My Conclusions about the Firaxis-Community relations

[Libertarian]

Actually, Yin has demonstrated a willingness to change his mind and adjust his outlook in the face of compelling argument. I greatly admire him for that.

[Xentropy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Warning: Off topic post ahead!

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
Take the editor for example, it was promised (and I quote) "an un-presidented editor, with greatly expanded scenario building tools"... my wording might be slightly off.

I wasn't promised that. I consider an editor a "nice plus", not part of a product. For one, I expect a nicely expanded editor in an expansion pack or future patch, and two, I didn't buy the game assuming there'd be an editor at all. Looking over beside me just now, the box says, "Game Editor Suite lets you create customized civilizations, maps, and rules." This it does. I don't expect more from a game than it says it has. I don't see the word "unprecedented" anywhere.

That said, your previous arguments have all been about the GAME, not the EDITOR. I frankly couldn't care less about the editor, so let's see if any part of your post is meaningful . . .

>cuts out a lot of drivel about the editor waiting for a game issue; wow, what do you know, there goes 90% of the post<

"squeeze me" ? I never said that I couldn't play Civilization III, there you go putting words in people's mouths again.

Eh? I never said you couldn't play either. What are you talking about?

I SAID that the game is full of bugs (like corruption for one) . . .

Corruption is not a bug, it is a feature. If it were a bug, it wouldn't be in the Civilopedia. Now, you may think this feature goes overboard and is flawed, but the belief that it is flawed is an opinion, not a fact.

Can you read? Or shall I repeat it? I never at any time said that the game is bad, or that people shouldn't play it. You're just twisting things. If I were to say "Civilization III sucks" then I would be stating opinion, but I'm not, I'm simply saying that they sold us a lousy version of it. And again that's opinion. But the "reason(s)" for it being lousy, are based on "design-flaws" which are FACTS (want more proof? let me know!) not opinions.

The design is made up of facts. The "flaw" part of "design flaw" is your opinion, however. I personally LIKE the corruption design, to keep growth in check. It will be especially nice in multiplayer, so games genuinely last into the modern age instead of one player having the definite lead and the game being effectively over by the time you hit years AD. The player in the lead has more corruption to deal with. It's a playing-field-leveler. The ONLY flaw in the design in my opinion is that the AI doesn't seem to be affected by it, so in single player it's flawed in some ways--mainly just serves as extra difficulty to overcome.

I'm not talking about the color of the box that it was sold in, I'm talking about the incomplete editor, and lack of scenario design..

Not sure where I said anything about the color of the box, either. But neither did I say anything about the editor. Nor do I have issue with you thinking corruption is a design flaw. People are entitled to their opinions. My issue is with your not understanding that some of your fellow human beings do not consider it flawed, and that it is an opinion of yours, not a fact.

Now, I'll go ahead and address the editor since that appears NOW to be your biggest issue. If your previous posts mentioned the editor, I skimmed over those parts and focused on the parts where you have issues with the game. In this particular post, though, your entire post was basically a rant about how some "promise" of an "unprecedented editor" went unfulfilled. A promise I never saw, and which was probably stated a year before the game released.

Maybe you're new to computer gaming, and if so, I respect that, but when you've been playing computer games and been a part of online communities for ten years, you learn to take absolutely nothing that is stated about an unfinished project as true until the product is complete. That same law can be applied to almost everything outside computer gaming as well, so best you take it to heart as soon as possible.

Plans change. Designs change. Sure, it'd be nice if the editor were as good as they originally planned it to be, but in other ways, I'm glad they were flexible, since if the whole game was exactly like they envisioned it a year ago, or two years ago, it would be nowhere near as polished and enjoyable as it is in its current form. I suspect Infogrames pushed them to release the game before they had the editor in a form they would have liked, but they have stated on this board time and time again that they would STILL like the editor to be much more versatile and there is almost no chance that it won't BECOME more versatile in the future, either in a patch or expansion pack.

Meanwhile, have fun with the game as it is now! My god, it hasn't even been out two months yet; there is a TON to do with the stock settings! Just in time for the stock game to get boring, the editor will be out, and I can make the mod I've already got complete design notes for and am simply waiting for the tools to create. I will personally send you ten US dollars if the tools never become available to have civ-specific starting locations and the ability to add new civs/units/city improvements. I'm THAT certain my patience will pay off. Note: This offer only applies to CharlesUFarley. No wise guys expecting me to owe everyone who views this post US$10 if no patch or expansion includes significantly more complete editing tools.

