This Article Brought Tears to My Eyes: "Want to Play. Won't Play It."

[SnowFire]

Bah. I buy games for enjoyment. Bugs decrease enjoyment, but sometimes a game is good in spite of the bugs, and more to the point, if problems are fixed later, then, well, the game is better. And perhaps worth a buy.... later.

I would never buy Anarchy Online now while it's still bug-ridden. But (which I won't, because online RPG's aren't really my thing) should it ever become the pristine heaven it was promised, then it might well be fair to buy AO.

Same with Anachronox. It's supposed to be a good game with some annoying bugs, so I intend to wait until January or thereabouts to buy the game. The price will hopefully be down, and the game will be more stable when I actually play it. No need to directly "punish" the makers, I'll just wait.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Mahdimael
Hey! I liked Ultima 9! Of course, I just happened to have the ideal system for the game at the time and it ran great. My friends all cursed me.

That's just the point. Ultima 9 was a great game, but because of the awful bugs infesting the game (my kingdom for a pesticide!), it was virtually unplayable by most. Therefore, it fell by the wayside, except for those few who were determined enough to make a go of it and discover the greatness hidden under the bugs.

point is, if the bugs are big enough, they can make the best game unappetizing.

[yin26]

I should also point out here that my posting this article here has little to do with thinking Firaxis will release a horribly buggy game (there WILL be bugs, but no showstoppers).

What concerns me a great deal more, and what is far more likely to be of a concern come release time, are: PLAY BALANCE ISSUES AND WEAK AI. The autor touches on those briefly, but those are really the things to watch in Civ 3 beyond what should be only minor bugs. Heck, I can handle various bugs as long as gameplay and AI are strong...but NOT the other way around.

Now, some people always ride me because they say I have no basis for worry. However, we know two very telling things about Civ 3:

1. They added some new features that seem to radically alter some of the Civ 3 formula.

2. They are not going with an in-depth beta effort.

1 + 2 = I highly doubt enough Civ3 games have been played by enough really good players to find holes in the gameplay and AI. This is a simple conclusion, people. Am I talking aboug bugs here? No. Gameplay and AI. Period.

Jeff Morris likes to refer to a beta effort mainly in terms of finding compatability issues. Yes, that's an important part of the picture ignored here as well. But by FAR the biggest worry is that too few people will have played too few Civ 3 games come release time.

I predict we will see this forum investing the first few months after Civ 3 comes out helping Firaxis tweak the gamplay and AI to the standards that it WOULD have been had a larger beta effort been made. You know this. I know this. Anybody who argues against this point is just dreaming.

Will Civ 3 be playable? Of course. Will it be play-worthy? Eventually. I should say, though, I do have faith that Firaxis WILL work with the community to get the beta test results they should have been getting now. That, at least, is cause for hope, right?

Firaxis certainly ain't no Activision, thank God.

[kolpo]

I have been in the AO beta test a few months before it was released. There where so many errors in it and it's gameplay lacked so heavily that my first reaction was: delete all code,
execute all programmers and analists who worked on it and start again.

That beta test was not bug finding or something but is was more game finding It was very hard to find anything fun in that beta so I stopped after 2 weeks with playing. Even studing was more fun then playing that crap!(and it is not that I don't like the gerne I like UO) But I don't think civ3 will be that bad. I also don't think that firaxis are God's who can do nothing wrong but I think civ3 will be of a little above average quality at least(all games made by firaxis where that at least, even Gettysburg was of above average quality in my view).

[SSBLoveU]

Bugs Not-funny

The last PC game I purchased (excluding the limited edition of Civ. III) was Ultima 9. I could not get it work on my computer. It had too many bugs. It is the only Ultima I have not played. Over the last few years, I have been playing Zelda on the N64 system with zero bugs. I have also played Zelda on other systems with zero bugs. Only with THE PC games do I encounter bugs. I wrote an article about how unorganized the Apple and PC small computer hardware and software developed. It has to do with business and the stock market. I tell you the Elves are as mad as Hatfields with the materials and methods used to construct computers and its software. Why do N64 games have no bugs while frustrated PC players expect bugs? A designer knows if a game has bugs in it. Bugs are not funny. And they only discourage game players from playing a buggy game. The articles that I have read about Civ. III usually addresses the problems of bugs slowing the release of the game, and I think most people will agree it is a good idea to release no game before its time.

