||Topic: Unrealistic system
| posted February 19, 1999 12:14 AM
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?
| posted February 19, 1999 12:32 AM
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. =)
| posted February 19, 1999 10:21 AM
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.
[This message has been edited by boojum (edited February 19,
| posted February 19, 1999 11:02 AM
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
| posted February 19, 1999 11:49 AM
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
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.
| posted February 19, 1999 12:48 PM
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,
| posted February 19, 1999 01:04 PM
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
| posted February 19, 1999 01:14 PM
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
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.
| posted February 19, 1999 01:23 PM
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.
| posted February 19, 1999 02:28 PM
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
regular voodoo card (Monster 3d, which
only has 4 megs of ram on
I am sorry to say, that the game (at highest detail) runs
perfectly fine on my system.
I have just reached mission 3, and
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
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).
| posted February 19, 1999 03:07 PM
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. :-\
| posted February 19, 1999 03:15 PM
I am playing thief on a
p166 (without mmx)
6meg voodoo 1
sound blaster live
totaly wiped machine with win98
and it runs
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.
| posted February 19, 1999 03:19 PM
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
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.
| posted February 19, 1999 04:33 PM
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
| posted February 19, 1999 10:05 PM
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
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?
| posted February 20, 1999 01:48 AM
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
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
| posted February 20, 1999 02:40 AM
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?
| posted February 20, 1999 06:10 AM
JoeBob... if LGT lied, explain why Thief runs pretty well on my
| posted February 20, 1999 12:18 PM
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
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
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
a) get the latest V2 reference drivers if you haven't already
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!
| posted February 20, 1999 01:34 PM
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,
| posted February 20, 1999 06:06 PM
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...
[This message has been edited by boojum (edited February 20,
| posted February 20, 1999 07:42 PM
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
| posted February 20, 1999 07:58 PM
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.
| posted February 21, 1999 02:00 AM
"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. ;-)
Yeah, I'm rude...
| posted February 22, 1999 11:16 AM
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
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
[This message has been edited by EvilSpirit (edited February 22,
| posted February 23, 1999 11:49 AM
'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?
| posted February 23, 1999 12:42 PM
"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.
| posted February 23, 1999 01:40 PM
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
| posted February 23, 1999 02:08 PM
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.
| posted February 23, 1999 03:21 PM
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
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
wasn`t totally bug free, but man it
was damn close. (I know that
nothing to do with bugs in thief), but it`s
for the game to be so
clean of said bugs, then the game
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
game and are running it perfectly.
The fact that you
blame QA for your problems with thief is insulting.
should be directing your anger
to your local computer shop, who
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
a PC can go through.(driver conflicts,
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
drivers are not updated, or something
is not in tune on
For example. I was having problems with the cutsceens in theif.
They were clipping
quite badly. I could have done like
complained that QA didn`t do their
job, that my system meats the
and still I can`t watch the movies properly.
the truth of the matter, was that
my problem had to do with the
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.
should get a technical friend, or
bring your pc
in to a local pc shop,
to get your system looked at. There
something else wrong with your system.
not with thief.
| posted February 23, 1999 07:09 PM
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
| posted February 24, 1999 11:04 AM
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.
| posted February 24, 1999 11:16 AM
Contrite? When was JoeBob contrite?
| posted February 26, 1999 10:31 AM
"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
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?
| posted February 26, 1999 01:21 PM
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
| posted February 26, 1999 02:30 PM
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
Have a nice day
| posted February 26, 1999 04:18 PM
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,
| posted February 26, 1999 09:09 PM
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
oops there it is..i should
really get some sleep this week
| posted February 26, 1999 11:40 PM
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
| posted February 26, 1999 11:47 PM
How dare you say Thief isn't pretty! I'll put you in a
| posted February 27, 1999 12:22 PM
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!
| posted February 27, 1999 01:41 PM
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!
| posted March 01, 1999 12:01 AM
I've just upgraded my CPU/motherboard and found that Thief runs
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
| posted March 01, 1999 12:40 AM
probably a DAU error.
| posted March 01, 1999 01:28 AM
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.