Some recovered alpha.owo threads online

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Solver
But Yin, in more than one respect, Jeff is right. There will always be bugs. Indeed. Anyone - and I mean anyone - who knows how to program will confirm that writing a program of considerable size without bugs is implausible.

Um...no.

Theoretically it is possible to write program without bugs regardless of size. The trick is to break it down to easily testable pieces and communicate via a rigid, well defined interface.

That's what first structured programming then object-oriented programming have been trying to do for the last, I dunno, 30 years? Of course we also have things such as formal methods. But that's probably a bit too difficult to get into for most software developers.

Originally posted by Solver
Ultimately, though, talking about bugs is easy indeed. Bugs are obvious to spot, and they can give anyone an excuse to say "you did it wrong" or "you screwed up".

Not necessarily. Bugs can occur as components of a system interact. The sad thing is they are very likely to be caused by not so well defined interfaces or sloppy handling of inputs (bad assumptions).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Locutus
Hardly. SMAC = Civ2 + Unit Workshop but with even crappier AI (Worst. AI. Ever. Makes even unmodded CtP2 look good), UI, graphics, etc.

Not sure what you are talking about.

The UI is very close to the Civ 4 one, esp. wrt city screen. The graphics are very good for its time. Maybe you don't like the colour scheme, but that's besides the point. I particularly like the iconic symbols for various tech advances.

Both the Unit Workshop and Social Engineering are very advanced features you still don't find in any Civ-like games. The civics in Civ 4 is still not as good as SE.

[DaShi]

Bugs create communities!!!

Anyway, does the archive have those humorous SMAC design stories? I forgot who wrote them, and am pretty sure it wasn't me.

EDIT:

Now I remember. It was RC. And I think they could have been on ACOL, but I'm not sure.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Um...no.

Theoretically it is possible to write program without bugs regardless of size. The trick is to break it down to easily testable pieces and communicate via a rigid, well defined interface.

Theoretically, of course. So I said "implausible", not "impossible". As you very well understand, the possibility of bugs arising grows at a VERY large rate as the program's complexity grows. Creating a game of tic-tac-toe without bugs is by all means a possible task, creating a powerful text editor, a 3D design studio or a game matching contemporary commercial standards without bugs... well, good luck. Freeze the code for about a year before going gold, and go bug-hunting like crazy with a group of a hundred people... yeah, maybe that would do it. Theoretically.

[yin26]

Again, for me, bugs aren't the issue -- it's how they're addressed. Of course, outright broken features promised on the box (ahem) deserve all the criticism we can heap upon the developers/publishers. And once we've done that, we should rejoin the productive side of the force and help the dev team track down offending issues and game balance aims. This assumes, again, there is a willingness/openess on the dev side to encourage such a partnership.

One reason Civ 4 has done as well as it has is Soren embraces feedback from the community outside his paid testers. Not all developers can handle this well, however: Look at MOO3. Man, I remember those guys *so* devoted to fan input/interaction that the design spec just got bigger each day until it was too late to put something coherent together. Thus, there needs to be a balance between ignoring the gamer and being a slave to him. While designing in a bubble carries risk, so, too, are few endeavors served well by group think and design by committee.

[Solver]

The funny thing is, most games I have have some misleading text on their box or sometimes leftovers in the manual/booklet. Meh...

[yin26]

I don't mind some system requirement overselling, etc., but...to pick a random example...when you say Multiplayer, one should safely assume that, well, the Multiplayer works!

[Solver]

Yes, which was not the case with Civ3 PTW for example. Bah.

As for requirement overselling, the worst recent case is Oblivion. The box stated it supports GeForce FX, users bought it and found out that the game runs, on the lowest settings, at 1-3 FPS, not matching any possible definition of playable. And a few days later, Bethesda officially withdrew GeForce FX from the supported card list...

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Locutus
Hardly. SMAC = Civ2 + Unit Workshop but with even crappier AI (Worst. AI. Ever. Makes even unmodded CtP2 look good), UI, graphics, etc. Civ4 is SOOO much more than that (it probably borrows more from the CtP games than from SMAC, but the funny thing is that most people haven't played the CtP games enough to realise it). SMAC isn't terrible, but anyone who thinks it's more than a mediocre game is delusional (but of course I can't blame anyone for that, looking at those abominable graphics for too long is bound to have an effect on one's sanity).

I'd say the SMAC AI is basically the same or a little better than Civ2. The problem for the AI however is simply that SMAC has much more features and complexer strategies compared to Civ2. The AI however isn't a problem when you play SMAC multiplayer - most fun!

Likewise, I don't think the Civ4 AI is much better than the SMAC. The strategies simply are less complex, meaning the AI has less trouble handling them. To give a couple examples...

1) Popbooming: available in Civ2 & SMAC, not in Civ3-4: no wonder the AI can keep up better growthwise!

2) Wonder hurrying in Civ2/SMAC by caravans and crawlers. The Civ3-4 solution to make the AI competitive: remove the ability to hurry wonders! Well except for a rare engineer now and then.

3) Zones of Control in Civ2/SMAC: the AI doesn't know how to handle those, so in Civ3-4 they're removed. In Civ3-4 the AI still used the same tactic-less storming tactics of Civ2 - the only difference is now the AI can just walk past your defenses. Once again, it makes the AI more competitive, but that doesn't equal it's a smarter AI.

4) Attack/Defense seperation. Due to the AI storming tactics, and attack values being higher than defense values in Civ2/SMAC it's easy to massacre all incoming troops. Since Civ4 removed the A/D distinction, this is less the case.

Conclusion: the reason why Civ4 has a better AI is because it is a simpler game. The only reason why Civ4 is worth bothering with is because it is moddable enough to make the crappy standard game in something more decent yourself.

[Nikolai]

You call Civ4 crappy?

[Maniac]

Well I like most of the basic game mechanisms. I just find the standard tech tree, civics etcetera are boring and don't lead to interesting strategy decisions. SMAC allows much more diverse gameplay. Fortunately Civ4 is moddable, and I do like mods such as Fall from Heaven.

[Nikolai]

Where can I find that one? It's not in the files section of civilization4.net(not that anything is to be found there really, but that's another case).

[Maniac]

CFC

[Dis]

he is right in that civ4 is a simpler game. Though it isn't crappy, it's fun.

[Xuenay]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Where can I find that one? It's not in the files section of civilization4.net(not that anything is to be found there really, but that's another case).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148075

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171398