PTW.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Illusive Man
Sergeant at Arms
I just hope that the game won't be just a remodeled version of M & B or Warband like WFaS and NW are. If they throw in new features like co-op campaign, improved AI behavior or physics then we are talking business.
Multiplayer marriage perhaps?Sibylla said:
Prepare to be wooed and courted Sibylla.
I hope that TW will not reuse the old school 3D models like they always did. I'd want to see something new both gameplay and graphical wise, and most importantly, get rid of the silly dialogue screens and replace them with something simple and interactive, like the ones in The Guild 2. Another suggestion is to get pop-up windows which appear on the world map for almost anything in the game: Peace, war, battles, notes, etc. I just hate to see all those countless text reports which appear on the left side of the screen, which honestly look rather like debug messages, totally interrupted from the game.
user1324865215
The Bowman said:
The alpha video showed that they were using new character models.
Jock said:
The Alpha footage shows new models and animations
http://youtu.be/zZUfzAFL5Ek
http://youtu.be/zZUfzAFL5Ek
That ain't alpha. It's not even pre alpha.
Armie_knock said:
Alpha is a terminology that is vague and can describe many stages of a game. It just means early build.
We can barely judge even that new character model, because everything we saw are still placeholders and stuff that is subject to drastically change even on a real alpha build. Everything we know is that TW uses the same engine with undergoing improvements of unknown scales.
Alpha means most of the features are complete and the game can be playtested.psychopigeon said:
Early developer builds (or technology demos as in the example) are something else.
But that won't stop people from calling developer builds "alpha" and playable stuff with half the features missing "beta".
Alpha doesn't really imply feature completeness as much as it implies that there is something tangible to test. For example, Dwarf Fortress has only a small percent of its features complete but is still very tangible. It can be tested "as a whole" other than say, unit testing.
Beta, however, usually implies that the game is feature-complete by the original planning.
Also keep in mind that testing doesn't necessarily mean testing by a set of non-TW players. We probably won't see the alpha ourselves.
Beta, however, usually implies that the game is feature-complete by the original planning.
Also keep in mind that testing doesn't necessarily mean testing by a set of non-TW players. We probably won't see the alpha ourselves.
True, but it usually means that there is a whole lot to test. One company I worked for had a guideline of 80+% feature complete for alpha (and 100% for beta, of course).
Dwarf Fortress devs and other quirky people are exceptions, as they can define the scope of an imaginary final game far beyond of what is practical, desirable or conventional. They are full of it, basically.
As for TW testing, I don't know what their testing plans are, but I'm sure too they won't show anyone their alpha. They know full well how first impressions work.
Dwarf Fortress devs and other quirky people are exceptions, as they can define the scope of an imaginary final game far beyond of what is practical, desirable or conventional. They are full of it, basically.
As for TW testing, I don't know what their testing plans are, but I'm sure too they won't show anyone their alpha. They know full well how first impressions work.
Yeah, most likely. Though it'd still be really cool to see the development process. Also, the earlier they get player feedback, the easier it's going to be to fix stuff that's wrong with the game. When a game's actually finished (or close to it), it's generally not possible to make major changes anymore. I can understand if they don't want to show the unfinished game to the world, but why not some heavily NDAed closed testing by veteran players? Let's face it, fans of the series are going to buy M&B2 the minute it becomes available regardless of what, if any, information is available about it, so you can safely show the alpha to them. It just seems a bit silly to not utilize all these people who are not only willing by actually eager to test your game for you for free.MadVader said:
Open alpha testing - why it is bad for development:
- You need to communicate to the testers to show them how to play the game; what is done and what is unfinished; what is the focus of the test
- You need to teach them how to post test reports and what different fields like severity and priority mean (see Bugtracker for plenty of "high priority" reports)
- You'll still end up with plenty of bogus reports that still need to be verified by developers, who really have better things to do
In conclusion, it's a giant waste of developers' time, and is much better done with testers in the same office, or even developers switching to playtesting.
- You need to communicate to the testers to show them how to play the game; what is done and what is unfinished; what is the focus of the test
- You need to teach them how to post test reports and what different fields like severity and priority mean (see Bugtracker for plenty of "high priority" reports)
- You'll still end up with plenty of bogus reports that still need to be verified by developers, who really have better things to do
In conclusion, it's a giant waste of developers' time, and is much better done with testers in the same office, or even developers switching to playtesting.
- Status
Similar threads
