So, how many patches will Civ 3 NEED?

SITS · October 15, 2001, 20:29

How many patches do we expect Civ 3 to need before the majority of people will be happy with it? I.E. How patches will it take to have all the major bugs killed and all game issues addressed...

Zanzin · October 15, 2001, 20:33

You know.....I don't work at Firaxis, and I've got no idea what the bug situation in the game is like....so I really can't tell you how many patches the games will need.

Pembleton · October 15, 2001, 20:39

The number of patches a game receives does not correlate with how many flaws/bugs the game has.

CTP2 only got 1 patch and that game is seriously screwed. Blizzard games are constantly being patched, but they are mostly for game balance, and they are almost bug-free upon release.

Didn't Civ2 have a bunch of patches? It went up to 2.42 I believe.

Akron · October 15, 2001, 20:39

As I said in your other thread, the number of patches doesn't tell how flawed a game is.

For example, AoK had a huge flaw in the superiority of the Town Center, but only received one patch after a year. SMAC received several patches within a very short time, but I didn't see any glaring gameplay problems or bugs (I know lots of people thought it was buggy, but I had no problems).

Also, SMAC fixed the few problems it had quicker while adding other things. AoK took until the X-pack to fix its problems. I would much prefer an approach similar to SMAC's.

Number of patches means very little.

SITS · October 15, 2001, 20:45

I placed the emphasis on NEED meaning how many patches will it need to be a decent game that isn't spoiled by bugs.

Pembleton · October 15, 2001, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by SITS
I placed the emphasis on NEED meaning how many patches will it need to be a decent game that isn't spoiled by bugs.

I don't see how this is possible to answer until the release.

There is the possibility that although they decided to concentrate on SP at the expense of MP, Infogrames might have pressured them to release the game too early.

I don't think looking back at SMAC would be a foretelling precedent, as that game was led by a departed Brian Reynolds, and was published by EA.

So I'm hoping that bugs are kept to a minimum, but one thing I see as being likely is the game will be imbalanced because the testing was all in-house. As long as they support balance in upcoming patches I won't complain.

ancient · October 15, 2001, 21:01

we cant tell and neither can they. dont you think if they saw a major glitch they would have fixed it?

any ways i doubt well get all of the patches well need..

Akron · October 15, 2001, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by SITS
I placed the emphasis on NEED meaning how many patches will it need to be a decent game that isn't spoiled by bugs.

I still don't understand the point of your question.

One big patch could do the same thing as 10 little patches. And the bugginess of the game is subjective, as it is based on past experiences with other games. And on top of that, we haven't even played the game yet.

yin26 · October 15, 2001, 21:28

If SMAC is an indication: 3-4

October 15, 2001, 21:29

None

SITS · October 15, 2001, 21:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Akron

I still don't understand the point of your question.

One big patch could do the same thing as 10 little patches. And the bugginess of the game is subjective, as it is based on past experiences with other games. And on top of that, we haven't even played the game yet.

The number of patches can show how flawed a game is - although like you said one patch could fix 1000 bugs or a 1000 patches could fix one at a time. In general it shows how flawed a game is.

If you consider that they have left out MP, there has been no public-beta, no demo and they seemed to have been a deadline for the christmas market how many patch cycles do you expect there to be to leave the game in a good state?

With SMAX, it could do with another patch but it is playable if you know the work arounds and like Yin said there were 3-4 patches to get it that far.

Akron · October 15, 2001, 21:45

But I never had any problems with SMAC. Maybe it was just the multiplayer component, but I picked up maybe one or two bugs and I played that game quite a lot.

On the other hand, AoK had a glaring flaw in the TC imbalance that to a large extent ruined gameplay.

AoK only needed one patch to fix while SMAC used a bunch. But SMAC was less flawed than AoK IMO.

Tolkien · October 15, 2001, 22:30

well, just to answer your question and not get all started into this argument, I think the game will probably have 1 - 4 in the next year.

and also, you mentioned in your poll that 5+ would make the game seriously screwed. you need to be carefull here cause when you do this, you are representing all games. diablo II and LoD are my favorite games (with civ series close behind), and they now have 10 patches, yet the games are awesome. it doesnt matter how many patches a game has to make it good or bad. patches simply fix bugs that are recognized by players and others that play the game upon its release...so in other words it is too early to start guessing how many patches it will need/have.

Sarxis · October 15, 2001, 22:37

The most I can say is- my intuition tells me that CivIII is going to run very smooth at release. Some game balancing MIGHT need to be done afterwards, but maybe not.

