Announcement

**vee4473** · January 15, 2003, 23:10

Originally posted by kalbear
Well, again, this is kind of expected behavior.

When you have basically a finished product - the features are there, the code is basically done, etc, and you make some heavy design changes, it can be often harder than simply starting from scratch. Even if it isn't harder, it's a lot of work. There's the dev work that has to revisit code and change a whole lot of it, make sure things work according to the new design - which also has to be done. New graphics need to be implemented and moved about. That sort of thing.

And then there's test. A lot of the previous testing basically gets thrown out the window. All the regression needs to get run, creating all manner of bugs and issues. New tests need to be thought up to test the new design, new stress needs to be done.

And all the effort on manual testing? That's basically wasted.

Add to this that they weren't in the final testing phases of the game yet - that was work that they've basically gotten into recently - and I can see it taking 8 months. When this happened to Half-Life, for instance, it took another year to release.

If what you say is all true, wouldn't you say that they were absolutely wrong in marketting the game and blabbing release dates way ahead of what they knew would be true?

If they just started testing and it is the norm for software testing to take many many months, as you say, then they should not have given unrealistic release dates. That's an absolute no no in any industry.

I think that is what many are angry at. If they are as good as you at developing software , shouldn't they have known that their release dates were absolutely ridiculous?

**Rantz** · January 15, 2003, 23:19

Originally posted by vee4473

If they just started testing and it is the norm for software testing to take many many months, as you say, then they should not have given unrealistic release dates. That's an absolute no no in any industry.

I think that is what many are angry at. If they are as good as you at developing software , shouldn't they have known that their release dates were absolutely ridiculous?

Hardcore testing started in Sept/Oct and quite frankly we really (both IG and QS) thought we would hit thanksgiving. Could we have shipped a game on thanksgiving, yeah. Would it have needed a patch? Yeah. There were some ugly 'out of nowhere' bugs that occured that were really really unexpected.

In software, it does happen. Do I like that it happens? No. Do you try to build in buffer time? Of course. Sometimes it ain't enough time however.

**vee4473** · January 15, 2003, 23:28

good enough for me.

I'm not against you, only trying to give you my take on why so many are angered.

Just learn from your mistakes and say that you can't give a release date, because apparently this game is so complex and unpredictable that it isn't realistic to do so.

As you say, in software **** happens, and I can appreciate that.

But stop with the guessing about release dates.

Which you admit is a guess when you said "we thought we would hit thanksgiving, but bugs appeared out of nowhere".

Just say that the game is the most complex game in history to program, and a release date is unpredictable.

Every date you give and miss only fuels the fires.

**vee4473** · January 15, 2003, 23:29

by the way, is "Rantz" and "Chantz" just a coincidence?

**Harry Seldon** · January 15, 2003, 23:56

Originally posted by SeanV

Whoa, CT, where did that come from? The purpose of a good strategy game is to be confusing? The kind of confusing where you wander around for hours on end wondering if you have been here before, or if there ever was a before?

Isn't the whole purpose of strategy to pit mind against mind and idea against idea and let them fight it out with as little interference from Lady Luck and the Three Sisters of Fate as possible?

Or have I been living in a fantasy world all this time? Please tell me what is true and what is false... I'm really confused now.

Maybe our Comrade should pick up Azurik. That's a delightful game for the Xbox that's everything he's asking for and more. It's a beautiful looking game that promises all the twists and turns you could ever hope for. It is also the most asinine hunk of sh*t anyone has ever tried to sucker you into buying. If MOO3 is a third as confusing as Azurik was to play and packed all the walloping "fun" I enjoyed as I spent hours trying to figure out how to reach an area the AI promised me was where I was supposed to go when in reality I couldn't get there until I completed several puzzles that were several hours (real time) walking distance away...*Harry gasps for air*...then I'd hunt down every developer that destroyed the game I love, hold them down, and take a dump on their pea-sized weasely head.

Now, I began following the development of this game shortly after Mr. Emerich departed the MOO3 team and I'll admit I like many things about the grand vision he had for our game. However, if he couldn't make it work then he couldn't make it work. With the mass of devoted fans he's aquired, I'm sure someone will sign him to develop a game that includes all the elements we've debated for months. Maybe he'll even be able to work out some of the kinks in the design that will make it fun again. Until then, look to Azurik and shudder at what may have been.

**TheMaestro** · January 16, 2003, 00:16

I must admit, I am really looking forward to Gal Civ -- I believe space games are cool when ships can really move wherever they want, and aren't limited by space-lanes (which is what I think it is.)

That's what makes these kinds of games great...full tactical deployment...it might be too impossible to do, cause it would be crazy...and in theory, some ships could simply run away for ever.

**Craig P.** · January 16, 2003, 00:44

Originally posted by vee4473
Just learn from your mistakes and say that you can't give a release date, because apparently this game is so complex and unpredictable that it isn't realistic to do so.

As you say, in software **** happens, and I can appreciate that.

But stop with the guessing about release dates.

Which you admit is a guess when you said "we thought we would hit thanksgiving, but bugs appeared out of nowhere".

Just say that the game is the most complex game in history to program, and a release date is unpredictable.

Every date you give and miss only fuels the fires.

They haven't missed a date since December 4, because they haven't given a date since December 4. The lesson was learned over a month ago (after Chantz got crucified at IGMOO).

**Asmodean** · January 16, 2003, 17:19

Okay...so I was wrong. The redesign was not due to mass market decisions, but rather the feel of the game.

In all fairness, though, I really believed what I wrote...and I did defend QS and IG

Asmodean

**Comrade Tribune** · January 17, 2003, 14:46

Originally posted by Rantz
MOO3, prior to the refocus of the design did *not* have a sense of cause and effect that was clear enough for even those of us working on it, and KNEW what was going on under the hood. If you know the formulas, and that's the case, well there is a problem at hand.

I see what you are driving at here; but I rather don´t see how that couldn´t be solved by tweaking the formulas.

I had been looking forward to a game where particularly the domestic part would play a large role, and which you would play for the sake of playing it, rather then developing the speediest formula to conquer 2/3 of the Galaxy in the shortest possible time. I find that whole concept so tremendously boring. Basically my gripe is that, whereas Moo3 could have been the first serious political sim ever, it devolved into another conquest game; and there have already been so many of those.

**ashbery** · January 17, 2003, 14:57

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Moo3 could have been the first serious political sim ever,

Dont worry, this game will be http://forum.antikgames.com/pax-roma...riptionUk.html

**Rantz** · January 17, 2003, 16:03

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

I see what you are driving at here; but I rather don´t see how that couldn´t be solved by tweaking the formulas.

because feedback and enduser experience isn't relayed in formulas. In a HUGE amount of the cases, formulas remained the same, the depiction and feedback mechanism changed.

**vee4473** · January 17, 2003, 21:11

you know,

I never got a response to whether "rantz" and "chantz" is a coincidence

anyone know?

**TCO** · January 17, 2003, 21:12

They're script kiddies

**vee4473** · January 17, 2003, 21:28

so it was made up to give a sort of "developer relationship"?

not sure what you mean by script kiddies.

**RolandtheMad** · January 17, 2003, 21:44

Originally posted by GP
They're script kiddies

Announcement

Can it get any more simplistic?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment