Will There Be Anyone Who Cares

PaulNAdhe · May 30, 2003, 02:32

A second code patch is announced: Second Code Patch Economics for NEXT YEAR!

I wonder if there will be anyone who still gives a rat's arse.

Here it is May 29 and still the first code patch is having bugs approved for a patch that was promised during May.

I'll be long past caring about MOO3 by then.

edited. had oral surgery yesterday AM and was calendrically challenged.

KRONOS1974 · May 30, 2003, 03:52

perhaps they will make a add on or expansion pack and fix many things. but i am starting not to care anymore. Waited so long for this game--it has problems, and now its going to be up to 4-6 months before a patch. LOL--to late to return my game---hell the trade in value at EB is like 5 dollars LOL.

Daz · May 30, 2003, 04:14

I hope the game will be playable after the first patch. And yes, you have a point saying that there might never be another patch. No income - no patch.

BobD · May 30, 2003, 05:16

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulNAdhe

Here it is June 29 and still the first code patch is having bugs approved for a patch that was promised during June.

Not to be picky or anything but I think it's still May.

On the other hand, it may be the end of June before we get the first code patch!

Grumbold · May 30, 2003, 07:09

Thats no announcement, thats just someone discussing the possibilities. Atari clearly aren't trying to save the game for the sake of improving their or its reputation otherwise funds would have been available to get code patches done fast and at least the most critical bug fixes released to the public before the criticism grew too loud.

Frankly I simply don't understand the logic of contemplating a second patch for a year after release. The game will either be playable as it stands or abandoned by then. 9-12 months after the original we should be getting an expansion pack if anything at all. It sounds like a wistful hope from those unwilling to quash the remaining fans. "Think what we could have done if only there had been a second patch..."

Alex · May 30, 2003, 11:13

CTP2, anyone?

Ghostbear · May 30, 2003, 14:12

Will paying lip service to a second patch deceive a few more fence sitters into paying for this turkey?

That's why the discuss the "way far in the future" patch.

Or at least keep a few people from taking it back until they forget where the put the CD (under a drink probably).

statusperfect · May 30, 2003, 15:40

this pisses me off

moo3 is buggy as hell

and galctic civilizations is too lame to be to playable (it is ugly as warcraft2)...

this might ba the death of sci-fi TBS

cheers

Kloreep · May 30, 2003, 19:24

Whether there will be anyone who cares all depends on the first code patch. If I still find MOO3 unplayable after this first, that's pretty much it for me, especially if it'll take half a year to get the next one.

Of course, I'm pretty skeptical there will actually be a second code patch, if they're setting the date so far in the future.

Atari and/or QS is bound to cut what funding MOO3 has by then, especially if sales don't pick up after the first patch. This very well might be the death of MOO3... I don't know about sci-fi TBS, though. statusperfect, if your only complaint about GalCiv is graphics, I think I might give it a try; sounds better than MOO3.

Kahn · May 31, 2003, 01:21

I will have to say that I find the proposition of a second patch dubious at best! With the retail price at 50% of it’s original value (and several stores in my area selling remaining stocks at $9.95, with no plans to replenish said stocks), what sales figures are they talking about? After all the ill will IG/Atari and QS have managed to generate in only 3 months, I think they should be more worried if they will still exist by February 2004!

CharlesBHoff · May 31, 2003, 21:35

How many of you ever did any programming on your computer at all. Bugs fixing isnot as easy as you think. And when bugs fixing for than patch the patch cannot created more bugs than it fix.

Kahn · June 1, 2003, 00:56

I do! That's how I make a living (along with being the resident JOAT (Jack-of-all-trades) for my organization). I guess I may be a little harder on people in my trade than most, comes from the fact that if I don't do my job right, people die. No pressure, right?

PaulNAdhe · June 1, 2003, 18:28

I've been making my living for the past 20+ years from programming. If I turned out anything this buggy, I'd be looking for a new job the next week.

Face it Charles, this is the worst major game that has ever been produced. Forget about the Deer Hunter & Bass Hunter crap. This was a major game with a huge and devoted following. To produce such crap is unforgivable.

