Broken or Buggy? what is the difference? - mirrored32's Blog

mirrored32's Blog

Broken or Buggy? what is the difference?

Posted on August 25, 2011 at 04:29 AM.

(0)

When a company markets these �features� of a game and they don�t work once it is on the market floor, what should we call it? At this point we call it �buggy� or �broken�. Though now with the �perception� of what the word broken implies, we might want to go to a dictionary to make sure we really know how we are using the words. Here is what I got for the definitions from my mac�s dictionary.

buggy |ˈbəgē|
adjective ( buggier, buggiest )
1 infested with bugs.
� (of a computer program or system) faulty in operation.
2 informal crazy; insane.

broken |ˈbrōkən| past participle of break
adjective
1 having been fractured or damaged and no longer in one piece or in working order: a broken arm.
� (of a relationship) ended, such as through infidelity: a broken marriage.
� disrupted or divided: broken families.
� (of an agreement or promise) not observed by one of the parties involved.
2 (of a person) having given up all hope; despairing: he went to his grave a broken man.
3 having breaks or gaps in continuity: a broken white line across the road.
� (of speech or a language) spoken falteringly, as if overcome by emotion, or with many mistakes, as by a foreigner: a young man talking in broken Italian.
4 having an uneven and rough surface: broken ground.
PHRASES
broken record annoying repetition, as likened to a scratched phonograph record that repeats the same brief passage over and over: the words echoed through his head like a broken record.

From these definitions I would have to say that �buggy� fits more then �broken�. The word �broken� implies a bit more permanency or drastic feeling to what is implied. �Broken� implies more drama. This is an opinion of verbiage, and a feeling of how the word is being used currently. Though if you focus your attention to specific details of a product you might be able to use the term �broken� in context. Though I suspect when using the broad topic of the entire product, it is often not used appropriately.

The term �buggy� is a kind term. One that implies a �minor� problem. A slight annoyance. Think of misquotes or perhaps pesky moths as its etymology explains of. Buggy software seems to imply �it can be fixed� and it still �working� but perhaps �not to full functionality or full optimization�. what is being described as �broken� is no longer functioning at any level.� It simply as a whole, doesn�t function at all.

Now these are interpretations, I understand, but ones I think are fair to consider on a more general level. This is merely of what perhaps the implied words are towards �code� of the product.

As for the �code� of video games, such as EASports titles, considered often with much emotion, there are historical social factors that have �changed� the dynamic of these words �buggy� and �broken�. I have no exacting document stating exact proofs of �buggy� elements of the released video games that have not been patched. Due to the nature of the product, a $60 entertainment product, It's not worth my time to keep track of the elements of �unfixed buggy elements�. the historical yearly reoccurrence of variant level of �buggy elements� have created a frustration within community, and has created a undercurrent of resentment and distrust. With the reality of business and exclusive agreements, such franchises that create simulation�s of real life sports counterparts, heaps upon it the �responsibility� of the exclusive creators to provide for �all fans� the experience they all want. A very hefty attention being the only exclusive creator. (see Microsoft and their history of their operating system). The fact that the product they create is a �entertainment� product and not a �vital resource or utility� is what brings to mind the wonder of �why the fuss?�.

My hope is that this response is a thought provoking document that allows you challenge yourself to understand why you feel as you do, and this is all.

The community of EASports fans and consumers frustration has been evident for a few years now. Though the uncomfortable uglier �anger� and �hate� elements have reared their heads more as time has passed. It has become a struggle to understand how to appreciate and yet �constructively criticize� the elements of these games without these darker passionate elements bounding in with seemingly wild abandon, hurting the community and creators ability to communicate. Nothing feels good for anyone when a shut down of communication happens.

A considered �perspective� is what I feel is desired here. A worthy viewpoint to consider:

These are entertainment products we spend $60 a year on average, for the purpose of enjoyment. They are not intended to create �hate� or �anger�. Perhaps the attitude of choosing to enjoy it because you spend the money to be entertained is a good idea instead of letting something intended to create joy bring you annoyance and frustration, If an entertainment product causes such struggles It might be good to consider a different form of entertainment.

Though for some of the �frustrated� many fans feel, this speaks nothing to them or their points. They want to feel �validated�. Why this heavy desire to be validated? Every year the only virtual simulation of NFL football comes out with great fan fare. Huge hype is created in the games awareness and fans rev up for it! Though the lack of validation of fans �opinions� of the �bugginess� or �broken-ness� is created by the definition of what is the �functional game�s release each year.

As far as I know, there is no document of what features are guaranteed to be in or working when the game is released. What elements from last years product will be in this years product? without clearly defined elements of what is to be considered worth a $60 product on release day, how is it that the consumer can truly feel they �got what they paid for�. how is it that the fan can truly make a rational decision on what the product really is. What we have is a �trust� of the consumer of the marketing, handing over $60 to �see what is actually in the game� by buying it.

With this aside, It is rational to think the game with this much code will have it�s �bugs� that needs fixing/patching. Some may want to disagree in great desire for the perfect game, though it is sensical to consider the truth of this fair.

How does a release day game with �bugs� work to be fixed? Currently the fan pays up front the full $60 for the game that has the bugs in it. There is no contract to guarantee any level of working game as far as I know. (Microsoft had these discussions applied to their OS at one point.) The obvious truth is there is a ton of code and bugs are a nature of the beast. Though with the product creator having my $60 in their hands, what incentive do they have to �fix� it and to what fixed level? Fixing or patching the product to a certain level is done to provide a buffer of �good will� towards the consumer. The product creator is saying �we also expect a certain level working code and these bugs we are fixing need to be fixed so as to provide the full expected experience we feel you paid for�.

Most teams of video games work hard and diligent in getting the big patches done in a reasonable time. Though with this said, in all detail, what is truly their timing obligation? Experiencing Tech teams and creators state that the �deadline� for fixing bugs has passed, what does this create for the consumer whom feels their feature they liked never got fixed?

Products like Madden are giant not just in how the community drools to obtain the hopes and expectations of simulation this game has created, but in levels of code creation, esthetics of user interfaces, usability of controls, response of gameplay, true to life simulations elements, respect to the exclusive agreements of which provide the desire for the creator to make a virtual component the partner feels represents their real life counterpart game appropriately. making money enough as a business element to provide a platform for advertisers without interference into the game, expand on providing a interactive simulation of rostered balanced players based on real life counterparts in look, feel, and AI. There is nothing less then HUGE when Madden is considered. The average game created in the industry can be from 3 to 5 years in creation. Madden is released once every year. Though similar elements are keep in play as a foundation for the creation of next years product, recreating a new experience every year is simply a amazing task. Refreshing the product in a way that expands the core of the simulation.

The demo of a game is consider by most a 'hint' at what it is like to actually have the full game experience.

Does the demo of Madden provide satisfaction of 'progress' in the game? what is the point or hope of the creators in making the demo for us the consumer to play? what do they want to us to experience in playing this demo? The reason I ask these questions is my understanding of lack of information on when the demo build (code ok'd and formulated for release) was made and the point to what the creators are offering for use the users. From the last two years of Madden demo releases it would seem from my experience that the demo provided more confusion then hands on excitement for the full featured release. Why?

the demo of Madden is hardly a demo. For me Madden's response of last year's demo didn't even come close to how smooth the gameplay felt on release of the full featured game. What is it demoing? I feel that demos provided a HUB experience. and idea how to get your controller skills ready. to get a sense of how the the 'idea' of the game in a single 'play now' mode is. a marketing element. But does it provide anything else? my worry is that the demo creates confusion. It is my observation that people wonder what the Madden E3 experience mean when we play this 'recent' demo?is the demo newer or older then E3? what does this mean? there are things people tend to jump on the demo to consider as 'end of gameplay' feel and judge from there. I personally don't know how this 'demo' allows for a rational conclusion like that. If one had played the Madden 11 demo and then got the full featured game, how did it really play as a demo?

It is my opinion that EASports might want to consider changing the demo to a 'work in progress' release demo. a BETA with that intent in their release. why? as to not give the impression that this is any sort of final build.

In the end, communication from creator to consumer requires a trust that works only when 'a letter to the fans' is heard by the community and execution is high on release day solid code on features. trust is needing to be built. I suspect words being used such as 'broken' or 'buggy' might change if the release day builds of games like Madden are 95% solid.