4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - Retric 7y ago
    This this is not some obscure off by one error. You see it in basic game building tutorials. Hell, I will admit to making this mistake on an early game, but only once. Not making the mistake in the first place should generally prevent the issue even if it was never fixed in any game ever. I am calling it incompetence specifically because it’s the kind of mistake you make when you don’t know what you’re doing. PS: If detecting and fixing an issue like this is a significant issue for your team, that’s a much larger issue you need to deal with.
- pushpop 7y ago
  Even if that were true, fixing the kind of irrelevant bugs you describe would do far more damage to the games industry due to the cost of development (and I’m being generous here because I don’t even believe your claim that running sideways against a wall has ever caused a game studio to go bust let alone cost billions in lost sales). You seem to believe this notion that it is possible to write bug free code. Which suggests to me you’ve never written anything serious because you’re comments are textbook examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
  - Retric 7y ago
    I am describing buggy games as costing billions, rather than suggesting this is the only bug that ever occurred. There are many expensive examples where excessive bugs tanked sales.
    - pushpop 7y ago
      The kind of bugs that hamper game sales aren’t the kind of bugs that speed runners exploit - which is what you were originally arguing about. Sure, some games are released buggy. But even there, blaming the developers just demonstrates how little you experience you actually have with professional software development. You think developers are really that stupid that they don’t know when their own games suck? Usually bad games get released because of financial and/or time restrictions rather than a lack of pride from developers. And often bugs will just be placed on a snag list and prioritised in order of estimated time to fix vs the severity of the bug. Which means many of the bugs you described would just never be financially beneficial to patch. You keep talking about the monetary impact of bugs while ignoring the fact that software development is a business and thus saving will always be cut where needed. Having your development time prolonged by 12 months to fix bugs most people won’t even see is perhaps the single most expensive and unnecessary way to drive your development. Frankly I’m astonished anyone would believe development happens the way you idealise, let alone dare to call other engineers incompetent for not writing perfect software.
      - Retric 7y ago
- krageon 7y ago
  I imagine the reason you keep getting asked about the impact of a given bug is because fixing bugs is always (and should always be, given limited time) a value proposition where the time spent fixing has to be weighed against the improvement for the average player.

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.
- Retric 7y ago
  This this is not some obscure off by one error. You see it in basic game building tutorials. Hell, I will admit to making this mistake on an early game, but only once. Not making the mistake in the first place should generally prevent the issue even if it was never fixed in any game ever. I am calling it incompetence specifically because it’s the kind of mistake you make when you don’t know what you’re doing. PS: If detecting and fixing an issue like this is a significant issue for your team, that’s a much larger issue you need to deal with.
pushpop 7y ago
Even if that were true, fixing the kind of irrelevant bugs you describe would do far more damage to the games industry due to the cost of development (and I’m being generous here because I don’t even believe your claim that running sideways against a wall has ever caused a game studio to go bust let alone cost billions in lost sales). You seem to believe this notion that it is possible to write bug free code. Which suggests to me you’ve never written anything serious because you’re comments are textbook examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
- Retric 7y ago
  I am describing buggy games as costing billions, rather than suggesting this is the only bug that ever occurred. There are many expensive examples where excessive bugs tanked sales.
  - pushpop 7y ago
    The kind of bugs that hamper game sales aren’t the kind of bugs that speed runners exploit - which is what you were originally arguing about. Sure, some games are released buggy. But even there, blaming the developers just demonstrates how little you experience you actually have with professional software development. You think developers are really that stupid that they don’t know when their own games suck? Usually bad games get released because of financial and/or time restrictions rather than a lack of pride from developers. And often bugs will just be placed on a snag list and prioritised in order of estimated time to fix vs the severity of the bug. Which means many of the bugs you described would just never be financially beneficial to patch. You keep talking about the monetary impact of bugs while ignoring the fact that software development is a business and thus saving will always be cut where needed. Having your development time prolonged by 12 months to fix bugs most people won’t even see is perhaps the single most expensive and unnecessary way to drive your development. Frankly I’m astonished anyone would believe development happens the way you idealise, let alone dare to call other engineers incompetent for not writing perfect software.
    - Retric 7y ago
krageon 7y ago
I imagine the reason you keep getting asked about the impact of a given bug is because fixing bugs is always (and should always be, given limited time) a value proposition where the time spent fixing has to be weighed against the improvement for the average player.