Civ4 Beyond the Sword Patch v3.17 is out

[KrikkitTwo]

The problem is that each patch so far has Added bugs as well as removed them. the point being made is that Firaxis never fixed the bugs in C3C, and has not fixed the one's in BTS yet either (adding some in every patch even as they remove some)

 

[Breunor]

The problem is that each patch so far has Added bugs as well as removed them. the point being made is that Firaxis never fixed the bugs in C3C, and has not fixed the one's in BTS yet either (adding some in every patch even as they remove some)

I don't disagree. I guess it is a matter of the 'standard'. Maybe people are right, maybe I have too low a standard -- or maybe some of you have too high a standard. Or maybe we just have standards appropriate to how we think.

I doubt any patch of the size of 3.03, 3.13 or 3.17 will come without a few bugs. Firaxis is also making enhancements, which I think is good. So, yes, I suspect every major patch will create new bugs. I think the critical issue is how much better the product is after the change than before.

Almost every major game I have seen that has survived for a long time, and has interested designers, make changes to the game as people play it and then find areas to improve. We can characterize some as 'bugs', which I view as code not acting the way the designer intended. We can characterize others as enhancements, in which the designers decide that the game would be better to change the code. Clearly, any enhancements increase the chance of more bugs.

So, I see wargames like World in Flames, cardgames like Magic the Gathering, RPG's like Dungeons and Dragons, and other computer games like Civ, constantly fixing both 'bugs' (which for a wargame means that the language in the printed rules don't say what the designer intended) and making the game better as the game is played by more people through time. Some of these enhancements are new releases, which costs money, and others are 'patches', which are free. I think inthe case of Magic the game actually got worse, but with most games including Civ, it got better.

So, if your standard is that companies should make bug-free products, then I guess we will just disagree, I just don't think it is realistic. Of course, it may be realistic to say they should have FEWER bugs. I think Firaxis has done a good job of supporting the products, this is a subjective call -- but I don't think my position is ridiculous or indefensible relative to the products I have seen. I think the enhancements have been well worth the effort and I know there will be new bugs, and especially with Solver's (and Bhruic's) efforts, these have been minimized.

Sorry, I can't say much about C3C.


Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Balderstrom]

cardgames like Magic the Gathering, RPG's like Dungeons and Dragons

Here let me fix that small snippet:
cardgames like Magic the Gathering, RPG's like Dungeons and Dragons that have been turned into Magic the Gathering RPG.

Sorry, but it really needed to be said ;-)

I think inthe case of Magic the game actually got worse

D&D is not even remotely recognizeable. Labels for things are the same, what the labels actually mean has been completely rewritten - as if someone took an English Language Dictionary, copyrighted it and then changed the meaning of all the words inside.


Otherwise, yeah I pretty much agree with what you said. Except that when you Nerf something, you should give something in its place. Thankfully, this game is so open we can modify the things that we really object to

 

[Woody1]

The problem is that each patch so far has Added bugs as well as removed them. the point being made is that Firaxis never fixed the bugs in C3C, and has not fixed the one's in BTS yet either (adding some in every patch even as they remove some)

AFAIK, the only bug in 3.17 is the barrage promotion doesn't work for tanks. Hardly a game-breaker, and simple to fix with an XML tweak. Most of the other stuff that Solver is working on is minor AI tweaks, which we'd never even notice if Firaxis didn't release the code.

3.13 wasn't very good, but 3.17 is much, much better. I don't think we'll be seeing another patch, and I'm fine with that now. (I wasn't when it was 3.13.)

 

[SJN]

I have avoided the topic of bugs in software and quality many times because I hate arguments on forums. It's funny, because I love to argue with people in person.

Here are the rules about software products.

1. All software products of reasonable size and complexity have bugs.
2. Fixing bugs almost always introduces new bugs. The new bugs might be less significant (either technically or from a usibility standpoint), but they're in there. This is why software has a "life span". Eventually, you just can't improve the product any more without making it worse.
3. Adding new features of any reasonable size or complexity introduces new bugs.
4. All software companies know that they are publishing software with bugs.
5. Software companies publish software when they figure that additional bug-fixing will not result in a higher profit. They didn't get into business to make you happy, except so far as you would pay them money for their product. When they figure that they have something that most of their clientele will be happy with at the given price point, they publish and ship.

So, for everyone who says "I won't buy because the game is too buggy", you're doing the right thing. Voting with your wallets is the right mechanism for applying pressure on the company. You likely are also sending the company emails expressing your displeasure. This is also the right thing to do. Most companies assume that for every negative letter they receive there is a constant number of other people who feel the same way but did not communicate. In other words, if this constant is "c", they treat your one complaint as "c" complaints.

