A tidbit 'bout whom to blame

[moomin]

Over in the Moo3 forum there's an announcement 'bout the Moo3 release being delayed a quarter. Most of it is irrelevant to this forum, but here's an interesting piece of news:

"During a regular examination of the state of the Master of Orion III project, both Infogrames and Quicksilver agreed that the game would benefit from extending its release date to the third quarter of 2002."

So, Infogrames, that have been dubbed "infogreed" by certain parties here, and taken all the blame for rushing Civ3 out for christmas obviously can and will listen to reason when the developer cares enough about their product to make a stand. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.

[Spiffor]

Well, there are sevral hypothesis :
- Someone at Firaxis (not Infog) decided too early Civ3 would be due at October 30th. Since it had been promised to the fans, they didn't go back. An excessive firaxian optimist is the culprit of a rushed Civ3
-Infogrames decided to rush the game, knowing it would sell well with this prestigious license, and wanted to let it out in the best commercial time (after vacation and before too much competition in Christmas). Infog would be the culprit.
- Infog know that MOO is less known than Civ, and must be excellent to make good sales. Or they have learned with Civ3 you can't get away with a rushed game (I don't believe it : Civ3 sells well, and is pretty solid if you compare it with what we have know).
- MOO3 is too late in its development, still very buggy, or important pieces of code are not ready. Civ3 came out almost bug free (except the million $ bug and the air superiority bug), and was playable and enjoyable, although flawed, right out of the box.
- Infog wants to let Civ3 sell for 6 months more before getting competition with MOO3. This commercial strategy lets Ci3 be more profitable, and lets MOO3 getting better.

So, knowing MOO3 will come later doesn't mean necessarily that it's Firaxis' fault for having released a rushed game. There are plenty of possibilities why Civ3 was rushed, and why MOO3 wasn't. You shouldn't jump too fast on conclusions

[moomin]

Well, Spiffor, I'm not insisting on the interpretation. But the sword cuts two ways - if Civ3 was seen as a bigger cash cow than Moo3 by Infogrames, it stands to reason that Firaxis should have had more clout dealing with Infogrames than Quicksilver did.

All I'm saying is that there has been no end of the fingerpointing toward the big, insensitive Infogrames that forced the small and dedicated team at Firaxis to rush, and having read the Moo story I'm not so certain that's the real picture anymore.

I'm pretty convinced Firaxis could have done what Quicksilver obviously can. After all, we all know Infogrames probably understand the value of Sid's name on a package just as well as anybody.

[Spiffor]

I'm pretty convinced Firaxis could have done what Quicksilver obviously can.

You're right. I didn't think this way, but it's correct. At best, Firaxis has been passive against Infog's demands. At worst, they have been active in this rush.

[Jethro83]

Yes. You can do a bit of finger pointing at the developers and the corporate management of each (I land most of my blame on the hands of those greedy corporate tyrants, as they obviously don't have the slightest inkling about how to make a game. They should spend more time listening to the recommendations of the developers).

However, there is one party not yet mentioned which deserves a share of the blame: THE CONSUMER!!!!!

That's right. We of the gaming public have the annoying habit of expecting the best in the quickest possible time, with a lot of "I CAN'T WAIT ANOTHER DAY FOR THIS GAME!!!" and "HURRY UP WITH THAT GAME <$DEVELOPER>!!!" and "I STILL CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THEY DELAYED IT -AGAIN- !!!" and the list of these slurs goes on.



The main reason we tend to be part of the problem here is because in expecting it right away, we apply too much pressure on the other parties. The developers get more stressed about getting the game right, the corporate bigwigs, following the axiom that "the customer is always right" cave in to demands for a quick release. Even the government regulatory bodies need to classify the game quickly, or else it hurts the economy too much.

We all want to blame the corporate management for the problem with their games, but don't forget that the consumer is the one who is responsible for making the corporations as powerful as they are (who else pays for their products?).

Not that I entirely blame the public, as I said earlier I blame the corporations mostly. I just felt that the public should get their fair share of the blame. All parties contribute to the ruin of a potential gaming masterpiece, but I'm surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet.

[SpencerH]

If you believe that the public had enough influence to cause early release of the game, then you must also believe that comments made at these forums may have an effect on patchs etc?

[Zachriel]

Blame?

This thread is about assigning blame. Blame for what? I've been playing Civ3 since it came out and have enjoyed every minute of it. I have a lot of games, but only play Civ3.

[player1]

Lets see...

Infogrames is publisher.
They planned to release MOO3 3 months after Civ3.

Reson: Same as why all 3 moves "Lord of the Rings" are NOT released in the same time.

Now, they know that Civ is a classic, and that it should sell well.
On the other hand they know that after Brian R. left Firaxis that it ruined half on finished material for Civ3.

So they decided to make risky move.
To rush Civ3!
To remove MP & scenario editor (from planned list) since there is no time.
They didn't wated 2 TBS to be released in same time (Civ3 & MOO3).


