One result of this Civ3 debacle...

Swissy · November 14, 2001, 21:13

...could be the final nail in the coffin for in-house beta testing. I have always said game designers cannot make an objective test of their own work. Many of the problems could have been discovered by objective beta testing. I am not saying "open" beta testing, just testing done by someone that does not have a personal stake in the results.

yin26 · November 14, 2001, 21:22

First, I agree.

Second, I think, however, these companies are just doing what the market will bear: Release a playable but buggy product and let 'the real world' do the beta testing for you. If sales suck, abandon the game. If sales are good, look at the beta test results your paying public is crawling over itself to give you and release some patches that don't require too many programming hours to implement. Leave the good stuff for an X-pack or sequel that approaches what the first release *should* have been. More $$$. Effectively, two or three or more products are sold for what the fans 'would like to have seen' in one.

While I think the words 'work in progress' as they apply to released games should be taken out back and shot, the average gamer is perhaps a step below a crack whore, so good luck getting them to change their relationships with their pimps.

Rakki · November 14, 2001, 21:39

i suspect the trend in the future would be independent game testing rather than in house.

Kc7mxo · November 14, 2001, 22:46

I suspect that the trend in the future will be game companies will continue to release buggy products as long as people buy them.

Monoriu · November 14, 2001, 23:10

First, I love this game. I think this is the best game ever, and I definitely won't call it a debacle. But that's just me.

However, me too am surprised that they didn't catch some very obvious things, like air superiority bug, railroad description in civlopedia (I developed all the forest squares first in my first game because of that), city sorting, palace (the screen, but the building) bug, etc. These things are so obvious that a casual player would easily spot in his first game. I can't believe that professional game testers won't catch these and the only excuse is lousy testing.

Blackadar1 · November 14, 2001, 23:25

I'm so sick and tired of the AI cheating that I uninstalled the POS.

yin26 · November 14, 2001, 23:42

Quote:

...the only excuse is lousy testing.

You might be surprised at how many of those issues they knew about before shipping. Perhaps all of them. This was a deadline issue. I'm sure the testers did a fine job (as you say, those are obvious mistakes).

d_dudy · November 15, 2001, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Second, I think, however, these companies are just doing what the market will bear: Release a playable but buggy product and let 'the real world' do the beta testing for you. If sales suck, abandon the game. If sales are good, look at the beta test results your paying public is crawling over itself to give you and release some patches that don't require too many programming hours to implement. Leave the good stuff for an X-pack or sequel that approaches what the first release *should* have been. More $$$. Effectively, two or three or more products are sold for what the fans 'would like to have seen' in one.

it's called capitalism, if you don't like it, don't buy the game

it's not like the game with couse you injury and you need to be protected from the unscrupulous businessmen

yin26 · November 15, 2001, 00:02

Don't lecture me about Capitalism for Christ's sake. I know exactly what it is. How's your pimp?

Alexander's Horse · November 15, 2001, 00:07

Quote:

Originally posted by d_dudy

it's called capitalism, if you don't like it, don't buy the game

it's not like the game with couse you injury and you need to be protected from the unscrupulous businessmen

I get sick to death of morons like you saying crap like this. There are such things as consumer protection laws and sooner or later companies like Infogames and Firaxis are going to get caught out by those laws. You cannot sell shoddy or faulty goods and then just say "that's capitalism." You are a fool if you put up with treatment like that. And its idiots like you who let them get away with it.

Drake Tungsten · November 15, 2001, 00:51

How did Firaxis violate any consumer protection laws? I don't think shipping a game without MP is considered a crime...

Venger · November 15, 2001, 01:05

Firaxis has no excuses for not having a core of outside testers to evaluate their products. On this freaking board alone they could find 10 intelligent, intense gamers who could in 14 days have found every problem with the game and reported it prior to going gold.

What to look for in an independent tester:

1) Speak in complete sentences.
2) A flair for gaming.
3) A critical eye
4) The willingness to test cheap!

Hey, I meet all those requirements...fancy that!

Venger
P.S. I love setting my own requirements...

Asharak · November 15, 2001, 01:08

While I would like to see more third-party beta testing of games, I can't honestly say the released product of CivIII upsets me that much. Yes, there are bugs, some of them rather obvious, and which should have been caught, but let's be objective. The list isn't that long.

Too many games are released with a list major bugs longer than Hitler's criminal record (so long as you get the idea, please don't flame me for the analogy). We've found several major issues, not dozens. I can deal with several, especially when the scale of the product is one is as vast as CivIII, and ESPECIALLY when the OVERALL quality of game is amazing.

