5 ms·

Yes, that's a common issue (though typically you had to push against a wall), and it's an issue that still occurs in games today. It's also one that doesn't im

Yes, that's a common issue (though typically you had to push against a wall), and it's an issue that still occurs in games today. It's also one that doesn't impact core gameplay for most people. Heck, a lot of players will feel quite clever for discovering and using abilities like that in a game. Fixing bugs like that require not fixing other bugs. They may have been aware of the issue and chose to fix other, more pressing bugs first. I'd strongly hesitate before labeling someone incompetent because their linear algebra didn't quite do vector math correctly in every case. I'm also surprised to hear you describe the devs of Doom as 'incompetent', given their widespread praise in the engineering community, specifically for their code. > Now some games may have intentionally copied common bugs for style reasons etc, but more often titles are just rushed out with many known bugs and or vastly insufficient QA. So in some ways, those bugs become a part of the culture. That's an interesting avenue to explore, but it's an aside from my point that insulting the devs (who probably aren't the ones making decisions about QA or release schedules) undermines a relationship speedrunners could have with the developer community. Unfortunately, QA costs money. Developers cost lots of money. Finding, root causing, and fixing bugs therefore costs lots and lots of money. You cannot just fix bugs forever, at some point you need to evaluate the current amount of money you've spent making the game and compare that to what you think you'll be able to make back on it. Does fixing that bug end up costing you more than you'll make back? Who knows, but it's a very real, complex prioritization problem that I don't think you are giving enough value or depth.

Retric 7y ago
Doom was a rather groundbreaking game so it’s often given a pass for many issues. However, a famous failure like the tacoma narrows bridge collapse is less likely to be repeated in other fields. The 20th game with the same failure really is best described as incompetence. Especially if it will often be discovered within 10 seconds of playing the game and it’s not a complex fix.
- ncallaway 7y ago
  > However, a famous failure like the tacoma narrows bridge collapse is less likely to be repeated in other fields. But, if we're comparing failure modes, can you at least agree that there's a pretty significant difference between: * The tacoma narrows bridge, where there entire bridge was totally destroyed narrowly avoiding loss of life, AND * A bug in a video game that impacts the movement speed in a not-negative way for 90% of the players? Like, if the strafe-bug was destroy millions of dollars in infrastructure and killing people I'd be on your side. But who cares if the 20th game has the same bug that doesn't affect most players in any way? I agree it'd be better if games had no bugs, but if I had to choose between a game being 1% more fun, or a game not-having the strafe-bug I take the game that's 1% more fun every-time. There's a nearly infinite set of tasks that sit in front of game-devs. The first thing you learn is that everything is an opportunity cost.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Sure structure collapse is a vastly larger downside, but also vastly harder to detect and fix. Nobody’s life is at stake in these games, but the gaming industry is both gigantic and competitive. So, a hypothetical 1% difference is enjoyment really can translate into 10’s of millions of dollars. Now, I don’t think this specific bug means a 1% drop, but it also does not take significant resources to fix. Also, it’s not just about immersion this has real impact on game balance. Can players run away from enemy X often makes a huge difference in terms of fun. Balance assuming people are running sideways and people get stuck playing that way, balance assuming normal running and tension feels fake because they can easily escape. Collectively obvious game bugs have killed off several game companies and represent billions in lost sales. As an industry that’s clearly extremely important even if we are just talking about entertainment.
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      > it also does not take significant resources to fix This is where you are wrong. Even small fixes can destabilize builds. Every change needs code review, testing, a build, release (and possibly release notes). You need to schedule time to work on it, which means prioritization meetings and advocating why this bug should be fixed and not the other large pile of bugs. Maybe you need to update some unit tests or automated feature tests. Maybe stop by the level designer's desk to make sure there weren't any baked in assumptions about player movement and space. Probably a good idea to chat with a gameplay designer as well to make sure it wasn't intentional (and also to validate that the fix doesn't actually make the game less fun.) Wouldn't hurt to go to a playtest and mention that it's been changed, see if anyone on the team notices. Actually, come to think of it, maybe you could put your fix behind a console command! Then you could quickly flip back and forth and see what you like better. But that also means adding a little more code and probably a little more documentation. Sure, on the face of it you've just changed one arithmetic function. But there is a ton of hidden work and complexity that surrounds that. As someone who made games for a living, there's a huge amount of unseen work that goes into even small changes. Players consistently underestimate the complexity of even minor fixes.
      - 7y ago
- SimonPStevens 7y ago
  This is ridiculous for so many reasons. Comparing a minor bug with player speed calculations in an edge case scenario with the total collapse of a bridge. They are on totally different scales. One cost lives. The other is a minor inconvenience at worst. When bugs are found you triage them, and if the expected cost to fix is greater than the expected benefit gained, you don't fix it. The benefit gained from fixing an edge case movement bug like this is minimal, so it will often be left unfixed. This isn't incompetence, it's just prioritisation.