Pointing out bugs to other people and encouraging them to voice their complaints is also effective.

However, please do not assign any "morality" to your decision to not buy, nor firaxis' business approach. People who find the game to be enjoyable will buy it, and people who think it too buggy won't. Firaxis will either make a profit with their current business model, or they won't.

And certainly don't ask for "bug free" games. If you think you've played bug free games, it just means you never found the bugs. Similarly, I've never felt that Civilization IV was buggy... I must not play the same way you do.

And as a final note, please recognize that your opinion on the quality of firaxis games may not be a common one. The success of Civilization IV, and the vast number of people on these boards who love playing it, suggests that most people are really enjoying Civ IV and finding it very "playable". Please don't get indignant that other people don't find the experience as "bad" as you do or did.

-- SJN
PS. I *am* a software engineer.

 

[PieceOfMind]

SJN, you have a very rational standpoint, but I must disagree on two points:

People who find the game to be enjoyable will buy it, and people who think it too buggy won't. Firaxis will either make a profit with their current business model, or they won't.

The only problem here is that you must pay for the product before you can play it and possibly discover bugs. This gives us much less power to vote with our wallets because we can only refuse to purchase their next offering. Because of the saturation of the video game market the loss of some dissatisfied customers appears to have very little impact on sales, as the developer can expect to pick up many many new customers on the next product. (Of course they can also rely on the relatively short attention span of the average video game consumer.) Most game developers are not interested anymore in building a good brand name because at their core they are more interested in the short-term profits ie. the sales of the current game. This is just like almost every other type of business, and unfortunately it's just the way it is.

In my opinion, when you purchase software you should be implicitly buying the rights to use the software and the services including technical support and patches. I'm not satisfied with the more real way of taking a shot in the dark these days when you purchase software.

And certainly don't ask for "bug free" games. If you think you've played bug free games, it just means you never found the bugs. Similarly, I've never felt that Civilization IV was buggy... I must not play the same way you do.

Have you ever played pong?

 

[SJN]

The only problem here is that you must pay for the product before you can play it and possibly discover bugs. This gives us much less power to vote with our wallets because we can only refuse to purchase their next offering. Because of the saturation of the video game market the loss of some dissatisfied customers appears to have very little impact on sales, as the developer can expect to pick up many many new customers on the next product. (Of course they can also rely on the relatively short attention span of the average video game consumer.) Most game developers are not interested anymore in building a good brand name because at their core they are more interested in the short-term profits ie. the sales of the current game. This is just like almost every other type of business, and unfortunately it's just the way it is.

I understand your point of view, but if your assertion is true (and I'm not sure that it is) then, imho, a customer of such short attention span and limited critical thinking is responsible for a market of crappy games.

On the other hand, I don't think that the average game player is that dumb. In fact, I think gamers are some of the most demanding (in a good way) customers of computer software. I, personally, think that game software is some of the highest quality software that exists and has a higher customer satisfaction rate than other kinds of software.

I have no studies to back this up, just my personal 2 cents.

And I do think that good gameplay affect future profits for a company. Would anyone care about Diablo III if Diablo would have sucked? How about Civ? Or Warcraft? Certainly not all the civ games are equally liked (I didn't like Civ III) but I was willing to give Civ IV a chance because I liked Civ I and Civ II. I *love* Civ IV and can't wait to try Civ V.

Maybe we (you or I) should launch a poll on the civ fanatics boards and see how many people who bought Civ IV are first time gamers. I'd be surprised if it's more than 33%.

In my opinion, when you purchase software you should be implicitly buying the rights to use the software and the services including technical support and patches. I'm not satisfied with the more real way of taking a shot in the dark these days when you purchase software.

And, as I said, you are voting your wallet. The fact that most people don't respond the same way might mean that most people are comfortable with their game buying experience. Or, at least they're comfortable enough that they are continuing to buy.

Me, for example, I always buy games late... often even a year or more after the game comes out. I can then make a decision I feel comfortable with.

I have another buddy who buys every game he thinks he'll even remotely like. To him, it's just like going to a movie... some you will like, some you won't. He is comfortable with the price point.

I suppose that there could be a large percentage of game players that are spending their parents money on games, and consequently don't "feel" the full effects of their decisions. But even then, I imagine most parents don't give their kids an unlimited budget.

What I'm saying is, nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head and saying, "buy this crappy game or else".

Have you ever played pong?

