I just don't understand some people in general forum

player1 · November 7, 2001, 03:16

I mean, there are many wich say that this game is not good, that they will return it etc...
The game is very much playable as it is.
Personally, the only problem I see, is that game was rushed a bit.

Now, some people will say that CTP & CTP2 have died because they where RUSHED.
But, there is a difference.
Civ games have BIG fan base, so menu people will like it anyway, which leads to possibility for expansion, cash income, etc...
Conclusion, it pays of to PATCH it regulary.

CTP games had naever had big fan base & Activision was never skilled enough to make a game BALANCED. In fact more people played game moded that in original (mostly CD-mod & Med-mod)
So, they quit CTP1 before it was propely patched & rebalanced. Then they said that they did because they where doing CTP2. Now many people thought that they will finaly do it right, but insted to improve gameplay of CTP1, thay inserted some new features, wich where not propely tested (diplomacy in CTP2 doesn't really work between AIs, AI was the WORST, etc...), and not done it time (game would probably be better if they tried doing CTP1.5).
Then, game was rushed, people didn't bought the game & Activision said NO WAY, we don't wan't lose the money anymore & game was abadoned.
Pity, it had much potential & it was the only civ game in wich I could PRORAGM AI (I had a limied succed because of lack of good documentation, but it did improve AI very much)

I'll miss programming AI in Civ3!

Now the problems of civ3.
If we buy the game they will patch it, if we not it will end like CTP2.
Probably it won't end like that because of ALL GOOD REVIEWS.

Editor (patch)
Unit rebalanced (patch), but I don't think that they'll chage combat sistem, so losing from bosolete units could still be a problem
Corruption (Sohren Jonson said PATCH)
Bombing Issuses (maybe PATCH)
Starting location (PATCH)
MP (probably expansion, maybe some simple MP in patch, like PBEM or Hotseat)

Now why do I think that they will patch it & not live us like Activision:
first, leaving will ruin Sids reputation
second, why do you think they are lurking these froums, probably to tarck bugs & game imbalances (for Patch)
Third, if they plan MP expansion, than they should make SP functional before it.

The Unknown · November 7, 2001, 03:50

What do you mean, multiplayer will probably be installed in an expansion??? That's terrible! Strategy games today are EXPECTED to have some form of multiplayer, this is absolutely necessary. I will be VERY annoyed if the first (or at least the second) patch does not include MP. Please, please, please do not get so greedy that you release MP for another 50 bucks, Firaxis. My opinion of your company will decline dramatically.

player1 · November 7, 2001, 03:57

Try to live with it!

Anyway if they didn't thinked about MP till now, I don't think they can do it quickly.

Still, I hope I can at least get a Hotseat or PBEM.
I played those even befor Civ2 Gold (I used some file to hack gamefiles)
Since they are easy to make, why not to have them in patch?
(SMAC & CTP1 got them in patch, for example)

morb · November 7, 2001, 04:27

this is exactly the kind of thinking that game developers (and more so game publishers) are _expecting_ of their customers these days, because they can. THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT SHOULD BE! Lets see a console game fix things with a patch! Either it comes out right, or its forever doomed. I payed ~50 buxx for a box with a CD and a wordy and vague manual and not even a quick reference card. On top of all this, the game is not even finished! Just imagine, you buy a car with seats, but without uphulstry, "oh we'll fix it in the recall." That's just absurd.

Grumbold · November 7, 2001, 04:28

They've been working on MP since game inception, it just got cut to make the release deadline, like scenarios, comprehensive beta testing, a manual written after the unit stats were finalised etc.

You just have to realise that there are a percentage of gamers who have had enough of this release first, patch later attitude that the majority of publishers persue these days. For unusual hardware combinations it is understandable but when it is fundamental software flaws that any reasonable amount of testing should have discovered, they won't put up with it any more. I've got plenty of cash to spend on indulging my hobbies so its not a problem that about a quarter of games I return after a week, half I play for a while then uninstall, and only about a quarter end up as successful additions to my gaming alternatives. It still rankles when each one of those games could have been a winner had they only been produced with a little more care and attention. For people who can only afford one game a quarter it becomes vital that you don't make a bad choice.

