So really where is this?

[johnnybaseball]

No


Finished - means playable with all functions working, that is what I expected. Expansions - the word says for itself - should add new features. Should extend the life of the game and keep you wanting play, by adding new aspects. But the role of expansions is not to make game playable. Enhancing AI is not the role of DLC!!!

TLDR - 1. Most players not good enough to be affected by the issues people here complain about. 2. Release had to happen at some point, why not now? 3. The devs built a foundation that will be built on, that alone was worth the price. 4. Players here are better at the game than devs and more able to identify issues. 5. Posters' status as programmers leads to personal feelings about the work of devs, leads to excessively intense criticism. 6. Patches are free. 7. If not having fun, take a break. 8. I sympathize with those disappointed. 9. I want to see this community develop its own 4x game. (Even the TLDR section is TLDR )


I don't think anyone would disagree that the game is quirky, and that there are a number of issues to be resolved. But I think that the game is fun as it is, and I know that some of the issues will be resolved by Firaxis in patches, and that the community will try their best to build on the template that has been given. If you want to get philosophical, sure, I think there's an argument to be made that it is unfair to expect consumers to pay full price for a product that is known to have flaws or defects, and that to rush that product to market with those flaws is not ideal by any means. That's fair.

That said, the average player isn't at a level where the game is "easy," like it is to so many players here. I think that it makes sense to release the game because it is functional for the average player who cannot identify exploits, will not read strategies on a forum like this, and plays in a casual way, which is to say with little knowledge of core mechanics and no grand strategy. The game IS functional, even if there are UI problems, and other issues. So I would submit that, for most players, yes, this appears as a "finished" game. There may be moments where the AI does things that makes even a novice scratch their heads, but I don't think most players view that so negatively. As for experienced players, well, many may be upset by the "final" product, but should know that patches are coming and failing that, mods are coming, too. To even have developed the basic foundation of this game is an achievement IMO, and the foundation itself is worth the money, IMO. But for anyone who feels otherwise, you know, I feel for you. It's a shame to be disappointed by something that you were looking forward to. I view this as just one point in the development of the final game. I knew I would have to buy the game at one point or another, so why not now? I would have paid to play it six months ago, too. Basically, for the core game, they're going to ask us to pay for it at three different points, and in between there will be incremental developments that come to us for free, and additional content that is optional that is not free. So why delay at all? I just wanted to start playing. If there were actual gamebreaking bugs, I would agree that release at that point would be premature. What we have here is a functional game that has UI, AI and balance issues. To call that not playable is not correct. If you want to say that those things mean this is a bad game, well, that's a judgment call. But all of the necessary elements of the game are present, so the game is not incomplete. It is playable.

Now, with THAT said, this community is very, very good at this game. I'm not convinced by any means that the developers of the game are anywhere near as good at the game as the people here. I could play for a thousand hours, and not come up with some of the things that people here came up with in like one day. I think the same is true for them. I'm sure that they're reading all these threads and saying "how did we miss that?" So I agree there are definitely issues that need to be fixed. And the best thing to do probably would have been to hire some of the great players here and elsewhere as beta testers, because they could and would have identified these issues. So there is that. But again, AI is only an issue for top players. And most players aren't good enough to find exploits and will not read about them.

I understand people are very passionate about this franchise, and believe me, I get why so many people thing Civ IV was the best. I do get the sense, though, that a lot of people here are programmers, and that perhaps among them there is a sense that this is shoddy work, and that they, in their own work, could not have been so sloppy without repercussions, and they wonder why the same isn't true for the programmers of this game. And so there is a personal element that leads to a greater intensity of criticism than is warranted, even if the criticisms themselves are valid. In the end, this is a game, it is supposed to be fun, and there is a certain fun I think in playing the game and finding these strategies and exploits and testing and pushing the game ... that IS the game. So, again, I sympathize with anyone who is disappointed in something they paid good money for. That's a shame. I expect that patches are coming and so are DLC, and expansions, and eventually, this will be the game we all hope it can be. But in the meantime, I would suggest that if the game isn't fun, then the best thing to do is to stop playing it, until it is patched. Why waste time playing a game that isn't fun? And I really don't mean that in a sarcastic or snarky way. Chalk it up to one of life's little disappointments and spend time doing something that is actually enjoyable. Hopefully, when the game is patched, it will fix some of the issues and then it will be fun again, and that's when it will be time to come back and resume play.