Several months have passed.
Now, simialr question is needed for Moo3.
Easy decision.
We saved extra money from CIV3 development (by rushing it), so we have resourced for delay.
There is no third TBS currently in development.

So since MOO3 is NON-CONSERVATIVE sequel rushing it could be disasterous.
Plus, no third TBS planned after.

Rushing too risky ==> DELAY

P.S.
I blame Infogrames for their decision (rush Civ3).
It wasn't necesary after all. (since MOO3 is late in development)
But, on the other hand they didn't knew about that (that MOO3 will be late) several months ago.


P.P.S.
I blame Firaxis which FORCED (ok maybe harsh word) Brian R. to leave, which resulted in less time to make good game. (Civ3)


P.P.P.S.
Civ3 is still a great game, but it could have been next best classic.

[Antonin]

Re: Blame?

Originally posted by Zachriel
This thread is about assigning blame. Blame for what? I've been playing Civ3 since it came out and have enjoyed every minute of it. I have a lot of games, but only play Civ3.

My position exactly, except that I also play other games when the mood strikes me.

This useless thread makes the same "points" that have been made 7,273,482 times already.

It's called "a life," people. Get one.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by player1
P.P.S.
I blame Firaxis which FORCED (ok maybe harsh word) Brian R. to leave, which resulted in less time to make good game. (Civ3)

He wasn't forced to leave. He was forced to work on Civ3. This is what made him leave. He was tired of building turn-based games and really wanted to do a RTS.

[ColdWizard]

there's enough blame to go around for everyone

[Inverse Icarus]

i would have opted to delay civ3 f they had multiplayer out of box, but it appears as if they're taking their sweet time on that issue, and letting me rant about it for all i care.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


He wasn't forced to leave. He was forced to work on Civ3. This is what made him leave. He was tired of building turn-based games and really wanted to do a RTS.

Then perhaps BR is the one to blame for Civ3's woes. Since from the start his heart wasn't in it and since he left Firaxis with an unfinished Civ3 it (Civ3) was damned from the beginning.

I personally don't like RTS games and wouldn't buy one even if it get's great reviews from reliable sources.

[Elucidus]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
However, there is one party not yet mentioned which deserves a share of the blame: THE CONSUMER!!!!!

That's right. We of the gaming public have the annoying habit of expecting the best in the quickest possible time, with a lot of "I CAN'T WAIT ANOTHER DAY FOR THIS GAME!!!" and "HURRY UP WITH THAT GAME <$DEVELOPER>!!!" and "I STILL CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THEY DELAYED IT -AGAIN- !!!" and the list of these slurs goes on.

Hmm, isn't Blizzard notorious for delaying games. Given they publish their own games so it is their perogative. Weather you like their games or not you have to admit that they usually come out of the box pretty damned good. D2 original release is the only exception I know of.

[Jethro83]

Re: Blame?

Originally posted by Zachriel
This thread is about assigning blame. Blame for what? I've been playing Civ3 since it came out and have enjoyed every minute of it. I have a lot of games, but only play Civ3.

You're right on there. I could fence off all games I own apart from Civ III on EBay and still be happy (and a lot wealthier).

The thing is that this thread is about who to blame when a game isn't meeting expectations or promises made prior to release. Though I don't believe Civ 3 to be a good example of this, what it does mean is that when it isn't right, then some of the blame can go on the shoulders of the developers for making their unrealistic promises, some goes on the shoulders of the consumer as they apply too much pressure to have it released right away. The rest of the blame (and a lot of it left for this) goes on the shoulders of the corporate bigwigs who fund the development of these games, and publish them when they are done (or half-done in these cases). The reasons they can be blamed is because they know very little about how games are made, and so make unrealistic deadlines. They cave in to pressure from the consumers who want the game NOW. They also decide on having the game rushed for a Pre-Christmas release, hoping that the sales will be huge, nobody will play what they buy then until after Christmas, at which time they'll expect the developer to release patches to correct the known bugs.

A better example of this kind of behaviour is Ultima Ascension. It had the potential to be a masterpiece, even possibly outdoing the colossal efforts of Ultimas 4,5 and 7 (all of which innovated somehow). Unfortunately, there were many hurdles that Richard "Lord British" Garriott and his team at Origin had to go through. It was a disaster with EA forcing Origin to release UA before Christmas in 1999. For the next three months, all the work Origin could do was release patches to not only correct minor gameplay issues, but also fix game-stopping bugs. As an Ultima fan, despite the fact I had fun playing UA (after it finally got its final patch), I was utterly disappointed, as I knew Richard Garriott to be better than that. The news afterwards that he quit Origin came as no surprise whatsoever.

The point I'm making here is that Civ 3 is an excellent game, and this finger-pointing shouldn't be occurring. Before the flaming of this game continues, please just stop and think about what happend to Lord British's fine work, as a result this kind of behaviour. IT CAN BE FAR WORSE THAN WHAT HAPPENED HERE!!!

Origin
"We created worlds"
1983-2001