Firaxis certainly seem keen to patch some of the issues raised so far. However they have indicated the earliest we could expect such a patch is end-november. They have not yet been hired by Infogrames to produce the scenario/multiplayer segments that they had to cut from the original release. Any delays will lose the game another part of its potential audience.

player1 · November 7, 2001, 04:35

Quote:

Originally posted by morb
this is exactly the kind of thinking that game developers (and more so game publishers) are _expecting_ of their customers these days, because they can. THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT SHOULD BE! Lets see a console game fix things with a patch! Either it comes out right, or its forever doomed. I payed ~50 buxx for a box with a CD and a wordy and vague manual and not even a quick reference card. On top of all this, the game is not even finished! Just imagine, you buy a car with seats, but without uphulstry, "oh we'll fix it in the recall." That's just absurd.

Well, THIS IS a PC.
And, world is not fair.

morb · November 7, 2001, 04:59

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

Well, THIS IS a PC.
And, world is not fair.

So you're saying its OK to not get your money's worth? I don't understand.

don't get me wrong, I understand the time and complexity of todays games and that some things will slip through no matter how much testing is done. But the problem is, there is hardly any other industry which would support such irrisponsible behavior as is prevolent in the PC games industry. Its not just about the "world is not fair," its about business. These people make their money selling games to you. You shouldn't be expected to buy an incomplete or unfinished product.

Would you buy a dull knife? You know you could make it sharp yourself with a grinder.... so what's the problem? The problem is, you aren't buying a knife for grinding, you buy it for cutting.

LaRusso · November 7, 2001, 05:04

no he is saying that this is the deal we can have. the pulling power of the brand is just too strong.
as for the obsolete units. it has to be like that, otherwise the civs would easily overrun each other. we talked about that before, think of spearman as of mujahedeen. although they will be obliterated, occassionally they can shoot down american helicopter and/or kill some delta guys. were it not like that, the technologically most advanced civ would steamroll.
civ2 also had several patches. civ3 will be spanking good by january.

player1 · November 7, 2001, 05:14

Poit said, LaRusso

Anyway, we can't chage the world on that large scale.
We could complain about some things a little & hope for a best.

Some people thinked that they can chage the world in 60-ies, and know thay act as the ones thay complained about.

Sopme other people thinked that they can chaged the wolrd for better, but didn't (Stalin, Mao), they chaged it on worse.

Jaundice · November 7, 2001, 05:19

This game is definately fixable...and could be a good game in the end. HOWEVER....I do agree that when I pay $60.00, I would like to get a finished product. It is kind of disappointing to discover that they KNEW things were unfinished but shipped anyway.
Also....I heard a thing about some guy writing a letter to Firaxis because he was mad that the Limited Edition version in a tin box was not available outside the US. Well, he can buy mine, or trade me his and pay me the extra 10 bucks, because it was the ONLY version available at my local PC store. I was just looking to buy the regular boxed one. For the extra 10 bucks...all I got was a metal box, a movie about the making that I haven't even watched, and a paper tech tree. Whoopie. I just wanted the game. It could have come wrapped in a brown paper bag and I would have been ok with that.

-JD

Roulette · November 7, 2001, 05:44

Surprise shock and amazement. PC games need a patch more than 90% of the time. Wanna know why? Because they are more complicated than console games, have higher expectations, and a wider array of hardware and software requirements to satisfy. Beta testing helps, but few PC games are perfect in the first release. It's something gamers put up with because we understand the difficulty involved.

So sit back, chill, and wait impatiently for the patch from Soren and the rest of Firaxis.

BTW, great job on this game guys! I'm hooked!

Libertarian · November 7, 2001, 06:33

[...wagging finger...]

I'll have you know that writing bug-free programs is a piece of cake. I've done it before. I opened my VB, cracked my knuckles, set a few properties, typed in a line of code, and clicked "Run".

