I'm not even upset anymore by "1.0 stuff"

[Exodite]

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the opening post, as well as every single person defending the status quo here.

I didn't pre-order the game believing everything would be perfect on release, I've been around too long for that. But there's a vast gulf between expecting the game to need power balance fixing and suffering from UI and options regression (not remembering world settings, clunky religious interface etc.) and suffering from multiple game-breaking bugs and significant and obvious exploits.

Civ6 isn't out of alpha yet, ie. it's not actually feature-complete. It's very much an early access title and I reckon it would have needed at least 3-4 months more, possibly even 6-12, before I'd been comfortable seeing it released to the public.

Don't get me wrong here, there's a lot to like. Some of the more nonsensical stuff from Civ5 have been removed and the new systems provide a very solid backbone, it's easy enough to see what the game can eventually be and I'm optimistic about that.

However... 80 hours in the novelty of a new toy has worn off and my annoyances with the things that don't work, or that do so poorly, have me torn between going back to Civ5 (which has the polish and functional mid-/end-game) or keep trying with Civ6 (which has the better systems).

The game just weren't ready for release yet.

 

[Victoria]

Aaaah, a thread of people who understand.
I would like all your posts but the stupid developers have not provided a "like all" button yet

Just to iterate in a different way.

I work with a huge piece of business software.
In my 20 years in the field I have never seen a project go in on time, dates are always put back costing sometimes millions more.
What goes live is not 100% what was expected and the users are often up in arms.
2 years down the line something else is implemented and they all want to go back to the old release from 2 years ago.

I take the view of making the most of it. I love the chaos and variety of posts and persons.... 2 years down the line it will be quieter and duller. I suggest wallow in it, be positive with a smile... but also be proactive and have your say. I certainly want about 100 things different and if I get 30 of those I guess it will do me.

 

[dexters]

Part of the fUN and tradition of Civ for me is participating in the initial discoveries of the issues as well as experiencing the game with the community. That's why we are here and not posting on a random gaming site.

I know some discussions can get heated but I wouldn't trade this time for anything else. I'll have this experience plus the more stable experience later once patches are out.

My only comment is if people are easily frustrated they probably shouldn't pre order any civ at launch and to wait for the steam sale in a few months once a patch is out

 

[Zuizgond]

It's almost like you ignored every post before yours.

I read them all. Tell me what I am missing. It's almost like you didn't read my post.

Never said it wasn't ok to have patches but the game has to be release in a finished state.

 

[dexters]

I read them all. Tell me what I am missing. It's almost like you didn't read my post.

Never said it wasn't ok to have patches but the game has to be release in a finished state.

It's more finished than the other Civ games for sure.

 

[Zuizgond]

It's more finished than the other Civ games for sure.

I guess most people in this thread are either developers, beta-testers or easily-satisfied customers. Good for you I suppose.

My mistake. Now I know I need to wait 3-6 months before buying a game because everyone is ok to beta test it for free. Happy gaming industry.

 

[dexters]

I guess most people in this thread are either developers, beta-testers or easily-satisfied customers. Good for you I suppose.

My mistake. Now I know I need to wait 3-6 months before buying a game because everyone is ok to beta test it for free. Happy gaming industry.

I did beta for some games on a fan basis. ie: unpaid.

But you may have missed my point. Civ games usually launch with a lot of missing content, broken features and with things untuned and not balanced properly Not to mention bugs and exploits. Some quite bad

So Civ6 isn't new to this kind of launch

 

[CivCube]

This exact thread happened in 2001.

 

[jekke]

However... 80 hours in the novelty of a new toy has worn off ...

Bingo. You are ready to become a happy owner of yet another modern game, just like hundreds of thousands of other people. You know, game industry is so well developed now, there are so many good games coming out these days that it is totally unrealistic to think that someone might be interested in playing the same game for years.

 

[Victoria]

My mistake. Now I know I need to wait 3-6 months before buying a game because everyone is ok to beta test it for free. Happy gaming industry.

Correct, and do not get the latest phone release, car release or husband/wife release. All of them will be pre-post Beta... actually scratch the last, it was a bad design to start with.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Never said it wasn't ok to have patches but the game has to be release in a finished state.

When was, in your opinion, Civ V in a "finished state"?

Now I know I need to wait 3-6 months before buying a game because everyone is ok to beta test it for free. Happy gaming industry.

Stop and think for a moment. Could it be that you are demanding more from Civ VI than from any other game?

 

[dexters]

Bingo. You are ready to become a happy owner of yet another modern game, just like hundreds of thousands of other people. You know, game industry is so well developed now, there are so many good games coming out these days that it is totally unrealistic to think that someone might be interested in playing the same game for years.

