My Conclusions about the Firaxis-Community relations

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Hmm, maybe some fan's are as naoorw-sighted as you and some of us actually look at this as the same type game but with slightly different rules. Seems to me there is a lot more positive feedback than negative, at least off this website and from those who aren't as naive to think that their every wish will be granted...

Regarding how negative fan support will hurt a games sales. Remember Diablo? Ever heard of Diablo2? That game was in design and development for over three years and still came out broken. Most of the "hard-core" fans thought it was a joke but some still played and had fun with how the game WAS and not HOW THEY WANTED IT TO BE. Oh yeah and that game sold over 2 million copies.

Moral: Just because you, "Joe Blow" don't like the game doesn't mean that the "silent majority" won't or don't.

So what your saying 3.8 million sales is better than a potential 5 million? From a marketing aspect, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Sure, they wont be able to please all their fans, but a good marketing policy has always been to keep as much customer support as possible. And what you say, implies that they should pay attention to the posative and content consumers and ignore the other 200,000 unhappy consumers because they're lesser than the overall sale? I'm sorry, but if I designed a game, I would pay more attention to what was wrong with my game, rather than what is right with it. So that I could perfect the product and increase sales. Dont you agree?

Sorry I thought both Diablo's sucked. I'm not into mindless RPG style hack'n slash games. I like games where you have to think. And I've been on several boards, and non-civ boards and I can tell you the negative complaints are growing. And it all seems to be related to the same similar problems with the game. Like no real editor for scenarios, and game blips. And I agree, no game company should have to live up to "every wish fullfilled" as that is impossible. But they should come as close to that as possible. I read the ideas that were suggested, and Firaxis ignored alot of those great ideas that would've made Civ3 an even better game.

Since when do we stop thriving for perfection? Get the best for our dollar? Anyway thats my opinion based on "play-tested facts".

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Translation:
"Dan, I was one of your most ardent supporters, but, well, you didn't treat me special, you didn't treat me any better than one of the other 100,000 people who bought the game and sent an email or posted a question so now I hate you and will do all I can to punish you and your company!

"Signed, fiar-weather Fred."

• Does Firaxis understand that some sort of group movement would help alleviate late-game tedium?
• Does Firaxis understand that this is a UNANIMOUS request from the playing community?
• Is Firaxis looking at doing this at all, or is it just not on the list right now?

That's it. Please, straightforward answers. Thanks in advance.

Translation:
"Please, please, please answer my questions! I am all antsy with the buring desire and uncontrollable need to know everything even though you have already address me at least twice in this thread and said you have said all you could. Your attention alone isn't enough, you *must* also answer all my questions of I will lose hope and heart and be forced (even though I really do like to bash you. ) to bash you some more.

Please, please pay more attention to me so that I won't feel so alone in the world and my life will have meaning. I love you Dan, I really do. ""

Oz, knock it off man. Grow up a little. These people spent the money and invested many years of their lives in the wake of a Sid Meier's product. Don't you think that gives them enough rights to at least express themselves, even if it's negative? Why cut them down, your only revealing yourself as an insecure result of what happens to those who read (oh god forbid) a "negative review".
Believe me, your not helping matters, or Firaxis for that matter. One way or another they'll hear whats wrong with the game. So drop the hero routine.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Xentropy
Even so, given the posts I've read from you, your attempt at claiming to have been joking around appears insincere. Looks more like you realized you made a mistake and were trying to cover your tracks. Since that is the ONLY debate I've ever really tried to have with you, and since I'm fairly new to this forum, I have NEVER seen you use good debate form.

First of all, this isn't a "debate" forum, its a place where we all come to "vent" our issues and try and learn more about the product itself. And I for one completely agree with all of yin's concepts, because I have personally experienced the same problems and issues with Firaxis. Weren't you paying attention?

Some people in this thread have called you a "fellow fan, worth listening to." As someone who has only read your posts from this calendar month, I don't think you're a fan at all, and certainly not worth listening to.

Sounds to me that you dont listen to anyone. Maybe you should come out of that state of ignorance and listen to why people are complaining you could better understand us. I'd be happy to explain why I think Firaxis flopped Civ3. And other issues.

Charles.

[Xentropy]

[Xentropy]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
You're doing it again. These are NOT opinions. These are "design flaws" and "lack of features" that people are complaining about. When your friend's car breaks down, and he explains his car situation to you, do you turn to him and say "Its only your opinion that the car's broken down!" C'mon! These are facts.

A "design flaw" is by definition flawed by opinion, not fact. Even an overwhelming majority opinion is still an opinion. If every single person on the face of the Earth except Bob from New Jersey believed cats were evil, would that make it a fact? No, but if cats went around killing people on a regular basis, that would. Facts are based on raw data, opinions are based on beliefs. (Granted, it could be argued that there are no facts, since even raw data merely comes from the way an individual's senses gather information, and there's no guarantee what I think blue looks like is what you think blue looks like, but I don't want to get philosophical here, and my point is *not* to make everything an opinion . . . )

I don't argue that stating a certain feature does not exist is a fact. But stating you believe it SHOULD exist is your opinion.

You are, in fact, using bad debate form in your post there, as well. There is absolutely no comparison between the statements, "Corruption breaks Civ3," and "My car is broken down." In one case, there is visible evidence. The car will not start. In the other, there may be reasons, but no absolute proof. I can run my game, I can play my game, I can enjoy my game, despite the way corruption works. It doesn't break *my* Civ3. It is in dispute. It is not a fact.

Basically, "my car will not run," is a fact, but, "my car is useless in its current state," is an opinion. Sure, an opinon almost everyone would agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.

Another example, since you and yin seem to have a problem with this concept:

Fact: Corruption makes it very difficult to run a large empire, settle other continents, or take over enemy cities and make any real use of them.

Opinion: The above effects of corruption make the game worse.

Facts are the way the game responds, opinions are whether or not YOU like those responses.

Do you understand, or do I need to give more examples?

[yin26]

Xentropy: Get over yourself. You talk about good debate form blah blah blah and then simply patronize. If that's the best you've got, don't waste my time.

[XPav]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley

"**** the community" where did you get your business policy from, the bathroom stall of your favorite pub? The community, incase you didn't know, is where the ****** profit comes from!

So in other words, it doesnt matter what the consumers think, just sell the damn thing. Your incredible pal.

You're my incredible pal?

