Interview with Sid - Hints on possible MMO, new games and........Civ5?

[Asher]

Don't tell me to move along when you're being ridiculous.

His post -- VERY CLEARLY -- illustrated a pattern of buggyness and how the quality of the code has REGRESSED.

The fact that you have reading comprehension problems and/or a lacking analytical mind is no reason for me to move along.

You have painted a target on yourself for this inane stupidity, so don't get upset when you get called on it.

[LordShiva]

Americans didn't come up with capitalism

[Dale]

Originally posted by Asher
Don't tell me to move along when you're being ridiculous.

His post -- VERY CLEARLY -- illustrated a pattern of buggyness and how the quality of the code has REGRESSED.

Except that bugginess does not prove regression. Nor does it show incompleteness. It shows a failure of what's there to work correctly. If it was incomplete then it would not be there in the first place.

As for regression, does not BtS introduce new concepts whilst keeping all old concepts there? Is this not an advancement of the ideas of Civ? So it is NOT regression.

Thus the argument that "BtS is not finished" is incorrect due to the point of the argument being that it's buggy, but to be buggy requires that everything is in BtS, thus complete.

And the argument that "BtS is a regression" is also incorrect due to the fact that the concepts and ideas of Civ have advanced (moved forward) in BtS, which is contrary to the meaning of regression.

The fact that you have reading comprehension problems and/or a lacking analytical mind is no reason for me to move along.

Ahh.... so we resort to personal insults rather than intellect. I'm surprised you lasted this long considering your history.

You have painted a target on yourself for this inane stupidity, so don't get upset when you get called on it.

I look forward to the day you call me on it. Go ahead.

[Nikolai]

Buggy and finished is mutually exclusive in my book.

[Wiglaf]

Clearly, a company that releases one buggy game, one not-buggy game, and then another buggy game has regressed with respect to quality control and its relationship with customers, which is what the original point was.

This thread is pitiful and makes me wish that I could sterilize and disenfranchise people at will.

[DrSpike]

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dale
Except that bugginess does not prove regression.

The fact that the state of the bugginess regressed to the original state, as explicitly illustrated in his post, does prove regression. By definition.

Nor does it show incompleteness. It shows a failure of what's there to work correctly. If it was incomplete then it would not be there in the first place.

Something that does not work correctly is not finished.

As for regression, does not BtS introduce new concepts whilst keeping all old concepts there? Is this not an advancement of the ideas of Civ? So it is NOT regression.

The state of the bugginess has regressed. This is not a difficult concept.

A buggy game is a frustrating game, moreso than a game with less features. His post, very specifically, points out the buggy nature in his comments

Ahh.... so we resort to personal insults rather than intellect. I'm surprised you lasted this long considering your history.

This whole discussion is insulting to the entire human race.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Asher

The fact that the state of the bugginess regressed to the original state, as explicitly illustrated in his post, does prove regression. By definition.

Bugs due to additions is not regression. You're deluded if you believe so.

Something that does not work correctly is not finished.

Incorrect. Something that does not work is buggy. It can be finished.

The state of the bugginess has regressed. This is not a difficult concept.

You truly are scratching the bottom of the barrel to claim that a change in bugginess shows regression.

So what you're saying is that Windows regresses every version too.

A buggy game is a frustrating game, moreso than a game with less features. His post, very specifically, points out the buggy nature in his comments

I've never argued the bugginess of BtS. If you look at my posts you'll see very clearly that I support the bugginess claim of BtS. I clearly support the view that BtS is buggy and needs a patch to fix these issues.

This whole discussion is insulting to the entire human race.

Feeling stressed from being wrong are you?

[Dale]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
This thread is pitiful and makes me wish that I could sterilize and disenfranchise people at will.

Most people wish they could do that to certain people. So don't feel special because of that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dale
Bugs due to additions is not regression. You're deluded if you believe so.

I consider an unstable, unbalanced game to be a regression to a previous state if the previous state was an unstable, unbalanced game.

Incorrect. Something that does not work is buggy. It can be finished.

"Incorrect"? What the hell?

I hope you never, ever have to write any software I will ever have to use. Such an attitude would get you fired from any real software development company --and to be honest, I'm not familiar with your Civ4 work but I wouldn't touch that crap with a ten foot pole given your answer here.

You truly are scratching the bottom of the barrel to claim that a change in bugginess shows regression.

I'm just showing you that I know the definition of a word that you clearly do not. Regression is a returning to a previous state. That is -- by definition -- exactly what was outlined for you. Now, you are disagreeing with this and then arguing something completely different. The contention was Civ was regressing based on some qualities he identified -- namely, bugginess. If a new version becomes more buggy, like previous version, this quality is said to have regressed.

So what you're saying is that Windows regresses every version too.

If the new software is less stable than the old software, then yes, it regresses to the stability of a previous, unstable version.

I've never argued the bugginess of BtS. If you look at my posts you'll see very clearly that I support the bugginess claim of BtS. I clearly support the view that BtS is buggy and needs a patch to fix these issues.

