DemonDeLuxe said:
@Zinegata
I see it the same way as you do. However, I might have a rough idea what happened to CIV4. Remember "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri" (SMAC)? Well, SMAC was, for many hardcore CIVers, one of the best games that ever bore Sid's name, if not THE best. It introduced many fascinating aspects to the CIV genre, some of which ultimately found their way into CIV4 (first and foremost the much more flexible civics). Sadly, many SMAC features did NOT make it into CIV4: Fully customizable units, true terraforrming, REAL 3D terrain, a fascinating background story, faction leaders with a real profile that - in spite of having nothing more than just ONE still image each (although superbly painted) - had much more personality than those leader caricatures in CIV4, CREATIVE wonder movies, WITTY tech quotes...
So, SMAC was a huge success, game-wise, and Firaxis was VERY proud of it, and rightly so.
Economically, SMAC was a flop, at least in relation to other CIV titles.
What was the reason? Many people (most of them new to the genre, but quite a few avid CIV players, as well) and many reviews, too, complained about the "ugly graphics"...! Admittedly, the graphics WERE a bit dark and unfriendly, but they fitted the alien atmosphere excellently. Nevertheless, people I know who played SMAC fall into 2 categories: One (smaller) for whom SMAC was "the way CIV should be", an "überCIV", and one that despised it because of it's subjective ugliness.
So there. All their ingenuity, creativity and brilliant design capabilities hadn't helped Firaxis much. CIV4 shows tat they might have learned their lesson, and so CIV4 features modern (if not exactly beautiful) 3D graphics which do not add ANYTHING to the game, which soak up all available resources, which cause problems without end... but which are way easier to be consumed by the average (not CIV-addicted) gamer.
SMAC was an excellent game in its own right, but note that SMAC's launch was not exactly the model of greatness either. It did contain a fair number of bugs, and it also took some patching before it became the classic it is today.
The main problem with SMAC, however, was because the subject matter lacked a sufficiently broad appeal. Most people can relate to a game with swordsmen and tanks. Not many will relate to Superstring theories, Quantum Mechanics, and Impact Rovers. I can list many games that have wonderful, sound mechanics yet fall short of commercial success - and the main reason for their failure is the lack of a broad appeal.
I agree though, that SMAC graphics could have been considerably improved. However, I have to note that
technology has little effect on the
beauty of a game. I love to compare Everquest 2, which has murderously high system requirements, and Guild Wars, which can run in system a generation behind Everquest 2. Yet, the graphics of Guild Wars aren't noticeably inferior to Everquest 2's. In fact, in some ways (especially the emoticons), the graphics are noticeably
superior.
Technology does not dictate the beauty of the game. It is dictated by the skill and dedication of your art team. To take an example, Legend of Legaia is a 3D game and more "technologically advanced", while Valkyrie Profile is mainly a 2-D game using sprite technology in use since the days of Super Mario. Yet, when asked to choose which game has the better graphics, I think most people will agree it's Valkyrie Profile. Heck, just look at Starcraft, with its 2-D graphics (which, to Blizzard's credit, they even pun with one their "annoyed unit quotes"!) - it's still the most beloved RTS game in spite of all the more "advanced" games that have come out!
Honestly, I feel that the use of 3D is more because of marketing folk (many of which just don't seem to understand games) not having anything to use as a copy point. They thus just try to impose 3D into the game so they can use "more advanced graphics" as a copy point. Problem is, with a game like Civ, it's not necessary. The name itself is so honored that you're already guaranteed the game will
sell!
karadoc said:
An excuse? Patching is a way to upgrade the game. It's not just used for fixing bugs, but for adding new gameplay features etc.
For a company like Firaxis,
absolutely it's an excuse. And it's one often cited by people who are completely inconsiderate at the plight of others who are having difficulty with making the game run.
Firaxis patches are rarely upgrades (notice how the promised multiplayer patch in Civ 3 never materialized?). In fact the patches of most gaming companies are never upgrades as well. Instead, patches are things that fix bugs that should have been resolved before release in the first place. Certain people point to patching as a company's commitment to providing players with a high-quality product. I say patching is just an effort to make-up for the lack of commitment to releasing a high-quality product in the first place.
Only two companies I know of actually release upgrade patches - Blizzard and Paradox. Patches for Diablo don't just fix the game, they also add new items and options. Paradox patches add new things to the game (such as new leaders), and (to my surprise) they were even able to effectively overhaul the A.I. (with HOI2 Patch 1,3). These companies should be lauded for they do upgrade their games along with fixing problems. The fact that Blizzard has shown impressive dedication with Diablo 2 (releasing upgrades many
years down the line), and that Paradox has stalwartly commited itself to quality in spite of its tiny size as a company (it's definitely smaller than either Firaxis or Blizzard), makes both companies the gold standard in terms of releasing patches & upgrades. They make a real and visible
effort to please their fans.
