Announcement

**DrSpike** · December 5, 2003, 07:16

I agree. There are lots of things that need to be patched, and balance issues to be considered. A proper patch will take until mid January or later. But surely they could have fixed the game breaking bugs without waiting that long?

Last time by the time the first really decent patch (1.29f) came along I had other fish to fry..........I really don't want the same to happen here.

**Harovan** · December 5, 2003, 08:40

I sign this petition.

Christmas would be ruined without a C3C patch.

**Fried-Psitalon** · December 5, 2003, 09:08

Because if they followed your suggestion about a "use at your own risk" patch they'd get hundreds of people screaming

"Those stupid !#%! at Atari, they can't even release a patch without bugs being introduced in the patch! What kind of moron releases a patch without making sure it works, blah de blah I know all about gamewriting blah de blah you guys suck"

The problem is that 99% of the customer base really wouldn't understand that the patch was a stopgap measure - and it would make people hearken back to the days of PTW and its "patches."

**Harovan** · December 5, 2003, 09:16

You mean that would be better than the ongoing:

"Those stupid !#%! at Atari, they can't even release a game without bugs being introduced in the game! What kind of moron releases a game without making sure it works, blah de blah I know all about gamewriting blah de blah you guys suck"

?

**Aramis** · December 5, 2003, 09:19

The need for a patch helps confirm my opinion that C3C was rushed out before it was ready. There's a sort of unfinished feel to the whole thing. I'd have been happy to wait a few more months, but I suppose holiday buying season necessitated the product hit the market, with 'fixes' to come later.

**Fried-Psitalon** · December 5, 2003, 09:21

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
You mean that would be better than the ongoing:

"Those stupid !#%! at Atari, they can't even release a game without bugs being introduced in the game! What kind of moron releases a game without making sure it works, blah de blah I know all about gamewriting blah de blah you guys suck"

?

Well since the above quote is the par for the course with any game these days.... hehe. Sad but true.

**DrSpike** · December 5, 2003, 10:00

Originally posted by Rob_S
The need for a patch helps confirm my opinion that C3C was rushed out before it was ready. There's a sort of unfinished feel to the whole thing. I'd have been happy to wait a few more months, but I suppose holiday buying season necessitated the product hit the market, with 'fixes' to come later.

Well lots of things don't get noticed till the masses get their hands on the product.

I admit I smiled ruefully when I saw a thread a while back with an official comment along on the lines of C3C hopefully needing no major patches.

**MrWhereItsAt** · December 5, 2003, 10:24

Originally posted by DrSpike
I agree. There are lots of things that need to be patched, and balance issues to be considered. A proper patch will take until mid January or later. But surely they could have fixed the game breaking bugs without waiting that long?

Sure, there are lots of little bugs and a couple of larger ones, but the game is hardly broken. If you DO believe it's broken then please go back to PtW until you are happy with it. I swear, kvetching about how broken the game is is just one step away from being Coracle.

C3C is FUN. Acknowledge the few larger problems and get over it. The patch will come and fix things. We know the approximate time. A lot of this is getting close to the sort of negativity that surrounded Civ3 on its original release. Please, for the sake of everything here, make sure you keep a hold of the perspective.

Ok all that was me getting a little worked up, but I feel frustrated whenever it looks like someone is saying the game is broken or unplayable. Then why do so many of us play it?

**Alex** · December 5, 2003, 11:17

the game is certainly not broken or unplayable (at least from what I've been reading here), but there are two unbalancing bugs that should be fixed as quickly as possible, IMO.

well, i'll be getting C3C in the next few days, so i'll be able to see how bad the bugs are.

**Gibsie** · December 5, 2003, 12:02

I bet any patch is going to be like 10 megabytes in size, or two hours downloading time for me on my penny-per-minute dial-up service

**Harovan** · December 5, 2003, 12:25

The game is broken. It is, of course, not unplayable. But as it stands, it is unenjoyable. Call me Coracle all you want.

**sabrewolf** · December 5, 2003, 12:28

i don't mind if the patch is needed (most games nowadays come out buggy) and even if the patch is 20MB (people with slow connections won't need it that urgent).
and people wouldn't be grumbling if this is a purely experimental patch. eg. you can only get it, if you go through a short EULA and vow not to negatively criticise any newer bugs and unfinished businesses.

compare it to mozilla and many larger open source projects:
- permanent nightly builds
- official updates every 1-3 months.

we don't need nightly builds, but at least one patch after max. 2 months (release was already more than 1 months ago)

**asleepathewheel** · December 5, 2003, 12:50

need the patch desperately. hate the corruption and gpt problems.

**vmxa1** · December 5, 2003, 13:22

I would not mind a patch that was called beta level. I understand that from their view it is a lose lose deal. If they put one out and it has other problems, they will get plastered and no one will care that it was a use at your own risk.

They could increase the chance of sucess by only correcting the corruption issue in the first pass. The gpt is less of a killer and more of a hinderence.

Announcement

C3C game patch mid january? beta patch??

C3C game patch mid january? beta patch??

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment