Civ3: (In)Complete

[Longasc]

The only time I saw a half-hearted fix after major complains was with Creative Assemblies "Medieval: Total War" Add-On. They at least fixed some glaring bugs in the Add-On Viking Invasion before moving to Rome: Total War as people started *****ing like mad about the bugs in VI.

Even if we all would complain like mad, we would probably change nothing at all. But this is no reason for not complaining a lot at all. Acceptance of these terrible patching policies is nothing that will ever happen to me.

I will first read here about Civ4 before rushing to buy it and pay full price for something that might start out as Civ3 did, very promising and really good despite the many drawbacks, but full of bugs and broken promises perhaps?

 

[warpstorm]

If they (Atari) thought your negative ad campaign would work, why not just cut their losses, stop the work on Civ4 and move the money into more profitable areas like a new console action game.

Ask yourself honestly, if Civ4 came out in 2005 (or 2006) would you buy it if it got good reviews from people here even if they don't patch Civ3 again? Honestly. Search deep inside. I think that most will when the time comes even if they say they won't.

This type of campaign happens on nearly ever game in every genre and guess what, it has never worked when the genre is thriving. When the genre is dying, the publisher cuts its losses and moves on to greener pastures. Corporate short-sigthedness? Yes, but corporations have to make their stockholders happy in the short term.

 

[warpstorm]

But this is no reason for not complaining a lot at all.

Very true.

 

[SirPleb]

I think that the core problem here is that Firaxis doesn't see any reason at this point to think that there's actually much wrong with Conquests. I think they're playing "ostrich". I'd be very surprised if anyone at Firaxis reads anything which is said here or anywhere else about Conquests. They'd far rather not know about it. And since they don't know the details they can then assume that of course there are gripe threads and that they're "the usual" which will happen for any game. And therefore that Conquests is usual, there's nothing especially wrong which needs fixing. That's the easiest path for them.

I don't know if anything can change that. Perhaps warpstorm can make a positive suggestion as to what could work. The only thing I can think of is sending Firaxis email, which I've done. I think they do read all their email. I think that if there were an unusual number of people saying they're not satisified with Conquests that Firaxis would notice that. A few hundred people writing to them would probably really make them take notice since most people don't take the time to send notes like that - each one received represents a much larger number of people in its impact.

 

[Antrine]

http://www.firaxis.com/contact_gamefeedback.cfm

Good Idea! SirPleb
HERE IS MINE sent today!!

I would like to formally complain about the ending of patch support for Conquest. CIV3-Conquests, a brilliant game ‘unfinished’, despite that which is mayhap ‘unfixable’; there are appearing minor fixes and tweaks that ‘should be accomplished’. These would go a long way in repairing your reputation. Formal communication as to why and why not on the list of major items (all easily found at fan-sites) would go a long way. How can we honestly look forward to new products when the last very important one, Conquests, left in its current state?

Be creative; get some 'free' help under 'nondisclosure' agreements. Gee, there are competent people at the forums waiting in line to be of service. This is not, and need not be anything costly or time-consuming. There are volunteers to handle everything, including communication, analysis and feedback to the community. We are your advertisers; do you want to go yet another year with things as they are now?

Sincerely,
Antrine Kasalar
Writer/Publisher

 

[microbe]

I think that the core problem here is that Firaxis doesn't see any reason at this point to think that there's actually much wrong with Conquests.

I doubt this, or people with closer contact with them aren't doing their job. I believe that they know the issues but decided not to do anything about them. Look at how all the previous patches were released. There is no reason why they suddenly lost the ability to know the problems.

I think a lot of us are very disappointed, and the programmers in Firaxis are considered incompetent. It probably isn't enough reason not to buy CIV4, but no doubt the initial sales will be hampered.

 

[bonscott]

Funny. I have too much fun playing the game I don't notice nor care about any remaining bugs. The only ones I even notice are the sub bug and the AI use of armies and they just don't "bug" me, pardon the pun.

I don't own a single game that doesn't still have bugs in it after the final patch. I seriously don't see what the big deal is. I don't think I've checked this board for 2 months and people are still wasting energy complaining about remaining bugs. I say give it up already. Either play the game and enjoy it for what it is or move on to something else already.

And I'll be buying Civ 4 on day one it's released no question about that.

