A Slice of Civ3 Feedback From The Official MOO3 Forum - Page 3

notyoueither · February 7, 2002, 04:58

Not attacking until attacked?

Care to ask Dan or Jeff or Soren about that?

You can be so full of it Yin.

Salve

notyoueither · February 7, 2002, 05:01

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Read my edit above. If you are going to participate in a forum, learn some manners. Now go to your room without dinner.

Oh, sorry to ruin your B*tch fest Yin.

BTW, you could follow your own advice.

I hope you don't go too hungry.

Salve

OneInTen · February 7, 2002, 05:40

Quote:

I am criticising a game, a process, a company.

Just to mix in some doubt over this - companies are considered legal entities, so criticising a company could be construed as a personal attack on that company, and by extension it's owners and employees.

notyoueither · February 7, 2002, 05:45

No. No.

Companies are seperate and distinct from people. They are the Wall.

And those who work for companies? Peeesh. They're just bricks in the wall. No need to talk to them as if they were human.

All in all, they're just another...

Salve

Cossack · February 7, 2002, 05:46

I have to admit that I think the post from the MOO site was hit the nail on the head. CIV 3 will pass any reviewers test unless it has been tested for some time or the review has considerable Civ playing experience.

The point is that the flaws of Civ 3 become blatently apparent after a week or so and I won't go into them as we all know what they are, even Mark G so don't tell me to look at the strategy forum for solutions, these are effectively solutions to programming problems/design flaws.

However, people are complaining about FIRAXIS and its their fault, but this is not necessarily the case, as I am aware (and maybe I am wrong) but I checked out Infogrammes website and I believe that they and not FIRAXIS own the copyright/brandname to the CIV series and thus contracted FIRAXIS to write CIV.

I'm not sure if anyone but FIRAXIS and Infogrammes knows what that contract contains, but I am sure there was a deadline date and significant financial penalties for time overruns or non-delivery of product, plus bonuses for exceeding sales targets etc. (the latter is why I think the graphics were animated so it would appeal more to the average gamer).

It is probably the inflexibility of this contract or the lure of sales bonuses and the thinking that the Christmas sale period will aid this that forced FIRAXIS to release effectively a beta version to avoid these financial penalties.

Why does this seem strange? Well take SMAC it was a pretty well finished product even without the patches and look at all the beta testers in the credits (let's not get into the Brian Reynolds issue). I am sure they wouldn't want to sell a beta version if they could have taken some more time to finish off the product properly.

There are two conclusions here, the first is that either FIRAXIS management misjudged the time it would take to completely program and fully test CIV 3, and thus produced a flawed final product or secondly, the contract was too lucrative to resist even with the time constraints. This is the question people should be asking, although for liability reasons Firaxis will never answer it they know themselves who is responsible and that person is probably towards the top.

I am sure we will never know which is the case but much of the blame has to go to Infogrammes if their management was not willing to renegotiate the contract deadline and didn't care about quality control of a large brandname product. Hence they have tarnished their brandname and own name with so many civ fans, not a good business move.

In the end I believe Infogrammes is at fault as opposed to FIRAXIS and if you really want to take your revenge you can short sell Infogrammes stock but you may lose more than you US$50 bucks doing so.

Just some thoughts

The English Cossack

notyoueither · February 7, 2002, 05:53

My God, the Cossacks are watering their horses in the Seine...

Time to go Napoleon...

Another scene from another movie.

The fact is the game ain't done yet. Even Yin admits this.

The difference between me and him is the positive and the negative. And my patience for the negative is limited.

Maybe I should be Yang.

Salve

Cossack · February 7, 2002, 06:09

Not you either,

I far as I was aware the Cossacks did water their horses at the Seine when they chased Napoleon back to Paris in 1812/13.

Not entirely sure what you mean, could you explain a bit more, the only bit I got was that you were pissed off that the game wasn't fixed yet. So am I, so what's your point.

Cheers

The English Cossack

notyoueither · February 7, 2002, 06:18

No fight with you Cossack.

It was a take off on your sig. I like movies (and history). I quote them (movies and history) whenever possible. Sorry, no offence intended.

BTW, I'm not pissed that the game ain't *all that it can be*... yet.

I do not believe that the developers are done with it. I am happy to be patient and let them do their jobs.

I do however understand that some people may be upset that the publishers released a beta in a pretty box and sold it to the public. However, I think that many people who lack the hard core gamer mind-set (and some grognards) still find Civ3 as it stands to be a lot of fun.

