Civ3 from a programmer's perspective

[XPav]

As a programmer also, I'd have to say Firaxis did a good job. The game is stable & doesn't crash. There is a patch coming that fixes most of the bugs, and that list of fixes is HUGE.

[Malleus]

Originally posted by eRAZOR


The sad thing is that I was looking forward to this game for a long time and now that I've got the game I find myself playing a few rounds and suddenly feel the urge to exit the game and do something else. I'v never had this feeling with any of the previous installments of the civ series.

WOW! Someone finally articulated my feelings about this game! I didn't even realize I was doing this until you wrote this.

I too play only a few turns and then quit, only to come back later. The game is not immersive (funny, considering how many features they removed to make it more immersive), and not even very fun anymore (after two completed games and ten aborted games). I'm disappointed.

This, I think, is the basis for why people are so upset at the game: disappointment.

K

[Malleus]

[edit] Deleted double post. Sorry all.

K

[XPav]

Originally posted by Kromwel
I too play only a few turns and then quit, only to come back later. The game is not immersive (funny, considering how many features they removed to make it more immersive), and not even very fun anymore (after two completed games and ten aborted games). I'm disappointed.
K

(this is a general post, not referring to you specifically)

I used to be a big flight sim player. Then I burned out and haven't played much flight sims beyond a "fire em up and play em for a few minutes" session.

Could it be that those people that aren't getting into Civ3 are just burned out in general on turn-based civ-like games? If you've been playing Civ2 (and its cousins) for a long time and were starting to get bored and expect Civ3 to make you get into the game again, well, of course you're going to be disappointed when it doesn't suck you back in.

Is it Civ3's fault? Or is Civ3 just the catalyst that finally makes one realize that its time to move on?

I've seen this "players of Game X hate Game X+1" scenario happen many times. It's eerie how similar these events are sometimes.

If you don't like Civ3, hey, I can't (and no one else) can force you to like it. But before you pull out the flamethrower, take a step back, go for a walk, drink a beer, or whatever.

Relax -- it's just a game.

[Nadexander]

Re: Civ3 from a programmer's perspective

Making a game isnt just about writing software. The job of a game company is just as much to make a working design as it is to make a working piece of software, and it is just as important that they test and refine their design as they test and refine their software.

[Herder]

Hey Warpstorm, I resent being called a Troll. I *help* people on this board and answer their questions. I offer input. Re-read the definition of a troll.

And FYI, people are disappointed. Its an OK game but not Civ/Sid-Caliber.

Only 3 people on this thread have stated they are disappointed. Yes, programming is hard. Yes, mistakes are made.

However, if you can't see the obvious lack of detail in the game then I label you a Fanbois (that's worse than a troll.)

This forum is much more civilized about Civ III than the other forums I have seen. People are screaming.

I like alot about the game but I feel like they ripped the heart out to cut costs.

Will be a while before I buy another infogrames title, that's for sure.

I never said one word about combat results either.

[XPav]

Originally posted by Herder
However, if you can't see the obvious lack of detail in the game then I label you a Fanbois (that's worse than a troll.)

Obvious lack of detail for some = removal of irrelevant crap for others.

The definition of a sequel to some is "everything in the last game --- and MORE NEW STUFF". I mean, come on, are you upset about the removal of Caravans? The Wonder Movies being gone? The fact that the old Civ2 strategies don't work anymore?

Or are you just disappointed because Civ3 isn't Civ2?

[SIZE=1]This forum is much more civilized about Civ III than the other forums I have seen. People are screaming.

Lets see, the other place I frequent, comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic, has the same feel as this. Lots of people playing the game, and a few people screaming to high heaven for some reason.

And quite frankly, if people are screaming, they deserve to be ignored. It's a computer game. With everything going on in the world, getting one's panties in a bind because Civ3 didn't meet the expectations that one had created in one's own head is silly.

[SIZE=1]I like alot about the game but I feel like they ripped the heart out to cut costs.

Alright, lets keep going along this line. Exactly what "heart" are you referring too?

Remember -- Civ2 didn't have a scenario editor on release. Civ2 needed patches. Geez, Civ2 REQUIRED WINDOWS!