No, I don't think an editor will ever contain every last thing everyone could ever possibly want. But I have utter faith that civ-specific starting locations and the like will become possible. A scripting language to allow triggers and such probably won't ever exist, but with a little work and good thinking, the vast majority of mods will be doable. Just give them a little time.

[yin26]

Lib:

But I think I've changed my mind: No more changing my mind. LOL!

[Jrad]

You know, Rareware LTD/Nintendo kept delaying games and delaying games until they were sure they were perfect, and for the most part, with the failure of the N64 (It was pretty much a failure), I'd have to say games like Perfect Dark, Banjo-Kazooie, Goldeneye did very well. Even though you have some people who might run around screaming "NOOOOO! They delayed it AGAIN!" I think that would be better than some of the backlash that has come across at least here at the Apolyton forums. When Rareware decided to remove for instance the Camera/Perfect Dark option, they delayed the game six months to fully extract it, and this allowed for correcting other glitches. When Rareware added Multiplayer to Goldeneye, they delayed Goldeneye at least a month to get it ready.

Perfect Dark though is an example of how you can infinitely delay a game and it won't really affect sales-sure it made a lot of people angry, but by the time it came out the people forgot that they were mad, and even though Rare was taking out something, not adding it, my point is Civilization could probably have been delayed to add the Multiplayer without a big fuss. The date of the release though happens to coincide with Christmas, so the fact that features were removed in a rush simply tells me that this is the fault of the developer/publisher/both to make as much money as possible on the season, especially with the coming recession. It is my strong belief though if this game was delayed about six months until April, then much more would have been sorted out, and much more would have been corrected. And I know I probably would not get an official reply to this as someone like Dan, but one must consider the fact that Civ 3 has had pretty lackluster Christmas sales recently (so it seems), especially compared to Civ 2's sales...But I felt it would be fair to state that many successful games (Goldeneye 007 is the most notable I can think of off hand) have been delayed for eons.

If it makes you feel any better, I've played an alpha version of Sonic 2 (You can download it from places, illegally-but this isn't as illegal, since it has no known copyright, so if you hold a legal Sonic 2 cartridge, this might be legal...the law on stolen roms from Sega itself is not so good, and Nintendo hasn't shut down the ROM sites that carry the alpha/beta versions of Sonic 2, Sonic Spinball and Sonic CD...which can mean something), and that was a rush release and highly incomplete to make Christmas, but was really fun (I was 7, so hey...) and sold incredibly well, as well as being a sequel to Sonic One...the difference between Sonic 1 and 2 and Civilization II and III? I think that the Civilization fans are mostly older and have slightly more refined tastes than a kid. Mistakes are much more noticeable. On the positive to Civilization, one must remember patches can be made...something that didn't occur with Sonic 2. But the mistakes being noticed are of much stronger note than that of those of Sonic 2...Developer teams might not be able to alter the program too easily, and this might affect the patch, so not everything can be addressed...

This is a dense post that is all over the place, but I think I can sum it up in one or two sentences: Civ III should have been delayed, it is unlikely it would have affected sales too much negatively and would have probably helped positively in the long run, and it might have been easier to delay it-as some games have-to make sure it was absolutely finished to sell millions.

And an idea I heavily support is for Beta testing. I think giving a Beta copy to trustworthy sources (Confined to legal punishment to ensure their trustworthy sources) for volunteer testing would have gone very well in addressing some issues and getting more input on the game...and for pay, the volunteers get a free copy of the finished products. Many issues coming out now might have been found months before the release, and ideas to separate it from Civ 2 (This is not my complaint but it is a major complaint of the game by a lot of people) could have flowed in, as well as the tedious micromanagement I complain about.

