Star Wars: Empire at War Patch

In another Force-powered update, the first patch for Star Wars: Empire at War is now available, updating Petroglyph's Star Wars RTS game to version 1.01. The update tweaks game balance while addressing bugs and performance issues. The patch is available on 3D Downloads, 3D Gamers, Filecloud, FileFront, FileShack, and Worthplaying.
View : : :
20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
20.
 
The patch...
Feb 16, 2006, 18:27
20.
The patch... Feb 16, 2006, 18:27
Feb 16, 2006, 18:27
 
Considering what the patch is mainly for is balancing certain aspects of multiplayer it was probably found via a late balancing sweep that happened either right before or on the date of pressing.

For god's sake, if we were to wait for every game to go to through a complete balance sweep, then you might as well go ahead and suck on your thumb until hell freezes over.

As far as I am concerned about this, if this patch was issued to fix mainly multiplayer issues, then more power to them because I rarely, if ever, play RTS games online in a public situation. I generally only play with friends whom I can trust won't disconnect, zerg, or otherwise exploit the general game mechanics in a way that makes them more '1337' as the 13-year old punks you find playing online.

Avatar 24330
19.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 17:30
19.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 17:30
Feb 16, 2006, 17:30
 
Agree 100% with m00t.

No. Shut the fuck up.
Sure if you say so. Just one last comment.

Like i said, they patched their game because they saw some things they wanted to improve, get over it.
If its just a couple of improvements, fine. But if you go read the list of fixes in the patch, there are far more "Corrected" issues, than there are "Improved". A couple of them sound crippling.

I don't pretend to know about game development, but I do work in a small software company. So while I don't know absolutely everything there is to know about releasing a game product, as clearly you do, I do know how hard it is and what it takes to come up with near bug-free software. And how expensive and time consuming bugs can cost in the long term.

This comment was edited on Feb 16, 17:31.
18.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 14:37
nin
18.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 14:37
Feb 16, 2006, 14:37
nin
 
Can you leave personal attacks out of this.

No. Shut the fuck up.


I know I shouldn't laugh at that, but I did...

--------------------------------------------------------------
GW: Nilaar Madalla, lvl 20 R/Mo / Tolyl Nor, lvl 20 E/Mo / Xylos Gath, lvl 13 W/Mo

http://www.goldfrapp.co.uk/
17.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 14:30
17.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 14:30
Feb 16, 2006, 14:30
 
Can you leave personal attacks out of this.

No. Shut the fuck up.

I was careful of my wording. I said "as fully tested as it should have been".

Right, and the meaning of that is sooooo much different than just saying "not fully tested." Except, not.

Sure software is growing ever more complex and there may never be any perfect release. And no range of testing (aside from public beta) can ever predict what 100,000 users will do with your product.

Well, glad that's cleared up, but who fucking cares? The game got a patch before release. BIG. FUCKING. DEAL. Your whiny little "it's about quality insurancewaaaaah" comment shows how fucking little you understand about game development. This patch in no way indicates any kind of show-stopping bugs in the game, or anything that would prevent it from being fun. Like i said, they patched their game because they saw some things they wanted to improve, get over it.

16.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 14:15
16.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 14:15
Feb 16, 2006, 14:15
 
There would be no games if we waited for publishers to hunt down every bug in the game.
*-*

“How about a nap, a bath and sex with a unfamiliar woman?”
—Cy Tolliver to Andy Cramed
15.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 13:58
15.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 13:58
Feb 16, 2006, 13:58
 
"Start protesting broken software on release. Start giving the developers the time they deserve to create quality entertainment for us."

----------------------------------------------------------

Yes, lets get the message out to all those who play MMo's (WOW, EQ. GUILD WARS) that are patched on a regular basis. Yes, lets boycott all those RTS (STARCRAFT, WCIII, AOE) games that were fully tested, but yet there were still balance and tech issues unforseen by the millions of computer configurations on the market.

*roll eyes*

Support for a game is far better than none.

14.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 13:41
14.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 13:41
Feb 16, 2006, 13:41
 
What is absurd is that people still buy bug ridden games. Publishers should hold games back until they're bug free, or at least free of crippling and debilitating bugs (crashes, xyz unit is invulnerable / insta-win unit, terrible lag, etc).

The developer should likewise refuse to release buggy products because it gives them a bad name and will end up costing them in the long run. Some really good games have done really poorly simply due to being forced out the door by the publisher. It causes them to lose money. If they hold the release (yes, it's expensive, but frankly, if the product has any redeeming value at all, it is far better) until it's a stable game. Seriously. Look at WoW. It was in development for 8 years. Very few crippling bugs and it gave them time to prepare a lot of major content updates ahead of time. Was an 8 year dev cycle expensive? Hell yes. Are they reaping the rewards for it? Hell yes. Would this be true for every game? No. But pushing out a broken product guarantees a failure in the marketplace. Day-of release patches are not the solution as they are often rushed and similarly broken.

Stop letting publishers get away with forcing garbage on us. Start protesting broken software on release. Start giving the developers the time they deserve to create quality entertainment for us.

