New Post from Dan@FIRAXIS at CivFanatics.com

aznblader · November 27, 2001, 20:30

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=10366

Dan posts on this thread and talks about why we can't be told the details of the patch. Check it out.

yin26 · November 27, 2001, 21:03

My favorite comment he makes is:

Quote:

Of course the game has bugs.

LOL! Sure, lack of proper testing will pretty much guarantee that, eh? Of course of course.

Venger · November 27, 2001, 21:27

Ho boy ho boy ho boy! I like the comment that alot will be changed! Hopefully, with our gameplay testing under their belt (ahem), they can frost the cake...

Hoping for more expansive editor options (bombard options : destroy units, destroy improvements, destroy buildings, etc) and overall game improvements, as well as some optimizations for the speed (Nvidia fix) and interface updates.

It'll almost be like getting Civ3.5...

Venger

Ghengis Brom · November 27, 2001, 22:28

Subject: Obviously Not Too Many Civer's Have Played Ultima Online

I have, and I fully understand why Firaxis is not giving details on whats in the patch. As Dan stated, in process of developing software it sometimes necessary to change or entirely remove features which were planned or implemented in the beginning. Ultima Online is constantly releasing patches for their game and in the past had made a habit of promising or eluding to certain changes which never came to be. This did nothing but infuriate the player community. I'm just glad Firaxis announced they are working on the patch and gave a tenative release date. That's a lot better some other companies have done *cough* Origin *cough*.

Me at home playing CivIII ------->

"I am a above the law!"

yin26 · November 27, 2001, 22:51

Agreed, if you compare Firaxis to total crap, they are surprisingly passable.

kmj · November 27, 2001, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Agreed, if you compare Firaxis to total crap, they are surprisingly passable.

I think they'd be at least passable if you compared them to most game development houses.

reds4ever · November 27, 2001, 23:08

yin, to quote half a sentence out of context is a bit cheap!

anyone who couldn't see the game wasn't finished (no beta, no demo and features being dropped at the last moment) deserved what they(percieved) they got

Cian McGuire · November 27, 2001, 23:51

Quote:

anyone who couldn't see the game wasn't finished (no beta, no demo and features being dropped at the last moment) deserved what they(percieved) they got

So it's our fault for buying a buggy and incomplete game because we were so naive to trust that Firaxis/Infogames would complete it before they released it?

Give me a break, it's apologeticism like this that's ruining the gaming industry.

November 27, 2001, 23:52

Dan from Firaxis said :

"However, it's entirely possible that testing could cause the patch to "reset" (restarted after a fix is made). "

I think it's a bit late for Firaxis to hide behind the "not until it's been fully tested" response. They had their chance to do it right the first time. I know software will always have some bugs, but the blatantly obvious game play problems (like the Air superiority bug) are really indefensible IMO. I really think these problems are a result of Firaxis losing the talented Brian Reynolds. Maybe my anger will subside and I will be able to enjoy this game with the release of this patch.

reds4ever · November 28, 2001, 00:26

Cian, you couldn't see that coming? like i say the game had no public beta testing, no demo and then at the last moment it became apparent the game had no MP...and the thought never crossed your mind that there may be gameplay issues? you're a second hand car salemans dream!

neville chamberlian eat your heart out..

yin26 · November 28, 2001, 00:28

But a vast majority of gamers don't sit on the Net clocking in the thread hours we do. That said, I don't trust ANY companies these days. Period. But I watch their follow-up very carefully.

kmj · November 28, 2001, 01:03

Quote:

Originally posted by number6

I think it's a bit late for Firaxis to hide behind the "not until it's been fully tested" response.

I don't think they're hiding behind anything. AFAICT, It's two different situations: They were under contractual obligation to have the game released by a specific deadline and they didn't meet it. Now, they're working on the patch to fix bugs that they probably knew about but couldn't get fixed, and they have no deadline. Like it or not, I'll bet you a dollar to a dime that's the situation; and I don't blame the employees of fireaxis, really. I'm having fun playing the game right now; maybe I'll have more fun when the patch is out.

Yin is right to mistrust the gaming industry, as they will do whatever they can get away with in order to maximize profits. Fact is, optimal consumer satisfaction does not necessarily mean optimal profits, and I doubt you'll see any significant grassroots efforts to change this anytime soon.

War4ever · November 28, 2001, 01:50

Yin i used to think your a pessimist...and a bit annoying....how wrong i was, your pragmatic and think the way i do..... i am saddened by this game they call civ3.....

its not worthy of that title...this is something activision would release

yin26 · November 28, 2001, 02:00

War4ever: Thanks for that. Of course, it could well be that we are *both* annoying pessimists? LOL! Naw, I think it's a mix of two things:

A) The general public has rather low expectations (most people, I've found, are pretty happy just to kill some time with a distraction of most any kind) and
B) Firaxis targetted the general public and not the hardcore fan. The question there, though, is: Are games made for the hardcore fan and the general public mutually exclusive? Apparently Firaxis thinks they are ... thus, in my mind, they are showing themselves to be something of a lightweight developing house. Sid has always liked the 'light and easy' approach to games, but it just seems to me that in the past 25 years (I'm now 30), I've come to want a bit more from my games.