As a side note, I do not believe that Infogrames/Firaxis have the best relationship, and that is putting it mildly. Certain Firaxis reps have seemed to be more than willing to blame Infogrames for some screw-ups, which shows some hostility towards Infogrames. This might have been caused by a number of things, but this generally takes away from the quality of the finished project...it is my view on the pattern of what had occurred with the games release and post-release comments by the Firaxis team that the blame resides for Infogrames. I should note that I have no clue what is going on/had occurred during the games development, yet it seems like these problems stem from Infogrames demanding a strong and sturdy pre-Christmas deadline, not allowing Firaxis to delay the game. And if this is not the case, than I'd like to know what is. Generally delays are thought up by the developer and allowed or shot down by the publisher, and from certain vague messages from Firaxis, it seems like the publisher wouldn't allow these delays, meaning most of Civ III's failures lie on the publisher, but I blame Sid Meier's arrogence on that garbage CD I got with the LE and that he would allow such a thing to be released, especially if he did not concieve the idea...

And on another side note, I play Civ III multiple hours a day (too many), and I enjoy the game a lot. My dissatisfaction for certain things is not as large as lets say a hardcore fanatic, but this is my opinion...If there is a Civ IV, don't make a deadline in fact, and don't say when it was released. There would be complaints about the uncertainty of information and other complaints, but in the end most people will be happy. And you can't make everyone happy. No doubt, there were mistakes on Civ 3 (My opinion is most of them are the publisher's fault...) . The next game hopefully will show them corrected.

And as for not answering information, Dan is 100% right. Too much causes expectations. Give as little as possible, but not so little that you don't let your fans know that the game is coming along in development. And the fact that Firaxis answers posts at all shows that they do listen to their consumers, as Firaxis is the only company I've seen to do this, whereas companies like Rareware, Nintendo, and the Sonic Team, seem to snub everyone and everything.

[CharlesUFarley]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Warning: Off topic post ahead!

Originally posted by Xentropy
I wasn't promised that. I consider an editor a "nice plus", not part of a product. For one, I expect a nicely expanded editor in an expansion pack or future patch, and two, I didn't buy the game assuming there'd be an editor at all. Looking over beside me just now, the box says, "Game Editor Suite lets you create customized civilizations, maps, and rules." This it does. I don't expect more from a game than it says it has. I don't see the word "unprecedented" anywhere.

Man... this is like trying to tell a kid "No, you can't have that toy". Nope sorry man, I know what i read. It said "un-presedented editor with greatly expanded scenario design". Now all you can do is call me blind.

That said, your previous arguments have all been about the GAME, not the EDITOR. I frankly couldn't care less about the editor, so let's see if any part of your post is meaningful . . .

You make a good point. I am talking about the editor, not the game. The game is fine, if your that easily impressed. So what are you doing talking to me? Go play the game. Because you won't ever change my mind.

>cuts out a lot of drivel about the editor waiting for a game issue; wow, what do you know, there goes 90% of the post<

In this forum, yeah. But you're on glue if you think that 90% of the Civ3 consumers agree with you. You better go see what everyone is talking about so that you can "finally" speak from experience. And I quote.........(I'll bold the interesting parts)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author Thread < Last Thread Next Thread >
Desert Dog
Chieftain
Nov 2001 16-12-2001 05:34

Over Rated big time!

I laugh really hard whenever the web site is updated or I see a magazine or game show give 9.0 and higher to Civ 3. Maybe even game of the year it is just so ridiculous that is funny. At least in my opinion anyone who has played a turned based civ style game will have issues with the game. Not to mention the horrible bug ridden code. The patch comes out and the patch actually makes the game more unstable. Firaxis says it is our fault for our expectations when we complain of problems. Bugs are big problems with the game where things are broke. Other MAJOR issues are the game play. Not only is the military totally unbalanced the game is not quite working in all areas.
I am convinced that none of these people who are rating the game high have really played a full game on a large map. Nor do I think any one who is considered a empire builder would like the game play very well. The game has potential but should have not been released until first quarter of 2002 they know it too.
I am a BIG fan of the series. I love all GOOD turn based games. I am hoping that they will wake up and fix the problems. Civ 3 looks, smells and tastes like a bad version of Call To Power. Currently the game deserves a rating of no more then a 6.5 - 7.0 at most. My opinion anyways!
Desert Dog
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there is more where that came from!

Eh? I never said you couldn't play either. What are you talking about?

Obviously my memory isn't as short as yours, but then again your only arguing with me for the "joy" of it, so the least I could do is humor you. You were saying that you like the game, and enjoy the game, and it plays good. I was agreeing with you, and I was making the point that at no time did I ever declare Civ3 unworthy of "playing". It may not be worth the over-exagerated advertising, or the $50 canadian that I paid for it. But thats ofcoarse my opinion (based on the results).

