Please visit our sponsors.
Click Here to Visit our Sponsor



UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
  Looking Glass Studios (TTLG)     [all categories]
  Thief
  Unrealistic system requirements?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | prefs | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author Topic:   Unrealistic system requirements?
JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 19, 1999 12:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
I am playing this game on a P166 with 48 MB of RAM and a 12 MB Voodoo 2 card, and this game absolutely CHUGS on my system. Oh, and I should mention that I'm playing in 640 X 480 resolution with low detail level. I've even had the game crash a few times with the message "Scene too complex". My system meets the requirements, so what's the deal? Did QA not test this game out on a system at the minimum requirements? Were the requirements a guess or what?

Catalyst
Member
posted February 19, 1999 12:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalyst   Click Here to Email Catalyst     Edit Message
We tried Thief on a friend's p133 (I think) and when we loaded up assassins there were no textures! It was all gray shapes. Just because it says minimum doesn't mean its gonna be all that playable, it just means it will WORK. =)

boojum
Member
posted February 19, 1999 10:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for boojum   Click Here to Email boojum     Edit Message
All grey shapes is generally an indication of a 3d card which isn't sufficient. Try turning off hardware acceleration and you'll get your textures back. (However, a 133 with an insufficient 3d card is the exact machine that I had while working on Thief, and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone wanting to play anything but the training mission at a decent frame rate).

As for JoeBob's questions, it's very puzzling to us why everyone blames everything on QA. Yes, of course it was tested at the minimum system, and the minimum specs were chosen as "playable but not necessarily really great." I guess I'd advise making sure that everything is out of your system tray before running, and trying a full install rather than something partial.

-Laura Baldwin

[This message has been edited by boojum (edited February 19, 1999).]

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 19, 1999 11:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
What's to be puzzled about? QA obviously didn't do their job. Someone should have played the game on the minimum system and reported that the game runs(in spots) at 2 - 3 FPS. I am playing from a full install. The only thing in my systray is a 21.5 kb resident program. I'm not even playing at the very minimum(That extra 12 MB of memory as well as the better than recommended 3D card should help, no?), and I'd hate to have a system right at the minimum requirements given the frame rate on mine. Your definition of "playable" is obviously different than mine. Running through a cathedral in extreme slow motion is not my definition of playable.

EvilSpirit
Member
posted February 19, 1999 11:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for EvilSpirit   Click Here to Email EvilSpirit     Edit Message
JoeBob, are you actually paying attention? QA did test the game on the minimum machine. Of course, since Laura already said that I don't know why I think saying it again should do any good.

There's more to the performance of a machine than can be expressed in a system requirements sticker. Obviously the hope is that any machine that meets the requirements will run acceptibly, but it's very difficult to test every configuration. I think it's reasonable to say that if that's not true, then QA didn't do their job (a bit on the extreme end of reasonable, but reasonable). But it's terribly naive of just what a hard job that is to assume that nobody tested the game at all on the minimum spec'd system.

The far more likely explanation is that there's something about the machine that is having the trouble which was not accounted for among the many configurations which they have to test. Is it a slip on QA's part if they miss such a machine? Yes. Sadly for them. Is it the kind of gross deriliction of duty which the armchair quarterbacks of the world would portray it as? Of course not.

I doubt that anybody who's ever had to work QA (certainly from a leadership position), or depended on a good QA team, would make such an insultingly simple assumption as you make, JoeBob. I choose to think that that's not because you're a bad person or anything, but that you don't understand the magnitude of their task. Moreover, it's not really a very productive attitude, in that it will never help you or us figure out why Thief is not performing acceptably on your machine. I assume you would rather seek a solution than just share your pain with us.

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 19, 1999 12:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
Oh, I'm paying attention; I just don't believe it. You're correct in believing that saying it again will do no good. I'm not going to go so far as to call you or Laura a liar(because I don't believe that either), but I will say that you are both what you accuse me of being: naive. I believe that QA underreported the system requirements, having played the game for maybe a few minutes on the minimum system. Of course, you can't realize that it was underreported unless you're on the QA team to see for yourself. Whatever amount your QA team is paid is too high. You admit that it's a slip on QA's part to have missed something like this, but then you overdramatize the issue by stating that it's not a "gross deriliction of duty." Please. It may not be, as you put it, a "gross deriliction of duty," but it is certainly irresponsible. You can go on all you want about what a difficult job your QA staff has, but the bottom line is that regardless of the difficult nature of their task, they did not perform that task adequately. I am qualified to make that judgment by the fact that I am a consumer who spent $45 for a game that barely runs on my system after the first few levels. IOW, part of my money goes to paying your QA staff, and I expect them to perform their jobs correctly, which clearly has not happened here. The "scene too complex" errors I get are quite clear: the system chokes trying to render several scenes in this game. How can you argue with that?