The "community" is a fraction of the people that buy the game. The community wants to become involved with the creation of the next game, however, the community cannot take "NO" for an answer. At this point, elements of the community go on a rampage, attacking those developers that have volunteered to interact with this community. Not to mention that they aren't full (or even part) time PR people, and add that to the fact the developer/publisher relationship that many people don't understand, and what do you have?

Its playing with fire, and the consequent morale hit and time-sucking that dealing with some morons that call you personally all sort of names isn't worth it. One can only be called an unethical evil money grubbing man SO much before one just says "screw it", and goes away.

The profit of Civ3 does NOT come from the people on apolyton or civfanatics. How many people are there here?

So that would make you what.. an expert?

Err, when it comes to the affect of community relations on a small development team... well, yes.

[HalfLotus]

Ozy & Steve Clark, I love you guys.

While we're sharing family anecdotes:

I went to an anger management class with my younger brother recently. He's a punk teenager. We spent most of the class talking about the desires and expectations of the "angry children".

The leading cause of anger was the "I want what I want, and I want it now." syndrome. The kids got frustrated when they didn't get their way, and lashed out against parents, teachers, etc.

The similarities between the "angry children" and many of the folks on this thread are unmistakable.

[yin26]

Yeah, that's why some of us have been here for over two years and are willing to wait another year for the game to be worth playing. Yep. That's impatience for you.

[Steve Clark]

Gee, yin, in the past two years, I have:
- played a computer games for a couple of hours most nights
- played about 15 different games during that time
- read probably over 100 books (mostly fiction and non-fiction history)
- completed three major outdoor projects (about 100+ hours each)
- took a few trips with my wife and/or my son
- completed about 8 major projects at work, and getting 3 raises and 2 bonuses for it
- wasted time at work posting to game forums
- played with my son for countless of hours

and while I am interested in civing, it is low on my priority list when compared to the more important things I do (as it should be). Regardless of the time and effort one spends in pursuit of a game, I believe a proper perspective on life's priorities would produce a better mindset, including myself.

[yin26]

As I have said many times, I am one of the busiest people I know. Honestly. Are you, once again, pretending to assume you know things about me that you don't?

While I agree with your conclusion that computer games should have a low priority, what makes you think they have a high priority for me ... or that I am somehow not doing many other important things?

My list of accomplishments over the past 5 years is pretty astounding, and the next 5 years promise me much more. Is it so hard to imagine a very successful and happy person who ALSO has time to criticize and hold out hope for a game that failed to deliver?

My list would be longer than yours, by the way, if this is meant to be a pissing content.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Xentropy
A "design flaw" is by definition flawed by opinion, not fact. Even an overwhelming majority opinion is still an opinion. If every single person on the face of the Earth except Bob from New Jersey believed cats were evil, would that make it a fact? No, but if cats went around killing people on a regular basis, that would. Facts are based on raw data, opinions are based on beliefs. (Granted, it could be argued that there are no facts, since even raw data merely comes from the way an individual's senses gather information, and there's no guarantee what I think blue looks like is what you think blue looks like, but I don't want to get philosophical here, and my point is *not* to make everything an opinion . . . )

Oh I can't believe you went there, ok here it is...

I'm sorry you don't get it. Allow me to enlighten you. As a fan I heard about Civ3 as soon as it hit the ads. And I was first in line at the store to purchase a copy, all excited and what not. Then after installing and several hours of play-testing I came to the conclusion that the articles prior to the release of the game, were not only exagerated but lies. Allow me to explain this for you, since your struggling with what is FACT and what isn't. Take the editor for example, it was promised (and I quote) "an un-presidented editor, with greatly expanded scenario building tools"... my wording might be slightly off. Lets analyze this, "Greatly expanded scenario building tools" how the **** are we supposed to design a scenario if we can't even place starting locations.. sure I can make a scenario if I don't mind playing the ancient romans in south america. And what about this one, you can't add/edit/delete any information inside the editor (well succesfully anyway). Suppose I wished to design a scenario based on a movie, how would I create the units and atmosphere of that movie without being able to "add" units? Oh and here's another one, you can zoom in and out inside the game with "ctrl-z" but try zooming in/out inside the map editor to see what kind of a map your drawing, how are we supposed to draw a map without seeing the "overall" ? And if you didn't care much for those ones, how about this... how come at any difficulty level the AI always seems to have units in newly built cities, know why? Let me educate you, because the AI is programmed to have "FREE" units apon city construction. How realistic is that? And Civ3 has been awarded for realism and historical value! Want me to go on.... ? I suppose you don't.... too bad I'm going to give you a list.... At this point I expect you to put on your blinders, and hit the "stubborn/ignorant" switch.

- Cannot edit/add/delete improvements/units or any other graphics without !@#$ something up. How are we supposed to create new units for a scenario outside what the game provides? We can't! Sort of defeats the perpose eh?

- Cannot edit/add/delete new sound FX or music to make your scenario more relistic. You're stuck with ancient drums beating away in a MODERN scenario.

- Cannot Zoom in multiple levels, or see what kind of map your creating in the editor, NO ZOOM at all. Seems rediculous to me. No, you don't think THATS a design flaw? C'mon!

- Cannot add special events to take place through-out your so called scenario. Oh, I know what your going to say, its a "feature" not a design flaw... ok so tell me this wise guy, if I were to build a World War 2 scenario (not that the map would look like earth anyway) how would I have repeated "events" like pearl harbor getting bombed? Put some thought into it!

- Cannot add new civilizations, leaders (bush, caesar etc) because the game doesn't accept those kinds of changes in the editor. So how do I create a new civilization? You can't!

Still not convinced? Thats five major design flaws, NOT lacking features. When you create a map, you should be able to zoom out and see the WHOLE map when it's done. When you "design a scenario" in an "un-presidented editor" (cough) then you should be able to add/edit and remove things to give it realsm and effect. Otherwise there's no point in creating the @$'ing scenario in the first place. Yeah sure, they have some "mods" to do some of these things now, BIG DEAL. Should people have to take up the slack where Firaxis' left off? These are "design flaws" or "lack of design" and its not opinion, and it's not lacking features, these are things that come with the editor, or the editor really isn't an editor. And you cannot design scenarios without altering something, how do you explain that one? You would only make a fool of yourself to try.

I don't argue that stating a certain feature does not exist is a fact. But stating you believe it SHOULD exist is your opinion.

