Third TOEE patch released

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Don't know if somebody already posted this - a quick seach led me to
believe not - but: Atari has released the third patch for TOEE. It can
be grabbed here:
http://www.atari.com/us/support/newfaq/dungeonsdragonsthetempleofelementalevil.php?browser=1&pageDisplay=DOWNLOADS

Note that this patch only corrects the looting bug and not the Node
slowdowns etc. Personally, I find it better to install the official
patch 2, together with the Circle of Eight's mod version 3.04 and
Moebius's fixed temple.dll. These correct the looting bug as well, and
provide numerous fixes. The unofficial files can be downloaded here:

http://home.rochester.rr.com/hold4nomad/ToEE_Fan_Fixes_V3-0-4.zip

http://www.jadri.com/temple.zip

Regards,
Vincent

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Vincent Teerling" <vincent_teerling_geentroep@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f67v0l764j4kho7d34e14411piqgjibv2@4ax.com...
> Don't know if somebody already posted this - a quick seach led me to
> believe not - but: Atari has released the third patch for TOEE. It can
> be grabbed here:
>
http://www.atari.com/us/support/newfaq/dungeonsdragonsthetempleofelementalevil.php?browser=1&pageDisplay=DOWNLOADS
>
> Note that this patch only corrects the looting bug and not the Node
> slowdowns etc. Personally, I find it better to install the official
> patch 2, together with the Circle of Eight's mod version 3.04 and
> Moebius's fixed temple.dll. These correct the looting bug as well, and
> provide numerous fixes. The unofficial files can be downloaded here:
>
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/hold4nomad/ToEE_Fan_Fixes_V3-0-4.zip
>
> http://www.jadri.com/temple.zip
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
>
>
Thanks, every month or so I check the atari forums for the patch, but even
now there is no sticky there for the patch, and I would have completely
missed it.

old dude

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-24, old dude <noworks@somewhere.net> wrote:

> Thanks, every month or so I check the atari forums for the patch, but even
> now there is no sticky there for the patch, and I would have completely
> missed it.

Atari gave up on Troika because those clowns couldn't code their
way out of a paper bag. That's why you don't see a mention of it
at Atari.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:28:10 GMT, shadows wrote:

> On 2005-01-24, old dude <noworks@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, every month or so I check the atari forums for the patch, but even
>> now there is no sticky there for the patch, and I would have completely
>> missed it.
>
> Atari gave up on Troika because those clowns couldn't code their
> way out of a paper bag. That's why you don't see a mention of it
> at Atari.

Actually I think you have that reversed. Atari is notorious for dropping
support for their games rapidly. As a matter of fact, Troika wanted to
release a patch soon after release and Atari told them (not exact words):
nope. They've worked with the community (Co8) pretty extensively to get
things patched up.
--
RJB
1/25/2005 12:40:56 PM

USA Today has come out with a new survey: Apparently three out of four
people make up 75 percent of the population.
--David Letterman

 

[nostromo]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake shadows <shadows@whitefang.com>, Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:28:10 GMT,
Anno Domini:

>On 2005-01-24, old dude <noworks@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, every month or so I check the atari forums for the patch, but even
>> now there is no sticky there for the patch, and I would have completely
>> missed it.
>
>Atari gave up on Troika because those clowns couldn't code their
>way out of a paper bag. That's why you don't see a mention of it
>at Atari.

Yeah, you can write better code than TOEE I'm sure LOL! Hang on, maybe you
can with all the bugs - there's bound to be a number of exploits there to
your satisfaction.

--
No matter how many times you save the world, it always manages to get back in jeopardy again.
Sometimes I just want it to stay saved! You know, for a little bit?
I feel like the maid; "I just cleaned up this mess! Can we keep it clean for... for ten minutes!"

