I admit that's been a while since I played the game and I did not remember the details, and so my simplistic explanation of the process might not be very accurate.
However, I still think the idea behind it is.
:
|
Also people fucking make mistakes. That doesn't make it bad programming.
|
Of course it does, silly. Making mistakes while programming an aspect makes the aspect badly programmed.
I think you're mistaking me thinking that I say the programmers are bad, which was not my main focus of the previour post. I was talking about the issue, not about the people who made the issue. I do not know the internal struggles within the team, and compromises made to make it go public.
My explanation about developer being lazy might be not correct in a sense it might have not been the programmer's fault. I do not know. What I do know is that there's a person at fault on their side, a team manager, the publisher guy, somebody, maybe a couple of somebodies.
The issue still exists, and still could be easily avoided even without QA. QA is a fail-safe device for errors that usually couldn't be noticed while development. The only reason is why I thought the implementator is at fault is because I thought he was partially responsible for the concepts behind the mechanics (the details). The team was 8 people, it's not like they had additional staff for that. Whoever thought the pellet/flower reset in its current thought is a good idea didn't think it thoroughly enough.