I said in my post that a game of any serious complexity will have bugs.

-- SJN

 

[PieceOfMind]

I understand your point of view, but if your assertion is true (and I'm not sure that it is) then, imho, a customer of such short attention span and limited critical thinking is responsible for a market of crappy games.

On the other hand, I don't think that the average game player is that dumb. In fact, I think gamers are some of the most demanding (in a good way) customers of computer software. I, personally, think that game software is some of the highest quality software that exists and has a higher customer satisfaction rate than other kinds of software.

I have no studies to back this up, just my personal 2 cents.

And I do think that good gameplay affect future profits for a company. Would anyone care about Diablo III if Diablo would have sucked? How about Civ? Or Warcraft? Certainly not all the civ games are equally liked (I didn't like Civ III) but I was willing to give Civ IV a chance because I liked Civ I and Civ II. I *love* Civ IV and can't wait to try Civ V.

Maybe we (you or I) should launch a poll on the civ fanatics boards and see how many people who bought Civ IV are first time gamers. I'd be surprised if it's more than 33%.

You see the immediate flaw in creating such a poll though right? It's impossible to start a poll in the civfanatics forums and expect it to be free from the most significant bias here. Supposing it is roughly 33% people new to the series, then of those 33% they are less likely than the other 67% to be frequenters of the civfanatics pages. I would argue most people who use this forum are not in the class of gamers who have relatively short attention spans. I think hype and advertising are bigger sellers of games than brand names, to the average consumer anyway.

And, as I said, you are voting your wallet. The fact that most people don't respond the same way might mean that most people are comfortable with their game buying experience. Or, at least they're comfortable enough that they are continuing to buy.

But no, not really. You're supposing that the customer can vote with their wallet because they buy enough video games for it to matter. If, like me, you buy one game every 1 to 2 years, it's rare to even buy a game from the same developer in the first place.

In other words, "gamers" can vote but casual gamers can't or won't or at least have very little power to vote.

Me, for example, I always buy games late... often even a year or more after the game comes out. I can then make a decision I feel comfortable with.

I have another buddy who buys every game he thinks he'll even remotely like. To him, it's just like going to a movie... some you will like, some you won't. He is comfortable with the price point.

I suppose that there could be a large percentage of game players that are spending their parents money on games, and consequently don't "feel" the full effects of their decisions. But even then, I imagine most parents don't give their kids an unlimited budget.

What I'm saying is, nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head and saying, "buy this crappy game or else".

Sure but again this analogy is not relevant if you are an infrequent consumer of the product.

I said in my post that a game of any serious complexity will have bugs.

True - I took you a little out of context, but I'm just having a laugh.

But still, I disagree that it is impossible for a game like Civ4 to be free from bugs. But it depends what bugs you mean. The bugs I am most concerned about are when rules aren't working properly or clearcut exploits exist. Things like graphical glitches and game crashes etc. wouldn't bother me. Even things like workers behaving sub optimally are not bugs because there are obvious constraints on what is possible in an AI.

It just seems that saying software is never free from bugs is too often used as an excuse for leaving a product unfinished. Why strive for perfection if the consumer doesn't believe it's possible anyway?

Anyway, SJN, I agree with most of your ideas. I just don't like the "complex software always has bugs" argument.

 

[Breunor]

In board wargames, we used to call the 'bug-free' result an 'out of box' experience. There are always gamers who feel that if they plop down the money (and some board wargames are $100 or more) they should get a perfect games, with no rules' mistakes or ambiguities. And people feel in the computer game arena, plopping down $50 or so entitles them to a completely bug-free game.

As SJN said, you have the right to say that you won't buy a game with bugs -- but that means you won't buy many games. You won't buy board wargames without rules' problems either unless you deal with the very simplest ones.

When I plop down $30,000 for a car, I'm also hoping it won't ever break down -- but it will. I can be righteously indignant that paying $30,000 for a care means I shouldn't have to suffer breakdowns, but, unfortunately, I do need a car and there is a strong expectation it will break down at some point.

When I buy a car, I try to buy cars that break down LESS than other cars. When I buy a game, I'm looking for a good game with FEW bugs that dramatically hurt the game or its play, at least relative to the joy it brings me.

And so, to me Civ IV is well worth it. I love the game and the bugs have been in the acceptable range. Not the fewest, but OK given the complexity of the game.

Of course, how buggy people want games to be is subjective. I have never found that the bugs have kept me from enjoying the game greatly, and the patches have helped a lot.

