Alarming silence of Firaxis

[Padma]

Sorry, T.A, you were not "openly mocked". You made the statement:

The masses say theres no testin then thats that truth.

and were called on the obvious untruth.

The larger problem with this thread has become discussion of moderators and their actions. Read the Forum Rules. If anyone else has any further comments to make on us/them, do it via PM.

 

[White Elk]

I think some aspects of this discussion are being misunderstood. And some posters statements are either being wrongly lumped into a 'whiner' vs 'fan boy' category; or there are varying degrees of opinions within any given stereotype. I think it is a combination of both, and more.

And I think the stereotyping, and the dismissal of an individuals points due a perceived stereotyped point of view is pure folly. I'm one to have stepped into that folly by speaking of fan boys in regards to their reactions to Civ criticism. I see this phenomena in many posts here. Discussions start out well and then quickly degrade once the label of whiners and fan boys are brought into it.

One of the apparent misunderstandings here is that some of us say that we think the majority here share our opinion. I don't see that. To say, like I have, that many here have expressed frustration or outright displeasure with the game is very different from saying that most people feel exactly the same as I do. Across these forums I see expressed anger and frustration about the game as a whole, as well as just individual elements of it. I also see much frustration with the patching process and the lack of firaxian communication. From the year 2002 to the present I see a discernible rise in expressed dissatisfaction. I see scores of critical posts here made by different posters. These criticisms are greatly varied and they range from people being fairly content with the game as is yet still critical of the patching process; all the way to the extreme of posting they will not buy another firaxian product or will wait the long wait for the games final patch.

To say that the dissatisfied are a small minority is as erroneous as saying that the dissatisfied are a majority. Just look around the forums with a critical eye and you will see just how widespread and varied the civ criticisms are.

 

[arstal]

I really wonder what the ones who haven't heard of this forum think about the last two Civ Patches. The Steam-caused one, while not Firaxis's fault- was unfinished.

3.13 has a host of obvious bugs. I could imagine the players getting pretty disappointed.

I wish Firaxis had a 3.19 or so patch that fixed the blatant problems, or just made Bhruric's an official patch while working on the real patch.

I'm just glad that the resources are out there to fix Firaxis's messups ourselves and Bhruric made it.

 

[Bhruic]

And I think the stereotyping, and the dismissal of an individuals points due a perceived stereotyped point of view is pure folly. I'm one to have stepped into that folly by speaking of fan boys in regards to their reactions to Civ criticism. I see this phenomena in many posts here. Discussions start out well and then quickly degrade once the label of whiners and fan boys are brought into it.

I think you're neglecting to take into consideration posting style. This particular post of yours was quite moderate and well written. But I'm sure you're aware of many other posts you've made for which that hasn't been the case. The thread in the Warlords forum that required the title change would be a good example.

I'm not pointing a finger at you, or putting you down in any fashion, I'm just pointing out that it's heated comments/statements like that that tend to cause the friction (and this is true on both sides). If someone comes in here and says "3.13 has some serious bugs, and I hope Firaxis will rectify them in a timely fashion", I'd easily agree with them. If they come in and say "3.13 sucks, Firaxis doesn't know WTH they are doing", then I'd certainly not agree with them. Unfortunately we tend to get some vocal people posting in the latter fashion. A lot of us take issue with those sorts of posts.

The other issue I'd bring up is one where a lot of posters tend to address Firaxis as a whole, instead of a collection of individuals. To use the ubiquitous "car" analogy, if a line of Ford cars happened to be particularily bad, and people were complaining about them, who would you hold responsible? The CEO of the company? Or some guy who works on the production line?

The Firaxians that we deal with in here are, for the most part, analogous to the line workers. They aren't the ones making the "release/don't release" decisions. They aren't the ones making the financing decisions. They aren't the ones responsible for ensuring proper QA. So it's annoying to see people taking out there justified frustration on these people who aren't in a position to do anything about it. To fall back to the analogy, complaining to the line worker isn't going to make the cars any better.

If you actually want to do something constructive, write some letters to Take Two. Express your dissatisfaction. That will be useful. But general "Firaxis sucks" type complaints a non-Firaxis, non-Take Two forum are not.

Bh

 

[grumbler]

I really wonder what the ones who haven't heard of this forum think about the last two Civ Patches. The Steam-caused one, while not Firaxis's fault- was unfinished.

3.13 has a host of obvious bugs. I could imagine the players getting pretty disappointed.

