One result of this Civ3 debacle...

[Grumbold]

If the game was "perfect" I could look forward to playing a challenging 1 player game tomorrow, or trying to beat you and Yin at multiplayer instead.

If I ordered a car I would not be pleased if it arrived and I was told the passenger seats, air conditioning and windows would be arriving later and that the engine might stall a bit but would be fixed by the mechanic soon.

[Robert Plomp]

Of course you're right Grumbold,
and we WILL play a mp game one day, won't we ?

but eventhough you're right, I'm sure that I'm right as well
Can't we just be both right ?

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by CyberShy
but eventhough you're right, I'm sure that I'm right as well
Can't we just be both right ?

When the patch comes out and fixes all known problems and we have a confirmed date for release of the multiplayer/scenario/everything that got cut to meet the deadline expansion pack

Until then, its war*!









* But only a single-player one. Which means I win. Nyyyahh

[Dev]

Originally posted by yin26
First, I agree.

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.

I love how you just smacked 80% of the posters on this board and they're too stoned to get it

/Dev

[Dev]

It's not Civ3 it's Civ2002 if you know what I mean.

Firaxis/infog. released Civ3 in the good ole EA spirit of change one or two things and call it a sequel IMO.

/dev

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Zanzin
I guess we should all thankgod that Blizzard exist.

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

You ARE kidding right?? I dearly hope so, otherwise you have never actually looekd at the mechanics of their latest "hit", Diablo2.

It took them 4 years to put out a game that is worse, in most aspects, than Diablo1. Flawed skill trees, piss-poor equipment choices, extremely limited creature/foe choices (same 3-4 types of monsters ALWAYS appear in the same area), etc, etc, etc.

Then they release an expansion pack that not only corrupts the original game (you MUST download a patch for the XP that breaks the old game), but add's more unbalanced features and problems than it solves!!

Don't EVER hold Blizzard up as a company that is the best in the business for what they do because, quite frankly, they aren't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
You ARE kidding right?? I dearly hope so, otherwise you have never actually looekd at the mechanics of their latest "hit", Diablo2.

Odd. Based on your earlier posts, I would have thought you liked poorly made, unfinished games that don't have all advertised features, are imbalanced, and have game killing bugs. What makes Diablo II any different from Civ3 in that regard?

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Dev


I love how you just smacked 80% of the posters on this board and they're too stoned to get it

/Dev

Maybe they were busy playing an excellent game and didn't notice, or care, or both.

Zap

[Ozymandous]

This forum amazes me at times.

I come here and read the same things over and over; "Civ3 is the best thing ever" or "Civ3 sucks, SMAC is better!", etc. Here is another threat where people are talking about how buggy Civ3 is and how they are upset that MP wasn't in the product, etc.

Umm, excuse me, but did ANY of you ever play Civ1? If so, tell me, how many bugs did Civ2 have when it came out. What's that, you say that Civ2 and even SMAC had bugs when they came out, and Civ2 didn't even have multiplayer???

Egads, the horror!!

*sigh*

My question is this...

Why are so many people complaining when the game, indeed all games lately, have a history of comming out 90% functional and then are almost completely "fixed" with a patch or two?

It's not like we didn't have patches with Civ2 and even SMAC, so why are people calling Civ3 a "beta test". Dod you same people call SMAC and Civ2 a beta test when it was first released? Somehow I doubt you did.

We can't even compare the features of a game like Civ3 & SMAC, because, while they are similar genre, they are NOT the same game. Civ3 is the successor to Civ2. How many government types did Civ2 have? Yep, 5. Did Civ2 have a unit workshop? Nope, you couldn't even upgrade your units AT ALL unless you had built Leo's.

Maybe it's time for some people to find other pursuit's for a month or two and come back with a fresh perspective, because Civ3 is just a game that is at least 95% functional and will be better with a patch or two. NO other major game in the last few years that I know of, hasn't needed a patch. Does this mean the game is "unfinished" or a "beta"? HECK NO. A producer could spend 2 years beta testing, even with a large group of people and never have all the issues discovered, for example the OCC thing in Civ2. It wasn't discovered until 4 years after the game was out!!

