Expansion or conjob?

[HappySunShine]

"Multiplayer Modes: Includes Turn-Based and Simultaneous game types and appearing for the first time in a Civilization game, a Turn-less mode. Provides full TCP-IP/LAN, Hotseat and Play be Email support.
Multiplayer games: Face off against the best Civilization players worldwide with fast-paced multiplayer games like Elimination, Domination, Regicide and Capture the Flag.
Eight new Civilizations featuring new Leaders including: Genghis Khan Temujin, King Hannibal, Queen Isabella and King Brennus, and all new units will challenge your diplomatic and combat skills.
Enhanced Scenario Editor, including new unit and tile sets lets players construct a Scenario from any time period.
Players can strengthen their empire with:
new map features like outposts, airfields and radar towers
new guerilla and medieval infantry units
new wonders and city improvements like the stock market or the Internet

Updated interface improvements like auto bombard, rally points, stacked movement and a streamlined espionage interface allow for more efficient management.
A dazzling new opening cinematic and combat animations bring your Civilization world to life like never before.
Easier-to-use interface for streamlined management and better control."

Now what exactly here is an expansion on the game and not something that was supposed/expected to be in the game in the first place? Adding 8 new civilizations is very simple, there's all kinds of mods made by people to add them. Outposts, airfields, radar towers? Come on, it's not like they're really thinking outside the box here. Airfields were in civ2 and outposts is an idea from AOK, and correct me if I'm wrong but radar towers were in EE. New cinematics? Ok, it's an expansion, but not a useful one. Finally a better interface...but could this not have been developed through a beta? All they're doing is taking all the complaints we've made and incorporating some of them. Stacked movement for example has been asked for since the release and would have been one of the first suggestions made in a beta. Of course if they had done a beta then they wouldn't have much to go on for an expansion and that would mean less money...but we already knew that. MP is the biggest joke of all. I would like one person to name a game within the past 6 years that came out without MP and then was released in an expansion besides civilization 2. The capture the flag/regicide/domination are all ideas from other games. What does civ3 really offer that is unique about it or for that matter improves upon its predecessor? A sequel is supposed to be an improvement on the previous game, but civ3 has only taken a step back. MORE is the keyword here, not less. I don't think the word MORE exists in the vocabulary of FIRAXIS and Infogrames.

[Inverse Icarus]

sure they're making you pay $30 for features that could have been included in the regular game. BUT THEY'RE GIVING YOU MORE CIVS. ALL THOSE LEADERHEADS! THEY HIRED A WHOLE NEW ART STAFF TO PUMP THIS BABY OUT ON TIME! THEY HAD TO FIRE THE CODERS TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE ARTISITS.

erm, [/rant]

[FrantzX]

I'm looking at the readme.txt for version 1.29f. You know, all the additions that they put in for free. That's all.

[HappySunShine]

I'm looking at the readme.txt for version 1.29f. You know, all the additions that they put in for free. That's all.

Additions or fixes? The "additions" are more like fixes. The ability to destroy units with bombardment was not an "addition" it was a fix to the fact that bombardment was completely useless. Every single thing that has been an "addition" through the patches could easily have been in the first release if they had done a beta test. And there is no such thing as getting somethign for free. Nothing in life is free. All you're getting is what should have been in the game in the first place that you paid for. How do you think the PTW expansion would sell if firaxis never fixed some of the point voiced in the massive amounts of complaints? They aren't fixing these things because they want to, they're fixing them because if they don't nobody will buy the expansion. It's far more profitable to spend the small amount of money to fix the game than it is to lose half your consumers. So please, don't ever tell me we're getting things free from Firaxis because if anything we paid too much.

[Jaybe]

"I rant on your ranting"
In the tone of "I fart in your direction" (Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Would you have preferred that they did everything without player input to get the improvements we have had in the last 9 months?