A few weeks ago I suggested to my father to install both the official and Bhruic's patch which he did. When I spoke to him again recently he asked me what the patches actualy changed. To my surprise, he didn't really notice any differences from the original release.

I think these forums act like some kind of 'awareness multiplier' for bugs. With the number and level of players on these boards, nearly all bugs will be identified very quickly and become common knowledge.

In contrast, players 'isolated' from these boards either won't notice problems at all or fail to identify them as bugs. Instead they might think they just don't understand the game correctly.

I also suspect that non-fanatics tend to take bugs a little less serious.

 

[T.A JONES]

For me I see what he is suggesting from all of his posts can be sum up with " Civ4 sucks and Civ3 rules".

The 'Smidden' AGjenda ​

You want Examples of bad postman ship? Watch the blind axe grind we see go on here. This sums it up.

Only because civ3 cities are packed as tight as a can of sardines. This strategy isn't as valid (thankfully) in Civ4.. .

IN Response NIcley refuted with "freedom to spread out cities retort"

But wait!! not two days later he comes at someone else! Again, with the same garbage but this time sniffing out an CIv4 vs Civ3 thread way over in on OT thread!

5) Tiny Maps/Inability to have a large empire

Max 10 cities if you're lucky on Huge in civ 4 before warring and with the standard 11 civs. In civ 3, you could reliably get upwards of 20 cities on huge with the standard 16 civs with spread out cities.[/

"Here I come to save the day!!" The ever so loved Hero and staunch defender of civ4, Smiddy hits em with a knockout! :

the reason you got so many cities in civ3 is it was a good strategy to pack your cities as tight as a can of sardines.

I specifically stated spread out to prevent this kind of interpretation, yet some people clearly like ignoring certain words and phrases to suit their agenda

Comon Smiddy who you trying to fool here? WHats your reasoning boil down to?Hey, Atleast we can say 'his' was the 'fair' assesment

Heres a lil more sum up of only Smidlees Finest..going back less then half a page lol

Spoiler :

You got to make diplomacy somewhat against the player or the game will be a cakewalk where the player has pretty much control over the AI civs just like civ3.

Spoiler :

Really!? The idea you can take cities one by one without any loses doesn't sound overpowering to you? Also BTS has spies so no need for your forces to be 50% cats. Of course you can win without...

Moderator Action: Warned! - Flaming. An entire post specifically attacking another member?
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Commander Bello]

[...] If someone comes in here and says "3.13 has some serious bugs, and I hope Firaxis will rectify them in a timely fashion", I'd easily agree with them.

I think, everybody would agree with this. Except for a small, but countable minority who does not accept any kind of criticism - and these people are around here.

If they come in and say "3.13 sucks, Firaxis doesn't know WTH they are doing", then I'd certainly not agree with them. Unfortunately we tend to get some vocal people posting in the latter fashion. A lot of us take issue with those sorts of posts.

A quite unpolite statement, I agree. Nevertheless, sometimes one may really wonder what is going on there.
If the fanbase is told for weeks that a patch is in the queue and it would not be released yet because the QA department is checking it, and finally this patch comes out and contains errors which are obvious from the very first moment on, then I would say that you may have some doubts.

The other issue I'd bring up is one where a lot of posters tend to address Firaxis as a whole, instead of a collection of individuals. To use the ubiquitous "car" analogy, if a line of Ford cars happened to be particularily bad, and people were complaining about them, who would you hold responsible? The CEO of the company? Or some guy who works on the production line?

The Firaxians that we deal with in here are, for the most part, analogous to the line workers. They aren't the ones making the "release/don't release" decisions. They aren't the ones making the financing decisions. They aren't the ones responsible for ensuring proper QA. So it's annoying to see people taking out there justified frustration on these people who aren't in a position to do anything about it. To fall back to the analogy, complaining to the line worker isn't going to make the cars any better.

Well, let's be honest.
You have a neighbour, John Miller, being a worker at a Ford plant. Your new car (a Ford model) for which you have saved your money for quite some time, actually is broken from the beginning. Every now and then the brakes don't work, the wipers don't work if coming into contact with water and so on.
What do you do?
Do you meet Johnny and tell him: "Well, actually I am quite unsatisfied with the decision of your former CEO who in [today minus 5 years] decided to cut costs and go for cheaper suppliers. In addition, I am unsatisfied with the decision to outsource quality inspection to this Indian company in XXX."?

No, you don't. You tell him: "Listen, Johnny, you are producing quite some crap!" Even more you do so ("you" being a general statement, not adressed to you personally, of course!) if Johnny Miller advertised the new model months in advance and happily collected the congratulations from all the neighbourhood which was based on some pre-release test drive reports.
You just adress him as being part of the company.