CharlesBHoff · June 1, 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulNAdhe
I've been making my living for the past 20+ years from programming. If I turned out anything this buggy, I'd be looking for a new job the next week.

Face it Charles, this is the worst major game that has ever been produced. Forget about the Deer Hunter & Bass Hunter crap. This was a major game with a huge and devoted following. To produce such crap is unforgivable.

There is more video games being release compare to computer games at EB. First it can take between 4 and 6 years to release than new computer game and them it must
work with all the different sounds and video cards out there.

While than video game can be finish in one year time without worrying about different sounds and video cards as all video game system have only one built in sound and video card system.

QuickSilver inhert this bad undoc code from the many different companys that work on it before they would have being better off starting all over from the begging instead of useing the flaw code they inhert.

Ozymandous · June 1, 2003, 22:50

QS didn't inherit the code from anyone else, THEY were the people who have been working on this game from the beginning. The different companies were all the different publishers, not developers.

The design was too grand for what QS could do with all the shake-up's. The release state of the game are wholly QS fault, but the *finished* state of the game falls in the lap of IG since they are the publishers. If the game ends up a steaming pile because only one patch was released and IG wouldn't provide the QA staff needed for additional patches (assuming QS doesn't drop this whole thing shortly) then QS isn't wholly to blame.

The game is very stable, and that's what they were aiming for for release. Too bad they weren't aiming for a more fun game, but here's hoping the code patch will add enough stuff (like being able to lock the MBQ) to make the investment worthwhile.

Heck, if they hurry and release the code patch I might buy another copy or two myself as long as Amazon is giving it away and since sales after the code patch are apparently what IG are looking for.

DarthVeda · June 1, 2003, 23:03

Hell I can release a stable game. It might not do anyting but it won't crash.

statusperfect · June 2, 2003, 05:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Kloreep
statusperfect, if your only complaint about GalCiv is graphics, I think I might give it a try; sounds better than MOO3.

it is not only ugly..

it is lame

there are only 6 civs

the galaxy map sucks

combat sucks compared to moo3 combat

it is cartoonish

it feels like playing freeware home made crap

cheers

Daz · June 2, 2003, 05:54

Though, if they could somehow meld those two together (only the good stuff of course), it would be a heck of a game...

CharlesBHoff · June 2, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulNAdhe
I've been making my living for the past 20+ years from programming. If I turned out anything this buggy, I'd be looking for a new job the next week.

Face it Charles, this is the worst major game that has ever been produced. Forget about the Deer Hunter & Bass Hunter crap. This was a major game with a huge and devoted following. To produce such crap is unforgivable.

It depence on what type of programming you doing. If programming for banking computer system they arenot going to have thousand's of different sound's and video card's which you must accounted for. Game programming is the hardest programming to do.

Jack_www · June 2, 2003, 13:30

CharlesBHoff, the issue here I think is not that the game that was put out had bugs. Many games I liked that I have bought, and even the one I just got and love a lot, RON, have bugs, and the devs put out patches to fix these bugs that etheir they did not have the time to fix or did not come up during their beta testing.

For example RON has some bugs with single player part of the game, but do not cause the game to crash, but some people are having problems. The game is actually fun to play out of the box, has lots of strategy to it, and if you know how to play RTS games already you already know how to use the controlls, and if you dont they tutorials can help anyone learn how to play the game.

MOO3 on the other hand has several flaws, some are due to they way they designed the game and GUIs of the game, and several bugs in the game. They still saying they are working on a patch for months now, and I still dont see any patch yet. I doubt they will even put out the first one let alone a second one. Many devs dont have any problems putting out a patch a month or so after the game is out and dont have problems patching the game every couple of months if the games still has issues or that some things in the game need to be adjusted in response to input from the fans. Quicksilver has really messed this one up, and I doubt they will stay in bussiness long. They just secrewed up, and sometimes it hapens.

vee4473 · June 3, 2003, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
How many of you ever did any programming on your computer at all. Bugs fixing isnot as easy as you think. And when bugs fixing for than patch the patch cannot created more bugs than it fix.

You don't HAVE to know anything about programming to make a statement complaining about how long it is taking to release a patch.