[SnowFire]

yin: Sort of a problem. I trust some game houses to properly in-test games for balance and fun and they don't need any help. Classic example: Phil Steinmeyer. As far as I know there was no beta for Heroes II, but he had one of the greatest games of all time there. Heroes III, while a bit less balanced, was still excellent, so even without Steinmeyer they were able to put something good together. The Myth games were a bit on the hard side (fixable via patch to make the two "easy" difficulty levels easier, if neccesary), but also finely balanced. Dwarves and Journeymen were too expensive to buy in multiplayer, but other than that...

But for whatever reason, I am somewhat distrustful of the game-playing ability of some of the Firaxians. I'm not saying that's a flaw, but you need at least SOME masters of the craft. I remember paging through a strategy guide for SMAC in the back of PC Gamer written by Tim Train (who has left to go to BHG), and no offense to Mr. Train, but he botched the job. Play it on a level higher than Talent Mr. Train and try those strategies. He said some things that sounded good but just plain didn't work in the game (like that because Yang has a low Economy you should try and build it up through Social Engineering. Idiot! That's MAYBE possible if you want to be both Free Market and Eudaimonic, but the bonus from -2 to 0 is pitiful for the price of Free Market. You need to get it to +2 or higher for there to be a reasonable payoff.). Frankly, he didn't understand the AI he helped design either. If I had to write two rules of SMAC, they would be thus:
A. The AI can't terraform properly. Therefore wait and get boreholes and crush your enemies with all the resources & energy they don't have because even though they have the tech, they will never drill a borehole.
B. In war, build nothing but High-attack rovers. Attack power is almost always better than defense power in SMAC, and while this strategy will get you burned against a human opponent smart enough to simply start using Comm Jammers, the AI will not figure that out. So your defense need be nothing but a bunch of counter-attack rovers.

Neither of these two ideas were mentioned. All he had was infantile advice that half the time was so basic it didn't help ("The Peacekeeper's advantage is large cities) and the other half actually counterproductive.

So no, I don't trust Firaxis to get play balance right. The AI from Civ2 to SMAC improved, but it did not keep up with the many new curves SMAC threw at it. I dearly hope that does not occur to Civ3.

[DarkCloud]

About the quality of game writing magazines:

MarkG or DanQ should get a job for CGM to replace the disgusting Cindy Yans who insults gamers and games as well as typing horrenous typos and showing her idiocy every issue.

They publish more letters insulting Cindy than any other of their reviewers.

She reviews Adventure and Online games.

[yin26]

So no, I don't trust Firaxis to get play balance right.

Of course, I would trust NO small group of people...even of great players...to get the job done. And no offense to Firaxis, but we know they spend more time working than playing. We know they aren't the top civvers around, and that's o.k.

What's not o.k., however, is to (for whatever reason) not then actively seek broad feedback. You mention Tropico, which is a great game. But that also has a NUMBER of flaws, things like buidlings that never seem to get built (or built YEARS later despite having lots of construction workers, etc.), cargo that doesn't get picked up for over a year, buildings that are essentially worthless (that have such a low rating for the cost, etc.) that clearly even that great effort could have been greatly improved by more open testing.

At the other end of things, I understand the evil of the bottom line and release schedules. It's a delicate balancing act to be sure. But here we have had a community on stand-by for over two years dedicated to helping Civ3 become a crowning achievement, and for all we know, we have been only noticed here and there but never taken particularly seriously. And if we have been taken seriously, it would be awfully hard to notice how.

