One result of this Civ3 debacle...

[TCO]

Re: Interesting

Originally posted by Ozymandous


It's not like we didn't have patches with Civ2 and even SMAC, so why are people calling Civ3 a "beta test". Dod you same people call SMAC and Civ2 a beta test when it was first released? Somehow I doubt you did.

A lot of the same commotion was present for Civ2 and SMAC. It's history repeating itself.

[RobRoy]

Re: Re: Interesting

Originally posted by GP
A lot of the same commotion was present for Civ2 and SMAC. It's history repeating itself.

I can't speak for SMAC, but for the CivI to CivII transition, you guys are a bit off base with this analogy.

Aside from a very few die-hard CivI fans who loved the simplicity of that game, most people I know loved CivII, without reservation. It was a smooth, finished, polished product, and it showed. It substantially advanced the state-of-the-art, lightyears beyond CivI, without sacrificing any of the features of CivI (except that cool history timeline you could get at the end). CivII was clearly playable right out of the box with virtually no major bugs (it was years before I realized there were bugs, and frankly they were minor, some I'd even call "features"). I can still load the original disk on a fresh machine without needing to go hunting around websites for patches (assuming single player mode). Most importantly, it kept that wonderful "just-one-more-turn" feel that CivI had, but which is clouded in CivIII (partly because of interface differences, partly because of bugs, and partly because there seem to be fewer paths to victory than before - at least at the more difficult levels).

Now the MGE, granted, had a few more bugs, and required patches. But MP is a more complicated environment, and I would expect more bugs (frankly I am skeptical that MP will ever be satisfactory).

Quite simply, CivII exceeded most people's high expectations.

CivIII didn't.

It's a decent game, maybe even worth the stiff price tag. Maybe the code was "good enough" to release, planning on a patch or two. Maybe I would even have made the same decisions. But it doesn't compare it favorably to the CivII release. It's tough to argue that CivIII advances the state-of-the-art, though it certainly delivered some new features, since it removed so many others that are arguably more important. (I'm referring primarily to the lack of scenario support and the inability to play historical earth maps, but to a lesser extent MP).

Actually, since it didn't even deliver what is claimed in its advertisements, a false advertising case could theoretically be made, but there is more than enough wiggle room to make such a pursuit a waste of time (and there is a caveat emptor prejudice in the U.S. courts, anyway).

[TCO]

RobRoy,

There were several patches for Civ2. Also there was the CivNet fiasco and the lack of MP. (Double edged issue. They released CivNet while secretly working on Civ2...and they didn't have MP in Civ2 itself.)

But I do appreciate your point of view. You may be right wrt Civ2. I never had Civ1.

WRT SMAC, I do remember lots of whining, bugs and patches...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Grumbold

Thank goodness I live in the UK where consumers have rights against faulty products then

Ya, same here

I haven't bought it and won't until a. they patch it or b. it ends up in the discount bin, which should be some time shortly after Christmas.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by IncreduloDriver


Oy vei! "Long suffering PC game consumers" pretty much sums up the shabbiness of this post. If you're suffering so darn much, why don't you stop playing games and end your suffering? Because you're not actually suffering, you're whining. You don't like a computer game? Don't buy it! Simple as that. You've got no right to demand high quality from Firaxis, just as they have no right to demand you buy anything they make. If they give it to you, great! High quality certainly insures higher profits. But, consumer protection laws? Complete nonsense! Next time Firaxis employees break your legs for not buying Civ 3, that's when you'll need protection laws. But not before.

Think of this version of Civ 3 as a beta test. Rather than play the beta for free and get the full version for $50, you pay $50 for the beta and get the full version free in a couple months (in the form of a patch).

Blh , blah, you didn't address the analogy. If music producers behaved like this they'd soon be out of business. But I guess music consumers are smarter than PC game consumers.

[TCO]

Smart is the wrong term

In a sense, yeah. But music can be crappy. (not in production quality but artistically. I've bought some albums I never play.)

The market* would rather pay 50 bucks for a buggy game than 100 for a flawless game. It's just basic marketing...


*for the technical types: a signifiicant segment of the market...

[SkinJob]

Originally posted by yin26
PM took complete responsibility for the release of that game, and it's clear to me that even another year in the over would not have saved it. The man was just not competent enough to realize his vision in any kind of timely manner.

Tough business, eh?

Yes, but he at least, is still designing his games, not just STICKING HIS NAME IN FRONT OF THE TITLE, and still has so much innovation in the games, not just making three games that are practially the same, with better graphics and one or two new ideas.

PM is one of the best gamedesigners, if not the best.

When i remember for how long i played games developed by PM....boy, that was times, that was games....


so long,

skinjob

[Zanzin]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


You ARE kidding right?? I dearly hope so, otherwise you have never actually looekd at the mechanics of their latest "hit", Diablo2.

It took them 4 years to put out a game that is worse, in most aspects, than Diablo1. Flawed skill trees, piss-poor equipment choices, extremely limited creature/foe choices (same 3-4 types of monsters ALWAYS appear in the same area), etc, etc, etc.

Then they release an expansion pack that not only corrupts the original game (you MUST download a patch for the XP that breaks the old game), but add's more unbalanced features and problems than it solves!!

Don't EVER hold Blizzard up as a company that is the best in the business for what they do because, quite frankly, they aren't.

I never actually had all the much experience with Diablo 2, but my at least 5 people I know did. If the game had as many problems as you claim it did, I think I would have heard about it - these people are the first to whine if a game has issues, believe me!!

My original post was really using Blizzard as an example of a company that has a good reputation for releasing solid products.
Tell me, is there another company out there with a reputation as solid as Blizzards?