Rare had to forgo certification

makes me wonder if MS is really going to fumble this up. They might have a year head start but if the games suck that year head start isn't going to amount to much.

PD0 hasn't been doing to well in the development area, first Rare had to cut a features now they didn't get any testing before publishing the game. I've got a gut feeling that says PD0 is going to be a big disappointment.
 
To Rare's defense, they didn't have much time to configure PD0 to the 360 as they'd originally planned for it to be released on the N64...then the GC.

I doubt this situation will result in anything more than a less than stellar launch but not hurt the 360s overall image. If few quality titles are produced by the time the Revolution and PS3 come out, then it's a different story entirely.
 
Rare hasn't released anything I've wanted to play for quite some time...so I'm not getting my hopes up with Zero.
 
[quote name='CapAmerica']makes me wonder if MS is really going to fumble this up. They might have a year head start but if the games suck that year head start isn't going to amount to much.

PD0 hasn't been doing to well in the development area, first Rare had to cut a features now they didn't get any testing before publishing the game. I've got a gut feeling that says PD0 is going to be a big disappointment.[/QUOTE]


Yes, but like system launches, the first year of games is almost always a throw away. Its a chance for developers to "get the hang of it". I honestly can't think of many AAA titles that have come out within the first year of a console's development.
 
guess they figure they can always patch through Live, though knowingly shipping something untested might not send the best message to consumers.
 
but if you read the article, it passed certification just like any other 360 title. Rare just took the chance of manufacturing before hearing that it passed. So if the game didn't pass certifcation, they would have been left with thousands of discs with bugs that would not have shipped.

This was a risky thing to do but it doesnt' really speak about the quality of the game. It passed certifcation just like any other game.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yes, but like system launches, the first year of games is almost always a throw away. Its a chance for developers to "get the hang of it". I honestly can't think of many AAA titles that have come out within the first year of a console's development.[/QUOTE]

Theres a couple, notably Mario 64, Soul Calibur, Halo, etc. But you are right, the system really won't hit its stride for several months, thats when the developers can really get a feel for the hardware and you'll see some impressive stuff.
 
I say if Rare pulls this one off, great, I may actually have some new faith in Rare, but from what their history shows, post N64/Free Radical Team Leaving has been downhill for them. If they actually picked up all the Free Radical guys again to help develop PD0, then the game would no doubt be really good.
 
[quote name='gofishn']Theres a couple, notably Mario 64, Soul Calibur, Halo, etc. But you are right, the system really won't hit its stride for several months, thats when the developers can really get a feel for the hardware and you'll see some impressive stuff.[/QUOTE]


Yes, but with the exception of Soul Calibur (which still looks pretty damn good) the rest of them were far from the best graphics their particular system gave us. I'm not saying launch and early games aren't fun but simply that they don't exploit the full potential of a system's capabilities, graphical or otherwise.
 
I certainly hope patches do not become commonplace with the 360, what with all the bigwigs assuring us that "no game cannot be played without the hard drive."

Oh really? Except maybe all those BC games....
 
[quote name='Morrigan Lover']Patches? For console games? Man the industry is going downhill. And they expect us to pay $60 for this?[/QUOTE]

Console games have had bugs for a long time...usually they get cleared up before they get released in the US though.
 
The certification process is much different than bug testing. I'm sure the game has been bug tested for months before they actually sent it in for certification.

The certification process includes a checklist of a bunch of random shit that the average person would never even know about without being told. Stuff like: the game cannot be loading for more than 5 seconds without displaying a screen that says "loading"; or onscreen text must say "PRESS the X button" not "HIT the X button"; or the attract mode must start playing after 15 idle seconds on the menu screen.

It's generally really hardcore shit that doesn't effect the core gameplay whatsoever.
 
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1662&Itemid=2The certification process is the final stage a game goes through before manufacture. Microsoft's team picks through the game making sure there are no bugs, that menus all work correctly, and that there are no compatibility issues. Games that fail, even in the smallest detail, are sent back to publishers and developers for changes.
Click to expand...
Then how come so many games are filled with bugs? And why does my Windows XP, even freshly installed, keep rebooting every 15 minutes? (Don't worry-got it fixed.) I suspect if bugs were found in Perfect Dark Zero, they would have just said, "Oh well", and shipped the game anyway - perhaps with a "fix-it code" made available via Xbox Live.

makes me wonder if MS is really going to fumble this up. They might have a year head start but if the games suck that year head start isn't going to amount to much.
Click to expand...
Yep! That's what killed the Sega Saturn. So far though the X360 looks good.

To Rare's defense, they didn't have much time to configure PD0 to the 360 as they'd originally planned for it to be released on the N64...then the GC.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Rare was bought by Microsoft in 2002 and have had 3 years to port the code from the GC to the X360 - both of which are PowerPC and near-identical instruction sets. Rare had *plenty* of time.

but if you read the article, it passed certification just like any other 360 title.
Click to expand...
Did it? Or did it fail 1 or 2 verifications, but a hihg-up manager like Bill Gates decided to stamp "certified" anyway? I know how these things work in the engineering world. "It's almost perfect - we can't fail it, or we'll lose big bugs - let's pass it even with the flaws."
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Then how come so many games are filled with bugs? And why does my Windows XP, even freshly installed, keep rebooting every 15 minutes? (Don't worry-got it fixed.) I suspect if bugs were found in Perfect Dark Zero, they would have just said, "Oh well", and shipped the game anyway - perhaps with a "fix-it code" made available via Xbox Live.[/quote]
Because "no bugs" in the certification means no major bugs that cause the game to crash or anything like that. Your Windows XP probably rebooted due to non-compatability issues between hardware or a virus or two. It's almost impossible to get rid of every single bug in a game, but getting rid of the major ones are more important before working on the minor ones, which they try to fix as many as possible before they have to send the master copy out for production.

[quote name='electrictroy']Did it? Or did it fail 1 or 2 verifications, but a hihg-up manager like Bill Gates decided to stamp "certified" anyway? I know how these things work in the engineering world. "It's almost perfect - we can't fail it, or we'll lose big bugs - let's pass it even with the flaws."[/QUOTE]
"Games that fail, even in the smallest detail, are sent back to publishers and developers for changes." Somehow I doubt they'd look the other way if it failed any part of the test. If the game failed parts of the certification, there'd be no way that they'd ship out faulty discs and make the launch worse. Plus, Bill Gates isn't really all that involved in the games/Xbox division as the actual higher-ups for that division would be making that decision and I doubt that they'd have shipping out faulty discs just to get them out when they don't need to make that kind of risk if it did happen.
 
You guys act like Rare has never delayed a game before.. if it needed to be delayed, they wouldn't hesitate.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']"Games that fail, even in the smallest detail, are sent back to publishers and developers for changes." Somehow I doubt they'd look the other way if it failed any part of the test. Plus, Bill Gates isn't really all that involved in the games/Xbox division as the actual higher-ups for that division would be making that decision [/QUOTE]

(1) I said "like Bill Gates" not necessarily Bill.

(2) You are naive. That quote is basically just marketing BS. Like the commercials that say, "4 out of 5 dentists recommend Denteen". BS. -----> Microsoft/Rare is not about to throw out millions of dollars worth of games OR delay the release of PDZ, just because it took 20 seconds to load instead of the certified-15 seconds.

troy
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']
"Games that fail, even in the smallest detail, are sent back to publishers and developers for changes." Somehow I doubt they'd look the other way if it failed any part of the test. If the game failed parts of the certification, there'd be no way that they'd ship out faulty discs and make the launch worse. Plus, Bill Gates isn't really all that involved in the games/Xbox division as the actual higher-ups for that division would be making that decision and I doubt that they'd have shipping out faulty discs just to get them out when they don't need to make that kind of risk if it did happen.[/QUOTE]

I don't know...I tend to agree with troy to an extent on this one. Just because they say that any game that fails even the smallest detail is sent back doesn't make it a fact. I can tell you until I am blue in the face that my bank account has $1,000,000 in it and you wouldn't know any better...that doesn't make it so. Do you expect them to say..."yeah, we let stuff out that we know is crap." I honestly can't think of specific examples, but I do remember reading reviews of games talking about major glitches and whatnot and those seemed to have made it out to retail even without the pressure to get them out for a console launch. And I am sure some of those were Xbox games.
 