In any event, sit back people and either play the game or don't, but for gosh sake quit talking about how the game is a beta because it doesn't have the features YOU want or needs a patch to fix one or two issues. As sad as it is, that's how it goes with software, and anyone who has EVER written code knows there will be bugs.

The true test is how fast the bugs get fixed. Don't be an armchair "programmer" because it's not as easy as you might think it is, even if you really, really like to do it.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Odd. Based on your earlier posts, I would have thought you liked poorly made, unfinished games that don't have all advertised features, are imbalanced, and have game killing bugs. What makes Diablo II any different from Civ3 in that regard?

lol, earlier posts? Oh you mean where I didn't wail and grind my teeth because Civ3 wasn't SMAC or Civ2 in new clothes??

Sorry, I let others do that because they do it *so* much better.

I don't think Civ3 is poorly made, or unbalanced, have missing features or have game killing bugs.

I DO think that Civ3 is familiar enough to get the theme from Civ1/Civ2 yet has enough different features to make it interesting again.

I'd assume you think that CIv3 has all the qualities you mentioned and I'd also hazzard a guess that you wish it were move like SMAC and/or Civ2 with better clothes?? Just a guess, probably wrong, but that seems to be the mentality of most of the people who have posted who don't like the game.

Civ3 isn't perfect, but at least it wasn't 4 years in development and then came out with some Civ's having ungodly strong UU's (Archer that would be 4-2-4 or some crap like that) or the AI acting as it did in SMAC/Civ2 where the more powerful you were the more then game hated you.

[DeadDireWolf]

Originally posted by yin26
Don't lecture me about Capitalism for Christ's sake. I know exactly what it is. How's your pimp?

Jesus, you crack me up.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
I suspect that the trend in the future will be game companies will continue to release buggy products as long as people buy them.

Saddly, this is the truth and we can thank our friends who run around saying "Sid/Fraxis/who ever can do no wrong" for making it so. People who pay money to get crap provide no market incentive for companies to produce exellent work.
That said I don't think Civ3 is crap but it was certainly rushed and had almost no playtesting. I'm not going to give Fraxis any of my money until a patch & MP are released.... PERIOD.

[LoneWolf]

Yes, the problems will be fixed, and yes you will have to pay for at least some of the "fixes" (probably multiplayer, maybe the full editor). And yes, I know you already paid "My $50 !!!!!!!" for the game. Big deal. If another $30 or so is going to break you, you shouldn't be screwing around with computer games anyway. Get a job, or a second or better one.
What always kills me about these sorts of threads decrying the evils of capitalism is that there is no other economic system under which the existence of computer games is even concievable. How many programers do you suppose the Soviets had working on such things? Do you think the various socialist parties in Europe, or the Greens, have "Create world conquest games" high on their agenda? Come on, grow up people!
:

[zapperio]

Bugs?

Soren said something about bugs:

Soren_Johnson_Firaxis1> SITS: no, we are a fantastic team. When we aren't programming, we're gaming together.
Bugs are unfortunately just part of the process. If a programmer ever tells you he doesn't write bugs the he
is either a) not a programmer or b) lying.

and

ACS_MarkG> Soren, how do you feel about statements like "Civ3 is broken"?
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis1> Mark: too many people are having fun to claim that it is broken.

Zap

[TCO]

Originally posted by nato
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.

There are plenty of buyers who are not on the "bleeding edge" or are les than hard-core civers. They provide an incentive for companies to patch. It's not just reputation. It's also keeping the sales run going with the given product.

Of course, they can release the original version because there are some people who are like crack addicts (or little kids crying for a Xmas toy), who have to have the game immediately.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


It's not like we didn't have patches with Civ2 and even SMAC, so why are people calling Civ3 a "beta test". Dod you same people call SMAC and Civ2 a beta test when it was first released? Somehow I doubt you did.

A lot of the same commotion was present for Civ2 and SMAC. It's history repeating itself.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by GP
A lot of the same commotion was present for Civ2 and SMAC. It's history repeating itself.

I can't speak for SMAC, but for the CivI to CivII transition, you guys are a bit off base with this analogy.

