Thread Tools
Old December 6, 2001, 07:44   #1
HumbleProgramme
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern Germany
Posts: 3
Civ3 from a programmer's perspective
For the past several years I have been one of many Civ players who avidly read the Apolyton forums, but remain anonymous. But having read the many raves & rants about Civ3--and the patch in particular--I find myself oddly driven to step forward with some observations about the game, and the developers in particular.

I have been a professional software developer (manager, designer, & programmer) for almost 20 years now, I believe that Firaxis is getting a "bum rap" in these forums. Allow me to explain:

First of all, many people fail to understand the difference between a "bug" and a "design flaw". Bugs are when the application fails (crashes) or does not do what it is supposed to, usually with 'undefined results'. A well-documented example in Civ3 is the "Air Superiority" bug: it simply doesn't work. A design flaw, on the other hand, is when the application does what it is intended to do, but this has unforeseen or peculiar side effects. In Civ3 we have the example of "lumber-jacking": the program is working properly, but human players are taking advantage of a flaw in the design. OK, so bugs and design flaws are different...so what?

Bugs happen. The job of the testers is to identify bugs so that the programmers can replace them with new bugs. The more glaring the bug, the less forgivable it is, but only a handful of the bugs documented in the forums here are serious show-stoppers. How many of you remember "GPFs" or the infamous "BSOD"? Subtle bugs, such as "If I bring up a flyout menu, then use a hotkey, the menu doesn't go away." are harder to find, because testers naturally learn to use the application, and human nature makes it difficult to intentionally do something wrong. Cosmetic bugs like spelling mistakes or mismatched animations/sounds are more of an embarrassment than anything else: they don't (usually) affect gameplay, and are easily fixed.

Does this mean that the bugs in Civ3 are "acceptable" and that we should shut up and live with them? No...it means that the developer should accept feedback and make an earnest effort to remove them...which is exactly what the patch is intended to do.

Design flaws are not only forgivable, but in many cases are an inherent part of the process. The design of Civ3 is very complex: there are numerous variables (terrain, units, techs, resources) that interact in an almost infinite number of ways. The human player can play aggressively, defensively, or even maniacally, and the design cannot ever intercede or say "You can't do that." It is this exact "open-endedness" that attracts most Civ players (including me) because we can play the game any way we want to. Consider chess: six "units" (pieces), only one type of "terrain" (square), and no techs or resources at all; compared to chess, Civ3 is horrendously more complicated!

The creativity and imagination of the (tens of) thousands of players around the world is bound to uncover examples where the design can be exploited. To expect the Firaxis Q&A team to find them first is as ridiculous as it is unreasonable! My spin on Civ3 is that Firaxis concentrated on balancing the game, because creating a system as complex as Civ3 without introducing any uber-units or "sure thing" strategies is difficult. Sid (& others) had to have learned from the CTP fiasco that an imbalanced game won't last very long. Reading the posts in the forums, you can see that no single nationality or unit is clearly better than the others; even prioritizing Wonders generated dozens of posts as to which is better...and why. This (to me) is a clear sign that if nothing else, Civ3 is well-balanced "out of the box".

So where to from here? My vote is to give Firaxis a break, and recognize them for what they have done: they have managed to create the next version of one of the most complex simulations currently available. They have made an effort to remove bugs uncovered by the user community, and are already starting to improve the User Interface and even resolve subtle design flaws (lowering corruption, et al). From a programmer's prespective, Civ3 is a gem, and Firaxis has already demonstrated their willingness to help polish it into a jewel.

Cheers!
Humble Programmer
,,,^..^,,,
HumbleProgramme is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 08:35   #2
Kolyana
Warlord
 
Kolyana's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 238
Also as a programmer, and not some JavaScript-wannabe, I must echo your thoughts and applaud them.

I would like to add, however, that i feel Firaxis were rushed into an early release. We both know the scenario was driven by Infogrames and if the boys over at Firaxis are anything like me, they would have been unhappy in releasing the title so soon.

That side of things is, however, out of their control.

On the flipside, patches are a means for these guys to correct design flaws and bugs and as long as they stay on top of it, we should be supportive and encouraging.

Lastly, please note that some of the requests for a 'patch' address design issues that are not easily fixed - multiple nations initiating diplomacy all at the same time, at the same table.

Whilst a worthy modification - and often something I dream of myself - a level of realism in our expectations would be nice
__________________
Orange and Tangerine Juice. More mellow than an orange, more orangy than a tangerine. It's alot like me, but without all the pulp.

~~ Shamelessly stolen from someone with talent.
Kolyana is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 08:45   #3
MarkG
Apolytoners Hall of FameApolyCon 06 Participants
Apolyton CS Co-Founder
 
MarkG's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Macedonia, Greece
Posts: 24,480
THANK YOU

for your most reasonable post HumbleProgramme!
__________________
Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog
MarkG is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 08:55   #4
Th0mas
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Th0mas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: London
Posts: 244
HumbleProgramme

It is really good to see an informed post about this. Too often uninformed posters shout and scream that there unrealistic expectations hav'nt been met and end up blaming FRAXIS for doing a bad job!!!!