Then what is your major malfunction?

Do you concede that Civ was unstable, then made more stable, then made more unstable again -- this is a regression in terms of stability?

Feeling stressed from being wrong are you?

I'm not stressed, I'm enraged that somebody who mods Civ can have no basic concept of what a regression is.

Two questions:
1) Do you understand the dictionary definition of regression?
2) Have you ever taken a computer science course, specifically one where you deals with topics such as regression testing? I think if you actually had any real experience with the dictionary or with computer science (or life in general, maybe), you'd recognize the stupidity of this discussion.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Asher

I consider an unstable, unbalanced game to be a regression to a previous state if the previous state was an unstable, unbalanced game.

You still cling to the single definition you picked to suit your needs out of the many on the page I gave you. Shame for you.

I hope you never, ever have to write any software I will ever have to use. Such an attitude would get you fired from any real software development company --and to be honest, I'm not familiar with your Civ4 work but I wouldn't touch that crap with a ten foot pole given your answer here.

You already have used my work.

I'm just showing you that I know the definition of a word that you clearly do not. Regression is a returning to a previous state. That is -- by definition -- exactly what was outlined for you. Now, you are disagreeing with this and then arguing something completely different. The contention was Civ was regressing based on some qualities he identified -- namely, bugginess. If a new version becomes more buggy, like previous version, this quality is said to have regressed.

You show again your failure to observe correctly, as the original contention was that BtS was "not finished". You guys brought all this 'regression' stuff up.

Do you concede that Civ was unstable, then made more stable, then made more unstable again -- this is a regression in terms of stability?

Actually, all three versions of Civ4 have been stable for me. The un-modded game has never crashed for me. Stability is not the issue, bugginess is.

I'm not stressed, I'm enraged that somebody who mods Civ can have no basic concept of what a regression is.

Two questions:
1) Do you understand the dictionary definition of regression?

Yes. Returning to a less developed version.

2) Have you ever taken a computer science course, specifically one where you deals with topics such as regression testing? I think if you actually had any real experience with the dictionary or with computer science (or life in general, maybe), you'd recognize the stupidity of this discussion.

Yes. Bachelor of Computer Science with majors in Systems Operation and Programming.

I've also worked in the testing field and development field, so I know very clearly what "regression testing" is about.

As a consumer I can see why you're pissed. BtS is buggy. But it's complete. All functions are in the game. The fact some don't work correctly, or not at all, is an issue of bugginess. The advancement of features from vanilla to Warlords to BtS is the OPPOSITE of regression. It's PROgression, regardless of whether the software becomes buggier as a result.

So I fail to see how you can still claim that BtS is a regression when it's:
1. more stable
2. a PROgression of concepts and ideas
3. an advancement in design
4. a PROgression in code

Bugginess is a QA issue. It is not regression.

[Wittlich]

Well, I for one have a simpler outlook concerning BtS:

Does it have bugs? Yes.

Is it enjoyable (even with the bugs)? Yes.

Can it be improved? Again, Yes.

Can BtS use another patch? Absolutely. (that's a "Yes" by the way)

But Should there be an additional expansion pack for the CivIV series? I have to say No. We need to move on.

I feel that any problems/heartaches/pains/complaints/etc. would be more properly addressed in a "all new" Civ5 release.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dale
You still cling to the single definition you picked to suit your needs out of the many on the page I gave you. Shame for you.

I used the first definition, and only because you were being a dink in telling people that it wasn't a regression. It is. It's right there in the definition for you to see.

You already have used my work.

Have I? I've not played a single Civ4 scenario (I hate scenarios in Civ).

You show again your failure to observe correctly, as the original contention was that BtS was "not finished". You guys brought all this 'regression' stuff up.

Why don't you learn to read in context. Look at what I quoted in my first quote. My beef is with you pretending like regressing the stability is not a regression. That's stupid.

Actually, all three versions of Civ4 have been stable for me. The un-modded game has never crashed for me. Stability is not the issue, bugginess is.

My Civ4 has crashed quite a few times, mostly during LAN play. Until the first BtS patch I couldn't even play LAN games for some reason.

Yes. Bachelor of Computer Science with majors in Systems Operation and Programming.

I've also worked in the testing field and development field, so I know very clearly what "regression testing" is about.

You very clearly do not! You don't even know the difference between "feature complete" and "complete".

You also don't understand the word "regression" and how it applies. Let's take Firefox for example. Every night they have regression tests run.

When new checkins (PROGRESSION OF CODE!!!!) cause slower performance, this is deemed a "performance regression".

When new checkins cause crashes in itself or other code, it's deemed a "stability regression".

These are official terms that I do not think you comprehend, and any genuine graduate of Computer Science from any decent university should know this -- and definitely, anyone with real world experience would know this.

As a consumer I can see why you're pissed. BtS is buggy. But it's complete. All functions are in the game.

The term you are looking for is "feature complete" which is a very different beast from "complete".

