Jump to content

Boots of Speed


Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
I found this logic weak and the conclusion a mere assumption. If we followed your principles then the fixpack should never address mismatches between text and effects because the same might apply to any of them.

no, it might not. Because: 1)they surely knew about this mismatch (and they didn't knew about every mismatch, of course). 2) it takes a very short time to fix it, not even requiring any special skill or superor IE knowledge or something else. This also might not be applied to every mismatch adressed by the fixpack.

 

The developers stated (see Nythrun above) that they are aware of several errors never corrected because of time restraints.

just how much time you think the correction would take?

When you're fixing bugs, you first receive report, then confirm it, then think what you can do here. All these stages in this particular case take 20 minutes, after which you can start fixing. I'm sure that is not that easy even for your fireball example.

If Fireball is indicated to do 6D6 of damage but then the effective amount is 8D6, what should we do ? Leave it like it is?

No, you should fix it. But I can go through the whole game 10 times and never notice fireball having 8d6 damage instead of 6d6. And I can't miss 5 pairs of boots of speed, dozen of rings of invisibility, etc.

 

There is no way around this because there are two factors that are on this logic's side: 1) consistency and 2) coherency.

Consistency and coherency are good. But developers' intentions are the main. They are not always consistent, but still they run the show.

There are multiply copies of supposedly unique items in BG1 (not just boots of speed, but others also. Not 1, not 2, not even 3). So, despite of their descriptions, artifacts weren't supposed to exist in single copy from the very beginning. And there are just more such copies in BG2. It shows that developers either never cared about true uniqueness or made it as it is intentionally.

You can say that "it's BG1 bug transferred to BG2", but then they really had a lot of time to fix it=).

Link to comment
they surely knew about this mismatch (and they didn't knew about every mismatch, of course).
Why? You're assuming they knew about this while admitting they didn't know about everything. What may be clear to you as a player might not be clear to a design team. Otherwise, no applications would ever have any bugs. And you'd be hard-pressed to account for the fact the Fixpackers are still uncovering new things all the time, years after the product's release.
There are multiply copies of supposedly unique items in BG1 (not just boots of speed, but others also. Not 1, not 2, not even 3).
Name two of them. Boots of Speed don't count, because there's only one pair you can actually get in BG1. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'd just like to see some examples that aren't aberrations. So far, you haven't given any plausible argument for the fact the designer wanted to have *both* items with unique descriptions *and* non-unique placements in the game, other than "because it's that way" [in BG2]. That would justify every bug in the game as being intentional.
Link to comment
Guest Guest
Why? You're assuming they knew about this while admitting they didn't know about everything. What may be clear to you as a player might not be clear to a design team. Otherwise, no applications would ever have any bugs. And you'd be hard-pressed to account for the fact the Fixpackers are still uncovering new things all the time, years after the product's release.

because there are lots of such items. If you think that it is possible to go through game (there were beta-testers, right?), and never notice such a thing, then, well, I can't object=).

But if you notice that at least one artifact is duplicated, wouldn't you pay attention to others?

 

Name two of them.

Boots of Stealth, Necklace of Missiles.

Link to comment
If you think that it is possible to go through game (there were beta-testers, right?), and never notice such a thing, then, well, I can't object=).
Yes, they had QA testers. A bunch of testers - just page to the back of your manual and take a look. But that's part of my point, really. From what I know about product design and testing, you don't really expect one person to go through the entire product and pick up every single detail in every single context. And you never have the luxury of waiting until it's a final product before testing. So what you do is, once someone's done with a quest or new area, you have someone test just that quest or new area, and so on. If they were lucky, they may have had two kinds of QA: debugging help and proofreading. Neither of those specialists, by themselves, would've uncovered this kind of bug.

