C3C game patch mid january? beta patch??

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

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.

Ouch that hurt!

I'm playing and enjoying at present.........but only up till AD or so. For the purposes of seeing some of the new things and kicking about possible strat changes it is playable. But make no mistake about it, the 2 bugs in question are immensely huge, and make playing on the highest levels problematic. Sure on Monarch the problems are more hidden, because you can pretty much do anthing and still easily win.

Overall I do feel, as do many others, some surprise that 2 immensely huge bugs could get through the testing process.

[alva]

why don't you just release a small "beta fix" eg. 1.03b without playtesting a lot... everyone who uses it, does it on own risk.

Not to mention they would get better (more complete) feedback.

[Gramphos]

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"

?

Ever since internet became a medium useable to get out patches to games the number of patches for has increased. And the games are less complete from start. Of course it's also related to the games being bigger, but the fact that it is easy to releas a patch makes heavy testing less needed as errors will show once a game is out.

[DrSpike]

Undoubtedly true, but it doesn't make being a guinea pig any easier.

[vmxa1]

I would expect the impact of the WWW to be the opposite. I would think it would now be easier to recruit lots of skilled players to beta a game and get most problems identified.

This is not the case of course, since that is not what happens.

[pauli]

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

it's less broken than smax, and nobody calls THAT unenjoyable.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by pauli


it's less broken than smax, and nobody calls THAT unenjoyable.

hmm

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I would expect the impact of the WWW to be the opposite. I would think it would now be easier to recruit lots of skilled players to beta a game and get most problems identified.

This is not the case of course, since that is not what happens.

before the www, distribution was just way too costly to allow a serious bug in a game.
now it's not really a problem... in the worst case everyone can download at a friends place and burn the patch on CD.

somewhere (i think at the official UFO:Aftermath forum) i read that programmers usually get paid for the game plus one patch. now if you make the game perfect, the patch would need to have new features inside (i have heard people calling PTW the first proper patch for multiplayers).


btw: if any firaxian, breakawayian or ataran is reading: can you just post to confirm, that a beta-patch can will only be a dream or even better: say, that you're considering this

[DrSpike]

It is, I fear, just a pipe dream.

[Theseus]

Nah, there'll be a patch.

I like the beta ideas... they could distribute them only at the top Civ3 sites, and expect the bunch of us to deflect the complainers.

[SirOsis]

Where did this temininlogy come from anyway? A "patch"? Why not a "splint" or a "tourniquet"?

PTW when released needed a tourniquet but C3C needs more of a patch.

[WarpStorm]

A patch is called a patch because in the old days it wasn't compiled in, but rather 'patched' in by hand. I remember many a long day trying to find a set of instructions that would correct the problem and still fit into the allocated memory (not to mention typing in octal patterns).

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
A patch is called a patch because in the old days it wasn't compiled in, but rather 'patched' in by hand. I remember many a long day trying to find a set of instructions that would correct the problem and still fit into the allocated memory (not to mention typing in octal patterns).

Holy cow are you as ancient as me? We did binary coded decimal patches, feed in via paper tape to real core in the early 60's.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


before the www, distribution was just way too costly to allow a serious bug in a game.
now it's not really a problem... in the worst case everyone can download at a friends place and burn the patch on CD.

somewhere (i think at the official UFO:Aftermath forum) i read that programmers usually get paid for the game plus one patch. now if you make the game perfect, the patch would need to have new features inside (i have heard people calling PTW the first proper patch for multiplayers).

That did not stop them from putting out broken games. You used to have to get them sent to on floppies. In some cases even send back your CD and get a new, in the very early days of games on CD.

[Dominae]

I like what they did with patches and whatnot in GalCiv.

They used the internet community as guinea pigs, and fed them with new/fixed stuff every few weeks (even days!) or so after the game was released. Most players were happy with this model because: 1) they knew their concerns would be addressed in a timely fashion, and 2) they felt they were an important part of post-development.

IMO all game companies/publishers should use a similar model. I'm sure we would all be more than happy to download many patches in December if it were to help make the "big" patch in January worth the wait.


Dominae