so back then, making the business case of fixing games much more negative. In the event that a flaw was considered critical enough to act upon, recalls or fixing in later prints of the game was favoured.
An example of this is Spyro 3, which shipped with a game breaking bug where getting a certain token needed to finish the game at a certain point was not recorded properly. As a result the final level could not be unlocked unless you restarted the game from scratch and got that token or you played the later re-issue of the game, which I think would let you fix your borked save.
Karsticles
Member
In ages past, developers actually found and fixed the majority of their bugs before releasing a game. Certainly, a few bugs still remained, but they were the exception rather than the rule.
That wasn't the reason, especially when numerous PC games were ported to SNES.
Patches are not new. PC games have been patched since the days of AOL and even before that. In the really old days, PC developers shipped patches on floppies to customers through snail mail USPS.
KojiKnight
Member
Simple games a few megabytes in size, programmed by 5-15 developers were a lot easier to debug than what we have today... with up to 500 developers working on 40-50GB worth of data and code.
That's the real truth. It's not some great conspiracy of devs spending less time on QA, quite the opposite they are spending MUCH more time now... but it's a LOT harder to track down and fix bugs, especially on tight release schedules.
That's the real truth. It's not some great conspiracy of devs spending less time on QA, quite the opposite they are spending MUCH more time now... but it's a LOT harder to track down and fix bugs, especially on tight release schedules.
They curtailed their ambition. No really. Devs used known code, middle wear and took less risks on consoles before patching. That's why I played PC games more than console before the PS3/360 generation, I felt like that was where the big ideas were happening. I like the idea of software in progress myself, which is why I love betas and early access. But not shipping final games that are broken.
Lets say that Driveclub and MCC were released as works in progress/early access programs. The price would be maybe 30 dollars to be part of that. The devs would have more time, the audience would be more forgiving and the final games would be even better for it. The huge sales at the start would be gone, but overall reception would be positive.
Lets say that Driveclub and MCC were released as works in progress/early access programs. The price would be maybe 30 dollars to be part of that. The devs would have more time, the audience would be more forgiving and the final games would be even better for it. The huge sales at the start would be gone, but overall reception would be positive.
I'm not saying it didn't happen ever but it was rare back then. Now a day patch is expected. How fucked up is that? Everyone was pissed off at the original xbone because of always online, but if you don't have online at all then you're sol in a lot of cases. Look at Assassins creed unity and the ungodly update patch to fix the game. Yeah you can technically beat the game without the patch, but that patch is pretty much the game. If you bought that game you got a blu-ray disc with junk code in it.
You literally cannot beat the atari 7800 port of impossible mission, they placed one of the necessary codes on top of a computer terminal, so if you try to grab it, you access the terminal instead.
There was never another revision, there is no fix. They clearly never tested the game, the game flat out can't be beaten.
If you installed myth 2 to the root and used the uninstaller, it would format your entire harddrive.
The us release of exile 2 had a single value changed by working designs just before shipping that they didn't test that broke the game, it gets exponentially harder as you progress until you get to the point where you cannot progress. WD issued an apology and advised people to just avoid combat.
What you are saying isn't reality.