Featuritis or Civ 2.5: Which would be worse?

yin26 · June 19, 2001, 02:55

From http://www.cgonline.com/features/010614-c1-f1.html

Quote:

Despite the evidence that games are always late and rushed at the end, developers are perpetually optimistic, and I think this is the root of the problem. Developers don't want to cut the last few precious features and start winding the game down for release. They keep adding new stuff (and potentially breaking old stuff), right up until a month or so before the release. Then they try to get all the pieces to work together, and to get the game balanced, in just a few weeks. They expect their source code to be perfect and that everything will just work, but of course, it never does.

Since Civ 3 will basically be a matter of "precious features" and not really a new game, per se, it seems that Firaxis could fall squarely into the "problem" described above. The more and more I hear that this and that feature of Civ 3 "Just isn't done yet," the more I consider that featuritis could be just as insidious as a Civ 2.5

And how far are we away from release? If Civ 3 is targeted for Christmas (and what publisher could pass up the chance to make the easy buck?), now would be an awfully good time to start winding down those features that don't work yet and start playtesting, playtesting, playtesting...then QA this baby to death.

Please take my advice, Firaxis: Take all the time and money you save by avoiding featuritis and pour it into a better AI, better and more extensive testing and superb QA. For given the choice, a rock-solid "feature-lite" Civ 2.5 with an AI that can kick my butt would be eons ahead of a buggy Civ 3 with an AI that dies on the vine, packed full of broken/meaningless features that do nothing more than spin our wheels (even if they sound good on the box). Oh, and promised features...say, multiplayer...should actually work WITHOUT A PATCH OR ADD-ON. **ahem**

I have long pushed for a true Civ 3. But given certain track records in this industry, a neat and tidy Civ 2.5 that delivers what it promises might be the winning formula in most every way.

Just a friendly reminder before a pre-Christmas error gets made by some exec who could care less.

Jeje2 · June 19, 2001, 03:28

I'm a little more optimistic...

Reason: SMAC
Firaxis intended SMAC as a holiday release for very long, but finally delayed of known reasons. (Ok, demo was released) When finally it was released, it was still one version too early

Right now we still don't know a release date. (And I hope and pray it isn't in 2001 - I don't want Civ 2.5 after all this waiting. I can wait some more.)

yin26 · June 19, 2001, 08:41

SMAC is a good example of part of what I mean: I think the early part of the game (as seen in the demo) was combed through very carefully. Most of what really became a problem with SMAC could only be found after many long and intense sessions...something I don't think the playtesters were given enough time to do.

TechWins · June 20, 2001, 02:50

If Civ3 really is 85% done I don't see why they need to be doing anything else but testing and fixing.

Provost Harrison · June 20, 2001, 05:55

Well from what I could tell it was just playtesting and replacing some of the placeholder graphics, so they have plenty of time to get it all up and running from now I'm sure. Will they be requiring any beta-testers, that is the question

Adm.Naismith · June 20, 2001, 08:30

I find strange they already have the game almost finished, then they still insist to keep secrets beyond any reason

AFAIK, Firaxis always mentioned about balancing decision about things to keep or to cut out, so I suppose it's still early enough: last minute cut aren't easy choices, because their effects rolls thru the game, hence requiring more playtesting and QA.

Maybe they don't have more real news to announce: come on, how really relevants are the exact names of any Civ towns, or the appearance of every single unit.

I watch with some fear they are mentioning also features already developed and tested in SMAC, as truly new in Civ series

like borders, or combat rules where the combat come one to one also if units are stacked...

Yes Yin26, a smooth game play better than a bugged, unfinished one, but a 2.5 smooth CIV will stay 2.5 forever, while a Civ 3 with manageable defect but a strong dedicated support, could end to be a full 3 in a couple of months (yes Yin, I know I'm a liar: six months are more realistic

).

yin26 · June 20, 2001, 10:03

Adm.Naismith:

I understand you totally...I really want that Civ3. You know, Firaxis is in a very tough spot. If they don't do enough...they get criticized. If they push the envelope too hard and leave it up to some patches, surely that will bite them as well.

I've learned to trust the gaming community. Firaxis should get this baby into some (many) veteran hands ASAP. I am NOT volunteering, since I don't consider myself half the player of some of you guys. And I've beaten my head into a wall arguing for a public beta...I know they don't have enough staff to make that workable, blah, blah.

With all the jaded vets out there, though, some careful planning is in order to say the least.

Provost Harrison · June 20, 2001, 10:11

Well I do hope this time that Hull makes it onto the list of cities for the English

Buck Birdseed · June 20, 2001, 11:03

Last time York made it on twice, once for the Vikings and once for the English.

Now they only need the roman version (Ebor) and triumvirate is complete!

June 20, 2001, 11:25

I have very high standards for graphics, but I like Civ3's graphics as they are, even tho there are a few let downs, but I'm hoping they can be changed.

But from what I've heard, Civ3 will feel like a new game, but roughly look like Civ2.

I also think Firaxis aren't letting too much info out, so that us Civ3-wanters, don't get disappointed and start blaming Firaxis for something we want - more info.

I also notice from the updates that they're preparing us for some of the features, so that we don't get fustrated. I found that many people got fustrated with CTP, coz some of its features didn't make sense and it's just tiring and boring to try work them out.

So I think they know what they're doing.

lord of the mark · June 20, 2001, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
Last time York made it on twice, once for the Vikings and once for the English.

Now they only need the roman version (Ebor) and triumvirate is complete!

Can the Romans also get Nova Ebor(Latin grammar?), to match the Americans?

LOTM

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2001, 15:08

Quote:

I find strange they already have the game almost finished, then they still insist to keep secrets beyond any reason

Maybe they don't have the time to update the site. They really don't have a Webmaster of any skill..

Quote:

And I've beaten my head into a wall arguing for a public beta...I know they don't have enough staff to make that workable, blah, blah.

Actually all Firaxis has said since the beginning included an Open Beta. Jeff Morris even stated that a Closed Beta was very unlikely. I have a quotes if you want to see them.

Provost Harrison · June 20, 2001, 19:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
Last time York made it on twice, once for the Vikings and once for the English.

Now they only need the roman version (Ebor) and triumvirate is complete!

Nah, it did make it to civ2 3 times: Vikings: Jorvik, English: York, Romans: Eburacum.

Adm.Naismith · June 21, 2001, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I find strange they already have the game almost finished, then they still insist to keep secrets beyond any reason

Maybe they don't have the time to update the site. They really don't have a Webmaster of any skill..

Really? They have one, AFAIK. My memory is a bit out of order right now

but... isn't Dan Mahaga the men in charge?

BTW, upgrading weekly a site (just a bit) is quite easy, while any main bi-monthly upgrade could be tiresome.

Grumbold · June 21, 2001, 08:56

Dan's been awful quiet since he mentioned that colonies were still in flux. Maybe the guy needed a break or it has been decided that putting too much in-flux info out here was just stirring the pot rather than encouraging more considered responses from Civ fans. A big pool of Civ playing Beta testers has to be the best way to really test out what they are creating, but only if they can cope with the potential demand for changes it will create. No point in doing it if you simply can't make the changes before the deadline anyway. Asheron's Call fell into precisely that trap and went live with a system they found needed reworking after it was too late. I'm not convinced Firaxis have the same leeway to say "Done when its done" that people like the Duke Nukem team have had. Would we be prepared to wait another two years if they did?