Week #4 Report

LUNITIC_WILL

Member
Full time wrecker
Skunkmeister said:
Wow, just read this thread! How long and angry! I think that a lot of the criticism being raised is a bit pointless. As to Bugbear's communication with the public and the frequency of updates I think that the people best qualified to make decisions are the people working on it all day. Nobody here is making the game and has to make decisions that weigh the benefits of spending extra time making the community happy against sacrificing game features so anyone's feedback in that regard will probably be largely ignored.

What we are qualified to comment on is ideas for features, tweaks and descriptions of our feeling on existing features. This is what I think Bugbear appreciates most. Think the handling is rubbish and I'm sure they want to know but if you think they should divert their team into people who constantly get updates ready and those who make new features your opinions will have less influence.

I am excited for the new update and am keen to give my feedback. I personally think that if Bugbear has to choose between making existing backers happy or increasing the quality of the final product they should aim for the best quality final product.

P.S having been on a software development team that had nightly builds I can testify that it is not quite as trivial as some people might think it is. Often it introduces more problems than it solves. But playing a horribly broken game can be fun too :p
well said. preach on brotha
 

Jori Virtanen

Automatic weapons and boundless love.
Keras said:
Jori Virtanen said:
Yes, we know, there are version handling mechanisms, and we have used them on several occasions, but things are not that simple.
Do you mean to say you are not using versioning tools most of the time? Now I`m really interested in what you are doing there, it could explain why things are taking so long to code :p
I don`t know of a way to efficiently work on a project with so many people and not having any versioning tools so I must be understanding that wrong xD
Yeah, you did ;)
We do have and do use version handling, of course. It would be both stupid and awfully clumsy to do this otherwise :p

What I meant is that version handling mechanisms are known to us, but it would still be really taxing to do two builds and maintain them without a hitch. Operating it on a single build is easy, but two? Better not risk anything, as the possible benefits are greatly overshadowed by what would happen if the build merging went fubar.
 

Rabbit80

Member
Jori Virtanen said:
Keras said:
Jori Virtanen said:
Yes, we know, there are version handling mechanisms, and we have used them on several occasions, but things are not that simple.
Do you mean to say you are not using versioning tools most of the time? Now I`m really interested in what you are doing there, it could explain why things are taking so long to code :p
I don`t know of a way to efficiently work on a project with so many people and not having any versioning tools so I must be understanding that wrong xD
Yeah, you did ;)
We do have and do use version handling, of course. It would be both stupid and awfully clumsy to do this otherwise :p

What I meant is that version handling mechanisms are known to us, but it would still be really taxing to do two builds and maintain them without a hitch. Operating it on a single build is easy, but two? Better not risk anything, as the possible benefits are greatly overshadowed by what would happen if the build merging went fubar.
i think most people don't want you to maintain two builds..

Just the stable (currently released one) and a broken one which gets frequent updates would make us all happy :)

The only build you would be working on is the broken buggy one..
 

Lari Fari

Gaming Since 1989
Rabbit80 said:
Jori Virtanen said:
Keras said:
Jori Virtanen said:
Yes, we know, there are version handling mechanisms, and we have used them on several occasions, but things are not that simple.
Do you mean to say you are not using versioning tools most of the time? Now I`m really interested in what you are doing there, it could explain why things are taking so long to code :p
I don`t know of a way to efficiently work on a project with so many people and not having any versioning tools so I must be understanding that wrong xD
Yeah, you did ;)
We do have and do use version handling, of course. It would be both stupid and awfully clumsy to do this otherwise :p

What I meant is that version handling mechanisms are known to us, but it would still be really taxing to do two builds and maintain them without a hitch. Operating it on a single build is easy, but two? Better not risk anything, as the possible benefits are greatly overshadowed by what would happen if the build merging went fubar.
i think most people don't want you to maintain two builds..

Just the stable (currently released one) and a broken one which gets frequent updates would make us all happy :)

The only build you would be working on is the broken buggy one..
But that would still be having two builds... :p
 

Rabbit80

Member
Lari Fari said:
Rabbit80 said:
Jori Virtanen said:
Keras said:
Jori Virtanen said:
Yes, we know, there are version handling mechanisms, and we have used them on several occasions, but things are not that simple.
Do you mean to say you are not using versioning tools most of the time? Now I`m really interested in what you are doing there, it could explain why things are taking so long to code :p
I don`t know of a way to efficiently work on a project with so many people and not having any versioning tools so I must be understanding that wrong xD
Yeah, you did ;)
We do have and do use version handling, of course. It would be both stupid and awfully clumsy to do this otherwise :p

What I meant is that version handling mechanisms are known to us, but it would still be really taxing to do two builds and maintain them without a hitch. Operating it on a single build is easy, but two? Better not risk anything, as the possible benefits are greatly overshadowed by what would happen if the build merging went fubar.
i think most people don't want you to maintain two builds..

