This Article Brought Tears to My Eyes: "Want to Play. Won't Play It."

[yin26]

If it weren't for that darned Limited Edition of Civ 3, this is exactly what I would do...and for the exact same reasons. This one was a tear-jerker. Markos, any chance you can leave me enough room to put this in my sig?

NOTE: I am NOT lambasting Firaxis with this post but the State of Gaming in its larger form; however, the wait and watch attitude might well be called for with Civ 3, too. Let's hope not...

http://www.cgonline.com/features/010806-c1-f1.html

The Grumpy Gamer
Want To Play It. Won't Play It.
by Jeff Vogel

Sometimes, I have a really hard time deciding whether I want to buy a computer game.

Note that this is different from deciding whether I want to play a game. When I pick up a game in a store, I generally have a very easy time figuring out whether or not I want to play it. And when I say I want to play it, I mean that I want to play the perfect ideal version of the game, the elusive, flawless, bug-free version of the game, the game the developers wanted to create, the game without quest bugs that stop my show three quarters of the way through, guards who don't notice when you shoot the people right next to them, and pathing so bad the NPCs spend most of their time humping pillars.

You know. The game they should have shipped, as opposed to the game they did.

Because buying a new game all too frequently means setting myself up for a potential blissful hour of installing new drivers, checking the publisher's web site looking for the patch that isn't there, shouting obscenities, and so on. It's like being set up on a blind date with someone with a hook for a hand. Having a hook for a hand is a sure sign that a person is interesting, but you kind of have to wonder about them.

Which brings me to Anarchy Online. [Note: Jeff wrote this before the latest series of patches. Perhaps in a future column he'll tell us whether those made any difference to his ultimate decision.-Ed.] Like most good EverQuest junkies, I was intrigued by this plucky new entry into the massively multiplayer arena. Before I dove in, though, I wanted to find out how much I would have to give of myself to make this relationship work. I went through the standard steps I always go through before taking the plunge, to make sure that the game is sufficiently bug-free to increase my overall happiness.

First, I watched the online news sites for information about Anarchy Online's release. The first sign of stormy skies was when the new beta was released to testers and the game went gold three days later. To translate this publisher jargon into human-speak, "releasing a beta" is a way of saying "We are sure this has problems, and now we must find them." and "going gold" is a way of saying "We are done, and we are now shipping this product to stores. Suckers." Seventy two hours is not a lot of time to elapse between saying thing one and thing two.

When I heard this, I decided to give Anarchy Online a little time before I dove in. So, a few weeks later, I moved on to step two. I visited the official Anarchy Online support site. I then retrieved these two quotes from the same site:

July 9 - As we all know, the launch of Anarchy Online didn't go as smoothly as we would have hoped. In spite of that, the last week has marked considerable improvement (see today's update by Martin Amor), and although we acknowledge there are still some issues to resolve, we now consider the game playable.

I found "we now consider the game playable" to be a strange thing to say several weeks after the thing hit store shelves. I decided to read more, and found this entry, a few days earlier:

July 4 - As for reviewing the game: We will send out review copies soon, but we would like to ask that you hold back on a full review until we have solved these problems.

Read that one again.

I could easily fill up my allotted seven hundred words with a carefully crafted rant asking how it is possible to say "You can give us money for this product and install it on your expensive home machine, but please do not evaluate this product or publicly express opinions about it." I could say things like this, but I will not, because it would take focus away from what this column is about: me. What I think. How I feel.

I felt scared.

Finally, step three. I decided to get a few more opinions, this time from actual, regular folks. So I went to Amazon.com and read the reviews of Anarchy Online there. I won't provide quotes. I will simply say that people who are very angry can be very funny.

And, finally, armed with my information, I came to my decision. I gave this one a pass.

It is a very tricky thing writing a column about a game one has not played. That is why I have tried to restrict myself to a recitation of actual facts and quotes, most of them provided by the publisher itself.

And I have no apologies. This whole ugly situation is the fault of publishers who make it necessary to evaluate games based not only on how much fun we'd have with them but how much they will screw us.

So, if you are reading this, and you love computer games as much as I do, I'd like you to do a little favor for your Uncle Jeff.

