Sadly, Grade "F" for Civ IV: Colonization

[kayapo]

I really think this game is set to be a gem once it gets balanced and tweaked.

That the game requires this balancing and tweaking is rather obvious, but really...does anyone in this point in time thinks that games are going to be released and not need a patch right after? Especially games like CiV games are complex and appeal to a very large and demanding crowd.

The first thing i thought when i saw the FF list is that they need to be better spread out, but that really didn't make me think the game was broken.

I'm very happy with it right now. The tools are there for a great game and i'm sure it will evolve in due time. In the mean time i'm actually having fun with it.

 

[The_Dwarf]

@ obsolete :

The bad manual doesnt deserve to have much weight in rating the game. That is because after the game is a view days out we know all how things work anyway and probably never look into it anymore.

 

[arkham4269]

I really think this game is set to be a gem once it gets balanced and tweaked.

Why should gamers expect less than any other consumer? Would you want to buy a book with some pages out of sequence and maybe some missing altogether? Would you want to buy a car that had many features not work right or where missing altogether?

I think the game makers are playing on our geek love of the genre and we allow them to get away with it. I mean if they can't be bothered to proof-read their manuals and play test their games before putting them out, why should we bother to buy them?

 

[kayapo]

Why should gamers expect less than any other consumer? Would you want to buy a book with some pages out of sequence and maybe some missing altogether? Would you want to buy a car that had many features not work right or where missing altogether?

I think the game makers are playing on our geek love of the genre and we allow them to get away with it. I mean if they can't be bothered to proof-read their manuals and play test their games before putting them out, why should we bother to buy them?

I respect your way of thinking, i don't agree though. I prefer it this way. This is the main reason i like computer games over console games. Computer games evolve, they are interactive with the consumers. Games could come out and be just what they are out of the box and that's it. I'm pretty sure we'd still buy them and probably still have fun. It is because we know that games will get patched and tweaked that we complain so much. If this was a console game, people would just move on to other things if they really didn't like it that much, but since we all know the game will get patched and it has great potential we are here...complaining

edit: BTW, books have revisions and are re-edited too =P

 

[Jeckel]

edit: BTW, books have revisions and are re-edited too =P

I was just going to say that.

I read a lot of books, and the first runs often have miss spellings, incorrect grammer, and even, on occation, pages out of order. Things made by humans arn't perfect.

 

[Dale]

Things made by humans arn't perfect.

I am, and I was made by two humans.

 

[Reiko]

I really think this game is set to be a gem once it gets balanced and tweaked.

That the game requires this balancing and tweaking is rather obvious, but really...does anyone in this point in time thinks that games are going to be released and not need a patch right after? Especially games like CiV games are complex and appeal to a very large and demanding crowd.

The first thing i thought when i saw the FF list is that they need to be better spread out, but that really didn't make me think the game was broken.

I'm very happy with it right now. The tools are there for a great game and i'm sure it will evolve in due time. In the mean time i'm actually having fun with it.

I like the game so far but it does need a lot of tweaking. That should have been taken care of before it was released. That is what testing is for.

 

[King Andrew]

I got the game a few days ago and whilst I am not as overly negative as some people, I do think it needs a patch to at least give us casual (majority) players the ability to pursue a more sandbox, creative style of play if we want to.

Regarding Liberty Bells, I'm going to have to agree with TFvanguard that people should not be punished for making common sense choices on easier difficulty levels.

The randomness of huts and the likes is fine, they're potentially dangerous, as exploration of new worlds often is. But making Liberty Bells such a wince inducing phenomenon is like causing the Antarans to attack every time you find a Gaia or Terran planet in Moo2 - for the casual player, it just takes away from the whole reward/incentive phenomenon that kept me playing the original Col over a decade.

I'm not saying they should take away that mechanic for those who want it, but really Dale, I just don't think most players just are into that sort of thing. More options would be nice.

There is also the issue in the larger Caribbean maps of having islands that take 10 - 15 turns to reach by caravel and as a result everyone has to settle on the top of South America. This isn't much fun, or particularly realistic in regard to how that part of the world was colonized. A bit of fixing of high seas roots would fix this easily so you can actually spread out as they did in the actual Caribbean.