As for "productive attitudes," well, I'm not here to make friends. As a disgruntled consumer, I have a right to voice my opinions about this game, and that's what I've done. I'm not here to get help for the problem because, being a systems technician, I know for a fact that there is nothing wrong with my machine. My problem will in fact be totally solved in a month or so when I buy a new CPU/motherboard. That is the sole reason that I'm not clamoring for a refund which, by the way, I think I have a clear reason to do. Regardless of this, I am very disappointed by the lack of "quality" in your "quality assurance," and feel that potential customers reading this forum need to know that if their systems are borderline on the game's requirements, it may not perform at an acceptable level. I'm not even going to go into the deception involved with the two demos that were put out, partly because that topic was covered in another thread, and partly because I don't want to appear that I'm merely attempting to stir up trouble. Your customers have the right to know.

[This message has been edited by JoeBob (edited February 19, 1999).]

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 19, 1999 01:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
I will, however, mention that I think it's great that you allow negative opinions about your games to be voiced on your forum, rather than deleting them on sight like another company that I won't name. *coughSierracough*

Marius
Member
posted February 19, 1999 01:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marius   Click Here to Email Marius     Edit Message
What a doorknob. Obviously (even though he claims to be a system technician) he has no clue of how big of a job QA actually is.

If you count roughly 30 or so flavors and speeds of CPU's currently in use, add in another 12 or so memory configurations that are reasonably possible in an average system, multiply that out by about 100 or so possible motherboards for those CPU's, then factor in the possibility of another 25 or so possible video cards, plus perhaps 12 sound cards, then factor in 100 or more CD-ROM drives currently available or in use, and then factor in the various driver revisions currently in use by each of those components, you will realize that there are well over a BILLION different system configurations possible.

If you honestly expect that someone's QA department is gonna hit each one of those in their testing, then you are sadly deluded. And I'm glad that they don't, because I frankly don't care to pay $6000 for a game that would be 10 years behind it's time technologically by the time that it finally passed QA.

Sometimes things slip through the cracks. That's too bad, but it happens. Nobody can guarantee that it won't happen, but the QA process makes REASONABLE assurances that the most common configurations won't have that problem.

Don't most licensing agrements have a clause that the merchant makes no claims as to the usability of the software, even though reasonable efforts have been made, etc...

This is the kind of mentality that allowed that Pennsylvania woman to win a $58.5 million judgement against Chrysler because she was in an accident where the airbag saved her life, but caused some sort of burns on her arms.

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 19, 1999 01:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
No, really, what's so hard to see? Put the CD-ROM drive aside since, as I've said, I'm using a full install, and the game only hits the CD for cutscenes. I have a plain vanilla P166 with a Sound Blaster AWE64 and a Voodoo 2 card. I have DirectX 6 drivers on everything. This system is *the very model* of compatibility. There are no obscure parts on this system, so as long as the QA department tested a system that comes CLOSE to mine, they would have seen the same results that I see now. There's not that much to it.

Zanatar
Member
posted February 19, 1999 02:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Zanatar     Edit Message
Joe Bob: I am sorry but there must
be something completly screwed up with your system. I am running on pretty much the same configuration as you, and my system works great.
Like you, I have a P166, (mind you I do
have 64 megs of EDO ram). I only have
a regular voodoo card (Monster 3d, which
only has 4 megs of ram on it)

I am sorry to say, that the game (at highest detail) runs perfectly fine on my system.
I have just reached mission 3, and it runs
like a charm. No slow downs whatsoever.
So there is obviously something seriously wrong with your system. (Btw, I`m also running it at 640 x 480) .

Don`t go counting on your voodoo 2 card.
As you know, your voodoo 2 card`s performance depends on your cpu. The faster the cpu, the better the card performs (until it reaches it`s ceilling). With a P166, your not getting anything more out of your Voodoo 2 card, then you would if you had
the regular voodoo. Maybe just a sight
improvement in FPS. Your not going to
get any more out of your voodoo 2 card
until you upgrade your CPU.

Anyhow, point is.. there must be something else drastically bringing your system down, because as I said.. it works absoluetly fine on my system, and from what you`ve described as your system, our two machines sound almost identical, with the exception of RAM. (I have 64 megs edo).

Zanatar.

boojum
Member
posted February 19, 1999 03:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for boojum   Click Here to Email boojum     Edit Message
Essentially, you're saying that since the machines QA tested must have behaved exactly like yours, that they lied about the performance. I can just as confidently say that since your machine must have behaved exactly the same as the machines we tested, then you are lying about your performance. Neither of these accusations gets anyone anywhere. I don't know why your system is running slowly (I listed my guesses, but don't appear to have hit anything); you could try talking to customer support about it, but in the end it might be tricky to diagnose without actually playing with the machine. :-\

-Laura Baldwin

SoulStripper
Member
posted February 19, 1999 03:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SoulStripper   Click Here to Email SoulStripper     Edit Message
once again..

I am playing thief on a
p166 (without mmx)
48mb ram
6meg voodoo 1
at 640x480
sound blaster live
4gb hard drive
totaly wiped machine with win98
and it runs great.!
only the burrick gas "chugs" my machine..

i think the cleaner your system is and the more organized it is the better stuff runs..
once i wiped my machine and started from scratch it ran 150% better than it did when I bought it..

keeping it clean is the key to a smooth running machine.