Just the stable (currently released one) and a broken one which gets frequent updates would make us all happy :)

The only build you would be working on is the broken buggy one..
But that would still be having two builds... :p
No more than having two builds at the moment - it would be no different other than allowing beta builds on steam ;)
 

Scruxx

New Member
That are 3 builds. One stable alpha client, one beta client on steam they have worked the last 2 weeks on and one beta build they are actually workin on.
 

Purple44

Well-Known Member
Team Bugbear Member
Rabbit80 said:
Lari Fari said:
Rabbit80 said:
Jori Virtanen said:
Keras said:
Jori Virtanen said:
Yes, we know, there are version handling mechanisms, and we have used them on several occasions, but things are not that simple.
Do you mean to say you are not using versioning tools most of the time? Now I`m really interested in what you are doing there, it could explain why things are taking so long to code :p
I don`t know of a way to efficiently work on a project with so many people and not having any versioning tools so I must be understanding that wrong xD
Yeah, you did ;)
We do have and do use version handling, of course. It would be both stupid and awfully clumsy to do this otherwise :p

What I meant is that version handling mechanisms are known to us, but it would still be really taxing to do two builds and maintain them without a hitch. Operating it on a single build is easy, but two? Better not risk anything, as the possible benefits are greatly overshadowed by what would happen if the build merging went fubar.
i think most people don't want you to maintain two builds..

Just the stable (currently released one) and a broken one which gets frequent updates would make us all happy :)

The only build you would be working on is the broken buggy one..
But that would still be having two builds... :p
No more than having two builds at the moment - it would be no different other than allowing beta builds on steam ;)
But it be 3 Builds wouldn't it? Bugbear would not want to release the "whole" Build they are working on, so someone would have to take the time to remove\disable the parts Bugbear don't want to show off yet.

I do want Bugbear to hold back some stuff so we will have something new to play when final version get release. Like be surprise with snow tracks!!
 

vogurt

Member
Here's a thought.

How about we let Bugbear do their jobs and make this game. When they release this update, let's play it. Let's tell them about it. Let's showcase bugs for them.

Let's not ridicule them for utter crap. They don't need to do anything but their JOB and THEIR GAME that THEY are CREATING. You should be glad they give you a weekly update and literally tell you that they can't push it because it's hilariously broken. And given you proof. You should feel lucky that even one person from the company takes time from their day to communicate with you. Look at all these crap AAA companies releasing crap games. Stop whining like entitled little kids and let these dudes create this insanely awesome game from SCRATCH. We all love this game. This is why we're here. They are going to keep working on it, because they want to, and they get paid to. Now just sit tight, and enjoy the content and game as it comes.

This isn't your game, it is theirs. They will do whatever they please. Kids these days. Man. I'm 22 and I come in here and feel like my peers are 8 years old screaming in the toy aisle because they can't get that Hot Wheels car.


It's in Alpha, that's no excuse to not work on a game and collect on money, but that isn't the case here. It isn't a fully developed and released product, so don't expect it to be. You're all going to be praising them when they're the ones finally making a Banger/Demo derby game that is going to be amazing. Just chill, dude.
 
Well said.

have to admit that the various references to 'EA games' over the last couple of pages made me think not of early access, but cash cow squeezing Electronic Arts. If EA had done WreckFest, each new development releast would be a brand new release (WreckFest 14, WreckFest 15) etc.

I never played it, but I read that a recent Battlefield full release was a little ... unfinished ...
 
B

BrianUK

Guest
presuming ed said:
Well said.

have to admit that the various references to 'EA games' over the last couple of pages made me think not of early access, but cash cow squeezing Electronic Arts. If EA had done WreckFest, each new development releast would be a brand new release (WreckFest 14, WreckFest 15) etc.

I never played it, but I read that a recent Battlefield full release was a little ... unfinished ...
It's still not finished.
 

vogurt

Member
Halo Master Chief Collection was broken at launch. 3 months in still unable to play with friends. I gave up on it, and Xbox in general. So I don't even know if it's fixed yet but I would doubt it.

