Jeffrey Morris: Dan Magaha said to ask you these two questions

[Libertarian]

After a bit of introspection, I believe that I'm being too rough on the guys at Firaxis. In all probability, they're doing the best they can with the resources they have. I could provide a litany of reasons why I've snapped, but they're irrelevant.

Dan and Jeff, I apologize.

I'll try to play the game on a smaller map with fewer Civs. That might help ameliorate some of the tedium. Meanwhile, I do understand that you're people just like us, with feelings and the whole nine yards. I regret my mercilessness in my dealings with you.

I wish only that the cabalism weren't there, that we didn't have to fish and beg for information. I understand that some of what you do is proprietary, but some idea of what's in the works might go a long way to soothing those of us who don't like living in the fog of ignorance. Perhaps if it hadn't taken you so long to acknowledge...

Well, that's enough of that song. Onward.

[XPav]

Lib

[bahoo]

I agree with Libertarians request and with a lot of other good constructive criticism of the game, although they are almost always followed up by flames.

But really, is anyone here satisfied with this response?

Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS
We are aware of these feature requests, and when we have something concrete to say about them, we will.

Jeff

Obviously their aware, they've acknowledged it before. A much better response would be:

"We're aware, and have no intentions of implementing it."

OR

"We're aware but have devoted our resources to more important bugs currently."

OR

"We'd like to implement it but isn't sure if it's feasible."

OR EVEN

"We don't make money from patches, so if it isn't a game breaking bug, don't hold your breath."

Something to give us an idea if they have any intentions of implementing it at all. I very much doubt that they don't at least know this.

It's just become natural, at least for me, to associate such vague responses with them having no intention of implementing it at all. If you've ever played Everquest you'd understand.

[Steve Clark]

Lib, at least you are willing to try a different approach to keep playing I'm waiting for the scenarios, so that's more than I can say for myself. Good luck and good debating with you.

[eRAZOR]

Originally posted by bahoo
I agree with Libertarians request and with a lot of other good constructive criticism of the game, although they are almost always followed up by flames.

But really, is anyone here satisfied with this response?



Obviously their aware, they've acknowledged it before. A much better response would be:

"We're aware, and have no intentions of implementing it."

OR

"We're aware but have devoted our resources to more important bugs currently."

OR

"We'd like to implement it but isn't sure if it's feasible."

OR EVEN

"We don't make money from patches, so if it isn't a game breaking bug, don't hold your breath."

Something to give us an idea if they have any intentions of implementing it at all. I very much doubt that they don't at least know this.

It's just become natural, at least for me, to associate such vague responses with them having no intention of implementing it at all. If you've ever played Everquest you'd understand.

If they only had "something concrete" to say about anything (game related).

[eRAZOR]

Originally posted by ****gyRA
When all this discussion of stack movement started I was in favor of it. Because of all the whining and crying and nastiness, I don't care if I ever see it.

Ohh noo. Please don't

Sometimes people get sick of it.



I aggree with what gachnar say whole heartedly.
I think the 9 year old and 13 yr old analogy works well (as I am a parent of both)

[PGM]

Re: Jeffrey Morris: Dan Magaha said to ask you these two questions

Originally posted by Libertarian
Group Movement
Sensible Unit Activation Order

Great suggestions!
The game would improve so much in the late game with this...

And how about letting us produce armies of workers to clean up pollution more quickly?
It's a bit irritating taking 32 captured workers to clean a polluted mountain.

[GodSpawn]

The original question was good. And now it seems to have descended to the state of name calling and mutual recriminations.

It's all quite sad, really.

[Unregistered]

Micromanagement always has been the bane of the Civ franchise, this latest version hasn't really improved on this much, if any. It's usually the biggest reason that I end up putting them down & moving on.

[yin26]

When I have a concrete recommendation for my friends encouraging them to buy Civ3, I'll make it.

I think this EXACTLY right. Listen, it's Firaxis' decision to either assure us in a responsible way that various issues are being addressed -- or not. And as the 'Head Gamer' in my circle of friends, my recommendations often carry some weight. So far, my recommendation regarding Civ3 has been:

"Perhaps by Gold Edition time it will be worth playing, but so far Firaxis has been very elusive as to how much they plan to support the boxed beta. No need to fund patches that might never come."

And that's also life in the big, bad gaming industry. Firaxis thinks the game should speak for itself. Sadly, it does.