Salve

Father Beast · February 7, 2002, 06:26

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26

I sure hope that with all the changes QS is making from MOO2 that they don't do what Firaxis did to Civ 3 - i.e. take a great game and then ruin it thinking that they were "improving" it.

Funny, I have thought that for years about moo2, that it would have been great if they hadn't broken the great gameplay of MOO.

Naturally, I realize that few share my opinion, and moo2 has sold a LOT of copies, paving the way for MOO3, which I yet reserve judgement on. But I still can't stand to play moo2.

and while we're on the subject, I know my opinion doesn't matter, but if CIV3 sucks so much, then why do I love playing it?

notyoueither · February 7, 2002, 06:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Father Beast
and while we're on the subject, I know my opinion doesn't matter, but if CIV3 sucks so much, then why do I love playing it?

Because you have not stared deeply enough into the negativity opal. Looook into it, abbbbsssoorrrrb its essence. Feeeeel the negative waves lap at your soul... When I count to 3 you will incessantly flame Civ3...

1... 2... maybe not. This time. Count your blessings.

Salve

DaShi · February 7, 2002, 08:27

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
No fight with you Cossack.

It was a take off on your sig. I like movies (and history). I quote them (movies and history) whenever possible. Sorry, no offence intended.

BTW, I'm not pissed that the game ain't *all that it can be*... yet.

I do not believe that the developers are done with it. I am happy to be patient and let them do their jobs.

I do however understand that some people may be upset that the publishers released a beta in a pretty box and sold it to the public. However, I think that many people who lack the hard core gamer mind-set (and some grognards) still find Civ3 as it stands to be a lot of fun.

Salve

Keep at him Yin. You're wearing him down. He's starting to doubt his own crap.

yin26 · February 7, 2002, 09:03

Naw, it's not worth it. And this whole 'attack the game is attacking individuals' crap is hilarious. But damn straight when one of those guys comes in here after months of giving no feedback on important questions just to give some smart a** comment: It's open season.

Soren is NOT one of them. I respect what he tried to do and managed to pull off. I also respect that he doesn't come around here with pithy b.s., unlike a couple others from that company.

Tarquelne · February 7, 2002, 09:07

"CIV 3 will pass any reviewers test unless it has been tested for some time or the review has considerable Civ playing experience.

The point is that the flaws of Civ 3 become blatently apparent after a week or so and I won't go into them as we all know what they are..."

I really hate statements like that.

It's certainly true that Civ3 has obvious flaws... but the issue is: How bad are the flaws? So bad that Civ3 should get a bad review?
_All_ of us don't think so, but that's exactly what the statement above implies.

I played Civ1 when it came out, and Civ2, and have been playing Civ3 since it came out... and I think the game is well above average. I was disappointed that it didn't have a number of the features that SMAC had, but was willing to appreciate Civ3 for what it is, not thoughlessly condemn it for what it isn't.

Who wants to say that I don't have "considerable playing expereince"?
What I want to say is: Watch the way you (and not just the poster who made the statement I quoted above) throw around the phrase "we all". I've seen it in a number of places where it was attached to a statement I know that "we all" don't agree with.

To be utterly blunt: Does "we all" not mean what I think it means, or are just there a number of really sloppy thinkers among the hard-core Civ3 detractors?

BTW, the Subject line of this post is sarcastic.

OneInTen · February 7, 2002, 09:31

Well to me someone who works for Firaxis is just another forum poster, to be judged on the merit of their posts, and to be treated with the same respect as any other poster.

Or are they somehow special just coz their day job happens to be at a game company? They're only people, no more, no less.

Is Sid the only one with a cult of personality going here?

Cossack · February 7, 2002, 09:41

Tarquelne

I thought we were discussing the game not the English language, my post was about the publishing company/contracted company relationship and how that possibly affected certain aspects of the game from being totally polished, I didn't say the game was not worth playing, but obviously you are one of those 'sloppy' civ readers or maybe the point of the post just went over your head.

yin26 · February 7, 2002, 09:41

Quote:

to be judged on the merit of their posts

Precisely. Now you're getting it.