I agree entirely. But if you clearly read what I said above, then you know that what I'm talking about is FACT. Not opinion. For example, what good would "pac man" be without walls? Or, what good would Command&Conquer be without "ranged weapons"? Oh, here's a real good one... what good would Civ3 be without the ability to create scenarios, or edit the rules? Think about it. These are the components that make these games popular, and all I'm saying is, sure "Civ3" runs good the way it is... but the very thing that made it so popular was the ability to build scenarios. In fact the Civ-Web-Sites derived from scenario building itself. And when they advertised Civ3 they gloated about the new and advanced expanded supercalifragalistic techno editor that was supposed to shock the civ-community. well it didn't! And you sit there criticizing this community because they dont like what Civilization has now become? Not smart.

You are, in fact, using bad debate form in your post there, as well. There is absolutely no comparison between the statements, "Corruption breaks Civ3," and "My car is broken down." In one case, there is visible evidence. The car will not start. In the other, there may be reasons, but no absolute proof. I can run my game, I can play my game, I can enjoy my game, despite the way corruption works. It doesn't break *my* Civ3. It is in dispute. It is not a fact.

Basically, "my car will not run," is a fact, but, "my car is useless in its current state," is an opinion. Sure, an opinon almost everyone would agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.

"Bad debate form" ? Is that why your here, to debate and tell people how to debate? I wasn't just talking about the "corruption" I was also talking about the "customizability" factors. But if your only playing Civ3 for a few kicks, and you never get bored of the same 16 empires over and over, knock yourself out. But some of us actually like to challenge ourselves with "creating" and "designing" scenarios to add flavour to the game. And thats good that you like the game, but do I care? I'm not here to tell people not to play Civ3, (one more time) I'm here to discuss the design flaws not "opinions". Because frankly, I dont really care what others think of the game. I'm here to discuss my issues with Firaxis, and hopefully gain some information. Simple as that.

Another example, since you and yin seem to have a problem with this concept:

Fact: Corruption makes it very difficult to run a large empire, settle other continents, or take over enemy cities and make any real use of them.

Opinion: The above effects of corruption make the game worse.

Facts are the way the game responds, opinions are whether or not YOU like those responses.

Do you understand, or do I need to give more

"squeeze me" ? I never said that I couldn't play Civilization III, there you go putting words in people's mouths again. I SAID that the game is full of bugs (like corruption for one) and lacks any real editor with scenario design capability. Can you read? Or shall I repeat it? I never at any time said that the game is bad, or that people shouldn't play it. You're just twisting things. If I were to say "Civilization III sucks" then I would be stating opinion, but I'm not, I'm simply saying that they sold us a lousy version of it. And again that's opinion. But the "reason(s)" for it being lousy, are based on "design-flaws" which are FACTS (want more proof? let me know!) not opinions. I'm not talking about the color of the box that it was sold in, I'm talking about the incomplete editor, and lack of scenario design.. for the last time.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by XPav
You're my incredible pal?

Its called sarcasm. Look it up.

The "community" is a fraction of the people that buy the game. The community wants to become involved with the creation of the next game, however, the community cannot take "NO" for an answer. At this point, elements of the community go on a rampage, attacking those developers that have volunteered to interact with this community. Not to mention that they aren't full (or even part) time PR people, and add that to the fact the developer/publisher relationship that many people don't understand, and what do you have?

I agree that the presence of fans screaming and insulting, is not going to change things. You completely missed my point though. People aren't doing this to gain favor with Firaxis, or "change" things. People are doing this because they're upset with Civ3. And its not unlikely for someone to curse a game company at one time or another. "Let the person without sin, cast the first stone". You sit here and plagiarize how people don't have a right to "insult software designers" but we pay them to write software for us, essentially. I think that gives us the right to "vent" if were not pleased. Can you honestly stop something as simple as human emotion? I'm sorry but not everyone explodes when they recieve rejection (or the answer NO). You're categorizing everyone for the actions of a small group of short tempered people. And you are wrong for that. And I disagree with you, when you say "we are a small majority of the sales" you dont know anything about that area, unless you work for Firaxis. And I've been on every existing board with a Civ-Topic, and I've seen the masses. Not to mention the 5 or 6 retail outlets I visit often as a regular consumer, whom are always abliged to give me information about sales. But you're not going to be happy until someone from Firaxis actually admits that all this is affecting their sales, will you? No, your only stating your opinion. And if you think you can convince people with your weak notions of "how people should behave in a forum" then your either a lawyer for Firaxis, or someone who has nothing better to do but pick "forum-wars" with someone who's already upset due to the obvious disapointments of Civ3. Well in that case, your my hero!

Its playing with fire, and the consequent morale hit and time-sucking that dealing with some morons that call you personally all sort of names isn't worth it. One can only be called an unethical evil money grubbing man SO much before one just says "screw it", and goes away.

"playing with fire" ? I didn't know my computer would catch on fire for writing how I feel about a game, in a forum. And now you are dictating what sort of names, and remarks people are allowed to use when addressing game designers. These people don't know each other, so forums are painless. And second any game designer with "integrity" simply ignores it anyway, like you said "screw it, goes away". So what are YOU *****ing about? That these people are using obscenities in a public forum, and it offends you? Or that these people in your opinion have no right to say what they feel? You're sounding more and more like dictator, telling people what they should say, and how they should say it. Are you related to a member of Firaxis, does it make you cry everytime someone insults them? I think you should let people say what they want, leave it up to the moderators, and Firaxis to decide what the want to censor or see. Got it?

The profit of Civ3 does NOT come from the people on apolyton or civfanatics. How many people are there here?

This is true. I agree. But with the amount of profit that these people represent is enough dent the sales. And even the smallest group of fans waving pitchforks and torches is enough to create bad publicity for a game company. And if you ran your business otherwise, you would be losing money. But perhaps you don't regard that? But basically, every single human being that purchases a copy of the game, is a brick off the foundation. And its without a doubt the priority of any serious minded company. So what you say makes no sense at all. Negative reviews lead to loss of sales, your saying thats okay? I don't think even Firaxis would agree with you on that one.

Err, when it comes to the affect of community relations on a small development team... well, yes.