Meanwhile, I would love to see this community come together and maybe start talking about our own project. Maybe we should start talking about the game WE want to see, and maybe start figuring out how to make THAT game. I know the modding community does great work. Maybe disappointment can lead to something greater? But that's a wildly unrelated thought.

 

[kornelm1978]

The reality of PC gaming is that complex games are not released as a flawless product. You can accept this reality, or you can rail against it, but it is not going to change any time soon.

The fact is that the product needs to be shipped at some point, and once the producers have ironed out the game-breaking defects (crashes, stalls, mal-functioning features and graphics) further in-house testing and fine-tuning becomes the least efficient option. As it stands, the game works. Many are having a good time exploring the different mechanics and familiarising themselves with the minutae of the policy cards, tech/civic trees, and testing strats and starts regardless of the AI flaws and (completely avoidable) exploits... all the while providing useful feedback to Firaxis.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Some companies release "early access". I am not playing at that stage, some do. And this would be fair approach. And the strong criticism of many would be surlely replaced by constructive feedback.

You say that we should accept that the games are lunch not finished. And you know why they are not finished? Becasue too many accepts it. In case of CIV there is no direct competition and they really can treat customers like they want (who happily accept it in addition).

 

[Gorbles]

Taken in isolation, sure, Civ VI is just like any other 4X game released, full of quirks and bugs and annoyances.
However it shouldn't be taken in isolation. Firaxis has the entire history of Civilization games to fall back on, including all the DLC and modded creations that "fixed" all the previous faults that we are now still seeing.

For the life of me I can not understand why they chose to release this game with a poor AI when Vox Populi (formerly Community Patch) has already made an awesome AI that knows how to do things properly. If a handful of part-time coders can create a working AI that challenges you, why can't Firaxis? My personal opinion is that are making this for the lowest denominator and hoping no one notices.

Add on to this the infuriating UI oddities and stupid balance decisions and this is a game waiting to be fixed. Probably by us, again.

Because modders can achieve things that developers can't, because modders aren't on a budget (as they aren't being paid) and have an unlimited amount of time to sink into the product.

So many people confuse what modders do vs. what developers do, it's saddening.

 

[kornelm1978]

Because modders can achieve things that developers can't, because modders aren't on a budget (as they aren't being paid) and have an unlimited amount of time to sink into the product.

So many people confuse what modders do vs. what developers do, it's saddening.

I do not really get it. Developers are not supposed to make a good AI even if they are paid for that? And the role of modders is to improve the game because they are not paid? And they should because they have got unlimitted time (yes, really, they do not have jobs, schools, cihldren). What are you trying to imply? My curiosity kills me, is that really what you wanted to say?

 

[Francis Xavier]

I think what he was saying is that in essence, the modder is a hobbyist and can dedicate as much time / tweak the foundation in whatever direction they please without corporate / other team members / standard company politics getting in the way or restricting development. Basically when you have multiple teams working together on any project, it means there's a project manager or a few project managers somewhere that are overseeing priorities. I was good friends back in the day with the developers of EverQuest, an MMO - that was constantly evolving, changing, having expansions added, etc as that genre tends to do, and in a lot of cases their hands were tied on making certain content in certain ways because they had to cater to about 300 different audiences, and in the end, most of them would never be totally happy anyway because it's not "their perfect version." E.g. the same content is too hard, it's too easy, it needs more story, it should be more engaging, less engaging, my items aren't powerful enough, the other class is OP and broken, and on and on and on...and that's just the "qualified" hardcore players who are giving somewhat reasonable feedback and not just nerdraging for whatever reason. Then in a lot of cases when a bug is found or an exploit happens they work fast to fix it, but in most cases the bug comes up and it's like "who in the hell thought to do XYZ action facing northeast and jumping backwards and that kills the boss instantly." No matter how big the budget of the game, there is simply not enough testers to test ALL of the variables of EVERY aspect, and a full staff of QA / beta testers won't find things as quickly as 100,000 people all at once suddenly playing the game. Even when things are found, they're usually prioritized in a certain way depending on deadlines and what takes ultimate priority for release.

