Which would have cause a bigger controversy?

Steve Clark · October 11, 2001, 11:49

I don't like doing polls so here's the question:

What would have caused a bigger controversy?

1. Saying that Civ3 would have MP and then not delivering it?

or

2. Saying that Civ3 would be released in October 2001 and then delaying it?

Putting things into perspective.

Sabre2th · October 11, 2001, 12:00

No MP. Games are delayed all the time for any number of reasons, but MP is usually there.

drake · October 11, 2001, 12:01

yes thank you for doing so.

1

A release date is irrelevent. If it was released around Christmas time and it was complete, it would be worth waiting for, for everybody.

Ralf · October 11, 2001, 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by drake
If it was released around Christmas time and it was complete, it would be worth waiting for, for everybody.

My underlining.

What makes you assume that only an additional 6-8 weeks would be enough to add the multiplayer-part?

Pembleton · October 11, 2001, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf

What makes you assume that only an additional 6-8 weeks would be enough to add the multiplayer-part?

Agreed. It's my experience with other games that MP is difficult to implement and takes a long development to get right.

With most games, even after several patches, there are still bugs to be found in MP.

Sava · October 11, 2001, 13:11

Delaying it for the sake of MP would pis$ me off. I'm not big on Civ MP, though.

Utrecht · October 11, 2001, 13:41

In my mind -

Neither.

I do not care about multiplayer so dropping it as a development decision is no big deal.

And has been stated above - Release dates are fluid. I have other things do do with my time - sure civ would be fun, but so is a good book.

drake · October 11, 2001, 14:04

My underling

Truthfully? I wouldnt give a crap if the game wasnt released to 2003. Its more important that a game be finished and refined, as perfect as possible, than releasing as fast as possible. Rush jobs mean rushed results.

What I was saying was, that they should release the game when it is done. Not 50%, not 75%, not 95%, but 100% done. To market a game in bits and pieces is a cheezy way of doing things. I used the Christmas date as a reference. I wasn't suggesting that implementing these features would only take 6-8 weeks.

I want the complete game when I buy it. Not the half ass version. So to summarize, I don't think its a big deal pushing back a release date to make sure the game is pristine. What I do think is a big deal, is releasing a half assed game for full price.

Is that better my underlings

?

Steve Clark · October 11, 2001, 14:19

You know what I think? If, for example, last month they announced that the October 2001 release would be delayed until January 2002. We would have seen dozens of flaming threads here along the lines of "I F****** PREORDERED, I WANT IT ON OCT 30" or "I WANT THE GAME NOOOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!" or "YOU PROMISED OCT 30, I WANT THE GAME NOW, DAMMIT". You have seen this in other forums, haven't you? In the end, once the game is released, such controversies seem silly. But because I believe that more folks are 1) impatient or 2) are eager to play SP (including those that will do both SP and MP), once an expectation has been built (where we did not have such a thing for MP apart from some preview stuff long ago), #2 would have caused a much bigger cry.

Don't believe me? Just wait until Oct 30. We will see too many threads saying "WHERE IS MY F****** PREORDER????" or "STORE X DOESN"T HAVE IT YET".

Jason Beaudoin · October 11, 2001, 14:22

My vote = 1

I think they should have honoured their commitment.

Steve Clark · October 11, 2001, 14:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
My vote = 1

I think they should have honoured their commitment.

For my information, can you point to me specifically where on www.civ3.com they committed to MP?

hexagonian · October 11, 2001, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by drake
What I was saying was, that they should release the game when it is done. Not 50%, not 75%, not 95%, but 100% done. To market a game in bits and pieces is a cheezy way of doing things. I used the Christmas date as a reference.

...And when does the company decide that the game is truly done?

Firaxis could push the deadline back to 2005, and there would be people here griping because, in their minds, the creators did not put a particular concept in the game for lack of time.

Jason Beaudoin · October 11, 2001, 14:28

I can't remember where I saw it, but I do recall a member of Firaxis (it could have been the big guy himself: Jeff) saying that they were "committed to multiplayer".

Anyone care to help me out here. It may have been in an interview or something.

drake · October 11, 2001, 14:36

Quote:

...And when does the company decide that the game is truly done?

Firaxis could push the deadline back to 2005, and there would be people here griping because, in their minds, the creators did not put a particular concept in the game for lack of time.

No doubt I can't answer this question, but a game released without MP available is not 100% done. I'm not saying that everyone who buys it should use this feature, but they should want the complete game and have that option. After playing civ3, there may be converts from sp to mp. People may want to switch over or even experiment playing online. But they probably won't be able to without buying something additional. And that isn't cool. We should all want our monies worth, but it looks like none of us will be getting it.

Jason Beaudoin · October 11, 2001, 14:37

Quote:

For my information, can you point to me specifically where on www.civ3.com they committed to MP?

Besides... what is the real reason why they didn't include multiplayer. Seriously? If they didn't commit to it from the start as you claim, why not just say right from the beginning that multiplayer will not be in the initial release? Why not come clean from the start?

If they didn't commit to it, as you claim, than maybe they were being delibrately misleading.

Alternatively, maybe they were unable to complete that portion on time.

The point is, we don't know what they are thinking. Was this merely a marketing strategy so that people devoted to multiplayer would buy the game anyway?

We need a response from Firaxis.

splangy · October 11, 2001, 14:46

Im not waiting for a feature to be finished so I can get the game and never use it...

tniem · October 11, 2001, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
I can't remember where I saw it, but I do recall a member of Firaxis (it could have been the big guy himself: Jeff) saying that they were "committed to multiplayer".

Anyone care to help me out here. It may have been in an interview or something.

Interviews, Ask the Teams, and on the FAQ. They said from the start that they were working on some new things for MP. They just never decided to ever work on it. Shame on them.