13.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 11:41
13.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 11:41
Feb 16, 2006, 11:41
 
It's fucking absurd and ignorant to think that a game that receives a patch before it ships was just not fully tested

Can you leave personal attacks out of this. I was careful of my wording. I said "as fully tested as it should have been". Sure software is growing ever more complex and there may never be any perfect release. And no range of testing (aside from public beta) can ever predict what 100,000 users will do with your product.

The difference here is that they're finding bugs BEFORE those 100,000 users ever got their hands on the final product. If bugs are still being found between the time of going gold and appearing on store shelves, then the product was not tested and polished as much as it should have been.

I'm sure that missing the 2005 holiday release incurred alot more pressure for them to release, but thats no excuse.

Patches are fine, that means the developers are supporting their product. But please ignoring what games with patches released on day 1 really are: unfinished.

12.
 
Slightly Off Topic: Multiplayer
Feb 16, 2006, 09:39
12.
Slightly Off Topic: Multiplayer Feb 16, 2006, 09:39
Feb 16, 2006, 09:39
 
Does anybody know how the multiplayer is supposed to work? Is it just two people head to head in a deathmatch. Or in Skirmish, can you have AI players? I'm going to pick this game up, but I was just curious about it. Hopefully I can get it before the snowstorm that is supposed to happen today.

11.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 09:38
11.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 09:38
Feb 16, 2006, 09:38
 
So are all games that receive patches just not as fully tested as they should have been? I can't think of a single game ever released that couldn't use a patch -- console games included, which you know they'd be patching if they could. Expect 360 games to get patches now that the framework exists for them to do so.

It's fucking absurd and ignorant to think that a game that receives a patch before it ships was just not fully tested. People make mistakes and some things are not apparent until later. There is no "perfect" game, get over it.

10.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 09:28
10.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 09:28
Feb 16, 2006, 09:28
 
If a patch comes it right on or before the day the game ships, that just says that the game was not as fully tested as it should have been. Its about quality assurance. This game looks interested, and I played the demo. Unfortunately it game me the sense that it was very restricted inthe SW universe, it was unnecessarily complicated, and had a clunky obscuring interface. Its not all bad, but maybe I was expecting alot from the next get rts.

9.
 
No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 08:50
9.
No subject Feb 16, 2006, 08:50
Feb 16, 2006, 08:50
 
I agree: a patch that follows swiftly on or before release to cover anything that they found in the weeks after they sent the gold master off for duplication is a good thing.

8.
 
Re: Force-powered indeed
Feb 16, 2006, 08:13
8.
Re: Force-powered indeed Feb 16, 2006, 08:13
Feb 16, 2006, 08:13
 
There's nothing wrong with patching a game that isn't out yet. These games sometimes go gold weeks or even a month before they ship, and a lot of things can be discovered in a month that they'd like fixed/tweaked when people first play the game.

7.
 
Re: Force-powered indeed
Feb 16, 2006, 08:00
7.
Re: Force-powered indeed Feb 16, 2006, 08:00
Feb 16, 2006, 08:00
 
" Lucas Arts you screwed the PC gamers with Battlefront 2 , regardless how good this game is I cant buy it becuase you riped me off with that crap you call battlefront 2. Man this game looked good to."

Different developer for this game. I believe the development company also includes some ex-westwood developers. Interesting in seeing some reviews of this game. It has potential.

As for a patch on or before release date, I don't see that as a problem. My problem is when they developer/publisher wait months to resolve gameplay issuses.

-S


6.
 
Re: Force-powered indeed
Feb 16, 2006, 03:46
6.
Re: Force-powered indeed Feb 16, 2006, 03:46
Feb 16, 2006, 03:46
 
Lucas Arts you screwed the PC gamers with Battlefront 2 , regardless how good this game is I cant buy it becuase you riped me off with that crap you call battlefront 2. Man this game looked good to.

5.
 
Re: Force-powered indeed
Feb 16, 2006, 02:27
5.
Re: Force-powered indeed Feb 16, 2006, 02:27
Feb 16, 2006, 02:27
 
Patch is good, at least we know they are fixing things. I hope they keep it up like Blizzard does for their games. It is a good sign of support at least.

4.
 
Re: Force-powered indeed
Feb 16, 2006, 02:26
4.
Re: Force-powered indeed Feb 16, 2006, 02:26
Feb 16, 2006, 02:26
 
Like that's a first? Patches are a good thing, the more the merrier I say.

Avatar 571
3.
 
Re: Force-powered indeed
Feb 16, 2006, 00:54
3.
Re: Force-powered indeed Feb 16, 2006, 00:54
Feb 16, 2006, 00:54
 
Wow, patched and game isn't even out yet..

2.
 
Re: Force-powered indeed
Feb 15, 2006, 23:20
2.
Re: Force-powered indeed Feb 15, 2006, 23:20
Feb 15, 2006, 23:20
 
It comes out Thursday (release date is the 16th)

1.
 
Force-powered indeed
Feb 15, 2006, 23:11
1.
Force-powered indeed Feb 15, 2006, 23:11
Feb 15, 2006, 23:11
 
The game doesn't come out until friday

20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older