These bugs are serious problems, granted, but nonetheless, I still enjoy the game -- immensely. I still stay up until 3 or 4 a.m. playing, and while corruption, and trespassing, and air superiority issues, ... etc. annoy me, I still call myself a Civ fan. So long as the patch fixes these issues, and so long as it comes out soon, I'm willing to give Firaxis, and the only development staff I've *trusted* for a decade, the benefit of the doubt -- maybe they should have done more public beta-testing, maybe they should have pushed the deadline back, maybe this and maybe that... but in the end, the bottom line is, maybe I'll go and play another turn.

yin26 · November 15, 2001, 02:08

My only worry here is what Infogrames will decide about the patching schedules. While Firaxis itself has been quite good about patching (yes, I said that), if Infogrames is running the show, we already know what they will be geared towards.

Alexander's Horse · November 15, 2001, 02:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How did Firaxis violate any consumer protection laws? I don't think shipping a game without MP is considered a crime...

Did I say anything about multiplayer?

The game is buggy - imagine if the music industry released CD's with tracks missing or the drummer not playing on track 5 etc. How long do you think they'd get away with it? Its the long suffering PC game consumers who are letting them do it now but that won't last forever.

TCO · November 15, 2001, 02:41

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
First, I agree.

Second, I think, however, these companies are just doing what the market will bear: Release a playable but buggy product and let 'the real world' do the beta testing for you. If sales suck, abandon the game. If sales are good, look at the beta test results your paying public is crawling over itself to give you and release some patches that don't require too many programming hours to implement. Leave the good stuff for an X-pack or sequel that approaches what the first release *should* have been. More $$$. Effectively, two or three or more products are sold for what the fans 'would like to have seen' in one.

While I think the words 'work in progress' as they apply to released games should be taken out back and shot, the average gamer is perhaps a step below a crack whore, so good luck getting them to change their relationships with their pimps.

Yin, you're singing my song!!! It's all about what the "crack addict" market will bear.

TCO · November 15, 2001, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26

You might be surprised at how many of those issues they knew about before shipping. Perhaps all of them. This was a deadline issue. I'm sure the testers did a fine job (as you say, those are obvious mistakes).

You have a point, Yin. The one that shone through with me was the scroll issue. Where Dan M. admitted that the cause was re-using SMAC code. (But almost seemed to say that it as an excuse.)

I bet there were twice as many problems and the fixed what they could off a long list, while leaving some, finishing off play balance, creating new last minute wrong things, etc.

Drake Tungsten · November 15, 2001, 02:55

I'm sorry, but I don't see how Firaxis has violated any consumer protection laws. I agree with Yin's comments about gaming companies abusing a far too forgiving public, but saying that this behavior is a crime is ludicrous. Gamers should fight back against the release of bug-ridden games, not depend on some assinine notion of what consumer protection laws actually protect the public from. No court in America would consider bugs in a computer game to be a legitimate problem.

yin26 · November 15, 2001, 02:57

GP: Yep. It's the demand side causing most of these problems. There is the occasional company that bites the dust, however, for being incompetent ... and I always revel it. It does seem that the gaming industry is going through some major restructuring toward a few corporate publishing houses running the show. And on the supply side, that means less power in the hands of people who makes the games and more power to the stock holder and quarterly financials. So put the crack whore and the pimp daddy in the same room: What do you expect? A mess is what I expect, and a mess is what I see most of the time.

This 'November patch' that has been hinted at by Firaxis is, perhaps, a good sign. I'm really hoping they were already on top of most or all these obvious issues. In fact, my guess is that was part of the release strategy because this gave them time to have a patch ready before the big Christmas sales as the only thing that could have killed Civ3 during Christmas is some killer bug that got let loose in the wild. With an October release, they could have recovered from it before the holidays.

"Releasing buggy games NOW is better than releasing buggy games right at Christmas. And the hardcore crack heads will take any version they can get, so we'll be sitting pretty with the casual crowd come Christmas morning and the first patch."

Damn. I might have run the meeting the same way.

coscarart · November 15, 2001, 03:04

They may have violated consumer protection laws with the Limited Edition of the game by not included waht was advertised on the box, but releasing a slightly buggy game is not something that can be sued for. If the game was completly non functional we could sue but that is not the case. Oh well

Dustin

IncreduloDriver · November 15, 2001, 03:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Did I say anything about multiplayer?

The game is buggy - imagine if the music industry released CD's with tracks missing or the drummer not playing on track 5 etc. How long do you think they'd get away with it? Its the long suffering PC game consumers who are letting them do it now but that won't last forever.

Oy vei! "Long suffering PC game consumers" pretty much sums up the shabbiness of this post. If you're suffering so darn much, why don't you stop playing games and end your suffering? Because you're not actually suffering, you're whining. You don't like a computer game? Don't buy it! Simple as that. You've got no right to demand high quality from Firaxis, just as they have no right to demand you buy anything they make. If they give it to you, great! High quality certainly insures higher profits. But, consumer protection laws? Complete nonsense! Next time Firaxis employees break your legs for not buying Civ 3, that's when you'll need protection laws. But not before.

Think of this version of Civ 3 as a beta test. Rather than play the beta for free and get the full version for $50, you pay $50 for the beta and get the full version free in a couple months (in the form of a patch).

yin26 · November 15, 2001, 03:13

Quote:

you pay $50 for the beta and get the full version free in a couple months (in the form of a patch).

Well this, of course, is part of the angst.
1) Pay $50 for a beta. O.K. Fine. I'm waiting for the patches.
2) First two patches are free, but don't really change 'deep-seated' gameplay issues. Just stuff like faster game turns, etc., which is nice, so things are looking up.
3) Infogrames announces that futures patches will be rolled out along with the X-pack, that will also include MP and a better editor. Now, wait: My investment is more like $80 to get the complete game ... and people who didn't already buy the $50 beta can't play the X-pack because it's not a stand-alone product.
4)Those who feel cheated by this because they faithfully stuck by Firaxis during the beta testing (I mean post-release beta testing) feel that something is definitely wrong here.
5)Those who have been waiting for the complete package must now wait another X months before the Gold Edition is released.

Of course, going back to my previous comment, since most gamers are crack heads, there will simply be moaning and groaning along with the 'Where do I sign?' stampede to the computer stores.

In the end, I'm getting too old to care so much about all this. I was given the game for free to test ... I tested it and am fully aware that this is a game of 'potential.' But since I like the potential I see, I am hanging in and 'risking' some time and money. Frankly, the most interesting cards have yet to be played in this situation, so I'm watching with curiosity.

TCO · November 15, 2001, 03:13

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
There is the occasional company that bites the dust, however, for being incompetent ... and I always revel it.

There are some that bite the dust for not shipping on time also. (Sacrificing profit for quality.)

yin26 · November 15, 2001, 03:17

Yes, and those tend to be places with incompetent leadership. Black and White is a great example. PM took complete responsibility for the release of that game, and it's clear to me that even another year in the over would not have saved it. The man was just not competent enough to realize his vision in any kind of timely manner.

Tough business, eh?

TCO · November 15, 2001, 03:25

Business IS tough. But fascinating...

nato · November 15, 2001, 07:06

One problem I am concerned about is the lack of incentive to patch. They already have the gamer's money ... what serious make-me-do-something-I-don't-want-to-do incentive is there to make a patch that they get no money for?

Even if they release with bugs, with all good intention of patching them ... once that pressure is off it must all seem much less important.

Yes, I know there is some incentive in the form of "reputation" and all. However it is in no way the same kind of must-do incentive, in the form of money, that drives capitalism.

Zanzin · November 15, 2001, 07:24

I guess we should all thankgod that Blizzard exist.

Maybe we should also all curse them because they don't make civ games

mtgillespie · November 15, 2001, 07:37

Quote:

Originally posted by IncreduloDriver

You don't like a computer game? Don't buy it! Simple as that.

Without a demo, how are you supposed to know if you like a game before you buy it?

And before anyone says "read Apolyton", we've had everything on this board from "it's the best game ever" to "it's so flawed i'm never playing civ again"!

Grumbold · November 15, 2001, 08:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm sorry, but I don't see how Firaxis has violated any consumer protection laws. I agree with Yin's comments about gaming companies abusing a far too forgiving public, but saying that this behavior is a crime is ludicrous. Gamers should fight back against the release of bug-ridden games, not depend on some assinine notion of what consumer protection laws actually protect the public from. No court in America would consider bugs in a computer game to be a legitimate problem.

Thank goodness I live in the UK where consumers have rights against faulty products then

Robert Plomp · November 15, 2001, 08:12

In fact I like it that a patch is going to be released......
and an x-pack after that......

imagine civ3 would've been released perfectly.......
then we would've nothing to wait for and to look forwards to

I can hardly wait until the patch has been released, and MP !
In Holland we have a saying that says somethiing like "Having the thing is the end of all fun" and I think that's very right.

Looking forwards to something is about as exiting as playing it the first time. (civ in fact keeps being fun, even if you already have it

)

In fact I can barely wait for civ5 uh I mean civ4 (3.5 ? 2.8 ? yin ? how are we going to name that release ?)

CyberShy

Ps. Yin, is this civ3 or civ 2.5 ?