How do we FORCE gaming companies to start releasing FINISHED Games???

[Kruelgor]

I think the cold hard truth is we want them unfinished. If we're going to buy it anyways when it's finished, why not have it sooner to play around with? It's like buying beta rights with a free game later. You now have the copy, you can play it whether you want to or not until it is done.

+1 Very true. I guess that's why I'm not bothered because I would buy rights to beta test if I could.

 

[DaveGold]

There is no excuse for unfinished games to be released, but CiV hardly falls into that category.

The only reason it's finished is because so little effort was put into late development features such as the logs, overviews, manual and civilopedia.

 

[Jharii]

The only reason it's finished is because so little effort was put into late development features such as the logs, overviews, manual and civilopedia.

Thank you for stating your opinion as if it were fact.

 

[Markstar]

+1 Very true. I guess that's why I'm not bothered because I would buy rights to beta test if I could.

Not me. Because unlike many others here, I don't have faith in Firaxis to ever fix Civ5 so that I would want to play it (because a) it would mean to completely abandon their current design philosophy and b) they are not good enough programmers to fix the long wait-time between turns (as proven by their previous releases)).

I have a state-of-the-art PC that plays Crysis flawlessly on 1920*1200, yet Civ5 is freakishly slow between turns while looking like a console game. Sadly, many of Civ5's problems aren't even that apparent in the demo (turns are much slower on larger maps and later in the game, also the linearity of the game-play only becomes obvious once you advance further down the tech tree and after a few replays).

It has been brought up before, but take Starcraft 2 as a counterexample: SC2 was more polished in the beta than Civ5 was on its release. The single player is tons of fun and multi-player gaming is a league of its own. Yet they continue to balance the game and work hard to satisfy even the extreme hard-core players. While I do feel cheated a little about game being split up in three parts (and imo the Terran campaign is not as long as the original three SC campaigns), I do not regret buying it. I had my doubts when Blizzard was acquired by Activision, but SC1, Warcraft and Diablo were such great games that got such great support, that I just felt comfortable buying it...after taking a thorough look at it through other means.
No, after my Civ3 Tin Edition pre-order disaster, I don't trust anybody anymore.

My approach nowadays is either to wait until I have read some user reviews or better yet, get a copy from some peers before I buy it.

 

[Stalker0]

No one in their right mind would make a mostly SP game work on a monthly fee.

A few years ago no one would release a free game hoping that the money made on "extra" features would be a money maker. Now the micro-transaction model is a very real thing.

I'm not saying its a good idea, but it is, honestly, the answer to the OP's question.

 

[Achilleslastand]

I would never want to buy a game that did not have any patches to follow simply because this would lead me to believe that the developer doesn't give a crap about the game.

CiV, unlike Elemental, does not have immense voids in its gameplay. Yes, there were some bugs, they have been and are getting fixed. Bugs are impossible to avoid, as there is no way to test every hardware combination and user combination in existence. Gameplay balance takes time as well, and there is no way to fully balance a game until more playstyles are experienced (i.e. it needs to be played, and a lot).

There is no excuse for unfinished games to be released, but CiV hardly falls into that category.

FYI, the number of patches is not proof that the game was incomplete. It's proof that they uncovered some issues after release. The fact that they fixed them quick and efficiently is testament to their commitment to the game, not that they released an unfinished product.

This is not a post in defense of CiV, merely how software development is these days. It's simply impossible to catch everything. Hell, NWN1 was one of the most solid releases of a big name game that I can recall in the last decade, and they patched that game for 5+ years.

Civ 5 is/was unfinished and incomplete...if you believe anything different ive got some beachfront property in arizona to sell you.
Once you get past the nice graphics and the hexes you realize gameplay wise there just isnt much under the hood.
A 12 year old could learn and master this game in a matter of a few days which is obviously the demographic they were shooting for.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

use force....

I believe the full quote is, "Use force Luke."