A modder doesn't have to deal with ANY of that. They can just make a version of the game they 100% like and want and people who also like and want the game that way download the mod and that's that. I mean, in the end the core game that we have is good and a lot of the "glaring' issues are relatively minor in the scope of developing an entire game. They all fall squarely in the priority list of "can be adjusted after publishing."

 

[kornelm1978]

I think what he was saying is that in essence, the modder is a hobbyist and can dedicate as much time / tweak the foundation in whatever direction they please without corporate / other team members / standard company politics getting in the way or restricting development. Basically when you have multiple teams working together on any project, it means there's a project manager or a few project managers somewhere that are overseeing priorities. I was good friends back in the day with the developers of EverQuest, an MMO - that was constantly evolving, changing, having expansions added, etc as that genre tends to do, and in a lot of cases their hands were tied on making certain content in certain ways because they had to cater to about 300 different audiences, and in the end, most of them would never be totally happy anyway because it's not "their perfect version." E.g. the same content is too hard, it's too easy, it needs more story, it should be more engaging, less engaging, my items aren't powerful enough, the other class is OP and broken, and on and on and on...and that's just the "qualified" hardcore players who are giving somewhat reasonable feedback and not just nerdraging for whatever reason. Then in a lot of cases when a bug is found or an exploit happens they work fast to fix it, but in most cases the bug comes up and it's like "who in the hell thought to do XYZ action facing northeast and jumping backwards and that kills the boss instantly." No matter how big the budget of the game, there is simply not enough testers to test ALL of the variables of EVERY aspect, and a full staff of QA / beta testers won't find things as quickly as 100,000 people all at once suddenly playing the game. Even when things are found, they're usually prioritized in a certain way depending on deadlines and what takes ultimate priority for release.

A modder doesn't have to deal with ANY of that. They can just make a version of the game they 100% like and want and people who also like and want the game that way download the mod and that's that. I mean, in the end the core game that we have is good and a lot of the "glaring' issues are relatively minor in the scope of developing an entire game. They all fall squarely in the priority list of "can be adjusted after publishing."

I will translate your message to car industry. The designers of the car have little experience of the car desing (why should hey have, there are proffesional cusotmers who have experience, who can always improve the car). Team of making the engine has the clash inside where to put it - in front or in the back. The consensus is to put it on the passenger seat (why should they have the idea that this is passenger seat). And sadly nobody is happy. The gearbox is not connected with engine, becasue there was not enought testers to check even most important things. But fortunatelly we have got guys (single guys, not teams of dozens of people), who know how the car works and can make it. What I did is called reductio ad absurdum, I used your arguents (not changing them at all), but I presented them in more exaggerated form to make them more clear as not valid.

First - all the clashes between projects, teams, etc should be resolved by good organization. When they are not - that does't sound well. Second - you say that everybody can have different idea and if other is chosen some devs will be not happy. Honestly me as a player should not care - the best idea should be chosen and implemented. The third - qualified hardcore players - the people who work on the title should have spend thousands of hours playing 4x games because they are supposed to be at least as good as best players - that would make them proffesional in what they do. I agree with the last point - no matter what the budget is, there will be bugs. But the amount and severity of the problems is not accepatable.