On the more positive side, the map generation is pretty good compared to the original, you get the colder poles and the tropical center in a much more uniform manner, which I think is great. I also like the swamp terrain, just gives the game a real atmosphere.

Over all I rate the game a 'B' whereas the original Col got an 'A' (adjusted for the time).

For whatever reason I'm just not having as much fun as I did exploring or building as I did in the original, but I'm confident that with a patch or two giving casual gamers more options about settlement it could move to an 'A'.

 

[vra379971]

Why should gamers expect less than any other consumer? Would you want to buy a book with some pages out of sequence and maybe some missing altogether? Would you want to buy a car that had many features not work right or where missing altogether?

I think the game makers are playing on our geek love of the genre and we allow them to get away with it. I mean if they can't be bothered to proof-read their manuals and play test their games before putting them out, why should we bother to buy them?

It's to a great degree a matter of economics.

Before the Net, gamers were like any other consumer, they bought the finished product (mistakes, errors and all).

With the net, that book you are referring to, its pages get corrected and refined, and your car optimzed and repaired, all with no effort from you!

The end reason for the bugs in the early release is that patching has changed the way game creation works. As the cost to make a game has become astronomical, it must be released on time so as to start making a profit on it - which is used to maintain a team of support staff to refine the product. Otherwise, it would be unaffordable to perfect the game.

 

[Gliese 581]

It's to a great degree a matter of economics.

Before the Net, gamers were like any other consumer, they bought the finished product (mistakes, errors and all).

With the net, that book you are referring to, its pages get corrected and refined, and your car optimzed and repaired, all with no effort from you!

The end reason for the bugs in the early release is that patching has changed the way game creation works. As the cost to make a game has become astronomical, it must be released on time so as to start making a profit on it - which is used to maintain a team of support staff to refine the product. Otherwise, it would be unaffordable to perfect the game.

It's shortsighted bussiness to release a faulty product, in any case gamers are not stupid and if it's like you're saying and this is becoming a rule (or already is) in the game industry, then gamers will simply wait before they buy a product from that company again, or get something else and not buy it at all. So now your customers like you less for releasing games early and you didn't get all the extra profit out of it you might have planned..

 

[vra379971]

It's shortsighted bussiness to release a faulty product, in any case gamers are not stupid and if it's like you're saying and this is becoming a rule (or already is) in the game industry, then gamers will simply wait before they buy a product from that company again, or get something else and not buy it at all. So now your customers like you less for releasing games early and you didn't get all the extra profit out of it you might have planned..

...Interesting but ultimately flawed arguement? How do I prove this?

Gamers are an impulsive bunch, and WILL buy a game the moment its released. The fact we are all here chattin' about it is proof in the pudding. So, nevermind the waitin' arguement, gamers won't.

As for the liking part of this arguement...it's flawed as well. Just like in Civ, because the City's population is not setting off fireworks in joy doesn't mean they won't work anyway - or in this case buy anyway.

No matter when they do it, people who want it will pick up the game eventually. If you don't release it before you think all the bugs are worked out, you will likely have blown the project's budget and will be unable to service it further, meaning you won't be able to release the game at all, and lose every penny spent.

In anycase, I'm not saying gamers are stupid - I'm saying there is a new relationship that has been made between gamers and companies, and they pretty well understand its a mutally beneficial realtionship.

Companies - who live to serve their shareholders - show the kind of timely profit that the market demands. This allows company stability and the ability to service their product. Due to the massive cost of game production sales cash is definately used to maintain a team to support the game. Companies like to have projects that are self-sufficent in order to stay competitve - sales cash goes to support, and the patch process lets them get the capital sooner.

Gamers - They benefit from what is an ultimately more refined game. As constant tweaks can be made to it after reactions are gauged, it's possible to increase a gamer's pleasure as much as possible. Also, they benefit from having the title flourish is successful, as company bosses can ultimately point to hard sales figures when plotting company direction.

In sum, gotta think of the big picture mate.

 

[Ninja2]

Gamers - They benefit from what is an ultimately more refined game. As constant tweaks can be made to it after reactions are gauged, it's possible to increase a gamer's pleasure as much as possible. Also, they benefit from having the title flourish is successful, as company bosses can ultimately point to hard sales figures when plotting company direction.