 

And if they weren't so lucky, their testing might've extended only to overall plot consistency, not details like this. Speculation, you say? Think again:

Unfortunately most testing, in-house, is devoted to whether or not plots (a) make sense and (b) work... [W]e do have QA who go through the game...it's harsh to say that they don't do anything because they do a LOT. You should have seen BG2 10,000 bug-fixes ago. But they can't possibly go through the final game like a million end-users can, sad as that is to say. At the very least, once they've gone through the game a million times just looking for bugs, it's kinda hard to look at the game objectively enough to check for minute details... For some people, this kind of thing might seem obvious. Put them in the same QA seat and it's not quite the same deal. Like I said earlier, looking at a game in hind-sight can make a lot of things seem obvious.
We have a proofreading team for the BG1 Fixpack Game Text Update, and the luxury (?) of having no deadline to worry about. But even so we would not notice this type of bug. Why? Because the job is to proofread descriptions, not correlate that to uniqueness of items within the game. [but the more I think about it, maybe it should be our job. Except it's an awful lot of work as it is, and we're rather short-staffed. Want a job? It doesn't pay much, but there's the satisfaction :).]

 

And if that's still not good enough, you can fall back the point made by two different people who commonly disagree:

It's even possible the folks specing and placing the items *didn't have* the descriptions as yet (or just didn't read them as it wasn't their job to do so). They were likely charged to distribute equipment, so a few swords +1 here, a couple swords +2 there.
Another possibility that hasn't been mentioned: maybe they didn't even have all the descriptions when they were placing the items. Different people really did develop the story and code everything (the writers vs. the technical designers), and they really didn't have enough time.
Or even this one, which is somewhat similar:
I'd be quite happy to go with the idea that the Devs may have miscommunicated or forgotten to update description texts in some cases, or that some duplicate items were put in as placeholders for other unique items with similar power/abilities and were never changed.
And another thing no one has mentioned. Besides a word count limit, there's the need to get your text out to translators.
The other problem there, much to my own chagrin, is that we have a limit on word count. We can't go on and on and on with our dialogue...there is a limit, much as I would like there not to be. For a game like BG2 that has to be translated into so many different languages, we writers are forced to bow to the cost of so many translations. It's a LOT... Like I said, hindsight's a big help when it comes to writing.
So maybe they did notice these things after the fact, but by the time someone in QA or even a player pointed this out, they no longer had a contract with all the translators. Does that mean they intended to do the descriptions this way? Not at all.
Boots of Stealth, Necklace of Missiles. Amulet of Protection +1
Ok, that's two, cheers. There may even be more. But in my mind, this type of review just strengthens the evidence that this was unintentional. There are far more items with unique descriptions that actually are unique in the game. So until the exceptions start to outweigh the standards, I'm still convinced these are overlooked errors and should be corrected as such.

 

While grepping around, I actually took the time to scan through the BG2 Fixpack readme (maybe I should've done this earlier :)):

Game Text Update

This component, based upon the Baldurdash Game Text Update, seeks to address miscellaneous errors in the text. Typos, grammatical errors, item description inconsistencies, etc. are addressed by this component. It should be noted that incorrect strings that are actually bugs are addressed by Core Fixes.

This implies two things: if a text description is a confirmed bug, it's in Core Fixes. If it's a inconsistency, it's in the GTU. So these inconsistencies should be in the GTU by this description. Unless we're going to be uh, inconsistent, and change this to "some item description inconsistencies"? :)
The unique items Varscona and Suryris's Blade are now only available once in the game
Now we're fishing into even murkier waters. Why do this for two items but not all of them (or none of them for that matter)? It seems this is trying to address inconsistency but only introducing more in the process. If Gaider or another writer or developer confirmed these two items should've been unique (and the others shouldn't've been), now we're getting some clarity here at least.
Link to comment

At the risk of extending the thread...

 

While grepping around, I actually took the time to scan through the BG2 Fixpack readme (maybe I should've done this earlier :)):
Game Text Update

This component, based upon the Baldurdash Game Text Update, seeks to address miscellaneous errors in the text. Typos, grammatical errors, item description inconsistencies, etc. are addressed by this component. It should be noted that incorrect strings that are actually bugs are addressed by Core Fixes.