 

[bonscott]

I think a lot of us are very disappointed, and the programmers in Firaxis are considered incompetent. It probably isn't enough reason not to buy CIV4, but no doubt the initial sales will be hampered.

Very doubtful. Remember that the millions that have bought the game are Joe User. I'd say 75% have never even patched the game beyond what was with the install let alone know about any bugs. The people on this forum may be vocal, but you'd be lucky if all the people *registered* for this forum, let alone are still active in this discussion, even equal 1% of the entire Civ 3 userbase. Got to get a reality check here.

 

[Longasc]

bonscott, this kind of advice is worthless.

Why must always this kind of advice come up "If you do not like it as it is, do not play it."

There are users (me e.g.!) that are more demanding than you, claiming to be Joe Average or whatsoever.

 

[Antrine]

bonscott, that's nice and much of the industry no doubt 'loves' joe average. That is fine too, however CIV legacy used to be 'something'. And of course, quality comes to those who demand it, just like life!

Enjoy average,
enjoy often for it may be all you see...

 

[microbe]

bonscott:

We are having fun with the game and love it, and that's exactly we tolerate the bugs less than clueless users who may never notice the bugs.

Look at the strategy article forum, and you'll be amazed by how deep some of the pioneers got to understand the game more than most of people inside Firaxis.

And I believe the forum(s) play a significant role among ALL non-casual civ players. The best thing about CIV is replayability, and I think most people *will* try to search for resources like this site if they want to move up his level. Do not assume "joe" user does not do that.

 

[Tomoyo]

The average "joe" user probably plays it once, and decides it's boring.

Seriously, civ is a game that first-time players generally won't like.

 

[warpstorm]

One thing I will point out is that while complaining may get their attention, complaining "often" will and in a bad way. If your message or actions makes you come off as spammers or flamers you will be treated as such. Be civil, polite, informed, and clear-headed. If you can't, you will hurt the cause you are trying to achieve.

As far as free help and NDAs goes, they've been burned in the past (by posters on this site no less), I don't see them accepting it in the future. There would have to be much stronger language in any agreements (as in major enforcable penalties for breach).

As far a bonscott goes, I think he is correct. There won't be a noticable dip in sales. I predict (and you can quote me on this later and rub it in my face if it isn't true) "Civ4 will sell better than Civ3 did".

 

[Ramalhão]

Warpstorm:

I think that all software companies that really respect their customers always do patches for their softwares, no matter if it passes their time limits. Firaxis created a time limit for Conquests: July should be released the "final patch", so they can release "Civ3: (in)Complete" (as topic says). I think it's stoopid, a patch should be called "final" when all bugs were fixed.

I'm one of thousands who ask another patch for Conquests, that really correct all existing bugs. These bugs are well known, there are lots of topics mentioning them. So, why not spending some weeks to correct these bugs? Also, seeing and fixing these bugs can avoid these bugs occuring again.

And regarding the campaign: there are 50000 users in CFC, few if compared to sales. But there are lots of sites around the world about Civ3. Most people in these sites don't speak English, so they don't go to Apolyton and CFC, the most popular Civ3 sites.

A campaign started in one of these communities can spread around the world. Many users in Apolyton and CFC live in several countries around the world. Their countries usually have a Civ3 site in their own language. So, they can spread a campaign in these sites. Imagine 100 countries having their own Civ3 site with hundred or thousand users. They see these campaign and spread for those users who don't have internet access.

Internet is a powerful way to spread ideas. Everyone knows hoaxes spread around internet. Why don't we spread a good campaign?

I know that lots of users can boycott this campaign when the game is released. But we must make some type of "pressure" over Firaxis. They must respect the money we spent in one game and two expansion packs.

 

[warpstorm]

Why not? At the point of repeating myself. It's easy. It costs Firaxis a few thousand
dollars a week for each senior programmer. If you were their management and only had 5 of these guys to use (and couldn't afford to hire any more), what would you want to use them on, an older game that is bringing in a fairly small amount of royalties (which patching won't increase by a dime), or the two new games that have very short deadlines and that you've been given a large cash advance (that is mostly allocated already paying for things like office space, electricity, computers, software, lawyers, and salaries) against future sales to finish?

What about the junior programmers, you say? What about them? They would take longer and most likely introduce as many errors as they fix unless closely supervised (taking a senior programmer's time).

This doesn't include the cost for testers.

