what's the highest difficulty level you've won convincingly at

[Asmodeous]

Can you state a single game where it was tried and failed?

What does "leave it to them" mean? That sounds an awful lot like the player committee I am advocating.

Ok, so if you are then accepting that fanbase enhancements such as unofficial patches and the like are what you are advocating, then to answer the first question of "Can you state a game where it was tried and failed," yes, I can. Every game that is listed on the Apolyton site. Beyond that, how about Arcanum, or Fallout, Fallout 2, how about every modern game that exists?

Seems to me you're taking a very liberal definition of the word "bug." We need to talk the same language before we can achieve any consensus.

I am using the colloquial, accepted definition, which is as follows (this is from Wikipedia, but it is not worded all that much differently than it is in most dictionaries):

A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended (e.g., producing an incorrect or unexpected result)

The key is a continual feedback-improvement mechanism.

The main problem with getting bug free is that improvements tend to be included as well as bug fixes, and improvements introduce new bugs.

Even when it is not it will introduce new bugs, or enhance other unnoticed bugs, or cause bugs where bugs weren't, or. . . Take, for instance, the unofficial patch that's out for Arcanum that some chap was cool enough to spend months on. Four months later, after solving scores and scores of bugs, including bugs that no one ever realized existed because the conditions for them were fairly rare, he gave up because just solving bugs was causing more bugs to arrive. He added no improvements, he added no features, he just fixed bugs.

It's a process that would, in essence, never end, or at the very least fanbase interest would wane before the process drew to a close.

The current system is basically what you're advocating. A company produces a game, they sell it, they patch what they can, when there is no longer enough money in the product to justify the cost of continued patching they dump it and if the fanbase wants to keep working at it, they can and will.

This is not a "new" process you're advocating, it's what is, and though it is not the preferable system (which would be the company delaying release to fix most of the bugs and not need patches to begin with), it is practical, and in either case the consumers have all but demanded the market that continues to occur. There's such an instant-gratification expectation in the consumers, as they don't want to wait for the products to go through proper testing, then when they cause the publishers to see dollar signs by demanding the product, who then force the developers to release the product early, they buy the product with the expectation that everything is going to work exactly as intended right out of the box.

Then they whine and complain and blahblahblah, and the patches come out, and then it is no longer feasible, and the publishers make the developers drop the product, and the fanbase continues to apply patches until they lose interest or the Operating System divide becomes too wide for them to care about trying to make it work.

Then the process repeats for the next edition.

Me.

[Ming]

Firaxis would sanction only one group.

As far as I'm concerned... Firaxis doesn't need to sanction a group. Just agree on what the latest and best patch is, and promote it on their site.
What's needed is a single location that people can trust as the "official non official" patch. Right now... there are different versions of the latest unofficial patch out there... making it a night mare for MP games.

[wodan11]

Ok, so if you are then accepting that fanbase enhancements such as unofficial patches and the like are what you are advocating

They're not.

I am using the colloquial, accepted definition, which is as follows (this is from Wikipedia, but it is not worded all that much differently than it is in most dictionaries):

Then there is quite a bit of software which does appear to be bug-free. So stating that it is a "silly, idealistic, utopian concept" is not true.

In addition, having "bug free" as a stated goal of a software program is very valid, even if you were correct and it is unattainable. What's the alternative? "Our goal is to be 50% perfect. We want things to work 50% of the time."

As I said, nonsense. Bug free is a goal, and should aways be one.

Even when it is not it will introduce new bugs, or enhance other unnoticed bugs, or cause bugs where bugs weren't, or. . . Take, for instance, the unofficial patch that's out for Arcanum that some chap was cool enough to spend months on. Four months later, after solving scores and scores of bugs, including bugs that no one ever realized existed because the conditions for them were fairly rare, he gave up because just solving bugs was causing more bugs to arrive. He added no improvements, he added no features, he just fixed bugs.

And so if we had a team of programmers working on it, this process could be done quite quickly and more completely, do you agree?

It's a process that would, in essence, never end, or at the very least fanbase interest would wane before the process drew to a close.

So your conclusion is that it's not even worth it to attempt? That we should simply be content with a lack of support from Firaxis, and STFU?

The current system is basically what you're advocating. A company produces a game, they sell it, they patch what they can, when there is no longer enough money in the product to justify the cost of continued patching they dump it and if the fanbase wants to keep working at it, they can and will.

Not at all. I am advocating that Firaxis not even issue a patch in the first place, and instead of that effort they provide indefinite support and sanction of a player group.

If Firaxis does not put the player group's patch into the in-game updater, then it will not be effectively disseminated.

This is not a "new" process you're advocating, it's what is, and though it is not the preferable system (which would be the company delaying release to fix most of the bugs and not need patches to begin with)

Ha, fat chance that happening.

it is practical, and in either case the consumers have all but demanded the market that continues to occur. There's such an instant-gratification expectation in the consumers, as they don't want to wait for the products to go through proper testing, then when they cause the publishers to see dollar signs by demanding the product, who then force the developers to release the product early, they buy the product with the expectation that everything is going to work exactly as intended right out of the box.

Then they whine and complain and blahblahblah, and the patches come out, and then it is no longer feasible, and the publishers make the developers drop the product, and the fanbase continues to apply patches until they lose interest or the Operating System divide becomes too wide for them to care about trying to make it work.

Then the process repeats for the next edition.

Me.

So it's all the fault of the fanbase? Nice.

As far as I'm concerned... Firaxis doesn't need to sanction a group. Just agree on what the latest and best patch is, and promote it on their site.

Same thing as I'm suggesting, and the easiest way to proceed now for CIV. For CiV, they could do it better by planning it from the start.

What's needed is a single location that people can trust as the "official non official" patch. Right now... there are different versions of the latest unofficial patch out there... making it a night mare for MP games.

Agreed.

[Asmodeous]

Then there is quite a bit of software which does appear to be bug-free. So stating that it is a "silly, idealistic, utopian concept" is not true.

Appear to be does not mean "is". I'd have to say Mac software and software for consoles have a chance at being bug-free, but that directly relates to the fact that they have an incredibly finite configuration to work with.

In addition, having "bug free" as a stated goal of a software program is very valid, even if you were correct and it is unattainable. What's the alternative? "Our goal is to be 50% perfect. We want things to work 50% of the time."

As I said, nonsense. Bug free is a goal, and should aways be one.[/quote]

Of course it should be a goal. Aim for the stars you might hit the moon and all of that nonsense.

And so if we had a team of programmers working on it, this process could be done quite quickly and more completely, do you agree?

Of course, but it is still unattainable.

So your conclusion is that it's not even worth it to attempt? That we should simply be content with a lack of support from Firaxis, and STFU?

No, my conclusion is that people need to whine less about buggy software. I am a fan of unofficial patches, I don't think they're difficult to find, although I would appreciate it, as you say, if the software developers would disseminate unofficial patches they approve of. However it falls into one problem:

Not at all. I am advocating that Firaxis not even issue a patch in the first place, and instead of that effort they provide indefinite support and sanction of a player group.

If Firaxis does not put the player group's patch into the in-game updater, then it will not be effectively disseminated.

Again, the situation comes to cost-value. Is it still valuable to the developer, after the game has passed it's income cycle, to continue to spend the resources to track and issue patches they haven't made? There's a distinct cost involved, and at that point, much like when they stop officially updating, it just becomes cost with no profit to continue to do so, and just leave it to the player base where it lies.

I should iterate at this point that I'm not thinking that your idea is bad by any stretch, I'm simply putting forth the idea that it's not much different than it is now, save for moving the patching out of the corporate holdings themselves, but otherwise is as it is.

Ha, fat chance that happening.

Exactly.

So it's all the fault of the fanbase? Nice.

Yes, it's the fault of the consumer, no it's not all the fault of the consumer. Anyone who has existed in the modern, consumerist-driven markets should know by this point that their dollar makes the rules. Companies will do what they must do to get those dollars, and they will only do exactly as little as they must to make that happen. If people expect more and hold out for more, they will get more. If they don't then they are getting what they are paying for.

It's naive, imho, to claim that it's all the fault of the companies when people don't like what something is doing in the market, but when something goes right it's because the consumers did something right. That strikes me as being along the lines of Thanking God because you got a touchdown, but damning Lucifer because you got caught with a hooker that he lured you into doing. (You's generic, of course hee).

Both parties are at fault, the Corporations because they will spend as little as they can to get as much as they can, even if it means a sub-par product they will fix later (since the fixes generally cost less than longer development to the bottom line as delays to release cause waning consumer interest), and the consumers for happily gobbling up said sub-par products even though they know they could do something about it.

Think about it this way, before modern gaming when computers and computer games were a very niche market, this sort of nonsense didn't happen. If games were buggy and horribly produced people didn't buy them, and since they didn't buy them, those companies would either have to spend more time fixing the issues before release or go down in truly Darwinian fashion.

As time went on and the market grew, so did the marketting hype, so did the demand, and people started giving more leeway to companies that were releasing good games with shoddy code, and accepting the fact that, due to the internet, they could get patches to resolve the code so long as they could play the game sooner. Time continues to pass, that mentality has completely proliferated the market because the consumers have made it incredibly evident via their purchasing power that they are ok with it.

Yes, they complain until they're blue in the face about it, but have they actually done anything about it?


Me.

[Boracks]

Yes, they complain until they're blue in the face about it, but have they actually done anything about it?

Bad example: Might and Magic IX, buggy, hard to play, but released under pressure. Word spread quickly thanks to the internet. Killed the franchise and the company.

Good Example: Never Winter Nights, has a fan group that put out the Community Expansion Pack (CEP), now up to 2.1, officially sanctioned with links to it from the official NWN page.

It can be done, IF people can agree on one group putting it together. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, probably not since egos will prevail over common cause.