Sorceresss said:
We need the input of more game developers on this forum. They only have to wade in under the protection of a pseudonym. Firaxis employees : feel free to jump into the fire !
I've been a game developer (not for Firaxis!) for 11 years and although I agree with a lot of what PennHead says I think it's worth pointing out that 2K and some elements of the community have have been the source of some ill feeling.
Every PC game I have worked on has had at least three levels of testing outside of the programming department.
QA : testing elements of the game for function, does it crash, are all of the graphics there, does the pathfinding work, are the savegames valid - feedback is sent to programmers or artists, usually entered as bugs. May be done by devloper, publisher or externally - usually by 2 of these. QA will typically go for months and months.
Gameplay testing (sometimes called beta testing) : testing gameplay ideas for tuning, fun, to check for inconsistencies etc. - Feedback is usually sent to designers often via reports, game replays and so on. Usually done by the devloper as it tends to be part of an iterative design process. Publishers often use community members, or may even have an open beta. Game playtesting duration depends a lot on the product - a game like Civ would have years probably.
Compatibility Testing : A testing pass done to check whether the game runs with common hardware combinations. This test will give you the minmum and reccomended hardware. Compatability testing would typically be done by the publisher, either in their own labs or by an external compatibility tester. In either case compatibility testing is done in large facilities, with lots of PC's under lot's of different configurations. A report is generated and thats that. This might be done once or twice for a game and each test might take a few days.
Now obviously I'm generalising a lot here - there is a lot of crossover between QA and gameplay testing, different types of products emphasise different types of testing and so on.
We don't know what sort of testing plan Firaxis had for CivIV, we don't know how closely they stuck to their plan and we don't know what expediencies they had to accomodate nor are they likeley to divulge such information. It may be that their contract with 2K said they will deliver the game fully tested - it's impossible for us to say and I'd bet anything that they aren't talking.
What we CAN say is that the compatibility testing phase of the testing plan had insufficient impact on the shipped product. Maybe they had no compatibility testing, or maybe they did and didn't have time to act on the report.
Either way the QA and gameplay problems are largely minor compared to the hardware compatibilitry problems - and this I am guessing is a 2K Games issue - probably from rushing the release date.
I also think that the attitude of some in the forums has been less than constructive, and I think that people would do well to remember that the "whiners" are just sad 'cos they can't play civ. Be a little understanding and tolerant. But this is the internet I suppose.
My experience with the game has been mixed - it runs great on my uber PC at work - at home I use my IBM laptop (which i love to bits) but it has a Radeon 7500 so I have bright yellow terrain everywhere and looking at the game makes baby Jesus cry.
_______________________________________
Kipper