I'm sorry but I don't agree on that one. First of all, no one has heard of you, and no one cares. And unless your the president of the united states, or a member of Firaxis... who cares! Your opinion has no affect on the other countless numbers of upset fans floating around on the boards. Not to mention the thousands more that dont even have the "internet" or the means to communicate what they feel. You're forgetting the silent market, people who don't have the ability to review the game and talk about it. Or they just simply choose not to. And if I was a game company I would take even 100 angry fans seriously. Because whether you admit it or not, that does affect sales.

My point: People have a right to say what they want, when they want, and to get in the way of that is only making things worse!
Speech is free. Its called a "movement" for a reason, it moves! And you stand boldly trying to stop it, like a peasant to a tank.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by HalfLotus
Ozy & Steve Clark, I love you guys.

While we're sharing family anecdotes:

I went to an anger management class with my younger brother recently. He's a punk teenager. We spent most of the class talking about the desires and expectations of the "angry children".

The leading cause of anger was the "I want what I want, and I want it now." syndrome. The kids got frustrated when they didn't get their way, and lashed out against parents, teachers, etc.

The similarities between the "angry children" and many of the folks on this thread are unmistakable.

I see.. we can buy the product, but if we tell the company that produced the product that we're not happy with it were called "whining children".

Real intelligence behind that statement. Coming from a person who attends "anger managment" you of all people should respect someone who has to vent thier anger. Or do you attend anger management so you can tell all the other people that they aren't allowed to get angry? Aren't you supposed to make sense?

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Gee, yin, in the past two years, I have:
- played a computer games for a couple of hours most nights
- played about 15 different games during that time
- read probably over 100 books (mostly fiction and non-fiction history)
- completed three major outdoor projects (about 100+ hours each)
- took a few trips with my wife and/or my son
- completed about 8 major projects at work, and getting 3 raises and 2 bonuses for it
- wasted time at work posting to game forums
- played with my son for countless of hours

and while I am interested in civing, it is low on my priority list when compared to the more important things I do (as it should be). Regardless of the time and effort one spends in pursuit of a game, I believe a proper perspective on life's priorities would produce a better mindset, including myself.

"And a partridge in a pear tree...."

News flash everyone this is the new "Steve Clark Accomplishments Forum". No one asked you what you've accomplished, and no offense... but I dont think anyone really cares either. You claim not to focus priorities on this forum or the game itself, yet you came all the way in here to tell us all that? Wow, I guess you can add that to your acheivements list! Thanks for the big tip dad, but I think I'll decide what I want to devote my energies to during non-work hours.

A voice from the counter: "Move along, move along!"

Charles.

[Libertarian]

Actually, Yin has demonstrated a willingness to change his mind and adjust his outlook in the face of compelling argument. I greatly admire him for that.

[Xentropy]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
Take the editor for example, it was promised (and I quote) "an un-presidented editor, with greatly expanded scenario building tools"... my wording might be slightly off.

I wasn't promised that. I consider an editor a "nice plus", not part of a product. For one, I expect a nicely expanded editor in an expansion pack or future patch, and two, I didn't buy the game assuming there'd be an editor at all. Looking over beside me just now, the box says, "Game Editor Suite lets you create customized civilizations, maps, and rules." This it does. I don't expect more from a game than it says it has. I don't see the word "unprecedented" anywhere.

That said, your previous arguments have all been about the GAME, not the EDITOR. I frankly couldn't care less about the editor, so let's see if any part of your post is meaningful . . .

>cuts out a lot of drivel about the editor waiting for a game issue; wow, what do you know, there goes 90% of the post<

"squeeze me" ? I never said that I couldn't play Civilization III, there you go putting words in people's mouths again.

Eh? I never said you couldn't play either. What are you talking about?

I SAID that the game is full of bugs (like corruption for one) . . .

Corruption is not a bug, it is a feature. If it were a bug, it wouldn't be in the Civilopedia. Now, you may think this feature goes overboard and is flawed, but the belief that it is flawed is an opinion, not a fact.

Can you read? Or shall I repeat it? I never at any time said that the game is bad, or that people shouldn't play it. You're just twisting things. If I were to say "Civilization III sucks" then I would be stating opinion, but I'm not, I'm simply saying that they sold us a lousy version of it. And again that's opinion. But the "reason(s)" for it being lousy, are based on "design-flaws" which are FACTS (want more proof? let me know!) not opinions.

The design is made up of facts. The "flaw" part of "design flaw" is your opinion, however. I personally LIKE the corruption design, to keep growth in check. It will be especially nice in multiplayer, so games genuinely last into the modern age instead of one player having the definite lead and the game being effectively over by the time you hit years AD. The player in the lead has more corruption to deal with. It's a playing-field-leveler. The ONLY flaw in the design in my opinion is that the AI doesn't seem to be affected by it, so in single player it's flawed in some ways--mainly just serves as extra difficulty to overcome.

I'm not talking about the color of the box that it was sold in, I'm talking about the incomplete editor, and lack of scenario design..

Not sure where I said anything about the color of the box, either. But neither did I say anything about the editor. Nor do I have issue with you thinking corruption is a design flaw. People are entitled to their opinions. My issue is with your not understanding that some of your fellow human beings do not consider it flawed, and that it is an opinion of yours, not a fact.

Now, I'll go ahead and address the editor since that appears NOW to be your biggest issue. If your previous posts mentioned the editor, I skimmed over those parts and focused on the parts where you have issues with the game. In this particular post, though, your entire post was basically a rant about how some "promise" of an "unprecedented editor" went unfulfilled. A promise I never saw, and which was probably stated a year before the game released.

Maybe you're new to computer gaming, and if so, I respect that, but when you've been playing computer games and been a part of online communities for ten years, you learn to take absolutely nothing that is stated about an unfinished project as true until the product is complete. That same law can be applied to almost everything outside computer gaming as well, so best you take it to heart as soon as possible.

Plans change. Designs change. Sure, it'd be nice if the editor were as good as they originally planned it to be, but in other ways, I'm glad they were flexible, since if the whole game was exactly like they envisioned it a year ago, or two years ago, it would be nowhere near as polished and enjoyable as it is in its current form. I suspect Infogrames pushed them to release the game before they had the editor in a form they would have liked, but they have stated on this board time and time again that they would STILL like the editor to be much more versatile and there is almost no chance that it won't BECOME more versatile in the future, either in a patch or expansion pack.

