Interview with head of quality assurance at Firaxis

[andy_ktoi]

Soulfire you can return your game. Kick up enough stink and you should get your money back or a different game. The shopkeepers would be mad not to. Problems if you bought online. It's harder to make a scene.

I took my first copy of civ 4 back because my dvd couldnt read it. I thought it was due to the manky big scratch on the disk. (LIttle was I to know)

The shop swapped it no problem. If it had been earlier in the day I would have taken the 2nd version back too.

Umpteen hours and effort later i have the sodden thing working....well for an hour or two.

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by Dale
KittenOFChaos:

If I'm a fanboy, then why haven't I bought Civ4 yet? True, I do not have a retail version of Civ4 yet. (and before you ask, no we haven't received beta-tester copies of Civ4 yet either).

Stupid Dale, I was simply translating what another person said but you address yourself to me.

As far as I'm aware the beta-testers will have the latest CivIV with patch to test prior to the next release. Or you not on that banana boat?

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Which series have a traditionally good record with regards to patches (few issues, few patches but long support)? Age Of Empires?

Blizzard's Diablo and Starcraft games are probably the gold standard in terms of having a good record - tech support-wise. Both games could be played right out of the box for over 99.99% of the time with no problem (and with fairly low system requirements. Better yet, both could also run in computers even with slightly lower specs than the "minimum"!).

Both games were also receiving patches years after their release, and to Blizzard's credit many of these patches were gameplay improvement patches and not hardware/software problem patches. Both were even launched with support for the Macintosh!

Blizzard's success is not soley because of their skill in making great games. It is also because they showed an unremitting commitment to quality and excellence in terms of providing technical support.

Currently, Civilization IV falls far below this gold standard. In fact, I'd argue that Paradox (of Europa Universalis II fame), which is a tiny Swedish company with little money and a very niche market, are doing better in the technical support department than the industry giant that is Civilization IV!

Man, this is making the money I spent on Hearts of Iron II seems all the more worth it! <_<

[erichb]

Yes, Blizzard is probably one of the best examples of quality over profits. Of course it must be stated that they can do that because they have consistently made incredible profits on their A+ titles. And despite that attention to QA they are not immune to problems either.

Look at the public relations hit they took when they released World of Warcraft. Server issues that they did not run into until the public release (and this was after extensive Beta testing with the public) just about killed the gaming experience. Penny-Arcade went so far as to retract their "Game of the Year" award until those server problems were dealt with.

So even a company that is known for their top-notch QA can run into these problems. Much like a "battle plan that never survives contact with the enemy" solid QA efforts can still produce a product that "doesn't survive contact with the public at large".

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by erichb
Yes, Blizzard is probably one of the best examples of quality over profits. Of course it must be stated that they can do that because they have consistently made incredible profits on their A+ titles. And despite that attention to QA they are not immune to problems either.

Look at the public relations hit they took when they released World of Warcraft. Server issues that they did not run into until the public release (and this was after extensive Beta testing with the public) just about killed the gaming experience. Penny-Arcade went so far as to retract their "Game of the Year" award until those server problems were dealt with.

So even a company that is known for their top-notch QA can run into these problems. Much like a "battle plan that never survives contact with the enemy" solid QA efforts can still produce a product that "doesn't survive contact with the public at large".

Notice how I specifically mentioned Diablo and Starcraft, but not Warcraft? =)

WoW indeed had some hitches - but to be fair note it was also Blizzard's first time doing an MMOG. Blizzard has had some problems when they do something for the first time before (notably the initial Battle.net launch), and to their credit it takes them but one "problematic" launch under their belt to get things fixed right for the next game. Thus, I fully expect to see a near-perfect launch the next time they put out an MMOG, or I'm gonna downgrade my rating of them =)

Still, even WoW's launch looks to be better than the mess Civilization is getting itself into... As I mentioned, Paradox arguably has better tech support right now than Firaxis/Take Two, as their games get a lot of patch support and they generally can run out of the box without issues. With Firaxis/Take Two, we only have the promise of patch support and a game that doesn't run out of the box for many players. This isn't Civilization's finest hour.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by erichb
Yes, Blizzard is probably one of the best examples of quality over profits.

No company does quality over profits IMO

[VetLegion]

Zinegata, I got your message right away - Civ IV is good compared to some other games. OK. No need for more ridiculous sarcasm.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Zinegata, I got your message right away - Civ IV is good compared to some other games. OK. No need for more ridiculous sarcasm.

I was being sarcrastic? o_O And ridiculously sarcastic at that? o_O

And no, my message is "Civ IV is bad compared to some of the better games out there, and we should be holding Civ to the standards of those better games". Civ deserves better.

But you're right. No company will do quality at the expense of profits. But smart ones realize that quality will lead to greater profits =).

[Dale]

..

[CrONoS]

...?

Originally posted by Dale
..

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
...?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Currently, Civilization IV falls far below this gold standard. In fact, I'd argue that Paradox (of Europa Universalis II fame), which is a tiny Swedish company with little money and a very niche market, are doing better in the technical support department than the industry giant that is Civilization IV!

And just what are you basing this on? It's been less than a month since Civ4 was released, and the first patch is coming very soon, and by all appearances it's going to be addressing a LOT of issues. You compare that to games that have been out for several years? That's ridiculous.

EU 2 was released November 15, 2001. The first patch came out December 19, 2001.

Diablo 2 was released in early June 2000, and yes there was an immediate patch, but this was completed before the game even came out. The first patch responding to widespread user issues didn't come until mid-July.

So I'd say Civ4 is still on track for meeting the above examples, especially considering it's a significantly more complex game than either of them.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So I'd say Civ4 is still on track for meeting the above examples, especially considering it's a significantly more complex game than either of them.

Definitel far more complicated than a CAR

[Bill3000]

I hate the car example. It's an incredible poor analogy when compared to computer games of any type. (especially MMORPGs)

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Bill3000
I hate the car example. It's an incredible poor analogy when compared to computer games of any type. (especially MMORPGs)

Hence the ""