How about a criterion that you didn't include in your list: When the goals set in the design document are fulfilled. Of course there's the slight problem that M&B didn't have a design document, or only an extremely vague one, and the devs went into it with only a vague pie-in-the-sky idea of what they wanted the game to be (as evidenced by the fact that the early versions feature elements wildly out of tune with the finished product, such as hints of a storyline and zombies).
So given that that's out the window, let's examine the options that you do give:
When the dev says so - We don't want that, because then they'll do exactly what TW did, declare it finished halfway through and make people pay twice.
When the customer says so - Above in reverse, we don't want developer enslavement to customers either.
Metaphysical line - No idea what that might be.
Finished = not developed any further - Seems reasonable to me, and by this criterion M&B was indeed declared finished prematurely, as evidenced by WB being a further development of it. So as far as I can tell, you're agreeing with me.
I cede the first three criteria, I'll leave the fourth one in the dust since even if I explained that I don't think it'll contribute very much other than waste space, but what you mean by "finished" in the last criteria sounds a bit odd to me though.
This definition is very counter intuitive, an unfinished game can indeed not be developed any further just as the finished game can be, but very few of us would say that there are games that appear to be unfinished yet the developers have stopped working on it entirely. Most of us would agree that such games are most certainly not finished, despite that criteria.
This also extends past the realms of unfinished games as well. When I buy a copy of Dawn of War: Winter Assault, I expect that the game I buy is finished. And using this example of not developed any further, this would clearly not be the case when I see Dark Crusade come out, and later Soul Storm come out. I have bought, in accordance to this definition, an unfinished game because the developers have continued to develop it. Likewise, if I bought a 2010 Mercury Cyclone and after a few months the 2011 version came out, my claims that I bought the unfinished version of the mercury cyclone would go unheeded by most people.
I think the claim that M&B was finished prematurely along with the claim that Dawn of War was finished prematurely stemming from this criteria are not simply appealing to whether or not the developers have kept working on it. It seems to be appealing to something more than than that. With this in mind, it would seem to go hand in hand with M&B being prematurely finished as it was released and later patched up, even if no subsequent sequels came out.
Again with the straw men. I never said anything about attaining perfection.
It seems to be the only plausible way of satisfying the clause as you interpret it though. "That the person who purchased the game will continually get updates for free until the game is finished" more or less. The only point where updates can stop when the game is finished is when the developer can no longer make the game any better. That is to say, the game, insofar as it is held within it's own settings and mechanics, is perfect. There is obviously a great deal of divide between what is finished and what is perfect, speaking normally, but given the way in which Warband has been argued as being nothing but the original M&B but better seems to imply that a game can never quite be finished so long as the developers can add stuff to it. Put these all together and you do get the claim that perfection is demanded through this interpretation of the terms.
This is all the more pertinent, in that the terms of the agreement weren't clear, with that being the case, it is most certainly unreasonable to demand the most liberal interpretation of the words in favor of one party.
Yet that's exactly what TW did, only on the opposite, "it's finished because we said so" end of the scale. So thank you for agreeing with me again.
Or there is another interpretation of that quote
. Since the above "finished" criterion is no good, and we obviously both don't want to bind up the either party in servitude to the other, the answer is probably in between. Meaning what constitutes the meaning of "finished" is probably not M&B as it was released, but it to claim that Warband should be included because the buyer sees it as the same game probably isn't true either. Extending from this might be the case that the dev or the ship wright be made to patch up the game after its release, it would be no longer a matter that they can decided to take upon themselves at their leisure- that this specific type of agreement requires it of them. Where this practically leads to isn't all that clear though, I personally think the patches made for M&B puts it right in the area of a finished game. While this does clear up that neither extreme ends should be enforced, it doesn't give any guidelines to where in the middle it should be.
There is a commonly accepted standard for what finished means in every industry, yes. For this case however, what finished entails means two very different things to two groups of people. They arguably finished the installment in a series. There are bugs in the release, but the distinction here is more or less whether these bugs make it a bad or good game, not whether one is finished.
Take this for example, the ship wright having accepted the contract with a vague and unsure idea of how the end product will look like, comes up with additional ideas for the same basic ship design in the middle of developing the boat. The end product of the agreement wasn't very good, maybe the ship turned to port in a very sluggish manner, and the steering wheel gets stuck on occasion. Nevertheless, the ship wright put out a better version of the boat after completing the old one, one in which the basic skeletal structure was used, as well as the materials, and possibly even with the same paint because she is in fact a very tacky ship wright.
At this stage, if the former boat buyer complained that he didn't get the finished product, there would be one or two possibilities I think. Either the boat he has will be seen as a complete and finished boat, albeit one that doesn't function very well, and the ship wright is obligated to repair it, or two, the boat buyer gets nothing because he never inquired into the specifics of the contract, he could not claim that the boat is not finished insomuch as a boat was delivered as for the rudimentary outline of the contract. As long as the ship wright isn't telepathic, one can't expect her to know what finish meant to the consumer. The ship building might face claims that the ship she built was dysfunctional to a certain degree, but she did build a finished ship and deliver it nonetheless.
I don't see how that is relevant in any way. WB isn't a bugfix, it has new features and content.
The claim that warband content should be included in M&B because it is the same game is wholly relevant to that example. Bugfixes and new content both contribute to a finished game insomuch as it is an update or makes the game better or more complete. The whole piece diatribe in the spoilers uses the tangible world's use of the word finish. This definition traditionally rests well within the discretion of the producer and seller. However, the main twist in the above piece is the issue of what happens when a customer buys something within the same constraints of a person that bought M&B in its beta form. I think the above analogy shows that there are certain risks involved with this style of purchase. One might be able to acquire the product through a discount and may even get to use these early incarnations, but without stipulating just what the end product should look like, doesn't leave much room to complain that the finished product should be this way or that way, much less that the finished product should be the most up to date in design and development. One can complain about the dysfunctional nature of part or the whole of the product and even be justified in demanding that the producer fix it as no cost to the buyer, but these factors fall within the realm of basic functionality of the product, and not something that should be put in the product due to it making the product complete.
Yeah.... I need that. I knew I was screwed when 750 guys attacked my castle and I ended up only being able to have ~ 20 guys out while they had ~ 50.
Do you know by how much the advantage is? Is it one guy per advantage point?
I believe battle advantage is proportion, at least when it's 0 both armies are on equal footing. I've also seen that if I'm alone and going against 20 bandits, the advantage is -20.
It's certainly not one guy per advantage point, though. I think it may be percentage based.
One troop for every point in battle advantage is what was used in M&B, no idea about Warband however. It was more than one troop in most cases, the opposition would lose one troop while you gain one, meaning it's more like gaining almost two troops. But if your computer can handle it, turning up the battle size tends to nullify the effectiveness of battle advantage in all but the most egregiously unbalanced battles.
Author
Topic: Mount and Blade (Read 665762 times)