Corruption is not a bug, it is a feature. If it were a bug, it wouldn't be in the Civilopedia. Now, you may think this feature goes overboard and is flawed, but the belief that it is flawed is an opinion, not a fact.

Yeah so? I wasn't talking about the corruption, I don't care about it, personally I was able to play around it.

The design is made up of facts. The "flaw" part of "design flaw" is your opinion, however. I personally LIKE the corruption design, to keep growth in check. It will be especially nice in multiplayer, so games genuinely last into the modern age instead of one player having the definite lead and the game being effectively over by the time you hit years AD. The player in the lead has more corruption to deal with. It's a playing-field-leveler. The ONLY flaw in the design in my opinion is that the AI doesn't seem to be affected by it, so in single player it's flawed in some ways--mainly just serves as extra difficulty to overcome.

Sorry, the only thing that is opinion here, is what *you* think of Civ3. I'm not basing my complaints on "what I think of Civ3" I'm basing it on "inflated advertising" and "direct confirmation" in the form of emails from members of Firaxis. Not to mention the obvious...my personal 80+ hours of playtest. And I have evidence to support it, you've seen some of this evidence. Yet you still disagree with me. My mind is unchanged, these are design flaws.

Not sure where I said anything about the color of the box, either. But neither did I say anything about the editor. Nor do I have issue with you thinking corruption is a design flaw. People are entitled to their opinions. My issue is with your not understanding that some of your fellow human beings do not consider it flawed, and that it is an opinion of yours, not a fact.

Yes, for once I agree with you. Those are merely opinions not facts. Corruption is part of the game, and was coded that way, therefor it's not considered a design flaw. And you're right, there are a great number of people out there that enjoy Civ3, like yourself for example. Again I wasn't talking about corruption, or the overall gameplay, even though alot of people still seem to have a problem with it. My complaints go to the "customizability" of the game. Consider the "editor" a puzzle, it's simply missing pieces... and without those pieces it cannot be considered an "editor" but merely a "rules modifier". And without those pieces we cannot do what they promised us, create "greatly expanded" scenarios of all ranges. That my friend is FACT.

[QUOTE]
Now, I'll go ahead and address the editor since that appears NOW to be your biggest issue. If your previous posts mentioned the editor, I skimmed over those parts and focused on the parts where you have issues with the game. In this particular post, though, your entire post was basically a rant about how some "promise" of an "unprecedented editor" went unfulfilled. A promise I never saw, and which was probably stated a year
before the game released.
[/QOUTE]

I like how you cast off any definate truth to my statements, with a few lazy keystrokes. The fact that you haven't heard of it, closes my case. It was posted everywhere, and yes a year before the release, 6 months before the release, and 1 month before the release. Point being, it was posted everywhere. Game sites all over the net, as well as game magazines, and articles. I even talked with members of Firaxis (as I mentioned before) asking them direct questions about the editor, and the scenario design capability, they said it was completely expanded, and detailed with the ability to do anything. Not to mention the countless fans and community members all talking about it in the forums, prior to its release. There is absolutely no logic in you or your presence in this forum. You not only make no sense to me, but I doubt anyone else can understand you either. The FACT is, your only in here to brag about how much you like the game. And cut down people who don't agree with your "joy". Well, guess what? We don't care. One way or another, we are here to justify our conclusions about the Firaxis-Community Relations, and the concerns for the game concepts that made Civilization good. Not someone flapping because they can't take Civ3's obvious rejection.

Maybe you're new to computer gaming, and if so, I respect that, but when you've been playing computer games and been a part of online communities for ten years, you learn to take absolutely nothing that is stated about an unfinished project as true until the product is complete. That same law can be applied to almost everything outside computer gaming as well, so best you take it to heart as soon as possible.

I agree with only one of those statements. You can't take a product seriously, until it is finished. But you can't expect everyone to go "Oh wait.. I shouldn't be mad, it was only an advertisment, and even though they promised certain features for our dollar, I should just walk away not angry!" In the REAL world, people get upset. In the REAL world people get let down, and not to mention the worst part of this whole thing we spent MONEY on this game. I dont know about you, but this is my OPINION, I don't buy something unless I like it, how are we supposed to know if we like a game or not WITHOUT BUYING IT? See my point now? We would have never known what Civ3 was about, until we bought it. They knew this. Thats why they inflated their ads, and made it appeal to the mod-community, in a strong sense, betraying our trust with illusive stories about what Civ3 was going to be. They LIED.