Kind of a misleading title to this thread. As jer pointed out (and anyone who reads as far as the 2nd sentence(!) of the article would also learn), they had to forego waiting for the results of certification before pressing discs, not forego the process entirely. Based on that article completely foregoing certification is simply not an option for any game.

They probably sat down and talked about how confident they all were it would pass. Based on that I imagine it was nearly a no-brainer to make this move to get PD0 on shelves for Day 1. A game must get a nice sales boost from being available Day 1 vs. hitting the shelves 2 weeks later. Gamers are going to buy at least 1 game to go with that shiny new 360 on Day 1. Not wait 1-2 weeks for a game that is just slightly delayed. Plus a game being there on Day 1 makes it eligible to be part of the crappy bundles some retailers will certainly make consumers buy. That coupled with the article pointing out missing Day 1 would be a 'publicity disaster' pretty much forced their hand I'd imagine.
 
[quote name='electrictroy'](1) I said "like Bill Gates" not necessarily Bill.

(2) You are naive. That quote is basically just marketing BS. Like the commercials that say, "4 out of 5 dentists recommend Denteen". BS. -----> Microsoft/Rare is not about to throw out millions of dollars worth of games OR delay the release of PDZ, just because it took 20 seconds to load instead of the certified-15 seconds.

troy[/QUOTE]
Why would they delay it because of loading times? That makes no sense. If it was a bug that crashed the game or the menus didn't work properly, they'd have to go back and fix those issues because they're serious things that can hamper the game. Load times aren't that big of a deal and I haven't seen official word that that's even part of the certification process. It passed the process, so that means that there's nothing majorly wrong with it.
 
[quote name='chickenhawk']I don't know...I tend to agree with troy to an extent on this one. Just because they say that any game that fails even the smallest detail is sent back doesn't make it a fact. I can tell you until I am blue in the face that my bank account has $1,000,000 in it and you wouldn't know any better...that doesn't make it so. Do you expect them to say..."yeah, we let stuff out that we know is crap." I honestly can't think of specific examples, but I do remember reading reviews of games talking about major glitches and whatnot and those seemed to have made it out to retail even without the pressure to get them out for a console launch. And I am sure some of those were Xbox games.[/QUOTE]
No, because the process doesn't tell crap from gold, it tells working from non-working games. When you find those specific examples, post them, because I haven't seen much mention of them in any of the review threads here where I'm pretty sure there'd be bitching about it if they were present.
 
Pshhh certification means nothing. Plenty of crap has got through it. Morrowinds 9 hour load times. Ghost Recons ghost walls and plent more.
 
[quote name='topic']Rare had to forgo certification [/quote]

[quote name=' 2nd sentence of the linked article']The game passed certification after the disks had been pressed. [/quote]


they were so confident they went ahead and did it. I think that's a good sign. WE DON'T DIE, WE MULTIPLY!!

people are going to(have been?) try so hard to hate PDZ.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']No, because the process doesn't tell crap from gold, it tells working from non-working games. When you find those specific examples, post them, because I haven't seen much mention of them in any of the review threads here where I'm pretty sure there'd be bitching about it if they were present.[/QUOTE]

OK, I didn't mean that they are trying to ensure the game is good. I know that is not the goal of the certification process. I was talking about glitches and such that is specifically mentioned in the article as part of the certification process. Don't get all pissy cause I didn't agree with you. I wasn't trying to start anything, just stating my opinion. As far as the specific examples, I am not about to reread through all of the game reviews I have read (and I wasn't talking about CAG reviews). I suppose you are going to tell me that every game that MS has certified for Xbox up to this point was free of glitches that affected gameplay or something? Doubtful.

EDIT: If the goal is only to ensure the game works at a very generic level, than I guess I stand corrected, but it seemed to me that the goal of the certification process was about more than just the game loading up and being playable.
 
[quote name='chickenhawk']I don't know...I tend to agree with troy to an extent on this one. Just because they say that any game that fails even the smallest detail is sent back doesn't make it a fact. [/QUOTE]
Yeah. Even GM *claims* they have the "highest/strictest standards" but we all know GM cars fall apart.

