Is Civ3 being rushed? Please vote

[korn469]

I justed wanted to see how the community feels on this issue. It seems to me that Civ3 is being rushed: no demo, no beta, no multiplayer all to make christmas. However many are arguing that civ3 is ready for release.

[korn469]

hey MarkG could you top this?

[Nikolai]

It's possible. Personally I have trust in Firaxis, I do not use multiplayer(not until now at least), but I'm afraid the game will get negative reviews in the press without multiplayer. A demo is not necessary for me, but again I think it is important for the recruiting of new players. A beta is not necessary for me, I can see the reasons for having it, but I think it will be fine even without.

In conclusion, I am a bit more worried than before, but not so much that I don't have trust in Firaxis!

[Pembleton]

What if they had never planned MP all along? If so, then how can you assume it's being rushed?

Did they ever announce that MP would definitely be included in the release? Of course, I assumed, just like most everyone else that there would be MP since it seems pretty standard in current games.

But if there was no announcement about MP previously, you cannot assume the game is being rushed if they hadn't planned on it in the first place. And I would bet that this was true since they supposedly hadn't started working on it until early August.

On another aspect, I don't know Sid Meier's history with regards to releasing early and patches. Has he rushed games before? If he has, then I would worry more about it, but right now I remain fairly neutral since I don't have compelling evidence either way.

[korn469]

Nikolai

I think that civ3 will be a good game, but that is not what i am asking. Do you think that the apparent time crunch will prevent civ3 from being as good as it could have been? Am I the only one who is worried at each news story that talks about how the lack of time has prevented this thing or that from making it in the game?

Like support for more players, it appears that a few small changes to a couple of screens would allow 16 players in the game at the same time (probably a HP, 14 AIs, and barbs), this to me makes me think that if the time doesn't exist for that, then maybe they should a little bit of time, even if they have to miss christmas because this feature would certainly increase sales.

[Ralf]

I dont like the NO options - they are biased.

The first option; "No! Civ3 is going to perfect in every way" is an impossible option, regardless of an oktober-01 or a may-02 release. The game can only be "perfect" after massive public feedback based on playing the actual game, and after and all pathes, adjustments, extensions + all the expected modpacks and great scenarios from dedicated Civ-fans.

The second option; "No. Multiplayer is a little used feature that shouldn't delay the release, and all other feature will work fine", is also negatively biased. It assumes that one values MP as an expendable Civ-feature that can be totally ignored - I dont. The second option should instead be...

- No, I believe SP is complete for autumn-01, and MP will be likewise for spring-02.

My vote is for the second No-alternative, but with above meaning.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by korn469
Am I the only one who is worried at each news story that talks about how the lack of time has prevented this thing or that from making it in the game?

perhaps they should not release any information on the game until it's release, and then say "yes, this is what we were planning all along, we didnt cut anything from the original design"


i voted "No! Civ3 is going to perfect in every way" cause i'm tired of all this based-on-pure-speculation discussion

[Nikolai]

Oh, sorry! I think I will answer the question as before: it's possible. After all, we don't know what exactly is going on inside the heads of the Firaxians , but, it's possible. I don't think it is necessary to have MP, as said above, but the fact that it's not in, can indicate a little bit rush, yes! Well, I'm optimistic as long as possible!

[korn469]

Pembleton well either they were planning multiplayer earlier this is from an interview with Sid on March 22, 2001 or it was one big misunderstanding

GSUK: How involved will the multiplayer component be? How do you intend to implement this?

Sid: We're working on a really fun and unique multiplayer concept that we'll talk more about when we're closer to completing it.

also i wonder if that story about firaxis not starting on multiplayer till august on civfanatics is true

[Capt Dizle]

You have this 100% backwards. The decision to hold off on multiplayer is PROOF the the game is not being rushed.

Again, you need to control your feeling and look at reality. A pre-Christmas release makes more money. Given the amount of time this game has been in development there is simply no possibility that it can be delayed beyond Christmas 2001. This was decided long ago. It was never and will never be negoitable.

Therefore the developer's have two choices.

1. Release it now with a MP element that they are not happy with or,
2. Release it in SP now and MP in the spring.

Option 2 is the one we want them to take.

Option 2 is financed by charging for the MP element.

That is good otherwise we would be stuck with a "rushed" MP that no one, lest of all the developers, would be happy with.

The poll is biased. Shame on you.