Plans change. Designs change. Sure, it'd be nice if the editor were as good as they originally planned it to be, but in other ways, I'm glad they were flexible, since if the whole game was exactly like they envisioned it a year ago, or two years ago, it would be nowhere near as polished and enjoyable as it is in its current form.

Nope. Some of my friends are commercial designers and software engineers for companies based across Canada, and comparing information with them, as they have played the game, otherwise this would be pointless. They insisted that Firaxis (and their reputation known) with a fabulous team of designers, they have no excuse for the final product the way it is. I agree with them. Now they're only going to waste MORE of our time with patches that dont even work half the time, and an expansion that they'll probably charge us for again!

No, I don't think an editor will ever contain every last thing everyone could ever possibly want. But I have utter faith that civ-specific starting locations and the like will become possible. A scripting language to allow triggers and such probably won't ever exist, but with a little work and good thinking, the vast majority of mods will be doable. Just give them a little time.

Ofcoarse I'll give them time. But I won't pay anymore money. These results whatever they will be, better be free. And I do believe Civ2 had a great "Events" tool. I don't see why this one couldn't have the same. Does everything have to be about money, business' all over the world give regular customers excellent consideration and treatment. Why can't a game company to it's fans?

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

*Zentropy*

I do not wish from this point on to discuss the same thing over and over with you. It's obvious your an optimistic game lover, and a light-core fan of Civ3. I won't tell you what to "like" or "dislike". I won't tell you what is "Fact" or "Fiction" and I certainly won't plagiarize what is "lies" or "truth". So don't you!

Are we here to blab about how good Civ3 is, or are we here to discuss what is "wrong" with it, so that we may fix it? I don't know about the rest of you, but if the game was so good, I wouldn't be in here talking about it, and wasting my words on someone like Xentropy, I would be playing the damn game!

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

*Xentropy*

Here's more evidence of the "flawed" Civ3. And I quote!