Retric 7y ago

Doom was a rather groundbreaking game so it’s often given a pass for many issues. However, a famous failure like the tacoma narrows bridge collapse is less likely to be repeated in other fields. The 20th game with the same failure really is best described as incompetence. Especially if it will often be discovered within 10 seconds of playing the game and it’s not a complex fix.

ncallaway 7y ago
> However, a famous failure like the tacoma narrows bridge collapse is less likely to be repeated in other fields. But, if we're comparing failure modes, can you at least agree that there's a pretty significant difference between: * The tacoma narrows bridge, where there entire bridge was totally destroyed narrowly avoiding loss of life, AND * A bug in a video game that impacts the movement speed in a not-negative way for 90% of the players? Like, if the strafe-bug was destroy millions of dollars in infrastructure and killing people I'd be on your side. But who cares if the 20th game has the same bug that doesn't affect most players in any way? I agree it'd be better if games had no bugs, but if I had to choose between a game being 1% more fun, or a game not-having the strafe-bug I take the game that's 1% more fun every-time. There's a nearly infinite set of tasks that sit in front of game-devs. The first thing you learn is that everything is an opportunity cost.
- Retric 7y ago
  Sure structure collapse is a vastly larger downside, but also vastly harder to detect and fix. Nobody’s life is at stake in these games, but the gaming industry is both gigantic and competitive. So, a hypothetical 1% difference is enjoyment really can translate into 10’s of millions of dollars. Now, I don’t think this specific bug means a 1% drop, but it also does not take significant resources to fix. Also, it’s not just about immersion this has real impact on game balance. Can players run away from enemy X often makes a huge difference in terms of fun. Balance assuming people are running sideways and people get stuck playing that way, balance assuming normal running and tension feels fake because they can easily escape. Collectively obvious game bugs have killed off several game companies and represent billions in lost sales. As an industry that’s clearly extremely important even if we are just talking about entertainment.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    > it also does not take significant resources to fix This is where you are wrong. Even small fixes can destabilize builds. Every change needs code review, testing, a build, release (and possibly release notes). You need to schedule time to work on it, which means prioritization meetings and advocating why this bug should be fixed and not the other large pile of bugs. Maybe you need to update some unit tests or automated feature tests. Maybe stop by the level designer's desk to make sure there weren't any baked in assumptions about player movement and space. Probably a good idea to chat with a gameplay designer as well to make sure it wasn't intentional (and also to validate that the fix doesn't actually make the game less fun.) Wouldn't hurt to go to a playtest and mention that it's been changed, see if anyone on the team notices. Actually, come to think of it, maybe you could put your fix behind a console command! Then you could quickly flip back and forth and see what you like better. But that also means adding a little more code and probably a little more documentation. Sure, on the face of it you've just changed one arithmetic function. But there is a ton of hidden work and complexity that surrounds that. As someone who made games for a living, there's a huge amount of unseen work that goes into even small changes. Players consistently underestimate the complexity of even minor fixes.
    - 7y ago
SimonPStevens 7y ago
This is ridiculous for so many reasons. Comparing a minor bug with player speed calculations in an edge case scenario with the total collapse of a bridge. They are on totally different scales. One cost lives. The other is a minor inconvenience at worst. When bugs are found you triage them, and if the expected cost to fix is greater than the expected benefit gained, you don't fix it. The benefit gained from fixing an edge case movement bug like this is minimal, so it will often be left unfixed. This isn't incompetence, it's just prioritisation.