I voted NONE, but only because I am in a good mood.

Chuckles · October 15, 2001, 23:51

I say 2. That should be enough to fix anything in a game with NO MULTIPLAYER!

Nemo · October 16, 2001, 00:06

with the complexity of O/S and the vast variety of computer settings/components i dont think ANY game can be produced without SOME flaws. and since this is a rather complex game (mathmatically speaking) i think that it might require maybe two. but that is nothing against firaxis, just that things aren't as simplistic as they were when civ2 or civ1 came out. i never patched civ 1 or civ 2...there was no *need*, but that doesnt mean that they didnt exist. CTP and CTP2 were 2 of 3 games that i have EVER played that I actually felt the NEED for a patch for good game play

I thnk maybe that a patch for Civ3 may exist for some less commonly configured systems, and maybe a little for play balancing. but nothing major.

Simpleton · October 16, 2001, 00:12

I'm one of the few freaks

out there who believes that Civ3 will be quite polished and require a minimum of patching. I picked 3 patches but I really meant 2 at the most.

Trifna · October 16, 2001, 00:31

I'd say same as Zanzin...

I guess Firaxis does good job, but says us nothing since producers that make good job sometimes just make more patch to be perfect (look at Blizzard that changed Diablo II or Starcraft maaaany times to make some changes from times to others)

Faboba · October 16, 2001, 01:13

Hmmmm in Sid I trust so I'm going to say one. Nothings perfect but from past experience with Civ games most of the bugs are addressed before release.

Alex 14 · October 16, 2001, 01:32

2 Patches. One in November for some last minute updates & reported glitches, and another one in a year or two to generally update the game.

yin26 · October 16, 2001, 01:42

To be more specific:

1st Patch: End of November / Early-Mid December:
This patch will hit the first earliest and most easily fixed issues. A lot of hardware compatibility stuff will be addressed that won't affect most people. A slew of minor bugs that can be readily fixed will make it in...a mis-calculation in troops support...stuff like that. And if there are any showstoppers, those will also be fixed.

2nd Patch: Around March:
This patch will be the last 'free' one we will see. It will continue all that we saw them doing in the first patch plus now reflect a lot more of the nitty gritty stuff relating to balancing units, tweaking AI, that sort of thing. This one will bring the biggest changes to the game overall.

3rd Patch aka "Expansion Pack": June-July:
This one you pay for. The good news it includes MP! It will also continue to evolve along the path of the first two patches and will include some new civs that will have to balanced later, etc.

4th Patch: December:
At this point, final tweaks are made...perhaps the MP code is streamlined a bit. If you didn't like the game by now, this patch ain't gonna fix it...and getting another patch from Firaxis would take a very concerted effort from us. If we haven't heard by this time, we'll also start to know about 'The Next Project' and can reasonably assume that it is time for them to move on from Civ3.

dennis580 · October 16, 2001, 02:14

I voted for None. I beleive Civ 3 will be NEAR-perfect.

Blake · October 16, 2001, 04:13

2 patches for Civ3
an additional 1 patch for Civ3X
Atleast a couple of minor bugs which never get patched.

But on the whole I think Civ3 will be much more solid than SMAC, bug and gameplay wise.
(Yes, SMAX still has bugs, and SMAC has some fairly serious ones...)

Adm.Naismith · October 17, 2001, 06:25

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
1st Patch: End of November / Early-Mid December:

2nd Patch: Around March:
This patch will be the last 'free' one we will see.

3rd Patch aka "Expansion Pack": June-July:
This one you pay for. The good news it includes MP!

4th Patch: December:
If we haven't heard by this time, we'll also start to know about 'The Next Project' and can reasonably assume that it is time for them to move on from Civ3.

Quite possible, IMHO. Of course it depends from market success if Expansion Pack will see the light.

OTOH, we can have some date change:
1st Patch: early November: as soon as the game goes gold the team realize they left some serious trouble in. A quick, early patch will be uploaded to stop bad first minute complain.

2nd patch: Around March for english version, one month later for translated versions

3th patch: July: if not an Expansion pack this will be the last, probably adding an AS-IS MP module just to close customers mouths.

4th patch: late October - November: Just in case the Expansion pack will be made and sell well enough, we'll see this last patch.

OTOH, may be we can't have patches at all. You know, Bin Laden and his fanatics won't approve computer games over the world, as many others fundamental human rights

Sorry, bad mood for international news.