Have They (Firaxis) acknowledged anything to anyone?

Well, id Software has used OpenGL ever since Quake2 and as their game engines are used for dozens of fps games it's by no means dead.
 
You want to know why the gaming industry is producing more unfinished games? Simple - Cause you, me, and everyone is buying them that way.

Look, its easy to understand. The developers are out there to make money. Its the only reason to go into business. The consumers are out there for the entertainment value. They want to see cool new features, graphics eye candy, some sort of story to be told, and have fun doing it.

So, once the developers announce that they have something in the works, say WoW, BF2, or even Civ4 the game sites all start taking. (Buzz) (Buzz) (Buzz) "New graphics engine" - "Co-op mode" - "64 simultaneous players" is all you will hear and read on game sites and on the forums. At some point, however, the noise turns to distane. "When is this thing going to be released???!!!" I'm sure if you searched this forum, you would find tons of those posts about Civ4.

Overtime, the developers have gotten the message we have been sending them. They recognized that we want the game - and we want it right now! So they just did a simple cost analysis; why spend the extra three months developing the game before release with all the anxious customers and no money when you could release it now, get a huge sum of cash to pay for the development costs, calm the "I want it" loud crowds, a secure their market share.

The last one is key. They don't want to spend three extra months developing something to have some other game come and steal their market? Just release the game now and deal with the bugs later. Remember, they are in it to make money.

So in the end, it is our fault as the consumer. We want it now! We get all hyped up reading previews of features without ever looking at the content of the game. So we sign up for pre-release versions, before any actual reviews are done on a game... Then we wonder why the game has missing/dropped features and bugs...
 
TheJediMaster said:
You want to know why the gaming industry is producing more unfinished games? Simple - Cause you, me, and everyone is buying them that way. [...] So in the end, it is our fault as the consumer.
Click to expand...

"I sense great fear in you [Jedi Master]. You have hate, you have anger, but you don't use them."

(Darth Tyrannis)
 
@TheJediMaster

However, people buy the game because all the review sites say it's great. The review process needs to be a bit more thorough - go to Amazon.com and read the user reviews and compare them to the "game website" reviews... there's some difference.

I remember Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 got burnt in some reviews on account of its bugginess, but I haven't seen that in a "review" site for some time now...
 
Padma
Well, I though C3C for Mac was ready... Though, this means Mac version of Civ4 isn't going to appear soon I presume.

blue3c
Voodoo had Glide.

Salarakas
Padma
The funny thing is that Id Software is the only company which uses OpenGL. Every other GL-only game is quake-engine-based (half-life1/2 for example). In the old days, everyone tried to support both D3D/OpenGL, but these games either had bugs with OpenGL or performed worse under OpenGL. Even games today sometimes get OpenGL "available" but disabled for some reason (FarCry for example).

This also makes it easier for driver-writers to support OpenGL (Quadro cards should care about 3DMAX/Maya and alike while gamer cards should care *only* about quake-alike engines). And it makes a pain to create another OpenGL-based game. At least "GL extensions" make this API not so universal between different pieces hardware... Even Doom3 had problems with ATi cards vs. nVidia cards. ATi performed slower - should it be OpenGL driver or something different with shaders - that's the fact. D3D games never had such drastic difference on same gemeneration of ATi/nVidia videos.

There is no need to use OpenGL until you want to make your product cross-platform. Well, that could turn the marker over against D3D when consoles became "very 3D" (PS2 for example).... until the day XBOX was released :)

TheJediMaster
I don't think Firaxis needs to care that their product won't be bought because of some other concurrent product of same type... Well, at least they hadn't to care before civ4. With civ5 this might become an issue. Why spend 3 months until they fix it when there are this, this and this title available ;)
 
Padma,

Come over to the darkside (MS)

the microsoft is good
the microsoft is good
the microsoft is good



Hark, I totally forgot about glide. LOL. My bad. Didn't nvidia purchase voodoo and kill that.