Meanwhile, have fun with the game as it is now! My god, it hasn't even been out two months yet; there is a TON to do with the stock settings! Just in time for the stock game to get boring, the editor will be out, and I can make the mod I've already got complete design notes for and am simply waiting for the tools to create. I will personally send you ten US dollars if the tools never become available to have civ-specific starting locations and the ability to add new civs/units/city improvements. I'm THAT certain my patience will pay off. Note: This offer only applies to CharlesUFarley. No wise guys expecting me to owe everyone who views this post US$10 if no patch or expansion includes significantly more complete editing tools.

No, I don't think an editor will ever contain every last thing everyone could ever possibly want. But I have utter faith that civ-specific starting locations and the like will become possible. A scripting language to allow triggers and such probably won't ever exist, but with a little work and good thinking, the vast majority of mods will be doable. Just give them a little time.

[yin26]

Lib:

But I think I've changed my mind: No more changing my mind. LOL!

[Jrad]

You know, Rareware LTD/Nintendo kept delaying games and delaying games until they were sure they were perfect, and for the most part, with the failure of the N64 (It was pretty much a failure), I'd have to say games like Perfect Dark, Banjo-Kazooie, Goldeneye did very well. Even though you have some people who might run around screaming "NOOOOO! They delayed it AGAIN!" I think that would be better than some of the backlash that has come across at least here at the Apolyton forums. When Rareware decided to remove for instance the Camera/Perfect Dark option, they delayed the game six months to fully extract it, and this allowed for correcting other glitches. When Rareware added Multiplayer to Goldeneye, they delayed Goldeneye at least a month to get it ready.

Perfect Dark though is an example of how you can infinitely delay a game and it won't really affect sales-sure it made a lot of people angry, but by the time it came out the people forgot that they were mad, and even though Rare was taking out something, not adding it, my point is Civilization could probably have been delayed to add the Multiplayer without a big fuss. The date of the release though happens to coincide with Christmas, so the fact that features were removed in a rush simply tells me that this is the fault of the developer/publisher/both to make as much money as possible on the season, especially with the coming recession. It is my strong belief though if this game was delayed about six months until April, then much more would have been sorted out, and much more would have been corrected. And I know I probably would not get an official reply to this as someone like Dan, but one must consider the fact that Civ 3 has had pretty lackluster Christmas sales recently (so it seems), especially compared to Civ 2's sales...But I felt it would be fair to state that many successful games (Goldeneye 007 is the most notable I can think of off hand) have been delayed for eons.

If it makes you feel any better, I've played an alpha version of Sonic 2 (You can download it from places, illegally-but this isn't as illegal, since it has no known copyright, so if you hold a legal Sonic 2 cartridge, this might be legal...the law on stolen roms from Sega itself is not so good, and Nintendo hasn't shut down the ROM sites that carry the alpha/beta versions of Sonic 2, Sonic Spinball and Sonic CD...which can mean something), and that was a rush release and highly incomplete to make Christmas, but was really fun (I was 7, so hey...) and sold incredibly well, as well as being a sequel to Sonic One...the difference between Sonic 1 and 2 and Civilization II and III? I think that the Civilization fans are mostly older and have slightly more refined tastes than a kid. Mistakes are much more noticeable. On the positive to Civilization, one must remember patches can be made...something that didn't occur with Sonic 2. But the mistakes being noticed are of much stronger note than that of those of Sonic 2...Developer teams might not be able to alter the program too easily, and this might affect the patch, so not everything can be addressed...

This is a dense post that is all over the place, but I think I can sum it up in one or two sentences: Civ III should have been delayed, it is unlikely it would have affected sales too much negatively and would have probably helped positively in the long run, and it might have been easier to delay it-as some games have-to make sure it was absolutely finished to sell millions.

And an idea I heavily support is for Beta testing. I think giving a Beta copy to trustworthy sources (Confined to legal punishment to ensure their trustworthy sources) for volunteer testing would have gone very well in addressing some issues and getting more input on the game...and for pay, the volunteers get a free copy of the finished products. Many issues coming out now might have been found months before the release, and ideas to separate it from Civ 2 (This is not my complaint but it is a major complaint of the game by a lot of people) could have flowed in, as well as the tedious micromanagement I complain about.

As a side note, I do not believe that Infogrames/Firaxis have the best relationship, and that is putting it mildly. Certain Firaxis reps have seemed to be more than willing to blame Infogrames for some screw-ups, which shows some hostility towards Infogrames. This might have been caused by a number of things, but this generally takes away from the quality of the finished project...it is my view on the pattern of what had occurred with the games release and post-release comments by the Firaxis team that the blame resides for Infogrames. I should note that I have no clue what is going on/had occurred during the games development, yet it seems like these problems stem from Infogrames demanding a strong and sturdy pre-Christmas deadline, not allowing Firaxis to delay the game. And if this is not the case, than I'd like to know what is. Generally delays are thought up by the developer and allowed or shot down by the publisher, and from certain vague messages from Firaxis, it seems like the publisher wouldn't allow these delays, meaning most of Civ III's failures lie on the publisher, but I blame Sid Meier's arrogence on that garbage CD I got with the LE and that he would allow such a thing to be released, especially if he did not concieve the idea...

And on another side note, I play Civ III multiple hours a day (too many), and I enjoy the game a lot. My dissatisfaction for certain things is not as large as lets say a hardcore fanatic, but this is my opinion...If there is a Civ IV, don't make a deadline in fact, and don't say when it was released. There would be complaints about the uncertainty of information and other complaints, but in the end most people will be happy. And you can't make everyone happy. No doubt, there were mistakes on Civ 3 (My opinion is most of them are the publisher's fault...) . The next game hopefully will show them corrected.

And as for not answering information, Dan is 100% right. Too much causes expectations. Give as little as possible, but not so little that you don't let your fans know that the game is coming along in development. And the fact that Firaxis answers posts at all shows that they do listen to their consumers, as Firaxis is the only company I've seen to do this, whereas companies like Rareware, Nintendo, and the Sonic Team, seem to snub everyone and everything.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Xentropy
I wasn't promised that. I consider an editor a "nice plus", not part of a product. For one, I expect a nicely expanded editor in an expansion pack or future patch, and two, I didn't buy the game assuming there'd be an editor at all. Looking over beside me just now, the box says, "Game Editor Suite lets you create customized civilizations, maps, and rules." This it does. I don't expect more from a game than it says it has. I don't see the word "unprecedented" anywhere.

