A recommendation to Firaxis

[ACooper]

Pointless rhetoric?

Fanboy?

Do get the point of anything?

Civ3 is vastly different than Civ2. Not just "changed names."

My point is that people need to be civil and realize that this is just a game and the developers are just people and cannot focus only on one or two whiners that post 20 times a day.


I personally don't believe that many of the most outspoken whiners ever play the game. This is the game they want to play. They just want there voices heard no matter how stupid they sound. They are so lonely and lost...............


It's so sad.......


BTW, the comment on 150 cities with no stacked movement was sarcasm. If someone can claim to have all this success with the game, why complain about things that you obviously have under control?

Why resort to name calling? (Of course, I would rather be a "fan boy" than a "whining sniveling brat")

[Moraelin]

Being able to do something, doesn't equal liking it. Sure, I can move a stack of units, one square at a time, just to have them stay grouped. Doesn't mean I actually like it. It's possible, but it's boring and repetitive.

Different from Civ 2, yes. IMPROVED over Civ 2, yes. Thing is, Civ 2 was several years ago. There have been other games in the meantime. Like Alpha Centauri. A lot of the "woo, it's different than Civ 2" things are not so different from Alpha Centauri. Diplomacy was in SMAC. Borders were in SMAC. Having different units for terrain improvements were in SMAC. Civilization traits were in SMAC (and for that matter also in Master of Orion and Master of Magic and even in the ancient Colonization). And so on.

There are very few things that are actually new, if you count from SMAC, instead of from Civ 2. And a lot of them are just tweaks, like the fact that rivers go between squares. (Especially given that the defense bonus for attacks across rivers is laughable, it really makes no difference.) And a lot are very badly thought out, like the amusing resource system where you can't breed horses, and Tanks are made of Latex. Or like the whole city deffections without a fight. And a lot are badly implemented, like the UU system that makes it impossible to upgrade to them.

And several good things from Alpha Centauri seem to have been dropped, too, so in some areas it even feels like a step back. There's also been CTP2. It may not have been the highest flying game, but it did have a bunch of good ideas which I had wished that the Civ 3 team would at least consider.

Which isn't to say it's a bad game overall, since both Civ 2 and SMAC weren't bad games. It's just, well, disappointing. I could have just as well re-installed SMAC instead for free.

The claim that I don't play is a bit strange, given that at the very least I have to test those two mods I've published. (Not to mention how the heck would I even know about the game's problems, if I don't play it?)

Also: I buy a buttload of games. Why don't I complain about those?

Just for the record: I DO think that the idea of that poll is illogical and bad, and I've voted as such. But going into sweeping generalization about ALL people who complained isn't really any better.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Gramphos
It is mush easier to get bugs confirmed in a community as this then from submissions that go to Firaxis one by one. Also they need to do something while the code complies.

There is no good solution to stop the communications with the community due to many bugs. Some bugs are really hard to find, but can affect many parts of the game, and to find such bugs they need to be able to keep a dialog with the players (ie ask for saves, and if anyone else has run into the same thing).

what he said. if you don't get feed back from the users, how are you going to continue finding the bugs?

besides, its almost as much fun watching firaxis squeem when someone points out another bug they overlooked

[ACooper]

Moraelin - I never said you didn't play the game. In fact none of what I have been saying is directed at you. If you took any personal offense I apologize.


My point is that we spend so much time on this board complaining and then saying "Firaxis why don't you answer us?" or "Why do you spit in our faces?" that we waste alot of valuable time and energy. Tlking about the bugs or what we would like to see done better is fine, but the nastiness is the real "pointless rhetoric" and it seems to be coming from the same people over and over and over. I justed pick on the stacked movement concept because it comes up so often. I could have chosen combat or any other of complaints that come up over and over.

All I want is sensible discussion not this pointless bashing of a game we all claim to play. Someone will claim to be a master at deity and then say the game is unplayable. I find that confusing.

I'm sorry if posting opinions like this make you feel the need to call people "fanboys", but it is true, I like the game and think it is well done. There are many problems and a few bugs. These should be fixed. But why do we have to be abusive to the people who brought this to us. There are bigger issues in the world to get worked up over.

[Moraelin]

Sorry about the "fanboy" crack. I'll have to admit it was overboard and uncalled for. Guess sometimes I snap at the wrong people. Sorry again.

And I don't aggree with the personal attacks on the Firaxis posters, either, actually. What I'm trying to say, though, that not everyone who complains about the game has a personal vendetta against Firaxis employees. Personally I AM disappointed with the game, but I do appreciate that some of those guys post here in their free time.

