retired_whatever

Im finding it quite interesting that people complain that testers didnt saw closing down....

For you guys: closing down bug was created because testers pointed out that there was too much closing down.... The tuning just went the other way, so do not blame the testers for this, its just ignorant.

retired_laurag

I be very careful what you accuse others of, I'm sure gameplay would like to know that you are accusing them of sending pirated copy of a game out. I would be extremely happy to send my save game and any details in to SI games to prove my copy isn't pirated!!

I think its disgraceful someone acuses others of this to devalue important honest points. I have raised your post as a complaint to SI games!

Do you have the pirated version? </BLOCKQUOTE>

retired_laurag

In my post I state I don't find the closing down issue, an issue at all, and there are tactical ways to get around it as well.

retired_laurag

Is this some sort of a JOKE?! The testers are receiving the game AFTER it's already set for release, and there is no time available to report any problems before it's too late?

If this is the case, then this should be made a sticky at the top of these forums, and SI should be absolutely and utterly ashamed of itself. No wonder there was a massive closing down bug in the initial release, and no wonder the beta patch is awful! </BLOCKQUOTE>

Have to agree Kriss, I don't see the logic in people testing a game that can't be changed before release, makes no sense!

I support SI games and the series, have done so by buying every game from the first one on the Amiga in the early 90s. I feel I thus as a comsumer have the right to express how I feel about buying a product with faults in, some are the same faults transferred year by year.

It seems a patch just after release date is expected by many now, that should not be the case, its the wrong way to go about it. For the last few years until the release of the last patch you end up feeling that you are a tester as you spend months commenting on issues you found.

I have done some very detailed tests on the last few titles, some of those faults got ignored completely one year. Wasn't a rant, it was a detailed report.

People like to moan, maybe I do, but I don't think its unfair for some serious issues like fixtures vanishing and teams who havrn't qualified for a tournment winning it, to me to be a little peeved at that!

dreamer

That's such a ridiculous sentiment, especially when the original post was about the patch itself messing the game up. he whole post was about how obvious to spot the bugs should have been in testing, they are things you would assume wouldn't have been in the game, so you'd have no reason to wait for the patch to come out before you paid, because you'd assume SI were competent enough not to release a half-finished game.

retired_pennyyoung

the patch was released with warning. it is a work in progress. knowing this, after one applies the patch, and encounters a problem, one should remain calm and not do anything crazy, but simply reinstall the game, and continue with a previous save.

should one get angry after encountering a problem, one must slap oneself, which should offer a reminder that it was a beta patch, which came with a warning from the providers.

leanwitit

I see and sympathise with most of what you are saying.

You should consider retracting that bit though, It's totally untrue and shows that you have no concept of how FM is tested and why it is tested as it is.

Unfortunately it's not my place to explain it to you, I'd appreciate SI doing so but I can see good reasons why they might choose not to.

Let me add that I've yet to see a significant problem that wasn't picked up by testers, as Paul C has explained by the time we get the game in a form which enables us to pick up these things it's alreadt too late to fix them before release.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Kriss - re your last line

1. I have bought every CM FM game since it all started back on the Amiga
2. I am a software Test Manager for a Technology Consulting company

If your last line is indeed true then there is a clear issue with either planning / contingency or a combination of both, or perhaps test strategy in general could be adjusted.

To have found the key issues yet not be able to have fixes in place for these key issues / high risk issues must be seen to be a failing of the project.

As a lessons learnt in future the game must be delivered to the test team in a form which enables them to pick up these things before it's too late to fix and release them for retest. There needs to be allowed several cycles of test, error log, fix, retest and regression test.

I'm well aware of commercial pressures and commercial dates but perhaps a better flex of development resources would help or even have some of the experienced testers working alongside developers to assist with the unit and integration testing.

I've helped Marc Duffy in previous years improve the manual quality performing reviews and giving feedback. I'd be more than happy to assist the test or project manager with any experience / help that I may have with regards to test stratgey. I'm aware its never a one fits all approach. I' also aware its normally the testers that get the raw end of the deall in terms of late code delivery to the test team but a fixed test end date remains.

I still love this game and SI i'm willing to help if I can

Emm

That's such a ridiculous sentiment, especially when the original post was about the patch itself messing the game up. he whole post was about how obvious to spot the bugs should have been in testing, they are things you would assume wouldn't have been in the game, so you'd have no reason to wait for the patch to come out before you paid, because you'd assume SI were competent enough not to release a half-finished game. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you read my whole post ?

arman920

I know it seems like that on the face of it, a lot of people say that there should be a cut off point much earlier than gold where the game is declared complete except for bug fixes.
There are good reasons why this isn't really possible, I would surmise that security of the product is one of them .
Another is the huge ammount of work which has to be done, this includes information collation and translation which have to go on until the last minute.

SI very often invite people to beta test partially based on the quality of their contribution to this forum.
People like you and for a change several others in this thread are the kind of people they invite.

I don't deny that testing could be improved, almost anything can in QA, I'm certain SI will continue to look for ways to improve testing.

leanwitit

I know it seems like that on the face of it, a lot of people say that there should be a cut off point much earlier than gold where the game is declared complete except for bug fixes.
There are good reasons why this isn't really possible, I would surmise that security of the product is one of them .
Another is the huge ammount of work which has to be done, this includes information collation and translation which have to go on until the last minute.

SI very often invite people to beta test partially based on the quality of their contribution to this forum.
People like you and for a change several others in this thread are the kind of people they invite.

I don't deny that testing could be improved, almost anything can in QA, I'm certain SI will continue to look for ways to improve testing. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't invited this year but was last year. Unfortunately last years 'user' beta testing was compromised by some ****** (replace * with letters of your choice ) releasing a version of the game on a bit torrent.

I'd be very willing to help....alas no SI contact as yet nor any comment on this thread. Perhaps they have enough guys already ?