Courtesy of Eletronics Botique - Customer Review/Sales.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
StevenHaas(steventheboar@yahoo.com) on 12/10/2001
GRAPHICS GREAT, ENJOYABILITY POOR
This was one game I was really looking forward to, but after struggling through the game it is a major disappointment. I started off buy playing the game on warlord (the second easiest setting) and got crushed early on. I figured I just haven't figured out the new culture system and what not. I played on the easiest setting and it was a breeze, not even the slightest bit of competition. Having figured a few things out, I went back to warlord, and out of ten civilazations I was dead last in everything you could think of. The combat system is horrible, Elite prime defenders with a terrain advantage got mowed down by inferior troops who barely broke a sweat. Most other nations were already through the list of city names and were starting up again with New whatever. Mind you this was even before they got to the first era change. I'm seriously dissappointed at the mechanics of this game. Oh, and I don't blame Sid Meier, he didn't work on this piece of garbage, it's his in name only, according to Extended Play. If you enjoy beating your head on a brick wall, by all means by this game. You'll find my copy in the used PC games section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 12/7/2001 writes:
TOP 10 REASONS NOT TO BUY!
10. No "Wonder" movies!!
9. The interface is redundant in some areas while too restrictiveon info in others.
8. You want a realistic world map with historical starting locations!
7. The tech tree looks like it was designed by a chimp!
6. Scrolling accross the map is choppy!
5. You find it a little hard to believe a medeival knight can destroy your tank!
4. There's no multiplayer!
3. You would like the game to include scenarios!
2. You want to be able to make scenarios or mods!
1. You expect your fighter planes to actually have the ability to intercept bombers like they're supposed to!
I was a major Civ fan until this garbage was released.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 11/30/2001 writes:
INCOMPLETE RIPOFF
I agree with the majority of people who were disappointed with this game. The overall feel I get is that I'm playing Civ 2 with slightly improved graphics. After several years of development I would expect a lot more from a civ game. This one is just full of bugs. Who tested this game? The AI is also not worth mentioning. In one of my cities I had at least 10 fighters doing air superiority missions. However, it didn't seem to do any good because the com just kept boming away, with none of his bombers getting shot down. What's even the point of having fighters? Overall I felt that I had been ripped off. As a loyal fan of civ games I went out and purchased this one without any hesitation. In the future I will be more carefull at purchasing any game with the name "Civilization" on it, no matter what number comes after it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 11/27/2001 writes:
READ THIS B4 YOU BUY
I've been playing civ ever since the 1st one. I got civ1 the first day it came out. Civ2 was a big improvement over civ1 lots of new things. I was expecting the same from Civ3, ok culture is cool but how long did it take to make this game again? a few years? you gotta be joking. They add culture and some graphics and animations and some new units. Man this is not a sequel more of a big upgrade. I HATE THE NEW BATTLE SYSTEM!!!! Who ever complained about the battle system in civ2? hardly anybody Why did they change it back to almost the same lame system of civ1? NO CLUE Did sid meier and his team really listen to the fans? somewhat but not really because if they did then the battle system wouldn't be so jacked up having a knight or samurai kill my tank is disgusting (obviously this game was only play tested by some developement people and wasnt play tested by true fans) If they had listened and let true fans play this game they would've seen this problem b4 releasing it. AND YES! IT IS A PROBLEM that is not my only complaint, but it's by far the worse design decision I've seen the civ series take. BRING BACK FIREPOWER!!! OR AT LEAST AN OPTION TO TURN IT ON LIKE IN CIV2 BRING BACK THE MOVIES AND ADVISOR ANIMATIONS TOO(HOW THE HELL DID THAT TAKE AWAY FROM GAMEPLAY as stated on the official civ3 website? ABSURD) They called it a game years in the making? Nuh-uh i say More like "hey its time to make some more money lets just update some of this stuff and push it out to product" didn't listen to what a majority of the fans would've liked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 11/25/2001 writes:
COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
Other than its speed issues, and lack of upgrades since Civ II, Civilization III is not such as bad of a game as people make it out to be. However someone needs to tell the people that made this game: I DONT CARE WHAT THE SITUATION IS, WARRIORS FROM THE YEAR 4000 B.C. WILL NOT BEAT UP ON PANZER TANKS IN COMBAT!! And yes, it has happened to me so dont ask.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A customer on 11/23/2001 writes:
A MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT!
I was eagerly expecting this release, but was majorly disappointed. The game and graphics improvements are minimal. If you have ever played the previous civ's you would get nothing new as a gaming experience from this release. And comparing it to the "call to power" versions of the civilization games, civ 3 looks like an infant! Not only graphics and interfaces are inferior (comparing it to almost any new strategy game out there), but also basic strategy gaming concepts such as AI behavior, diplomacy, battles, and trade are way behind (comparing it to the ctp version of the civilization) or at almost the same level as in civ2. I totally agree with one of the previous reviewers that this should have been a very cheap upgrade to civ2 and definetely not a new release.
And to reiterate again, not a wise way to spend your money if you already have civ2 or "call to power".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want more proof? Let me know, there's plenty more where that came from! More of this information can be found at "EB.COM" under "Civilization III - ten reasons not to buy civ3" incase anyone is wonder (Xentropy).

Charles.

[Barnacle Bill]

There is so much in this thread already that I can't begin to respond in detail to everything. There are some points I'd like to make, though.

1) Firaxis did indeed advertize a lot of hype about how great the scenario editor would be - especially on their web site. That counts as "promises" much as anything printed on the box.

2) Civ3 is a sequel to Civ2. Therefore, the only reasonable way to take all that hype about the Civ3 scenario editor is that the Civ3 editor is intended to be an improvement over the final iteration of the Civ2 editir (TOT).

3) It has basically been established that Firaxis was forced for commercial reasons to ship the game early, and that one of the casualties was the scenario editor.

4) Firaxis has clearly stated their intention to fix the scenario editor so that it does deliver as promised. They have also stated a policy of playing their cards close to the vest regarding when, or exactly what features will be in, and exactly what fan-requested features won't make it.

So, IMO, our "productive" choices as individuals are:

1) Keep playing Civ3 because we don't care about the editor anyway.

2) Make constructive suggestions to Firaxis as to what we'd like in the final editor and why.

