What Firaxis is Teaching Us

[TETurkhan]

Everyone has the right to their opinion. If someone thinks Civ3 sucks, and comes here to vent I am totally supportive of that. If you don’t agree with what he or she writes then you have the option stating your view. This kind of exchange makes for a better forum, as long as people are not rude or cursing etc, its all good.

Furthermore does it occur to anyone that the consumer dictates the markets? Almost EVERY company tries to get the most money out of the customer, they push the limit all the time. For them, it’s a balance between how much money they can get from the consumer before that consumer will get fed up – consumer gets fed up, they don’t buy and thus sales goes down, next thing you know the company starts throwing in extras, promotions, anything to get you to buy.

I think Firaxis is marketing this game very smartly. They are most definitely pushing the limit, as long as people purchase the game without reservation they can get away with it. Some people here are complaining, and I put myself in with that group, I don’t care for paying extra money when I don’t have too. If I think the company is squeezing me for every dollar it is my right as a consumer to resist this or not to go along with it.

 

[Evie]

You can chose to see it the defeatist way. "They decided to sell an uncomplete game back in november and release an expansion pack a year later for multiplayer".

OR instead of *****ing about it

you could see it "They released the single-player game for less money, a lot earlier than they would have if they had spend the time fully developing the multiplayer and scenario editor to go with it. That way we have something to do while waiting for the editor and multiplayer. Isn'T that nice of them?".

Frankly, I'm rather happy that despite the menace of "this game is incomplete" whiners they decided to release the game as soon as possible so that we could play it while waiting for the scenario editor.

As for the bug, SO WHAT the game was buggy? It wasn't buggy enough to be unfunctiunal, and other that, EVERY game is released with bugs, or nearly so. It's *IMPOSSIBLE* to catch everything in the beta-test.

You got a game at a more than decent price, which was at least rather decent (more than that if you ask me) in itself, and with the promise that they would deliver multiplayer for those interested later in the year, as well as plenty of other new options, not to mention a free scenario editor.

Frankly, I just don't see what you have to complain about? The fact that Firaxis is not giving away everything as patches? Whooo. Big deal. They are trying to make money. They need to.

 

[Exile_Ian]

The other aspect of the original post in this thread (fully endorsed of course by Zouave) which I do take issue with, is the suggestion that the failure to deliver a working editor and MP was an intentional 'plot' by Firaxis to decieve the buying public. Come on guys - talk some sense!

The way I see it is that Firaxis had a choice of continuing their development and testing process to launch Civ3 with MP and a fully functional editor but delaying another 6 months or launching with what they had and expanding later.

Let me ask you this - if you'd been asked back in October/November last year to choose between taking what they regarded as a functional game (without MP and Scenarios) or waiting another 6-9 months for a full-featured game - what would you have voted for? Come on be honest - you'd have taken the game then like we all would have.

Firaxis are not demi-gods - they are not perfect - and yes (harsh reality time) their a business that intends to make money. How have they chosen to do that? Unlike too many software developers they did not launch a product that was lacking in features that was likely to have little or no replay value. They gave us a game with a considerable amount of depth, that was true to the spirit of the Civ genre (heroic music should be playing in the background at this point ). They have also been supportive to the community (3 major patchs in 6 months whereas some companies never offer patchs). Now a commitment to MP (for a price - which at least gives us a choice to buy or not), and a free scenario editor as another patch next month.

Does that really sound like a company that is deliberately 'toying' with us? If you really feel that Firaxis is taking you for a ride - can I politely suggest you get off the bus and leave the rest of us to enjoy the journey?

 

[Geon]

I agree with Midnight Rider and Zouave about the gaming industry in general, but not quite about it pertaining to Firaxis. It is almost an industry standard to release expansion packs now. It used to be to just add a couple things to bring new life to a great if aging game, and it still could be now. But instead you see expansion packs planned in advance of the games initial release!

About the guy who said that they were glad that Civ3 got released for 50 dollars now instead of a higher amount later for a complete game, games hardly ever go over the 50 dollar mark. I do partially agree in the fact I would rather pay more money to be able to play part of the game earlier than would've been possible. Waiting for a highly desired game sucks!