If they had any concept of a commercial development environment they might temper their frustrations slightly with a little understanding and a more pragmatic approach to criticisium.
__________________
tis better to be thought stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

6 years lurking, 5 minutes posting
Th0mas is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 09:21   #5
Expatriate
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 19:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Syd for Køge....(Denmark)
Posts: 64
Whenever there is a message board about a game, you will see people whining and ranting. Another fun thing is that you will also see a bunch of programmers, some praising the developers for their good work and others talking about how bad a job they did. Just an observation I made

I have a sligthly different angle on it, as I work with software testing and QA. Thats right, my job is to break the software or at least try
So I know how tough it can be to find a bug or design flaw that only pops up in a very specific situation. Sometimes when our department has released something the users and they report back with a bug I feel like smacking my head because I didnt find such an obvious thing during the testing. But no matter how hard you test things, you cant test all the things that thousands of users might do or the order in which they do things.

Remember: Once someone has told you that doing a certain action or number of actions will cause strange things to happen, it all seems very obvious. But if noone tells you about that bug, you may never find out.
Expatriate is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 09:33   #6
mattcj
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 13:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Middletown, CT
Posts: 55
Humble Programmer :

Here, Here!!
mattcj is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 09:33   #7
eRAZOR
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 49
Re: Civ3 from a programmer's perspective
Quote:
Originally posted by HumbleProgramme
For the past several years I have been one of many Civ players who avidly read the Apolyton forums, but remain anonymous. But having read the many raves & rants about Civ3--and the patch in particular--I find myself oddly driven to step forward with some observations about the game, and the developers in particular.

I have been a professional software developer (manager, designer, & programmer) for almost 20 years now, I believe that Firaxis is getting a "bum rap" in these forums. Allow me to explain:

First of all, many people fail to understand the difference between a "bug" and a "design flaw". Bugs are when the application fails (crashes) or does not do what it is supposed to, usually with 'undefined results'. A well-documented example in Civ3 is the "Air Superiority" bug: it simply doesn't work. A design flaw, on the other hand, is when the application does what it is intended to do, but this has unforeseen or peculiar side effects. In Civ3 we have the example of "lumber-jacking": the program is working properly, but human players are taking advantage of a flaw in the design. OK, so bugs and design flaws are different...so what?
Agreed.

Quote:
Bugs happen. The job of the testers is to identify bugs so that the programmers can replace them with new bugs.
Also agreed but the inherent problem with Civ3 is that the testers and/or the developers didn't have the time to complete their job in a professional manner. A clear sign of a "rush out, patch later" approach (unless the QA failed completely).

Quote:
The more glaring the bug, the less forgivable it is, but only a handful of the bugs documented in the forums here are serious show-stoppers. How many of you remember "GPFs" or the infamous "BSOD"? Subtle bugs, such as "If I bring up a flyout menu, then use a hotkey, the menu doesn't go away." are harder to find, because testers naturally learn to use the application, and human nature makes it difficult to intentionally do something wrong.
That's exactly the reason why testers and not programmers test software. They are getting paid for trying unusual things. No excuse.

Quote:
Cosmetic bugs like spelling mistakes or mismatched animations/sounds are more of an embarrassment than anything else: they don't (usually) affect gameplay, and are easily fixed.
Yep, too bad the at least one third of the fixes listed in the patch update are of this kind.

Quote:
Does this mean that the bugs in Civ3 are "acceptable" and that we should shut up and live with them? No...it means that the developer should accept feedback and make an earnest effort to remove them...which is exactly what the patch is intended to do.
Again, I cannot agree. The patch indeed addresses some major issues like curruption and air superiority but other very important things like the (IMO flawed) combat system, Game play (no warnings prior to AI Wonder Building completion, All AI building wonders almost the exact same turn and always a few turn before you complete it, are not even mentioned. I also find the responses posted by Firaxians very evasive when it comes to issues they are not feeling comfortable about.

Quote:
Design flaws are not only forgivable, but in many cases are an
Design flaws are an indication of a poor design hence the name.(especially after a four your development phase)

Quote:
inherent part of the process. The design of Civ3 is very complex: there are numerous variables (terrain, units, techs, resources) that interact in an almost infinite number of ways. The human player can play aggressively, defensively, or even maniacally, and the design cannot ever intercede or say "You can't do that." It is this exact "open-endedness" that attracts most Civ players (including me) because we can play the game any way we want to. Consider chess: six "units" (pieces), only one type of "terrain" (square), and no techs or resources at all; compared to chess, Civ3 is horrendously more complicated!
The design might be indeed complex although I'm not sure what you were trying to express with the rest of this paragraph.

Quote:
The creativity and imagination of the (tens of) thousands of players around the world is bound to uncover examples where the design can be exploited. To expect the Firaxis Q&A team to find them first is as ridiculous as it is unreasonable!
You tell this your customers as well?

Quote:
My spin on Civ3 is that Firaxis concentrated on balancing the game, because creating a system as complex as Civ3 without introducing any uber-units or "sure thing" strategies is difficult. Sid (& others) had to have learned from the CTP fiasco that an imbalanced game won't last very long.
What CTP fiasco are you talking about? Just because many ppl have a bad habit of bashing CTP doesn't necessarily mean that the game was crap. Firaxis would have been good advised to take a look at CTP especially when it comes to the useability department (can I say stacked unit movement?)

Quote:
Reading the posts in the forums, you can see that no single nationality or unit is clearly better than the others; even
Yeah how ridicolous. Make everything on mediocre mess. Great design.

Quote:
prioritizing Wonders generated dozens of posts as to which is better...and why. This (to me) is a clear sign that if nothing else, Civ3 is well-balanced "out of the box".