Spoiled rotten; just let the dudes make the game they're going to make.

Constructive criticism is one thing AND encouraged. being a whiny female dog after every little thing, is just plain old immature. Do any of you read what you write and think it's not embarrassing to yourself?

Most y'all are cool dudes, though.
 

chuckskyline

Member
Master Blaster
vogurt said:
...It's in Alpha, that's no excuse to not work on a game and collect on money, but that isn't the case here. It isn't a fully developed and released product, so don't expect it to be. You're all going to be praising them when they're the ones finally making a Banger/Demo derby game that is going to be amazing. Just chill, dude.
Its in pre-alpha. A year later. With little or no progress since the summer...other than multiplayer... which is more of a feature then progress on the actual core of the game.

cheers.
 

vogurt

Member
chuckskyline said:
vogurt said:
...It's in Alpha, that's no excuse to not work on a game and collect on money, but that isn't the case here. It isn't a fully developed and released product, so don't expect it to be. You're all going to be praising them when they're the ones finally making a Banger/Demo derby game that is going to be amazing. Just chill, dude.
Its in pre-alpha. A year later. With little or no progress since the summer...other than multiplayer... which is more of a feature then progress on the actual core of the game.

cheers.
Yep. That is a fact. Thanks for stating.

Now what? I already knew that.
 
B

BrianUK

Guest
chuckskyline said:
vogurt said:
...It's in Alpha, that's no excuse to not work on a game and collect on money, but that isn't the case here. It isn't a fully developed and released product, so don't expect it to be. You're all going to be praising them when they're the ones finally making a Banger/Demo derby game that is going to be amazing. Just chill, dude.
Its in pre-alpha. A year later. With little or no progress since the summer...other than multiplayer... which is more of a feature then progress on the actual core of the game.

cheers.
I thought you weren't coming back. Or did you need to toss in the token troll comment?
 

dgrams2003

Member
BrianUK said:
presuming ed said:
Well said.

have to admit that the various references to 'EA games' over the last couple of pages made me think not of early access, but cash cow squeezing Electronic Arts. If EA had done WreckFest, each new development releast would be a brand new release (WreckFest 14, WreckFest 15) etc.

I never played it, but I read that a recent Battlefield full release was a little ... unfinished ...
It's still not finished.
Rolling my eyes at this comment.
Battlefield 4 definitely had it's issues at the start, but now it is an absolutely wonderful and stunning game. The amount of work and detail that is in the game is insane.

To hear comments like this takes be back to vogurt's post - talking about his peers being 8 years old and whining.
I can't stand it when people don't appreciate games and the amount of work that goes into them. Good or bad.
I could post about an 8 page rant on comments like this, but... #1) It's the internet. People always think they are right, even when they are not, so it is not worth my time. #2) I am here to read up about Wreckfest.. So lets get back to it.
 
M

Mopower

Guest
dgrams2003 said:
BrianUK said:
presuming ed said:
Well said.

have to admit that the various references to 'EA games' over the last couple of pages made me think not of early access, but cash cow squeezing Electronic Arts. If EA had done WreckFest, each new development releast would be a brand new release (WreckFest 14, WreckFest 15) etc.

I never played it, but I read that a recent Battlefield full release was a little ... unfinished ...
It's still not finished.
Rolling my eyes at this comment.
Battlefield 4 definitely had it's issues at the start, but now it is an absolutely wonderful and stunning game. The amount of work and detail that is in the game is insane.

To hear comments like this takes be back to vogurt's post - talking about his peers being 8 years old and whining.
I can't stand it when people don't appreciate games and the amount of work that goes into them. Good or bad.
I could post about an 8 page rant on comments like this, but... #1) It's the internet. People always think they are right, even when they are not, so it is not worth my time. #2) I am here to read up about Wreckfest.. So lets get back to it.
Edit: I may have read your post wrong, so correct me if so.


Just so you know, Vogurt was defending Bugbear's right to not release an unfinished build haVing given us solid evidence and the reasoning behind it. I think you're a little confused, but yes, it seems rather immature when people can't notice progress and are constantly hounding for updates when they know why and when they are coming.

Why haven't they Come yet? They're getting released with the physics update which isn't ready yet.

When will they release it? When they (bugbear) deem it playable and ready for release.

I don't understand why this concept is fingerlessly hard to grasp for some
 
Top