Dislike CIV5 development? Tell us how!

[Valkrionn]

I'm going to mostly stay out of this discussion, but just wanted to respond to two posts...

Well I guess the point is that you can't not release it if you're told to, and you can't really admit its flaws if you're under direction not to. Obviously patch it up as you go. Doesn't necessarily make the game any better or it any more excusable, but it's the best you can do in the situation. I think there's a difference between complaints against the development team and the parent company.

My thoughts exactly. I sincerely hope that the advent of distribution methods such as Steam and Impulse leads to more small developers producing games independently of large publishers.

None of the above.

Operate like Blizzard.

Yes. Release games every 10-20 years, which ultimately end up little more than graphical upgrades of prior games.

Whore out your IP in order to generate a constant stream of revenue.

Allow players to purchase more and more unnecessary, non-gameplay affecting fluff, in order to further whore your IP.

State publicly a desire to 'monetize' a free service that is 100% required to use your games in the manner in which people intend upon purchase.

Totally the best way to operate.

 

[rbj2001]

Like it or not, the first option is both the most realistic and, regrettably, the most common. My beloved Victoria II, for example, is not yet playable without a modification. It's no slight task to release a complicated game both bug free and on time. Not without infinite time and resources.

Mmm... how about any console game that is released, or any game older than 6 or 7 years, before internet connections were common? They manage it. 95% of all games ever released have been in the "final" form, with no question of patches or updates. It's a very basic principle in software development, that you don't go to production until you've finished testing and fixed all your (important) bugs.

Releasing a buggy / unfinished game with the intent of finishing it later should not even be considered as an option. I suspect the fact that they did consider it an option played a part in getting them into this situation in the first place.

 

[QuantumProjects]

If this isn't a biased poll, then I suggest another option to be added to it:

4. Be realistic about the time you have been given to develop the game, define a fitting list of features which you are somewhat sure you can provide within time constraints, and make sure there are not obvious game breaking bugs or buggy pieces of code before you release the game. Stop dreaming about you creating something utterly epic if you don't have enough resources and time to do it, and stick to what you have.

The situation in which Firaxis and 2k are now derives exactly from the choices they considered - just those Bibor pointed out for this poll. There surely were others.

You can't build the Arc Reactor from rubbish, rusty pieces of iron and tiny dust particles of paladium in a week, you're not Tony Stark

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Mmm... how about any console game that is released, or any game older than 6 or 7 years, before internet connections were common? They manage it. 95% of all games ever released have been in the "final" form, with no question of patches or updates. It's a very basic principle in software development, that you don't go to production until you've finished testing and fixed all your (important) bugs.

Releasing a buggy / unfinished game with the intent of finishing it later should not even be considered as an option. I suspect the fact that they did consider it an option played a part in getting them into this situation in the first place.

This is like saying you shouldn't pick an apple until it turns into an orange.
PC games are released in a buggy, unfinished state so frequently because that is something that can be fixed. In fact, it's the way PC game companies do things.
It's much harder(if not impossible) to patch a console game, so you have to release it as finished and polished as possible.
It's not like Civ V's release was especially bad by PC standards. In fact, if you look at its market, it compares rather favorably, to, say....a Paradox release. It doesn't have crippling performance issues. The mechanics mostly work in a way that doesn't entirely break the game. And it doesn't boast a shortcut to the desktop tied to the right mouse button(i.e. it doesn't crash every time you right-click).
And Firaxis actually releases official, fully-stable patches with some regularity.

 

[rbj2001]

My point was that it's not that difficult to release a polished game, because companies do it all the time (for consoles) and always did, until recently, for home computers.

Just because games can be patched later doesn't make it a good idea, and it's harmful to the game-buying public that some companies (and some game players by the sound of it) think it's acceptable.

I wouldn't tar all PC game companies with the same brush, however.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Gosh, this isn't a Poll... it's a gimmicky trap into biased options for us to fall in.

Care to integrate the following essential alternative answers and i'll vote.

4-- Release the Game in a Finished state.
5-- Plan for a buffer zone where the Game is available only to pre-paid owners of Beta Phase privileges, then Release, again in a Finished state.
6-- Release as Freeware just in case you may get lucky.
7-- None of the above, cut your losses and try to start a whole new project with better, rational & solid Business principles.
8-- Sell it all to the competition.

My vote goes to #5.

 

[Valkrionn]

Gosh, this isn't a Poll... it's a gimmicky trap into biased options for us to fall in.

Care to integrate the following essential alternative answers and i'll vote.

4-- Release the Game in a Finished state.
5-- Plan for a buffer zone where the Game is available only to pre-paid owners of Beta Phase privileges, then Release, again in a Finished state.
6-- Release as Freeware just in case you may get lucky.
7-- None of the above, cut your losses and try to start a whole new project with better, rational & solid Business principles.
8-- Sell it all to the competition.

My vote goes to #5.

#4 is impossible in the scenario he outlined.

The others are mostly valid, aside from #7; In that case, it would be #2. They would never get close enough to release to know they won't be able to finish, only to never release.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

PC games are released in a buggy, unfinished state so frequently because that is something that can be fixed. In fact, it's the way PC game companies do things.

Not so, said Brad "the Frog" Wardell of fame StarDock not so long ago.
Want me to bring out some of the latest quotes from Impulse and how he managed to pull out an extremely wise stunt with WoM:Elemental?

You either have the Business instinct or you don't.
But financial knowledge is King & Slave in the cut throat Industry that Gaming development is.
Distributors cash in or not.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

#4 is impossible in the scenario he outlined.