Dunno about the others, but most of the reason why I post my complaints is that I hope they'll fix those issues at least in an expansion pack or something. I mean, wth, the game engine does have potential. And while I don't think that fundamental design issues can be fixed in a patch, or at least not without annoying the odd gamer who actually likes to move troops one by one, an expansion pack could redo the bad parts (and add the missing ones) quite nicely.

I highly suspect that's more or less the case with many of the other "whiners", too. Some people just didn't give up hope yet. Of course, I could also be wrong.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by jgflg
Let's not forget the MMPORGs. Anarchy Online and WWII Online lowered the bar for generations of games to come. I don't think any company had previously released such loads of unplayable dung on the populace. It took AO three months just to reach a basic level of playability, never mind delivering the gameplay as promised.

True. I actually had an Anarchy Online account for two months, and that was already starting after months of patching. Jesus Christ. It had not only a ton of glaring bugs and exploits, but also design screw-ups like non-existing balance (a fist hits harder than any weapon, for f-word's sake), screwed up requirements (sniper rifles that depend on burst or full-auto skill, melee weapons that depend on sneak attack or on a sort of psionic attack skill, etc), melee attacks that hit at 50+ ft range, getting the reward only if you KILL everyone in a STEALTH mission, and so on.

It's a shame, really. The SF idea had GREAT potential, and the architecture was AWESOME.

[Kolyana]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil




You don't bought a lot of game then.
Compared to many I saw, this one is nearly bug-free.
If you want to talk about buggy games, talk about First Encounters or Daggerfall. Here comes some jewels when it comes to number of bugs for each code line.

OMG, DAGGERFALL. That game should've been shot like a lame horse ... it was AWFUL.

I adored the concept and played it for far too many hrs, but JEEZ, those bugs were a killer!

I always remember that they couldn't fix the falling through the stairs issue and tried to pass it off as "entering another world you can never get back from".

[PN]

Some interesting views in this thread so far. I guess I've been lucky with my previous purchases of low-bug software.

I'm surprised that many of you are prepared to accept that a games developer should not be as disciplined as any other software developer in its testing/release approach. If they were, surely it would lower the overall life time cost of the product (and thus the price to us)? But I started the poll to see others views and it's been an eye-opener for me.

So far nobody has addressed my concern that I'm not sure whether the patch fixes the bugs claimed in the README or not. Firaxis themselves seem unsure. Read the top thread they started about the patch.

My patched version (after a uninstall/reinstall of the whole game) is pretty unstable with frequent crashes, and other cases of normal shutdowns but corrupt saved game files (DataIO errors) when trying to reload them. Right now I have about 25 different games installed since I bought my latest PC 18 months ago, and none of them are unstable, so I'm confident it's not bad OS or hardware, it is the game that is unstable. I run anti-virus and health-checking software regularly and keep my drivers and OS patches up to date. Others amongst you though seem to have no stability problems at all.

The stability is my main beef. I'm not a 'feature creature' who wants improvements. My first priority is that I just want a game which I can play with confidence. Sure I may spend time moaning here, but then again I get no response whatsoever through the official support channels.

And maybe I'm not playing the game too much either. But then again I don't have the confidence to commit the hours and hours this game needs, only to discover that the last 40-50 saved game turns are corrupted.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by PN
For my part, I'm unsure whether or not I should use the 1.16 patch, particularly as (because of a Firaxis post on another thread) I cannot be sure that the bugs that Firaxis say are fixed, really have been fixed at all.

Oh for Christ sake PN - just install the damn thing, will you. The team will soon enough come out with additional patches, just like they did with SMAC.

As for that recommendation - have you EVER seen a strategy-game this complex that didnt needed more then just one single patch in order to work close to 100%??? Just compare with "Europa Universalis": I think they released at least 5-6 patches, before it was reasonably finished.

[PN]

I didn't make it clear that the patch is installed. And the game is more unstable with it than without. If I take it out do I lose certain fixes or not? For example, I had no corrupt save games before the patch, now I have them a lot, but the README says that the patch fixes save file corruption bugs. Firaxis don't seem sure themselves what they've fixed.

[Moraelin]

PN, personally I think that ANY software product should be as finished when it's sold as any non-software thing. I too find it a bit strange how many people will cheerfully accept a buggy piece of software that needs 5-6 patches, when they wouldn't accept, say, a watch that needs 5-6 repairs over half a year before it starts working right.

Yes, programmers make mistakes. I make mistakes. Lots of them. But if the product still has them when it's sold, then the company is guilty of not enough testing.