Now, let's assume that your new Ford car runs like a charm. You can pick up girls, you come to Germany and outrace the new Mercedes and everything is just wonderful. What do you do now?
Do you meet John Miller again and tell him: "Well, Johnny, most probably you have had nothing to do with the fact that the new model has become such a great car. Therefore, just wipe that stupid grin out of your face, because it has been the decision of the board to let it go to market. And next time, please take the earlier bus on Mondays, because I would like to ensure that other customers get the same quality regardless of the production day of the car!"

No, you don't. Instead, you are inviting him to a barbecue because you want to show him the car and have some beers and some nice chat about it.

I think, you got the picture.

 

[King Flevance]

A few weeks ago I suggested to my father to install both the official and Bhruic's patch which he did. When I spoke to him again recently he asked me what the patches actualy changed. To my surprise, he didn't really notice any differences from the original release.

I think these forums act like some kind of 'awareness multiplier' for bugs. With the number and level of players on these boards, nearly all bugs will be identified very quickly and become common knowledge.

In contrast, players 'isolated' from these boards either won't notice problems at all or fail to identify them as bugs. Instead they might think they just don't understand the game correctly.

I also suspect that non-fanatics tend to take bugs a little less serious.

This is a failed "experiment". You had him install Bhruics. Having him install JUST 3.13 he would notice the differences. And I doubt what he does notice, he will be happy about.

 

[grumbler]

This is a failed "experiment".

I didn't really mean this as an experiment, it's just an anecdote of something I personally experienced that made me wonder how more casual gamers without access to CFC might feel about the bugs in BtS in general.

You had him install Bhruics. Having him install JUST 3.13 he would notice the differences. And I doubt what he does notice, he will be happy about.

Well, maybe. But I was thinking more about those people who don't visit this site and who didn't patch the game at all. IMO the difference between 3.00 and (3.13 + Bhruic) is considerably bigger than between 3.00 and just 3.13. Personally, I wouldnt want to be playing without the patches. Still, for my father, who I substituted as a model for the casual, non-fanatic player, the difference was not noticeable.

 

[gps]

I didn't really mean this as an experiment, it's just an anecdote of something I personally experienced that made me wonder how more casual gamers without access to CFC might feel about the bugs in BtS in general.

Can't tell about BTS because I knew the bug before playing. But I noticed the overuse of south american Civs in C3C III after about five or six games. I also noticed the city list getting messed up when placing build orders there (which ist still unfixed in Vanilla 1.74) after about five or six games. So I think, one really does not need to be an expert or deeply experienced to discover a bug.

 

[occam]

Are you suggesting that the tiny fraction of vocal critics who post here actually constitute "the installed base" of this game? I think you overestimate their importance by a huge factor.

Padma,

Thank you for the considerate reply.

You propose that the masses have not really spoken. That is possibly true (see below) but certainly does not vindicate Methos if true.

Methos's attack was most certainly NOT an attempt to dispute the verdict of the masses. Methos was instead attacking the VALUE of the verdict of the masses, equating it to mob rule in a legal/judicial system. A very different proposition, one that I have much more difficulty accepting.

Here's how it breaks down for me, am I crazy?:

Occam's axiom: if we truly know the verdict of the masses when it comes to QA in PC games, that is of some value.

Methos's proposition: listening to the verdict of the masses is analogous to mob rule.

Padma's Incompleteness theorem: the current debate represents a minority and the verdict of the masses is incompletely known.

Padma's theorem, even if true, doesn't come close to proving the Methos proposition.

==========

However, just for closure, I am willing to debate with you that the masses HAVE spoken, simultaneously with my debate with Methos about the value of the verdict of the masses.

Ironically, just for the record, I have the feeling that Methos is part of the masses! (You might be, too, but I have too few posts of yours to assess it.) I may have misjudged it, but I interpret Methos's position as that the patch is needed but that the silence* from Firaxis is not all that alarming. Heck, can't we add Firaxis to the masses, too? They think a patch is needed...

I think that the minority criticism that Padma raises is valid for the part of the community excoriating Firaxis for the silence/lull, but looking over this thread I don't see anyone credibly maintaining that no patch is needed; at the very least most people will need Bhruic's patch; and with respect to multi-player, there is no debate something official is needed. (Some persons have claimed that they themselves are fine and don't acutely feel a need for a patch, but when pressed they all seem to acknowledge that the current state does require some patching.)