Jedi, Yes it is sad but true. Release early, full of bugs and get money now or release on time, have a great product with very few bugs and get money, and more money later due to rep. Hmmmm.
But this is just a fantasy. The gaming industry is interested in the quick buck. Not keeping loyal customers or putting out a solid product.
I mean look at civ iv and all the awards it just won. These awards are based on potential. Or they are paid for. Because it certainly can not be on the finished product. Of coarse the same people giving these awards are the same people who reviewed the game and said there were no bugs and it was awesome. Hmmmmm cover thy butt much.
Bottom line is until we the gaming community stop excepting these unfinished game, we will continue to get them.
Thats why I would love to see some sort of standards board. It would be great for the industry.
 
blue3c said:
I mean look at civ iv and all the awards it just won. These awards are based on potential. Or they are paid for. Because it certainly can not be on the finished product. Of coarse the same people giving these awards are the same people who reviewed the game and said there were no bugs and it was awesome. Hmmmmm cover thy butt much.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that most reviewers didn't have problems running the game, so they reviewed the content?

I mean, cIV worked for me, on a crappy system, out-of-the-box, and pre-patch. Maybe most reviewers just had that same experience?

Does it HAVE to be a conspiracy?
 
blue3c said:
Padma,

Come over to the darkside (MS)

the microsoft is good
the microsoft is good
the microsoft is good
Click to expand...
Off-Topic: Sorry, but I banished MS from my computer about 2 yrs ago. I refuse to pay good money for the garbage they provide. (You think Firaxis/Take2 is bad? Just look at MS! ;) ) This is why I do not have Civ4 yet. I'm hoping that Transgaming will have it working via Cedega within the next 6-12 moinths. :sigh:
blue3c said:
I mean look at civ iv and all the awards it just won. These awards are based on potential. Or they are paid for. Because it certainly can not be on the finished product. Of coarse the same people giving these awards are the same people who reviewed the game and said there were no bugs and it was awesome. Hmmmmm cover thy butt much.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, most reviewers had no problems with the game. Of course, I'm not sure they all got the final, shipped version. After all, how do you do a review of a product that hasn't even gone gold, yet? ;) (Answer: you review a near-final beta.)
 
Efexeye said:
Is it possible that most reviewers didn't have problems running the game, so they reviewed the content?

I mean, cIV worked for me, on a crappy system, out-of-the-box, and pre-patch. Maybe most reviewers just had that same experience?

Does it HAVE to be a conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Well lets see. NO, NO, YES.:D

Whateva whateva whateva.

Please read
Bottom line is until we the gaming community stop excepting these unfinished game, we will continue to get them.
Thats why I would love to see some sort of standards board. It would be great for the industry.
Click to expand...

The gaming review sites do a terrible job on reviewing the games. They all have connections now.

IGN's sister site, GameSpy, has also published their Game of the Year 2005 feature. Here Civilization IV received two awards: the PC Turn-Based Strategy Game of the Year Award and the overall PC Game of the Year Award!
Click to expand...

Its sister site?? Or should it read another branch of our company?

I find it hard to believe with all the issues civ iv had out of the box with ati that not one reviewer found it. Possible but if properly reviewed I would have say close to impossible. Unless of coarse every reviewer uses Nvidia. Then you would have to ask yourself is it a good review if it is only reviewed on certain platforms. If this is so, should you not list the specs of the system you reviewed it on. Cause that would lead me to believe you only test it on one machine. That is not a good review. That would be like consumer reports testing a new car on a perfectly flat straight road in perfect weather and stating it is the best handling all weather car. :lol:

Both Gamespy and IGN have vested interests in multilayer games. So I really don't think they should be reviewing to begin with.

Which leads me back to the standards board. I do not feel the gaming industry can or will police up after itself. If you are putting hardware and os requirements on the side of the box. You should be held to those self proclaimed standards. Or you should be putting a disclaimer on these so called requirements. If you fail to meet these standards that you put on the side of your box, then you should offer a refund.
The amount of testing and tweaking I have put into this game far exceeds any work I did with any old dos game. That is just crazy.

Conspiracy, no not really. Reviewing something you should not be reviewing, yes. Saying you reviewed a system, but not seeing the glaring issue with ati. bad review. Putting out games that still need work. bad.

What your trying to say is that I am making things up and only seeing them in a way that supports my theories. Which is incorrect.

