I was checking Twitter a couple of minutes ago, and I saw this: 
 

I don't think that explains anything at all.  More testers wouldn't help fix most of the technical problems with the game, which are apparent within the first hour of anyone at all playing it. 

I don't own this game and I haven't played it, but perhaps there's more QA testers under the publisher? I'm no video game credits expert, but it seems like I've seen this before.

That Fallout 3 had such a big QA team and still came out the way it did kind of points to quantity not really making a difference when anything they find is just shrugged off as "that's just the engine, hun. Can't fix that".

" I don't own this game and I haven't played it, but perhaps there's more QA testers under the publisher? I'm no video game credits expert, but it seems like I've seen this before. "

" That Fallout 3 had such a big QA team and still came out the way it did kind of points to quantity not really making a difference when anything they find is just shrugged off as "that's just the engine, hun. Can't fix that". "

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

" I don't think that explains anything at all.  More testers wouldn't help fix most of the technical problems with the game, which are apparent within the first hour of anyone at all playing it.  "

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

I definitely agree about the engine being complete crap. It probably accounts for most of the problems. But having a better QA team would've helped. "

" @The_Laughing_Man: There are a lot of problems in the game that do not seem to be the engine's fault (i.e infinite money glitch). "

" @The_Laughing_Man: Ok, but that is not the engine's fault. "

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

I definitely agree about the engine being complete crap. It probably accounts for most of the problems. But having a better QA team would've helped. "

There could have been 1000 QA team. Its not just their fault. How MS allowed this game to be released is beyond me.  "

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

I definitely agree about the engine being complete crap. It probably accounts for most of the problems. But having a better QA team would've helped. "

There could have been 1000 QA team. Its not just their fault. How MS allowed this game to be released is beyond me.  "

Still, if they did only have a 3 person QA team, that's pretty inexcusable for such a big release, regardless of any other issues.  "

I will check when I get back home but why does it say OBSIDIAN ENTERTAINMENT after the testers part and then start to list of actual obsidian employees (Feargus).
It seems to me like those 3 are just part of Bethesda QA, and there is more QA personnel for Obsidian lower down.

I think we need to find a balance. The engine is shit, definitely. It'd risk saying that it got older in 5 years than the first Fallout's in more than 10. But, we are still talking about Obsidian. These people barely know how to make a game that works and isn't a bloated technological mess.

So yeah.

"

I think we need to find a balance. The engine is shit, definitely. It'd risk saying that it got older in 5 years than the first Fallout's in more than 10. But, we are still talking about Obsidian. These people barely know how to make a game that works and isn't a bloated technological mess.

So yeah.

"

" I will check when I get back home but why does it say OBSIDIAN ENTERTAINMENT after the testers part and then start to list of actual obsidian employees (Feargus). It seems to me like those 3 are just part of Bethesda QA, and there is more QA personnel for Obsidian lower down. "

"

I think we need to find a balance. The engine is shit, definitely. It'd risk saying that it got older in 5 years than the first Fallout's in more than 10. But, we are still talking about Obsidian. These people barely know how to make a game that works and isn't a bloated technological mess.

So yeah.

"

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

I definitely agree about the engine being complete crap. It probably accounts for most of the problems. But having a better QA team would've helped. "

There could have been 1000 QA team. Its not just their fault. How MS allowed this game to be released is beyond me.  "

Still, if they did only have a 3 person QA team, that's pretty inexcusable for such a big release, regardless of any other issues.  "

This shows what you are allowed to get away with if your game is "Highly anticipated"  "

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

I definitely agree about the engine being complete crap. It probably accounts for most of the problems. But having a better QA team would've helped. "

There could have been 1000 QA team. Its not just their fault. How MS allowed this game to be released is beyond me.  "

Still, if they did only have a 3 person QA team, that's pretty inexcusable for such a big release, regardless of any other issues.  "

This shows what you are allowed to get away with if your game is "Highly anticipated"  "

True. I guess the logical way of thinking for a consumer is sometimes directly opposed to that of the marketer. I see a big game, I assume it's had QA out the ass. They see a big game, they realise there's less of a need to QA it if it's an established brand as it won't hurt sales as much as if it were an unknown IP struggling to get recognised and thus more open to criticism with no rabid fanbase to defend it.  Still, 3 people is still pretty poor and even other major releases are rarely released this f*ed up. "

gotta love the people saying hey it would make no difference...etc...etc  Fallout 3 was buggy...New vegas? is a mountains bugs that often more then fallout 3 did make it so that the majority of people either lose saves or lose progress or quite literally have to force them selves to continue playing the game.
 
Fallout 3+more QA=Some bugs and problems.
Fallout:New Vegas+3 QA people=a mountain of bugs.
 