- Occam

* 'silence' is not at all accurate... how about 'ex-silence'? 'lull'?

 

[Red Squirrel]

I wish other games companys had the same desire as Valve to get their games finished correctly.

Look at the recently release of Team Fortress 2, a game that whilst in it's short public beta was more polished and complete than a lot of "finished" games that get released these days. With all of the bug reports and feedback from the vastly increased beta pool they were able to patch even more bugs and make minor balance changes, with updates at their height 2 times a week. More than a month after official release and the last update was only on wednesday, and I can predict more updates until Valve have their product almost flawless.

I suppose that desire to get things right even if it's costing them comes from the fact Valve don't have shareholders breathing down their necks wondering why money is still being spent on a released product.

 

[gps]

Padma's Incompleteness theorem: the current debate represents a minority and the verdict of the masses is incompletely known.

All polls or surveys as instruments of market research are based on minorities. Nevertheless they are used. Many companies spend lots of money to find out what people think about their products. Even if it's an unrepresentative minority of grumblers who come here and post their opinion that should be a hint for a company that there MIGHT be some dissatisfaction also with the unvocal masses. As far as the bugs of BtS are concerned, this opinion from my point of view is legitimate. A company should take that serious. If too much dissatisfaction is ignored for too long, we don't need mob rule - because buyers will vote for or against them at the shop counter. It's as easy as that. Business administration first term. 'nough said.

 

[thenooblet22]

Firaxis can't patch the hole in my heart ...

JK, but hurry up will ye?

 

[King Flevance]

Still, for my father, who I substituted as a model for the casual, non-fanatic player, the difference was not noticeable.

From my experience that casual, non-CFC player, (like me before Civ 4) would "Check for automatic updates" inside the game options and thus would end up with 3.13. And would not have Bhruics. Substituting you father in for this is not the same thing. As he has Bhruics, which is NOT a casual, non-CFC player.

 

[fizsh]

To continue the subject of grumbler's "experiment":

As one can see, I am relatively new to this forum. I think I started when I learned of the BtS expansion. I had played Civ III with all the expansions, and Civ IV and Warlords before knowing of this forum. (I actually started with Call to Power II, which I guess wasn't really a Civ game. I learned that in a review of the game online. Never heard of Civ before then.) I have enjoyed the games from the my first purchase, hence my continued support of the products. It wasn't until I started reading this forum that I learned that the games were "broken". I enjoyed the game as is. If I had never heard of this forum and purchased BtS, I am sure I would not have thought some of the things that are/were bugs were bugs, but just part of the game. For example, I would not have thought the poisoned water supply was a bug, just a part of the game (I play Epic speed, not Marathon). Now, I admit, I am not good at the game. I do well on Noble, but have tried a couple of Prince games and have gotten sqaushed. Until Bhruic's patch, I had never used the unofficial patches, only the official ones which the game updates too. I also think I should note, in fairness, that I never updated to 3.03 because of everything I read on these forums, so I have no experience with that patch.

My point here is that I agree that the many casual players won't notice the bugs, and/or like grumbler stated, might just think they don't understand the game. I will continue to play the game, and enjoy it, until the next patch comes out, be it next week, next month, or next year. If there is a Civ V, I will have to decide if I want to go with that. I enjoy this game so much, I find it hard to imagine it getting better or my getting bored with it. But, who knows.

 

[King Flevance]

If I had never heard of this forum and purchased BtS, I am sure I would not have thought some of the things that are/were bugs were bugs, but just part of the game. For example, I would not have thought the poisoned water supply was a bug, just a part of the game (I play Epic speed, not Marathon).

I agree with this part to some extent. But I always critic games I buy. I hold issues with almost every game I own and enjoy. Maybe they are bugs, maybe they are features - nevertheless, I think they should be changed. This is natural to me. I have always done it. It is much like a review I read in Game Informer Magazine a few months back. The reviewer stated "media inspires other media". Which I agree with. When I play Rollercoaster Tycoon 1, I say "All these themes need more diversity. Where is the Ferris Wheel? Where are the 'dollar to play' games?" etc. So yes, I can nit pick a game with the best of them. But that does not mean I am incapable of enjoying them too.

As for the poisoning water supply, I too figured it was a feature. (And I play marathon) I watched size 8 cities be reduced to 1-3 population cities from 1 single poisoned water supply. I personally just thought "Wow, its extremely cheap to get rid of that much population." And I didn't care for it, but I just accepted it. Now, IMO it seems too expensive though to do pretty much nothing with "poison water supply mission". The part I liked about the bugged version was it was worth the EP (and then some) but it also made early health resources invaluable. As well, it made the expansive trait and UB's that grant health scores worth more.

