Rushing civ3 might be a good idea!

[Mannamagnus]

At the moment everybody (well at least the "negativists" among us) is asuming civ3 is being rushed; even though there is no concrete proof for that.

Now suppose it is being rushed, how bad could that be?
If we forget for the moment about MP (I for one don't care about it), the result would be that we get a game early which might contain some bugs. But I trust the people on this board, all hardcore civ players, will sooner spot them than a selected group of beta testers who are being given mabe one or two extra months of testing. This again would allow the bugs to be patched faster.

So the cosequence of releasing it early would be us being like paying beta-testers who get a free copy of the perfectly working game after the first patch.

All in all I wouldn't mind this scenario if it means getting getting to play (a properly patched) civ3 sooner.

[korn469]

Mannamagnus

great idea in theory, except since all of the development money has already been spent then what little is left will go towards implementing MP

that, and the fact that many people might return a game that doesn't work as advertised, and then word of mouth will be horrible and will probably scare away even more customers

and if a game doesn't sell then there is no reason to support it

[yin26]

Two things:

1) "Un-paid beta tester" would only appeal to a small portion of the total population = Firaxis shoots itself in the foot.

2) Big Assuption: Firaxis will actually care to make these fixes after they already have your money.

[Mannamagnus]

Maybe you're right Korn. But that is assuming that the game on release is unplayable or sucks big time like CtP2 did, which I don't believe. Besides I think Firaxis/Sid has a good track record as far as patching/support is concerned.

[korn469]

Mannamagnus

you left out the best reason of all for firaxis to rush civ3 out the door

Lawyers from Infogrames!

[saracen31]

It's never a good idea to rush software out the door. You'd be amazed at how many people don't connect to the Internet often or don't have fast connections. Getting a patch download is a real pain for them.

And word spreads about buggy software in a hurry. It will deter potential customers. The best way to get patches quickly is to sell a lot of copies - therefore the company knows it has a commitment to, and potential to gain even more sales from, patching the game.

[Adm.Naismith]

Re: Rushing civ3 might be a good idea!

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
So the cosequence of releasing it early would be us being like paying beta-testers who get a free copy of the perfectly working game after the first patch.

AFAIK is Microsoft who introduced on large scale the horrible habit to force anyone to gladly pay for an unfinished product
While I can see the point for every developer out of the main Microsoft ring, to have early knowledge of the MS products to produce better add-on/software who use the Operating System in full, I can't understand why a player should pay to have the honour to work for a company.

I mean: OK, anyone can betatest for free and gain an early copy of unfinished game, and usually have a final copy free, but to pay good money now for a potentially defective product you hope will be patched in the future...

I'm speaking in general, not about Civ III alone.

All in all I wouldn't mind this scenario if it means getting getting to play (a properly patched) civ3 sooner.

If you haven't time and money to make a thing right tomorrow, you can't have time and money to accept it broken today

Come on, some minor bugs are inevitable, at acceptable costs, and a well done patch can solve the problem (but Internet download of many MB is still a problem, out of USA cable/large band connected houses/offices ).

A deliberate reduction on test efforts (no large beta, no demo) sounds horrible, full stop.

[Leonidas]

CivIII not being rushed?

Does deadline date mean anyhthing?

It's not just MP that's been put on hold. Consider:

1) no 800x600 resolution
2) no demo
3) no outside beta testing
4) only 16 civs
5) odd-looking roads
6) zoom function?
7) it's going to be buggy - the game is way too complex to rely on a few testers over a period of a few weeks
8) what about all the shortcuts that have been taken that we don't know about?


Firaxis should have stood up to Infogrames. Microsoft tried to get Ensemble to release Age of Empires early, but the developers convinced Microsoft that they had a great product and that they needed more time and money to finish the game the way THEY wanted to. The rest is history. The Age of Empires franchise is well-known for how few bugs are in the game series. It seethes with quality.

The moment I hear about a game being released because of a deadline, I put my wallet back into my pocket. . .

[Mannamagnus]

Maybe you're right Leonidas but:

CivIII not being rushed?