So where to from here? My vote is to give Firaxis a break, and recognize them for what they have done: they have managed to create the next version of one of the most complex simulations currently available.
They have made an effort to remove bugs uncovered by the user community, and are already starting to improve the User Interface and even resolve subtle design flaws (lowering corruption, et al). From a programmer's prespective, Civ3 is a gem, and Firaxis has already demonstrated their willingness to help polish it into a jewel.
*cough*

Quote:

Cheers!
Humble Programmer
,,,^..^,,,
Yours truely
Some other bloody developer
eRAZOR is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 10:03   #8
DickK
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Virginia, US
Posts: 27
First, as a fellow software professional I agree with you and we're not gonna talk about how many years

Second, I've done a lot of software testing, and I must say that Civ3 is one of the more stable products I've seen, especially games. The fact that we're seeing so few "do this and it crashes" reports is a real credit to them. As you implied, the overwhelming majority of issues I've seen about Civ3 fall into the Change Request category and not the Discrepancy Report group.

However -- bet you felt that coming -- that same perspective means that a have to say that I'm still disappointed in Firaxis' job on Civ3. Oh, I could whine about missing features that I was expecting, but that's not my point. What bothers me about Civ3 is how a fair number of aspects don't appear to have been thought thru and properly playtested. At the top of that list would be the victory conditions. I won't repeat my comments from other threads but I can't think of a feature that ought to get more attention in playtesting, yet these are disturbingly poor IMHO. There are 2-3 other issues that similarly bother me, none are bugs, all are important features that are poorly implemented. These ae a third group -- the design may be fine (determine the design from the outside if the implemenation is flawed, tho') and the code is working, but the result doesn't "work" in the game because it detracts from the fun.

None-the-less Civ3 is, in my view, an excellent piece of software, not perfect but it passes my "acceptance test"
DickK is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 10:15   #9
rid102
Warlord
 
rid102's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 135
I feel as though I have to agree mainly with eRazor.

Humble is right in that the distinction should be made between faults and failures within software. However, the big problem is that with no real single customer to approve specifications you are bound to get people who regard a specific feature of a peice of software as being a fault when (in the minds of the designers) it isn't. i.e. there is no real acceptance test. Equally for prioritising bug fixes; what do you fix when you have a whole bunch of people all asking for different things to be fixed?

Quote:
because creating a system as complex as Civ3 without introducing any uber-units or "sure thing" strategies is difficult.
Have you read the "How to win on Deity" thread over on the strategy section? Rushing/vassals seems to work as a "sure thing" for people over there.

Quote:
Design flaws are not only forgivable, but in many cases are an inherent part of the process.
I don't think that's true. A proper design should be checked (reviewed) by at least one other person to ensure that it does solve the exact problem which the specification addresses. That way, before you start coding you know that you are aiming for the correct thing (i.e. functional behaviour). Accepting that you are going to have inherent design faults is accepting (and therefore assuming) that you're not writing software to specification, which is just crazy.

Quote:
From a programmer's prespective, Civ3 is a gem, and Firaxis has already demonstrated their willingness to help polish it into a jewel.
Well unless you have access to the source code and design docs, I don't see how you can call it "a gem" from a "programmers perspetive". It may be "a gem" from some player's perspectives, fair enough. Stating that "we" should "give (Firaxis) a break" because in your eyes they are just victims of (their own weak) development procedure is a joke. There is a universal decider of what gets given a break or not - it's called sales product turnover.

Yours,

Another Software Engineer.
rid102 is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 10:18   #10
rjpageuk
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7
eRAZOR: re: not being informed that the computer is about to complete a wonder.

It is entirely obvious to me that this is a FEATURE and not a bug. How many times in Civ2 did it tell you they were about to complete a wonder, only for you to rush it and beat them to it.

Now the playing field is level. Now we cant "cheat". Now you need to properly investigate the cities to find out if you will build the wonder first, no longer can you wait for the message, and switch your tasks about/disband etc to make sure you build the wonder first.

What on earth makes you think it is a bug/problem with the game?
rjpageuk is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 10:18   #11
The Viceroy
Prince
 
The Viceroy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Colombo
Posts: 310
At last a thread of sense ..

It would seem my fellow professionals are like myself, actually impressed with this achievement .. I was thinking only this morning, how when I first played CIV 1 , back on my Amiga 1200 ... all those years ago, and how many bugs it had.. yet, I have so many fond memories, actual games I can recall from all those years ago. Even more so, I considered how much is in CIV3 which I could have only dreamed of back in the early 90's .. This version of CIV would have blown us all away ..

Sure the machines are better, better graphics, faster processors etc .. but the development is a also a thousand times more complicated ..

Well done Firaxis, and thankyou for continuing to support the CIV community .. without which .. Apolyton would not exist ..
__________________
"Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon
The Viceroy is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 10:35   #12
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
Well....I'm not a programmer, but I do design games (board games, that get tested out up at one of our local hobby shops).

I agree with the original poster completely, and eRazor....yes, I think it's safe to assume that a handful (or even several handfuls) of testers won't be able to come up with as many ideas or ways to stress/break the game as thousands of customers....which I think was the essence of the point of the paragraph you replied to.

Also....I'm not sure if it's a design flaw that you don't get a "warning" that an AI civ is about to complete a wonder ahead of you. Since there's no more wonder rushing....what, exactly, would you do with the information anyway?? And, the fact that the AI is out-building you is hardly a design flaw...sorry guy, I can't agree with you on those points. (tho it's not terribly surprising that the AI civs finish their projects very close together, turn-wise. The AI terraforms the same way across all factions, and all factions have the same general they all have a drive to build certain wonders (with some civs being given different priorities, as I understand it).....so yes....since they're all driven (as are you, the player) to build wonders, it's no surprise that they tend to start as soon as they can, and, since the terraforming tends to run in a similar vein, it's also no surprise that they tend to finish at around the same time. And this is a design flaw because......?