The lack of a large beta effort has little to do with bugs, as I said, but everything to do with gameplay and acknowledging that the people you are designing the game for could very well help you design that killer game. And excuse me if I say Firaxis SHOULD seek all the help it can get on that front instead of releasing and HOPING things will work or be tweaked later.

Will Civ 3 be a great game out of the box? It will take time and interaction with the fans, that's for sure. I can only hope that process will be an open and productive one.

[Adm.Naismith]

Yin, you have realistic doubt about play balancing, having seen the game at work or not.

I mean, the game can end balanced or not, but play testing method Firaxis accepted (from publisher pressure, I suppose) doesn't seems that with best probability to achieve the best result.

We are not a group of privileged user, but we don't want to be privileged, only been of some help. Disclaimer: I don't want to have an early copy of the game, I don't want to volunteer myself for betatesting (I haven't the required hw, not the spare time, patience and ability).

I'm sure that a solid group of players can be found - here at Apolyton - that will die for helping Civ III to be the best TBS game ever. Firaxis assured us months ago they were planning that (they knew how useful it would been!) but now we know "that window doesn't opened".

What a pity. Will be a three months use of early buyers "guinea pigs" (no offence intended) enough to patch the game balancing right? Well, probably not if the tuning test will not be managed in some way.

So, as for a dedicated team of "bugs listers", Firaxis should try to reverse the timetable: start an "after gold open last tuning"!

Same as an open, coordinated beta test, only after the official release.
Call it "iron man tuning" or something like that, so P.R. people can speak about "advanced support for dedicated players" or similar BS.

Send to "iron mans" a free full game with a "number of use" lock (as some full demo do). If a player stop the flow of feedbacks to Firaxis the copy will expire as well after a fixed use (e.g. 20 games).

If the players end the "tuning phase" Firaxis must give him/her (e.g.) a free "CIV III limited edition" copy, or at least a discount on a regular buy.

It's only a proposal (others suggestions are welcome) to save the boat just in case the announced "best game ever" will be released "not so best" as it deserves.

[Urban Ranger]

Hold on a minute.

Play balance issues and weak AI routines aren't bugs. These are design issues, which have nothing to do with programming.

PC games are allowed to have bugs since PC software itself is allowed bugs. I blame this whole misplaced tolerance on Bill Gates. M$ crap is full of bugs, and users got desensitised to the issue over time. It's been getting progressively worse, too. Bugs were rare in the old days of Apple II and Atari 800. The Net wasn't for public use, so companies couldn't be lazy. Now? Ha

[yin26]

Play balance issues and weak AI routines aren't bugs. These are design issues, which have nothing to do with programming.

Precisely. Please see parts of my other posts here, like this one:

What concerns me a great deal more [than bugs], and what is far more likely to be of a concern come release time, are: PLAY BALANCE ISSUES AND WEAK AI. The autor touches on those briefly, but those are really the things to watch in Civ 3 beyond what should be only minor bugs. Heck, I can handle various bugs as long as gameplay and AI are strong...but NOT the other way around.

I like your ending point:

The Net wasn't for public use, so companies couldn't be lazy. Now?

I remember back in the early days of Pong (the home version) and the Commordore Vic 20 that things were awfully simple. Either you turned the thing on and it worked or something was wrong with your harware.

Then the platform wars (as in IBM 'clones') started a bit in earnest and, for a time, certain software retailers could only deal with the "compatibility issues" by agreeing to refund your money or exchange. I played a lot of games (or tried) back when you had to make stupidly complex boot disks (complex in the sense that you'd have to mess around with memory allocations, sound settings etc.) because not much was done to make the process painless. THAT was a real pain, but one could generally go back to the store and say: "It simply won't run." I'd say one in 5 games never even worked.

With the Net, however, things began to change. Retailers could see that companies now had a way to fix stuff after the sale of the product. Slowly but surely the burden shifted to the gamer to either download the fixes (if there were any), "fix" his machine or try to find somebody to buy or trade his game. It's quite rare to find a store with a lenient return policy these days, and buying through the Net (as I have to do living abroad) means I have NO opportunity to return any game. Period.