Steve Clark · October 11, 2001, 14:59

So no one has come up with an official committment from Firaxis saying that they will release Civ3 with MP in Oct 2001? Hmmmm....interesting.

hexagonian · October 11, 2001, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by drake
No doubt I can't answer this question, but a game released without MP available is not 100% done. I'm not saying that everyone who buys it should use this feature, but they should want the complete game and have that option. After playing civ3, there may be converts from sp to mp. People may want to switch over or even experiment playing online. But they probably won't be able to without buying something additional. And that isn't cool. We should all want our monies worth, but it looks like none of us will be getting it.

Actually, you will get no disagreement from me on this issue, because I really think that the game should of been held back until Multiplayer was implemented - in light of the fact that Firaxis did promote multiplay as a feature a few months ago. Personally, I will not be using multiplay/PBEM, but there are a lot of players who would, so not including it was a bad decision on their part. And if the multiplay feature is 'sold' instead of patched in, then watch the fireworks really start...

However, what people do forget is that Firaxis is a company, who has to make ends meet - so there is a certain logic in getting the game out before Christmas. They had a deadline set up for a fall '01 release, which they have kept, but that deadline might of been due to economic necessity as much as anything else. Businesses have to make money too - quality has to work alongside economic necessity. So pushing for a later release may not have worked for Firaxis, because it is not a huge company to begin with.

This game has been in development for a few years now - it is the hope that they have had plenty of time to address balance issues during that time, which are really what players need to be most concerned about. (but Firaxis has done the testing without an open beta, which is not encouraging). And it's hard to tell if the game will be truly balanced without fan participation - you have to take every statement put out by Firaxis with a grain of salt.

After all, if the game stunk, do you really expect them to say so...?

old dog · October 11, 2001, 16:20

I wonder why Firaxis is sometimes a bit reticent to hand out "ongoing" information? Could it be because some people are so quick to run with it and come to perceive tentative things as promises, such that any change of plan becomes less than a 100% complete game?

Geez, most of us want info while an exciting game is being developed, partly out of curiousity and partly out of wanting a chance for input. Don't create an atmosphere that encourages a total news blackout!

And really, what kind of self-centered is this to say that no game should come out for anyone until you get what you want? Hey, I'm a single player kind of gamer, but if they released a multiplayer Civ 3 this month and said the AI for single player wasn't ready -- I'd be disappointed, but no way I'd think that the MP crowd shouldn't get their game. I think anyone carrying on that way needs to have a close look at the guy in the mirror.

cassembler · October 11, 2001, 18:15

I think people that are still complaining about MP are wasting their breath... I mean, it's not like Firaxis is gonna go, "Holy S#!T! People are mad that we aren't releasing MP!!! Quick, stick one of these disks into every box!"

My oppinion is biased, yes, because I'm not interrested in MP... Too many last minute schedule conflicts; all of my human opponents would be pissed 'cause I would always be late or have to leave early.

cassembler · October 11, 2001, 18:24

Quote:

Hey, I'm a single player kind of gamer, but if they released a multiplayer Civ 3 this month and said the AI for single player wasn't ready -- I'd be disappointed, but no way I'd think that the MP crowd shouldn't get their game.

VERY GOOD ANALOGY!!! What about all of those games that can only be played online (no SP)? People like us- the SPeople- don't own those games... Nor do we desire them to not be released until SP versions are available...

BTW, If SP wasn't developed and MP was, then yeah, I'd be really pissed, .... really, really pissed

, and yeah, I wouldn't buy the game. But I wouldn't be at this forum either.

Grumbold · October 11, 2001, 18:28

Some companies are very well respected for releasing games "when they are done" and meaning it. Blizzard are one that immediately springs to mind. IF Civ III had been delayed, and there was discussion of it arriving in Spring 2002, then it had been released with MP and storming AI, everyone would have praised it to the heavens. They will get away with an October release if the game proves stable and playable but will damage their reputation if it needs patches to resolve stability, AI and balance issues before the Multiplayer version finally arrives.

Steve Clark · October 11, 2001, 18:29

SPeople??? Oh great, I can see it now, The Up with SPeople Club or SPeople of the World Unite.

I have alot of respect for those that play Civ MP. It's just their impatience/whining can get a little annoying.

Sarxis · October 11, 2001, 18:54

No MP is already stirred up the CIV community a great deal. A game delay isn't uncommon, and almost expected these days. But no MP in CIV? That's atrocious! (but forgiveable

)

tniem · October 11, 2001, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark
So no one has come up with an official committment from Firaxis saying that they will release Civ3 with MP in Oct 2001? Hmmmm....interesting.

Well I guess in that sense we have never gotten official commitment to wonders or unique units or anything with the official release in October. They said they had MP in mind. Asked if MP would be in the game, they gave us a list of ways that MP would be included. I guess I was naivee to believe that meant that they would have MP included in the final game. Just like they have indicated lots of other features would be coming.

So I ask you have they indicated officially in your mind that UU and other things are definitely in the October release? Of course they are. But Firaxis hasn't specifically said so, so according to your reasoning, we should be worried.

Steve Clark · October 11, 2001, 21:43

UU may not be in the final release???? OH NOOOOOO, WHAT WILL I DO??????

Let's see, according to the developer's update at the official civ3.com website, there are sections on wonders, civ attributes, resources, diplomacy and war & battles. Even see an MP section? How about screenshots? While some of them have been updated, ever see one about MP?

All we have had all along are some concepts, ideas, plans, questions and casual statements that they are working on it. Nope, nothing concrete anywhere.

I'm going on vacation for a week and I'll bet during that time, we'll see the following Firaxis Press Release:

"Regarding MP for Civ3, we are working on it. Thank you."