Firaxis is doing stuff good though. The patching is almost on par with the EXCELLENT swedish company Paradox(Europa Universalis). On the flip side take Empire Earth(SSSi developer; Sierra publisher), very fun for its multiplayer aspects(single player sucked as with all harvest and kill RTS). There were extremely annoying bugs, cheats, balance issues, and the worst multiplayer matchmaking interface one could conjure up in their head. What do they do? Make one minor patch a week after release that fixed damn near nothing. 6 months later announce an expansion pack. 0 support! Imagine if Firaxis had left civ3 with 0 or 1 patches and dissappeared for 5 months. No they are much better than that, and earned my respect.

Now for all of you that are *****ing about his *****ing, it is rather immature. Saying stuff along the lines of "leave if you don't like it" does not even pay heed to his post. Multiplayer was supposed to be in the game, it wasn't. Now we have to pay for it. It even irks me a little bit, but considering the great service everywhere else where they didn't have to I overlook it.

Remember, being a fanatic doesn't mean that you can't be critical of your idol. I am a Kansas City Chiefs fanatic, and I am JUST A LITTLE BIT pissed off at them right now .

 

[Dinorius R.]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


I think we need a "diversity" of voices on this forum. Bear with us.

One of the most conciliatory and welcome comments on this Forum. One for everybody to remember. Thank you for making this point Sumthinelse.

 

[alja]

Civ3 is the most expensive game I have ever bought!

I was beta tester for a few months - now finally I have a single player version which makes fun and is playable. That's fine but not enough.

I refuse to pay more money for a multiplayer feature I HAVE EXPECTED to be in the first release. If it was not possible to have it ready at that time for some reasons they have to deliver it now FOR FREE.

Finally, we as customers decide if this strategy works out. You want to have more games in the future released were standard features are sliced in portions and you have to pay for all of them separately?

I really love the game but I don't want to be fooled!

 

[LaRo]

For those who don't understand why we feel this way:

When we bought Civ2, there was 2 scenarios inside plus a editor.

When we bought Civ3, we expected at least to get 2 scenarios and a editor.

 

[LKendter]

Why do we keep getting people coming to a civ lovers forum saying the product sucks?

These are the types of threads that the moderators should just close. I stopped reading before the end of the thread


By the way, I am a programmer. Trust me, any code done today takes forever to get up to speck. Hell, my Y2K code wasn't 100% stable until about Feb 2000.

I have had 2000 lousy lines of code have problems for months.
Sorry, but I agree with the way Fixiras did things. They are in business to make money. I would not have wanted to wait another year to get what was in the expansion pack.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga


As for the bug, SO WHAT the game was buggy? It wasn't buggy enough to be unfunctiunal, and other that, EVERY game is released with bugs, or nearly so. It's *IMPOSSIBLE* to catch everything in the beta-test.

When such a basic fonction like air supperiority and precision strike didnt work, it mean no Q.A ( quality assurance), it mean the game was rush out. A rush work = bad work.

 

[TETurkhan]

If you don’t like what you are reading, fine… you have the option of either moving on to another thread or writing your opinion here… There are good and bad points about Civ3, and this forum gives people the opportunity to highlight things they like or are not happy about…

I am unclear as to why some of you want this thread to be closed, what do you have to lose? If anything, maybe Firaxis will see there are some disgruntled customers… that is a GOOD thing…

Forums such as this are excellent indicators of what people like and dislike about the game. If you eliminate the threads with criticisms, then you are contributing to a lesser quality product down the road…

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by LaRo
When we bought Civ2, there was 2 scenarios inside plus a editor.

My memory may be failing me, but I don't remember having an editor when I bought Civ2.

 

[Exile_Ian]

When such a basic fonction like air supperiority and precision strike didnt work, it mean no Q.A ( quality assurance), it mean the game was rush out. A rush work = bad work.

That shows a basic lack of understanding of how bugs arise in software. I would bet you a year's salary that all those features worked at some point in the development cycle - and probably passed QA. What is most likely that late in the project cycle, additional features or bug-fixes 'broke' those features.

What was probably missing was sufficient 'Regression Testing'. for those that don't know - regression testing is where you go back and retest all features of a game every time you make an amendment of any sort. The fact is - in the entire softwate industry - there is never enough time to do full regression testing.

Yes its sad when some obvious problems arise such as Air Superiority not working, or any one of the number of new bugs that were caused when those initial bugs were fixed. That is inevitable with a product as complex as this game - and requires at least some measure of patience from the customers. If you want leading edge software, you have to expect glitches and potential new problems when patchs are made available.

If that really is too frustrating for someone, I honestly believe that would do better by sitting back and waiting for a more stable product. It will get to the stage sometime that Civ3 is as stable as Civ2 is now. You really have that choice though - I prefer to take the risk of occasional glitches - I'll work with what's available - and I have faith that Civ3 will get better and better.