My main gripe with 3.03 was the excessive use of spies by the AIs. It was just downright annoying that every turn I caught about 2-4 spies in my territory on average and a city would get poisoned. I imagined an invisible army of spies of all the AIs heading into my territory and it seemed as if the AIs were all making spies mostly and all targeting me. And I wouldn't even be the point leader or even the guy that had the most potential for wreaking havoc on our continent.

Until Bhruic's patch, I had never used the unofficial patches,

Same here. But also I bought BTS around the a couple days before 3.13's release and hadn't gotten around to downloading any patches.

only the official ones which the game updates too.

Which is my point. Most of us the players that play BTS that are not forum visitors have no unofficial patch to fall back on. And I would bet that they uninstall and reinstall the game to get rid of 3.13. As I can't see how some of the bugs added in by 3.13 would be seen as neat gameplay changes.

My point here is that I agree that the many casual players won't notice the bugs, and/or like grumbler stated, might just think they don't understand the game.

I think it will be a case of the latter myself. Which isn't good nor acceptable. If you don't understand a game, you are more likely to play one you do understand. The most common form of this with 3.13 why can I not see culture if there is a cultural victory?

 

[Commander Bello]

Having browsed through the last postings, I get the impression that many of us (the posters in this forum) do forget how the "normal" player may act.

I remember games in the past, which obviously were broken or at least suffered from major bugs. Now, since I did buy these games, there was some kind of interest in playing them.
Nevertheless, if a short investigation in the internet did not reveal any quick option to improve these games (aka get rid of the bugs, fix the broken elements) I just quit (quitted???) to play them at all.

So far, so bad. The company had earned their money anyway, as I already had bought the game. So what?

I remember that for some of these games sequels were issued. I saw them on the shelves and didn't give them a second look at all. Why not? Because I remembered that the first game did not prove to be of value for me.

Now, I am just an individual and others may react differently. Yet, I don't think that I am THAT individual, that no other will act in the same way.

At the end of the day missing support for the product will mean missing sales later on. To which degree is had to estimate, but support will pay off.
Even more in the times of the internet, when information are spread so quickly.
the fact that neither Firaxis nor Take2 put any effort into their internet pages anymore (as far as BtS is concerned) seems to be a major misunderstanding of the market reactions to me.

 

[Smidlee]

Heres a lil more sum up of only Smidlees Finest..going back less then half a page lol

I still stand by the fact you have to make the diplomacy some against the player to make diplimacy even close to be challenging. I like civ4 diplomacy better since civ3 was too much in the players favor. Also in civ3 normally you have more cities because it a good strategy to packed your cities very tight. In fact one of the mistakes I made when I first got civ3 was to spread my cities too far like I did in civ2. Civ3 corruption idea was to discourage "the civ with the most cities wins" but in the end it didn't work out that way.
***********
Back on topic; Stardock was been very open to the public and to me clearly went the extra mile with Galciv2 yet it doesn't still seem to slow down people complaints. For example a post from Galciv2 forum :

Hm. Been a while. Maybe a week or two after this game was released is when I bought it on the advice of some forum mates over at BioWare.com's Off Topic forums. It was fun at first, mainly because you have more breathing room than Civ IV and you can build your own ships and what-not, but to be honest the game was a little shoddy. Sadly, it still is. Don't know how many times this game has been patched, but it seems to have been a lot. So why does nothing seem different? The controls are still a mess, the AI are still morons, the tech tree still doesn't tell you anything so you're researching blindly. That's only a few things I can think of at the moment, but there's plenty more. Still, the burdensome controls and micromanagement coupled with the simplistic tech tree (each tech gives you a building that takes longer to build and gives slightly more, or a weapon that does the same damage but takes up a little less space, etc.)... makes for a very sad experience if you ask me. I'm sad to see that all of the great ideas that were asked for and posted before I stopped playing... none of them were added, and it's been a long, long time. Why did they ask, then? To makes us feel like we actually have a voice here? Bah! When the hell is this game going to be worth the money I paid for it?

So I can understand why someone from Firaxis sees responding to those on the internet a waste of time.

 

[kazapp]

As I see it, the really important topic is something that has gotten thrown to the wayside here in everyobdy's quest to win arguments...

That question is "when will Firaxis come out with the next BtS patch?"