So, if you think the game has too many bugs, that is a personal choice, don't play it. But I think implying that the game has so many bugs that, in legal terms, Firaxis has breached conditions of merchantability, will be hard to sustain. This type of conclusion does depend on implicit standards. In my experience, Civ IV's bugs are well within industry norms.

In the US, we have a 'lemon law' for cars, which allows purchasers to return cars that are just, well, lemons. I doubt those of you pressing that CIV IV is equivalent to a 'lemon' for computer games in the legal sense will find a lot of success.

I remember when the discussion of the bugs of CIV III came up, with a similar discussion. I brought out the bugs in Master of Magic, maybe the greatest computer strategy game of all time, but its bugs were overwhelming. When gaming magazines would talk about the all time greats, it always started with 'Master of Magic has such great strategy elements, but the bugs are so overwhelming .....'

People on the forum said the bugs in Civ III were worse than Mom's! Trust me, making statements like that to anyone you want to listen within the computer industry just make you look foolish, essentially saying that CIV III was the buggiest successful computer game of all time; if you want to evaluate a game, you won't serve anyone, including yourself, if you lose objectivity.


Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[SJN]

I wrote a big long message to respond to PeaceOfMind... decided it's not worth it. I erased it. So, I'll summarize.

1. I think you agreed with me when you said that casual gamers had less influence than hard-core gamers. Isn't "voting with wallets" what I've been saying all along? If the hard-core, heavy-spending gamers are happy, I don't know why firaxis would feel inclined to change their behavior for people like you and me.

2. You said that you didn't buy that all complex software has bugs. Well, it's the truth. I would be happy to point you to a number of software development articles and/or textbooks. Again, you have to decide if the software is worth the 40-60$ to you. You have every right to decide that it isn't and, if already purchased, complain to the publishing company. Please just don't forget that there are other customers who might be fully satisfied with what they got. If the satisfied customers outnumber you by a lot, be prepared to get little response from the company.

-- SJN

 

[Jeckel]

They may be doing arguably well with Civ4's patching, but my Sid Railroads! is still needing another patch to fix some major issues, but I'm not holding my breadth. Abandonment of unfinished products is only going to get more common as long as marketing people have more say then Game Designers.

 

[Agent327]

I don't think such a changelog is available.

In your case, I'd do the following:
- Put FF 3.13 in one folder and FF 3.17 in another
- Either use a freeware explorer that has a directory comparison feature, or simply check which files had their date or size changed
- Load the 3.13 and 3.17 versions of a changed file into a file comparison tool (like ExamDiff; personally I use a Notepad++ plugin) to track down the actual changes.

An update of the MoO2 mod would be much appreciated, btw.

I was afraid of that: I already updated to 3.17, just to see what works and what doesn't (most of my scenarios do)... So I guess I have to compare FF and MOO2Civ file by file - which may take a while...

Anyway, thx for your reply.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I wrote a big long message to respond to PeaceOfMind... decided it's not worth it. I erased it. So, I'll summarize.

1. I think you agreed with me when you said that casual gamers had less influence than hard-core gamers. Isn't "voting with wallets" what I've been saying all along? If the hard-core, heavy-spending gamers are happy, I don't know why firaxis would feel inclined to change their behavior for people like you and me.

2. You said that you didn't buy that all complex software has bugs. Well, it's the truth. I would be happy to point you to a number of software development articles and/or textbooks. Again, you have to decide if the software is worth the 40-60$ to you. You have every right to decide that it isn't and, if already purchased, complain to the publishing company. Please just don't forget that there are other customers who might be fully satisfied with what they got. If the satisfied customers outnumber you by a lot, be prepared to get little response from the company.

-- SJN

Yeah I always found it fascinating the miny debates that can come up in the strangest threads.
By the way, I am pretty much happy with 3.17. It annoyed me only slightly that a bug or two were introduced due to feature additions. But don't take my arguments above to mean I am dissatisfied with the patch.


Off topic:

Spoiler :

Maybe I have a different interpretation of voting with your wallet. I was disputing that voting with one's wallet was the simple solution to expressing dissatisfaction with software for all gamers. I don't expect Firaxis to do anything differently especially because the "hardcore gamers", as you say, are contented with the current product. What I would like would be if these "hardcore gamers" demanded a bit more in terms of quality.