This implies two things: if a text description is a confirmed bug, it's in Core Fixes. If it's a inconsistency, it's in the GTU. So these inconsistencies should be in the GTU by this description. Unless we're going to be uh, inconsistent, and change this to "some item description inconsistencies"? :)

There are many types of inconsistencies, not just the specific ones you're trying to support with this reach. If the GTU changes any of the descriptive text (save typos) for items I can assure you it will be purged. What's meant here is that stuff like the 'STATISTICS' section of the descriptions are consistent with each other and use consistent language.

 

One of the problems inherent with something inherited like the GTU (as opposed to every other component of the Fixpack which has been built by the team) is that I can not say this with absolute certainty--it's always possible Dorner had another "hey, let's add a quest as a fix" moment and we simply haven't caught it in any of the GTU reviews yet.

Link to comment
What's meant here is that stuff like the 'STATISTICS' section of the descriptions are consistent with each other and use consistent language.
Very well then. To avoid further dispute or uncertainty though, you might consider clarifying that. Because it's certainly not clear in the current description.

 

[i'd like to hear your views on what constitutes "consistent with each other and use consistent language" though it isn't directly applicable to this post. I wouldn't want you to slog through the whole "Proofreading" post in the BG1 Fixroom, but could you at least look at Salk's "uniform method" post and see if that's what's meant by this.]

 

What is relevant is the "fix" regarding "The unique items Varscona and Suryris's Blade are now only available once in the game." Both of these (Long Sword +2 and Halberd +2) are unique in BG1. In BG2, The halberd +2 appears 5 times, including once for sale at Ribald's Adventurer's Mart, quite early in the game I believe. The longsword +2 appears... eh... 25 times on creatures (I may have lost count) and in a bunch of "grab bags," though maybe these bags are unused or something. I'd be interested in hearing how the BG2 designers only intended one of each of these in the game, and how this applies only to these two items and not other non-unique items with descriptions suggesting they're unique.

 

I hope you don't consider this an attack on Teh Fixpack (or even the GTU). Although at first I said I didn't care much about it, it's now taken on relevance for the BG1 Fixpack/GTU, so we may as well agree on some standards here.

Link to comment

... and from the other thread on this issue, I agree, to a point. I see the contradiction in our approach that we're ignoring Boots of Speed but changing Varscona and Suryris' Blade to be unique. However, devSin's argument that Bio cared only about items with titles is not without merit--depending on your PoV, you may consider this hair-splitting or a rock-solid distinction.

Link to comment

Eh... but the Boots of Speed do have a title: 'The Paws of the Cheetah.' As do non-unique items such as the Boots of Stealth: 'Worn Whispers.' So sorry, I really don't see the merit in that argument at all :).

Link to comment

I'm that annoying guest. Finally I will correct my stupid grammar mistakes before someone notice them (if i notice them myself).

Miloch, so you're saying that it is a BG1 bug, reintroduced and expanded in BG2. And then you assuming one of 4 possibilities:

1) no one of developers, or testers, never had such a thought, and they never had reported this as a bug starting from BG1 release to BG2:ToB final patch or never had time for this.

Doesn't seem plausible to me. I just don't believe it.

2) they didn't have descriptions when placing items.

Uhm, so what? Finally they received the descriptions and uncovered it (I believe they knew it from the beginning and never bothered). Even if they did that mistake in BG1, why did they repeat it in BG2?

3) they had contract with all the translators no longer when uncovered it.

I don't know how it works in your country, but in my a publisher buys rights to publish a game, then translates it and then publishes. Or do you think Bioware published these 2 games by themselves in all languages? If not, I'd say it's publisher's problems. Or if it is really the case, they still released BG1 and BG2, didn't they? So, again, nobody noticed it since they released BG1 till they no longer had contract with translators of BG2, or they hadn't enough time, etc. It's just a slight change of amount of time from the 1st paragraph.