At least once every year (I can't, in any honesty, suggest you do this with every game.), check out the game you're about to buy. Instead if getting it right away, check out the user reviews on Amazon. Ask a friend. Read a few reviews. And if your wait reveals that the game is a bug-fest, skip it. Drop it like a hot rock. And if you do buy it, it from a place that accepts returns, and if it's a mess, take that sucker back.

If everyone did this just once a year, it would be a Good Thing. I'm not saying anything creative here, nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before, but it still needs to be said: Don't Take It. Whenever a publisher ships an unfinished game, they should be punished. And there is only one way to get them to change. Withhold money.

[MarkG]

did this guy get payed for this article? i think i've written similar stuff in the column...

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by yin26
NOTE: I am NOT lambasting Firaxis with this post but the State of Gaming in its larger form;

hehehe, however, you are posting it in a civ3 forum

[yin26]

Markos: Perhaps you've found your steady on-line revenue stream!

LaRusso: Looked at in a positive way, I'm saying: "Hey, Firaxis, your Limited Edition is getting even this wary gamer to pre-order! But we are (almost) all a bit jaded, so be nice with us."

[MarkG]

hmmm according to anarchy online site, the game went into beta last august
http://216.74.158.92/news/pressitems/16082000

[loinburger]

somethingawful.com gave the game a -36 (on a scale from -50 to 50). Added atop everything else, I gave the game a pass. http://www.somethingawful.com/games/...line/index.htm

I agree with MarkG that Jeff Vogel isn't saying anything new, but I think that it bears saying again since so few people actually follow his procedures.

[Henrik]

After reading this one might want to check out the excelent games the author of this article has written himself

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Henrik
After reading this one might want to check out the excelent games the author of this article has written himself

interesting. who would pay 25 USD for such piece of crap?

[Provost Harrison]

He brings up a serious issue. When a game is released, it should most certainly be 'playable'. We all know that the occasional bug here and there, even on release, is unavoidable. But for this company to say after a considerable period of time to then say it is playable is certainly not satisfactory. I would demand a refund, as the chances are the companies line of what 'playable' is compared to the consumer is likely to be different.

However this is no comment on civ3. No one will know anything until the game is released. Yin, you ought to bear this mind in fact. A crap game should not be allowed to continue unchecked...

[Father Beast]

This reminds me rather unfortunately of Ultima IX and Battlecruiser 3000 AD. those were two high profile games that were shoved out the door when the makers knew without a doubt that they weren't ready.

They bombed.

That is different from releasing the game when it is playable, but may still have some problems, but they can't seem to find them in a reasonable amount of time.

A lot of games fall into this category, and they are well redeemed when their relatively minor bugs get patched as the inevitable problems crop up. see No One Lives Forever as an example.

Of course, you could go the other direction and play test the living Hades out of the game before grudgingly letting it ship, as I understand they did with Baldur's Gate 2. I didn't hear about any serious bugs with that one, and in fact it has become an instant classic.
Of course, if Baldur's Gate 2 had shipped with a number of game crashing bugs, as did Ultima IX, then I personally have no doubt it would have bombed just as bad. maybe worse, since it didn't have the massive ultima following.

We don't know what will happen with civ3. it hasn't quite reached beta yet, I don't think, so we will be watching for bad signs.

I'm sure Yin will point them out to us if and when they come.

Until then, I have no doubt he will continue to be pessimistic without evidence.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by yin26
NOTE: I am NOT lambasting Firaxis with this post but the State of Gaming in its larger form;

Originally posted by LaRusso
hehehe, however, you are posting it in a civ3 forum

Well, here at Apolyton I suppose the game nearest to a release seems to be Civ III, isn't it?
So Yin26 is simply mentioning the potential risk to the company more ready to do better use of his note, right?

Well, better use can be somewhat disguising, I suppose

BTW, hello Yin!

[Slax]

LaRusso - I've played one of his games and enjoyed it quite alot. (Admittedly, I've never been one for cutting-edge games and glitzy graphics .)


As for the article, I think its very intelligent and well-meaning. The main problem is that there are so many 'Anarchy Online' s out there and being developed. And gamers will buy them 'on - sight'.

But I am not a typical game buyer. I usually wait at least 6 months to a year before even thinking about buying one. Currently I am watching the development of CivIII and Stars! Supernova Genesis (an interesting comparison, by the way) and am playing Quake II and Stars!.

