Colonization Patch ?

Hi,

I'd like to offer some thoughts. I'm a game developer, I've been making console games for the past 10 years. I've nothing to do with Firaxis but games like Civ are why I chose to work in this industry. That said, here's my take on some of what's been said above:

- What developers can do is always limited by money, which comes from publishers, who are interested in making money by selling games.

- Patches are not a direct money maker. Yes, they help retention, build fans, build reputation and expectations of long term quality, but they don't typically sell more boxes. If what went out was seriously buggy then a patch is a band aid needed to counter bad press and word of mouth, but short of that, they don't do much for sales.

- I think many Col players will take the game as is, think it's hard, think they are bad at it, and maybe not enjoy it as much as thy might have. What shipped does not realize the potential of the game of 15 year ago. However, most consumers won't know that.

- A publisher, especially one needing to lay off a few hundred or thousand people, wont be looking for ways to make past buyers of their product happier right now about their past purchase. Sure, they'd like to, but getting money to make payroll and continue to exist as a publisher is more important right now. They will be looking for a way to sell something asap.

- I would expect a patch to come in the form of an add-on. Most of you will want it. You want the official patch (just look at this thread) and you'll want the new content. It's a horsehockey move, but it's how the industry often works.

- Add ons are very cost effective. Making a game costs a lot. Adding content is relatively cheap. It takes less time (the core engineering is done, the game design is done), takes cheaper talent (art is often outsourced) and iteration is quick (you already have a stable engine to work off of). Best of all, you can sell it for $20 or $30 a copy, yet it only cost 3m to make, whereas the original product was 20m for $50 a copy. The downside is you'll only sell to a subset of the people who bought the first product. Still, it's a good deal for a publisher. (Which is why there's a gazillion Sims add-ons to buy).

- Developers want to make awesome games, always. Well, 80% of us do at least. Who's the other 20%? Some of the art people, some of the vfx guys, some tools or core system engineers, some UI people- they're just doing a job. I have found this to be true in the larger companies, as they hire out of other industries more the smaller studios. However, the other 80%, the designers, the game play programmers, the level artists, the producers not solely involved in money and schedules, they really care. They really really do. They are making games by choice, because they are really into games, and they want to be making good ones. Typically, making a game is 2 years of your life of doing nothing else. It's really long hours, it's fun, and it's all consuming. The last thing you want to do is spend 2 years making some crap you'll be embarrassed to have your name on.

- Patching is an expense. Not only are you employing a team of designers, engineers, UI artists, producers, development directors (schedule/project management people), web guys and maybe some PR folks to make it, you also have to test it. You have to put that patch through QA, and on a PC game the QA costs are high as they have to test everything on a gazillion different system configurations. So, that takes time and money. And then the patch will bring in almost no revenue... sucks for us, and it sucks for the devs who want to make their game better.

- Good game AI is bad AI that looks good. Writing AI that can beat the player every time is much easier then writing AI that looks smart and lets the player win. The desired outcome is that a competent player always wins and feels smart for having managed to do so. The goal is fun, always. It can be tricky because time is always limited, and what you really need to strike the right balance is time. Time to observe people who don't know how the game works as they try to play it and then time to make changes and then observe a brand new set of people who don't know the game try to play it...and so on. Worst of all, this usually is only possible near the end of the dev cycle, when the game is actually playable, so time is tight. This is part of why patching is so much the norm. There's no substitute to having a few hundred thousand people play the game and comment.

Bottom line: the old adage is still true. In games you can have only two of the following: on time, on quality, on budget. Publicly traded companies, like pretty much all game publishers, need predictable revenue, which means getting games out in their scheduled financial quarter. That means On Time rarely slips. So, then it's a trade off between dollars and quality- and the calculus is always, will x% more quality return the extra money is cost to add? For that answer they look to the size of the market they think a product (to them, games are products) can appeal to and then consider, how many of those guys are buying it anyway, how many will never buy it, and how many more consumers are up for grabs if we can get 5 more points on metacritic. And then they ship it, because it's a money looser to make it better then it is or the schedule demands it be shipped as is. And they ship it expecting to patch it, since that is normal...

Anyhow, that's my perspective, as someone who makes games. Again, I have nothing to do with Firaxis, I don't know anyone there, I'm just speculating.

Jaggy
 
I'd appreciate some feedback. I just purchased this game and want to get some insight on how to proceed. I have not played the game yet.

I immediately logged into the forum and installed the Dale/Snoopy patch based on some of the comments about bugs, etc. I saw the reference in this thread to the Land of Our Fathers Mod so I downloaded this as well. I have not installed the mod yet.

