Comments/questions welcomed here, or you may opt to contact the author directly.

When the average fan, well.. me anyway, naively starts to believe that the over-riding concern of game makers is to produce (and support if necessary as some matter of honour or pride) an enjoyable game, it is useful to be reminded of the importance that profit plays in the real world.

Interesting editorial decision Dan,- to place the comment thread in the Civ2 forum rather than in the CTP2. Heh..

quote: Interesting article. It gets right to the point of the business decision aspect of software design. I'm not sure all gamers will understand the need to treat software development as a series of business decisions. I have been involved with the development of military software since before we had computer scientists. You know, machine code and assembler. We are driven by "perfect" software parameters. Bugs are not acceptable when you are dealing with real missiles and bombs. Therefore, we tend to deliver the type of software that gamers seem to expect from the game industry. What they don't understand is that to do this we require large software teams and budgets that are between 10 and 100 times larger than the budgets that you mentioned for equivalent sized programs.

Ooh, need to comment on this one.

Since not everyone knows this, and matter of fact most of the people in this forum probably do not. My background is Aerospace. I used to work ground support for the Space Shuttle. That is another place where there is ZERO bug tolerance. And where projects I worked on cost tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. If someone spent that much time and money developing bug free game, they are nearly 100% guaranteed NOT to get their money back on it.

As an additional note, you'd be amazed at how many ex-aerospace or ex-military people are working in this industry now. So it's not lack of skill on the developers part. It's definately a financial problem.

I can live with the concept not working out.... i can live with too many options in the game making it too slow or clunky...... but come on.... if its a proof reading thing like your insinuating for some of the problems i find this unnaceptable.

Most games are designed towards kids , teens, and young adults..... do you think kids can affoard to pay and support your $60 mistakes.

I used to cringe at buying a cd for $20 and only liking one song.... its even worse in the gaming industry and at a higher cost.

And any company making games should IMO try to fix games with at least one patch..... as we know almost every game comes buggy.

I realize this sounds harsh.... and perhaps i am not being realistic.... but burn me once.... like activision did with CTP1 and you can bet i won't buy CTP2 or any other game by activision.

Instead.... because of my anger at a being ripped off, i will burn someone elses copy or download one from the net.

Releasing crappy product only further perpetrates software theft IMO..... if you release quality instead of quantity i would think software theft would decline.

As it stands now...... i won't buy any product until i have pirated a copy for myself first..... i refuse to waste my hard earned dollars on crap.

I know this practice is wrong.... but i cannot affoard to purchase "software mistakes"

quote: Originally posted by War4ever on 01-29-2001 01:15 AM this is a nice bit of information..... however it doesn't soften the blow to consumers. It sounds like i am supposed to feel sorry for the designers when they screw up. I am sorry but at $60+ a game.... i expect minimal bugs......

No, it shouldn't "soften the blow" as it were. That article was meant to explain why it happens. The main thing I want people to get out of it is that when game companies make decisions like that it's not because they're out to "screw the consumer". They're not. They really don't like making those kinds of decisions. What I wanted people to understand in that article is that it's not personal. People often assume that the companies are out to get them, and that's simply not the case.

Personally I won't buy a game that at least 2 of my friends haven't recommended, or that I've tried. I don't pirate to try games out, but I do have enough friends that play games that I can borrow just about anything I want for a weekend or two.

But I'm with War4ever on this.

It is simply not on for a manufacturer to produce a defective product and then offer it for sale as though it is fit for its purpose and of the quality you expect from goods offered for sale.

That is as true for a computer game as it is for a motor car, a pot, a pan, a table or a chair.

And a manufacturer - or an industry - which ignores this will not last long.

I bought Braveheart when it came out. It has much in it to admire. But admiration does not survive the fact that it is impossible to play the game through to a conclusion and the most ambitious bits just won't run at all.

At the time I bought it one of the designer's (a really nice and honest sort of bloke) was responding to questions about the game's problems on a chat board and I thought, oh well, there'll be a patch.

But after a bit it became clear that there would be no patch. The tone of what was said by the nice designer got more and more apologetic and then he stopped posting.

Now, having an unplayable game for which I have payed money is irksome and I feel conned and insulted by Eidos. It is only because I am lazy that I do not sue.

They did not say, when the game was on the shelf and my money had not yet been transferred to their pocket, that the game is incomplete because their budget ran out on them.

How would it be for a motor car manufacturer to say, well I'm not sure the brakes work (in fact, I know they don't) but I've run out of development money so I must put the cars into production or I can't start taking people's money?