Caine
Member
posted February 19, 1999 03:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Caine   Click Here to Email Caine     Edit Message
JoeBob, its not our fault you got a jacked up POS...So stop taking it out on us. If you wanna run the newest games, you gotta have at least something decent. And for you to buy a game that you BARELY meet the minimums for and then complain because it looks like crap is not our fault....See my post about Buyer BEWARE on another thread...

Anyone that buys a game that they BARELY meet should expect poor, if not downright UNPLAYABLE condidtions. I played Thief on a system that met the requirements EXACTLY it was an AST computer, and lord have mercy was it awful, but I just uninstalled it and went back to playing on my own machine.

Maybe instead of buying software your computer can't run, you should save the money and buy a decent system, prolly cost you less in the long run too. Think, you won't have to spend all the money on phone calls to bitch out companies because their QA people "lied". And anyone with half-a-sack would tell you that.

I don't have a problem with you, let me make that clear, I have a problem with your attitude and your reasoning.

Ghost
Member
posted February 19, 1999 04:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ghost   Click Here to Email Ghost     Edit Message
A couple things for Joebob that some might have missed.

First, do a scandisk and defrag on your hard drive and delete some stuff if you don't have much free space (if you need more room for a swap file)

One thing that is never measured on the requirements sticker is that of hard drive spin speed...you know..how fast your cpu can access your HD. You may have an older slower HD too, and that WOULD effect how fast things happen, regardless of if you have extra ram and a better vid card than required.

And for the record it's not their forum, they just read it it and we appreciate that they do <=== good quality sucking up =P

cervantes
Junior Member
posted February 19, 1999 10:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cervantes   Click Here to Email cervantes     Edit Message
Let me just adress this issue from a QA point of view.

There are many things which can affect the perfomance on your machine. The speed of your hard drive, the video card, the quality of Ram used, the motherboard, is the processor is a pure 166 or a 166 overdrive, even how long since the last time you installed windows. There is NO WAY any company could test on every possible machine configuration.

From a Looking Glass point of view. The game is tested on minimum machines in house, and is also sent out to an independant company which performs hardware evaluation. I can tell you than more than a couple of hours of test was put in on a minimum machine by Looking Glass QA. One tester spent the entire project on a machine that was below minimum . I can also tell you that 6 of our playtest machines were just barely above the minimum spec (p200 overdrives)

One other variable is perception. I have seen posts from people who've played the game on a s low as a 120, and who thought the game ran fine. I've definately seen many posts from people who are using a 166, and not reporting problems. I raise the possibility that everyone is seeing similar frame rates, but what is fine for one person is unacceptable for another.

I will not argue with you that there are some areas of the game that will run slow on a 166 (mystic's sould trap when triggered, or multiple burricks fighting multiple fire elementals will slow down a pretty stoked machine). I would argue that those areas are few and far between. If your framerate is droppint to 2-3 fps in these areas, I could understand. If you are having massive slow downs in areas without large numbers of partle effects or perhaps complex architecture combined with multiple ai's then I would suspect that it is something unique to your machine.

I would be interested to hear what you would consider to me the minimum accaptable frame rate for a game? What is the minimum accaptable average, and the minimum acceptable low point?

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 20, 1999 01:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
Caine: You can flame me all you want; I don't mind. I'm a flamer from WAY back, so I know how to take it. However, as much as I'd like to give you a verbal spanking, this forum is not the place for it.

cervantes: If you're not part of Looking Glass' QA staff, then your arguments are irrelevant as you lack firsthand knowledge of what goes on behind those closed doors. If you *are* part of the QA staff, let me know because I have quite a few questions for you...

Catalyst
Member
posted February 20, 1999 02:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalyst   Click Here to Email Catalyst     Edit Message
To JoeBob:

Dude, calm down.
If you consider all the posts related to this topic you will find that your problem is quite anomalous. You will therefore conclude that LGS is not out to get you (or the general public). Do you realize you are arguing with two of the game's designers? Their opinion is not just idle speculation.

And if you are going to get a new computer why are you so concerned? No one else had that problem, who are you championing?

James Sterrett
Member
posted February 20, 1999 06:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for James Sterrett   Click Here to Email James Sterrett     Edit Message
JoeBob... if LGT lied, explain why Thief runs pretty well on my P-133?

RazrBlade
Member
posted February 20, 1999 12:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for RazrBlade     Edit Message
Just to join in on this because I can: I ranted and raved about Thief to my friend so much he downloaded the demo, here's what he had to say about it:


Just finished the demo of Thief! I actually had downloaded it a couple
of days before you started spouting off about it on the list. But here's
the *really* impressive part - I did it all on a Compaq Presario Pentium 150
with 24 Megs of RAM! Minimum requirements for the game are supposed to be a
P166 with 32 Megs of RAM. it takes a special kind of game player to win a
sword fight when the screen keeps freezing up in the middle of your swing.


So here's a guy playing with a machine far below yours with no acceleration and says that its playable but chuggy.

Joe Bob, I don't work for LGS QA but I have worked in the computer industry for 7 years in a variety of jobs including QA and tech support. I understand how upset you are after paying the money for a game that you can't run correctly. However in the face of the evidence (many users reporting systems at the same or lower levels of speed...check out the thread regarding hardware, it has people playing on 120mhz machines and many users at 166mhz) it would appear that you are in a very small minority here and that the problem is one that could possibly be fixed by yourself rather than blaming it on a software company. To expect QA to have tested your exact configuration is impossible when you have to remember the millions of different hardware/software configurations available. However, without knowing your exact specs they can't know if they did test it on that configuration or not (of course, maybe they used that EXACT configuration and it IS your box thats faulty! oooooo )Of course, if you're runninng Windows 9x or NT and have NEVER EVER EVER seen it crash then it is definately LGS fault and they will be flogged at dawn.

What would be helpful for LGS tech support (or to be posted up here if you'd like some of our help) would be a list of *exactly* what you're using. The more details you give and the more educated help you'll recieve.

Ghost gave you some advice about defragging and disk scanning. I'd like to add some more that can dramatically effect your performance...

a) get the latest V2 reference drivers if you haven't already done so.

b) check your manufacturers page for sound drivers, your disk drivers, BIOS etc etc.

What others have said about your system installation is also correct, it could be bogged down with lots of unnecessary crap depending on its age and your personal computing habits (hey, for all I know you could be a developer yourself).

One more thing Joebob, being disgruntled is one thing, not listening to information when it's offered politely from the source is ignorant and disrespectful to the people involved.

However, you can bitch at me all you want


Have a nice day!


Latro
Member
posted February 20, 1999 01:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Latro   Click Here to Email Latro     Edit Message
Actually, I'm playing on a P166 (no MMX) with 48 megs of RAM and a 6 MB Voodoo 1 and having no problems.

Maybe it gets a little choppy when there are a hell of a lot of enemies in the same room, but that's to be expected. Point is, I'm pretty much on a minimum system and I'm getting better performance out of the game than I ever expected. Way better than I got with Half-Life whose mins are the same if not lower.

...And, now that I've actually finished all the other posts, I realize that a lot of other people have said the same thing. Minimum requirements normally provide minimum performance. If there is a problem with your system, that isn't the fault of the developers.

[This message has been edited by Latro (edited February 20, 1999).]

boojum
Member
posted February 20, 1999 06:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for boojum   Click Here to Email boojum     Edit Message
As you might have been able to determine by looking at his user info, Mike Steinkrauss (cervantes) is associated with Looking Glass QA. In fact, he's the one in the credits in the baseball hat, listed as "Lead Tester." So, I assure you, he does know a bit more about what goes on behind the "closed doors" (doors? who has doors here?) in the QA department. Not that I'd really wish anyone quite as rude as JoeBob on anyone as nice as Mike...

-Laura

[This message has been edited by boojum (edited February 20, 1999).]

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 20, 1999 07:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
Expressing an opinion constitutes rudeness these days? My, I am out of touch! If I were trying to rude, my dear, I'd be subjecting you to a great deal of profanity as well as other remarks of a derogatory nature. When defending one's stance becomes universally recognized as rude behavior, I shall be the first to raise my hand and say, "Yes, I am indeed rude." As a matter of fact, calling me rude when all I am doing is stating and defending an opinion is rude in itself, don't you think? In any case, your latest post has gone a great way toward helping me determine to whom I give my money in the future. Regardless of how my post about the system requirements(which is merely a call for responsibility; even EvilSpirit admits to "slips" in the QA) is taken, I do think that Thief is a great game. However, I will not be buying Thief 2, System Shock 2, or any other games from your company, nor will I recommend them to anyone. I simply cannot do business with people of your nature.

boojum
Member
posted February 20, 1999 07:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for boojum   Click Here to Email boojum     Edit Message
Your opinion that the game plays slowly on your system, you are well entitled to, and you are, of course, welcome to spend your money in any way you see fit.

Your claim that "I believe that QA underreported the system requirements, having played the game for maybe a few minutes on the minimum system" despite our claims to the contrary, accusing my co-workers and friends of lying about what they are and are not testing, I do consider rude, regardless of whether you use profanity or not.

-Laura Baldwin

Marius
Member
posted February 21, 1999 02:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marius   Click Here to Email Marius     Edit Message
"No, really, what's so hard to see? Put the CD-ROM drive aside since, as I've said, I'm using a full install, and the game only hits the CD for cutscenes."

That's as may be, but I doubt that their QA people were testing the exact same components in your machine, so there are a number of CD-ROM drives to add to the mix (and without them, you're still into the millions of possible configurations). One bad driver can completely hose any system.

"Of course, if you're runninng Windows 9x or NT and have NEVER EVER EVER seen it crash then it is definately LGS fault and they will be flogged at dawn."

Um...if he's running Windows 9x and has never ever ever seen it crash, he's lying. ;-)

Trolling, trolling...

Yeah, I'm rude...