4) items were supposed to be unique in BG1, and BG2 reused descriptions (and they intended to update them).

How many copies in BG1 would convince you that they weren't? (I'm not saying that there are so many copies and I can find them for you, just curious)

 

What's wrong with a word count limit, I don't know. Descriptions of non-unique items are way shorter.

 

Varscona and Suryris's Blade

That's it, you got 'em!=). Now Cam has to do something=). Though I think removing this change from fixpack is more logical.

 

Ok, that's two, cheers. There may even be more.

yes there are more.

But in my mind, this type of review just strengthens the evidence that this was unintentional.

oh crap, why did you asked for it, then?)

 

There are far more items with unique descriptions that actually are unique in the game.

That's our sticking point. I think that existing quantity of copies and the fact that in BG2 even more such copies are way enough to conclude that these are not errors.

 

So until the exceptions start to outweigh the standards, I'm still convinced these are overlooked errors and should be corrected as such.

haha, I almost imagined what would happen if I somehow managed to prove you that exception outweighs the standards))). You would suggest to remove all one-copy items, or to add at least one copy for each, wouldn't you?+)

 

Does that mean they intended to do the descriptions this way? Not at all.

I think they didn't do this intended, if you mean "writing unique descriptions for items and then paying special attention to place these items in game more the once". But most likely, they simply didn't care. They created items, and somehow distributed them through the game, trying to create an interesting game with good balance. I haven't seen anyone till now complaining about it, so this (possible) viewpoint of theirs is not that bad.

 

The point is that in order to have the right to call something "fix" (and therefore place it in the fixpack) you should have some evidence (or, in OBC case, hint) that they had intention to do it otherwise, not I (well, I'm taking too much on me here, but I'm the most active opponent in this topic for now=)) should prove that they hadn't this intention. The only thing you have is their descriptions (in initial post you said you won't make it an argument, but I don't see any other reason). And this again leads us to the stiking point. You think there are not enough copies, I think there are. I see no logical way out.

 

 

And, btw, in the description of boots of stealth is not stated exactly what equipment those spies had, nor stated that each of them had such boots. So, they may be unique. Or may be not.

 

edit: a few edits to clarify what I want to say

Link to comment
Guest Amgot

Completely off topic (and a bit of relief in this heated debate):

 

They can't be considered fixes tout court but have valid reasons to exist because they make the game more consistent or restore some P&P variables

 

Can someone explain to me those weird occurences of French in the English language? Most recently, I've also read a post on the forum where a user was employing sans (English: without). It's very surprising for a French reader to suddenly read those very specific French words in the middle of a post in English, especially when you have commonly-used equivalent words in English: tout court = only (in this case) and sans = without.

 

I'm aware that a lot of French words and expressions (a la, voila ...) are often used because the English language lacks equivalent words but what's up with those above?

 

I want an explanation! :)

Link to comment

@Amgot: I learned the use of some french words when I studied jurisprudence some years ago in Italy.

 

@CamDawg (and annoying guest Zirael): I also believe that a title for one item is a reason of unicity itself but this just proves how solid Miloch's reasoning is:

 

"Eh... but the Boots of Speed do have a title: 'The Paws of the Cheetah.' As do non-unique items such as the Boots of Stealth: 'Worn Whispers.' So sorry, I really don't see the merit in that argument at all ."

 

Zirael's point is also hard to accept. In short he is saying that the developers/betatesters didn't care and thus suggesting the fixpackers shouldn't care either... :)

 

Frankly, such a conclusion will never, for the life of me, sound convincing.

Link to comment

Salk, that's right. This is my viewpoint. You can't make a change that developers didn't want and call it "fix".

 

And don't get me wrong, I like the idea itself - particularly really unique artifacts in 1 instance, but changing descriptions also makes game more consistent. That's why I'm complaining so much here. But I'm against including it in the fixpack. Call me purist if you want=).