As for CivIII I really think the lack of beta-testing is a mistake. At a Stars! Supernova Genesis site, there were actual threads about a beta MP game, with screen shots! That would have been nice to see here.

But, we'll see if Firaxis can pull it off.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Slax
I usually wait at least 6 months to a year before even thinking about buying one

You mean you're NOT buying civ3 when it comes out?!

Maybe I'm fanatical/pathetic/stupid/ignorant, but I'd DIE if I tried to wait that long before getting civ3.

[Mahdimael]

Hey! I liked Ultima 9! Of course, I just happened to have the ideal system for the game at the time and it ran great. My friends all cursed me.

I think beta testing is necessary in some cases...3d games using bleeding edge technology, massively multiplayer games and so forth. For Civ3, I'm skeptical. Thanks to DirectX, most issues concerning compatibility with video and sound are/can be found easily. Civ3 doesn't push the envelope of graphics or handle thousands of players at once.

I believe Civ3 will be more stable than other releases currently available

Sabre2th, don't sound so shocked about people waiting. After CTP2, I'm waiting until I read some reviews first myself. Even on my measly grad student stipend I could probably afford it, but I'm sick of buggy software being released. Furthermore, if the AI plays no better that SMAC or CTP2+MedMod2 why should I buy it? If Firaxis wants my money, they need to do better than the stuff I already have. If everyone behaved like this, distributors would let developers take their time (within reason -daikatana anyone?)

[SnowFire]

Bah. I buy games for enjoyment. Bugs decrease enjoyment, but sometimes a game is good in spite of the bugs, and more to the point, if problems are fixed later, then, well, the game is better. And perhaps worth a buy.... later.

I would never buy Anarchy Online now while it's still bug-ridden. But (which I won't, because online RPG's aren't really my thing) should it ever become the pristine heaven it was promised, then it might well be fair to buy AO.

Same with Anachronox. It's supposed to be a good game with some annoying bugs, so I intend to wait until January or thereabouts to buy the game. The price will hopefully be down, and the game will be more stable when I actually play it. No need to directly "punish" the makers, I'll just wait.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Mahdimael
Hey! I liked Ultima 9! Of course, I just happened to have the ideal system for the game at the time and it ran great. My friends all cursed me.

That's just the point. Ultima 9 was a great game, but because of the awful bugs infesting the game (my kingdom for a pesticide!), it was virtually unplayable by most. Therefore, it fell by the wayside, except for those few who were determined enough to make a go of it and discover the greatness hidden under the bugs.

point is, if the bugs are big enough, they can make the best game unappetizing.

[yin26]

I should also point out here that my posting this article here has little to do with thinking Firaxis will release a horribly buggy game (there WILL be bugs, but no showstoppers).

What concerns me a great deal more, and what is far more likely to be of a concern come release time, are: PLAY BALANCE ISSUES AND WEAK AI. The autor touches on those briefly, but those are really the things to watch in Civ 3 beyond what should be only minor bugs. Heck, I can handle various bugs as long as gameplay and AI are strong...but NOT the other way around.

Now, some people always ride me because they say I have no basis for worry. However, we know two very telling things about Civ 3:

1. They added some new features that seem to radically alter some of the Civ 3 formula.

2. They are not going with an in-depth beta effort.

1 + 2 = I highly doubt enough Civ3 games have been played by enough really good players to find holes in the gameplay and AI. This is a simple conclusion, people. Am I talking aboug bugs here? No. Gameplay and AI. Period.

Jeff Morris likes to refer to a beta effort mainly in terms of finding compatability issues. Yes, that's an important part of the picture ignored here as well. But by FAR the biggest worry is that too few people will have played too few Civ 3 games come release time.

I predict we will see this forum investing the first few months after Civ 3 comes out helping Firaxis tweak the gamplay and AI to the standards that it WOULD have been had a larger beta effort been made. You know this. I know this. Anybody who argues against this point is just dreaming.

Will Civ 3 be playable? Of course. Will it be play-worthy? Eventually. I should say, though, I do have faith that Firaxis WILL work with the community to get the beta test results they should have been getting now. That, at least, is cause for hope, right?

Firaxis certainly ain't no Activision, thank God.