And voila! It said, "Hello World" in big blue letters.

There's no excuse for Firaxis releasing its two bugs.

Lemmy · November 7, 2001, 07:41

@ Libertarian

i have to agree with player1 and the rest of the non-whiners, i have every confidence in Firaxis that it will be patched properly.
And those that are complaining that the game is unfinished : it was initially planned for Q1 2002. What else did you expect?
As LaRusso said : civ3 will be spanking good by january

Grumbold · November 7, 2001, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Lemmy
And those that are complaining that the game is unfinished : it was initially planned for Q1 2002. What else did you expect?

No. There were suggestions in the press that it might be put back to Q1 2002 to allow the project to be completed after the hiatus when half the project team left. Instead they cut features to make the original deadline.

tishco · November 7, 2001, 08:34

who left firaxis, sorry, what have i missed?

will civ3 change and be different [hopefully better] by the time we in Yurop get it.
someone said the only ochanges will be getting **** van **** to do the voiceovers!

tishco · November 7, 2001, 08:35

hey its true, there is words ***ed out.
i meanerm, di ck van dy ke

Lord Maxwell · November 7, 2001, 08:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Roulette
Surprise shock and amazement. PC games need a patch more than 90% of the time. Wanna know why? Because they are more complicated than console games, have higher expectations, and a wider array of hardware and software requirements to satisfy. Beta testing helps, but few PC games are perfect in the first release. It's something gamers put up with because we understand the difficulty involved.

No, I don't understand the difficulty involved. I understand the laziness and money hungriness involved, but I don't understand the difficulty. (And I am software engineer by the way.) It's pure greed from Firaxis/Infogrammes that made this game come out without several of the most important things even in the game.

Multiplayer will most likely be added in an expansion, milking you for another $25 for a game you thought was done.

And there are a lot of console games with higher complexity than many PC games that still don't require patches. When you know that you can never fix it once it leaves shop you work a bit harder.

I must admit that I am hooked by the game. But it's cheap, and won't keep me hooked.

Quote:

Originally posted by Libertarian
[...wagging finger...]

I'll have you know that writing bug-free programs is a piece of cake. I've done it before. I opened my VB, cracked my knuckles, set a few properties, typed in a line of code, and clicked "Run".

And voila! It said, "Hello World" in big blue letters.

There's no excuse for Firaxis releasing its two bugs.

You are actually good if you got Hello World to run without bugs in VB.

Sucky programming language.

LaRusso · November 7, 2001, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Maxwell
I must admit that I am hooked by the game. But it's cheap, and won't keep me hooked.
.

care to explain why?

Grumbold · November 7, 2001, 09:46

Quote:

Originally posted by tishco

who left firaxis, sorry, what have i missed?

will civ3 change and be different [hopefully better] by the time we in Yurop get it.

Brian Reyolds and many experienced Civ2/SMAC programmers left to set up Big Huge Games.

The initial UK release is apparently 100% identical to the US version, with no localisation for spelling etc. I tried to find out from my local stores whther that meant same box as opposed to DvD but they could not answer.

No patch has been released and it is unlikely to be available before the 16th. One Firaxian mentioned end-november as the earliest likely date for a patch. There may have been updates since then but I can't keep up with Apolyton these days for all the "server busy" messages. The first patch is far more likely to fix only serious bugs any way. It will be later patches that really address balance issues, excessive strategies and the like.

JustJoe · November 7, 2001, 10:01

Well, We all know they could have held the game back and finished things here and there that are known problems, and usually the programmers, testers and such have no control over it. It appears to me that the Money counters needed to beef up numbers before the end of the year and wanted something to be around for the holidays and that is why this was rushed out the door. Dont blame the guy at the PC in the jeans and Fat Albert T, with the Jolt IV and Cheezy Puffs programming the game, Blame the guy in the Suit, Driving the Benz drinking his Latte...
Those money guys have WAY more power than a lowly programmer...And they are ultimetly to blame on the Sell now, patch later mentality...

wal35 · November 7, 2001, 10:20

Sorry Prince Maxwell, but a software engineer that doesn't produce bugs is as rare as someone in Europe with a legit copy of Civ3.