It's just marketing propaganda, and you guys are falling for it, hook-line-and-sinker.
 
[quote name='chickenhawk']OK, I didn't mean that they are trying to ensure the game is good. I know that is not the goal of the certification process. I was talking about glitches and such that is specifically mentioned in the article as part of the certification process. Don't get all pissy cause I didn't agree with you. I wasn't trying to start anything, just stating my opinion. As far as the specific examples, I am not about to reread through all of the game reviews I have read (and I wasn't talking about CAG reviews). I suppose you are going to tell me that every game that MS has certified for Xbox up to this point was free of glitches that affected gameplay or something? Doubtful.[/QUOTE]
I'm thinking the bug test looks to make sure their aren't bug of a debilitating state that would freeze, crash, etc. the game and make it unplayable, but I'd think that most developers wouldn't be bringing their "finished" games to MS if those were still in there. I'm not getting pissy in any way, shape, or form, so stop getting ideas about how I'm saying the post. I stated my opinion about your opinion in response, nothing to get all huffy about. I only mentioned reviews on CAG since there are a bunch of threads posting reviews of the 360 lineup and my skimming of the articles hasn't really come up with any of these debilitating glitches. I even said in my response to troy that it's impossible to get rid of every bug that is in a game, but getting the major ones become a priority first then the others get fixed in relation to how much development time is left on the schedule.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']I'm thinking the bug test looks to make sure their aren't bug of a debilitating state that would freeze, crash, etc. the game and make it unplayable, but I'd think that most developers wouldn't be bringing their "finished" games to MS if those were still in there. I'm not getting pissy in any way, shape, or form, so stop getting ideas about how I'm saying the post. I stated my opinion about your opinion in response, nothing to get all huffy about. I only mentioned reviews on CAG since there are a bunch of threads posting reviews of the 360 lineup and my skimming of the articles hasn't really come up with any of these debilitating glitches. I even said in my response to troy that it's impossible to get rid of every bug that is in a game, but getting the major ones become a priority first then the others get fixed in relation to how much development time is left on the schedule.[/QUOTE]

Gotcha....it just sounded like you were all bent out of shape after reading my response. One more case of not being able to read tone in online messages. ;) :grouphug:

Regarding the real issue, if your assessment of what they test for is true than I am talking about glitches of a more tame variety. I don't believe that I have read about glitches that result in a system crash or anything so if that is all they are looking for than I stand corrected. I have read about significant gameplay glitches though.
 
[quote name='wubb']Kind of a misleading title to this thread. As jer pointed out (and anyone who reads as far as the 2nd sentence(!) of the article would also learn), they had to forego waiting for the results of certification before pressing discs, not forego the process entirely. Based on that article completely foregoing certification is simply not an option for any game.

They probably sat down and talked about how confident they all were it would pass. Based on that I imagine it was nearly a no-brainer to make this move to get PD0 on shelves for Day 1. A game must get a nice sales boost from being available Day 1 vs. hitting the shelves 2 weeks later. Gamers are going to buy at least 1 game to go with that shiny new 360 on Day 1. Not wait 1-2 weeks for a game that is just slightly delayed. Plus a game being there on Day 1 makes it eligible to be part of the crappy bundles some retailers will certainly make consumers buy. That coupled with the article pointing out missing Day 1 would be a 'publicity disaster' pretty much forced their hand I'd imagine.[/QUOTE]


Yeah that sentence is a lot like the title. I'm not one to make a topic title three miles long just so I can make it perfectly clear.
 
Wow, a critical 360 launch title developed by a Microsoft owned company passed certification at the last possible moment! How shocking! I'm sure everything was done by the book. :bs:
 
[quote name='Zing']Wow, a critical 360 launch title developed by a Microsoft owned company passed certification at the last possible moment! How shocking! I'm sure everything was done by the book. :bs:[/QUOTE]


Well said. It's possible that Microsoft's game... er, Rare's game PDZ passed w/o any problem. But it's also possible that it had flaws (for example, boot times of 45 seconds when it should have been 30 seconds), and Microsoft Management waved their hands, performed some incantations, and the game magically "passed" despite the flaws.

We don't know. All we're reading is the words of marketers, or as I call them, "people paid to lie".

troy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top