I guess my basic question is if I should play the Dale/Snoopy or move on to the LOF Mod? Again, based on many posts, it appears the standard game has many issues. Also, what are some of the pros and cons of vanilla, Dale/Snoopy or LOF?

As a side note, I played the original Colonization but it isn't like I have any expectations or comparisons between the two. I simply want the best gaming experience possible.

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to respond.


Just jump in and start playing. I'm happy playing vanilla myself but I know that Dale/Snoopy's mod is highly rated by those who have played it.
 
Hi,

- Patches are not a direct money maker. Yes, they help retention, build fans, build reputation and expectations of long term quality, but they don't typically sell more boxes. If what went out was seriously buggy then a patch is a band aid needed to counter bad press and word of mouth, but short of that, they don't do much for sales.

Jaggy

Bankruptcy doesn't do much for sales either. Don't understimate the importance of reputation. There have been many top game developers in the past who lost the respect of the gaming public and no longer exist. Sid Meier's name on a game box is only a selling point as long as he continues to develop and support quality games. The public can be fickle and they'll spend their dollars elsewhere if they think they are getting a raw deal. It doesn't matter how many brilliant games he has made in the past, as in football you are only as good as your last game. I do enjoy playing Col 2 myself but I know many don't and are hoping for an official patch. Without it they will be much harder to sell to next time.
 
I'd appreciate some feedback. I just purchased this game and want to get some insight on how to proceed. I have not played the game yet.

I immediately logged into the forum and installed the Dale/Snoopy patch based on some of the comments about bugs, etc. I saw the reference in this thread to the Land of Our Fathers Mod so I downloaded this as well. I have not installed the mod yet.

I guess my basic question is if I should play the Dale/Snoopy or move on to the LOF Mod? Again, based on many posts, it appears the standard game has many issues. Also, what are some of the pros and cons of vanilla, Dale/Snoopy or LOF?

As a side note, I played the original Colonization but it isn't like I have any expectations or comparisons between the two. I simply want the best gaming experience possible.

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to respond.

I won't give you any tips on how to play, but you should get Dale's AOD mod. It has incorporated Patchmod, LOF and also another mod called JTraderoutes - which vastly improves the micromanagement aspect of the game - and lots more besides. It has its own section of the forum where you can follow it progress. http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=334&x=17&y=7
 
Jaggy:

Well thought out and well presented comments: :b:

As one who was involved in the dev cycles of Civ4 and Col2 at Firaxis, I can only nod at every point.

Dale
 
- Good game AI is bad AI that looks good. Writing AI that can beat the player every time is much easier then writing AI that looks smart and lets the player win.

I have a hard time imaging that you can write an AI for Civ4 that would beat all that SG elite at Realms Beyond and play "honestly" - e.g. no bonuses, no anti-human bias.

Of course, if what you really mean is "it is easy to write an AI that starts with 6 Modern Armors at the start and attacks the human player the moment it meets him" then that's a different issue altogether.
 
AI is always full of hidden bonuses, it's the good AI that keeps them hidden.
 
AI is always full of hidden bonuses, it's the good AI that keeps them hidden.

What do you mean? Chess AI, for example, is not full of hidden bonuses...

And by "an AI that can beat the player every time and is bad" do you mean an AI with big badly concealed bonuses (like Civ4 Deity level where anyone can realize that the AI clearly has many bonuses) or something?
 
Well, this is just an opinion, but in my view good AI does the following:

- It lets the player win if the player plays well.
- It does not obviously cheat.
- It makes choices that make intuitive sense to the player, such that the player will thing "Ah, I see what it is doing!". This makes it look smart and makes the player feel smart for divining the AI's plan.
- Good AI never does anything that looks dumb. This is almost the gold standard in games. AI that does obviously wrong looking things, be they tactically sound or not, will just look broken to the player.
- Good AI has some predictable responses that the player can learn and take advantage of. (Example: Kill the officer unit in halo and the grunts panic). This lets the player learn and use something, and then feel smart.

- Chess AI is very specialized thing, and I would argue that good chess AI is no fun to play against for the average gamer, at all. That's sorta my point. We want AI that looks smart, plays competently, has a few tricks we can learn, puts up a good fight and then looses.

As an aside, I've long felt the mopping up phase in civ games takes a bit too long. It's rewarding, but once you've won and you know it, it would be good of the game to wrap things up a bit faster. It's one thing I've always liked about Col, you have the big decisive battle and then it's over.