BUT, banning the people from a company from posting on forums isn't going to help with anything. It's not like those guys post every 5 minutes or anything, and they have their free time like the rest of us. If someone feels like posting when they're at home or on their lunch break, why not?

They're employees, not serfs. If they want to accept to do overtime, ok, it's their choice, but you can't _demand_ that they stay at work 24 hours a day and do nothing else until everything is finished.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ralf
As for that recommendation - have you EVER seen a strategy-game this complex that didnt needed more then just one single patch in order to work close to 100%???

Not only strategy games, but :
Starcraft, Brood War
Diablo 1
Warcraft
95 % of the game systems' games
Most of the games prior to 1993

And I forgot a whole bunch of them.

[Aurochs]

I think the bug list is a good idea. Some companies do really well with searchable tech-support databases, but that takes a lot of work. Better would be a shareware programmer's-style list with four entries for each bug/quirk.

• Bug
• Version affected
• Users affected
• Status

Status would list things like "Fixed in 1.16" or "Not planning to change" or "Workaround: {do this}", "Not a bug, a deliberate design decision", etc.

At the bottom could be a bug submission form, with the notice to make sure the bug you're reporting isn't already listed. It would be much easier for them to get the feedback they need that way. They wouldn't need to read eleventy-hundred 10-page threads of people reporting the same things.

But I certainly don't think they should go away! We should encourage 'em to stay, and share their own thoughts about the game...pet strategies, fun tricks, etc. More discussion, less tech-support. I think they should politely direct tech-support questions/comments to the tech-support pages and say that they can't discuss it here...assuming that they have a decent tech-support site.

Incidentally, this is one of the most bug-free games I've bought in the last 12 years. I was quite impressed with the quality. As always, when I first got it I sat apprehensively wondering whether it would install, and how many tries it would take (it did the first time!) and whether it would run and how many other things I'd have to change or install to get it to work (it did the first time, without changing anything!), what other programs would then mysteriously cease to function (none did!), and how long the first game would last before it crashed (it hasn't yet!).

I really hate getting untested, unfinished software as much as anybody. And true, Civ III's got a number of bugs, (some moderately annoying) but to call it the buggiest thing in 20 years is laughably ironic.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by ****gyRA
There are a whole bunch of people in Afganistan in a drastic situation. Some people in Africa are starving. There is a teenage girl down the street from me trying to raise a baby while finishing high school.

What's this the "Afganistan Forum" ? Who cares!

Civ 3 is a game. 90% of the people who play this game have no or little problem with it. Really it's just a handfull who are complaining that the game wasn't what they expected. 20 or 30 people in all of the games that were sold. Some people post so often that there is no way they could really be playing the game. (Especially with over 150 cities on deity without "stacked movement" no less)

We need to wake up and get off of the developers backs or else they just might leave because of the whining sniveling brats that post 20 times a day.
My 2 Cents

Seems to me the only one "whining" here is you. Otherwise all I see is a bunch of upset fans and customers, and as far as I'm conerned they have a right to complain if they don't like the game, they paid for it. Oh and there have been hundreds of complaints on poly alone since the release of Civ3, just thought you would like to know that. You're number(s) are a little off there. But I assumed you were only exagerating to reinforce your weak point.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by XPav

You haven't bought many games then, have you? Either that, or you haven't gone over most of the other games released with as fine toothed comb as you have gone over Civ3 with.

Firaxis is a small company with 30 people, selling a game to a massive channel. While the forums on Apolyton and Civfanatics are important, I'm sorry folks -- for the $40-$50 you spent on Civ3, you purchased an entertainment product, not a mission critical multi-million dollar piece of software. To expect some sort of detailed accounting of bugs is UTTERLY INSANE and it would be a COMPLETE MISALLOCATION of Firaxis' limited resources if they went and spent all their time catering to the overblown egos on this and other forums!

Some more salient points:

Civ2 had, what, 3 patches?
SMAC/X had, what, 3 patches?
Gettyburg had what, 3 patches?

Notice a trend here?

Get a grip folks -- there's nothing we can do to make Firaxis fix the bugs any faster, and you're just going to have to trust them.

I'm sorry but you take the $50 and you multiply that by the number of people "world-wide" who purchase the game. Sounds like a multi-million-dollar product to me. And regardless of how much money we spend on a product we will always have a say. And there is nothing anyone can do to silence that majority of people. And it is the mass-opinion of many that Firaxis goofed up. And since they goofed up, they pay for it by ranting fans. I don't blame them, because I know what they're going through. Do you?

Charles.