Man... this is like trying to tell a kid "No, you can't have that toy". Nope sorry man, I know what i read. It said "un-presedented editor with greatly expanded scenario design". Now all you can do is call me blind.

That said, your previous arguments have all been about the GAME, not the EDITOR. I frankly couldn't care less about the editor, so let's see if any part of your post is meaningful . . .

You make a good point. I am talking about the editor, not the game. The game is fine, if your that easily impressed. So what are you doing talking to me? Go play the game. Because you won't ever change my mind.

>cuts out a lot of drivel about the editor waiting for a game issue; wow, what do you know, there goes 90% of the post<

In this forum, yeah. But you're on glue if you think that 90% of the Civ3 consumers agree with you. You better go see what everyone is talking about so that you can "finally" speak from experience. And I quote.........(I'll bold the interesting parts)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author Thread < Last Thread Next Thread >
Desert Dog
Chieftain
Nov 2001 16-12-2001 05:34

Over Rated big time!

I laugh really hard whenever the web site is updated or I see a magazine or game show give 9.0 and higher to Civ 3. Maybe even game of the year it is just so ridiculous that is funny. At least in my opinion anyone who has played a turned based civ style game will have issues with the game. Not to mention the horrible bug ridden code. The patch comes out and the patch actually makes the game more unstable. Firaxis says it is our fault for our expectations when we complain of problems. Bugs are big problems with the game where things are broke. Other MAJOR issues are the game play. Not only is the military totally unbalanced the game is not quite working in all areas.
I am convinced that none of these people who are rating the game high have really played a full game on a large map. Nor do I think any one who is considered a empire builder would like the game play very well. The game has potential but should have not been released until first quarter of 2002 they know it too.
I am a BIG fan of the series. I love all GOOD turn based games. I am hoping that they will wake up and fix the problems. Civ 3 looks, smells and tastes like a bad version of Call To Power. Currently the game deserves a rating of no more then a 6.5 - 7.0 at most. My opinion anyways!
Desert Dog
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there is more where that came from!

Eh? I never said you couldn't play either. What are you talking about?

Obviously my memory isn't as short as yours, but then again your only arguing with me for the "joy" of it, so the least I could do is humor you. You were saying that you like the game, and enjoy the game, and it plays good. I was agreeing with you, and I was making the point that at no time did I ever declare Civ3 unworthy of "playing". It may not be worth the over-exagerated advertising, or the $50 canadian that I paid for it. But thats ofcoarse my opinion (based on the results).

Corruption is not a bug, it is a feature. If it were a bug, it wouldn't be in the Civilopedia. Now, you may think this feature goes overboard and is flawed, but the belief that it is flawed is an opinion, not a fact.

Yeah so? I wasn't talking about the corruption, I don't care about it, personally I was able to play around it.

The design is made up of facts. The "flaw" part of "design flaw" is your opinion, however. I personally LIKE the corruption design, to keep growth in check. It will be especially nice in multiplayer, so games genuinely last into the modern age instead of one player having the definite lead and the game being effectively over by the time you hit years AD. The player in the lead has more corruption to deal with. It's a playing-field-leveler. The ONLY flaw in the design in my opinion is that the AI doesn't seem to be affected by it, so in single player it's flawed in some ways--mainly just serves as extra difficulty to overcome.

Sorry, the only thing that is opinion here, is what *you* think of Civ3. I'm not basing my complaints on "what I think of Civ3" I'm basing it on "inflated advertising" and "direct confirmation" in the form of emails from members of Firaxis. Not to mention the obvious...my personal 80+ hours of playtest. And I have evidence to support it, you've seen some of this evidence. Yet you still disagree with me. My mind is unchanged, these are design flaws.

Not sure where I said anything about the color of the box, either. But neither did I say anything about the editor. Nor do I have issue with you thinking corruption is a design flaw. People are entitled to their opinions. My issue is with your not understanding that some of your fellow human beings do not consider it flawed, and that it is an opinion of yours, not a fact.

Yes, for once I agree with you. Those are merely opinions not facts. Corruption is part of the game, and was coded that way, therefor it's not considered a design flaw. And you're right, there are a great number of people out there that enjoy Civ3, like yourself for example. Again I wasn't talking about corruption, or the overall gameplay, even though alot of people still seem to have a problem with it. My complaints go to the "customizability" of the game. Consider the "editor" a puzzle, it's simply missing pieces... and without those pieces it cannot be considered an "editor" but merely a "rules modifier". And without those pieces we cannot do what they promised us, create "greatly expanded" scenarios of all ranges. That my friend is FACT.

[QUOTE]
Now, I'll go ahead and address the editor since that appears NOW to be your biggest issue. If your previous posts mentioned the editor, I skimmed over those parts and focused on the parts where you have issues with the game. In this particular post, though, your entire post was basically a rant about how some "promise" of an "unprecedented editor" went unfulfilled. A promise I never saw, and which was probably stated a year
before the game released.
[/QOUTE]

I like how you cast off any definate truth to my statements, with a few lazy keystrokes. The fact that you haven't heard of it, closes my case. It was posted everywhere, and yes a year before the release, 6 months before the release, and 1 month before the release. Point being, it was posted everywhere. Game sites all over the net, as well as game magazines, and articles. I even talked with members of Firaxis (as I mentioned before) asking them direct questions about the editor, and the scenario design capability, they said it was completely expanded, and detailed with the ability to do anything. Not to mention the countless fans and community members all talking about it in the forums, prior to its release. There is absolutely no logic in you or your presence in this forum. You not only make no sense to me, but I doubt anyone else can understand you either. The FACT is, your only in here to brag about how much you like the game. And cut down people who don't agree with your "joy". Well, guess what? We don't care. One way or another, we are here to justify our conclusions about the Firaxis-Community Relations, and the concerns for the game concepts that made Civilization good. Not someone flapping because they can't take Civ3's obvious rejection.

Maybe you're new to computer gaming, and if so, I respect that, but when you've been playing computer games and been a part of online communities for ten years, you learn to take absolutely nothing that is stated about an unfinished project as true until the product is complete. That same law can be applied to almost everything outside computer gaming as well, so best you take it to heart as soon as possible.

