10 Reasons Why Conquests Went Wrong

[warpstorm]

"FAO Firaxis/Atari et al: I bought Civ3. I bought PTW. I bought Conquests. But after the way you have treated hardcore fans and your wanton disregard of game balance in favour of gimmicks, when Civ 4 comes out I'm going to download it from the innumerable internet sources and not give you any more of my money."

You do realize that if enough people did this there would be no more Civ games ever made.

 

[genghis_khev]

If there are as many bugs in Civ 4 as there were in Civ3 the same could still be true.

 

[warpstorm]

Here is a philosophical and cynical question. Why should a game company care about it hard core fans? Since they are typically a small minority of the sales and the most picky why bother catering to them them at all? To boot they will most likely buy your next title anyways. Why bother listening?

I am glad that they do.

I will say that the C3C team listened to many hard core fans during the development period. Sure some design decisions didn't make everyone happy (myself included) but there were more good decisions than bad (actually I like about half of Sullla's 'flaws' myself), but they were screened by many good Civ3 players before being adopted into the game. Ultimately, it is their game though, not ours. In some ways I wish Firaxis would do what Chris Sawyer does. He builds the game himself with no outside input at all. His games made one person happy and if nobody else likes it, tough.

Why don't they change things now? Well, the simple reason is they've moved on. They only have so many resources to devote to a title that isn't selling much anymore. Most of the team that made C3C is no longer available at all to work on it (as they were contractors).

The second reason is that they like most of these 'flaws' themselves.

(Now the actual bugs that are left are a different story, I think they should bite the bullet and fix the few major bugs left in the game).

 

[genghis_khev]

I agree that there are many "flaws" in the game that some would say were valid and good features (personally I like rock-hard armies but hate the AIs use of / actions towards them!). These should be left alone.

My gripe is with the proven bugs, as in the bugs were identified before the programmers "moved on". A simple check to see if the tile a unit is moving into is occupied by a hidden unit and a quick info box to inform the player when it happens and why their unit can not move is not difficult to code ("Sire our scouts think there may be danger ahead. Do you wish to proceed or select a different route?"), especially if the original pogram has be reasonabley coded in the first place.

 

[kokoras]

Here is a philosophical and cynical question. Why should a game company care about it hard core fans? Since they are typically a small minority of the sales and the most picky why bother catering to them them at all? To boot they will most likely buy your next title anyways. Why bother listening?

I don't agree Warpstorm,the CIV series has become so popular because of it's fans.For someone who just want's to play a game,Civ isn't exactly the one that it will buy simply because most of the players preffer games more easy or if you prefer games that aren't so complicated.Many friends of mine have shown interest on Civ but never bought it because as they said,it is a waste of time only for learning how to play it.I think diferent but the fact is that those who supored this game right from the beggining are the same people who advertise it for free and still buys it.
Atari is a company that unlike Firaxis ( probably ) don't get that message,and evventualy Civ will go low on sales if the hard core fans will stop supporting it (Hard core funs aren't just 5-10 people) .And not only for Civ but because as we said many times,reputation is something not easy to gain.For the time beeing Atari's decions have left all of us out of the ''game'',and maybe they must do something to change this.

 

[Antrine]

On and on the story goes... Interesting 'genghis khev'; that what you note I too thought was a bit of an inconvenience, running into invisible units when your in a hurry to get some of your own units somewhere useful and they start mysteriously dying like flies, with only the sound to clue you to what is happening! Now I have two units invisible that make a god awful sound (spider and skeleten), and there behold in front of you somebody is dying. After much game testing, I love it! Funny, how yet another 'flaw' works wonderful (my prejudice, not meant to slam you). What makes great game culture in play? Surprises, random events, which are too scarce (again by my way of thinking). The human wants to 'control' everything, account for everything during game play, however just when you accomplish that, the game is pronounced dead boring.

So in conclusion? Just keep bedding down more and more into the game editor. For who now with game editors more and more dominating, is going to long prosper thinking to make a generic 'vanilla' game that is going to 'capture' a huge audience? That is a crap shot at best and getting everyday worse.

We want options, we are spoiled by them! How dare some designer locked in a closet dictate to me what is what, when I am just sure after the debut of the CIV2 Gold, replete with game editor and a fine 'cheat' mode will convince me what is best? I have years of modding experience, I dare say adherents to these boards are now generally, far, far more qualified to make a balanced, fun and fast game. This no doubt is beginning to rub the 'old game' companies the wrong way! But damn them, they will cater to us or get buried in the rubble of new companies spawned by discontent players now become designers extrodinair!

As far fetched as some may think, I say again, yet again the game of the future is a GAME EDITOR with sub-licensing! Whoever does this best, gets the gold at rainbows end. I do not tolerate games I cannot modify, and I know my sentiments are common and more common. User preferences will reign, happens in everything.