[History049]

Everyone here wants it rushed, but it'll end up being delayed.

[Transcend]

I already posted in another thread that I don't care for MP aspect of a TBS game. I'll be happy as long as they get the SP part done well and get the game out before the coming Christmas.

How many of your people do actually play Civ-like games in MP? I find its process long and painful.

[korn469]

jimmytrick

You have this 100% backwards. The decision to hold off on multiplayer is PROOF the the game is not being rushed.

I disagree. To me this is proof that they are rushing the game to make it out by Christmas, and yes I think that the overall quality of the game will suffer. They to focus time on what they felt was most important, and if this is true (and i still want to have firaxis confirm this because i can't believe that civ3 won't have multiplayer) then they didn't have enough time to focus on an important part of the game. Virtually all strategy games these days have a multiplay component, and not only that, SMAC who is the direct ancestor of Civ3 (engine wise) had multiplayer compatability.

Again, you need to control your feeling and look at reality. A pre-Christmas release makes more money. Given the amount of time this game has been in development there is simply no possibility that it can be delayed beyond Christmas 2001. This was decided long ago. It was never and will never be negoitable.

This is a horrible misconception. A release date does not determine how good a game will be. If civ3 comes out 10/30/01 it will have about two months before Christmas. Huge hits don't sell most of their games in two months. They do it over an extended period of time. If you look at the top ten selling games for the past year, Diablo 2 was on the list every week I think. If a game is good it will sell no matter what time of year it gets released.

If Firaxis is relying completely on Christmas, instead of the quality of civ3 to generate sales then we should be VERY worried.

1. Release it now with a MP element that they are not happy with or,
2. Release it in SP now and MP in the spring.

Option 2 is the one we want them to take.

Option 2 is financed by charging for the MP element.

So basically you fully endorse them charging for a standard part of the game? I disagree with that. Standard parts of the game should come in the box.

What if it came down to this

1. Release it now with an AI that they are not happy with or,
2. Release it without an AI now, and then include a good AI in the spring, charging for the AI of course.

I consider Multiplayer just as standard as AI so i consider my hypothetical options to be exactly the same as your suggestion

That is good otherwise we would be stuck with a "rushed" MP that no one, lest of all the developers, would be happy with.

The developers have the responsibility to make sure that they are planning and implementing all areas of the game from the begining of the process. If civ3 doesn't have multiplayer in it when it ships then something went wrong in the development process. Why should the fans be punished by having to pay 80 dollars instead of 50 dollars because either infogrames or firaxis made a mistake?

The poll is biased. Shame on you.

The poll is not biased. However, I am biased in my commitment to having the best possible civ3. I apologize if you would rather have a low quality product, and I am rocking the boat.

[isaac brock]

posted by korn469
It seems to me that Civ3 is being rushed: no demo, no beta, no multiplayer all to make christmas

Why do you claim there's no beta? It's in beta right now. I will take the optimistic view. While we don't know what goes on behind closed doors at firaxis, I have confidence that they will produce the worlds greatest computer game when it is released. I also have confidence that if they don't include multiplayer (which is likely, but unproven) that they will patch it as soon as possible, free of charge. Deus ex (entirely different game, i know) for instance, had a free multiplayer patch. It may seem like they have nothing forcing them to patch MP for free, but companies have nothing forcing them to ever patch at all, and firaxis is likely to release it free.

[tniem]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
You have this 100% backwards. The decision to hold off on multiplayer is PROOF the the game is not being rushed.

So what does not releasing a demo mean? Or that they are not doing a public beta that they said they would have liked to do?

That they have tons of time on their hand.

Again, you need to control your feeling and look at reality. A pre-Christmas release makes more money. Given the amount of time this game has been in development there is simply no possibility that it can be delayed beyond Christmas 2001. This was decided long ago. It was never and will never be negoitable.

Well I guess games such as the Sims, all Blizzard titles, Tropico, and many many other games that were not released around Chirstmas. Sure there are high sales but they are spread to many many games that are being released. None of which guarantees huge sales for your title.

Option 2 is the one we want them to take.

Option 2 is financed by charging for the MP element.

What happens if Civ 3 without MP doesn't sell because the reviews said that it was to rushed or that it gets lost in the Christmas shuffle? Just like CtP2 we will be without a good MP, they just won't do it for us. So they should delay the entire game until it is finished.