Tweet
- Not that long ago, several civers thought it would be a really good idea if Firaxis waited with the Civ-3 release until spring-02 (the "they shouldnt rush it" argument). Now the single-player part together with all kinds of editors, is released before christmas-01, while the multiplayer-part is released spring-02. Why? Because Firaxis dont want to rush the multiplayer-part. Isnt this good news?
- Wasn't an October release planned for quite awhile ago, even though it wasn't public? I manage software projects and there's always a time-table that you are working at. If you say that an October release of Civ3 with bugs mean it was rushed. How about a Feb 2002 release that has bugs, would that have been rushed too? Or how about a July 2002 release? While I don't really care when Civ3 is released, to say that it was rushed because it won't be perfect, seems a little myopic to me. I mean, it's going through at least a 5 weeks beta testing cycle , that's more than what alot of other products go through, isn't it?
- I just had a horrible thought. What if Infogrames is french for Activision
- [The most voted for option in Korn's 'Is Civ3 being rushed?' thread] "No. Multiplayer is a little used feature that shouldn't delay the release, and all other feature will work fine."
- 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.
- I voted for Civ3 to be perfect in every way. Every thing I have read and saw points to this and the best thing that could have happen was no mulitplayer for 5 months. This means that Firaxis probaly never had any attention of wasting time on mulitplayer from the beginning and have instead spent all thier time on making Civ3 the best SP experince in gaming history.
- Just because a game go through patches doesn't mean it was rushed, it means that there is enough of a fan base that cares to make the game even better.
- Yin, all this "the game will suck if we dont give it 6 more months" shi-t is bull. they've worked on it for long enough, just trust them.
- I'm interested to know why many people feel that this game will be buggy if it gets released early? They've had a lot of time to make the game, and many people to make it. A bigger team than the team that made Black and White. (yes, I know it was buggy). This game is not a revolution in gaming, they're all using known knowledge. They weren't doing any serious major changes or additions. They were just simply making things better. So 3 years sounds perfect to get everything done and without bugs. And hey, October is just around the corner, can't wait. I'm really happy about it..
- [...quoting myself...]Trust me on this: If Civ3 gets released in October, it will be a good 3 or 4 patches before we come even close to getting the game it should have been. And just when we WERE getting close, Firaxis will decide it's time to move on or put the real fixes in an expansion pack to "justify" the programming time that should have been better allocated to begin with. I've seen it a hundred times.
Of course, I'm just a silly whiner with no sense of reality!
.
<== Watch that post from Markos soon with a locked thread and a message: "We don't need spamming 'I told you so' threads. Not everybody thinks the game was rushed."
Comment