It would have made a difference If Obsidian had put more people into QA'ing Vegas that is just a simply logical and factual for that matter.  More QA people actually doing their job usually means less bugs, Then we can look at the history of both companies.

Bathesda a company that puts a moderate amount of people on their QA is incapable of releasing a somewhat bug free game when you buy and play a bathesda game you hope you don't get a bug that breaks a quest or warps some geometry
Obsidian a company that puts paltry amounts of people on their QA is incapable of releasing a working out of the box for the majority of purchasers game... when you buy and play a Obsidian game you hope the game actually starts up...

" @Ghostiet said:

"

I think we need to find a balance. The engine is shit, definitely. It'd risk saying that it got older in 5 years than the first Fallout's in more than 10. But, we are still talking about Obsidian. These people barely know how to make a game that works and isn't a bloated technological mess.

So yeah.

"

Beth had near the same issues with the Fallout 3 game and its DLC. Hell. Point lookout for 90% of people for PS3 did not even work.  "

Which only explains why Obsidian was the perfect dev for the game - a thief always smells a thief, as they say. I'm only pointing out that throwing the blame on the engine is not enough - it's like Depressing_Wizard said, these guys could fuck up making a 10cm stick.

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

I definitely agree about the engine being complete crap. It probably accounts for most of the problems. But having a better QA team would've helped. "

There could have been 1000 QA team. Its not just their fault. How MS allowed this game to be released is beyond me.  "

Still, if they did only have a 3 person QA team, that's pretty inexcusable for such a big release, regardless of any other issues.  "

This shows what you are allowed to get away with if your game is "Highly anticipated"  "

True. I guess the logical way of thinking for a consumer is sometimes directly opposed to that of the marketer. I see a big game, I assume it's had QA out the ass. They see a big game, they realise there's less of a need to QA it if it's an established brand as it won't hurt sales as much as if it were an unknown IP struggling to get recognised and thus more open to criticism with no rabid fanbase to defend it.  Still, 3 people is still pretty poor and even other major releases are rarely released this f*ed up. "

Again chances are those are the ones Beth sent over. If that is all they really had..who cares. The game is out. We know its got massive amount of bugs. And they are patching it quite a bit. Write angry emails. Send hate mail. It will not change that the game got though testing ONLY because it was "Highly anticipated" And this trend will most likely keep going with the Fallout series.  "

All i know is that they're pretty fast on fixing the bugs. Just look on the official forums. They are very active compared to others. I mean 2 patches in a month for all platforms that will basically fix a total of 300 bugs. Can't really complain, but if you dont have access to live etc, then you're screwed.

What a stupid thread.

Bethesda as the publisher handled the bulk of QA.

If you bothered to read further down the credits, Bethesda had like 70-80 QA testers listed in there.

also, I know for a fact that a bunch of the higher ups tested a bit too (Sawyer mentioned playing through it a couple times)

Please stop nesting those quotes so deep, I have to scroll for ages and it's completely unreadable! Mobile site ftw.

My first playthrough was flawless. I discovered no bugs that got in the way, and no crashes. That was 15 hours, on hardcore, on the PS3 - played in two sessions.

Imagine, then, how difficult it must be to test such a large game if it's entirely possible to get through without seeing any of the bugs so many people suffer from.

Since that playthrough I've had it crash and seen many bugs, so ofcourse I also wish they would've done a better job of stomping out bugs, here's hoping that next patch will be enough.

" @Tennmuerti said:

" I will check when I get back home but why does it say OBSIDIAN ENTERTAINMENT after the testers part and then start to list of actual obsidian employees (Feargus). It seems to me like those 3 are just part of Bethesda QA, and there is more QA personnel for Obsidian lower down. "

takua108 mentioned this earlier; I Googled it, but I got shit results. I'd appreciate it if you checked it out.  "

Those are some really good testers, if they were able to catch around the same amount of bugs that were in Fallout 3.

"

What a stupid thread.

Bethesda as the publisher handled the bulk of QA.

If you bothered to read further down the credits, Bethesda had like 70-80 QA testers listed in there.

"

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @Tennmuerti said:

" I will check when I get back home but why does it say OBSIDIAN ENTERTAINMENT after the testers part and then start to list of actual obsidian employees (Feargus). It seems to me like those 3 are just part of Bethesda QA, and there is more QA personnel for Obsidian lower down. "

takua108 mentioned this earlier; I Googled it, but I got shit results. I'd appreciate it if you checked it out.  "

Just checked it. The bulk of credits for Bethesda seemed to be QA testers and no real production staff, so it looks like the QA was handled by them mostly. "

That explains why Obsidian have a tendency to ship a buggy game at  launch. Still, despite it's bugs, the game is still a lot of fun. In fact, I enjoyed it more than Fallout 3, which was also buggy. Fallout New Vegas was A LOT better than Obsidian's last game Alpha Protocol.

