A programmers perspective on a buggy release.

I wonder how many of the programmers here would work in the game industry once they found out what it was really like?

I would go to another career before I did that again. Sheet metal deformation sounds fun

 

I'd muck out sewers before I did that again.

 

I can't really explain how disappointed I am with this, it's one out of a few games I really would kill for, to play. It was -what got me hooked on Amiga in the early days. All I can conclude is, an era has ended. The champ is down. Maybe the next game will be more authentic in some matters, but the memory remains, I have seen this all too offend. Software developers do not need support, they need integrity.

 

Nah, they need to earn a reasonable living without alienating their loved ones through always being at work. Some are willing to do that, so we get to play videogames.

If you wonder why there are bugs, go and experience a crunch. It is a ******** way of doing anything, and it is considered the industry standard.

As far as the design goes, which is a different thing entirely, try not to compare BTS with vanilla ciV. A large part of the development of modern games comes after the release. No QA department can simulate the crazy stuff real players do.

 

I'm really tired of this type of post.

Just submit your resume to Firaxis or 2k or Atari or whoever makes Civ now and leave me alone.

 

It's not really bugs I'm concerned about, though it is simple source, that is screwed.

Didn't get a crash in 4 hours of game time. What I do regret is buying a game, that is addressed to the teenage crowd. Guess I can only blame myself for the unquestionable faith in Civ. The game play, is far less competitive than WAR, it wont match it. It would make more sense to compare it, with supreme commander, who made a sequel at the same level of disgrace. I'm not saying you cant have fun with this, but it will die hard, in a matter of months. the hole build up of the empire, was what made it superior.

Theres a few decent ideas, it just doesn't add up for the slack, or change of substance.

 

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for".

It's annoying for a lot of people, but if the product is selling well even with all its faults, it's hard to blame them, now is it?

 

Since apparently this is relevant to this thread, I am also a professional software developer, although it feels lame having to try and qualify statements with something like that. I'm sure this has also been said but I don't think it's possible to beat down OP enough for this thread. No software of any significant complexity can ever not have bugs (not just at release, but ever) and for what it's worth, civ is pretty good in the bugs department. There are no show stoppers, and the bugs that do exist are fairly minor, as much as that may twist the panties of so many people here who become drama llamas because one little thing went wrong here or there.

But this attitude is to be expected. I get it all the time. People ignore the 99.99% of good work done (and games are actually quite a deal more complex than a lot of software, business or otherwise) and yet people focus on the 00.01% that has a bug like nothing else exists. God forbid little Billy suffers a problem trying to route his worker on turn 314.

 

I guess they can get away with it, and so they do... I do believe once the money comes pouring into the video game company, they are then able to afford to level-up the game, release patches, and get the game how it should be. $$$ talks... and they know we're gonna spend our $$$ on this game, whether it is buggy or not. I don't forsee any organized movement or protest against these kinds of games.

 

You have to have a good reputation for this kind of model to work, otherwise noone will trust you to keep working on the game. Some companies are better than others, and they reap the benefits down the line.

 

I dunno, I think there are some great ideas, and a lot of the annoying crap has been removed. There is a whole bunch of design space freed up for future changes now.

 

I wont buy it next time ( not before I have made sure it's worth my money ), and I'm aware they don't care. Why would they.

However there is a trend for the closure to be pushed, anyone denying that is blind.

It's like alpha, going into beta on release date. Probably less dramatic, but it wont be far away if the trend grows on the market.


Well I hope for the best, one could hope for a good exp, later on. However I buy a game, and expect a product, not a core unit.

 

I always laugh when I hear people say these things are "alpha" or "beta" because of minor bugs. If you look at ANY software there is ALWAYS many versions with bug fixes following the initial release. Are they all alpha or beta because they had bugs? Go on, look at how many have such version histories. I'll give you a hint: everything.

People always have this vision of a utopia where software is always released bug free, but that utopia doesn't exist and it never did. You go to just about any forum for a complex game and the forums are overloaded with people complaining about this or that. All of them, and there's always people saying "this is still in beta." It's a very generic comment that, despite being completely wrong, will inevitably be said a million times until people get over it. This is absolutely not specific to Civ V. I half-wonder if it's the same guy sock-puppeting his way around all the forums just to say things like this.

