CivIV: Beyond the Sword

[Nikolai]

I know, I know. But I can only dream... Anyway, I think their patch policy has become much better since Civ3.

*deleted by Solver *

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Solver
Hm, I think Firaxis treatment of players was good in the Civ3 days as well, even if the game itself wasn't as excellent.

Uh, it most definitely was not. You didn't even play the game.

[Solver]

Uh, sure I did. And for quite a while. Numerous patches were released, at least for vanilla, and I remember them also including some reactions to fan feedback. And several Firaxians also used to post here in the Civ3 times - other than Soren, there were Jeff Morris, Dan Magaha and Mike Breitkreutz, for example. So I don't see the problem with Firaxis treatment.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Nikolai
*deleted by Solver *

Thanks

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Solver
Uh, sure I did. And for quite a while. Numerous patches were released, at least for vanilla, and I remember them also including some reactions to fan feedback. And several Firaxians also used to post here in the Civ3 times - other than Soren, there were Jeff Morris, Dan Magaha and Mike Breitkreutz, for example. So I don't see the problem with Firaxis treatment.

Then that must be because your experience with the game was fleeting. You've said many times you didn't play the game much and it shows in your posts (here and previously on similar issues).

Firaxis came off very badly, particularly during Conquests where it became apparent they didn't understand either their own game balance or the corruption model.

Not just the people that were posting here either. Firaxis' QA was releasing the patch to the general public and then waiting for Alexman to tell them what screw up they'd made this time. In the end they just left it broken.

Added to this, the main addition in PTW was broken out of the box. No, regardless of whether you like or hate the game (as I've said many times I think it was a decent game if nothing special), there is no sane basis for your statement that Firaxis' treatment of players was good with Civ3.

[Solver]

I played Civ3 constantly for over a year. Though I did stop following it by the time Conquests came, and I've heard horror stories about its patches - that I won't dispute.

PTW was definitely a broken expansion, shipping with broken MP, but I put the blame for that entirely on Atari/Infogrames. I know that the guys at Firaxis wouldn't willingly and happily release a multiplayer expansion suffering from horrible connection issues. So I blame the publisher there.

I base my statement that Firaxis treated people well on vanilla patching, that being the period during which I played Civ3 heavily and thus remember it well. I also think that them hiring players who helped with patching process the most (namely Alex) shows the attention Firaxis was paying. Though in the end, everyone (players and Firaxis) got screwed over by Atari.

[DrSpike]

Well I think it is highly generous to lay all the blame at the publisher's door.

For a start after Conquests was released it was the Firaxians posting here clearly with no clue what was going on with their game. I'd suggest you read some of the archived threads.

[Krill]

Breakaway produced C3C, not Firaxis...

[Krill]

IIRC

[Solver]

Well I think it is highly generous to lay all the blame at the publisher's door.

I'm a generous person . From what I understand of the situation, it was the publisher's fault...

And yeah, Conquests wasn't actually developed by Firaxis. IIRC, they sad Firaxis had a consulting role or somesuch, though I'd need to check the archived news for that.

[meriadoc]

I don't know whose fault it was that the various problems in Civ3 and its expansion packs existed, so I won't blame anyone for them.

However, I will say that my experience with Firaxis has been positive. I've played Civ3 heavily (indeed, perhaps too heavily ), and I've been impressed with their patches.

Not only have they released several patches for the game and its expansions, but they have trolled through the various fan forums, especially Apolyton, and have kept the fan reactions and desires in mind when making changes.

Overall, I think that we should stop complaining that the Civ team isn't perfect, and be grateful that they are as good, both in terms of programming ability and in their interactions with the fans, as they are. I know that I am.

[DrSpike]

No, I think we should call a spade a spade.

I'll give credit where it is due. I think Civ4 is one of the best games ever made and Firaxis have made a string of really good calls to bring that about - including but not limited to bringing in community members early enough to beta properly, releasing great mod tools, and even using some of those changes in patches.

It's a huge on that front. I'm not a huge fan of the x-packs but I'll buy anyway and wont really begrudge a few extra £s for the 100s of hours of play I've had with Civ4.

But I wont stand by whilst based on recent great performance people revise history. Firaxis' role with Civ3 did not reflect well on them by any stretch of the imagination. People have such short memories, even those who have been around for a while and should know better.

[DrSpike]

Oh, and also there is no dodge in terms of Firaxis not leading on various elements of the game producing process. If I give an important job to my staff and it goes badly, I don't turn around and say 'not my fault, I delegated'. It would ultimately be my fault, of course, and my bosses would correctly see it that way.

[yin26]

I was in the middle of all that Civ3 stuff (having lead the creation of The List) and so forth. Basically, staffing at Firaxis went through a near total melt down. You had Brian Reynolds leave to found Big Huge Games, the QA effort (as headed by Jeffrey Morris) had the public stance that bugs are good for the gaming community (I'm not kidding), and the publisher was looking to milk the cash cow regardless of quality. All of that was a lethal mixture.

However, it's in the past. Firaxis turned me around with Civ4, and while I don't think Warlords was anything outstanding, it certainly wasn't broken. Also, as has been said, Firaxis continues to work much more closely with the gaming public in the form of its more open beta testing process, which has done a world of good. Hiring Alex and Trip from "amongst us" certainly helps here, too.

For me, then, the measure of a person or company is the ability to learn from the past, and certainly Firaxis has done that.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by yin26
I was in the middle of all that Civ3 stuff (having lead the creation of The List) and so forth. Basically, staffing at Firaxis went through a near total melt down. You had Brian Reynolds leave to found Big Huge Games, the QA effort (as headed by Jeffrey Morris) had the public stance that bugs are good for the gaming community (I'm not kidding), and the publisher was looking to milk the cash cow regardless of quality. All of that was a lethal mixture.

However, it's in the past. Firaxis turned me around with Civ4, and while I don't think Warlords was anything outstanding, it certainly wasn't broken. Also, as has been said, Firaxis continues to work much more closely with the gaming public in the form of its more open beta testing process, which has done a world of good. Hiring Alex and Trip from "amongst us" certainly helps here, too.

For me, then, the measure of a person or company is the ability to learn from the past, and certainly Firaxis has done that.

I agree with all of us wholeheartedly. In my book Firaxis stands pretty well now, but we should not rewrite the past and claim Firaxis did well with Civ3 just because they've done well with Civ4.

It was Solver's post on this that caused me to jump in here. It's just flat wrong.