The CtP fiasco the poster was referring to, IIRC, had something to do with some units in the game being nearly useless, while others were show-stoppingly powerful and had no counter. True, in Civ, you've got some useless units (Privateer!), but, post patch, it's at least good for something, and there aren't any units that are completely overpowered to the point that they wreck game balance. At least not that I have seen.

The complexity paragraph: What I got out of it was simply that, the more complex the design, the harder it is to spot "bugs" (if you do x, y, z, and then r, q, p, and t, while thinking about doing l, and on alternating Tuesdays, the game will crash.

Chess don't do that.

LOL @ your "make everything a mediocre mess" comment. That's not what the original poster implied, as I'm sure you're well aware. What your comment seems to imply though, is that it would be superior game-design to give some Civs overwhelming advantages, relative to others....ummm...ya....THAT'd be a fun game to play.....

Just some observations from an "old-style" game designer and writer....

-=Vel=-
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 10:46   #13
eRAZOR
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 49
Hi Velociryx (thank god there's copy'n paste feature

Quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Well....I'm not a programmer, but I do design games (board games, that get tested out up at one of our local hobby shops).

I agree with the original poster completely, and eRazor....yes, I think it's safe to assume that a handful (or even several handfuls) of testers won't be able to come up with as many ideas or ways to stress/break the game as thousands of customers....which I think was the essence of the point of the paragraph you replied to.

Also....I'm not sure if it's a design flaw that you don't get a "warning" that an AI civ is about to complete a wonder ahead of you. Since there's no more wonder rushing....
That is exactly my point: It occured to me many, many times that a few turns before I was about to finish a wonder, almost each and every other AI nation completed that wonder at the same turn. How would you call that? Perhaps wonder rushing?

Quote:
what, exactly, would you do with the information anyway?? And, the fact that the AI is out-building you is hardly a design flaw...sorry guy
See above. I didn't complain about the AI outbuilding myself.

Quote:
, I can't agree with you on those points. (tho it's not terribly surprising that the AI civs finish their projects very close together, turn-wise. The AI terraforms the same way across all factions, and all factions have the same general they all have a drive to build certain wonders (with some civs being given different priorities, as I understand it).....so yes....since they're all driven (as are you, the player) to build wonders, it's no surprise that they tend to start as soon as they can, and, since the terraforming tends to run in a similar vein, it's also no surprise that they tend to finish at around the same time. And this is a design flaw because......?

The CtP fiasco the poster was referring to, IIRC, had something to do with some units in the game being nearly useless, while others were show-stoppingly powerful and had no counter. True, in Civ, you've got some useless units (Privateer!), but, post patch, it's at least good for something, and there aren't any units that are completely overpowered to the point that they wreck game balance. At least not that I have seen.
Perhaps we can agree that as long as the game is fun to play certain balancing issues become less important. All I can say is that I and a good dozen of other Civ2 veterans enjoyed CTP and CTP2 a lot and played it for years on the other hand I'm the last remaining of the bunch that hasn't given up Civ3 yet. If I had fun I wouldn't complain but unfortunately that's not the case.

Quote:
The complexity paragraph: What I got out of it was simply that, the more complex the design, the harder it is to spot "bugs" (if you do x, y, z, and then r, q, p, and t, while thinking about doing l, and on alternating Tuesdays, the game will crash.

Chess don't do that.

LOL @ your "make everything a mediocre mess" comment. That's not what the original poster implied, as I'm sure you're well aware.
Sorry, I was serious.

Quote:
What your comment seems to imply though, is that it would be superior game-design to give some Civs overwhelming advantages, relative to others....ummm...ya....THAT'd be a fun game to play.....
I don't want to turn this thread into another discussion about the combat model - we've got dozens of those.

Quote:
Just some observations from an "old-style" game designer and writer....

-=Vel=-
eRAZOR is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 10:49   #14
Ludwig
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 83
I think a further distinction has to be drawn in the "design flaw" category between unintended game exploits and subjective design decisions.

What's the difference?

I consider an unintended game exploit to be something like the "Trade all your techs and gold for a single city, no matter how many times I take the city right back" flaw, or the "Plant and Harvest forest every turn to overcome corruption" flaw. These aren't bugs, in the sense that they don't crash the game, and are working as they were designed to work - it's just that the designers didn't account for all the implications of the way the features would work.

I consider the debate about the corruption system [in either its tweaked or untweaked state] and the combat system to be purely subjective arguments. Why? Because I like the corruption system and the combat system. As soon as someone likes either of these, disagreements over the design are immediately rendered subjective.

A game isn't buggy or shoddy work just because you subjectively don't like it. If a patch changes one of these features, it does not mean that the designers decided in retrospect that their original work was shoddy or buggy - it just means that they decided that their knowledge of the game market led them to believe that more people would reach a particular subjective evaluation than that evaluation's alternatives. If you didn't like the corruption system, the appropriate reaction about seeing that system adjusted in the patch isn't "Those Firaxis ****ers, they released a shoddy game, and the fact that they are changing the corruption system in the patch means that they're admitting it!" It should be "Wow, good thing a lot of other people felt the same way about corruption as I did! That induced Firaxis to change the game to make it more the way I would personally like it!"
Ludwig is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 10:55   #15
Matte979
Warlord
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: US
Posts: 110
You forget the most important thing DEADLINES!

