F↗U↘ BW

The game is DAIMP version 2.0 as far as reliability is concerned. I said long ago in all the threads asking what classes, maps, weapons, powers people wanted from this game and in almost every thread I stated that priority #1 to #99 for BioWare needed to be stability. All the rest I can deal with even if I am not totally in favor of it. This game is as stable as DAIMP, perhaps worse because I either get screen freezes in which you have to totally get out of the game and reload or crashes to the Xbox desktop in which you have to totally reload the game.

They totally failed to learn from DAIMP as far as creating a mechanism where people would at least earn some creds, gain some exp and not lose consumables when things crashed. People would put up with crashes if you ended up getting something out of it, as it is its just a swift kick in the balls to hammer your way through 5 or 6 waves and then poof!

In a game that is set up for the players to grind you have to let them grind or they will leave.

Gorillas and flying lawnmowers always seem to be able to calm me down for some reason.

Gawd... you entitled gamers and your "I want games to work when I buy them!"

WHEN I WAS A KID WE DIDN'T HAVE WORKING VIDEO GAMES

WE HAD HOOPS WE'D PUSH WITH A STICK AND WE'D GET BEATEN WITH THAT STICK IF WE DIDN'T LIKE IT

For the record, though, the sad reality is that BioWare's QA department gets 90% of the criticism leveled at the game re: bugs and technical issues when, in fact, they are rarely (if ever) responsible for it.

The truth is, ME 3, DAI, and ME:A were all extensively tested by a very good QA team. You wouldn't necessarily know it unless you had the opportunity to see them in action for ME 3 MP. They're the poor bastards whose job it is to clean up the mess made by everyone else - but the flaw in the system is that their work is almost entirely pointless if management doesn't listen to them.

And in the case of BioWare, the growing evidence is that management doesn't listen to anybody - not customers, not shareholders, not technicians, and definitely not their own QA department.

It goes like this:

QA: X, Y and Z need fixing. We're building a table.

Management: Well, stop building the table and tell me what it would cost to fix them.

QA: It's not a question of cost, it's a question of time. The accountants can tell you the bottom line, I can only tell you it doesn't work, then create a timetable and plan for how to fix it.

Management: Right, we'll definitely take that under advisement, by which I mean we won't. SHIP AWAY