 

[zarakand]

I remember logging on here and reading about day 1 CD problems with Civ 4. I can't remember what it was exactly maybe the play and install disc were mislabeled? I love Civ 4, it's still my favorite of the series...but let's not look at it with rose colored glasses. There were bugs, AI issues, and I remember being very excited when Sevopedia came out fixing Civpedia, same with the Blue Earth Marble mod, and then the BUG and Better AI mods.

Civ 6 at launch is great fun and about the same playability for me that 4 was. Are there things that are broken? Yep, but it's still very playable much more than 5 was for me.

 

[Gorbles]

I do not really get it. Developers are not supposed to make a good AI even if they are paid for that? And the role of modders is to improve the game because they are not paid? And they should because they have got unlimitted time (yes, really, they do not have jobs, schools, cihldren). What are you trying to imply? My curiosity kills me, is that really what you wanted to say?

Francis Xavier made a very good point that you completely ignored in favour of an unrelated analogy to an unrelated industry that has no relevance when discussing software.

Developers are more limited to modders when it comes to producing a piece of content. Therefore, modders are able to frequently exceed the boundaries of the developers' works, because developers did so on a very tight budget (and with numerous other constraints, challenges, and so forth). That's all there is to it.

 

[kornelm1978]

Francis Xavier made a very good point that you completely ignored in favour of an unrelated analogy to an unrelated industry that has no relevance when discussing software.

Developers are more limited to modders when it comes to producing a piece of content. Therefore, modders are able to frequently exceed the boundaries of the developers' works, because developers did so on a very tight budget (and with numerous other constraints, challenges, and so forth). That's all there is to it.

First - you didn't answer my question directly, you are just repeating, no offence, hard to interpret trivias.

Give me weak point of analogy, rahter than saying it's weak. My analogy was on team relations -there is analogy. My analogy was on design process - there are at least similarities. My analogy was on professionalism of employees - it can be really compared.

 

[TruthfulCake]

First - you didn't answer my question directly, you are just repeating, no offence, hard to interpret trivias.

Give me weak point of analogy, rahter than saying it's weak.

Because nobody is making that argument that you are trying to reduce to absurdity. Your analogy (which qualifies as hard-to-interpret trivia), if re-translated into Civ language (making it a directly relevant example), is basically implying that the publisher released a game with no executable file because the team of developers can't decide what to name the .exe.

That would be absurd, and nobody would defend the developers if that happened. But that didn't.

The real Civ VI game runs. It is functional. It can be completed the way it is intended to be. It has bugs and glitches, but no game doesn't.

Your imaginary broken version of Civ VI would require that the .exe doesn't exist, or that it consistently causes BSOD upon launch. You think people are defending this version. But all I see is you directing criticism at this version too. An exercise of futility.

 

[kornelm1978]

Because nobody is making that argument that you are trying to reduce to absurdity. Your analogy (which qualifies as hard-to-interpret trivia), if re-translated into Civ language (making it a directly relevant example), is basically implying that the publisher released a game with no executable file because the team of developers can't decide what to name the .exe file.

That would be absurd, and nobody would defend the developers if that happened. But that didn't.

The real Civ VI game runs. It is functional. It can be completed the way it is intended to be. It has bugs and glitches, but no game doesn't.

Your imaginary broken version of Civ VI would require that the .exe doesn't exist, or that it consistently causes BSOD upon launch. You think people are defending this version. But all I see is you directing criticism at this version too. An exercise of futility.

Please, my aim is not to offend anybody. We are not discussing (between ourselves) right now if the game is good or bad, runs or not, we are discussing the role of dev team and modders (that was the starting point). And yes, I reduced to absurd some of arguments, becasue they are prone to be reduced o absurd. But you really do not bother to answer my question or relate to my analogies. And analogies can be made between car industry and software industry if they are wise (tell me why they are not). The analogy can be really made between really far areas, ie. we can make the analogy between behaviour of dogs and people in danger. We cannot though make the analogies between dogs and people developing the games. I really pertained to arguments of Xavier and transleted to car industry where they really can be analysed in simialr way. The clashes between teams are the same in all industries. The design process (who should do what, how to cooperate, what should be sthe stages) are common project management problems existing in all industires. Proffesionalism of designers is also common area between car and software industry. If I said though that CIV developers have no idea on consturcin the car and car designers have - that would be stupid.