I work in the software programming industry. When I first started a few years back I was planning on making everything perfect.
But nobody is willing to pay or wait for the perfect product, thats life. So after a while you realise you can't fix everything so you do your best and try to meet the deadline, which is the most important thing for the people that buy your product. Time is more important than perfection thats how it is.

Now to CIV3 problem.

1. Features missing: Why?... Deadline.
2. Not enough testing: Why?... Deadline
3. Design Flaws: Why?... Deadline takes along time to fix.
Important on Design Flaws..
(One thing people have to realise is that some design flaws are not really flaws but how the developer wannt the game to run and many people agree on their decission and some do not, its the same thing with all games, we do not like the same games. I do not like Quake games for example but i like Ghost Recon, same genre but diffrent in design) Just buy the ones you like.

I agree that the Deadline imposed by Infogrames was way to
optimistic for a game of this complexity but that happens. (Been there done that)

Its all about making money and finishing on time. Thats it.

I think firaxis is doing everything that they are obliged to.

People need to realise its just a Game not the perfect game.
Have fun with it as it is, chill out. Its a good game better than
most games if your into strategy.

One more thing.
Even the creation of you and other people have some bugs and design decision gone wrong aswell, like Osama Bin Laden. And nature have tried for over 4 million years.

For you that know about implementation projects in the real world
this is a common thing that happens. First the developers promise a great project that will fix everything when the customer gets the program. When the customer get the program the customer miss some things that they had expected. The relation goes bad. The developers try to fix and add everything and fix it, relation ship goes up. If the developers abandon the product like acticvison with CTP you lose the customer. Thats how it works.

Real world suck but we have no other world!

One thing these people that complain tell firaxis is how popular the game is. Otherwise they would not bother about complaining..

/Mathias
"Calm down and have fun and tell firaxis what to fix"

BTW. I wannt that patch and more patches to fix the editor.
Matte979 is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:07   #16
eRAZOR
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally posted by Matte979
You forget the most important thing DEADLINES!

I work in the software programming industry. When I first started a few years back I was planning on making everything perfect.
But nobody is willing to pay or wait for the perfect product, thats life. So after a while you realise you can't fix everything so you do your best and try to meet the deadline, which is the most important thing for the people that buy your product. Time is more important than perfection thats how it is.

Now to CIV3 problem.

1. Features missing: Why?... Deadline.
2. Not enough testing: Why?... Deadline
3. Design Flaws: Why?... Deadline takes along time to fix.
Important on Design Flaws..
(One thing people have to realise is that some design flaws are not really flaws but how the developer wannt the game to run and many people agree on their decission and some do not, its the same thing with all games, we do not like the same games. I do not like Quake games for example but i like Ghost Recon, same genre but diffrent in design) Just buy the ones you like.

I agree that the Deadline imposed by Infogrames was way to
optimistic for a game of this complexity but that happens. (Been there done that)

Its all about making money and finishing on time. Thats it.

I think firaxis is doing everything that they are obliged to.

People need to realise its just a Game not the perfect game.
Have fun with it as it is, chill out. Its a good game better than
most games if your into strategy.

One more thing.
Even the creation of you and other people have some bugs and design decision gone wrong aswell, like Osama Bin Laden. And nature have tried for over 4 million years.

For you that know about implementation projects in the real world
this is a common thing that happens. First the developers promise a great project that will fix everything when the customer gets the program. When the customer get the program the customer miss some things that they had expected. The relation goes bad. The developers try to fix and add everything and fix it, relation ship goes up. If the developers abandon the product like acticvison with CTP you lose the customer. Thats how it works.

Real world suck but we have no other world!

One thing these people that complain tell firaxis is how popular the game is. Otherwise they would not bother about complaining..

/Mathias
"Calm down and have fun and tell firaxis what to fix"

BTW. I wannt that patch and more patches to fix the editor.
Rest assured that every developer who contributed to this thread is well aware of those nasty deadlines. However what you forgot to point out is that is all a matter of common sense. There's an individual threshold and mine has been reached.
eRAZOR is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:09   #17
Th0mas
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Th0mas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: London
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally posted by eRAZOR
Also agreed but the inherent problem with Civ3 is that the testers and/or the developers didn't have the time to complete their job in a professional manner. A clear sign of a "rush out, patch later" approach (unless the QA failed completely).
As humbleprogramme was trying to point out ... there is never 'enough time' to capture all bugs or game balance issues, more time would have meant less bugs, but a decision has to be made at some point to release the software.

No matter how well planned, the final stages of any project ALL WAYS feel rushed..

Quote:
Originally posted by Humbleprogramme
The more glaring the bug, the less forgivable it is, but only a handful of the bugs documented in the forums here are serious show-stoppers. How many of you remember "GPFs" or the infamous "BSOD"? Subtle bugs, such as "If I bring up a flyout menu, then use a hotkey, the menu doesn't go away." are harder to find, because testers naturally learn to use the application, and human nature makes it difficult to intentionally do something wrong.

Originally posted by eRAZOR
That's exactly the reason why testers and not programmers test software. They are getting paid for trying unusual things. No excuse.
No excuse! Did you actually read what he wrote! That wasn't an excuse he was just pointing out the inherent difficulties of testing new software... This is not a black and White issue, mistakes happen - Based on your attitude I assume you are perfect with whatever you do.