 

[Thormodr]

Civ 5 is/was unfinished and incomplete...if you believe anything different ive got some beachfront property in arizona to sell you.
Once you get past the nice graphics and the hexes you realize gameplay wise there just isnt much under the hood.
A 12 year old could learn and master this game in a matter of a few days which is obviously the demographic they were shooting for.

Yep. The game has definitely been made more "accessable".

 

[Asylumer]

Blizzard's only reputation was for supporting their games well with consistent patches NOT releasing games "finished" in fact thier games were anything but finished which was how they got the rep for patching frequently. The reputation they have for "patience" is a knew one that they have cultivated through pr and has ONLY been allowed because Warcraft was a cash cow.

This is nonsense. I distinctly remember many discussions about Blizzard's ability to enter the MMO market involved recognition of their dedication to producing a solid launch product and it was World of Warcraft itself that presented such a fine sheen of polish that it blinded the critics (loot glitch not withstanding). WoW was so clearly a great game* that the problems it did have were overshadowed by the good.

I think it's important to note the difference between what I consider a "complete" game and an absolute definition of the word. Perhaps it would be more apt to refer to the games Blizzard releases as I did above: as solid launch products. It is nearly impossible to develop a game completely devoid of issues with both bugs and design but when one encounters something where those bugs are almost inconsequential or at least rare enough that you could see how QA missed them it will very readily show itself as being top-notch quality -- especially if the game itself introduces features which may be prone to introducing bugs simpler games do not have to deal with. When the weight of issues doesn't detract from the fun factor more than the existing game provides in entertainment then the release would be a solid launch as worthy as can be expected. When it doesn't... the effects are almost impossible to miss as entire message boards fill with customers' angry complaints.

What I do not consider a detraction from the quality is later content patches which feel as though they are adding something instead of fixing a gaping hole that shouldn't have been there at launch.

* Yet not quite my style. It is however a near-ideal DIKU style game that fills the niche and in many ways perfects it. The problem I have with WoW is that the style of game itself is inherently shallow and in many ways it is dependent on Blizzards exceptional content to fill out the low-ends of its entertainment potential.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

One can avoid a lot of trouble by simply staying behind the curve. The curve is dangerous, expensive and frustrating. Here's what I do.

1) I buy computers rarely, being sure to buy a quality machine that will last for years. I still have all my computers (4 in total) including the 286 I bought in 1988, and they all still run. The 286 has Civ 1 on it as well as the original Pirates and Railroad Tycoon.

2) Buy old games. Even when my machine is new it's been so long since I was able to run "state of the art" programs that there are a lot of older games around that I haven't played yet. Games that are well known for their awesomeness, fully patched and balanced. And what's more they are all sitting in bargain bins because they are several years old.

I still play the same number of games this way, I'm just a couple of years behind the curve. I don't waste time playing games that need patching to work, or games that failed despite heroic hype by the gaming press upon their release. Aside from being able to skim the cream by having others do all the hard work of buying new releases and complaining until they are finally patched (or not), I pay a lot less money for the few games worthy of my attention and time.

 

[teks]

how do you force gaming companies to make complete games?

The same way you make dogfood companies make food without rat poison.

The same way you get snack companies to make snowballs without rat droppings.

The same way you get companies to make electronics that last longer then the warranty.

You lower your standards to an acceptable level, so if we change the definition of 'complete' to 'beta' then the problem is solved.

 

[snoochems]

As customers, we gave up any leverage we had when we pre-ordered.

I don't think I'll ever pre-order a game again... especially not a 2K/Firaxis game.

 

[Defacont]

Would you have rather waited for the entire game? I'm ok with a mostly done game, as long as it is finished in later patches.

 

[ZXTT]

Any business will act in a way that they believe maximizes their profits. There may be some combination of short term vs long term (get the product out now vs we want to be able to sell a future product), but in general those two should be balanced in a healthy business.