So I fail to see how you can still claim that BtS is a regression when it's:
1. more stable

It most certainly is not. And the whole point was it's a regression in terms of stability. I've only said this about 5 or 6 times so it's understandable that you apparently glossed over it.

2. a PROgression of concepts and ideas
3. an advancement in design
4. a PROgression in code

Bugginess is a QA issue. It is not regression.

BY ****ING DEFINITION.

Any time you revert to a previous state this is a REGRESSION in some form. The stability (not just in terms of not crashing, but in terms of code behaving correctly) of BtS regressed to a previous state. This was clearly outlined in the example given, and you still ignore it.

BtS is the buggiest incarnation of Civ I've ever played. It's a regression in this respect. I do not comprehend how you can not understand this.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Asher

I used the first definition, and only because you were being a dink in telling people that it wasn't a regression. It is. It's right there in the definition for you to see.

So because you say it it's true? How arrogant of you.

For those who listen properly, and those who read an entire page not just the "first definition", regression cannot apply to an advanced or newer version.

Have I? I've not played a single Civ4 scenario (I hate scenarios in Civ).

How naive. You think my work on Civ4 was limited to Desert War and RtW?

Why don't you learn to read in context. Look at what I quoted in my first quote. My beef is with you pretending like regressing the stability is not a regression. That's stupid.

My Civ4 has crashed quite a few times, mostly during LAN play. Until the first BtS patch I couldn't even play LAN games for some reason.

I have not had stability problems with any of the versions. SP or MP. The majority of people I know who play Civ have the same experience as me. Just because you have a **** computer doesn't mean you can blame Civ.

BtS is the buggiest incarnation of Civ I've ever played. It's a regression in this respect. I do not comprehend how you can not understand this.

Because BtS has not regressed. It is at a higher level in design, development and content. The AI is better, the concepts are better, the art is better, performance is better. Yes it's buggy, but it's an advancement on C3C, vanilla AND Warlords.

Let's look at another meaning of regression as might be applied to some people here:

"Reversion to an earlier or less mature pattern of feeling or behavior."

Or even:

"gradual loss (as in old age) of memories and acquired skills"

Pick which one applies to you.

[Harovan]

Jesus Dale, stop it already. It does not make you look smarter. At the coutrary, it bears the danger of you losing the respect you may have earned by your modding.

Since you deliberately choose not to comprehend (I try to put it nicely), but send whole armies of strawmen in our direction, here's it extra clear for you.

No, BtS as a whole is not a regression. It is, at the countrary, an immense progression in design and complexity. I don't talk about art as it is secondary in a TBS. But that is not what we are talking about. I repeat it, to get it into your brain more reliably. That is not what we are talking about. Got it? No? Ok, again: Concepts and complexity are not what we are talking about. Absolutely not. If you still didn't get it, there is no point in continuing this discussion at all.

We are not talking about complexity, performance and arts. We are talking about general game quality, about openness and honesty toward customers. Here Firaxis has rightly earned a horrible reputation during not only C3C, but the whole Civ3 period. You may have not noticed as you chose to spend your time with niche games, but it is true nonetheless.

Plain Civ4 was in a surprising and pleasant manner different. The game was good and polished from the start, and there were armies of developers present in the forums to explain game concepts, to talk about map scripts, modding in general, to find and weed out remaining bugs. The trust of the players, which was deservedly lost during Civ3, slowly returned and began to shine like last time in Civ2 and SMAC times.

An immense progress in quality customer relations, isn't it? Could all have been nice and dandy, if not ...

... there was Warlords. A somewhat poor expansion if you ask me. It added little and shifted game focus towards war. An albeit important, but pretty onesided approach to the game. There are better war games out there, Civ shouldn't try to compete with them. But things were corrected ...

... when BtS came out. It retained the features of Warlords and added many economical features, to balance the general game concept again in the middle between war and peace. It could be the best Civ of all times, if not ...

... it was very buggy. And here the regression kicked in. Not in concepts or complexity. In quality and openness to the community. At the moment it is not better than it was during C3C times, the improvement gained with Civ4 is gone. The similarities are glaring obvious. We have a rushed and unpolished expansion. We have devs and publishers stating that they "work on a patch", but nothing happens for many months. In C3C it never came, so do you really blame people for being afraid they get the shaft again? Old habits die hard.

This patch is due several months now, but no sign of any progress on it. But there are talks about other games, about a simplified "Revolutions" and even Civ5. And that's what buggers people like Spikey and me. Get it finished, before you talk about new stuff. Quick before your reputation is in the basement again. And failing that because it is too much work that can't be rushed, at least talk to us! Throw us a bone and goddamnit, continue to work on it and stop yabbering about new games!

And no, a game is not finished when artwork and coding is done and everything works in a halfassed way. I write software for a living myself and know of the habits of the industry. But as you stated yourself, there are still companies like Paradox who take pride in their products. Firaxis was on the right way for a while, before they stopped to communicate again. Let's hope they still remember their lesson.