[kolpo]

I have been in the AO beta test a few months before it was released. There where so many errors in it and it's gameplay lacked so heavily that my first reaction was: delete all code,
execute all programmers and analists who worked on it and start again.

That beta test was not bug finding or something but is was more game finding It was very hard to find anything fun in that beta so I stopped after 2 weeks with playing. Even studing was more fun then playing that crap!(and it is not that I don't like the gerne I like UO) But I don't think civ3 will be that bad. I also don't think that firaxis are God's who can do nothing wrong but I think civ3 will be of a little above average quality at least(all games made by firaxis where that at least, even Gettysburg was of above average quality in my view).

[SSBLoveU]

The last PC game I purchased (excluding the limited edition of Civ. III) was Ultima 9. I could not get it work on my computer. It had too many bugs. It is the only Ultima I have not played. Over the last few years, I have been playing Zelda on the N64 system with zero bugs. I have also played Zelda on other systems with zero bugs. Only with THE PC games do I encounter bugs. I wrote an article about how unorganized the Apple and PC small computer hardware and software developed. It has to do with business and the stock market. I tell you the Elves are as mad as Hatfields with the materials and methods used to construct computers and its software. Why do N64 games have no bugs while frustrated PC players expect bugs? A designer knows if a game has bugs in it. Bugs are not funny. And they only discourage game players from playing a buggy game. The articles that I have read about Civ. III usually addresses the problems of bugs slowing the release of the game, and I think most people will agree it is a good idea to release no game before its time.

[SnowFire]

yin: Sort of a problem. I trust some game houses to properly in-test games for balance and fun and they don't need any help. Classic example: Phil Steinmeyer. As far as I know there was no beta for Heroes II, but he had one of the greatest games of all time there. Heroes III, while a bit less balanced, was still excellent, so even without Steinmeyer they were able to put something good together. The Myth games were a bit on the hard side (fixable via patch to make the two "easy" difficulty levels easier, if neccesary), but also finely balanced. Dwarves and Journeymen were too expensive to buy in multiplayer, but other than that...

But for whatever reason, I am somewhat distrustful of the game-playing ability of some of the Firaxians. I'm not saying that's a flaw, but you need at least SOME masters of the craft. I remember paging through a strategy guide for SMAC in the back of PC Gamer written by Tim Train (who has left to go to BHG), and no offense to Mr. Train, but he botched the job. Play it on a level higher than Talent Mr. Train and try those strategies. He said some things that sounded good but just plain didn't work in the game (like that because Yang has a low Economy you should try and build it up through Social Engineering. Idiot! That's MAYBE possible if you want to be both Free Market and Eudaimonic, but the bonus from -2 to 0 is pitiful for the price of Free Market. You need to get it to +2 or higher for there to be a reasonable payoff.). Frankly, he didn't understand the AI he helped design either. If I had to write two rules of SMAC, they would be thus:
A. The AI can't terraform properly. Therefore wait and get boreholes and crush your enemies with all the resources & energy they don't have because even though they have the tech, they will never drill a borehole.
B. In war, build nothing but High-attack rovers. Attack power is almost always better than defense power in SMAC, and while this strategy will get you burned against a human opponent smart enough to simply start using Comm Jammers, the AI will not figure that out. So your defense need be nothing but a bunch of counter-attack rovers.

Neither of these two ideas were mentioned. All he had was infantile advice that half the time was so basic it didn't help ("The Peacekeeper's advantage is large cities) and the other half actually counterproductive.

So no, I don't trust Firaxis to get play balance right. The AI from Civ2 to SMAC improved, but it did not keep up with the many new curves SMAC threw at it. I dearly hope that does not occur to Civ3.

[DarkCloud]

About the quality of game writing magazines:

MarkG or DanQ should get a job for CGM to replace the disgusting Cindy Yans who insults gamers and games as well as typing horrenous typos and showing her idiocy every issue.

They publish more letters insulting Cindy than any other of their reviewers.

She reviews Adventure and Online games.

[yin26]

So no, I don't trust Firaxis to get play balance right.

Of course, I would trust NO small group of people...even of great players...to get the job done. And no offense to Firaxis, but we know they spend more time working than playing. We know they aren't the top civvers around, and that's o.k.