But for me, it's not about lost money but lost time. There are simply too many things to be done in a day and too many OTHER games that could have been so much more fulfilling than something buggy and desperately waiting for patches that might or might not come.

In the case of Ultima 9, I bought the Dragon Edition fully aware of the problems. Thus, when the HUGE box arrived, I simply looked at the contents and put the game on the shelf uninstalled. I waited a few months (3 or more?) before that "final" patch was released and Origin froze their boards with a sappy farewell message.

"Ahh," I thought. "Now might be a good time to play." So I installed it and had a really great time. Those who installed it before that final patch, however, (which was MOST people) walked away never to return.

Although I will order to the Limited Edition of Civ3, it will arrive here to me in Korea two weeks after everybody else has started playing. That, actually, is good because I'll be able to see what issues there are before I ever get the box delivered. If the issues are severe, I won't install until Firaxis has brought things up to speed. If things look mostly in place, I'll gladly get into things and play right along people enjoying things.

That's my compromise to myself. That's how I will keep my sanity. Of course, in some cases, the game never gets patched well enough and I waste some money. Look at Black and White. Tragedy...

[Urban Ranger]

I agree.

Back in the Stone Ages developers knew that they had to have their wares working right off the shelf. There was no way to cheaply distribute "patches." So they'd more careful with testing and all that.

Now they seemed to have become more reckless. Push the games out the doors first, patch them up later. As Father Beast pointed out Battlecruiser 3000AD would have been a great game with all the latest patches applied. In other words, it would have been a killer had it been given an extra year or so of time in debugging and QA.

Alas, many PC games nowadays simply have bad designs though, no amount of patching help. So that's why Civ 3 is so eagerly awaited, seeing that Sid himself is more or less at the helm, at least over the design aspects.

[Father Beast]

About play balancing and AI

I recall reading that the makers of Empire Earth have hired a number of experienced gamers to do their playtesting for them.
It sounds as if it would be really cool if they did that with civ3, hire some apolytoners to playtest.

but then, it has taken years for some of the big play imbalances in civ2 to be realized. the OCC size 1 was only played last year for goodness' sake!

[Sabre2th]

Sabre2th, don't sound so shocked about people waiting.

I'm not shocked. I'm just poking a little fun.

After CTP2, I'm waiting until I read some reviews first myself.

A lot of people are, but it's a different/better company that I trust. AFAIK, Craptivision was new to the TBS genre and was trying to follow what many consider to be the best game ever. (Note that I am ignoring their unsupported-ness )

but I'm sick of buggy software being released.

As are most, but Firaxis is INFINITELY better than many other companies out there, IMO. A smaller, younger version of Blizzard, even.

Furthermore, if the AI plays no better that SMAC or CTP2+MedMod2 why should I buy it? If Firaxis wants my money, they need to do better than the stuff I already have.

If that's the case, don't buy it. (but I don't think that will be the case.)

If everyone behaved like this, distributors would let developers take their time

Maybe. Or they might stop making games altogether! The industry would collapse!

Don't take anything you read on here too seriously Mister Pleasant. My post was just my way of saying absolutely nothing. Move on. Stop attacking me.

[loinburger]

How about a Game of the Year edition?

A nice new development in the gaming world is the Game of the Year edition (or Gold edition for those games that weren't named Game of the Year by a sufficient number of magazines). I bought the Deus Ex Game of the Year edition; all patches were pre-installed (including the multiplayer patch), and it came with a soundtrack as well. The price I paid was less than the price for the regular version of Deus Ex that originally shipped. Sure, I had to wait half a year or so to make my purchase...

There's a good chance that I'll buy the Civ III Game of the Year edition that will ship in six to nine months (the version that is already patched up, including the Multiplayer patch, and which also has some additional animations and unit templates for customizability), but until then, I'm sticking with Deus Ex.