EvilSpirit
Member
posted February 22, 1999 11:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for EvilSpirit   Click Here to Email EvilSpirit     Edit Message
Apparently as long as JoeBob isn't being as rude as he could possibly be, and profane to boot, he's not "being rude." We can only humbly accept his definition of rudeness, faced as we are with such self-proclaimed mastery of the topic.

Luckily, that issue does not really enter into the matter of whether it behooves LG to attempt to redress his problem, which of course it does. It only affects whether that attempt will be a pleasant experience or not, and I do appreciate the constructive tenor of this thread overall, as I hope does the original poster.

Apparently, nobody played the game on a machine exactly matching JoeBob's, since nobody ever saw performance issues of the degree which he seems to be describing (though, of course, different players may differ as to whether the same program performance is "playable", as Mike points out, and such a difference of opinion can figure strongly into the discussion).

But to assume that nobody ever played the game on a machine matching the minimum system requirements, based on a sample of a single machine, is unreasonable, and the accusation itself is simply totally untrue. I do wish that LG's QA staff had been extended the benefit of a doubt in this regard, and feel that the whole conversation could have got off on a more constructive foot in that case. To approach a problem by accusing folks of not doing their job seems deliberately confrontational and not very constructive.

With the exception of load times (which do get very long on the machine with minimum RAM) I would characterize Thief's performance on the minimum system (in my experience) as better than previous LG games, so much so that there were points where we wondered whether the system requirements shouldn't have perhaps been reduced a bit. And, indeed, the game was tested on machines lower than the minimum system spec. We looked quite carefully at the game's performance on the lower-end machines to make that decision; we didn't just pull some numbers out of our hats!

[This message has been edited by EvilSpirit (edited February 22, 1999).]

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 23, 1999 11:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
'Apparently as long as JoeBob isn't being as rude as he could possibly be, and profane to boot, he's not "being rude." We can only humbly accept his definition of rudeness, faced as we are with such self-proclaimed mastery of the topic.'

I am sorry indeed that calling for responsibility on the part of people whose paychecks I contributed to when I bought an LGS product is seen by you as a display of rudeness. In America, that's the way things work. When I buy a product, I expect it to work exactly as advertised, not 'almost' as advertised. If I recall correctly(and do correct me if I'm wrong, as my memory is not what it used to be), the original release version of Thief wouldn't install on 90% of systems and had to be recalled. Whoops! Yeah, your QA staff is brilliant, alright. Based on that evidence, how do you expect me to believe that QA did much testing at all?

cervantes
Junior Member
posted February 23, 1999 12:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cervantes   Click Here to Email cervantes     Edit Message
"If I recall correctly(and do correct me if I'm wrong, as my memory is not what it used to be), the original release version of Thief wouldn't install on 90% of systems and had to be recalled. Whoops! Yeah, your QA staff is brilliant, alright. Based on that evidence, how do you expect me to believe that QA did much testing at all"

There has never been a recall of Thief. There have been some people who've had problems running Thief. These problems stem from cd-roms drives which are unable to read 80 minute cd's, which were necessary with the copy protection Eidos chose to use. If you notice most cd's drives now state in their documentation whether or not they are able to read 80 minute cd's because some old (and even some new) drives have problems. QA knew about this problem, and Eidos assured us they would work with the customers who had problems.

I don't want to get angry or be rude that is simply not in my nature. I get upset when I hear QA be trashed in this forum. Looking Glass has a top notch QA staff. I could not be prouder of a team, than I am of the team which did Thief. You may say that we obviously spent no time testing the game. I Can say that we spent more than 7000 hours testing the game. I can say that I personally spent more than 1000 hours testing Thief. QA never receives any of the credit when a project is well received, but is then blamed for every issue someone has with a game. Thief was an incredibly designed game and the coders and artists are awesome, but QA had a lot to do with the fine tuning which made Thief the awesome game it is.

Unlike some people, I come in here with my email address available to one and all. I stand by the quality of Thief. It is an awesome game, and I was proud to be part of the team.

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 23, 1999 01:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
Somehow, I seriously doubt that Eidos would release a game over the objections of the developer's QA staff. If you knew about the problem, you did object to the game's release, right? If you knew about the problem yet did not object to the game's release, that only lends further credence to my point. I'm not saying that the job wasn't performed; I'm saying that the job was not performed well. There's a major difference. I'm sure that you put in all of the hours that you claim, and probably more. Most people who visit this forum, myself included, work full time and even do some overtime work on occasion. Do I get praised when I perform my job to expectation? No. Do I hear about it if I don't? Absolutely. That's the way the world works, son; people generally don't receive comments about their work unless they screw it up.

'Unlike some people, I come in here with my email address available to one and all.'

I suppose that somehow, by the mere fact that you choose to leave your email address open to the world for any whacko or spammer who comes along to send you whatever he chooses, you are suggesting that you are more of a man than I am. Please. Beat your chest at someone else.

EvilSpirit
Member
posted February 23, 1999 02:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for EvilSpirit   Click Here to Email EvilSpirit     Edit Message
Sigh. JoeBob, nobody's saying that the fact that you have a complaint about Thief means that you're being rude. You are purposefully creating a straw man argument when you claim that that is the case. The thing that people have taken issue with is the manner in which you go about presenting your grievances. To purposefully misstate the case against you is a tacit indication that you have no defense against the actual allegation. So, please don't do that. For that matter, if anyone here misstates the content of anything you have said, please do point it out.