They could've done some QA through a QA firm or something. But it definitely doesn't look good.

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

I definitely agree about the engine being complete crap. It probably accounts for most of the problems. But having a better QA team would've helped. "

There could have been 1000 QA team. Its not just their fault. How MS allowed this game to be released is beyond me.  "

Still, if they did only have a 3 person QA team, that's pretty inexcusable for such a big release, regardless of any other issues.  "

This shows what you are allowed to get away with if your game is "Highly anticipated"  "

True. I guess the logical way of thinking for a consumer is sometimes directly opposed to that of the marketer. I see a big game, I assume it's had QA out the ass. They see a big game, they realise there's less of a need to QA it if it's an established brand as it won't hurt sales as much as if it were an unknown IP struggling to get recognised and thus more open to criticism with no rabid fanbase to defend it.  Still, 3 people is still pretty poor and even other major releases are rarely released this f*ed up. "

Again chances are those are the ones Beth sent over. If that is all they really had..who cares. The game is out. We know its got massive amount of bugs. And they are patching it quite a bit. Write angry emails. Send hate mail. It will not change that the game got though testing ONLY because it was "Highly anticipated" And this trend will most likely keep going with the Fallout series.  "

It's still bizarre how no other game series has these issues (although Fable 2 was a bit of a mess and so was Gears 2 in places but nowhere near this level)  and, if anything, with companies focusing on producing fewer titles but of a higher quality in order to ensure a return due to the ever spiralling costs of game development, you'd expect something like this to have been tackled better.  Also, wouldn't Sony have had something to say if MS had asked for it to be held back? Or, since New Vegas is primarily a 360/PC release, is it just assumed that MS had way more sway over this than I would have thought? "

The 3 testers thing is bullshit, obviously.  You don't need to look anything up to know that.
 
Why does 'no other game series have these issues'?  Because the game series' you're referencing aren't anything like as complex as the Fallout games.  Think about how much freedom the player has to fuck things up in Fallout compared to something like Fable or Gears or Mass Effect 2.  Fallout (especially Vegas) is like an intricate web where everything is linked to everything else.  The player can (and will) freely switch from half way through one mission to start a totally different mission on a whim, possibly killing some other-mission-critical character along the way.  There's an almost endless number of ways the player might go through the game and -with the best will in the world- they just aren't going to see all the problems until you put it in the hands of millions of players.
 
I'm not trying to excuse the fact that it's as buggy as it is (I found a lot of it enraging), but you're never going to get a game with the complexity and freedom that New Vegas has and still have the polish of Gears.  Ever.

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

I definitely agree about the engine being complete crap. It probably accounts for most of the problems. But having a better QA team would've helped. "

There could have been 1000 QA team. Its not just their fault. How MS allowed this game to be released is beyond me.  "

Still, if they did only have a 3 person QA team, that's pretty inexcusable for such a big release, regardless of any other issues.  "

This shows what you are allowed to get away with if your game is "Highly anticipated"  "

True. I guess the logical way of thinking for a consumer is sometimes directly opposed to that of the marketer. I see a big game, I assume it's had QA out the ass. They see a big game, they realise there's less of a need to QA it if it's an established brand as it won't hurt sales as much as if it were an unknown IP struggling to get recognised and thus more open to criticism with no rabid fanbase to defend it.  Still, 3 people is still pretty poor and even other major releases are rarely released this f*ed up. "

Again chances are those are the ones Beth sent over. If that is all they really had..who cares. The game is out. We know its got massive amount of bugs. And they are patching it quite a bit. Write angry emails. Send hate mail. It will not change that the game got though testing ONLY because it was "Highly anticipated" And this trend will most likely keep going with the Fallout series. Also Turtles. "

It's still bizarre how no other game series has these issues (although Fable 2 was a bit of a mess and so was Gears 2 in places but nowhere near this level)  and, if anything, with companies focusing on producing fewer titles but of a higher quality in order to ensure a return due to the ever spiralling costs of game development, you'd expect something like this to have been tackled better.  Also, wouldn't Sony have had something to say if MS had asked for it to be held back? Or, since New Vegas is primarily a 360/PC release, is it just assumed that MS had way more sway over this than I would have thought? "

I'm just quoting this to make it even longer. "

There are some situations where a 3 person QA team is enough to adequately test your game, so a 3 person QA team can function, but a team this small was certainly not suitable for a game like New Vegas. However, I do think these figures are a great reminder that more QA doesn't necessarily mean a less buggy game. Bug fixing comes down to much more than the size of your QA team; it comes down to how effective your QA team is, how easy it is for them to do their job, how large your programming team is, how effective your programming team is, and how much time there is for debugging among other factors. As has been said, possibly the greatest contributor to the technically unsound nature of the game was the engine which we already know is just plain messed up.
 