 

[CeasarSalad]

Well, I'm totally happy with Civ3, as it is. I don't ever imagine that I'll try playing multiplayer or scenarios. I preferr random maps, and because of the fact that you cannot make a game hack or cheat proof, why play multiplayer? Unless it's with friends, but I don't know anybody patient enough for Civ3, so ... maybe this is just me. But some of us are perfectly happy with what we got.

 

[ufftyuwe]

Hello Midnight Rider

I have to say to you...Good Thread..it shows that you care about what you are dealing with

Anyway..you're right, they were some better things in CIV2 too and after all the details are REALLY better in CTP II...

Civ III's got the graphics (the "looks") and thats what people these days really care about..

We're all been playing with and its not a coincedence that civ3 is way years later than civ2 cuz as i said, they main difference is just the graphics

BUUUUUUUUT
I like Civ III a lot!!
and I LOVE the Editor and some new units and features (culture)!

But its just cared about war

 

[Midnight Rider]

I think with the expansion, it will run RINGS around Civ2. I have high expectations, and the people who have made Civ haven't disappointed me in the past. (In fact, I've never played a computer game so much as I did Civ2 Deluxe. (except Ultima Online. Would you believe I sold my account there for $200.00! Gee WHIZ!) MORE than paid for the money I put in there!)

I'm mostly upset about not having my guys start where I wanted 'em. I wanted to play on an Earth map with Earth's starting locations. I just play the random games, because a scenario really can't be made yet, but it's lame that we can't all start out where we're supposed to. I just like it my way.

I am glad that we can have whatever civs we want, instead of picking BETWEEN civs. (I mean, what if, in Civ2 I wanted China, the U.S. AND Persia to play at the same time? <if memory serves. It's been almost a year since I played it.> But you had your choice of Germans, French OR Vikings. Why not have 'em all if you wanted 'em all? Just my .02 there...

I hope Firaxis has found a speedier way to do things, too. I have a 1.2 Ghz machine, and it's not that debilitating, but if I played on a HUGE map I shudder to think...

 

[Padma]

As a professional programmer myself, I can agree with some of the earlier statements: it's impossible to run a complete suite of regression tests before the product ships. There is never enough time for that. If Bug-fix A breaks Feature B, you won't know until the customer screams. IMO, Firaxis has done an excellent job of listening, and fixing the reported bugs.

Also, IMO, the XP should make this good game into a fantastic game!

As for some of the things people complain about:

The editor - should have been in the initial release. Absolutely agree. Howver, the publisher, Infogrames (not Firaxis) said the game had to be released in time for Christmas. Something had to give. That something was the editor. At least it is being released free for download.

Multi-Player - they promised it would be in the initial release. Well, "promised" is a difficult word. Yes, they did say it would be there. Did they "promise"? I don't know. You can certainly make the case that we were led to believe it would be there. Since it wasn't, I think it should be made available free to those who already own the game. ( I know that's not really practical. )

Will I buy the XP? Absolutely!

 

[Midnight Rider]

Me too!

 

[Fayadi]

I used to think like you do Rider,but if you think deeply,the fun factors of Civ I and Civ II are already there in Civ III.Playing in Single Player is the pure most enjoyable factor of Civ III.The gameplay introduced in PTW sure they are nice and gives MP ability but somehow they are irrelevant,the most enjoying factor of Civ games is already here in CivIII.Yeah I will be just happy to receive the MP ,I think I will stick to the original style of gaming in Civ III(PTW said they are giving new styles of play like Turnless?what the heck?Capture the Flag??It will be confusing and totally disrupt the classic of Civ games) because I think the original factor is the one that makes the game fun.I will still buy PTW because at least there are new things for CivIII that is better than nothing.

Somehow I felt Firaxis had done a great job in dividing the two between original Civ III and PTW

 

[God]

Anyway don't most games now days have XPs? Half-life. Baldur's Gate, Civ 3 etc. (Too name a few I have)

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by God
Anyway don't most games now days have XPs? Half-life. Baldur's Gate, Civ 3 etc. (Too name a few I have)

Yep, in fact the only game line that I can think off hand that I would play that did not have expansions was the Jane's line of simulators.

On bugs, at least this is not thousand dollar per year liscence software that has bugs. Guess I have just been jaded by software that should be far more polished than any game to get upset when games are shipped with bugs are minor boken features.