MarkG · February 7, 2002, 09:47

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
But damn straight when one of those guys comes in here after months of giving no feedback on important questions just to give some smart a** comment: It's open season.

so... what's your smart-a**-comments/real-arguments ratio the last months?

yin26 · February 7, 2002, 09:49

Well, I try to keep up with our fearless leader, of course, but he moves threads too much or bans people when he gets exasperated, so it's kind of tough to pull even.

MarkG · February 7, 2002, 09:54

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Well, I try to keep up with our fearless leader

who, however, also does some other constructive stuff around this site as well....

Quote:

of course, but he moves threads too much or bans people when he gets exasperated

i'm terribly sorry for trying to maintain the forums on-topic and flame-free

yin26 · February 7, 2002, 09:57

C'mon...Markos. If you're gonna troll, don't go and turn soft on me!

MarkG · February 7, 2002, 10:05

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
C'mon...Markos. If you're gonna troll, don't go and turn soft on me!

ever thought that i might not be trolling?

yin26 · February 7, 2002, 10:08

Stop it! Oh, Lord, you're killing me! This is fantastic!!!

MarkG · February 7, 2002, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26

Stop it! Oh, Lord, you're killing me! This is fantastic!!!

you know, if you're going to stay until the gold edition, you need to start doing something constructive(instead of DEstructive)....

and in the end you've practically destroyed your reputation(instead of civ3's sales numbers). soon we wont be saying "whiner" but "yiner"

Zealot · February 7, 2002, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
ever thought that i might not be trolling?

Quote:

and in the end you've practically destroyed your reputation(instead of civ3's sales numbers). soon we wont be saying "whiner" but "yiner"

Stop it! Stop it!

ACooper · February 7, 2002, 10:21

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
soon we wont be saying "whiner" but "yiner"

Grumbold · February 7, 2002, 11:37

Its funny, but one of the things I enjoyed most about MOO was the turn based tactical combat. You could do some amazing things with the right fleet composition kitted out with nice toys like repulsion fields.

MOO2 took away some of that amusement but introduced others. MOO 3 is going real-time combat. In my own personal opinion that is takig a big chunk of what is fun about the game out of the hands of the player. Isuing fleet tactics isn't the same thing. I know the initial reviews are bound to rave about the game so what will count are the comments on the web a fortnight later. Unfortunately the ghastly forum software they have makes it impossible to browse the posts in comfort. At least here at Apolytone we can track down the interesting threads with ease

Willem · February 7, 2002, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Cossack

There are two conclusions here, the first is that either FIRAXIS management misjudged the time it would take to completely program and fully test CIV 3, and thus produced a flawed final product or secondly, the contract was too lucrative to resist even with the time constraints. This is the question people should be asking, although for liability reasons Firaxis will never answer it they know themselves who is responsible and that person is probably towards the top.

But there's a third conclusion that you haven't considered. Firaxis lost a great deal of time when Brian Reynolds walked out, and they had to bring in a new team in order to finish the job. Losing some of your key people midstream is bound to screw up anyone's deadline.

Immortal Wombat · February 7, 2002, 14:12

Does anyone else remember Markos' unending support of CtP2 when it was released, defending Activision at every turn?

And then as soon as the programmers stopped posting, Activision officially abandoned the game, and said there would be no more patches, then Markos joined the ever-growing ranks of "CtP2-sucks" groupies.

Give it a few months (or years, depending on how long Firaxis draws this out) and Markos will come round.

Tarquelne · February 7, 2002, 14:20

Cossack:

I don't care what your main point was, you also made an overgenerous generalization about what "we all" believe.

The main point of this message is simply pointing that out. We all hate you.

"I didn't say the game was not worth playing, but obviously you are one of those 'sloppy' civ readers..."

Hmm... the odd thing is that I didn't say you thought the game wasn't worth playing either. How strange... _I'm_ the one who used the phrase "thoughtlessly condemn", but at that point I was talking about all those who abuse the phrase "we all" - and I do think that the phrase "thoughtlessly condmen" applies to most of them. Not _necessarily_ you.

See? "We all hate you." is still wrong, isn't it? Or do we all simply ignore things if they don't make an essential contribution to the main point of the post? Is that an rule of English I'm not aware of? I know this isn't the first time I've been criticized for actually paying attention to everything someone writes. Do you feel I'm picking on you for not commenting on your main argument?

Anyway, I think we all know that I was right.

notyoueither · February 7, 2002, 14:43

Yin. I've seen you make unprovoked attacks on Dan and/or Jeff.

Do I need to quote threads?

Salve