 

[Nefelia]

Some companies release "early access". I am not playing at that stage, some do. And this would be fair approach. And the strong criticism of many would be surlely replaced by constructive feedback.

You say that we should accept that the games are lunch not finished. And you know why they are not finished? Becasue too many accepts it. In case of CIV there is no direct competition and they really can treat customers like they want (who happily accept it in addition).

The significant number of us happy customers made an informed decision when we pre-ordered Civ VI. We knew the fresh release would likely have a number of bugs, exploits, and balance issues, and we bought the game anyway. We do not mind getting the raw version and giving feed-back to Firaxis because we are perfectly aware of the alternative: far longer internal QA with larger teams, leading to a more expensive game and more delay.

Firaxis has not gotten on the 'early access' bandwagon for whatever reason - marketing strategy, perhaps... or maybe Firaxis/Take2 are just behind the times. Regardless, most of us are not new to Civ, and were quite aware of the state the game would be in upon release. If you are new to Civ, then tough break for you. But this has been a pretty smooth release compared to the previous two titles.

 

[Nefelia]

Please, my aim is not to offend anybody. We are not discussing (between ourselves) right now if the game is good or bad, runs or not, we are discussing the role of dev team and modders (that was the starting point). And yes, I reduced to absurd some of arguments, becasue they are prone to be reduced o absurd. But you really do not bother to answer my question or relate to my analogies. And analogies can be made between car industry and software industry if they are wise (tell me why they are not). The analogy can be really made between really far areas, ie. we can make the analogy between behaviour of dogs and people in danger. We cannot though make the analogies between dogs and people developing the games. I really pertained to arguments of Xavier and transleted to car industry where they really can be analysed in simialr way. The clashes between teams are the same in all industries. The design process (who should do what, how to cooperate, what should be sthe stages) are common project management problems existing in all industires. Proffesionalism of designers is also common area between car and software industry. If I said though that CIV developers have no idea on consturcin the car and car designers have - that would be stupid.

The problem with your analogy is that a software crash results in frustration, while a car crash can end lives. Software can be patches rather painlessly, a car can not.

 

[TruthfulCake]

Please, my aim is not to offend anybody. We are not discussing (between ourselves) right now if the game is good or bad, runs or not, we are discussing the role of dev team and modders (that was the starting point). And yes, I reduced to absurd some of arguments, becasue they are prone to be reduced o absurd. But you really do not bother to answer my question or relate to my analogies. And analogies can be made between car industry and software industry if they are wise (tell me why they are not). The analogy can be really made between really far areas, ie. we can make the analogy between behaviour of dogs and people in danger. We cannot though make the analogies between dogs and people developing the games. I really pertained to arguments of Xavier and transleted to car industry where they really can be analysed in simialr way. The clashes between teams are the same in all industries. The design process (who should do what, how to cooperate, what should be sthe stages) are common project management problems existing in all industires. Proffesionalism of designers is also common area between car and software industry. If I said though that CIV developers have no idea on consturcin the car and car designers have - that would be stupid.

Basically your aim changed from criticizing an imaginary version of the game (bad) to plainly mock the work ethics of game developers (worse, because this is not a forum for that)? I don't see how anyone owes it to you to satisfy your need to be engaged on irrelevant points.

But I'll humor you, because I am in a rather good mood.

Your analogy with the car industry (somehow repeated quite often in the forum, I wonder why) simply doesn't work, because a car, once released, cannot be patched. It will depreciate in performance as you use it. Additionally, even a very minor defect in cars can result in life-threatening scenarios. And therefore, if a car is defective, a product recall is inbound.

A video game, even years after launch, can be patched. It will only get better in time because infinite trial and error is possible with patches and mods. A game that is defective costs no lives. And therefore, if a game is defective, it will simply be patched.

And that is why we consumers can be less stringent about video game developers compared to about car manufacturers.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Nefelia

 

[kornelm1978]

The problem with your analogy is that a software crash results in frustration, while a car crash can end lives. Software can be patches rather painlessly, a car can not.

My analogy still works, sorry. Both things are analogically bad, that's what I am trying to say. But obviously the analogy between potential scope of consequences can not be made.

Just to make digression, my example car does not drive, the gearbox and engine are not connected, thus it cannot kill anybody.

 

[kornelm1978]

Basically your aim changed from criticizing an imaginary version of the game (bad) to plainly mock the work ethics of game developers (worse, because this is not a forum for that)? I don't see how anyone owes it to you to satisfy your need to be engaged on irrelevant points.

But I'll humor you, because I am in a rather good mood.

Your analogy with the car industry (somehow repeated quite often in the forum, I wonder why) simply doesn't work, because a car, once released, cannot be patched. It will depreciate in performance as you use it. Additionally, even a very minor defect in cars can result in life-threatening scenarios. And therefore, if a car is defective, a product recall is inbound.

A video game, even years after launch, can be patched. It will only get better in time because infinite trial and error is possible with patches and mods. A game that is defective costs no lives. And therefore, if a game is defective, it will simply be patched.

And that is why we consumers can be less stringent about video game developers compared to about car manufacturers.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Nefelia

Great to hear you are in good mood. I am as well and I really enjoy disucssion. I already replied to consequnecunces of bad desing of car and software. But I will repeat - broken car and software can really be compared, what cannot be compared are the consequences. To back it I can give another, simpler analogy. With life, death and cars. To win a race and to drive ambulance (with dying person) we need a driver. Obiously wining the race is much less important than driving ambulance, but it does not imply we do not need driver to win a race. That is where my analogy lies.

Car analogies are very often used (sorry if I coppied anybodys ideas), becasue car is tangible thing, everybody knows what it should do, and knows the basic of it's functioning (you put fuel to it, fuel goes to engine which rolls the wheels, and you can steer the wheels using the steering wheel). Many people here uses arguments like "I know how the industry works", "you have no idea of of software development", "developers know what they do", just to say you cannot be right because you are not software engineer.. When the analogy is made with cars, the arguments of previous sentence lose it's mysterious aspect and become more understandable. Yes, the game will be patched (what is wrong that it should be patched so extensivelly, but that was not my point now). My point was to dissagree with you and Xavier, that it is modders role to improve the game, and that was the role of analogy.

To last point - ethics and proffesional knowledge are two different things. I did not say anything about the work of ethics. Proffesional knowledge was undermined rather by Xavier (which I exaggarated in my dilatation leading to absurd), who explicitally said that devs have no knowledge which can be compared with players. I hope you found enjoyment reading that post.

 

[Nefelia]

EDIT: Ninja'd by Nefelia

Rekt.

 

[Menzies]

Civ 4.

The only severe problem I had with it was graphics related, and it's fair to give Civ 4 a pass on that because graphics standards... weren't back in the day.

Civ IV launched as a buggy mess, lacked many features, and even after two expansions needed a community patch to be playable... not sure that fits OPs criteria there.

Civ IV now is fine though.

 

[kornelm1978]

Rekt.

I will use once again argumentum ad absurdum. Games can be crap, movies can be boring, food may be not tasty (unless poisonous), public toilets may stink and beer in pubs may be not cold, becasue those things will not kill nobody.

 

[need my speed]

Civ IV launched as a buggy mess, lacked many features, and even after two expansions needed a community patch to be playable...

Do explain, because that is really not true. You're probably speaking of Civilization V, what with mentioning a community patch.