Jaggy
 
Good AI also provides different levels of challenge (ie: difficulty levels). I've been trying to change the Col2 AI to present more difficult challenges the higher the difficulty.
 
- Chess AI is very specialized thing, and I would argue that good chess AI is no fun to play against for the average gamer, at all. That's sorta my point. We want AI that looks smart, plays competently, has a few tricks we can learn, puts up a good fight and then looses.

When programming chess programs at moderate levels, one of the problems that present themselves to programmers is how to make their mistakes look human, not "20 moves of grandmaster-strength play then blatantly giving away a knight for no reason".

But mind you, chess programs also have the "as good as it can give" level.

- It lets the player win if the player plays well.

I think that we are just talking about different things. To me, the AI ("thinking" algorithms) and the bonuses it gets are different things. Hence, to me Civ4 Settler and Deity AI's are the same - the bonuses it gets are different.

To you, the term "AI" includes the bonuses it gets, right? That's the only way that quote makes sense - the only possible way for you to NOT win when playing well is when the bonuses are already stacked against you.

The point is, when you talk about a possibility to create an AI that could beat the player every time most people incorrectly assume that you are talking about AI algorithms only, not the bonuses associated with them. After all, "Better AI" project means "Better AI algorithms" not "More AI bonuses".
 
Good AI also provides different levels of challenge (ie: difficulty levels). I've been trying to change the Col2 AI to present more difficult challenges the higher the difficulty.

That's so true.
One of my buddies, who is great Civ4 player (good GOTMer), played Col2 for some time, and his biggest disappointment was that higher difficulties are not challenging enough. Something he never had a problem with, when playing Civ4 on deity.

Whatever bonuses and improvements Col2 AI has on higher difficulties, it's just not enough to challenge good players.
 
Welcome to the Civilization Fanatics' Forums, Jaggy. Thank you for your enlightening posts in this thread. :hatsoff:
 
Well, this is just an opinion, but in my view good AI does the following:

- It lets the player win if the player plays well.
- It does not obviously cheat.
- It makes choices that make intuitive sense to the player, such that the player will thing "Ah, I see what it is doing!". This makes it look smart and makes the player feel smart for divining the AI's plan.
- Good AI never does anything that looks dumb. This is almost the gold standard in games. AI that does obviously wrong looking things, be they tactically sound or not, will just look broken to the player.
- Good AI has some predictable responses that the player can learn and take advantage of. (Example: Kill the officer unit in halo and the grunts panic). This lets the player learn and use something, and then feel smart.

- Chess AI is very specialized thing, and I would argue that good chess AI is no fun to play against for the average gamer, at all. That's sorta my point. We want AI that looks smart, plays competently, has a few tricks we can learn, puts up a good fight and then looses.

As an aside, I've long felt the mopping up phase in civ games takes a bit too long. It's rewarding, but once you've won and you know it, it would be good of the game to wrap things up a bit faster. It's one thing I've always liked about Col, you have the big decisive battle and then it's over.


Jaggy

Sounds like you've made some good games in your time Jaggy? Pretty sound stuff.
 
Jaggy: Studies show that regular costumers are worth 10 times more than a new customer, especially in this business where piracy is common. A small company like Firaxis wouldn't survive if it wasn't for the old-time fans. And writing a short note on their website about what they are doing doesn't cost anything.
 
I would expect a patch to come in the form of an add-on. Most of you will want it. You want the official patch (just look at this thread) and you'll want the new content. It's a horsehockey move, but it's how the industry often works.
Bleh... I don't see who will purchase add-ons if the mods already provide most of the fixes.

Jaggy: Studies show that regular costumers are worth 10 times more than a new customer, especially in this business where piracy is common. A small company like Firaxis wouldn't survive if it wasn't for the old-time fans. And writing a short note on their website about what they are doing doesn't cost anything.
I agree. Firaxis should have done much better. There games where the customers were very happy with the game, they ended up developing years after when the developers were finished with the product.
 
I've been making console games for the past 10 years.

- I would expect a patch to come in the form of an add-on. Most of you will want it. You want the official patch (just look at this thread) and you'll want the new content. It's a horsehockey move, but it's how the industry often works.

Yes, that sounds a lot like how console games work but by and large PC gamers don't fall for that garbage and demand/expect more. Any company who attempts this in the PC market has and will be eaten alive and have and will see their reputation destroyed. Console gamers don't have much choice and their style of gaming is much more casual. (Not worse or better, different) Their market is cornered and therefore companies can easily push out an add-on and they will buy it.

I won't.
 
Back
Top Bottom