Quote:
Originally posted by humbleprogramme
Does this mean that the bugs in Civ3 are "acceptable" and that we should shut up and live with them? No...it means that the developer should accept feedback and make an earnest effort to remove them...which is exactly what the patch is intended to do

Originally posted by eRAZOR
Again, I cannot agree. The patch indeed addresses some major issues like curruption and air superiority but other very important things like the (IMO flawed) combat system, Game play .......
Did anybody say that this would be the only patch Fraxis will release? I would suggest that priority 'bugs' and game unbalancing features of the first release have been covered in the current patch. The other stuff, if appropriate (IMO the combat system is not flawed - you just don't like it) would be released in further patches.


Quote:
Originally posted by HP

Design flaws are not only forgivable, but in many cases are an inherent part of the process. The design of Civ3 is very complex...

Originally posted by eRAZOR
Design flaws are an indication of a poor design hence the name.(especially after a four your development phase)

Originally posted by eRAZOR
The design might be indeed complex although I'm not sure what you were trying to express with the rest of this paragraph
You plainly did not grasp what HP was saying here. With respect to your whole post, this is probably the most important part of HP's original post.

Basically CIV 3 is VERY COMPLEX, developers are infallable, testers are not perfect and to balance a game such as this is very difficult..bugs and design flaws. Design Flaws do not equate to poor design, Same as poor implementation does not necessary equate to poor strategy.

Quote:
Originally posted by eRAZOR
You tell this your customers as well?
You need to be a bit more pragmatic in your approach.

Quote:
Originally posted by eRAZOR
What CTP fiasco...
Please don't .... this does you no favours.

P.S. I apologise if others have replied to this while I was writing it, to much RL getting in the way
__________________
tis better to be thought stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

6 years lurking, 5 minutes posting

Last edited by Th0mas; December 6, 2001 at 11:18.
Th0mas is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:15   #18
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
Hey again guy!

LOL...you know...I've never even messed with the "Quote" thingy....something about an old dog not being able to learn new tricks? Mayhap....

Anyway....I *do* agree that the "fun factor" of a game has got to be firmly in the driver's seat....but I think that game balance goes hand in hand with that.

Let's say, for example, that we make a civ-type game, and we put in a unit....we'll call it the Berserker. Ancient era unit that you get when you research Peyote...or something. Now, this unit (in Civ3-stats terms) has an attack of 6, defense of 4, and moves 3 tiles per turn, regardless of terrain (and has the blitz ability).

Clearly, whoever gets this bugger first is just gonna roll over the opposition.

Imagine this unit in MP.

Sure, it'd be a heckuva lot of fun for the guy who HAS the Berserker, but if you got stuck in a lousy tundra start, you have no chance....zip....zero. ::shrug:: I just don't see it as being a terrible lotta fun for the guy on the receiving end of such an attack.

Oh....I agree with you that the game has a somewhat "rushed/unfinished" feel to it, but....it's interesting to note that despite that, it's kept me up late just about every night since it came out....

-=Vel=-
(one more turn...just ONE more turn....)
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:18   #19
Moraelin
Warlord
 
Moraelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 284
First of all, as a programmer I do understand the difference between a bug and a design flaw.

However, as a just the guy who bought the game off the shelf, it's irrelevant to me. Glaring design flaws are just as bad as bugs. In fact they're often worse, because bugs might get patched, while design flaws most often get to stay.

Either way, it doesn't make me any happier. I've paid for the whole product, not only the programming or the design. When I interact with the game, I interact with BOTH the programming and the design parts of it. I won't go, "oh, it's just the design that's broken, but I've only bought the programming part, so it's ok."

(And I also doubt that Civ 3 saw that complex a design process, seein' as it's just a poor thought patchwork of SMAC and Civ 2, with some poorly thought out tweaks thrown in.)

Either way, that's what testers and reviews are for. The testing should test both the bugs AND the design. And the designers should take the feedback from testers into account, not dismiss it as "it's not a bug." Yes, no matter how great a designer you've written all over the official page that you are, it IS possible that you made a mistake and something needs to be thought over again.

E.g., I find it hard to swallow that none of the beta-testers noticed that by mid game it becomes a totally boring click fest, alternated with waiting 5 whole minutes for all the AI units and workers on auto to move. Even with animations turned off. You know it's bad when not board whiners like me, but people who liked the game enough to write a walkthrough or strategy guide, feel a need to write in there that a lot of people will probably want to play only until the turns start getting too long, and then just quit without saving and start over again. Why didn't the testers complain about that? Didn't any of them wish there was something as elegant as public works instead of that screw-up?

E.g., didn't any of the testers ever try moving some units together? (Like a settler and his escorts.) And they never noticed that you have to move them one by one, one freakin' square at a time, just to have them stay together? None of those testers ever wished they could move whole stacks, instead of each unit at a time?

Or didn't any of the testers find it weird how come a size 2 city can just swallow 12 armies without a fight, without a revolt, without a warning?

And so on and so forth. Again, I do know they design faults not programming bugs, but it doesn't really make me feel any better.
Moraelin is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:21   #20
rid102
Warlord
 
rid102's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Quote:
I consider an unintended game exploit to be something like the "Trade all your techs and gold for a single city, no matter how many times I take the city right back" flaw
Such a scenario is a fault in the software (under a mild assumption*). Faults cause and lead to [/I]failures[I] ("problems" or "bugs" whatever you want to call them).

Specification: Players will be able to trade cities for per turn gold.