The fact that a lot of complex software has bugs is not a counter to my argument that not all complex software must
have bugs. Giving examples of software that has bugs simply shows how widespread the idea is. If you can give me an example of a piece of complex software where it is provably impossible to remove all gameplay bugs then I'd be gobsmacked. I'll just note again it is the gameplay/rule bugs to which I refer. Things like AI tweaks and unit tweaks/nerfs and graphics bugs are not serious bugs. If you were to call every AI peculiarity or unit imbalance (eg. nerf infantry by 2%) a bug then sure there would never be an end to the list of "bugs".
I would be very very surprised if you had a textbook with any real detail on bugs relating to the rules of video games and how it is impossible to remove all of them. Not operating systems, not user interfaces, not accounting software, not media players, but the rule-bugs in video games.

Anyway, I'd be happy to leave it agreeing to disagree, but I suspect we are not debating the same thing in the first place (something I fall into far too often).

It's true, there's pretty much nothing we can do to change the ultra rational way businesses operate. It would be like turning lead into gold.

 

[Wodan]

The only problem here is that you must pay for the product before you can play it and possibly discover bugs.

There are guite a few good ways you can find out about a game before you purchase. Even a casual gamer (purchases 1-2 games every couple of years) can easily to this.

Would you buy a washer and dryer without comparing features and reliability reports? Some people would. But, it's silly to expect that the product you buy is free of imperfections without doing due diligence as a consumer.

In my opinion, when you purchase software you should be implicitly buying the rights to use the software and the services including technical support and patches.

I think you ARE entitled to such, but ONLY to bugs that render the game unsuitable for its purpose. 99% of so-called "bugs" are superficial and/or subjective.

The company issuing a patch for the 99% is for customer relations, or to improve grassroots sales, and such. But you're hardly "entitled" to it.

And for the 1%, I might point out that there are other recourses available to you besides not purchasing one of the company's products. Register a claim with the BBB (even people not in the US have this option because you complain to the BBB where the publisher is located, which is in the U.S.), write the chamber of commerce, pass word of mouth to friends and at your local software stores, sue the company in small claims, complain online, write to software mags' editorial sections, etc. But, that's only after you have first contacted the company tech service and been told that they have no intention of fixing it. If you do any of those things without first taking that critical step, then that's not right.

You're supposing that the customer can vote with their wallet because they buy enough video games for it to matter. If, like me, you buy one game every 1 to 2 years, it's rare to even buy a game from the same developer in the first place.

See my point above. Doing due diligence as a consumer and investigating the product before you buy (gasp) is just one option. Even if you buy, if you find the game is unplayable then you have some resourses. These recourses amount to the same thing as voting with your wallet, because you are costing the game company resources (they have to respond to the BBB, or they suffer lost sales from OTHER consumers, etc.)

But still, I disagree that it is impossible for a game like Civ4 to be free from bugs. But it depends what bugs you mean. The bugs I am most concerned about are when rules aren't working properly or clearcut exploits exist. Things like graphical glitches and game crashes etc. wouldn't bother me. Even things like workers behaving sub optimally are not bugs because there are obvious constraints on what is possible in an AI.

It just seems that saying software is never free from bugs is too often used as an excuse for leaving a product unfinished. Why strive for perfection if the consumer doesn't believe it's possible anyway?

Anyway, SJN, I agree with most of your ideas. I just don't like the "complex software always has bugs" argument.

I think you two are talking about two different classes of bugs. You're talking about the 1%, while SJN is talking about the 100% (which includes the 99%).

 

[Minmaster]

so tanks don't do collateral dmg with barrage promotion or what? i don't get this thing.

 

[ori]

in the 3.17 patch the barrage promotion has no effect for tanks.
Solver removed the barrage promotion for tanks completely but fixed the underlying code so that mods using tanks or similar units would work if they use the barrage promotion.

 

[Minmaster]

what's the reason for removing collateral dmg from tanks??? that was why tanks were awesome...

 

[Psyringe]

That was the point ...

Seriously: tanks are very strong without barrage, they don't need it to be a viable option. According to Solver, the designers felt that col.dam. made tanks overpowered, so he removed it.

 

[Woody1]

Well, I don't think it's clear whether Firaxis meant to remove barrage from tanks, or just change the behavior of barrage. But in any case, yeah, tanks are already plenty good enough without barrage.

 

[Draug]

I havent played Civ4 for almost a year and thought I would get back into it again...

After installing BTS and the 3.17 patch, the resource trading seems to be different than I remember. I know they changed the trading rules for the corporation related resources, but I havent even advanced that far yet.

It seems the AI doesnt list a resource, say horses, in its trade window until I already have one in my possesion from my own land. Is that right? I know they have horses, cause they have chariots rolling all over, but not a single AI lists them as a resource in the trade window (even one they wont trade).

Has this been changed? Or, has my memory failed me, and this is how it has always been?

Thanks in Advance!