I totally understand the game works for some and does not work for others. This is not good business practices. This is a growing trend in PC gaming. This will go on until the gaming community gets sick of it.

My thoughts on the review of games today. From the last four games I have bought, I see glowing reviews but problems out of the box. I see no mention of this in the review. Why is that? It is either poor reviews or companies buying ads to support reviews. I tend to think it is a mix of the two.

A gaming standards board would help in telling the consumer what systems this game actually works on. Tested on this video card with this driver set etc etc etc. Passed of failed or required some work. Something, anything for christ sake is better then what the gaming industry puts on the side of the box.

Thats my 2 cents.
 
From what I understand, most reviewers had no problems with the game. Of course, I'm not sure they all got the final, shipped version. After all, how do you do a review of a product that hasn't even gone gold, yet? (Answer: you review a near-final beta.)
Click to expand...

So could the reviewers then be giving the game breaks as far as ctd and so on. Because they do not have the final version they do not mention the problems.

I mean maybe I do not understand the review process then. I myself would not put my name on a unfinshed product. Making statement like game of the year, yadda yadda yadda.

Is the review done on just one machine, or is it done on multiple? Is it just some poor smuck stuck in the basement never coming out for light or is it a bunch of testers?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Sorry about the post after the post but I didn't feel like editing.
 
Efexeye

Is it possible that most reviewers didn't have problems running the game, so they reviewed the content?

Or vice-versa... they couldn't run the game, so they reviewed fansite kits ;) (reminds me of G.E.C.K. from Fallout2)
 
I suspect Fraxis did everything it could for the reviewers, including fast patches and promises that it will be stable in the final release.

Reviewers didn't mention problems because they knew they were dealing with a beta product and expected problems.

Personally, this is the first time I've been burnt with an unfinished product. So, I learned my lesson. I will NEVER BUY ANOTHER FRAXIS PRODUCT until I've monitored all the forums and discovered every hint of major issues have been dealt with. Probably good advice for any software product, but I have my eye on Fraxis in particular because of this game.
 
if reviewers are reviewing a beta or worse, and then giving breaks because they were told it would be fixed. That is not a review. I believe that is a preview. A sneak peek. Nothing more. That would seriously be lying. Truthfully that does piss me off. If you are reviewing a beta you should state that in your review. State problems you found and then state if you were told those would be fixed or not.
That is like reviewing food before its cooked. Well the turkey looked good. Who knew it wasn't cooked.
If any of this is true then any review out is NO GOOD!

So let me get all this straight.
Reviewer gets beta or worse, has problems and yet gives a good review because firaxis (or any gaming industry company) says "hey no problem we are aware of that and will fix it"
They do not fix it, but release said game with plans on patching later, if more problems arise.
Patches are released and gaming company is praised for supporting said game.
More patches are incorporated into expansion pack to make said game as good as originally stated.
Am I getting close here. Do I see a pattern. Is this a trend or a new business model.
Please all you experts who do or do not work for said company chime in. Tell me I am wrong. Or at least explain yourselves.

Please don't just dismiss it, please explain were I may or may not be wrong. I am just going with what I see. I am not saying this is the way it is. I am just stating my experience in the last year with the gaming industry as a whole.
 
Murazor said:
Reviewers didn't mention problems because they knew they were dealing with a beta product and expected problems.
Click to expand...

Exactly! The previewers (aka the guys who get sneek peaks and see the game before its officially released) are only there to check out the eye candy and overview the game features. They can't give an honest representation of the game's true gameplay though simply because it isn't yet finished. There place is to fuel the hype and get people excited about the prospect of the game.

Now the reviewers on the other hand (the guys who get copies of the official releases and play them through...well...to some point anyway), are the people who you should pay attention to. They have the product in there hands and can actually tell you if it is in good order or not.

The only problem is that people don't want to wait for the reviews to come out. "It could take like a bizillian years to come out and I'll be the only guy on the block who doesn't have it!!!!!!!!!!!" Just from some previous experiances I've had, i'll try and give an example.