[Fault] Design: AI can trade cities for per turn gold (see spec.).

[Failure] Implementation:

Quote:
These aren't bugs, in the sense that they don't crash the game, and are working as they were designed to work
* The point is, you do not and cannot know whether they are bugs or not, because there is no real specification available for the software.

Quote:
A game isn't buggy or shoddy work just because you subjectively don't like it.
And conversely, a game isn't free of faults just because you subjectively don't recognise the faults within it. Without a specification you can't tell one way or the other.
rid102 is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:24   #21
Herder
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 44
I just think people are disappointed.

Most of the die hards are wanting something with more features. I mean this is after all the company that gave us SMAC.

This is afterall the third iteration of a game that has been out for a decade. You would think some major refinements would have been made.

I had very high hopes for Civ III. It plays very fun at first but the late game tedium, omission of prior features(sentry mode? ), non-intuitive tech tree and air superiority bug killed it for me. The game feels unfinished. I returned my copy in hopes that some of these issues would be addressed in the patch.

Now that the patch is released I am waffling. They addressed some issues but not the big killer, late game tedium. I think that sums it up for me.
Herder is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:32   #22
rid102
Warlord
 
rid102's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Quote:
Design Flaws do not equate to poor design
That is utter nonsense. The goal of design is to produce a plan, idea and structure for solving a given problem without faults preferably in the most efficient and most maintainable way possible (and possibly aiming for some other SE principles).

Therefore a design with faults is indicative of a weak design.
rid102 is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:33   #23
Heliodorus
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 11:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 72
Speaking to eRazor specifically and the rest of you just generally.

I'm just so disappointed at the amount of negativity individuals can generate at being in disagreement with the design decisions and with the actual mistakes made in the creation of a GAME. That's why I've liked this thread so much and why I specifically called out eRazor - lighten up!

I don't think that CTP or CTP2 were great games. They were great extensions of the civilization building game, but there were some really crappy problems in there (like an AI that couldn't remotely compete on any level with me and my play style). I loved that you didn't need to build roads and RRs everywhere, and the whole improvement pool concept. Combat was great, but the AI was atrocious at defending, let alone attacking. Still, I had my fun with it, and it's now off my hard drive.

The airpower thing in Civ3 was the only eggregious offense in my book, as that should have been found in testing. Lumberjacking (soon to be fixed) and pop rushing worry me, specifically in the concept of multiplayer (which I'm not likely to play anyway).

Philosophically speaking, I think one will approve or disapprove of design limitations/exploits based on one's personality. Are you the kind of person who is going to search for a way to see those issues in the positive, or in the negative. Specifically, I will use the example of the combat system. As I stated previously, the CTP2 combat system was VERY nicely done, and at first I was troubled by Civ3s system. Then it occurred to me: the way Civ3's combat system is designed lends itself to making the AI more competitive against me, even if it is rather illogical. But I APPROVE of making the AI more competitive because in the long run, it means more challenge out of the game for me, and thus, more enjoyment. So now if my tanks get whacked by spearmen, while logically I'm inclined to be offended, I have to remember that what I'm frustrated by is NOT a poorly designed game, but rather by a design decision which enables the AI to better resist my strategies. It requires me to think through my initial idea of how things SHOULD work with an eye at making them ACTUALLY work the way I want them too (i.e., build more tanks, or throw some of your older cavalry in to soften things up for the assault). This makes me think in a non-linear fashion, and actually that makes me a better strategist, and that's for me a rewarding experience.

I am very glad I bought Civ3, and I'm very pleased with the design decisions built into it. I'm glad to read, for a change, posts from the people who can look at things without righteous indignation (not accusing you of that eRazor, but some folks like Locutus really got my goat with their "taking my ball and going home" approach, which is their right, I realize).

Long enough... later... the Egyptians are waiting to be subjugated by my new Legions...
__________________
I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish small tasks as if they were great and noble. - Helen Keller
Heliodorus is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:38   #24
eRAZOR
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Hey again guy!

LOL...you know...I've never even messed with the "Quote" thingy....something about an old dog not being able to learn new tricks? Mayhap....

Anyway....I *do* agree that the "fun factor" of a game has got to be firmly in the driver's seat....but I think that game balance goes hand in hand with that.

Let's say, for example, that we make a civ-type game, and we put in a unit....we'll call it the Berserker. Ancient era unit that you get when you research Peyote...or something. Now, this unit (in Civ3-stats terms) has an attack of 6, defense of 4, and moves 3 tiles per turn, regardless of terrain (and has the blitz ability).

Clearly, whoever gets this bugger first is just gonna roll over the opposition.

Imagine this unit in MP.

Sure, it'd be a heckuva lot of fun for the guy who HAS the Berserker, but if you got stuck in a lousy tundra start, you have no chance....zip....zero. ::shrug:: I just don't see it as being a terrible lotta fun for the guy on the receiving end of such an attack.

Oh....I agree with you that the game has a somewhat "rushed/unfinished" feel to it, but....it's interesting to note that despite that, it's kept me up late just about every night since it came out....

-=Vel=-
(one more turn...just ONE more turn....)
The sad thing is that I was looking forward to this game for a long time and now that I've got the game I find myself playing a few rounds and suddenly feel the urge to exit the game and do something else. I'v never had this feeling with any of the previous installments of the civ series.

I cannot exactly define what keeps me from playing but one issue is clearly the lack of the love to details I experienced with the civ1&2 and yes CTP1&2. There's a rule one it comes to software development: 80% of your customers will only use 20% of the features of the software BUT one common mistake is that those 20% vary greatly among the 80% and therefore the other 80% of the features cannot be left out. Firaxis (probably forced by InfoGreed) did exactly that. Take the wonder movies for example. I don't think I and my fellow players were the only people who enjoyed them and even if you are among those who never really payed attention to the movies you have to admit that it adds to the overall immersion factor of the game that the developers devoted the time to add such minor things.

Another point is the useability. Why on earth could they leave out stacked unit movement? Even if you hate CTP you got to admit that it was far superior in that department.

I could go on for a while but unfortunately I have to leave the office due to server maintenance.

l8er
eRAZOR is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 11:53   #25
Th0mas
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Th0mas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: London
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally posted by rid102

That is utter nonsense. The goal of design is to produce a plan, idea and structure for solving a given problem without faults preferably in the most efficient and most maintainable way possible (and possibly aiming for some other SE principles).

Therefore a design with faults is indicative of a weak design.
With all due respect, I disagree.

Game balancing issues that were referred to as 'design faults' (in the above posts) do NOT equate to poor game design.

e.g. Crippling corruption in CIV III.

This is not poor design, however the implementation of that design has meant that for some people the game is 'broken'. By tweaking the level of corruption in the new patch, Fraxis have changed how the corruption design has been implemented within the game
__________________
tis better to be thought stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

6 years lurking, 5 minutes posting
Th0mas is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 12:11   #26
rid102
Warlord
 
rid102's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Quote:
Game balancing issues that were referred to as 'design faults' (in the above posts) do NOT equate to poor game design.
Yes, I agree but that's not because "design faults don't mean poor design". But actually because there is no specification for such features (at least available to users) so claiming it's a fault is meaningless.

If you design a peice of software with faults then you only solving the given problem for a subset of cases (i.e. it's an incomplete solution).

E.g.

User Specification: I want a program that'll print out the correct day of the week everytime I run it.

Design: Read from system clock, calculate day of week, print it out. Oh, except if it's a Sunday in which case core dump.

Implementation: <100% as design>

User: "I've got your program but it core dumps on Sundays"

Programmer: "But yeah I designed it to do that."

And by your logic the programmer is correct (there is no weakness in his design even though it's got a fault).

The weak link here is specification to design (the example shows the software not conforming to specification), and as no-one has a detailed specification here for Civ3 (AFAIK) people making claims about the game being "flawed" is meaningless. Unless proven otherwise you have to assume that's what the game was meant to do (which in some people's eyes is an even worse "crime").

Corruption is meant to be horribly crippling.

Combat is meant to be uncertain.

etc. etc.
rid102 is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 12:33   #27
xane
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 97
As YACP (Yet Another Computer Programmer) I'd just like to say a quick word about "deadlines".

If deadlines never existed, and people who pushed deadlines didn't, then nothing would get released. Creative programming is a notoriously perfectionist career, and I'm afraid innovation often gets waylaid because someone will often think that their "innovative" design wont be as "innovative" if someone else comes out with it first, so rush jobs are quite common with the "we'll fix it later" attitude.

Many inspiring authors owe their careers to publisher deadlines, there's another bunch of procrastinators that need a boot to get them to finish up.

So, before you accuse Infogrames of "unreasonable deadlines", I'm sure at some point they asked Firaxis the immortal question "when will it be done", and based their precious little project plan on that, so now whose fault is it ?

Games publishers have to take the cr*p when their future product enters the "vapourware" league table, maybe we should consider that most of us are perfectly willing to wait till Fall 2002 for a completed product - yeah right.

id software had the right attitude. They released regular "tasters" of Quake III Arena every few months, which got hoards of fanboys doing free beta testing for them, the result was an almost perfect product, most of the subsequent patches have been to counteract cheating.
__________________
xane
xane is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 13:31   #28
DATarbell
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
HumbleProgrammer (and many others in this thread), thank you for an excellent post--regardless of what the naysayers say. Now, I've got to get back to the game, because it really is that good! (IMHO)
 
Old December 6, 2001, 13:35   #29
jackshot
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 12:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 89
A point here - with all the same human programmer limitations, IMO SMAC was a much more polished and interesting game out of the box. So was Gettysburg, for that matter.
__________________
"Is it sport? I think it is. And does affection breed it? I think it does. Is it frailty that so errs? It is so too." - Shakespeare, Othello IV,iii
jackshot is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 15:18   #30
WarpStorm
King
 
WarpStorm's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:04
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Right down the road
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally posted by Herder
I just think people are disappointed.

Most of the die hards are wanting something with more features. I mean this is after all the company that gave us SMAC.

This is afterall the third iteration of a game that has been out for a decade. You would think some major refinements would have been made.
I should know better than to feed the trolls, but...

I for one am NOT disappointed.

I am glad they gave us a game with less features than SMAC. Really. More features doesn't mean a better game. For example, in SMAC has anyone ever seen the AI use satellites? Ever? The Clones were a good bablenced design feature too. I would rather have a clean, balanced, simpler design that works than the "throw in the kitchen sink" design that so many on this board think is a good design.

There are major refinements. Diplomacy (OK, this was in SMAC, too), AI (none of the others had an AI that would challenge anyone), strategic resources, culture.

Oh yeah, I like the combat system. Who needs realistic results? I don't find them anomolous. The math seems right.

This game is fun, and that's all that really matters
WarpStorm is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:04.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team