I've been through and seen worse. One MMO I payed was so bad it needed a reboot. I beta and alpha tested the reboot.

Spoiler :

FFXIV A realm Reborn

I'm not being a fanboy when I say Civ6 is the cleanest Civ launch.
.

 

[Exodite]

It's more finished than the other Civ games for sure.

Certainly not compared to the original, which is the only other version I got on release.

Regardless, even assuming you're right that's not an argument in support of the status quo.

Bingo. You are ready to become a happy owner of yet another modern game, just like hundreds of thousands of other people. You know, game industry is so well developed now, there are so many good games coming out these days that it is totally unrealistic to think that someone might be interested in playing the same game for years.

I'm not sure if this is meant as tongue-in-cheek or not so apologies in advance if I misinterpret your intentions, I'm going to assume that you're serious for now.

The easy counter would be Civ5, a game a fair amount of people have been playing for years.

And I expect Firaxis are hedging their bets on the same thing holding true for the next episode of the franchise, because why bother otherwise.

The software industry, and gaming in particular, is really the bottom of the barrel when it comes to launch quality of the products involved. Unlike people's varying opinions on the matter that's really not a debatable concern, nor is the fact that few other industries could get away with it to the extent software does.

It's also by no means inevitable, and I say that as a software engineer myself.

There is, however, one thing that annoys me more than lackluster launch quality of software titles... and that's people expressing their support for the same. I'm all in favor of reasonable and structured criticism but apologism on behalf of the industry or downplaying the situation in general is not doing anyone any favors. It just means publishers are going to keep pushing half-done software, developers are going to get pushed to within an inch of their lives to deliver on unrealistic launch deadlines and customers will keep getting sub-par products.

I got every Bioware game on pre-order until DA2. Then I stopped.
I got every HoMM game on pre-order until UPlay happened. Then I stopped.
I got Civ6 on launch because I had no particular reason not to, and even watching ~100 hours of prerelease gameplay didn't highlight the problems that we've come to see post-launch. Needless to say I won't get Civ7, or any of the expansions of 6, on launch day unless I have reasons to believe things have changed with regard to launch quality.

And neither should anyone else, unless they're perfectly happy with what they've got of course.

There's a relevant Frank Tyger quote - “Progress is not created by contented people.”

 

[Zuizgond]

When was, in your opinion, Civ V in a "finished state"?

It was so much worse for Civ 5, I think we all agree on this. The game was only enjoyable after 2 expansions and tons of mods.

So yeah Civ 6 release-version is better in that regard, but still close to an early-access state in my opinion.

Stop and think for a moment. Could it be that you are demanding more from Civ VI than from any other game?

The other games I bought in the last 2 years were not from AAA companies and surprisingly they are released in a better state and balancing patches follow very shortly after. Also, developers are discussing with the players in the forums.

Not a fan of big companies who invest half of the budget into marketing and voice acting/3D animations for a 4x strategy game, and slacking on AI coding and beta testing.

 

[dexters]

Certainly not compared to the original, which is the only other version I got on release.

Regardless, even assuming you're right that's not an argument in support of the status quo.

I'm not sure if this is meant as tongue-in-cheek or not so apologies in advance if I misinterpret your intentions, I'm going to assume that you're serious for now.

The easy counter would be Civ5, a game a fair amount of people have been playing for years.

And I expect Firaxis are hedging their bets on the same thing holding true for the next episode of the franchise, because why bother otherwise.

The software industry, and gaming in particular, is really the bottom of the barrel when it comes to launch quality of the products involved. Unlike people's varying opinions on the matter that's really not a debatable concern, nor is the fact that few other industries could get away with it to the extent software does.

It's also by no means inevitable, and I say that as a software engineer myself.

There is, however, one thing that annoys me more than lackluster launch quality of software titles... and that's people expressing their support for the same. I'm all in favor of reasonable and structured criticism but apologism on behalf of the industry or downplaying the situation in general is not doing anyone any favors. It just means publishers are going to keep pushing half-done software, developers are going to get pushed to within an inch of their lives to deliver on unrealistic launch deadlines and customers will keep getting sub-par products.

I got every Bioware game on pre-order until DA2. Then I stopped.
I got every HoMM game on pre-order until UPlay happened. Then I stopped.
I got Civ6 on launch because I had no particular reason not to, and even watching ~100 hours of prerelease gameplay didn't highlight the problems that we've come to see post-launch. Needless to say I won't get Civ7, or any of the expansions of 6, on launch day unless I have reasons to believe things have changed with regard to launch quality.

And neither should anyone else, unless they're perfectly happy with what they've got of course.

There's a relevant Frank Tyger quote - “Progress is not created by contented people.”