The only problem with your logic is that we have no guarantee that the game will be serviced at all, or the right to return the game if no patch/service occurs. You only have the company's reputation to go by, and that is not a very solid guarantee. In fact, the more unfinished games any company releases (assuming they are trying to fund service by sales), the worse their reputation is going to get.

We must accept some flaws, simply because that's what the industry forces us to do - and I hate it. I generally avoid buying a game, until it has had its first patch. Sometimes, I even wait for its inevitable expansions. In the meantime, I will play games that have already had its "service". Maybe that puts me two years behind the rest of the gaming crowd, but at least my gaming time is spent with games that feel finished.

 

[Ninja2]

I am, and I was made by two humans.

Man, I thought you were compiled to perfection?

 

[Oerdin]

I'm already bored of this game and I've only played it three times.

 

[Lord Shadow]

The only problem with your logic is that we have no guarantee that the game will be serviced at all, or the right to return the game if no patch/service occurs. You only have the company's reputation to go by, and that is not a very solid guarantee. In fact, the more unfinished games any company releases (assuming they are trying to fund service by sales), the worse their reputation is going to get.

Well, even though there's no physical guarantee, I'm pretty damn sure this game will be extensively patched, just like basically every Civ/Civ-like game and expansion since SMAC.

Company reputation is a very solid guarantee, in my opinion: if Firaxis didn't have a history of servicing its games to perfection, I would've already returned my game, as I would Civ4, Civ3 and all the expansions shortly after their release. Hell, I seriously doubt I would've bought any further games from them after the third or so screw-up.

In my eyes, their reputation won't be tarnished till they abandon this extensive, post-release patching routine. I've held Firaxis in the same esteem since Civ3. Would it be better if they released perfect games every single time? Of course, and it'd also be awesome if I got straight A+ in every single university exam I took, but that doesn't happen either.

The gaming industry hasn't worked like that in a decade, because games have gotten more complex and the market stricter. Games are released when they're released because there's no other option: publishers and shareholders make the rules, and the developing team has a finite amount of time and money to meet the objectives. It has nothing to do with laziness.

 

[kayapo]

It's shortsighted bussiness to release a faulty product, in any case gamers are not stupid and if it's like you're saying and this is becoming a rule (or already is) in the game industry, then gamers will simply wait before they buy a product from that company again, or get something else and not buy it at all. So now your customers like you less for releasing games early and you didn't get all the extra profit out of it you might have planned..

The problem i see when people say games are broken is that they fail to see why we are even allowed to say that.
If this was a console game we would not be here, those that like the game would keep on liking it how it is now and those that don't would play something else. You could have people saying the game sucks and doesn't make sense but the argueing about how it is broken and needs to be fixed would never happen since...there is no way for that to happen.

We are so impregnated with how the game industry works that nowadays we don't even finish playing a game once before coming to the forums and telling people about what we want changed. There are games that benefit very little from patching, like FPS's and action games, but strategy games and more complex games like that go throught extensive patching in most cases to tweak the game to suit what the players want. I think we take for granted that companies are keeping support teams (some are better then others, some companies are also better then others =P ) sometimes years after the game was released because that is what the industry demands.

The only reason you say the game is faulty and should be fixed is because you know that it will. None of us would be here otherwise, we would either be content with the product or move to something else.

Some people do wait before buying a game, a lot do actually. Personally i buy very few games that are "releases" mainly only the ones that have great appeal to me, like any CiV game. Buying the game as a release means you'll participate on the "fixing" of the game. Again, we take this for granted because we feel they are FORCED to fix the game and we forget they could just release a game, wait a few months, patch the most glaring CTDs and never touch it again. A lot of companies do that, games like FPS are a dime a dozen on the market because of that too, they don't require teams of patchers or support to a comunity that will want a totally different game from what was released.

We think that tweaking the game to suit our own wishes is fixing. We get so used to the standart of a finished product like CiV4 that we forget how long it took for it to get to that stage. Countless patches, expansions, years of comunity dicussions, etc.

IMO it would be a shame if CiV4 had been left exactly what it was when it came out of the box. I'm very glad that we are allowed to pressure gaming companies to "fix" the game to suit us.