Link to comment
Finally I will correct my stupid grammar mistakes before someone notice them (if i notice them myself).
Oh this thread is quite long enough without going there (eh... add an 's' after the first 'notice' for starters ;)).
Miloch, so you're saying that it is a BG1 bug, reintroduced and expanded in BG2.
Yep. And in the interest of (attempted) brevity, I'm not going to respond separately to each of the first three points, but I think the quotes above by a core BG2 designer not only justify them, but address your questions:
...it's kinda hard to look at the game objectively enough to check for minute details... For some people, this kind of thing might seem obvious. Put them in the same QA seat and it's not quite the same deal. Like I said earlier, looking at a game in hind-sight can make a lot of things seem obvious.
I think you really don't realise the scope of making a game of this magnitude. You have plots to craft, areas to draw, sounds to record, and on and on. With major tasks of this nature, a detail like this could easily go overlooked.
4) items were supposed to be unique in BG1, and BG2 reused descriptions.

How many copies in BG1 would convince you that they weren't? (I'm not saying that there are so many copies and I can find them for you, just curious)

Well, you gave two examples. The boots don't count: one pair *is* unique, the other isn't and doesn't have clear evidence for uniqueness in its description, just as you say. I spot-checked easily 3-4 times that number of items that said they were unique and were. And I suspect there's far more of those, and not many more of the former. There'd have to be more than two exceptions, which is a reasonable margin of error.
haha, I almost imagined what would happen if I somehow managed to prove you that exception outweighs the standards))). You would suggest to remove all one-copy items, or to add at least one copy for each, wouldn't you?+)
Eh... no. That would be silly :).
Varscona and Suryris's Blade
That's it, you got 'em!=). Now Cam has to do something=). Though I think removing this change from fixpack is more logical.
Well, there I agree. Though still correct the text considering they're no longer unique in BG2, as they were in BG1 :).

 

Now I'm willing to make this an optional component in the absence of developer confirmation. I'm even willing to write such a component (for BG1 at least - it wouldn't be big, as you've said). So I really don't understand the objection, given the fact you don't have to install it if you don't want to :(.

 

But I have to wonder... why wouldn't you install it? Developer intent or lack thereof isn't enough (we have no current proof either way; and although we have evidence, it doesn't convince you). So what remains? If you don't care about descriptions, this wouldn't affect you (even if you installed it). So if you *did* care, does it please you to have multiple necklaces owned by Ikaida Mourneve, who owned only one such necklace? ;)

Can someone explain to me those weird occurences of French in the English language?
Salk's use may be different but otherwise it can be summed up in two words: Norman Conquest. Though they were actually Vikings originally but eh... I've babbled enough. :)
Link to comment
Oh this thread is quite long enough without going there (eh... add an 's' after the first 'notice' for starters :)).

Be indulgent). I'm trying to use all of my English knowledge=)

 

Well, you gave two examples. The boots don't count: one pair *is* unique, the other isn't and doesn't have clear evidence for uniqueness in its description, just as you say. I spot-checked easily 3-4 times that number of items that said they were unique and were. And I suspect there's far more of those, and not many more of the former. There'd have to be more than two exceptions, which is a reasonable margin of error.

and what margin is not reasonable for you? You see, it turns into question of amount. I stated my opinion: these that are in BG1 and the fact that in BG2 even more (I'd say, much more) are enough for me. Would you please name your number?)

 

So I really don't understand the objection, given the fact you don't have to install it if you don't want to :).

 

But I have to wonder... why wouldn't you install it?

It's just the question of purity, if it's a fix or a mod. But fixpack should contain fixes only. Release it as many times as you want, name it as you please, but do not call it fixpack.

I personally wouldn't install such text update because I can hardly imagine alternate descriptions that remove uniqueness, don't go far from original description and don't ruin the atmosphere. Something like "That asassin actually had 7 pairs of boots, for every day of week. 2 pairs were lost, but others 5 weren't!"? And, anyway, even if suitable descriptions were written, it seems somehow silly and wrong to me.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...