Civ1 was from a different time when patching was difficult and patches were distribted physically. It was also avastly simpler game. I'm mostly looking at the prior 2 releases where patching was the norm. And other 4x games generally where patching is always required.

As for execusing the game. I don't follow. This is how PC games and more specifically 4x games have been handled. It's part of the advantage of being on steam that patching is much simpler and less likely to brick your install

Are we to make special rules for Civ6? seems like a double standard. I'm just acclimated to reality with how the 4x strategy industry is. I do have a very different standard for Nintendo games as they all tend to work out of the box.

 

[Exodite]

Civ1 was from a different time when patching was difficult and patches were distribted physically. It was also avastly simpler game.

While both those statements are true you're likely to find that the budget for the game was also proportionally lower.

My point is that the fatalistic approach to the status quo is, at best, misguided. There's no reason games have to be released in an unfinished state. And one of the reasons they are is because we, as consumers, accept it.

Are we to make special rules for Civ6? seems like a double standard.

That's a strawman argument.

No one here has claimed to hold Civ6 to a different standard, in fact I made an argument specifically illustrating that I do not. I just happen to hold computer games and software to the same standard as I do all other consumer goods, which is something I keenly encourage everyone else in this thread to do as well.

 

[dexters]

While both those statements are true you're likely to find that the budget for the game was also proportionally lower.

My point is that the fatalistic approach to the status quo is, at best, misguided. There's no reason games have to be released in an unfinished state. And one of the reasons they are is because we, as consumers, accept it.


That's a strawman argument.

No one here has claimed to hold Civ6 to a different standard, in fact I made an argument specifically illustrating that I do not. I just happen to hold computer games and software to the same standard as I do all other consumer goods, which is something I keenly encourage everyone else in this thread to do as well.

That's not a bad policy and I think I understand, having started gameing on consoles (at least the pre HDD enabled ones) when games just worked on day 1

That said my point was more generally to how civ6 compares to the 4x genre as a whole and it's predecessors. I think we all hoped for a good day 1 release and this is probably as good as it gets.

Now there are some PC games that really should work day 1 without patches. I just don't thonk 4x games can be those games without an immense budget and an army of testers.

As someone pointed out, the alternative is that they could finish the game this year and spend the next year play testing it internally. I don't think that will work realistically

 

[AlpsStranger]

Civ6 isn't out of alpha yet

Okay, so we've established that Exodite has absolutely, positively, totally no idea whatsoever what the Alpha phase of game development is like.

If this isn't gross hyperbole then you are either ignorant regarding the matter, or stupid. I don't think you're stupid, so I'm just going to assume you've never seen alpha software.

 

[Jussiut]

Two points:

1. Games released in the 90's had bugs on the release versions. And they rarely if ever got fixed (especially in the early to mid 90's).

2. The games are vastly more complex than in the 90's. Civ 6 has so many more complex mechanics than Civ 1. So it is no surprise that a) finding the proper balance between the mechanics and resources in the game, and b) creating an AI that can handle the complexity reasonably well is very difficult and time consuming.

This is not to say that modern developers shouldn't polish their games more before release. They would almost always benefit from at least 1-2 months of more testing, but as others have said, the business side of it kicks in and how to combat that dynamic will be difficult. If the market reacts positively to your product (as it seems to have done with Civ 6), the decision to release the game at that point is vindicated by the market.

The point is that people are completely misrepresenting how the games were back in the day. They weren't released when they were perfect. Most of them had a lot of issues. You just worked around them because the idea of "patches" was almost unheard of. Also, we want our Civ more and more complex and that will mean that making it work will be much more time consuming and delicate than making Civ 1 work. Again, this is not an excuse, but a fact of life.

Here's hoping that Civ 6 will become the best iteration of the series yet. It is nowhere near close to it yet, but hopefully it can be fixed.

 

[AlpsStranger]

While both those statements are true you're likely to find that the budget for the game was also proportionally lower.

My point is that the fatalistic approach to the status quo is, at best, misguided. There's no reason games have to be released in an unfinished state. And one of the reasons they are is because we, as consumers, accept it.


That's a strawman argument.

No one here has claimed to hold Civ6 to a different standard, in fact I made an argument specifically illustrating that I do not. I just happen to hold computer games and software to the same standard as I do all other consumer goods, which is something I keenly encourage everyone else in this thread to do as well.

Okay but I'm going to be blunt: I kinda like watching the last 10% or so of development "happen" before my eyes. It's like a variation of early access.

Also, I really don't give nearly a fraction enough of a **** to be a "good consumer." Games are a break from life, not a political cause I'm interested in taking up. It ain't that serious and I really don't care how it's launched so much as I care what the final patch looks like.