What's not o.k., however, is to (for whatever reason) not then actively seek broad feedback. You mention Tropico, which is a great game. But that also has a NUMBER of flaws, things like buidlings that never seem to get built (or built YEARS later despite having lots of construction workers, etc.), cargo that doesn't get picked up for over a year, buildings that are essentially worthless (that have such a low rating for the cost, etc.) that clearly even that great effort could have been greatly improved by more open testing.

At the other end of things, I understand the evil of the bottom line and release schedules. It's a delicate balancing act to be sure. But here we have had a community on stand-by for over two years dedicated to helping Civ3 become a crowning achievement, and for all we know, we have been only noticed here and there but never taken particularly seriously. And if we have been taken seriously, it would be awfully hard to notice how.

The lack of a large beta effort has little to do with bugs, as I said, but everything to do with gameplay and acknowledging that the people you are designing the game for could very well help you design that killer game. And excuse me if I say Firaxis SHOULD seek all the help it can get on that front instead of releasing and HOPING things will work or be tweaked later.

Will Civ 3 be a great game out of the box? It will take time and interaction with the fans, that's for sure. I can only hope that process will be an open and productive one.

[Adm.Naismith]

Yin, you have realistic doubt about play balancing, having seen the game at work or not.

I mean, the game can end balanced or not, but play testing method Firaxis accepted (from publisher pressure, I suppose) doesn't seems that with best probability to achieve the best result.

We are not a group of privileged user, but we don't want to be privileged, only been of some help. Disclaimer: I don't want to have an early copy of the game, I don't want to volunteer myself for betatesting (I haven't the required hw, not the spare time, patience and ability).

I'm sure that a solid group of players can be found - here at Apolyton - that will die for helping Civ III to be the best TBS game ever. Firaxis assured us months ago they were planning that (they knew how useful it would been!) but now we know "that window doesn't opened".

What a pity. Will be a three months use of early buyers "guinea pigs" (no offence intended) enough to patch the game balancing right? Well, probably not if the tuning test will not be managed in some way.

So, as for a dedicated team of "bugs listers", Firaxis should try to reverse the timetable: start an "after gold open last tuning"!

Same as an open, coordinated beta test, only after the official release.
Call it "iron man tuning" or something like that, so P.R. people can speak about "advanced support for dedicated players" or similar BS.

Send to "iron mans" a free full game with a "number of use" lock (as some full demo do). If a player stop the flow of feedbacks to Firaxis the copy will expire as well after a fixed use (e.g. 20 games).

If the players end the "tuning phase" Firaxis must give him/her (e.g.) a free "CIV III limited edition" copy, or at least a discount on a regular buy.

It's only a proposal (others suggestions are welcome) to save the boat just in case the announced "best game ever" will be released "not so best" as it deserves.

[Urban Ranger]

Hold on a minute.

Play balance issues and weak AI routines aren't bugs. These are design issues, which have nothing to do with programming.

PC games are allowed to have bugs since PC software itself is allowed bugs. I blame this whole misplaced tolerance on Bill Gates. M$ crap is full of bugs, and users got desensitised to the issue over time. It's been getting progressively worse, too. Bugs were rare in the old days of Apple II and Atari 800. The Net wasn't for public use, so companies couldn't be lazy. Now? Ha

[yin26]

Play balance issues and weak AI routines aren't bugs. These are design issues, which have nothing to do with programming.

Precisely. Please see parts of my other posts here, like this one:

What concerns me a great deal more [than bugs], and what is far more likely to be of a concern come release time, are: PLAY BALANCE ISSUES AND WEAK AI. The autor touches on those briefly, but those are really the things to watch in Civ 3 beyond what should be only minor bugs. Heck, I can handle various bugs as long as gameplay and AI are strong...but NOT the other way around.

I like your ending point:

The Net wasn't for public use, so companies couldn't be lazy. Now?

I remember back in the early days of Pong (the home version) and the Commordore Vic 20 that things were awfully simple. Either you turned the thing on and it worked or something was wrong with your harware.

Then the platform wars (as in IBM 'clones') started a bit in earnest and, for a time, certain software retailers could only deal with the "compatibility issues" by agreeing to refund your money or exchange. I played a lot of games (or tried) back when you had to make stupidly complex boot disks (complex in the sense that you'd have to mess around with memory allocations, sound settings etc.) because not much was done to make the process painless. THAT was a real pain, but one could generally go back to the store and say: "It simply won't run." I'd say one in 5 games never even worked.

