Tweet
If it weren't for that darned Limited Edition of Civ 3, this is exactly what I would do...and for the exact same reasons. This one was a tear-jerker. Markos, any chance you can leave me enough room to put this in my sig?
NOTE: I am NOT lambasting Firaxis with this post but the State of Gaming in its larger form; however, the wait and watch attitude might well be called for with Civ 3, too. Let's hope not...
The Grumpy Gamer
Want To Play It. Won't Play It.
by Jeff Vogel
Sometimes, I have a really hard time deciding whether I want to buy a computer game.
Note that this is different from deciding whether I want to play a game. When I pick up a game in a store, I generally have a very easy time figuring out whether or not I want to play it. And when I say I want to play it, I mean that I want to play the perfect ideal version of the game, the elusive, flawless, bug-free version of the game, the game the developers wanted to create, the game without quest bugs that stop my show three quarters of the way through, guards who don't notice when you shoot the people right next to them, and pathing so bad the NPCs spend most of their time humping pillars.
You know. The game they should have shipped, as opposed to the game they did.
Because buying a new game all too frequently means setting myself up for a potential blissful hour of installing new drivers, checking the publisher's web site looking for the patch that isn't there, shouting obscenities, and so on. It's like being set up on a blind date with someone with a hook for a hand. Having a hook for a hand is a sure sign that a person is interesting, but you kind of have to wonder about them.
Which brings me to Anarchy Online. [Note: Jeff wrote this before the latest series of patches. Perhaps in a future column he'll tell us whether those made any difference to his ultimate decision.-Ed.] Like most good EverQuest junkies, I was intrigued by this plucky new entry into the massively multiplayer arena. Before I dove in, though, I wanted to find out how much I would have to give of myself to make this relationship work. I went through the standard steps I always go through before taking the plunge, to make sure that the game is sufficiently bug-free to increase my overall happiness.
First, I watched the online news sites for information about Anarchy Online's release. The first sign of stormy skies was when the new beta was released to testers and the game went gold three days later. To translate this publisher jargon into human-speak, "releasing a beta" is a way of saying "We are sure this has problems, and now we must find them." and "going gold" is a way of saying "We are done, and we are now shipping this product to stores. Suckers." Seventy two hours is not a lot of time to elapse between saying thing one and thing two.
When I heard this, I decided to give Anarchy Online a little time before I dove in. So, a few weeks later, I moved on to step two. I visited the official Anarchy Online support site. I then retrieved these two quotes from the same site:
July 9 - As we all know, the launch of Anarchy Online didn't go as smoothly as we would have hoped. In spite of that, the last week has marked considerable improvement (see today's update by Martin Amor), and although we acknowledge there are still some issues to resolve, we now consider the game playable.
I found "we now consider the game playable" to be a strange thing to say several weeks after the thing hit store shelves. I decided to read more, and found this entry, a few days earlier:
July 4 - As for reviewing the game: We will send out review copies soon, but we would like to ask that you hold back on a full review until we have solved these problems.
Read that one again.
I could easily fill up my allotted seven hundred words with a carefully crafted rant asking how it is possible to say "You can give us money for this product and install it on your expensive home machine, but please do not evaluate this product or publicly express opinions about it." I could say things like this, but I will not, because it would take focus away from what this column is about: me. What I think. How I feel.
I felt scared.
Finally, step three. I decided to get a few more opinions, this time from actual, regular folks. So I went to Amazon.com and read the reviews of Anarchy Online there. I won't provide quotes. I will simply say that people who are very angry can be very funny.
And, finally, armed with my information, I came to my decision. I gave this one a pass.
It is a very tricky thing writing a column about a game one has not played. That is why I have tried to restrict myself to a recitation of actual facts and quotes, most of them provided by the publisher itself.
And I have no apologies. This whole ugly situation is the fault of publishers who make it necessary to evaluate games based not only on how much fun we'd have with them but how much they will screw us.
So, if you are reading this, and you love computer games as much as I do, I'd like you to do a little favor for your Uncle Jeff.
At least once every year (I can't, in any honesty, suggest you do this with every game.), check out the game you're about to buy. Instead if getting it right away, check out the user reviews on Amazon. Ask a friend. Read a few reviews. And if your wait reveals that the game is a bug-fest, skip it. Drop it like a hot rock. And if you do buy it, it from a place that accepts returns, and if it's a mess, take that sucker back.
If everyone did this just once a year, it would be a Good Thing. I'm not saying anything creative here, nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before, but it still needs to be said: Don't Take It. Whenever a publisher ships an unfinished game, they should be punished. And there is only one way to get them to change. Withhold money.