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-25, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:28:10 GMT, shadows wrote:
>
>> On 2005-01-24, old dude <noworks@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, every month or so I check the atari forums for the patch, but even
>>> now there is no sticky there for the patch, and I would have completely
>>> missed it.
>>
>> Atari gave up on Troika because those clowns couldn't code their
>> way out of a paper bag. That's why you don't see a mention of it
>> at Atari.
>
> Actually I think you have that reversed. Atari is notorious for dropping
> support for their games rapidly. As a matter of fact, Troika wanted to
> release a patch soon after release and Atari told them (not exact words):
> nope. They've worked with the community (Co8) pretty extensively to get
> things patched up.

Troika said the same thing about Activision. Why is it that
Firaxis gets to patch Civ all they want but Troika always has
publishers tell it not to publish patches?

Don't believe Troika. I've never seen a game developer lie so
much. Troika claimed to have Bloodlines ready and only had a
few of bugs to fix 3 MONTHS before they released Bloodlines in an
awful state.

I'm amazed at how people will defend a repeat offender like
Troika.

BTW, I think they're done for. They want to do console games or
cellphone games. The lead on Bloodlines said as much because
according to him (Leon) PC games are too hard to support.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:56:57 GMT, shadows wrote:

> On 2005-01-25, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:28:10 GMT, shadows wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-01-24, old dude <noworks@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, every month or so I check the atari forums for the patch, but even
>>>> now there is no sticky there for the patch, and I would have completely
>>>> missed it.
>>>
>>> Atari gave up on Troika because those clowns couldn't code their
>>> way out of a paper bag. That's why you don't see a mention of it
>>> at Atari.
>>
>> Actually I think you have that reversed. Atari is notorious for dropping
>> support for their games rapidly. As a matter of fact, Troika wanted to
>> release a patch soon after release and Atari told them (not exact words):
>> nope. They've worked with the community (Co8) pretty extensively to get
>> things patched up.
>
> Troika said the same thing about Activision. Why is it that
> Firaxis gets to patch Civ all they want but Troika always has
> publishers tell it not to publish patches?
Because Firaxis develops *and* publishes their own games.

> Don't believe Troika. I've never seen a game developer lie so
> much. Troika claimed to have Bloodlines ready and only had a
> few of bugs to fix 3 MONTHS before they released Bloodlines in an
> awful state.
Why shouldn't I believe them? I read some of the developers comments on
their forums (and some comments by Co8) and they seemed to at least *want*
to help. FYI I didn't see some of the bugs everyone saw (at least if I did
I didn't notice them). Can't comment on Bloodlines cause it's not a game I
was interested in to begin with. They may have dropped the ball on that one
as you say but I have no personal experience.

> I'm amazed at how people will defend a repeat offender like
> Troika.
Like I said I didn't (or didn't notice) have problems that others have had.
Did it have bugs? Yep and I *did* experience some. But then again, the
developers are human and mistakes will be made. If you're correct and they
have a pattern of it (and as you alluded to) and lying about it then I'd
think twice.

> BTW, I think they're done for. They want to do console games or
> cellphone games. The lead on Bloodlines said as much because
> according to him (Leon) PC games are too hard to support.
Well then you won't have to worry about them. But think of this: what are
you going to do when all the PC developers come to this decision? I've
already got my XBox and PS2... do you?

--
RJB
1/25/2005 2:08:42 PM

I support efforts to limit the terms of members of Congress, especially
members of the House and members of the Senate.
-Dan Quayle, Former Vice-President

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"shadows" <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote in message
news:slrncvd5kb.2a26.shadows@helena.whitefang.com...
> Troika said the same thing about Activision. Why is it that
> Firaxis gets to patch Civ all they want but Troika always has
> publishers tell it not to publish patches?
>
> Don't believe Troika. I've never seen a game developer lie so
> much. Troika claimed to have Bloodlines ready and only had a
> few of bugs to fix 3 MONTHS before they released Bloodlines in an
> awful state.
>
> I'm amazed at how people will defend a repeat offender like
> Troika.

That may all be true, but "Atari" truly is infamous for lack of
support. This is one of those subjects that also hacks me off.