And for motor car substitute any good.

I will not readily buy another Eidos product and I am no longer part of the initial market for any game. Nowadays I patiently wait until there are some websites from which I can glean information about how buggy a game is and see whether the developer will support it with a patch or two. It is only when I am confident that the game can be played that I become a prospective purchaser.

The answer seems to me for manufacturers to be more realistic with the development budget. And cut down on the complexity of the games.

If withdrawing myself from the initial market means that businessmen make lower and lower estimates of their sales, spending less and less on development and releasing more rubbish - well so be it. I will give up gaming cheerfully if the alternative is to feed money to people who think they can sell rubbish just because it will recover them the bucks they have invested in that rubbish.

I don't buy other duff products and see no reason to make an exception with computer games.

If the industry produces nothing more it will deserve remembrance for Civ2, SimCity and Theme Park alone. But I hope one or two companies with a belief in good mercantile reputation and staying power get established.

quote: Originally posted by Pyaray on 01-29-2001 03:22 AM What I wanted people to understand in that article is that it's not personal. People often assume that the companies are out to get them, and that's simply not the case.

Why can't I banish the image of Marlon Brando mumbling "Nothing personal, it's just business"?

Throughout this article, I kept thinking to myself, "Duh, everyone knows that!" But after reading through the comments here, clearly I was wrong. I was quite surprised to see that many of you claimed that you found this article very interesting.

And it made me wonder why. What exactly surprised those of you that found this interesting? Are some of you so self-absorbed that you really think that the software companies actually give a rats a-- about you? Does anyone really believe that the software gaming industry is somehow different from other industries? For all businesses, it comes down to one thing - the almighty dollar!

And obviously none of these technological products will ever be perfect. From the digital camera I purchased recently that had a menu option missing to the F-22 with a whole host of problems, no product is perfect. There is no amount of money that you can throw at a product that will make it failsafe. Even NASA makes mistakes...

However, some manufacturers get close a lot more often than others. These are the manufacturers that tend to succeed in the long run (e.g. Honda). Quality is important! East Street Trader, War4Ever, and anybody else has every right to be upset when they pay good money for crap. Unfortunately, software is a lot harder to return than a bad computer (anybody still buying Packard Bell Computers?). The only consolation is that consumers don't quickly forget those companies that burned them.

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 01-30-2001 10:31 AM Pyaray: Great article. I would like to ask you since you are in the gaming industry, what do you think can be done to minimize these so-called "bad games?

If I had the answer to that question, I probably wouldn't have to work anymore. The problem really is the fact that it's a "creative" job, the game is never (and I do mean never) the game that you invisioned it would be when you first start to create it. Changes get made to the design along the way, or you find out you can't do something the way you wanted, or you quite simply can't make something work. In addition to this, everything always takes longer than you estimate it will. Obviously we plan for problems when setting up the schedule, but even the best laid plans have flaws in them. You just can't predict every problem you will have from the beginning. And reading about a game in a design document isn't even remotely close to playing that same game. So you can't really predict ahead of time whether it will be fun when you get to the end.

Short answer, I don't have that answer. I have no clue how to change things for the better. I wish things were different, but I just don't see how they could be.

Designers may, naturely enough, be enthused at the notion of creating entirely new engines for movement or entirely new approaches to combat.

Actually though, from my seat, I have absolutely no doubt what I like - and it ain't novelty for it's own sake - or even technical excellence in, say, smooth movement.

It's best described as "immersiveness".

Do I get gripped by the game? Do I long to know what happens next? Do I find myself looking at the clock, disbelieving that 3 hours (or 13 hours) have slipped by unnoticed?

And what contributes to "immersiveness"? While I don't want to knock technical things I have to say that storyline, good acting, music well matched to atmosphere, all count more for me.

I picked up Heroes of Might and Magic VI from a bargain bin a while back. It has the bones of a good, if totally derivative, game in it. But the music ain't right, the intro makes you cringe and it's plain that no-one spent more than a very few minutes trying to put in anything approaching a story line.

It's grossly unfair to make a comparison with Civ2 because that is an inspired game. But some points can be made. Someone spent a while on those Wonder movies. I doubt they challenged the programmers but some money was spent on creative people who got them right. Casting is great throughout - again money was spent on a non programming but important element. The music is right. Same point. Tiny little quirky things, like giving the Egytians an edge to Masonry, are right.

In my view games are now an art form. No doubt early film makers were very interested in advances in cinematography. But they still knew that the artistic skills of the writers, actors, director, sound man and cameraman are vital to the final outcome.

So my conclusion is this. Aim for less technically complex games. Let the technical advances come at their own pace. Don't write programmes which are out at the forefront of the ability of modest computer set ups to play. Spend more, a lot more, on the style of the product, the game playing characteristics - the "immersiveness" if you will. And this will work commercially. Word of mouth is highly effective in this market and gets more so every day. If good wine needs no bush neither does a good game.

If developers can't, at the outset, be sure that the project is going to produce a bug free and playable game, cut back on the technical ambition until you can be sure and spend any money and time saved from the programming task on the artistic/game playability side.

HoMM3 or M&M VI?

I also agree with everything you stated!
The reason i am so shocked with the poor quality of many games..... i have only had a computer for 3 years....

I origionally played many hours of civ on an ex girlfriends computer.

Maybe i am scorned because i compare everything to civ and civ2..... but i also love SMAC, just not as much.

CTP.... neat concepts.... poor execution plus why should i have to add two patches and mods to get any enjoyment out of it.

CTP2.... you have got to be kidding me.... burned once by ACTIVISION..... never buy a product again.... I pirated ctp2..... and to be honest... after about 10 hours.... "deleted" glad i didn't waste my money on another game without a patch and no support......

Companies whom do this to kids especially should be ashamed.... it is they who support your industry and they you target........

At least cigarrete inform you that smoking is bad.... where does it say on the box anything about games.....

"Buy at own risk.... this game in all likely hood sucks cause we ran out of money.... "

quote: Originally posted by shamrock on 01-30-2001 07:11 PM What exactly surprised those of you that found this interesting?

The amount of money for starters. I only play civ 2 and occasionally... Rally Masters 'cause I don't have the time for anything else and I have no idea about the turnover of game software companies or the cost of making games.

And if this is not enough, interesting was (to me) the proccess of finding out bugs and how time and money consuming that is.

And interesting still, is the huge difference that can be created from the original planning to the execution.

But the most interesting thing is the very clear explanation of WHY BAD GAMES ARE ON SELVES. If a game is bad don't publish it right? I guess not.

Of course you say «I won't never ever buy a game of these clowns ever again». But then they DO make a great game. And everybody's saying it is great and it's all over the Internet and the computer game press gives 90% . Wouldn't you buy it and wouldn;t that restore some of that company's reputation?

Wouldn't that have been impossible if the company closed because it didn't publish a game that didn;t fulfill the high standards?

quote: D I S C L A I M E R: Some people may think I wrote this article to describe Call To Power II, that is in no way the case.

I believe you David, though thousands wouldn't

What I'd like to know is why Activsion shipped CTP II with such bad and obvious multiplayer bugs. According to your article we could assume they are un-fixable.

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 02-01-2001 11:49 PM I believe you David, though thousands wouldn't What I'd like to know is why Activsion shipped CTP II with such bad and obvious multiplayer bugs. According to your article we could assume they are un-fixable.

People don't believe me when I say this either. I have played and finished multiplayer games before. So many people have said that it's unplayable I can't help but believe them, but that isn't my experience.

I don't know why this is, but I have a theory. When I play multiplayer, I am usually playing with someone else who is on my local network, not over the internet. My ping times are almost always single digit, usually like 2ms. Whereas over the internet, even with broadband, you're talking at least 50ms, and more like 80-300ms. And I think that may be part of the problem. The additional thing about multiplayer is it takes so bloody long to finish a game. How many multiplayer games could the testers possibly finish per day?

Unfixable is kind of a strong way of phrasing it. Financially unviable to fix is more like it. I know this is gonna cause more people to get irritated at me, but the simple fact of the matter is that if they spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would require to fix these intermittent bugs, they would not ever recoup that cost. And they are intermittent. They do not happen every time, making them harder to track down to fix. And of course harder to track down, means they cost more, because they take longer.

And once again I'm going to state it, just so nobody misunderstands. I do not work for Activision anymore. I quit after the first patch. I did not work there when the decision to not do another patch was made. I was not involved with that in any way, so I don't know their reasons. I am explaining it the way I percieve it. I think it would cost them way too much money to do what people are asking. I don't know that for a fact, as I have no insider information.

The comparison with cars is flawed. First a bad car happens once in a while, you can replace it or fix it by the nexy series that you had planned anyway.The investment is usually much more important than in games. I'd like to remind people also that a company can change names. The first japanese cars were branded under now-forgotten names because Honda, Toyota etc. knew the first cars would be crappy, they used the brand name to learn their job and get started.