NOTE: I am NOT lambasting Firaxis with this post but the State of Gaming in its larger form; however, the wait and watch attitude might well be called for with Civ 3, too. Let's hope not...
The Grumpy Gamer
Want To Play It. Won't Play It.
by Jeff Vogel
Sometimes, I have a really hard time deciding whether I want to buy a computer game.
Note that this is different from deciding whether I want to play a game. When I pick up a game in a store, I generally have a very easy time figuring out whether or not I want to play it. And when I say I want to play it, I mean that I want to play the perfect ideal version of the game, the elusive, flawless, bug-free version of the game, the game the developers wanted to create, the game without quest bugs that stop my show three quarters of the way through, guards who don't notice when you shoot the people right next to them, and pathing so bad the NPCs spend most of their time humping pillars.
You know. The game they should have shipped, as opposed to the game they did.
Because buying a new game all too frequently means setting myself up for a potential blissful hour of installing new drivers, checking the publisher's web site looking for the patch that isn't there, shouting obscenities, and so on. It's like being set up on a blind date with someone with a hook for a hand. Having a hook for a hand is a sure sign that a person is interesting, but you kind of have to wonder about them.
Which brings me to Anarchy Online. [Note: Jeff wrote this before the latest series of patches. Perhaps in a future column he'll tell us whether those made any difference to his ultimate decision.-Ed.] Like most good EverQuest junkies, I was intrigued by this plucky new entry into the massively multiplayer arena. Before I dove in, though, I wanted to find out how much I would have to give of myself to make this relationship work. I went through the standard steps I always go through before taking the plunge, to make sure that the game is sufficiently bug-free to increase my overall happiness.
First, I watched the online news sites for information about Anarchy Online's release. The first sign of stormy skies was when the new beta was released to testers and the game went gold three days later. To translate this publisher jargon into human-speak, "releasing a beta" is a way of saying "We are sure this has problems, and now we must find them." and "going gold" is a way of saying "We are done, and we are now shipping this product to stores. Suckers." Seventy two hours is not a lot of time to elapse between saying thing one and thing two.
When I heard this, I decided to give Anarchy Online a little time before I dove in. So, a few weeks later, I moved on to step two. I visited the official Anarchy Online support site. I then retrieved these two quotes from the same site:
July 9 - As we all know, the launch of Anarchy Online didn't go as smoothly as we would have hoped. In spite of that, the last week has marked considerable improvement (see today's update by Martin Amor), and although we acknowledge there are still some issues to resolve, we now consider the game playable.
I found "we now consider the game playable" to be a strange thing to say several weeks after the thing hit store shelves. I decided to read more, and found this entry, a few days earlier:
July 4 - As for reviewing the game: We will send out review copies soon, but we would like to ask that you hold back on a full review until we have solved these problems.
Read that one again.
I could easily fill up my allotted seven hundred words with a carefully crafted rant asking how it is possible to say "You can give us money for this product and install it on your expensive home machine, but please do not evaluate this product or publicly express opinions about it." I could say things like this, but I will not, because it would take focus away from what this column is about: me. What I think. How I feel.
I felt scared.
Finally, step three. I decided to get a few more opinions, this time from actual, regular folks. So I went to Amazon.com and read the reviews of Anarchy Online there. I won't provide quotes. I will simply say that people who are very angry can be very funny.
And, finally, armed with my information, I came to my decision. I gave this one a pass.
It is a very tricky thing writing a column about a game one has not played. That is why I have tried to restrict myself to a recitation of actual facts and quotes, most of them provided by the publisher itself.
And I have no apologies. This whole ugly situation is the fault of publishers who make it necessary to evaluate games based not only on how much fun we'd have with them but how much they will screw us.
So, if you are reading this, and you love computer games as much as I do, I'd like you to do a little favor for your Uncle Jeff.
At least once every year (I can't, in any honesty, suggest you do this with every game.), check out the game you're about to buy. Instead if getting it right away, check out the user reviews on Amazon. Ask a friend. Read a few reviews. And if your wait reveals that the game is a bug-fest, skip it. Drop it like a hot rock. And if you do buy it, it from a place that accepts returns, and if it's a mess, take that sucker back.
If everyone did this just once a year, it would be a Good Thing. I'm not saying anything creative here, nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before, but it still needs to be said: Don't Take It. Whenever a publisher ships an unfinished game, they should be punished. And there is only one way to get them to change. Withhold money.
Comment