>
> BTW, I think they're done for. They want to do console games or
> cellphone games. The lead on Bloodlines said as much because
> according to him (Leon) PC games are too hard to support.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:24:05 GMT, "Jim Vieira"
<whiplashr@wi.rr.com.remove.this.to.reply> wrote:

>"shadows" <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote in message
>news:slrncvd5kb.2a26.shadows@helena.whitefang.com...
>> Troika said the same thing about Activision. Why is it that
>> Firaxis gets to patch Civ all they want but Troika always has
>> publishers tell it not to publish patches?
>>
>> Don't believe Troika. I've never seen a game developer lie so
>> much. Troika claimed to have Bloodlines ready and only had a
>> few of bugs to fix 3 MONTHS before they released Bloodlines in an
>> awful state.
>>
>> I'm amazed at how people will defend a repeat offender like
>> Troika.
>
>That may all be true, but "Atari" truly is infamous for lack of
>support. This is one of those subjects that also hacks me off.
>

That is true. But at least it's not as scripted as most other companies if
you have an unusual problem. Their development support, however, isn't
really that good.

Ohter comparable companies, such as TalonSoft, recommened something absurd
such as disabling DaemonTools to be able to install Rune. (It was to
prevent SafeDisc from stopping on its blacklist, but Rune was not
copyprotected in that fashion.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:52:02 GMT, shadows wrote:

> Atari publishes Firaxis games. Go look it up sometime if you
> don't believe me.

I stand corrected. Still doesn't diminish the fact that Atari has very poor
support for their games.
--
RJB
1/26/2005 8:28:37 AM

The wise speak when they have something to say, the fools speak when they
have to say something.
--Anonymous

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-26, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:52:02 GMT, shadows wrote:
>
>> Atari publishes Firaxis games. Go look it up sometime if you
>> don't believe me.
>
> I stand corrected. Still doesn't diminish the fact that Atari has very poor
> support for their games.

It reinforces the fact that Troika is a trouble developer who
always blames the publisher. Troika blamed Activision and Atari
for their own mistakes.

Any reasonable person would see this.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:35:32 GMT, shadows wrote:

> On 2005-01-26, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:52:02 GMT, shadows wrote:
>>
>>> Atari publishes Firaxis games. Go look it up sometime if you
>>> don't believe me.
>>
>> I stand corrected. Still doesn't diminish the fact that Atari has very poor
>> support for their games.
>
> It reinforces the fact that Troika is a trouble developer who
> always blames the publisher. Troika blamed Activision and Atari
> for their own mistakes.
So what? They *tried* to fix them and were rejected. You were burned by
Vampire. Get over it. As I said I've only dealt with them with TOEE and
they seemed forthcoming with information and help. I can't say the same for
Atari. I still own several other Atari games and they all have the same
problem. Little to no support. The two *aren't* mutually exclusive you
know.

> Any reasonable person would see this.
Just as any reasonable person can see you have a hate on for Troika.
Personally, (like I said before in case you missed it) I have only tried
*ONE* Troika game and found it perfectly playable although others had major
problems with bugs. Doesn't take away (again) from the fact that *ATARI*
has poor support for their stable. From a chat on rpgcodex:

[Exitium] [Arcana] Question: If there is to be a patch...when can we expect
an acknowledgement of what will and wont' be fixed/changed
[TimCain] We are planning for a patch that will not invalidate save games -
rule #1
[[Troika]Steve] I know locally at Troika we've made changes to the codebase
and fixed bugs, there was infact a build made after the gold build that
Atari chose not to go with, and we continue to work on things when we have
time.
[[Troika]Tom] I hope we can make an official (or unofficial) announcement
by next week
[[troika]hnguyen] as i've written earlier on the forums, everyone who is
helping to report bugs and link savegames really helps A LOT!
[TimCain] Atari has not told us whether or not they want to pay for a
patch, so we will have to see what we can do on our own time

[Exitium] [Ares] At a later point will the M rated amterial be put in as an
"unofficial" patch? Done.
[TimCain] Atari still approves the patches and demos. So no.
[[Troika]Steve] I really don't think so. If at all, which I really doubt,
it would have to be done in an official capacity.
[TimCain] I do have a Quotes File, like in Arcanum and Fallout. I plan to
post it on Troika's webpage
[[Troika]Tom] We may have to do an unofficial patch to fix some bugs, but
we probably can't add this content back in


http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=75

Seems to me like they were very responsive and *tried* to fix the problems.
Notice where he said *ATARI* still approves the patches. They wouldn't
approve the patch *that was already finished*.


--
RJB
1/26/2005 8:48:22 AM

Sometimes the need to mess with their heads outweighs the millstone of
humiliation.
--Fox Mulder (X-Files)

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-26, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=75
>
> Seems to me like they were very responsive and *tried* to fix the problems.
> Notice where he said *ATARI* still approves the patches. They wouldn't
> approve the patch *that was already finished*.

This argument will go nowhere :|

I contend that Troika keeps shipping lemons despite using two
different publishers and using the same line to excuse their
mistake: "it's up to the publisher."

You on the other hand will take the word of a Troika dev at face
value.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On that special day, shadows, (shadows@whitefang.com) said...

> Leons threats stemmed from how "difficult" it is to implement PC
> games. In other words, they cannot code their way out of a paper
> bag.

It is easier to code for a console, as it doesn't get reconfigured every
other week. There are few PCs in the gaming world, that do contain
exactly the same assortment of hardware *and* software, after all.

Which doesn't mean Troika are good. They would be good, if they could
still code a running game, even under these conditions.


Gabriele Neukam

Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de


--
Ah, Information. A property, too valuable these days, to give it away,
just so, at no cost.

 

[noman]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:34:47 GMT, shadows <shadows@whitefang.com>
wrote:

>On 2005-01-26, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=75
>>
>> Seems to me like they were very responsive and *tried* to fix the problems.
>> Notice where he said *ATARI* still approves the patches. They wouldn't
>> approve the patch *that was already finished*.
>
>This argument will go nowhere :|
>
>I contend that Troika keeps shipping lemons despite using two
>different publishers and using the same line to excuse their
>mistake: "it's up to the publisher."

Three publishers, if you consider Sierra/Vivendi for publishing
Arcanum. That game shipped with quite a hideous interface and game
quest bugs. Sierra delayed it for three months or so because they
wanted to have simultaneous international release. The delay didn't
mean that Troika would fix issues (some of them evident from the
demo). They still waited for the game release and then started fixing
bugs and redesigning interface.

There was also this belief that Vampire:Bloodlines was complete and it
could come out any day, if HL2 had released. This was never true. I am
not sure, if Troika or Atari led people to believe that or if that was
a mutation of a fanboy's forum post that was accepted as truth. Still
why is it, that Troika never corrected that misconception?

Troika has not a very enviable record of game releases and no, they
didn't create Fallout 1 or 2 by themselves. When Troika was formed,
only one-third of original Fallout designers and artists left
Interplay. The lead deisgner- Chris Taylor (not the Total Annihilation
designer) who also wrote the manual for both FO1 and FO2 stayed at
Interplay among other people. Fallout 2 design team consisted of
people who later worked on IWD and Torment. I know I am off-topic
here, but this thing is worth repeating a few times every year
alongside the fact that, Warren Spector didn't create/design
Underworld, System Shock or Thief. The popular and completely
incorrect notion, that Mr. Spector did in fact designe or develop
those games, does a lot more disservice to the original developers of
those excellent games, since Troika at least had a substantial part in
FO1/2 development. It's just that people who stayed behind at
Interplay were equally responsible (if not more) for developing
Fallout 1 and 2.

Okay, I am done
--
Noman

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:11:03 -0500, "old dude" <noworks@somewhere.net>
wrote:

>>
>Thanks, every month or so I check the atari forums for the patch, but even
>now there is no sticky there for the patch, and I would have completely
>missed it.
>
>old dude
>

You're quite welcome. I would have missed it myself if it wasn't for
an accidental click on a Circle of Eight's homepage-bookmark. It's a
nice game IMHO. A bit buggy, but nice all the same

(To be honest... I never had much problems, except for the slowdown
issues. The Co8 have been really heplfull in this respect)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <1414sdzza3ibs$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com>, RJB wrote:
> [[Troika]Steve] I know locally at Troika we've made changes to the codebase
> and fixed bugs, there was infact a build made after the gold build that
> Atari chose not to go with, and we continue to work on things when we have
> time.

