Tweet
From http://www.cgonline.com/features/010614-c1-f1.html
Since Civ 3 will basically be a matter of "precious features" and not really a new game, per se, it seems that Firaxis could fall squarely into the "problem" described above. The more and more I hear that this and that feature of Civ 3 "Just isn't done yet," the more I consider that featuritis could be just as insidious as a Civ 2.5
And how far are we away from release? If Civ 3 is targeted for Christmas (and what publisher could pass up the chance to make the easy buck?), now would be an awfully good time to start winding down those features that don't work yet and start playtesting, playtesting, playtesting...then QA this baby to death.
Please take my advice, Firaxis: Take all the time and money you save by avoiding featuritis and pour it into a better AI, better and more extensive testing and superb QA. For given the choice, a rock-solid "feature-lite" Civ 2.5 with an AI that can kick my butt would be eons ahead of a buggy Civ 3 with an AI that dies on the vine, packed full of broken/meaningless features that do nothing more than spin our wheels (even if they sound good on the box). Oh, and promised features...say, multiplayer...should actually work WITHOUT A PATCH OR ADD-ON. **ahem**
I have long pushed for a true Civ 3. But given certain track records in this industry, a neat and tidy Civ 2.5 that delivers what it promises might be the winning formula in most every way.
Just a friendly reminder before a pre-Christmas error gets made by some exec who could care less.
Despite the evidence that games are always late and rushed at the end, developers are perpetually optimistic, and I think this is the root of the problem. Developers don't want to cut the last few precious features and start winding the game down for release. They keep adding new stuff (and potentially breaking old stuff), right up until a month or so before the release. Then they try to get all the pieces to work together, and to get the game balanced, in just a few weeks. They expect their source code to be perfect and that everything will just work, but of course, it never does.
And how far are we away from release? If Civ 3 is targeted for Christmas (and what publisher could pass up the chance to make the easy buck?), now would be an awfully good time to start winding down those features that don't work yet and start playtesting, playtesting, playtesting...then QA this baby to death.
Please take my advice, Firaxis: Take all the time and money you save by avoiding featuritis and pour it into a better AI, better and more extensive testing and superb QA. For given the choice, a rock-solid "feature-lite" Civ 2.5 with an AI that can kick my butt would be eons ahead of a buggy Civ 3 with an AI that dies on the vine, packed full of broken/meaningless features that do nothing more than spin our wheels (even if they sound good on the box). Oh, and promised features...say, multiplayer...should actually work WITHOUT A PATCH OR ADD-ON. **ahem**
I have long pushed for a true Civ 3. But given certain track records in this industry, a neat and tidy Civ 2.5 that delivers what it promises might be the winning formula in most every way.
Just a friendly reminder before a pre-Christmas error gets made by some exec who could care less.
Comment