Actually, in point of fact, you have repeatedly changed your story as to just what your complaint is. First you claimed that QA must have never tested the game on the minimum machine. Then, when told that this is not so, you invent a scenario where this testing was some sort of token attempt. Further refuted, you go from saying that QA was not doing its job (which is exactly what your claim that the minimum machine was never tested amounts to) to saying "I'm not saying that the job wasn't performed" (which is what you were saying) "I'm saying that the job was not performed well." To bring up the (completely separate) copy-protection issue, and to support that argument with false claims, only worsens things.

Zanatar
Member
posted February 23, 1999 03:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Zanatar     Edit Message
My god, this is getting out of hand.

Give it up, all of you, and end this thread.
(mind you I`m adding to it.. sigh..)

If you want my opinion (and I`m sure
you don`t care.. heh ). I`m going to say
it anyway.

The bottom line on this, is simple.
Joebob, if your claim were in fact true,
how could the game be doing as
well as it is. Very few games come
out today, that are bug free. Sure
thief wasn`t totally bug free, but man it
was damn close. (I know that has
nothing to do with bugs in thief), but it`s
related. Since for the game to be so
clean of said bugs, then the game must
have been properly tested. ie: QA.

Re-read my post near the top of this thread, and you`ll be reminded that myself, as
well as others, have the min reqs for this
game and are running it perfectly.
The fact that you blame QA for your problems with thief is insulting.
Maybe you should be directing your anger
to your local computer shop, who has
obviously sold you a lemon. I realize there
is not much logic in that last statement, but
then again, the logic in your arguments are even weaker.

I am sorry, but the bottom line is that QA cannot factor in every single scenario
a PC can go through.(driver conflicts,
full hard drive, fragmented hard drive, lost links, cluttered win95 registry, improper settings on any of your devices.. etc..) The list goes on and on. Sure you meet the
minimum requirment,but maybe your
drivers are not updated, or something
is not in tune on your system.

For example. I was having problems with the cutsceens in theif. They were clipping
quite badly. I could have done like
you and complained that QA didn`t do their
job, that my system meats the requirment,
and still I can`t watch the movies properly.
When the truth of the matter, was that
my problem had to do with the DMA not
being activated for my CDrom.
So in fact an example like this, would have
had nothing at all to do with QA.

They have done a good job and have
released a great product. You JoeBob,
should get a technical friend, or
bring your pc in to a local pc shop,
to get your system looked at. There
is something else wrong with your system.
not with thief.

Zanatar.

Ghost
Member
posted February 23, 1999 07:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ghost   Click Here to Email Ghost     Edit Message
just this once (hehe) i'm going to give up any semblance if tact and just say it like it is.

Joebob..stop being an asshole! The LGS staff did an outstanding job on a game, and you, playing on a minimum requirement system have a beef with how the game runs..fine, reasonable complaint...but everything else you've said has been nothing more than an attempt to annoy and drag people, including the people who worked their butts off on one of the best games of the decade (if not longer) into an ongoing and totally pointless argument.

To the LGS staff..to put out a cool game is one thing, but to openly put your opinions and knowledge here for us also is great, so don't feel you have to defend everything against this one guy who is, for all intents and purposes, a butthead

Adrenaline
Member
posted February 24, 1999 11:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Adrenaline   Click Here to Email Adrenaline     Edit Message
I've gotta give a little credit to JoeBob here. He's got a legitimate complaint, that he feels is an LGS problem. He spent around $50 for a game that doesn't seem to meet the requirements posted on the box. For those of us that have the money to burn, that seems somewhat trivial, but obviously not to JoeBob.

Sure, he's a little contrite, as he's feeling the pinch of that lost money, but the focus here should be the resolution to his problem, NOT an attack on either the Company or JoeBob.

You people may not have had a problem with Thief, but I'm sure we've ALL been the victim of understated 'minimum system requirements.' JoeBob has just decided to vocalize his complaints.

JoeBob: Have any of the suggestions posted above help?

------------------
From Redmond, Washington: Due to unforseen problems, the shipping date of Windows 2000 will be delayed until the first quarter of 1901.

Spire
Member
posted February 24, 1999 11:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spire     Edit Message
Contrite? When was JoeBob contrite?

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted February 26, 1999 10:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
"JoeBob, nobody's saying that the fact that you have a complaint about Thief means that you're being rude. You are purposefully creating a straw man argument when you claim that that is the case."


You are correct when you say that no one has directly stated that my being called "rude" is a result of my complaint, however a thing does not necessarily need to be stated to be true. If, at this very moment, I were to call you unprofessional and mention that you know nothing about customer service, what conclusions would you draw? Notice that I never mentioned your responses to my complaint, yet I have faith that you are intelligent enough to draw the proper conclusions. That is what I have done here.

"Actually, in point of fact, you have repeatedly changed your story as to just what your complaint is."

Actually, I've amended my complaint, and I've only done it once. At first, I doubted that the minimum system had actually been tested at all. Now I believe that, in all likelihood, it probably was tested although the results were misinterpreted. This is sloppy QA. The other examples that I brought up had no relation to my complaint. You are correct about that. The entire reason I brought them up is to expose further holes in your QA. Your QA lead just admitted to an illegal act. He claims to have known before the game was shipped that a CD-ROM drive that can read 80-minute CDs is needed, yet I see that mentioned nowhere on the box. Therefore, he has admitted that the system requirements were knowingly underreported. Now there are very good grounds for a criminal case against Eidos for false advertising(after all, they were the ones who went ahead and released the game even after being told that the system requirements were underreported), but he could be dragged into it as well by the fact that he knew about the problem and obviously didn't complain loudly enough. Now what else do you think could possibly have slipped through? An underreported processor requirement? Seems likely to me...

Given the fact that all three members of the LGS staff that have responded to this thread have been quite curt in their replies, I find myself wondering why you don't have a full time customer service representative in these forums. Was all of your salary allotment used up when you paid your QA staff?

Abdiel
Member
posted February 26, 1999 01:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Abdiel   Click Here to Email Abdiel     Edit Message
Well gee, JoeBob, I wonder what could POSSIBLY have inluenced the LGS employees attitudes? I mean, I'm really at a loss here. It's not like a senseless attack on their abilities and commitments to their jobs should cause them to act that way, is it? Obviously, these people are mentally disturbed, and we should seek help for them.

RazrBlade
Member
posted February 26, 1999 02:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for RazrBlade     Edit Message
Joebob, as an observer of this thread I can see both sides of the arguement. However I do believe that you are blowing this out of proportion because you are frustrated at not getting a product you expected. The mere fact LGS employees took the time to respond here is a miracle compared to many companies. This isnt an LGS website they didnt have to say a damn thing but responded politely in good faith. That they didnt include references to mushroom tea, taffers or other social things on this board does not = curt. I felt they went out of their way to be polite and not call you an asshole which you are dramatically becoming by your continued whining about QA and there 'ineffectiveness'. Many other users of the board also offered advice which you've not even thanked people for, let alone reported on their effectiveness. You remind me of several engineers i've worked for who were so assured of their level of education in other fields that they refused to believe that perhaps the problem was not with the software but perhaps with their use of the machine and their user habits. Have you run through the various methods offered by users who perhaps have suffered the same issues as yourself? I had a hell of a time with Half Life, used the board, didnt get any help from Sierra and got lots of interesting advice regarding certain aspects of HL, as have many other people. Try accepting that perhaps the answer to your issue is already in this thread and that you are not immune to system issues.

You will not recieve an admittal from LGS that their QA department suck for several reasons, primarily because the product does not suck, the program shipped relatively bug free which is INCREDIBLY rare for games these days. LGS commitment to quality seems about the same as Bungie, who btw were the company that had to withdraw Myth 2 the first week of release due to an installer issue with the windows version.


The only time I saw Thief actually crawl was when i used the warezed version a friend was running.

Joebob, most states have consumer rights, you have yours. The product did not work as advertized you have every right to return it to the place of purchase and get a refund.

Do you write to microsoft every day and bitch about crappy programming, incomplete documentation and awful QA? Have you written to the IRS about just how ridiculous the tax system is?

I know at this point you're all ready to come back with a response to this post but I'd like to point out a few points.

a) you made this a public issue by posting on a board. If you are really upset and don't want to read posts like this I'd suggest private email to LGS customer services and argue with it there. (but then you seem to be enjoying the attention

b) is this post rude? if you find that it is you just worked out why you're being accused of the same behaviour.

c) I believe that you sir are a troll, either that or a wrestling fan (never use the word Son at anyone you aren't related to online because it makes u look like a 12 y/o poster on one of the wrestling boards who wants to be stone cold steve austin and u just havent used the word ass enough in your posts to justify it - never make an assumption regarding your seniority either).


The evil spirits have been driven out, this thread is cleansed...

Have a nice day


Ghost
Member
posted February 26, 1999 04:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ghost   Click Here to Email Ghost     Edit Message
hey Razr, watch what ya say about wrasslin fans =PP (it's not all bad if you understand it's nothing more than a soap opera, planned and practiced), but as for Mr JoeBob..i suggest we give him no more attention then he truly deserves, which is clearly the only reason he's posting. Altho i'm going to go against what i just said, here is my last bit to JoeBob.

First, as Razrblade said, this isn't an LGS board, they pop in on their own free time to post here, and even tho the "80 minute cd" issue was reposted (and apparently ignored or discarded as not neccesary) by Eidos, it wouldn't warrant a lawsuit either, chances are you'd get thrown out of court for not having a case. You see, the game doesnt REQUIRE a cd drive that reads 80 minute cds. I've never even seen a cd drive that claimed to use those. I used the cd on 3 different cd drives, and types. 1 24x creative cd rom, 1 5x dvd rom, and 1 2x6 cdr drive. you know what?? they ALL read the cd just fine, and NONE of them claimed to be able to read an 80 minute cd. Til this thread i had never even heard of an 80 minute cd.