This is common for all games these days and in the past. This ideal people speak of where things have no issues, be it at release or after patches, is imaginary.

 

What part of "Probably less dramatic" didn't you grasp?

 

It's a typical kind of statement people who are speaking crazy append to the end of their posts that they can pull out as a weapon in case someone tries to call them on their BS: a gold ticket to say whatever they want and then turn around and say "oh, but I said this or that, so any response to me is irrelevant."

You've got a backspace key. If you don't want people responding to what you say, then don't say it.

 

I'm a total Civ Fanatic. Total and utter - BUT:

I won't buy Civ 5 til the first offcial patch, probably a couple weeks away, max.

This is all you need to do, if like me you want the teething probs out of the way.

I'll be playing this 5 years or so, probs. So a few weeks wait is worth it......apart from the violent mood swings....

 

Yep, and for the others, consider how much you are paying per hour of entertainment! A game like this is off the charts for value-for-money. Much more fun than any business software I've ever seen

 

Not really, though it's probably 20 years ago it was relevant, plus the market is at high speed compared. So seen from financial perspective, indeed it's imaginary. Probably also a lot more complicated to code these games at present time, without a doubt.

It's expected to be bugged, yes, but I do believe having bugs revealed after 4 hours of game play, tells another story. And that leaves out for crashes. The part on crashes is a good job, and maybe they valued that more, no problem, they would have done wise to advertise for that strategic plan though.

But enough about that, I couldn't care less, it's all seen before, and done. That is why I only buy 2-3 games out there, this is one of them.

 

It's not the respond that makes the post valid, that would be the quality of the message passed along. And as far as I can see, you've done nothing but whining over another dudes post, so I guess, we can sink on the same ship in case.

 

I build houses, not sandcastles, and let me say, if I built a house without an emergency Fireescape, and in a Flood Zone, I'd be fired the same day....


In a game company, you have programmers who say: "This code isn't optimized, I want to spend more time on it" or "This is the bug, I know how to fix it, it should only take me 2 hours."

And then you have their bosses who respond: "It doesn't need optimization, the game runs well enough on good machines, increase the minimum specs" or "Nice to know, but you don't get 2 hours, I need you to finalize this other aspect because we go gold tomorrow at 8am"


And re-emphasize all the other points made so far: Business software has competitors who can offer the same/better. Business software has lives/money reliant upon proper operation. Business software has a specific platform upon which it will run. Business software has the luxury (sometimes) of offering training to ensure the program is used as intended. Business software is rarely run in tandem with a dozen other programs at once. Business software is typically run on far less buggy systems. And most of all, even business software DOES release with bugs on numerous occasions.


We live in an era of the internet. Data can be transferred to anywhere from anywhere at any time. Things will continue to progress more toward the point of being able to use software, especially recreational software, as it is written (and thus being able to influence development). Heck, with opensource software that is already the case, just go visit Sourceforge. Many of those programs are far more business software than recreational, and are making far better products than the commercial enterprises in many cases.

I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt that you have done much code writing and debugging with the statement you make here.

You don't test changes by playing a full game in exactly the way you would normally play it. Especially when a full game can take upwards of 12 hours. You test by identifying all possible glitches which might arise from a change you made, and setting up scenarios in which to test those outcomes. This means if you fail to predict something, you don't test for it (and most bugs you introduce are BECAUSE you failed to predict something, hence won't show up in your tests because you won't design a test to look for it).

If a change was made last minute, then the ONLY testing done on it was targeted testing. Since it was last minute, that means it is a release version which will not be distributed to beta testers, only packaged and sent to QA (who is looking for viruses and the like, not caring about gameplay, and certainly not running the program in anything but benchmark simulations) for finalization.

============================================

For those of you who find releasing with any bugs at all unacceptable: Please find me the world record for time between release and first patch available for any and all publicly available software. I highly doubt ANYTHING (which is patchable) survives more than 2 months without patching.