Steve:

I saw in another thread that you referred to me as a 'friend and fellow father' who thinks our time here should amount to something while you think it is just entertainment.

I do want to say that I have always respected your desire to get under the hood and simply fix things yourself. If you recall, I think I coined the term 'Civ3 Construction Set' regarding you, actually. When the complete editor is finally available, I really look forward to seeing what you and others will do, as it seems obvious that the best stuff will come from the fans. And trust me: I know how hard it is to juggle all that as a busy family man.

As regards seeing our time here as entertainment, you might be surprised to know that I mostly agree. I don't break into cold sweats at night when Firaxis fails to give answers on things, etc. For me, I find the gaming industry fascinating in and of itself.

In so many ways, it's still a mom and pop operation only now mom and dad have a loan shark ready to break their legs if enough dollars don't roll in. The risks are bigger, the budgets are bigger, the egos are bigger ... and yet, the gameplay has often gotten smaller.

In that environment, I simply find it telling the path that a developer chooses to take in gaining fan loyalty. You can, as Firaxis pretty much does, position yourself as the 'hardworking programmers without much time or power to tell you what you want to know.' That's one way. Or you can, as with Alan at Quicksilver, answer EVERY e-mail sent to you. That's another way.

I suppose when an awesome game is released, it doesn't much matter either way. But there are almost always bound to be issues, and keeping them mole-hills instead of mountains requires, I believe, one approach over the other.

I will continue to be highly interested in how well Civ3, a potential blockbuster, sells over the next 4 months compared to Master of Orion 3, the highly developer-supported underdog. Now I know better than to think MOO3 will be without troubles, so I can't wait to see how they will handle the pressure when things heat up. It might be they will simply implode ... or they can turn decidedly negative issues into PR victories.

I can't wait. I have front row seats.

[AnnC]

especially: Sensible Unit Activation Order

I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Libertarian. Worker-management tedium and bizarre unit activation sequencing are major fun-killers in the late game.

An observation: in both Civ2 and SMAC, unit activation sequencing worked beautifully.

When you had a stack in Civ2 or SMAC, the game cycled through each unit in the stack and then it moved to the next nearest unit. In Civ3, the order of activation seems to be random.

If you told a unit to "wait" in Civ2 or SMAC, the game cycled through all other units before returning to that one. In Civ3, the game often returns 3 or 4 times to a unit that's been told to "wait" before it goes to units which have not yet been activated that turn. This drives me nuts!

Civ2 and SMAC had a working algorithm for unit activation sequencing. So why wasn't it used in Civ3?

[yin26]

"Ann: When we have something to tell you, we will."

[AnnC]

[Steve Clark]

yin: Nicely worded. You hit upon a word that hadn't been brought up much before: loyalty. For me, buying a game doesn't amount to diddly squat because it was of my own free will and entitles me to no loyalty, either from the company or to it. I tend to be a disloyal person to impersonal things like games, sports teams, brands, etc. (mainly from being a 42 year old, I guess). This runs against those that are very emotional towards a sports team or to a game. That is maybe why I take a 'don't care' attitude, I don't know. But in the end, we both view the gaming industry (which I had been following very closely for 11+ years) and their fans as a form of entertainment. Truthfully, I am surprised at some of the things I see, but we'll know more of the story as it unfolds in 2002, won't we? In the meantime, save me a seat, we'll watch this together.

[Spiffor]

If I understand, Firaxis answers (roughly) "When we have something to say, we'll say it".
What is wrong with this attitude ? They don't know any information, should they invent one just to please you ? I think they understood the lessons of their past failures : they announcd a super-duper editor, with scenarios etc. and the editor didn't support scenarios (it is pretty good for modding rules). They announced the patch for "friday or saturnday", and it was out with a major compatibility issue. They announced too early Civ3 for the 30 October, and they held their promise.
They have given way too much info in the past about what would be done in the future, and most of these informations couldn't be verified in given time (hence a rushed game, a rushed patch). Now they say : "We have no information, we won't want to disappoint you", and some people are still complaining ? I don't understand...
Firaxis : please be be much less transparent as you have been before, especially about the date releases (of future patches, of the gold edition). That way, we couldn't be disappointed. And please don't answer questions for which you don't know the answer.

To the people who complained about the answer from Firaxis : why did you complain ? PLease explain it to me clearly ? I don't get the logic here (excepet that the answer was crude...)