FWIW, most "final" patches still have issues. Companies move on. Developing games is their business. Most games have a shelf life of less than six months before the sales are a trickle. Civ lasted a little longer (due to its nature and Conquests), but it's there now. Complete will give a small boost, but it's bargain bin time. Since it is their business, they have to do what makes economic sense. Since they can't look to the far future (as they don't have the cash reserves to do that), they have to look at getting their next products out on time so as not to jeopardize their milestone payments (or the project as a whole).

Why don't I think a boycott would work? Because I don't think that most fans have the willpower to not buy the next Civ installment when it comes out and is good (and it is good). As far as the casual customers go, they won't even realize that a boycott was going on. Only the true fans will.

Having said that, I would like Firaxis to put out another patch fixing the major bugs that are left once Pirates is shipped (they have nobody to do this job right now, they are totally used up) in two months.

 

[genghis_khev]

If I knew they would at least look at this in 2 months I'd be happier. Even if it was to say thay could only do some. I don't think any of us are so niave to think that Fraxis can fix all the bugs EASILY (why would they have noit done this by now if that were the case). And lets be honest I doubt any of us would want Fraxis to stuff themselves over by not developing a new game on time (Very costly mistake I believe - I'm not in the business but I'm sure some one who is has already said this / will confirm this) because they were messing about with the patch.

What I personally would like is when its not so hectic (2 months 'til a release? Bet they are working franticly at the moment!) they take one last look at this and sort a few last bits out. Again, I don't expect ALL the bugs to be fixed but I'm sure some can be.

If Fraxis could do this I also believe most, if not all, of us would buy Civ4 without question (asuming Fraxis haven't turned it into some lame platformer ). Also we would all shut up and (mostly) stop complaining. If they had one last look I think its fair to say we would all get over it and accept it would be the last.

 

[warpstorm]

(2 months 'til a release? Bet they are working franticly at the moment!)

They are burning the midnight oil literally over there.

 

[Antrine]

So, for some clarity:

The Conquests is still valuable however obsolete. So obsolete that Atari has dictated money only for games built upon 3-D game engines. Moreover, of course this new platform has no challenges with say reliability, resource hogging, or inherent bug generation.

The Conquests is complicated, too cumbersome to fix or modify and ‘others’ have proven ‘unworthy’ to ‘help’. The current team over-worked else wise on new projects. They own it, but insist on ignoring Conquest for goodly reasons we are not party to officially.

It will not really help, if I mention this ‘stinks’ however it may ‘hurt’ if I say it too loudly. Hurt what, begs to be asked, but I will not bother to hard here asking. So, let’s make some predictions, shall we?

3-D does not a board game make.
Atari/Firaxis are no longer in the board game genre and are morphing elsewhere; some even may fear to a devils toy only the illiterate use.

Turn based board/civ like genre is still alive, though I admit computer graphics are going on. I humbly submit the AI is still ‘back’ with us, abused, blind and waiting for some goodly attention.

I have no conclusion, nor go I on to 3-D. I will wait for new blood and opportunities and stay in this genre. Whatever that may mean.

Editor First, AI Second, Interface Third, Graphics LAST. Seems some companies have a humor to reverse this order, but then they seem to be migrating somewhere else anyways.

 

[warpstorm]

I will say this, Civ4 is still Civ (just in 3D) with major modding support built in (makes the mod support in Civ2 and Civ3 combined seem lacking) from day one as well as good MP support. I don't see why you think they are leaving the genre.

I honestly don't know why people are so upset with a choice to go with 3D, anyways. It is simpler and cheaper to go that route these days rather than the 2D route (if you've already got the tools and training). Firaxis was using 3D tools to make Civ3 and then converting it down to 2D. By going full 3D they are saving themselves a step in the art pipeline. The graphics package they are using runs well even on outdated machines (I know because I programmed using it on an ancient video card for a few months befoire I got a new development machine). If you can run Freedom Force you should have no trouble when Civ4 is released.

Like you said 3-D does not a board game make, conversely neither does outdated 2-D graphics.

 

[Antrine]

Well that is encouraging, I guess I'll go back to my own mod world. I looked at some pictures of Pirates and it felt so much different. Anyway thanks for feedback and info. One more year or so well, good things often take time!

Many blessing to all the programers and may they be charmed in building that code!!

With piles of smiles,
Sincerely