So why hang around here? I guess, like you, I'm curious to see what will be patched. I'm no religious man, but even I'll get up from my chair to watch a miracle.

Rasbelin · November 28, 2001, 02:04

Thanks for droping us a hint, aznblader!

ElMeanYo · November 28, 2001, 02:42

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
My favorite comment he makes is:

LOL! Sure, lack of proper testing will pretty much guarantee that, eh? Of course of course.

Obviously you dont work in the software industry. Bugs are a fact of life, like death and taxes. You can't ever get rid of all the bugs, its impossible because human beings are fallible. Also, many bugs are purely a matter of opinion or perspective. Certainly some of Civ3s bugs don't fall into that category, but many do. It really has nothing to do with proper testing (although that helps on nailing the big ones). Its more to do with how much money do we spend to fix a product vs how much do we lose to not fix it. How much money do we lose by delaying the product to fix bugs vs how much money do we make by releasing it now. Software is never finished, just abandoned.

yin26 · November 28, 2001, 02:46

Yep, fixing that air bug would have cost millions.

Gatekeeper · November 28, 2001, 03:46

Quote:

Originally posted by ElMeanYo
Obviously you dont work in the software industry. Bugs are a fact of life, like death and taxes. You can't ever get rid of all the bugs, its impossible because human beings are fallible.

POPPYCOCK. If I had an employee with that attitude, there would be an open door waiting and s/he'd have a boot in the arse to send him/her out said door.

I, of course, base my statement on the fact that I have plenty of bug-free software sitting on my computer.

Quote:

Its more to do with how much money do we spend to fix a product vs how much do we lose to not fix it. How much money do we lose by delaying the product to fix bugs vs how much money do we make by releasing it now.

Customers come first. If you screw them over, they will not return and I can guarantee you that word will spread of one's reputation. Why do you think Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford got stung so bad with their faulty tires? Because they were shoddy and folks got maimed and killed because of said shoddy product. Civ III isn't going to kill anyone by any means, but the idea is the same: ruined reputations.

It was a mistake to release a bug-filled game just to get the holiday rush. Now you have a whole bunch of people sitting at home with a buggy game, and not all of them are going to be able to just download a patch for it. Perhaps some will never notice the problems Civ III has as it stands right now, but I know enough of them will notice the problems and ... well, see my previous paragraph.

CYBERAmazon

Raleigh · November 28, 2001, 04:38

You know, the game has some flaws and could have benefitted from better playtesting but rocks the house anyway. I certainly don't agree with all the stylistic changes they probably will not alter (like making combat even easier for muskets against tanks, etc.) but the game rules and is definitely a step up from Civ 2. And, no I don't work for Firaxis, although I wish the game came out later only so I could stop playing and finish studying for my finals!

Baloo · November 28, 2001, 06:10

Okay, there maybe two different types of bugs. One is the usual technical bugs. It was not intended in the first place, and “to err is human”. Apply patch(es), case closed. The other one is the dreaded design bug. This is when the programmers have made the wrong decision or may ignore important considerations in the software requirements. Short to say, this is the error made when the product is still in blueprint. Most of the times, it can’t be corrected with patches.

IMHO Civ III doesn’t have that many design flaws, but there are still major ones. For instance, the way the game now to ignore lots of micromanagers we cherish in Civ2 & SMAC and dream to have more capable ones in Civ3. The game now looks more simplified and can also be said to be more “dumbed down” for the general masses. Like Yin said, Firaxis seem to go in one direction only in the game. Ignore the experts, embrace the masses to gain more acceptance. Another design flaw that I can think of right now is the almost unchanged tech tree, with useless tech nodes intersperse inside the tree. How ‘bout the concept which militaristic civilizations have the privilege of getting heroes while the peaceful ones will never have Enlightened Characters that empower their civilizations -- which can be found throughout history more often than famous military men.

Jack_www · November 28, 2001, 06:13

Quote:

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon

POPPYCOCK. If I had an employee with that attitude, there would be an open door waiting and s/he'd have a boot in the arse to send him/her out said door.

I, of course, base my statement on the fact that I have plenty of bug-free software sitting on my computer.

Customers come first. If you screw them over, they will not return and I can guarantee you that word will spread of one's reputation. Why do you think Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford got stung so bad with their faulty tires? Because they were shoddy and folks got maimed and killed because of said shoddy product. Civ III isn't going to kill anyone by any means, but the idea is the same: ruined reputations.