I think a large part of the problem stems from the tension between delivering expensive games that *can* sell vs spending so much on development that profit is unlikely. ie. Simpler games would be delivered on time and relatively bug free, but we won't buy them. Expensive games are too risky. The result is an attempt to make expensive games with a budget more appropriate for simpler games.

 

[Achilleslastand]

As customers, we gave up any leverage we had when we pre-ordered.

I don't think I'll ever pre-order a game again... especially not a 2K/Firaxis game.

Even tho i didnt preorder Civ 5 i feel like i was mislead and lied to....Plain and simple. It digusts me that they can get away with these unethical business practices.

Now i can see the full picture and realize they we have been hoodwinked.
No manual or being socially responsible as they call it...was nothing more then a ploy to save them some cash
Streamlined gameplay translated means gameplay so simple and dumbed down it was meant to appeal to the wii genreation.
Greg 2Ks promise of......multiplayer is "awesome"
No demo released beforehand.
The signs were all there of a disaster only i turned a blind eye hoping and expecting the best. What i got for 50$ is nothing more then junk to me.
After less then a week of playing i realized there is deeper gameplay involved in tic tac toe.
2K/firaxis should be ashamed of this shell of a game...

 

[Bad Brett]

My guess is that the console game market is a lot more lucrative and that 2k Games just wanted to milk out the last bucks from the Civilzation franchise. They new the old fans would pre-order it and that the simpler design would attract new player... But I think they realize that this game won't be a hit in the long run.

Many people are already waiting for the expansion pack. Actually, I'm not even sure that there will be an expansion pack. Or, there will surely be a expansion pack to some degree... you know, a few new units and few new leaders... Pretty much like a big DLC. Or perhaps they release everything as DLC and then make a package of it all. I don't know. But I would be very surprised if they release an expansion pack with the same amount of content that BTS had.

My guess is that Civilization V will be the last Firaxis game distributed by 2k Games. I would also be very surprised if Firaxis exists in a five years time.

 

[Achilleslastand]

My guess is that the console game market is a lot more lucrative and that 2k Games just wanted to milk out the last bucks from the Civilzation franchise. They new the old fans would pre-order it and that the simpler design would attract new player... But I think they realize that this game won't be a hit in the long run.

Many people are already waiting for the expansion pack. Actually, I'm not even sure that there will be an expansion pack. Or, there will surely be a expansion pack to some degree... you know, a few new units and few new leaders... Pretty much like a big DLC. Or perhaps they release everything as DLC and then make a package of it all. I don't know. But I would be very surprised if they release an expansion pack with the same amount of content that BTS had.

My guess is that Civilization V will be the last Firaxis game distributed by 2k Games. I would also be very surprised if Firaxis exists in a five years time.

Correct me if im wrong but isnt firaxis owned by 2k games now? If not then firaxis would do themselves some good by choosing another publisher.

 

[SuperJay]

Haha. Funny. My sentiment exactly.

Thanks! but there wasn't really any sentiment in that post. I just wanted to put up a picture of Wizardry since we were talking about gaming 20+ years ago.

 

[Wardancing]

Thanks! but there wasn't really any sentiment in that post. I just wanted to put up a picture of Wizardry since we were talking about gaming 20+ years ago.

personally, i miss majormud, minus a few of the end addons

Spoiler :

 

[DaveGold]

Thank you for stating your opinion as if it were fact.

Provide some facts about the manuals, documentation, logs, and overviews that would persuade me that they weren't done with the least possible effort.

I'll point to the notification log that only logs the events from the big buttons on the right hand side of the screen and not the messages that disappear after two seconds on screen, such as your unit was bombarded or your fishing boats were pillaged. If you click on an entry it activates the big event button on the side of the screen. So if you've cancelled the big button then clicking a log entry does nothing and if your big button is still there then why do you need a log to activate it? This is the easiest notification log to build and the least useful.