You can introduce practices and procedures to minimize bugs but the only people who can afford so called bug free s/w produced are governments not gamers however avid.

Given the clamouring for the early release of Civ3 (from the same fans that are whinging now) and the easy access to patches does it really matter if a few hardcore fans whinge and whine ? As has been mentioned already isn't whether a game requires patches (they all will apart from console games that have the advantages of fixed h/w and OS) but whether patches are produced in a timely fashion.

MP however is another issue and I'm disappointed that its not there but then I've queued up to get Civ2 on its release day and am still playing it now and never played MP or a scenario so I can probably wait

(Yes I'm fully aware of the fallacy in my argument that for Civ2 I never bought any expansion but am recommending it for Civ3)

Peter Triggs · November 7, 2001, 12:21

player1:

Quote:

diplomacy in CTP2 doesn't really work between AIs

I think that it was either unfinished or done to a vary basic default level with the intention of later exposing more of the diplomacy model so that the Mod community could design their own systems. This alternative was effectively nullified when Activision dropped the game but, as you know, some modification is still possible.

Such modification is not at all possible with Civ3 and it makes me wonder how AI-AI diplomacy in Civ3 works. Hmm, there's a question for Soren tonight, if anyone can get into the chat room (I've been having enough trouble even getting into Poly lately.

)

Grumbold:

Quote:

[Firaxis] have not yet been hired by Infogrames to produce the scenario/multiplayer segments that they had to cut from the original release.

That's interesting. Can you post a source for juicy stuff like this?

Auslander · November 7, 2001, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Maxwell
No, I don't understand the difficulty involved. I understand the laziness and money hungriness involved, but I don't understand the difficulty. (And I am software engineer by the way.) It's pure greed from Firaxis/Infogrammes that made this game come out without several of the most important things even in the game.

If you don't understand the difficulty in developing software and making it compatible with different hardware, then your NO software engineer. I don't care what title your company gave you. MS Access is not a software development tool.

Ray K · November 7, 2001, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Libertarian
[...wagging finger...]

I'll have you know that writing bug-free programs is a piece of cake. I've done it before. I opened my VB, cracked my knuckles, set a few properties, typed in a line of code, and clicked "Run".

And voila! It said, "Hello World" in big blue letters.

There's no excuse for Firaxis releasing its two bugs.

Boy, you had me there for a minute

I've done a ton of programming in my life, and I've yet to develop a bug-free program of any real complexity. I don't think everyone understands that software requirements are a constantly moving target and the users will do things that the software was never intended to do and then complain when it doesn't cooperate.

Case in point: Infinite City Sleaze.

Grumbold · November 7, 2001, 13:40

The only people complaining about hardware compatability faults are those experiencing them. Its the universal software bugs that are annoying.

Programs are never bug free when they are first written. Part of the development is iterative test and fix cycles. When lots of bugs get through to the live code, either there was inadequate testing, insufficuient cylces or someone decided to release "as is" despite knowing the problems. I'm not suggesting Firaxis need the sort of painstaking cycle they use for developing command and control software for navy ships (otherwise Civ III would be slated for release in 2004, probably slipping to 2006) but there is a lower limit that I believe they failed to reach.

Peter Triggs, check out the release party highlights. I think it was there.

morb · November 7, 2001, 22:31

I think giving pikemen and indirect ability to repell attacks from modern type weapos/troops is absurd. If a civ is so far behind that they don't have the ability to defend themselves with more modern weapons, it should be expected they lose instead of put up a battle, let alone win it. What is then the point of even having more potent weapons? Just so you don't get bored? If I have an obviously superior weapon, I want an obviously decisive victory. The point of advancement is to gain an advantage, not to just remain competative. This bugs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
The only people complaining about hardware compatability faults are those experiencing them. Its the universal software bugs that are annoying.