My friends and I are really big FPS fans cause we like getting together to blast things. Whatever. So when Battlefield 2 said to be coming out we got all excited. Multiplayer, Modern Warfare theme, etc HOLY COW, sign me up! We went to the online retailers like, Gamestop, to buy each of us a copy. And, just like any other game with that big a name, it eventually sold out. Millions of copies sold.

But it wasn't all fun and games, no pun intended. As will the recient big name releases, they have a catch. You need xyz minimum system requirements so some of my friends had to upgrade their computer a little. Oh and by the way, it just doesn't even run on a 56k. Oh Oh yeah, by the way, first release had a huge memory leak that made it impossible to play for long periods of time. Oh and I forgot to tell you that shortly after releasing the game, our support staff was moved to start working on the new expansion pack and thus the first patch will come out two months after the release...which of course broke more things... You get the picture.

And i've read about plent other launches like BF2's

Its people buying on the name of the product rather than actually looking to see if the product is any good. The key here is to wait and read the reviews. Its a hard lession to learn, but if we keep selling out the preorders before anyone has looked at the content of a game, then the game developers will just keep going the way they are going.
 
Padma said:
Considering that the beta testers didn't have the kind of problems (nor the severity) that some regular users have experienced, I would be willing to bet that the reviewers didn't have these problems with their late-beta versions, either.
Click to expand...

But, with the serious ATI issues that arose with the game right out of the box. How is that even possible? It just don't add up. :eek:

Unless the problem came from a late change.

See this is what totally throws me. I don't get it. How can you have problems like this in a game and not know it.
Lets even take a poll that I don't agree with from here. It showed 10%-20% were having problems of some kind. Even if you go with the low and take the one in ten had issues. How do you not see it in a review. And if you are doing a review how can you not mention it.
Better yet how can your beta testers not see it. I would hope they at least had 10 people testing on more then one machine.
Are beta testers just starting the game and then going down a check list. Or are they testing the game. My guess would be they have a list of things to look for and that is all they test. Again I am not familar with this process. But from the way things are looking that sounds like what happens.

So beta testers really don't test a game. They only test certain things in a game.
Reviewers do not review the game, but an unfinshed product.

My god. Next your going to tell me Santa is not real!!:mad:
 
blue3c said:
But, with the serious ATI issues that arose with the game right out of the box. How is that even possible? It just don't add up. :eek:

Unless the problem came from a late change.
Click to expand...
This is *exactly* what seems to have happened.

From my own experience (I beta-tested Civ3-Conquests), we were very satisfied with the game when the test was done. When the game hit the stores, there were all sorts of problems. We testers were lambasted for "ignoring all the problems". All we could say was, "it didn't work that way when we tested it."

The ATI card issue with Civ4 seems to be just that sort of thing. Something happened between the beta test and the final shipped release. IIRC, it was some issue with the packaging of files. Beta testers received the files in an "unpacked" form, and had no issues. But for release, they were "packed" on the CD and some code that was used to unpack things wasn't working quite right. (At least, that's what I understand from reading the original ATI fix thread. :))
 
(EDIT Quote Attribute - opps sorry Blu & Jedi ...) TheJediMaster
"It could take like a bizillian years to come out and I'll be the only guy on the block who doesn't have it"

Of course there lay the root problem in the Industry. They know this feeling prevails amongst many, the numbers refreshed as a new load of keen gamers grow into the game each year. Whatever is said in Public or privately to friends, watch the Internet shopping for the early release - never mind what was said to friends about "never again do I buy early".

Its life .... thats why I doubt we will ever break this endless poor quality first release. Game makers know it, I dont blame them as such, its a business not a charity. Does not stop me being annoyed, but I am pragmatic enough to understand the realities.

Regards
Zy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Stumped on why no capitulation
Replies
4
Views
519
Plains-Cow
Plains-Cow
aelf
How important is it for Firaxis to admit mistakes or acknowledge failure?
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
9K
aelf
aelf
K
New to Civilization 4
Replies
5
Views
1K
f1rpo
f1rpo
S
Does anyone run VP on a Mac via Parallels?
Replies
6
Views
882
lmha
L
V
Why such an uncreative approach to religion?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
uppi
U
Back
Top Bottom