Discussion in 'CivBE - General Discussions' started by gamemaster3000, Aug 15, 2014.
I was almost 30 when Civ 1 came out....so I will gladly beta test for the geezer faction.
The launch problems of Civ V really soured me on the game for a long while, I went back to IV for a long time and didn't come back to V until brave new world came out.
That said I was a huge fan of Alpha Centauri so when Beyond Earth comes out I don't think I can hold off, I'm thinking it will be a much smoother launch since they have worked out the bugs of the Civ V engine by now.
The best is enemy of good enough. I trust Sid and his team to release something pleasurable if not perfect. I too am not eager to throw money away, but I've yet to be soured by a Sid Meier game. I'm in from day 1.
Thank you. I started to play civ in my early 20's. My younger cuz got me hooked. Damn him....
Wasn't that some magical game when it first hit the streets? I had owned the boardgame Advanced Civ and played some partial games (it was SUPER LONG) and loved playing the computer game Empire, I couldn't get enough of that. When Sid pulled off Civ which combined the two I absolutely couldn't stop playing.
I was playing Simcity, Star Control, Master of Orion, Bard's Tale, Populous and Warlords at the time. Yea, it broke the mold.
I don't know if I'll get it at launch or not (probably going to be pretty busy right about then), but I would not delay purchase just because it might not work perfectly on the release date.
But if you know you're going to get it eventually, wouldn't you rather play a flawed version than none at all? After all, you not buying it isn't going to make it get fixed any faster. I think we can know at this point that they will correct issues.
It's a matter of the first impression being less frustrating and avoiding a really frustrating night of not being able to connect.
I had an awful lot of fun with Civ V from the day it was released, and it only got better with time. I cannot say the same of many other releases from other game houses whose games, though since patched X number of times, still sit on my shelf hardly played. The best is enemy of good enough, they say, and life is too short to await perfection. Everything I see from the previews and LP's tells me BE is plenty solid enough for me to get a kick out of playing it.
BTW being "old and grumpy" kinda rocks if it gives you a lot of time to play your favorite games.
The fact that folks like MadDjinn already are playing apparently bug-free playthroughs is reassuring to me. Of course there will be howls from some folks about how broken and unfair the game is the moment their first worker is eaten by a wolf beetle . . . wait, they're right, the game IS bug-ridden!
There were major bugs on Civ V's launch??
...seriously I have no memories of being perturbed by day 1 bugs..ha. Maybe amnesia? Maybe because I've been so pleased since with all the work that was put into it since, some minor burps was nothing to remember?
I remember the grueling experience of trying to play D3 on release day and shortly after though.
I'll wait for the Steam xmas sale. I bought 4 and 5 at launch and I learned my lesson.
I think, that unless you're a hardcore strategy min-maxer who jumps right in to the highest difficulty levels, you wouldn't even notice bugs in Civ5 at launch.
I remember no flaws in the game at launch. On the contrary, I have had a great time with the game since release, and expect to continue to have fun with it until Civ6 launches.
But some people have the ability to yell loud enough that the world thinks that the game was buggy at launch. Bleh.
The problem with Civ V at launch wasn't "bugs", it was the total lack of polish. The mid- to late-game was a total mess, there were basic features missing from the UI, terrible AI, gameplay exploits you could drive a truck through, etc.
Every major Civ release in recent memory has had some rough spots, but Civ V was the only one bad enough that I stopped playing after a few weeks for nearly a year until it was fixed.
I think there are two separate potential issues related to release. Firstly, you could have a game which is 'broken' in the sense of lots of people having technical problems or stumbling across crashes. IIRC, Civ4 and Civ5 releases both involved a fair bit of this, and luckily, there's been no evidence thus far that Beyond Earth is likely to suffer similar problems.
Secondly, there's presentation, bugs and balance. Given how much of the game we've seen so far, we could probably say that presentation is probably where it's meant to be. If there are any nasty surprises, it's hard to say where they'd be. In terms of bugs, there are bound to be some, but it's not like all the previews we've seen have been littered with them. You would expect a certain number of bugs as par for the course, so it's simply a matter of how significant those bugs are. Do the game mechanics actually work, or are they 'broken'? I don't think there's been much indication of brokenness in the previews we've seen, though obviously that sort of problem might only reveal itself with more intense or focused play.
Balance is much harder to determine before release. Assuming that like bugs, a certain degree of imbalance is par for the course for a game release, the real question is how 'broken' any imbalance makes the game. An overpowered station, for instance, might be annoying, but it's unlikely to ruin the game for many people. On the other hand, if one of the affinities is objectively much better than the others, that's quite a significant problem. I guess if you're not busting the play the game as soon as it's released, it makes perfect sense to wait and see what people are saying about balance. But it's probably important to remember that some complaints about imbalance are to be expected, and the real question is how significantly those imbalances impact upon the game. It'd be a shame to convince yourself not to buy the game because of relatively minor problems.
I actually wish I had waited a year and a half for Civ V since it took that long for all the major balance patches to come out. It was like paying to be a beta tester.
Previous to that Civ IV had taken only three months for the major balance patches following which they were only minor.
So my plans for BE is to wait for all the major balance patches to come out first.
What was wrong with the Civ 5 launch? I don't remember when I got Civ 5 relative to the launch date, but I don't remember having problems with it either.
I bought Endless Legend and like the basics of the game but it's an unpolished bug fest.
I think of all the games I've bought and had to wait six months to play. Maybe I'll wait six months to buy this one.
Hell, I just bought Starcraft 2. Hasn't crashed yet.
Every game I've bought at launch has been bugged in some way. Day 1 patches are pretty popular. It probably would be wise to wait for expansions to buy the discounted complete edition, but who wants to wait that long?
Separate names with a comma.