This is evidence of Atari acting professionally.
If the patch was made available too close to the ship date to be properly
tested it shouldn't be included. Just 'cos something has been written it
doesn't mean it is ready to ship to consumers. Better a version with a
number of known problems which can be documented than a fresh build which
you haven't tested and have no idea how it behaves, especially if you
already feel the developers have had problems.

> Seems to me like they were very responsive and *tried* to fix the problems.
> Notice where he said *ATARI* still approves the patches. They wouldn't
> approve the patch *that was already finished*.

Seems to me that Troika didn't get the game finished in the time that they
would, and didn't leave enough time for testing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:41:50 GMT, Paul Murray wrote:

> In article <1414sdzza3ibs$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com>, RJB wrote:
>> [[Troika]Steve] I know locally at Troika we've made changes to the codebase
>> and fixed bugs, there was infact a build made after the gold build that
>> Atari chose not to go with, and we continue to work on things when we have
>> time.
>
> This is evidence of Atari acting professionally.
> If the patch was made available too close to the ship date to be properly
> tested it shouldn't be included. Just 'cos something has been written it
> doesn't mean it is ready to ship to consumers. Better a version with a
> number of known problems which can be documented than a fresh build which
> you haven't tested and have no idea how it behaves, especially if you
> already feel the developers have had problems.
They must act "professionally" with just about every other developer then.
Where in there does it say it was *not* tested? And I somehow doubt whether
Atari gives a flying fig if the developers have problems. They're trying to
put as much product out the door as fast as possible to pay the bills. It
seems to me if they were worried about quality they could have simply
pushed back the release date and tested that build (of course they would
withhold payments until shipped). They chose not to do that in this case
(among others). There's plenty of blame in *any* software that has bugs and
to put most of that blame squarely on one party is wrong.

>> Seems to me like they were very responsive and *tried* to fix the problems.
>> Notice where he said *ATARI* still approves the patches. They wouldn't
>> approve the patch *that was already finished*.
>
> Seems to me that Troika didn't get the game finished in the time that they
> would, and didn't leave enough time for testing.
Or maybe their date was pushed up as happens in *way* too many cases these
days.

--
RJB
1/27/2005 8:28:31 AM

Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity."
-Anon.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-27, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:41:50 GMT, Paul Murray wrote:
>
>> In article <1414sdzza3ibs$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com>, RJB wrote:

>> Seems to me that Troika didn't get the game finished in the time that they
>> would, and didn't leave enough time for testing.

> Or maybe their date was pushed up as happens in *way* too many cases these
> days.

You should read your posts. You're willing to pull out every
possible theory without evidence of any kind to defend a
developer who has released two lemons in a row with two different
publishers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Paul Murray <paul@murray.net> writes:

> Seems to me that Troika didn't get the game finished in the time that they
> would, and didn't leave enough time for testing.

Then the game should just be delayed. This isn't a problem with
Troika, since almost all programming teams run into impossible
deadlines at some point (which are usually set by people who have
nothing to do with the actual creation). Though sometimes I feel
that game developers and publishers are even more naive about
realistic schedules (sort of like they take the minimum possible
completion time then add a couple of weeks for elbow room).

--
Darin Johnson
"Look here. There's a crop circle in my ficus!" -- The Tick

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-28, Darin Johnson <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote:
> Paul Murray <paul@murray.net> writes:
>
>> Seems to me that Troika didn't get the game finished in the time that they
>> would, and didn't leave enough time for testing.
>
> Then the game should just be delayed. This isn't a problem with
> Troika, since almost all programming teams run into impossible
> deadlines at some point (which are usually set by people who have
> nothing to do with the actual creation).

They bought a license to the HL2 engine. They shipped the game
with a LOT of typos.

I don't think it's a manager forcing his code monkeys to
implement things faster. It's a case of sheer negligence.