And another thing, which i just noticed...the cd claims to hold *cough* 611 megs of data...a normal, generic totally AVERAGE cd can hold 650 megs...=P

So, next argument? you're just blowing air and not looking really good at this point

[This message has been edited by Ghost (edited February 26, 1999).]

RazrBlade
Member
posted February 26, 1999 09:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for RazrBlade     Edit Message
Ghost, why do u think I was annoyed at wrestling fans? I'm a huge fan myself i just don't like people that use the word 'son' in a sentance. These are the people that buy the foam fingers and hold up signs with 'JoeBob 3:16' on them.

Whereas I'm the guy that waits til his wife is asleep, puts on an ECW video, cranks up the WWF CD and starts crotchchopping during the hardcore spots you know, the classy 'smart' fans that read wrestlemaniacs.com...bwahahaha

Thief is the Mick Foley of computer games. Not pretty, underappreciated but its fans are the most loyal bunch of psychopaths out there....i should probably mention i'm a big mick foley mark....perhaps this makes sense now...

have a nice day! <--imagine the face mask

Razrblade - rasslin evangelist...seriously, look no smiley face....

oops there it is..i should really get some sleep this week

Ghost
Member
posted February 26, 1999 11:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ghost   Click Here to Email Ghost     Edit Message
hehe sorry Razr..i must have read it wrong..generally the only people who bring wrestling into a conversation have nothing good to say about it =P

My apologies...cos i don't want any wacko Mick Foley fans coming after me LOL

Abdiel
Member
posted February 26, 1999 11:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Abdiel   Click Here to Email Abdiel     Edit Message
How dare you say Thief isn't pretty! I'll put you in a headlock!

Oslo224
Member
posted February 27, 1999 12:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Oslo224   Click Here to Email Oslo224     Edit Message
Joebob, what the hell is your problem? You are either extremely stupid or just pretending to be. The LGS staff offers you several explanations about the game and a few much-needed ones about etiquette and you jump all over them because you are being called rude. Well, Joebob, you are rude, DAMN rude, and you deserve every word of it. You're just lucky that Evilspirit and boojum are the ones who replied and not me. If I worked on LGS and you started bitching that way at me, I'd rip your goddam head off. If I wasn't afraid Digital Nightfall would delete this message, I'd put much stronger language into it. I just can't stand people like you who refuse to escept when they're wrong. Instead of just admitting you're way-off, you make up a whole bunch of bullshit about LGS's QA department not doing their jobs, then complain about curt replies. Well, maybe you should think before you say something, because you don't have a frigin clue. Accept it, for Christ's sake!

grendel
Member
posted February 27, 1999 01:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for grendel   Click Here to Email grendel     Edit Message
JoeBob, I have been following this thread, with mild disinterest, for many days now. While I have often found it amusing, I can't believe it's gone on so long. I think we're past 40 entries now. It's obvious to everyone at this point that you have no chance of an easy refund from this company. I have the feeling, though, that your quest in not yet finished. My suspicion is that you are enjoying this far more than any other game (computer or otherwise). Is it not possible that, on some level, you purchased this game because you wanted to prove it wouldn't run on your machine? Everyone else with industry obsolete machines has managed to get it running; probably because it was important to them. Your subconscious objective, I'll wager, was to prove that it wouldn't run. Then you complained to the people who claimed that it would run. You're both right. Does that make sense? The game could run on a system exactly like yours, as long as you didn't own it. You have paid $50.00 to prove this. You have also paid $50.00 to prove that you write very well, and that nobody, but nobody's, gonna mislead you and rip you off. You didn't choose a public forum to file your complaint because you thought it would be more effective than registered letters and small claims court. You chose it so we could all see how competent you are. Congratulations: You write and argue well. You are intelligent and articulate. You're nobody's fool. You're also out $50.00. Let it go. You got what you paid for.

------------------
O barbarous and bloody spectacle!

JoeBob
Junior Member
posted March 01, 1999 12:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JoeBob     Edit Message
Well...

I've just upgraded my CPU/motherboard and found that Thief runs even slower.

Based upon this new evidence, I will grudgingly admit that I've got a tech issue somewhere. I hereby withdraw my claim that QA on this product was slack, and apologize to all LGS employees who have heretofore been offended by my statements.

To all the flamers, you know what you can bite.

Now I have to figure out just what in the HELL is slowing my system down...

Ghost
Member
posted March 01, 1999 12:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ghost   Click Here to Email Ghost     Edit Message
probably a DAU error.

redEye
Member
posted March 01, 1999 01:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for redEye   Click Here to Email redEye     Edit Message
that took some... grace, JoeBob. you at least have my respect for admitting you were wrong.
... and i'm sure that, if you look around, there will be many people here willing to offer some help with your problem.

-redEye

All times are ET (US) next newest topic | next oldest topic

Thread ClosedTo close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | GameForum

Copyright Gibbed, 1998. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.25
Madrona Park, Inc., 1998 - 1999.