With the Net, however, things began to change. Retailers could see that companies now had a way to fix stuff after the sale of the product. Slowly but surely the burden shifted to the gamer to either download the fixes (if there were any), "fix" his machine or try to find somebody to buy or trade his game. It's quite rare to find a store with a lenient return policy these days, and buying through the Net (as I have to do living abroad) means I have NO opportunity to return any game. Period.

But for me, it's not about lost money but lost time. There are simply too many things to be done in a day and too many OTHER games that could have been so much more fulfilling than something buggy and desperately waiting for patches that might or might not come.

In the case of Ultima 9, I bought the Dragon Edition fully aware of the problems. Thus, when the HUGE box arrived, I simply looked at the contents and put the game on the shelf uninstalled. I waited a few months (3 or more?) before that "final" patch was released and Origin froze their boards with a sappy farewell message.

"Ahh," I thought. "Now might be a good time to play." So I installed it and had a really great time. Those who installed it before that final patch, however, (which was MOST people) walked away never to return.

Although I will order to the Limited Edition of Civ3, it will arrive here to me in Korea two weeks after everybody else has started playing. That, actually, is good because I'll be able to see what issues there are before I ever get the box delivered. If the issues are severe, I won't install until Firaxis has brought things up to speed. If things look mostly in place, I'll gladly get into things and play right along people enjoying things.

That's my compromise to myself. That's how I will keep my sanity. Of course, in some cases, the game never gets patched well enough and I waste some money. Look at Black and White. Tragedy...

[Urban Ranger]

I agree.

Back in the Stone Ages developers knew that they had to have their wares working right off the shelf. There was no way to cheaply distribute "patches." So they'd more careful with testing and all that.

Now they seemed to have become more reckless. Push the games out the doors first, patch them up later. As Father Beast pointed out Battlecruiser 3000AD would have been a great game with all the latest patches applied. In other words, it would have been a killer had it been given an extra year or so of time in debugging and QA.

Alas, many PC games nowadays simply have bad designs though, no amount of patching help. So that's why Civ 3 is so eagerly awaited, seeing that Sid himself is more or less at the helm, at least over the design aspects.

[Father Beast]

I recall reading that the makers of Empire Earth have hired a number of experienced gamers to do their playtesting for them.
It sounds as if it would be really cool if they did that with civ3, hire some apolytoners to playtest.

but then, it has taken years for some of the big play imbalances in civ2 to be realized. the OCC size 1 was only played last year for goodness' sake!

[Sabre2th]

Sabre2th, don't sound so shocked about people waiting.

I'm not shocked. I'm just poking a little fun.

After CTP2, I'm waiting until I read some reviews first myself.

A lot of people are, but it's a different/better company that I trust. AFAIK, Craptivision was new to the TBS genre and was trying to follow what many consider to be the best game ever. (Note that I am ignoring their unsupported-ness )

but I'm sick of buggy software being released.

As are most, but Firaxis is INFINITELY better than many other companies out there, IMO. A smaller, younger version of Blizzard, even.

Furthermore, if the AI plays no better that SMAC or CTP2+MedMod2 why should I buy it? If Firaxis wants my money, they need to do better than the stuff I already have.

If that's the case, don't buy it. (but I don't think that will be the case.)

If everyone behaved like this, distributors would let developers take their time

Maybe. Or they might stop making games altogether! The industry would collapse!

Don't take anything you read on here too seriously Mister Pleasant. My post was just my way of saying absolutely nothing. Move on. Stop attacking me.

[loinburger]

A nice new development in the gaming world is the Game of the Year edition (or Gold edition for those games that weren't named Game of the Year by a sufficient number of magazines). I bought the Deus Ex Game of the Year edition; all patches were pre-installed (including the multiplayer patch), and it came with a soundtrack as well. The price I paid was less than the price for the regular version of Deus Ex that originally shipped. Sure, I had to wait half a year or so to make my purchase...

There's a good chance that I'll buy the Civ III Game of the Year edition that will ship in six to nine months (the version that is already patched up, including the Multiplayer patch, and which also has some additional animations and unit templates for customizability), but until then, I'm sticking with Deus Ex.