 

[Breunor]

The issue of how much to support a game already sold and developed faces EVERY game company in the industry. This includes board games as wella s computer games.

For board games, of course, players can just change the rules any time they want. However, that point rarely mollified many board wargame players; they wanted inconsistencies changed in the official rules especially for tournament play. I want to many a board wargame tournament in which rules discussions predominate. Even simpler games like Kingmaker constantly had rules issues.

So the debate was always on -- if aa person puchases a game, what is a 'reasonable' level of support? There are many people who went on and complained about inconsistencies in the rules for highly complex games like Terrible Swift Sword, World in Flames, Advance Third Reich. Even chess tournaments fet rules disputes (although these mostly deal with clock irregularities).

Board games suffer from language being 'unclear'. Rules can be interpreted in different ways. But people shelling out over $100 for a game wanted perfection.

Of course, it is hard to write rules for games with 50 pages of rules and make them perfect. The board game manufacturers have been (and probably always will be ) existing on the edge of financial ruin. So often, these game issues persist.

To me, it seems like we have the same issues with computer games, although I'm a relative newcomer. We have some different dynamics, some similar. The biggest differnce is that we can't 'fix' a computer games rules if we want to change it, unless we are lucky that it is an editor function.

But the similar issue is the one of a consumer. When I pay whatever I do for CIV and Conquests, do I have a right to a game which is bug free?

My view is not to convince any of you that you should or shouldn't, but I do want to point out that EVERY complex game, board or computer, seems to have issues, bugs, etc. What has happened to CIV in Conquests is also common, that fixing one problem creates others, either because of programming errors or becuase of unintended consequences.

I would love the powers that be to fix up Conquests, and I would be willing to pay something to the pot for the bugs to get fixed. But I do think the number of bugs and their severity in the game, right now, is very reasonable for what I am used in complex games.

An issue that always comes up is 'non-bug' fixes. The most important tend to be (for most games) better AI play. Often, strengthening the AI can be more important than actual bugs.

Breunor

 

[SirPleb]

My view is not to convince any of you that you should or shouldn't, but I do want to point out that EVERY complex game, board or computer, seems to have issues, bugs, etc. What has happened to CIV in Conquests is also common, that fixing one problem creates others, either because of programming errors or becuase of unintended consequences.

I would love the powers that be to fix up Conquests, and I would be willing to pay something to the pot for the bugs to get fixed. But I do think the number of bugs and their severity in the game, right now, is very reasonable for what I am used in complex games.

I disagree with the suggestion that every complex game has issues/bugs (with the implied assumption that we're talking about flaws as serious as those which exist in Conquests.) Many console games don't have any flaws at that level of severity. In my favorite console series, Zelda, I haven't seen a single bug in the last four releases as severe as a number of existing bugs in Conquests. Games, and all other types of software, can be produced without major flaws. It only requires the will to do so.

 

[kokoras]

Games, and all other types of software, can be produced without major flaws. It only requires the will to do so.

Exactly,if not so then the hole software\game industry would simply fail,i believe that this is also an issue of rival among the game companies.

 

[Hygro]

Of course consols have the advantage of all running the same OS with the same specs. FWIK a significant number of bugs stem from playing the game on different computers.

But for the most part I agree with you, Sir Pleb and Kokoras.

 

[Breunor]

Sir Pleb,

I guess we just disagree. I do agree a lot of games do come out with few flaws, but most of the complex ones I've played seem to have them. I haven't played every game in the world (who has?), and I know some have fewer than Civ. But in my experience, CIV 3 with conquests is on par.

I think strategy games tend to have more. The RPG's as a whole seem to be less buggy when well made, althought he early Ultimas clearly had a lot (of course, they were saddled with a DOS system), as did Wake of the Ravager, Pool of Radiance, etc. Noentheless, the bugs inthese games do seem to be pretty well patched after about a year although they are debilitating at first.

I am far more certain about boardgames, where I have been a lot more active. (I was active in Games Magazine, Fire and Movement, a few others.) Buggy board games are very common. Errata was an entire industry to itself.

The Avalon Hill games translated to computer all see to me to be buggier than Civ and besides Advanced Third Reich are probably simpler although I haven't played all of these either (that is, I haven't played the computer versions of all of them). The computer version of Advanced Civ (the Avalon Hill game) wasn't buggy, but a lot of ability was sacrificed.

Europa Universalis II is one of the games that is more complex than Civ, and I find it buggier although it is really well supported with many major patchs, although they still have zillions.

The rulebook to Dungeons and Dragons went through a major revision, 3.5, even though literally thousands of people wrote in bugs, many remained after 3.5 was finished. Magic the Gathering has so many rule changes, bugs, etc. that it is very difficult to keep straight what rules are in play at any period of time.