All it takes is common sense to see that if many other game companies can do it, then the problem isn't that it is a "cry for me, I have the hardest job in the world programming games" issue.

It's something else...They don't care , they are understaffed, incompetent...take your pick

But, when so many game companies can release patches on a more timely basis, don't hand me that "have any of you ever programmed" crap.

And please explain that last sentence.

CharlesBHoff · June 3, 2003, 21:11

It mean that than patch to solved 10 bugs couldnot also created 100 new bugs. Many year ago the bank I use ran than patch which total crach they computer to the point that
they allow you to depot money but not to withdarw money as their account record where screw up by new bugs in the patch. They computer where down for 3 working day and their have to honor all chech that blonce because they record where screw up. Big mainframe computer user donot
like to run patch as some patches can create more problen than the bugs they fix.

John-SJ · June 3, 2003, 22:59

Charles,

This is why competent programmers test their patches thoroughly before releasing them. The software industry calls this regression testing. It is what gives the programmer assurance that what worked before a "bug fix" is not broken after the fix.

I bought MOO3 on a whim very quickly after it was released and quit playing it even more quickly after scouring this board and the one at Infogrames for signs I may be doing something wrong. I read the posts by the developers and I think I may have a fair idea of what is going on, or I could be 100% wrong.

The developers, it seems, felt they were forced to make too many compromises before release because they were already seriously behind schedule. I think QS really would like to make things right with this game because they put so much into it, it's hard to let go sometimes. So now, while holding the promise of a patch (2 actually) up before the ever dwindleing number of remaining fans, my guess is that they are working feverishly to put the game back as close to the original vision as possible.

The problem is, if this is the case, I think their original vision was flawed. I forget the actual numbers but one of the developers said their schedule forced them to cut out like over 2/3 of the planned UI screens. Maybe I'm just a wimp but I can't imagine having to deal with over 100 different screens and still considering the game fun.

Maybe there will be a MOO4 someday, but if not, I have resigned myself already to the death of the MOO series.

John

Kahn · June 4, 2003, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous
QS didn't inherit the code from anyone else, THEY were the people who have been working on this game from the beginning. The different companies were all the different publishers, not developers.

Not quite true, Microprose started, then stopped work on MoO3 before they decided that publishing alone was more profitable than developing and publishing. It is my understanding that at least one other design firm also contributed to the code before it was dropped in QS's lap. Read my earlier posts for a slightly abbreviated version of the whole story.

Stormhound · June 4, 2003, 08:26

Kahn: I do not agree with your understanding regarding the code, though the story certainly sounds more interesting that way. I saw and heard nothing around QS that suggested that the code was anything but original, and I also know that the design doc WAS original...not inherited. If there's anything significant in the game that isn't in the design doc, heck if I can find it.

John: They weren't "forced" to cut 2/3 of the UI screens, they *chose* to do so under the premise (which I shan't debate here) that the game was too complex. The IG QA people were all afroth about that, so QS started chopping. One could argue whether they took out the *right* 2/3, of course.

John-SJ · June 4, 2003, 14:49

It was my understanding that the reason for much of the feature chopping was due to schedule pressure, but you could be right as well. And you are right, forced is too strong of a word, chose is much better.

But my point was, if the original vision for this game was to have over 100 UI screens, I think they had the wrong vision to start with, and realizing that vision through a future release probably won't result in a better game then we have right now.

Then again, being proven wrong is a specialty of mine, and I wouldn't mind at all being proven wrong here.

John

Stormhound · June 4, 2003, 16:16

.

Stormhound · June 4, 2003, 16:17

Considering that I was working for them back when they started announcing feature cuts, yeah, I figure there's a decent probability that I could be right.

And yes, I'm sure that there were some things cut due to schedule pressure, but that didn't come along until rather later.

Ellestar · June 4, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect

it is not only ugly..

it is lame

there are only 6 civs

the galaxy map sucks

combat sucks compared to moo3 combat

it is cartoonish

it feels like playing freeware home made crap

cheers

LOL? It's lame? Compared to MOO3??? I think you never tried to play it on masochistic.

TCO · June 4, 2003, 19:28

So, do you really think things would be better with the cut screens restored? Or do you think that IG made the right push in terms of what consumers want?