[Dan Baker]

Originally posted by rid102


That is utter nonsense. The goal of design is to produce a plan, idea and structure for solving a given problem without faults preferably in the most efficient and most maintainable way possible (and possibly aiming for some other SE principles).

Therefore a design with faults is indicative of a weak design.

Perfect Software! You got to be kidding me! Software relaibility is actually a quite well-understood equation of manpower, code complexity, testing time, etc. I blame bugs in Civ-III on Infogames, because these kinds of bugs are clearly due to insufficent testing (almost always the responsibility of the publisher, not the developer). Otherwise, the design of Civ-III was brilliant and far to subtle for most to understand.

Novices tend to think of programms as deterministic, exactly cut machines. After a while, it seams far more like a complex DNA strand - you don't 'write' code, you evolve it. Eventually, you stop evolving and make a species (i.e. ship). Most programmers don't beleive their is such a thing as a 'finished program'.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Dan Baker
Most programmers don't beleive their is such a thing as a 'finished program'.

Amen to that!!

[XPav]

Originally posted by Dan Baker


Perfect Software! You got to be kidding me! Software relaibility is actually a quite well-understood equation of manpower, code complexity, testing time, etc. I blame bugs in Civ-III on Infogames, because these kinds of bugs are clearly due to insufficent testing (almost always the responsibility of the publisher, not the developer). Otherwise, the design of Civ-III was brilliant and far to subtle for most to understand.

As a programmer, I'm also going to have to point the finger back out ourselves for being so damn bad at sticking to a schedule. We say "the program will be done at time X!", whose fault is it when its not done?

Deadlines aren't always arbitrary. For a commercial boxed software release, there are many thing that have to happen -- duplication, marketing, advertising, etc, that all have to be fit into a schedule.

[gaikokujin]

Originally posted by eRAZOR
Why on earth could they leave out stacked unit movement?
l8er

Yes, I would like to here a good answer to this, and not that it "didn't make the deadline". Stacked movement should have been part of the original design implementation spec in this kind of game. Not to mention that it vitally affects unit interception functionality.

[TheHobbit]

Originally posted by Kolyana
Also as a programmer, and not some JavaScript-wannabe, I must echo your thoughts and applaud them.

I'd settle for Javascript . Anything anything will do, I want to learn C++ but I'm a procrastinator. I NEED A SUPPORT GROUP!

[justin_sayn]

Blah

Programming Gem.
That's funny. Ha Ha funny even.

I really don't understand fanboys, even less one that claims to have been developing software for 20 years.

The author of this thread cannot possibly be a software developper. No self-respecting programmer would call this game a programming gem.

- The interface is so un-user-friendly it's pathetic.
And this for a game that has been around for 10 years, and spawned an entire genre. You'd think by now they'd have understood how to make a friendly user-interface.

- The programmers have given zero attention to the efficiency of the algorithms used in the game. Just reminding myself of the horrendous lenght of time the computer takes to do whatever it does each time any modification is made to the trade-network later on in the game fills me with disgust.

There is absolutely no reason for the algorithms that determine which cities are connected to one another and which cities are connected to which ressources to have their running time increase as the game moves along. If you know anything about algorithms, you'll understand my point. There are known algorithms to very efficiently determine which nodes of a graph are related to which other nodes. And since the map of a civ3 game is basically a giant graph where the squares are the nodes, the algorithms apply here. The running time of these algorithms are only dependent on the number of nodes, hence the number of squares, and last time I checked the map didn't get any bigger as the game moved along.

The same applies for shortest-path algorithms, so that can't be the reason either.

The insane amount of time taken by the game to do whatever calculations it does when the trade network is affected, is in itself enough to deem this software a poor effort in programming.

Then comes the infinite shuffling-around of the AI units.
That's either some very moronic design flaw or some algorithm that isn't performing as it should. Again, that makes this anything but a Gem.

What's more, some of the bugs found before the first patch are completely mindnumbing. What I mean is that they are bugs anyone would discover simply by playing the game once.

For example, the sorting bug on the production screen, the air superiority bug, and the bombard units sometimes often displaying no message at all after an attack (and that is a bug since Soren Johnson aknowledged it was a bug in a previous post) These are completely inexcusable.