Sometimes a good freaky sweet lie to the darn leeches that shareholders are is all that's left for a developer underneath restrictions by a distributor -- even if outlined or predicted within *THE* minimal business plan pre-approved by those who invested initially.

 

[rbj2001]

And there was no reference in the poll to the point at which you sack your project lead for their atrocious planning!

Seriously though, the right answer is that you never get into this situation in the first place.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

9-- Call up a formal meeting of Investors (After all, you're the guy they signed their livelihood into -- You still have the solid printed contract proof right there in a three feet thick Iridium plated Vault!), ask for mo'Money. Budget it, loop back to #4 when actually ready. Done.

 

[Valkrionn]

9-- Call up a formal meeting of Investors (After all, you're the guy they signed their livelihood into -- You still have the solid printed contract proof right there in a three feet thick Iridium plated Vault!), ask for mo'Money. Budget it, loop back to #4 when actually ready. Done.

That is #3, stated in another way.

 

[Nares]

You have three choices, which one will you pick?

Understand that the change in management and ownership was probably the greatest cause for the problematic development you describe in your scenario.

Probably launch even with an unfinished/undertested product knowing that it will recover costs. Hope that this doesn't forever tarnish the franchise image because that's what you're really selling as per the scenario you describe.

The reality is you'd probably go with some combination of the three choices. A serious assessment of the project will detail the potential value of the third option. Even though your best bet is to go with the second option, you'll still provide some support as per the first option because a) the game isn't a total write-off, and b) you still need to maintain a strong community presence, which completely abandoning support for the game fails to do.

Basically, you assign your "top men" (LoL reference) to work on the next project while still supporting the current project through less-experienced developers who can use the experience.

Though the reality is they probably put their top men on CivFacebook, which probably could have gotten away with using the less-experienced game developers (who incidentally are probably better trained to work on a facebook app in the first place).

 

[Thormodr]

lol haven't been by the WoW forums lately have you

Although I do agree, Blizzard is a freak of nature.

Blizzard ain't perfect but they are miles better than Firaxis/2K Games.

Blizzard extreme fans however...*Ugh*

 

[Thormodr]

Just read a fascinating article in "The Nation" (A Bangkok English newspaper.)

It talked about why there aren't any Asian Nikes or Apples.

He theorized that Asian companies are too obsessed with making money and less with other intangibles. They are missing the big picture by only fixating on money.

I think this could very well apply to the Computer gaming industry as well.
I really do think Firaxis/2k Games certainly need to refocus their priorities. This s*** isn't going to fly for much longer.

 

[JohnnyW]

Basically, you assign your "top men" (LoL reference)

Actually, that's an Indiana Jones reference.

Maybe I'm biased. But at least I base my criticism on facts.

So I guess that means you base your praise (which is all I ever see from you) on things other than facts.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Praise based on facts is a form of criticism, no?

 

[lschnarch]

Praise based on facts is a form of criticism, no?

By the way... I just learned in the 2k forums that based on special request there (to be more correct: here) will be some ex post infractions?

 

[Bibor]

So I guess that means you base your praise (which is all I ever see from you) on things other than facts.

See, the problem with lies is that if you repeat them for long enough, people start to believe them. And this time its not some random gamespot forum that got corrupted, but the civfanatics civilization 5 forums, a place were - supposedly - civilization 5 fans would gather and discuss various things.

I just provide the counter-balance. Because being a balanced critic right now would only feed the monster. I'm sorry to say that I can be counted among people that started it several months ago. If I only knew where it would lead...

 

[JohnnyW]

See, the problem with lies is that if you repeat them for long enough, people start to believe them. And this time its not some random gamespot forum that got corrupted, but the civfanatics civilization 5 forums, a place were - supposedly - civilization 5 fans would gather and discuss various things.

I just provide the counter-balance. Because being a balanced critic right now would only feed the monster. I'm sorry to say that I can be counted among people that started it several months ago. If I only knew where it would lead...

The thing is this game is disappointing to many people. Fact, not lie. I still hang around here because I still want to like this game. Naturally as I post my displeasure for the game in its current state will be expressed. I believe many are the same way, and it's not based on lies, it's based on our experience and logical criticisms of game flaws.

For me Civ was the pinnacle of building games...for 10 years (started in 2000 with civ3). I had high hopes for this game even though I didn't even know another had been in the works when this was released. The game was quite enjoyable for a short while, but quickly I fell out of love with the game for reasons I didn't entirely understand right away. It just didn't capture my attention the way previous games did. Fact, not lie.

Many explanations for the reasons many people feel similarly to me have been expressed by notable posters such as sullla, who you've disrespected recently. Many people found sullla's words to ring true to their feelings. Fact, not lie.

Yes, there's lots of negativity on these boards, and I wish there wasn't. I wish the product I got for my money gave me reason not to be disappointed. I wish none of us were disappointed, but many were. Fact, not lie.

I respect the fact that you want more positivity and less negativity though. That is an entirely fair desire/request/command/whatever. Some of it from some posters can be over the top. It's a release though, and I understand why it has happened. Personally I'll try to reel my own needless negativity in, though I will continue to defend the current reality of civ5 being a flawed game (in my eyes).

Yes, it is slowly getting better, but I personally don't buy games with the expectation of a necessary maturing process for the product. I expect a released game to be polished. Perhaps my standards are too high.

Either way, I hope you stay true to the facts when you defend civ5 and speak positively about it. I think it does have some good things about it over previous civs (culture as a spendable resource, hexes, limited resources, self-defending cities), and perhaps I should focus on these, but the negatives of the game are just to strong for me to do so at this time.

My apologies if I've been offensive previously. We both are fans of the franchise and want to see it do well, even if our opinions of the current game's enjoyability/depth/replayability differ.