Once again, I see all the blame being heaped onto Obsidian here when they're not the only ones who should be taking the blame. Firstly, we don't know the specifics of the situation here, we don't know what happened internally in the games creation and how much each party is to blame for the state that this game ended up in. Perhaps Obsidian requested more debug time and Bethesda didn't give it to them, but we just have no idea. What we do know though is that Bethesda and Microsoft allowed the game to be released in the state it was, and that shouldn't have happened. Obsidian could also only work with the engine they were given, that same glitchy engine that the Fallout 3 dev team churned out in the first place.
 
Once again, to reiterate, any technical problems with New Vegas go way beyond there simply being three QA testers.

" They could've done some QA through a QA firm or something. But it definitely doesn't look good. "

I wonder how long this thread will continue with people under the fallacy that this game actually had only 3 people on QA.

" @Lukeweizer said:

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Vitor said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @Depressing_Wizard said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Depressing_Wizard: Its all anecdotal, and Im sure the mods I used in FO3 played a part, but FO3 crashed more than any other game I've played in my life, and New Vegas only crashed during a meeting in a bathhouse with an informant. The dissapearing companions thing was annoying the one time it happened, and I found companions randomly killing everyone kinda funny. I guess I can't really speak for the console version, cus Im a command console away from fixing any kind of gaf. So maybe NV's mistakes are more infuriating in the long run. But I swear I hit every bug FO3 had, shit was infuriating. So the idea of acting like FO3's QA did even a competent job is kind of a joke to me. "

Haha. I don't know, maybe I just haven't played Fallout 3 for a while. It also probably has a lot to do with the amount of time I've sent with Fallout: New Vegas (a lot!). It's just that, in the 90 hours or I've played of New Vegas, I've encountered so much shit. The game's crashed about 10 times, I encountered a loading/death loop, characters coming back to life and becoming my companion, being able to control my head separate from my body, infinite money glitch, a character seeing me through a ceiling, and other shit.   But, ya, I think we can agree something needs to be done about the bugs in these game. "

The game engine is old and broken shit. Even if they had more testers there would still be massive issues. So this means nothing.   The engine is known for having a shitty release then getting so many patches it looks like frankenstin.    The entire game engine needs to be scrapped or get a massive overhaul  "

I definitely agree about the engine being complete crap. It probably accounts for most of the problems. But having a better QA team would've helped. "

There could have been 1000 QA team. Its not just their fault. How MS allowed this game to be released is beyond me.  "

Still, if they did only have a 3 person QA team, that's pretty inexcusable for such a big release, regardless of any other issues.  "

This shows what you are allowed to get away with if your game is "Highly anticipated"  "

True. I guess the logical way of thinking for a consumer is sometimes directly opposed to that of the marketer. I see a big game, I assume it's had QA out the ass. They see a big game, they realise there's less of a need to QA it if it's an established brand as it won't hurt sales as much as if it were an unknown IP struggling to get recognised and thus more open to criticism with no rabid fanbase to defend it.  Still, 3 people is still pretty poor and even other major releases are rarely released this f*ed up. "

Again chances are those are the ones Beth sent over. If that is all they really had..who cares. The game is out. We know its got massive amount of bugs. And they are patching it quite a bit. Write angry emails. Send hate mail. It will not change that the game got though testing ONLY because it was "Highly anticipated" And this trend will most likely keep going with the Fallout series. Also Turtles. "

It's still bizarre how no other game series has these issues (although Fable 2 was a bit of a mess and so was Gears 2 in places but nowhere near this level)  and, if anything, with companies focusing on producing fewer titles but of a higher quality in order to ensure a return due to the ever spiralling costs of game development, you'd expect something like this to have been tackled better.  Also, wouldn't Sony have had something to say if MS had asked for it to be held back? Or, since New Vegas is primarily a 360/PC release, is it just assumed that MS had way more sway over this than I would have thought? "

I'm just quoting this to make it even longer. "

Me 2 "

" @Lukeweizer said:

" They could've done some QA through a QA firm or something. But it definitely doesn't look good. "

Again, there are 70 or so QA testers listed in the credits, the OP didn't bother to look before posting a thread. "  

You post one little bit of inflammatory misinformation out of context, that then goes viral because internet winners are too stupid to actually read a thread, and damages a company, and people get an attitude. What the hell you guys.