My hypothesis: rushing might be good

1) no 800x600 resolution

A design decision imho not related to rushing especially if you consider when this decision was made.

2) no demo

Don't know why this is though it might be because people (like me) were in the past able to play a complete game of SMAC after applying a hack.

3) no outside beta testing

Haven't got a clue either why this is but there were more games that didn't use outside beta-testing and were not rushed.

4) only 16 civs

This is a feature (even though many dislike it)

5) odd-looking roads

Personal opinion; I love the way they look.

6) zoom function?

Don't know why this is; again it might be a design decision. I never use the zoom function.

7) it's going to be buggy - the game is way too complex to rely on a few testers over a period of a few weeks

My point exactly; release the game and within a week 99% of all bugs will be identified.

8) what about all the shortcuts that have been taken that we don't know about?

Speculation.

Firaxis should have stood up to Infogrames.

Again speculation. I haven't heard from anyone being present at those meetings. So I will give Firaxis the benefit of the doubt.

Mind you Leonidas, you might be right on all counts but so far there is no solid proof on any of these points. So rather than being a profit of doom and gloom I prefer to look forward to a potentialy wonderful game which gives as many hours of addictive enjoyment as civ2 did.

[Leonidas]

Quote by Mannamagnus:

Mind you Leonidas, you might be right on all counts but so far there is no solid proof on any of these points. So rather than being a profit of doom and gloom I prefer to look forward to a potentialy wonderful game which gives as many hours of addictive enjoyment as civ2 did.

Like you, I am also looking forward to the game. But remember, the higher the expectations, the farther you have to fall. The fact that the game has a deadline means that things will be left out of the game, and shortcuts will be taken. This is based on a long history of playing a lot of games and on just common sense.

In a game this complex, do you really think that 99% of all the bugs will be fixed in one week?

From the sounds of it, this game should have been released in the Spring - then everything that should be in the game would be, including MP, more civs, more testing time, and maybe. . . even a. . . a. . . demo. . .

[Daniel Frappier]

For a long time we heard from Firaxis that this was a 2002 game and not even a early 2002 and then at some point (around when infogrames shares went from $10 to $4) they made a 180 turn and all of it was replaced by things like "well we have been working on it from a long time" and bla, bla, bla....

We can speculate that if this was a Blizzard game it would still be a long way out of the door. Bugs are not so bad, what about features like great leaders (other than military) that were supposed to get test and issues like game balance and AI that almost never get adressed in patches.

There is no fire but oh boy there is a lot of smoke here!

[mactbone]

I would just like to point out to everyone that if designers got to put everything they wanted to in the game, we'd never see it. It's just like writing, you don't finish, you just decide to let go of it.

[Daniel Frappier]

Yes but in that case it's not the designer that decide to let go of it but the infogrames executives that needs to see their stock go up before the end of the year so they can profit from their stock options.

Why do you think mid October is such an important deadline (not Christmas), it`s because they need the game to have time to impact on the 4th quarter.

[d_dudy]

they've been working on this damn game forever. it doesn't need non military leaders anyway, and how do you know they haven't tested it already? they've got to be doing something with all the damn time they have.

does firaxis have a four day work week? three day? i say they've had enough time and the game will be ready. as bug free as can be expected from any normal game

[Leonidas]

Infogrames is cashing in on Sid's name to bring in a bundle before Christmas, er. . . before the end of the current business cycle.

The suits don't play games, but they sure do listen to their investors and read bottom lines. . .

I'm just amazed that Meier has allowed his flagship game - the greatest strategy game of all time - to be used in such a callous manner as this one.

A game this complex needs a lot of playtime and testing and tweaking.

This explains alot though. Including eveything else that has been mentioned that is missing from this game, it may also explain why Alexander the Great doesn't look like Alexander the Great. All the other leaders look like they should. It may be that they ran out of time to do a proper portrait and tacked on this extra image instead (this image was probably meant to represent some other leader that might have come out in an expansion pack).

Regardless, it shows a sloppy, rushed approach that is disheartening to say the least.

I just hope the Civ3 gaming community will be as happy as the investors come January. . .