Programs are never bug free when they are first written. Part of the development is iterative test and fix cycles. When lots of bugs get through to the live code, either there was inadequate testing, insufficuient cylces or someone decided to release "as is" despite knowing the problems. I'm not suggesting Firaxis need the sort of painstaking cycle they use for developing command and control software for navy ships (otherwise Civ III would be slated for release in 2004, probably slipping to 2006) but there is a lower limit that I believe they failed to reach.

Peter Triggs, check out the release party highlights. I think it was there.

That's it right there. Infogrames (what kind of name is that anyway?) seems to have inharited MicroProse' bad habbits. The last time MicroProse released a game which didn't need an immediate patch to be playable, was when it cost $3.50 (tree fitty for non-southpark fans) to see a movie in the theater.

Some unforseen bugs can always be expected to crop up esp. when it comes to compatibilities. Its simply impossible to account for every possible combination of hardware/software in a closed test, so I welcome those kinds of patches. But in civ3, we have a game with missing features, blatent neglect of known bugs and overall a game which doesn't deserve to be sold for $50 "regular" and $60 "special edition." The movies included nobody cares about anyway, the tin can is nice, but by itself isn't a selling point and I remember buying games (farely recently) which came with reference cards and "tech or stat sheets/posters" in the regular edition. They just wanted your money, but didn't have anything "extra" or "special" to offer.

I think both Firaxis and Infogrames are to blame here. Firaxis for not doing a thorough/limited public type beta and Infogrames for being the greedy little *****es that they are.

I know the game is fixable, but that's not the point. I'm not just *****ing for the fack of it, I obviously care about civ3 and the game industry at large or I wouldn't even be typing this. Its sad to see potential wasted.

Brian Reynolds left because he wanted no part of this type of business. The people at Blizzard show how its done with every game they DO release. Their games are never flawless, but they don't require patches just to fix what was obviously brocken when released. When they patch something, its usually some obscure hardware incompatibility, cheat lockouts, rare happenstance type bugs or minor game imbalances.

Tani · November 7, 2001, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Auslander

If you don't understand the difficulty in developing software and making it compatible with different hardware, then your NO software engineer. I don't care what title your company gave you. MS Access is not a software development tool.

there are two main branch of bugs - implementation vs logic. we are talking about logical ones, how the concepts were not well developed (eg. high corruption rate as a problem is a logical one, not caused by a typo, ie. not implementation), not about how it doesn't work with a certain video card. the console games are simply not patchable, if there's any logical error/bugs, it's dead. pc games on the other hand can be fixed with a patch. the difficulties in regards to logical error/bugs are the same between the two type of game developers. any software engineer would know the difference (or the lack thereof in this regard).

squid · November 8, 2001, 00:16

I am a software developer for a major software company

1) bugs happen
2) I write superior quality code
3) bugs still happen
4) bugs still escape testing

Civs bugs are very minor compared with the crashes and security flaws you see in Microsoft stuff

It is very very solid. Some are just balance issues, and it's good they can patch that. But, until then, the game is still VERY playable!

BTW, a bug free hello world in VB? The VB runtime? Ahem. Ahem.
It's a bug in itself

TCO · November 8, 2001, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by The Unknown
What do you mean, multiplayer will probably be installed in an expansion??? That's terrible! Strategy games today are EXPECTED to have some form of multiplayer, this is absolutely necessary. I will be VERY annoyed if the first (or at least the second) patch does not include MP. Please, please, please do not get so greedy that you release MP for another 50 bucks, Firaxis. My opinion of your company will decline dramatically.

If you can't afford to pay for the basic game and the expansion, just wait a few months. You'll be able to buy both for a cheap price in a while...

aderen · November 8, 2001, 00:54

most bugs are hard to spot and occur at wierd cirumstances.
civ3 bugs (misfeatures) occur every single time you play the game.
It appears to me that the developers have never played the game or the testers did a really bad job. Public beta would obviously uncover most unbalances and bugs that everyone is complaining now. I guess we all are just beta testing the game for $50 bugs. Maybe infrogames was cheat and didn't want to spend money on testers, so they let the customers do that job.