I'm a newcomer to Civ but have gamed for close to 35 years in a lot of ways. To me, the bugs in Civ seem to be about average for the genre, actually, less than average.

Gary Grisby is about to release his major game on WWII. His two big hit games were great, but also had plent of bugs. I'd be a little surprised if it isn't as buggy or more than Civ. Of course, that will be an intial release. But I think it will stay on the same level.

For instance, take a look at the FAQ that Dan Simpson now has for Master of Magic, a game like Civ that is in the CGW hall of fame. The bug list (SERIOUS bug list) is about 10 pages long. It was a tremendously complex game. And I'm talking about version 1.3.1, which is about the 5th release or so. I find that kind of bugginess to be unfortunately common.

Breunor

 

[Hygro]

Breunor you are comprehensive: board games, computer games, table top rpgs. Wow!

 

[DoubleT]

All in all its an GREAT game...... But even good things had mistakes

 

[Breunor]

Breunor you are comprehensive: board games, computer games, table top rpgs. Wow!

Maybe its because I'm OLD (next to most of the rest of you)! I'm pretty sure I've lost more games all around than just about anybody here!

Seriously, folks, its an interesting phenomenon that just about every major game has complaints about lack of support from fans. Check out the forums that these other games have and you will see that the thread here has a corresponding one in most of the forums for the most successful games.

For any of you wanting to see what I mean for a REAL buggy game, check out this link:

http://db.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/master_of_magic.txt

I still think Master of Magic is the best strategy computer game ever, but look at those bugs!

Breunor

 

[SirPleb]

For any of you wanting to see what I mean for a REAL buggy game, check out this link ...

Actually, that's just a buggy hyperlink

Seriously though I expect it was meant to point to the Master Of Magic FAQ and that you feel that's a worse bug list than that of Conquests. I don't know what your basis for that feeling is. Is it the length of the list?

Master Of Magic is one of my all time favorite games and I played quite a lot of it. I've also played a lot of Civ3 and a fair bit of the Conquests version of it. In my opinion Conquests is more seriously flawed than Master Of Magic was.

Not that any of that really matters. Whether Master Of Magic was more or less flawed has little to do with whether Conquests is acceptable. As just one simple example, scientific great leaders and their new special ability were touted as a Conquests feature. Their implementation isn't merely flawed - it simply doesn't work at all, period. This is unnacceptable in an absolute sense. The product doesn't do what it was said to do. Whether any other products do or don't do what they were said to do is immaterial.

Seriously, folks, its an interesting phenomenon that just about every major game has complaints about lack of support from fans. Check out the forums that these other games have and you will see that the thread here has a corresponding one in most of the forums for the most successful games.

This is just another specious argument. Because there are such complaints about most games doesn't mean that the complaints are in any particular case unreasonable. Suppose that some particular major game really does have major flaws - would you expect it to stand out from the crowd by its fans not making noise?

 

[Breunor]

Sir Pleb,

First, I really want to avoid any sort of 'flame war' her. So I hope we can discuss things constructively. If I have moved off that path, I apologize.

I really do think Master of Magic is a lot buggier than Conquests. Indeed, it has been a major issue in that game's history. I think the bugs are a lot more serious, especially since for years we didn't know what casued the game to get unstable. There is NOW (After YEARS of playing) some knowledge that 3 or 4 spells cause the game to become unstable. Once it happens, it won't crash for a long time. You won't be able to reload and avoid. Yes, there were a lot of bugs and they were serious. the major debates between HOMM3 and MoM as the best fantasy strategy game usually revolved around MoM's brilliant design but serious bugs vs.HOMM3's stability (Especially after SoD).

If your view is that the bugs of conquests are as serious as Master of Magic, then our argument is simply a matter of a different starting base. I think Conquests' bugs are less than average, and MoM's are extreme.


But I think we are talking past each other. Your comment 'Suppose that some particular major game really does have major flaws - would you expect it to stand out from the crowd by its fans not making noise?' doesn't address the issue I was talking about, which isn't the issue you ar talking about.

My point is EXPECTATIONS from complex strategy games. I find that most complex strategy games, and complex games as a whole in all gaming genres, have a LOT of bugs. Whether an individual views tham as extreme, or as being not worth playing, is a matter of personal choice.

What I'm saying is that if 85% of the games out there have serious flaws, then any buyer should EXPECT that complex strategy games have many flaws. Don't buy them and play them if you won't enjoy the game with them.

I think the flaws in Conquests greatly inhibit its enjoyment, and they should be fixed. I'm willing to pay for it.

However, I also think that Conquests has fewer flaws than most similar complexity games. I also don't EXPECT the manufacturer to fix it, although I wish they did.

So, when you say people should complain, I agree.


Fans of almost everything are vociferous about fixing the issues in their hobby. Fans discussing sports teams always want the owners to go out, get better players, make the team better. Managers of business lines always ask their superiors to expand their departments. And gamers who enjoy a game always want to make it better.