Aside from a very few die-hard CivI fans who loved the simplicity of that game, most people I know loved CivII, without reservation. It was a smooth, finished, polished product, and it showed. It substantially advanced the state-of-the-art, lightyears beyond CivI, without sacrificing any of the features of CivI (except that cool history timeline you could get at the end). CivII was clearly playable right out of the box with virtually no major bugs (it was years before I realized there were bugs, and frankly they were minor, some I'd even call "features"). I can still load the original disk on a fresh machine without needing to go hunting around websites for patches (assuming single player mode). Most importantly, it kept that wonderful "just-one-more-turn" feel that CivI had, but which is clouded in CivIII (partly because of interface differences, partly because of bugs, and partly because there seem to be fewer paths to victory than before - at least at the more difficult levels).

Now the MGE, granted, had a few more bugs, and required patches. But MP is a more complicated environment, and I would expect more bugs (frankly I am skeptical that MP will ever be satisfactory).

Quite simply, CivII exceeded most people's high expectations.

CivIII didn't.

It's a decent game, maybe even worth the stiff price tag. Maybe the code was "good enough" to release, planning on a patch or two. Maybe I would even have made the same decisions. But it doesn't compare it favorably to the CivII release. It's tough to argue that CivIII advances the state-of-the-art, though it certainly delivered some new features, since it removed so many others that are arguably more important. (I'm referring primarily to the lack of scenario support and the inability to play historical earth maps, but to a lesser extent MP).

Actually, since it didn't even deliver what is claimed in its advertisements, a false advertising case could theoretically be made, but there is more than enough wiggle room to make such a pursuit a waste of time (and there is a caveat emptor prejudice in the U.S. courts, anyway).

[TCO]

RobRoy,

There were several patches for Civ2. Also there was the CivNet fiasco and the lack of MP. (Double edged issue. They released CivNet while secretly working on Civ2...and they didn't have MP in Civ2 itself.)

But I do appreciate your point of view. You may be right wrt Civ2. I never had Civ1.

WRT SMAC, I do remember lots of whining, bugs and patches...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Grumbold

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

Ya, same here

I haven't bought it and won't until a. they patch it or b. it ends up in the discount bin, which should be some time shortly after Christmas.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by IncreduloDriver


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).

Blh , blah, you didn't address the analogy. If music producers behaved like this they'd soon be out of business. But I guess music consumers are smarter than PC game consumers.

[TCO]

In a sense, yeah. But music can be crappy. (not in production quality but artistically. I've bought some albums I never play.)

The market* would rather pay 50 bucks for a buggy game than 100 for a flawless game. It's just basic marketing...


*for the technical types: a signifiicant segment of the market...

[SkinJob]

Originally posted by yin26
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?

Yes, but he at least, is still designing his games, not just STICKING HIS NAME IN FRONT OF THE TITLE, and still has so much innovation in the games, not just making three games that are practially the same, with better graphics and one or two new ideas.

PM is one of the best gamedesigners, if not the best.

When i remember for how long i played games developed by PM....boy, that was times, that was games....


so long,

skinjob

[Zanzin]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


You ARE kidding right?? I dearly hope so, otherwise you have never actually looekd at the mechanics of their latest "hit", Diablo2.

It took them 4 years to put out a game that is worse, in most aspects, than Diablo1. Flawed skill trees, piss-poor equipment choices, extremely limited creature/foe choices (same 3-4 types of monsters ALWAYS appear in the same area), etc, etc, etc.

Then they release an expansion pack that not only corrupts the original game (you MUST download a patch for the XP that breaks the old game), but add's more unbalanced features and problems than it solves!!

Don't EVER hold Blizzard up as a company that is the best in the business for what they do because, quite frankly, they aren't.

I never actually had all the much experience with Diablo 2, but my at least 5 people I know did. If the game had as many problems as you claim it did, I think I would have heard about it - these people are the first to whine if a game has issues, believe me!!

My original post was really using Blizzard as an example of a company that has a good reputation for releasing solid products.
Tell me, is there another company out there with a reputation as solid as Blizzards?