Just imagine, they could have delayed the release of the whole game until now (or later), and you would probably had to accept a 'final' game without most of that input. The assistance of all this 'playtesting' is of much greater value than a handful of beta-testers (especially if inhouse) that they could not have afforded in the first place. Not to mention all the pleasure that MANY people have had since its initial release!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine The ability to destroy units with bombardment was not an "addition" it was a fix to the fact that bombardment was completely useless.

Nay, nay. Bombardment is one of the most powerful features of the game. Here is an example using cannon to soften a city's defenses:

http://www.zachriel.com/Attack.htm

If bombardment was made any more powerful, it might unbalance the game. In addition, the complete destruction of infantry units by bombardment is not historical.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Zachriel
...
If bombardment was made any more powerful, it might unbalance the game. In addition, the complete destruction of infantry units by bombardment is not historical.

Especially since the AI cannot (yet) effectively bombard!

[HappySunShine]

Just imagine, they could have delayed the release of the whole game until now (or later), and you would probably had to accept a 'final' game without most of that input. The assistance of all this 'playtesting' is of much greater value than a handful of beta-testers (especially if inhouse) that they could not have afforded in the first place. Not to mention all the pleasure that MANY people have had since its initial release!

First of all, the idea of a beta is to put out a final product that is complete. Only minor changes are supposed to be made in patches. Putting in an editor is not a minor change. If we were to go by your reasoning then gamemakers would simply sell us the game as they created it so we could have "fun" with the work in progress as we gave our input. Obviously this doesn't work or all the game companies would be doing that. The reason most game companies do a beta is because the backlash of a game that is released before the problems are fixed is usually devastating. The backlash on civ3 has been incredible, but the difference is that we're dealing with a company that isn't player friendly. The best response you get from them is usually Take a look at how ES is handling AOM. There's been 2 betas now and it's still not slated for release until late fall. When you release a game and then use the players as beta testers you get 2 things:

1. It pisses off the players.

2. You have such a flood of complaints that it's difficult to distinguish between real game flaws and just the usual whinning from players.

Personally I don't see how Firaxis could ever make civ3 a complete and finished game at this point because they have no set standard or consistency in the settings. They've basically given us an editor (finally) and told us to fix it. Well that's fine for SP, but in MP there has to be some sort of a standard to the rules or it's very difficult to get a large MP following. But I guess we'll see once PTW is released. I won't hold my breath though.

[Lord Merciless]

What do you think what Infograme is? Another one of those cold, heartless, and greedy rip-off artists. On the other hand, despite all the negative press Microsoft receives, this is a company led by a visionary person who understands the business, not some corrupt and clueless Wall-Street "Professionals".

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine


The backlash on civ3 has been incredible, but the difference is that we're dealing with a company that isn't player friendly. The best response you get from them is usually

Firaxis isn't player friendly? they are on this board all the time responding to queries and complaints and have released numerous patches. Give me a break.

Backlash? Aside from a few vocal posters, I haven't seen that much of a backlash, and the game sold very well. Hardly incredible.

[Aeson]

Well the backlash is incredible in one regard: how a handful of posters seem to be able to read the minds of millions of others and speak for everyone, even though everyone else disagrees with them. Amazing!

[Inverse Icarus]

PTW is offering MP (supposed to be in original game).

that aside, PTW is offering efficient stack movement. again, this should be in regular civ.

The only thing they have the right to charge us for (IMHO) is the additional Civs / game modes (regicide, etc).

sigh...

[Aeson]

They have the right to charge anything they'd like for whatever they produce. We have the right to buy it or not. Sometimes there are things we'd like which we can't afford (or aren't willing to pay for), sucks, but that's the way our economy works.

If you want MP (or whatever feature) bad enough to buy PtW then buy it. If not, then don't. I don't see what the problem is here.

[Catt]

Why are the forums suddenly experiencing a spike in trolls? And why are the trolls so uninspired? Is there some external event that I missed to explain it?

[notyoueither]

If you didn't like the game out of the box you are unlikely to like it after it is patched. So why do you stick around?

MP is a point, however it was not advertised as having MP a year ago. In fact, it was stated on forums like these that it would not have MP originally.

You got the choice. You bought it. Live with it.