The same principle applies to some "bad gameplay issues". For instance, the total uselessness of the privateers, the inability to upgrade units to a certain type because your unique unit prevents you from doing so, the constant badgering by the game of constantly asking you "do you want to hold an election".
Again these issues are automatically by anyone just by playing the game once.

Then on top of all that, the game has some immense design flaws.
Notably the amount of tediousness in the game and the many other that I won't go on repeating here since they are already the subect of many other threads (e.g.: the "losing all your units" when a captured city converts back"). The tediousness of the game however is particulary inexcusable in this case, since the Civilization series has been exisiting for 10 years now and has spawned an entire genre.You'd think by now the developers would have dealt with the tediousness issues that have been exisiting since the very first game.

With all this said, can someone please explain to me how a 20 year developper can call this a "programming gem", unless of course he's either not a programmer or he's a spin doctor for a company that is trying not to tarnish its image too much.

Note that the issues I have stated have nothing to do with wether one likes the game or not. I think even the most loyal of fanboys does not have it in him to accept with open arms this myriad of unnaceptable problems.

[johnny_boy]

Just thought I'd delurk to add my two pennies........

Unfortunately both sides of this argument have got valid points.

But I do have to take issue with justin_sayn.

He says that the maps doesn't change size as the game progresses so that the algorithms which calculate which resources and cities are linked to one another should take the same time.

Sorry, but I seriously doubt that it was implemented like that. I would expect that each Civ has a list of cities and their associated linkages to each other and to other civs, so that as the game progresses the processing get slower and more info has to be processed.

As for simple game flaws/blindingly obvious bugs, it is an unfortunate reality that a lot of testers don't report bugs correctly. As an example a tester once submitted a bug on a project I was working on and the description he gave of how he created the bug was incorrect, so I couldn't recreate the bug. I then tagged the report as unreproduceable.

Of course in subsequent versions this tester then had the bug occur again, and again. So instead of submitting a new report he simply reactivated the original report as not fixed. This went on and on until I actually picked up the phone and demanded to speak to this tester ( in this modern day and age, actually talking to people is frowned upon.....you must use the database dammit!!! ) and we eventually sorted the problem out, but only after two months. It was caused by a simple mistake and an insistence by the Publisher that we use their new superdooper bug reporting system. Unfortunately most publishers like to use the newest, biggest, shiniest things whether or not they are a good idea or not!

Right, back to lurking.........

[rid102]

Perfect Software! You got to be kidding me! Software relaibility is actually a quite well-understood equation of manpower, code complexity, testing time, etc.

I agree. However, I said it was the "goal of design", not that it was always attained in reality. Someone else seemed to assume the converse, hence my statement.

Everyone tries to write "perfect software" knowing it's something of a Holy Grail. No programmer I know sits down and says, "right I'm setting out to write a bugged peice of crap." They may end up doing that, but that's never the intention.

I blame bugs in Civ-III on Infogames

I blame bugs on the programmers 'cos their the ones who wrote the code. I also blame bugs on the testers 'cos their the ones who should find them before I do.

Otherwise, the design of Civ-III was brilliant and far to subtle for most to understand.

Yet another person who seems to have access to the Civ3 specification and design. Read my other posts and you'll understand why it's meaningless to make such statements (unless of course you really do have the Civ3 specification sitting on your desk).

Most programmers don't beleive their is such a thing as a 'finished program'.

I believe there are such things as finished programs. E.g. I get a specification, do a design, write some code, it's tested, integrated and re-tested, and that binary/library is for all intents and purposes finished. I don't have the time nor the inclination to start thinking about what I'm going to add or how I'm going to change it because by then I'm working on something else. I may want to add some stuff or change something but most of the time it's just not viable and there's more important work to be done. Software is finished when the customer accepts it, not when the programmer who wrote it finally works it out of their system. If customers need to put PR's/CR's in then that's their discretion and is another phase of the development cycle. If it does what they want and they don't feel the need for anymore messing with it, then it is for all intents and purposes finished.

We say "the program will be done at time X!", whose fault is it when its not done?

The person who made up figure X.