I agree with only one of those statements. You can't take a product seriously, until it is finished. But you can't expect everyone to go "Oh wait.. I shouldn't be mad, it was only an advertisment, and even though they promised certain features for our dollar, I should just walk away not angry!" In the REAL world, people get upset. In the REAL world people get let down, and not to mention the worst part of this whole thing we spent MONEY on this game. I dont know about you, but this is my OPINION, I don't buy something unless I like it, how are we supposed to know if we like a game or not WITHOUT BUYING IT? See my point now? We would have never known what Civ3 was about, until we bought it. They knew this. Thats why they inflated their ads, and made it appeal to the mod-community, in a strong sense, betraying our trust with illusive stories about what Civ3 was going to be. They LIED.

Plans change. Designs change. Sure, it'd be nice if the editor were as good as they originally planned it to be, but in other ways, I'm glad they were flexible, since if the whole game was exactly like they envisioned it a year ago, or two years ago, it would be nowhere near as polished and enjoyable as it is in its current form.

Nope. Some of my friends are commercial designers and software engineers for companies based across Canada, and comparing information with them, as they have played the game, otherwise this would be pointless. They insisted that Firaxis (and their reputation known) with a fabulous team of designers, they have no excuse for the final product the way it is. I agree with them. Now they're only going to waste MORE of our time with patches that dont even work half the time, and an expansion that they'll probably charge us for again!

No, I don't think an editor will ever contain every last thing everyone could ever possibly want. But I have utter faith that civ-specific starting locations and the like will become possible. A scripting language to allow triggers and such probably won't ever exist, but with a little work and good thinking, the vast majority of mods will be doable. Just give them a little time.

Ofcoarse I'll give them time. But I won't pay anymore money. These results whatever they will be, better be free. And I do believe Civ2 had a great "Events" tool. I don't see why this one couldn't have the same. Does everything have to be about money, business' all over the world give regular customers excellent consideration and treatment. Why can't a game company to it's fans?

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

I do not wish from this point on to discuss the same thing over and over with you. It's obvious your an optimistic game lover, and a light-core fan of Civ3. I won't tell you what to "like" or "dislike". I won't tell you what is "Fact" or "Fiction" and I certainly won't plagiarize what is "lies" or "truth". So don't you!

Are we here to blab about how good Civ3 is, or are we here to discuss what is "wrong" with it, so that we may fix it? I don't know about the rest of you, but if the game was so good, I wouldn't be in here talking about it, and wasting my words on someone like Xentropy, I would be playing the damn game!

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Here's more evidence of the "flawed" Civ3. And I quote!

Courtesy of Eletronics Botique - Customer Review/Sales.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
StevenHaas(steventheboar@yahoo.com) on 12/10/2001
GRAPHICS GREAT, ENJOYABILITY POOR
This was one game I was really looking forward to, but after struggling through the game it is a major disappointment. I started off buy playing the game on warlord (the second easiest setting) and got crushed early on. I figured I just haven't figured out the new culture system and what not. I played on the easiest setting and it was a breeze, not even the slightest bit of competition. Having figured a few things out, I went back to warlord, and out of ten civilazations I was dead last in everything you could think of. The combat system is horrible, Elite prime defenders with a terrain advantage got mowed down by inferior troops who barely broke a sweat. Most other nations were already through the list of city names and were starting up again with New whatever. Mind you this was even before they got to the first era change. I'm seriously dissappointed at the mechanics of this game. Oh, and I don't blame Sid Meier, he didn't work on this piece of garbage, it's his in name only, according to Extended Play. If you enjoy beating your head on a brick wall, by all means by this game. You'll find my copy in the used PC games section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 12/7/2001 writes:
TOP 10 REASONS NOT TO BUY!
10. No "Wonder" movies!!
9. The interface is redundant in some areas while too restrictiveon info in others.
8. You want a realistic world map with historical starting locations!
7. The tech tree looks like it was designed by a chimp!
6. Scrolling accross the map is choppy!
5. You find it a little hard to believe a medeival knight can destroy your tank!
4. There's no multiplayer!
3. You would like the game to include scenarios!
2. You want to be able to make scenarios or mods!
1. You expect your fighter planes to actually have the ability to intercept bombers like they're supposed to!
I was a major Civ fan until this garbage was released.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 11/30/2001 writes:
INCOMPLETE RIPOFF
I agree with the majority of people who were disappointed with this game. The overall feel I get is that I'm playing Civ 2 with slightly improved graphics. After several years of development I would expect a lot more from a civ game. This one is just full of bugs. Who tested this game? The AI is also not worth mentioning. In one of my cities I had at least 10 fighters doing air superiority missions. However, it didn't seem to do any good because the com just kept boming away, with none of his bombers getting shot down. What's even the point of having fighters? Overall I felt that I had been ripped off. As a loyal fan of civ games I went out and purchased this one without any hesitation. In the future I will be more carefull at purchasing any game with the name "Civilization" on it, no matter what number comes after it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 11/27/2001 writes:
READ THIS B4 YOU BUY
I've been playing civ ever since the 1st one. I got civ1 the first day it came out. Civ2 was a big improvement over civ1 lots of new things. I was expecting the same from Civ3, ok culture is cool but how long did it take to make this game again? a few years? you gotta be joking. They add culture and some graphics and animations and some new units. Man this is not a sequel more of a big upgrade. I HATE THE NEW BATTLE SYSTEM!!!! Who ever complained about the battle system in civ2? hardly anybody Why did they change it back to almost the same lame system of civ1? NO CLUE Did sid meier and his team really listen to the fans? somewhat but not really because if they did then the battle system wouldn't be so jacked up having a knight or samurai kill my tank is disgusting (obviously this game was only play tested by some developement people and wasnt play tested by true fans) If they had listened and let true fans play this game they would've seen this problem b4 releasing it. AND YES! IT IS A PROBLEM that is not my only complaint, but it's by far the worse design decision I've seen the civ series take. BRING BACK FIREPOWER!!! OR AT LEAST AN OPTION TO TURN IT ON LIKE IN CIV2 BRING BACK THE MOVIES AND ADVISOR ANIMATIONS TOO(HOW THE HELL DID THAT TAKE AWAY FROM GAMEPLAY as stated on the official civ3 website? ABSURD) They called it a game years in the making? Nuh-uh i say More like "hey its time to make some more money lets just update some of this stuff and push it out to product" didn't listen to what a majority of the fans would've liked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 11/25/2001 writes:
COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
Other than its speed issues, and lack of upgrades since Civ II, Civilization III is not such as bad of a game as people make it out to be. However someone needs to tell the people that made this game: I DONT CARE WHAT THE SITUATION IS, WARRIORS FROM THE YEAR 4000 B.C. WILL NOT BEAT UP ON PANZER TANKS IN COMBAT!! And yes, it has happened to me so dont ask.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 11/23/2001 writes:
A MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT!
I was eagerly expecting this release, but was majorly disappointed. The game and graphics improvements are minimal. If you have ever played the previous civ's you would get nothing new as a gaming experience from this release. And comparing it to the "call to power" versions of the civilization games, civ 3 looks like an infant! Not only graphics and interfaces are inferior (comparing it to almost any new strategy game out there), but also basic strategy gaming concepts such as AI behavior, diplomacy, battles, and trade are way behind (comparing it to the ctp version of the civilization) or at almost the same level as in civ2. I totally agree with one of the previous reviewers that this should have been a very cheap upgrade to civ2 and definetely not a new release.
And to reiterate again, not a wise way to spend your money if you already have civ2 or "call to power".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want more proof? Let me know, there's plenty more where that came from! More of this information can be found at "EB.COM" under "Civilization III - ten reasons not to buy civ3" incase anyone is wonder (Xentropy).