[Desert Dog]

Go away, just go away!

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Gee, yin, in the past two years, I have:
- played a computer games for a couple of hours most nights
- played about 15 different games during that time
- read probably over 100 books (mostly fiction and non-fiction history)
- completed three major outdoor projects (about 100+ hours each)
- took a few trips with my wife and/or my son
- completed about 8 major projects at work, and getting 3 raises and 2 bonuses for it
- wasted time at work posting to game forums
- played with my son for countless of hours

and while I am interested in civing, it is low on my priority list when compared to the more important things I do (as it should be). Regardless of the time and effort one spends in pursuit of a game, I believe a proper perspective on life's priorities would produce a better mindset, including myself.

You are the most pathetic person in these forums yet! Go brag about your life to someone who cares! This really gets under my skin when some fool trys to make themselves above everyone else! I really doubt you did all that you say anyways, no way to prove it so why bother to mention it? Oh I see you want to feel better about yourself, maybe you are not secure about yourself and this is your way of doing it Got it!
Okay we understand now go away and leave us alone to discuss civ 3! Disgusting people like you make me sick when I read messages like this. GROW UP! You have a son to raise and he should not learn these things from you!

Desert Dog

[CharlesUFarley]

Re: Go away, just go away!

Originally posted by Desert Dog


You are the most pathetic person in these forums yet! Go brag about your life to someone who cares! This really gets under my skin when some fool trys to make themselves above everyone else! I really doubt you did all that you say anyways, no way to prove it so why bother to mention it? Oh I see you want to feel better about yourself, maybe you are not secure about yourself and this is your way of doing it Got it!
Okay we understand now go away and leave us alone to discuss civ 3! Disgusting people like you make me sick when I read messages like this. GROW UP! You have a son to raise and he should not learn these things from you!

Desert Dog

Well spoken.

Charles.

[Jack_www]

I just visted the MOO3 forum here on apolyton. I must say form what I have seen I am very impressed with the way Quicksilver is very open about their game and answering people's questions about what is going to be in the game and whats not. They also said that they are going to include mp in the intial release, unlike Civ3. I think that the people who handle PR for firaxis could learn a thing or two from the people at Quicksilver when it comes to dealling with their fans.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I just visted the MOO3 forum here on apolyton. I must say form what I have seen I am very impressed with the way Quicksilver is very open about their game and answering people's questions about what is going to be in the game and whats not. They also said that they are going to include mp in the intial release, unlike Civ3. I think that the people who handle PR for firaxis could learn a thing or two from the people at Quicksilver when it comes to dealling with their fans.

Exactly, I'm not blaming anyone specificly at Firaxis for the failures of Civ3, I'm simply stating that they "exist". All these people on Poly, and Fanatics are getting offended because we've found failures with Civ3, and they don't like to hear that. Perhaps it makes them feel "useless" in some way. Well my message to those people is:

Rather than become part of the problem, try being part of the solution here!

Thanks for the words Jack!
Charles.

[yin26]

Convincing Firaxis that good PR is important is like trying to talk some guy out of blowing his own head off: You'd think it would be a no brainer ... until you realize the brains were blow out before you got there.

[Steve Clark]

That does it, Farley and Dog are now off of my Christmas list.

yin, I need to learn to take our personal banter to PM, lest someone might make the mistake of not ignoring posts that had nothing to do with them! But with you in a different day of the week, PM is hard to do in a coherent manner.

[XPav]

Originally posted by yin26
Convincing Firaxis that good PR is important is like trying to talk some guy out of blowing his own head off: You'd think it would be a no brainer ... until you realize the brains were blow out before you got there.

PR is the job of the publisher.

You're the people that have latched onto Firaxis, some of the designers/programmers/others at decided to volunteer to talk to you, and you're rightfully pointing out that the people who volunteered to talk to you don't have PR as their primary focus.

Do you want PR? Fine, well, then PR means that you don't talk to the designers, and have to deal with interviews and stuff slapped on a website. There's no point in spending money hiring a PR person to stroke the ego of all the types of people that hang out on web forums.

Its not worth it for small companies to hire someone to do community relations, and from my experience it, forums where designers and programmers talk to fans are more a hindrance to the completion of a good game.

Reading the board for ideas -- thats one thing. Stepping up to be called names is another.