Firaxis does not even come close to this gold standard, and thus for them patchng remains an excuse rather than a legitimate way of upgrading their games.
The main reason I mentioned it was to help you distinguish between cars and computer games; not to justify releasing a game with bugs in it.
And my main point is that you are not at all helpful. You said as such:
The game is great, and the problems are being fixed. Is it really such a big deal? Is it really worth coming to these forums day after day to complain about? Is is jealousy? Are you people upset that so many others are enjoying the game while you can't get around the bugs? Is it boredom? Do you really have nothing at all to do expect sit around complaining about bugs in a game?
The game is great, and the problems are being fixed; it might be a bit frustrating for you, but making a fuss is not going to help.
This is not a post wishing to help. Rather, this is a post saying it is bad to complain and that the game is already great. I simply pointed out that complaints are a good thing. The fact people are complaining means that they still want their game to work. With any other game, they'd just return the box. If enough boxes are returned, the company will not make money. If the company does not make money, it will go out of business.
"Fans" should not laud good points alone. They should ask and demand for improvement.
And what is that 'damage' that you speak of? Those days of torture while you waited for the patch? Maybe the game didn't work well for 'quite a number of people', but a much larger number of people were able to play it without trouble; and enjoy it.
The damage I speak of is the ill-will among fans who were not able to get the game to work. Civilization is an honored brand name. It deserves to be
protected and not
exploited. Releasing a shoddy product that does not run for a number of people, even if they are just a minority, is exploitation and not protection.
Why? Because those fans who are unable to run the game will probably be lost as a customer permanently. The next time a new Civ comes out, those people won't buy the game, and they'll encourage their friends not to buy it either. The base of Civilization players will thus shrink, until eventually it becomes so small that there's no longer any commercial sense to release a game bearing the name Civilization.
You want to say it's impossible? Sure, but that's what people have said of games like Master of Orion and look at where those games are now. Also notice how sales of Civ IV are showing signs it's not as good as it should be? It's already dipped to the #2 spot in some sales rankings, beaten by Age of Empires III (released almost a month prior), and Amazon has yet to sell out its stocks (and note that publishers tend to under-stock than over-stock). I'd say this is as much because of the disastrous launch of Civ III several years prior, but the faults of Civ IV seem to have certainly begun haunting the franchise as a whole.
What you seem to be suggesting is that they should not have released the game until the game had been thoroughly tested, and all bugs removed. This is impractical; and it is likely that the backlash about the bugs would be replaced by a backlash about the late release.
All bugs can never be removed, but there's plenty of issues that could have been resolved before release. More testing with various systems could have been done, and the memory leaks patched up. The fact that the release date was moved up and all the bugs are still present just says "we'll just release it even if it has problems. It'll sell anyway".
Also, the backlash about late releases are generally minimal. So long as the game that came out is of excellent quality (and you keep saying it's a great game), people are more forgiving and simply say "the wait was worth it". There will be grumbles if the game was only mediocre ("I waited that long for
just this?"), but by your opinion this isn't an issue with Civ. What would be really damaging is if the game was released late
and buggy. I don't want to provide a sample reaction as it will most likely contain expletives =).
I'm sure you understand that they cannot test the game on every different computer configuration. The best they can do is to let the users try it, and if it doesn't work then the users will tell them and the game will be fixed. Internal testing is much slower, much less efficient, much more expensive, and much less fun for the fans.
And herein lies the crux of the matter:
Consumers buy a game to
play it. They do not buy a game to
test it.
Internal testing, no matter how "less efficient" (which I dispute), is the developer's
job. If they've been doing a poor job of it, you have two choices: Make excuses for them, or call them out on it and demand for improved performance. I choose the latter.
Also, by my experience, internal testing is
more efficient than relying on the public. Internal testers are generally hired because they're good at tracking down bugs, seeing inefficiencies in code, and don't mind running thousands of different (and boring) scenarios and combinations to make the system crash. The problem with internal testing is not that it's inefficient. The problem with internal testing is that costs money to hire a good testing group.
"External Testing", by letting the fans report the bugs, is inefficient because reports of fans vary wildly, and are often incomplete. However, it's dirt cheap to test via this method because the company doesn't pay the fans. In fact, remember: the fans pay the company!
If Gatorade was to test a new "energy drink" (using the external testing method), they wouldn't send the drink to a lab and check its nutritional value. They'd sell the product and solicit feedback from the purchasers. The question is of course, is if people would even buy the product in the first place (with Gatorade, maybe at first, because it's a good brand. Have a small company do that however, and you'll be seeing a small company fold up).
. Seriously, if you HATE the game so much, then sell it on e-bay or something, you are more than likely to get yourself a taker-but I wish you guys would just set up a SINGLE thread to post your opinions, instead of taking up valuable space on these forums.