Charles.

[Barnacle Bill]

There is so much in this thread already that I can't begin to respond in detail to everything. There are some points I'd like to make, though.

1) Firaxis did indeed advertize a lot of hype about how great the scenario editor would be - especially on their web site. That counts as "promises" much as anything printed on the box.

2) Civ3 is a sequel to Civ2. Therefore, the only reasonable way to take all that hype about the Civ3 scenario editor is that the Civ3 editor is intended to be an improvement over the final iteration of the Civ2 editir (TOT).

3) It has basically been established that Firaxis was forced for commercial reasons to ship the game early, and that one of the casualties was the scenario editor.

4) Firaxis has clearly stated their intention to fix the scenario editor so that it does deliver as promised. They have also stated a policy of playing their cards close to the vest regarding when, or exactly what features will be in, and exactly what fan-requested features won't make it.

So, IMO, our "productive" choices as individuals are:

1) Keep playing Civ3 because we don't care about the editor anyway.

2) Make constructive suggestions to Firaxis as to what we'd like in the final editor and why.

[Desert Dog]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Gee, yin, in the past two years, I have:
- played a computer games for a couple of hours most nights
- played about 15 different games during that time
- read probably over 100 books (mostly fiction and non-fiction history)
- completed three major outdoor projects (about 100+ hours each)
- took a few trips with my wife and/or my son
- completed about 8 major projects at work, and getting 3 raises and 2 bonuses for it
- wasted time at work posting to game forums
- played with my son for countless of hours

and while I am interested in civing, it is low on my priority list when compared to the more important things I do (as it should be). Regardless of the time and effort one spends in pursuit of a game, I believe a proper perspective on life's priorities would produce a better mindset, including myself.

You are the most pathetic person in these forums yet! Go brag about your life to someone who cares! This really gets under my skin when some fool trys to make themselves above everyone else! I really doubt you did all that you say anyways, no way to prove it so why bother to mention it? Oh I see you want to feel better about yourself, maybe you are not secure about yourself and this is your way of doing it Got it!
Okay we understand now go away and leave us alone to discuss civ 3! Disgusting people like you make me sick when I read messages like this. GROW UP! You have a son to raise and he should not learn these things from you!

Desert Dog

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Desert Dog


You are the most pathetic person in these forums yet! Go brag about your life to someone who cares! This really gets under my skin when some fool trys to make themselves above everyone else! I really doubt you did all that you say anyways, no way to prove it so why bother to mention it? Oh I see you want to feel better about yourself, maybe you are not secure about yourself and this is your way of doing it Got it!
Okay we understand now go away and leave us alone to discuss civ 3! Disgusting people like you make me sick when I read messages like this. GROW UP! You have a son to raise and he should not learn these things from you!

Desert Dog

Well spoken.

Charles.

[Jack_www]

I just visted the MOO3 forum here on apolyton. I must say form what I have seen I am very impressed with the way Quicksilver is very open about their game and answering people's questions about what is going to be in the game and whats not. They also said that they are going to include mp in the intial release, unlike Civ3. I think that the people who handle PR for firaxis could learn a thing or two from the people at Quicksilver when it comes to dealling with their fans.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I just visted the MOO3 forum here on apolyton. I must say form what I have seen I am very impressed with the way Quicksilver is very open about their game and answering people's questions about what is going to be in the game and whats not. They also said that they are going to include mp in the intial release, unlike Civ3. I think that the people who handle PR for firaxis could learn a thing or two from the people at Quicksilver when it comes to dealling with their fans.

Exactly, I'm not blaming anyone specificly at Firaxis for the failures of Civ3, I'm simply stating that they "exist". All these people on Poly, and Fanatics are getting offended because we've found failures with Civ3, and they don't like to hear that. Perhaps it makes them feel "useless" in some way. Well my message to those people is:

Rather than become part of the problem, try being part of the solution here!

Thanks for the words Jack!
Charles.

[yin26]

Convincing Firaxis that good PR is important is like trying to talk some guy out of blowing his own head off: You'd think it would be a no brainer ... until you realize the brains were blow out before you got there.

[Steve Clark]

That does it, Farley and Dog are now off of my Christmas list.

yin, I need to learn to take our personal banter to PM, lest someone might make the mistake of not ignoring posts that had nothing to do with them! But with you in a different day of the week, PM is hard to do in a coherent manner.

[XPav]

Originally posted by yin26
Convincing Firaxis that good PR is important is like trying to talk some guy out of blowing his own head off: You'd think it would be a no brainer ... until you realize the brains were blow out before you got there.

PR is the job of the publisher.

You're the people that have latched onto Firaxis, some of the designers/programmers/others at decided to volunteer to talk to you, and you're rightfully pointing out that the people who volunteered to talk to you don't have PR as their primary focus.

Do you want PR? Fine, well, then PR means that you don't talk to the designers, and have to deal with interviews and stuff slapped on a website. There's no point in spending money hiring a PR person to stroke the ego of all the types of people that hang out on web forums.

Its not worth it for small companies to hire someone to do community relations, and from my experience it, forums where designers and programmers talk to fans are more a hindrance to the completion of a good game.

Reading the board for ideas -- thats one thing. Stepping up to be called names is another.