The companies on the other side, however, are rarely so motivated. They worry about profits, and their committments to their employees and investors.

Yes, companies worry about reputation. Bad reputation is bad for business. Any company issuing a flawed product tries to decide if paying the cost to fix the product is greater or the long-term impact of a harmed reputation is greater.

So companies worry about support, but only to a certain degree.


If you feel that Conquests is as buggy as MoM, then I would agree it is such a flawed product that the owners are horribly negligent in not fixing it.

If, however, Conquests' bugs are pretty standard for the industry, then their opinion will be different.

I think Conquest's bugs are on par with the industry. I think most games have what serious fans would view as serious bugs.

Its great to have a forum to talk out issues, to inform the companies on the level of problems. The more people complain, the greater the chance hte company will fix them.

But I'm trying to give people a sense for how it will be looked at on the other side. Or how somebody like me, who isn't a 'Civ Grognard' nor a person on the producer side, will look at it.

If enough people want the company to fix the flaws (or pay to have them fixed), the company will do it if they will recieve enough gain from future sales or direct sales. But Conquests got good ratings from most of the game reviews, the sales run is mostly done.

I do think the best tactic is to figure out if people will pay for a change, or will be able to demonstrate that Atari (or whoever the right place is) can recoup its costs. I also think if people tell Atari that Conquests is as flawed as Paintbrawl, Outpost, or even MoM.



I also have found out one other thing in my years of playing games and being on these kinds of boards. Whoever says 'the game is reasonable' gets attacked. I don't want to get attacked. People are already getting upset, so I'm not writing anything more on this topic.

If I've upset anybody, I apologize. As I said, its my opinion on the matter, no more. Its up to you to decide if I have the wisdom of the ages or if I'm a senile old fool.

Breunor

 

[SirPleb]

Breunor, It does seem like we've been talking at cross purposes. About different things (expectations vs. what's reasonable), and we clearly have different opinions about how serious the bugs in Conquests are.

Let me try to approach the subject from the perspective of expectations and whether Conquests is at par.

First I want to point out that Conquests is not a standalone game, it is essentially an expansion pack. There have been three major releases of Civilization III. All three are essentially the same game for most people posting here. (For MP players than can only be said of the last two releases. The first release didn't include MP.) A good comparison would be HOMM3, AB, and SoD.

This is important in determining par and in understanding expectations. In this situation we have players who have purchased each version and expect each new version to essentially be a superset of the one before, particularly in terms of quality. It is reasonable for players to expect that each version is at least as "good" as the one before.

The people complaining on this thread are not complaining about Civilization III. Many of them (myself included) are more than satisfied with the final patch state of the first two versions of Civilization III. It is the last version, Conquests, which is the cause of concern. Many players feel that it is worse than its predecessors in a number of areas. It has bugs which didn't exist before, bugs which had been fixed in the final patch for the previous version and have reappeared, it is not nearly as well balanced as the other versions. And it appears that the company won't be fixing any of that to bring it to par with the prior versions.

Expectations and a standard of quality were established by the previous versions of the program. (Not just the same title but the same code.) It is difficult to feel tolerant or sympathetic about the result. It is like getting a patch which makes the game worse in some areas, but it was a patch we paid to get, called an expansion.

In a nutshell it seems to me that Firaxis has neither acheived par nor met reasonable expectations for Conquests.

Edit: In an attempt to clarify the comparison I'm trying to show here, some of the bugs in Conquests feel to me as an experienced Civ3 player as if in HOMM3 SoD the logistics and pathfinding skills had been broken, just stopped working. That's the sort of taste these bugs leave.

 

[Antrine]

Game crashing is #1 pain, not knowing why is even worse, that I acknowledge does not occur in Conquests. However, this is where our litany commences; selling features that do not work is tacky bad. Breaking features in the upgrade that worked before is classless and tacky. Having any major issues linger when, you 'promised' to fix them and then bugging off without so much a word or apology (just float a few rumors) is crap. Re-selling the same game without any improvements when everyone who might care knows the darn thing is flawed is simply stupid.

That said, I think Breunor you are more correct than I like about the sad state of the industry and you demonstrate obvious clear thinking and ideas. So I put you nearer the wisdom side of meter. (not that you could give rat's butt about my pronouncements).

Bottom line, Firaxis reputation is trashed, by themselves. And if CIV4 is similiar, well not to be negative so I leave off prophesying ugly since my personal preferrences abhor such behavior.

And YES, I do complain, often.

 

[Breunor]

Sir Pleb,

Thanks for the nice response. I can see that if the game gets worse after a patch, that it can be unbelievably irritating -- not the least of which is that fixing it should be a LOT easier if it had worked previously!

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

I'm just plain mad about it all. I say sic the lawyers on the whole industry for false advertising.