It was a mistake to release a bug-filled game just to get the holiday rush. Now you have a whole bunch of people sitting at home with a buggy game, and not all of them are going to be able to just download a patch for it. Perhaps some will never notice the problems Civ III has as it stands right now, but I know enough of them will notice the problems and ... well, see my previous paragraph.

CYBERAmazon

Amazon have you ever programmed before? I am going to collage right now and my major is computer science. When you code a programm you always make misstakes. I have never been able to write code that did not have bugs in it. That why programms of any kind are tested. But not ever occurance were a bug might occur can be tested because of the number of possibilties were one might pop up. Thus bugs do slip though the testing process because of this.

But Civ3 bugs I think are not a result of this. I think they knew about the bugs with air units, but just ran out of time to fix the problem and reasoned that they could fix it in a patch, which I think was a bad decission.

Moraelin · November 28, 2001, 06:54

Can't say I've run into any bugs yet myself, but then I've only had the game for a couple of days.

_My_ problem is that, compared to CTP2, the game doesn't have more than a few minor tweaks and changes. I mean, sure, if you haven't played any Civ game since Civ2, ok, it might pass for some major improvement. But even compared to SMAC, it's just more of the same. Compared to CTP2, even more so. Compared to CTP2 with all the mods, it's actually a step back.

I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm saying it's a minor tweak of some (good) games that I _already_ _had_. I've seen free mods that bring more changes to a game. It's starting to look like the football games, which get re-released each year with just the names of the players changed. (Apparently there are enough sucke... erm... I mean fans, who'll buy the exact same game again just for that.)

So why did they need that much time to make and test it, anyway?

splangy · November 28, 2001, 07:38

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Agreed, if you compare Firaxis to total crap, they are surprisingly passable.

Agreed, if you compare yin to a 14 year old, he is surprisingly passable

DISCLAIMER! I am not a firaxis worshiper, I AM someone who is annoyed by yins constant negative comments, and how he spams like theres no tommorow.

Grim Legacy · November 28, 2001, 08:02

Pffff. What idiocy to expect Civ3 to be all-perfect bugwise from the V1.0.

"Oeh Aah... there is an Air Superiority bug! Aaaah what a disgrace upon the Name of Civilization and Sid! Heads must roll!"

How many of you remember that you could actually fortify fighters in open terrain in Civ2 before you patched it? Ooooops, guess the whiners forgot that even the mighty Civ2 wasn't spotless from the start, ey?

"Aaaah but what about the Privateer!? It has only 1 attack strength, while it should *obviously* have two! It's a Grand Shame that Civ3 unit stats have to be adjusted *after* V1.0! A true affront. A slap in the face of the devoted apolytoners. Boohooo!"

I guess ye whiners forgot that this was in Civ2 as well, huh? Remember the Cruise Missile for instance. Patch 1.2x or so changed it's Att. value.

Now I'd be much more concerned if there were to be no patches. If the patches came too sparingly. But as of now, the first patch is released at a reasonable date. No 60Mb Day-1 patch, that's good. And no 500K Month-3 patch either. All that remains now is to wait and see what the patch actually does.

Kolyana · November 28, 2001, 08:06

It'll add a nice new icon to your desktop.

Grim Legacy · November 28, 2001, 08:22

It is common knowledge that a patch does not create a new icon, but rather changes the game files so that your Civ3 icon now points to the modified exe.

CB2034 · November 28, 2001, 08:38

actually some games do create a new icon when they are updated. a game i purchased not too long ago created a new icon when i updated it. Crimson Skies updated the icon, and also i believe uo updated the icon when it patched as well... so alas... it is common knowledge that some patches DO update the icons

Robert Plomp · November 28, 2001, 08:42

CyberAmazon,

can you plz name one of your bugfree applications ?
I'm curious !

yin26 · November 28, 2001, 09:33

LOL! You guys crack me up!

November 28, 2001, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim Legacy

Pffff. What idiocy to expect Civ3 to be all-perfect bugwise from the V1.0.

"Oeh Aah... there is an Air Superiority bug! Aaaah what a disgrace upon the Name of Civilization and Sid! Heads must roll!"

How many of you remember that you could actually fortify fighters in open terrain in Civ2 before you patched it? Ooooops, guess the whiners forgot that even the mighty Civ2 wasn't spotless from the start, ey?

You know what I never noticed that problem in Civ2. As a matter of fact I don't even remember patching Civ2 at all. I probably never tried to fortify a fighter in open terrain because it did not make sense. I think it is more unforgivable to state something in the manual as a feature and that feature does not work for the human player, but the AI players can use that feature. If I had noticed the fighter bug from civ 2 it would not have detracted from the game play and I am sure I would not even bother to complain about it. It's when the bugs are so obvious and surely could have been caught by play testing that I get upset. We are not talking minor bugs here. Yes, it is a disgrace upon the name of Civilization and Sid. It's such a cop out to blame the publisher's deadline as an excuse for releasing incomplete code.