Last but not least there is NO WAY that a gem like what CiV4 is now can be released as a ready product. By now you know what i'm going to say, CiV4 is what it is because it has gone throught us, it would never be this good without all the "fixing".

So in a way, i'm glad i'm stupid enough to buy games that are "faulty" and i'm very glad that i get to participate in the "fixing".

 

[kayapo]

The only problem with your logic is that we have no guarantee that the game will be serviced at all, or the right to return the game if no patch/service occurs. You only have the company's reputation to go by, and that is not a very solid guarantee. In fact, the more unfinished games any company releases (assuming they are trying to fund service by sales), the worse their reputation is going to get.

That is the case with just about everything you buy. You are buying the reputation of the company. There are very few products and services you use in life that you can return if they don't suit your wishes. Not to mention we are talking about an artistic work (sort of). A game is like a movie or a book. Do you get to return your books because you didn't like it? Do you walk out of a movie and ask for your money back? I wish we could, but simply you learn that some directors are for you, some aren't. Some authors are for you, others you should pass by.

It is the same thing with games.

We must accept some flaws, simply because that's what the industry forces us to do - and I hate it. I generally avoid buying a game, until it has had its first patch. Sometimes, I even wait for its inevitable expansions. In the meantime, I will play games that have already had its "service". Maybe that puts me two years behind the rest of the gaming crowd, but at least my gaming time is spent with games that feel finished.

Just like my post above this is assuming that a game is flawed because it isn't exactly what you wish it was. The only reason you think like this is because you know that your opinion matter and the game WILL get tweaked to the liking of its community. If it wasn't the case you would not be here saying that.

The industry doesn't force you to accept flaws. Life does.

 

[Padma]

This discussion has certainly taken an interesting turn!

To chime into the current bit: the game industry is evolving. The internet allows for more of a community to develop around a game/series. The game companies are tapping into that community for ideas and improvements. Does that make us 'unpaid beta testers'? In a sense, yes.

There's a mantra in the Open Source community: "Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers." This way, you get the community interested/excited in your product, and you get valuable feedback for making further refinements. Games, even though 'Closed Source', are starting to go the same way. They know there's a community here that will buy the game, and provide needed feedback, in anticipation of bug fixes and patches.

Part of this is driven by economics, as mentioned above. A company has only so much money, and so much time, before they must deliver a game. They create the best game they can, given those constraints. But even with beta testers, the number of people who actually play the game before release is quite small.

On release, though, the thousands and thousands in the community will snatch the game up, and start playing it like only we can. Some will like the game, others will rant about how everything was done wrong, and some will come to forums like this, and discuss ways the game can be improved.

The developers read these forums, and occasionally answer (or even ask) questions, and take the feedback and use it to tweak the game to make it 'better'.

For those interested in how this kind of development can work, I recommend reading The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond.

 

[Finarfin]

You know, as one of those English Majors, I have to agree. I spent 17.5 years in the military as an intelligence analyst and I can tell you, it doesn't matter your audience, the nature of the information or what, but you could be briefing about the impending invasion from Mongo and if your PowerPoint slide has a typo, almost everyone in the rooms stops listening and starts muttering to each other about the "lame misspelling on bullet point 4." I've seen it time and time again.

I kept training my troops that while we might be in a combat zone, we had to produce as professional a piece as we could because if the 'packaging' wasn't right, the message would be lost. I had Colonel's tell me

You lost me right here with the incorrect pluralization.

 

[Ellestar]

Lets for a moment, ignore all the broken features and all the bugs and the rest of that. Lets look at something very simple, that doesn’t require any coding or mathematics, or guesswork. Lets look at the colopedia (whoops, civopedia now??).

+1
I remember i tried finding a victory conditions in Col2 Civilopedia. I mean, come on, isn't the winning the most important thing in the game? I guess Firaxis guys don't think so.

lol

metacritic.com rating 85. EIGHTYFIVE! The lowest being 70. Something's terribly going wrong here...

I mean... Even the cover-artwork sucks and the graphics are rather outdated by todays standards... I wonder - who writes those 'professional' reviews?

It's some collective ... thing. So every 'professional reviewer' sees all these favorable tests and is afraid to be called incompetent by his colleagues and competitors. This is insane!

They don't play the game that much, probably they don't finish even one game. Some don't play at all and just rewrite other's reviews.