What were they doing anyway?

[Memphus]

originally posted by panzooka
simple math tells me that if each transistor is 99% working, the total is 0% working
if each transistor is 99.99999% working, the total is 37% working
if each transistor is 99.9999999% working, the total is 99% working
the 9 nines

Something like that is what I was getting to, thanks for doing the hard number crunch.

I just wanted anyone who doesn't know to understand that the 'black box' is really complicated. So complicated that to really debug them (like check every possible combination is working) you need another computer as a human could never do it in a lifetime.

Basically things break, and sometimes they start broken but when they don't work fix it.

And that finally if you understand computers cool fix it, it is what I would do

But if some hose is broken in my car i don't open the hood and mess around with stuff for (insert time player X attemted to debug civ 4 and their hardware) hours, then say the makers realesed it early. I go to someone who knows how to fix it and let them stress about it.

And to cover the base "this is a new product it should work"

Go buy a new ummm lets see..... stereo system for you car, try to install it yourself, let me know if it works 100% (assuming you have 0 experience with cars, other than driving (aka using a computer))
And if it does awsome I am sure civ4 worked for many people who have no idea about how computers actually work.

I am not trying to flame anyone but i guess I kinda take software/hardware intergration complaints personally cause I do it for a living.

 

[Me_]

Software development is hard. Beta testing is hard and slow. Civ4 doesn't damage anyone's system, burn down houses, or castrate you. It just doesn't work on some systems. As gamers, you can either have a Blizzard, who routinely releases games a year or more after the planned release date, or you can have someone put a game out that works in a lot of systems and then fixes it for the rest. Blizz games need patching, too, because you can't get everything in beta testing. By releasing it and using all the gamers as "gamma testers", they get feedback on the problems much faster than they would with beta testing. Does it suck to buy the game and then have to wait for the patch? Yes. But it speeds things up on the whole, so you only have to wait a few months to get a working game, rather than an extra year or so.

 

[Zinegata]

By releasing it and using all the gamers as "gamma testers", they get feedback on the problems much faster than they would with beta testing.

A very important point must be made here:

1) Consumers purchase a game so they can play it. They do not buy a game so they can test it.

2) If a company wants to test a product, you need to pay people to do that, not the other way around!

Just imagine if a consumer good product (let's say Gatorade) want to release a new "energy drink". However, they're not sure if the energy drink will actually work. Normally, what they'd do is to send the drink back to the lab for testing, right?

However, if we take video game practices, Gatorade should skip testing the drink, and sell it to the consumer advertising it as a "energy drink". The consumers are then supposed to give feedback whether or not it actually made them feel more energized. Gatorade will then ship future batches of the drink with "improvements".

Needless to say, I don't think anyone would buy such a product. If Firaxis/Take 2 is really into these kinds of business practices, then they'd better be damn grateful they still have a fanatically loyal fanbase who puts up with what can only be described as utter lack of corporate responsibility.

 

[Frewfrux]

A very important point must be made here:

1) Consumers purchase a game so they can play it. They do not buy a game so they can test it.

2) If a company wants to test a product, you need to pay people to do that, not the other way around!

I fully agree. A survey I did ( http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=141393 ) showed that just over 1 out of 5 peopel who bought the game either couldn't play it or wouldn't play it due to major bugs. I expect the small bugs nowadays (especially if I buy it prior to any patches), but I also expect to be able to play the game.

What happened here was simply avoidable.

 

[oldStatesman]

When a company develops a game and wants to sell it in huge numbers, they produce it for the average Joe - Joe who does NOT do maintenance on his comp, mainly because he wouldn't know how to do it. Heck, most of my friends learn from ME what the secret phrase "defragmentation" actually means and how to avoid spyware and the like. When I design a complex web page, I DON'T do it so that it works correctly only on the newest browsers and for experienced users. If someone uses a buggy browser, that is MY, the developer's, problem, not the client's. When MSIE 5.5 was a piece of crap and Opera 6 didn't understand certain JavaScript commands, *I* had to deal with it instead of giving out lame excuses like "you need to update blablabla". You know, why? Because it is MY interest that people see the site as it is intended to be, and because I know that if it doesn't or if the navigation is such that the visitor doesn't know how to handle it, I've just LOST a customer and maybe ruined a lucrative business opportunity.

If a company produced a game for tech nerds only, they could just as well close up shop. And quite a few did exactly that in the past.

Excellent post.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If games were tested to the level that some of you guys are demanding, they would easily cost $150 to $250 US, each. I don't see the market for such games.

Being aggravated by a bug and wanting it fixed is human and normal. Screaming about "incompetence" or other such hyperbole says more about the ignorance and lack of perspective of the screamer, than it does anything else.

Let me guess, you guys are the same ones that pitch a fit to the manager when your steak comes out medium well instead of medium? Not satisfied with sending it back and having it fixed, no got to have some kind of compensation for your trouble? And you even do that in the $10 steak house?

$50 dollars isn't enough for a game that is guaranteed to work on every system known to man on the day of release. If you bought it day one with that expectation, it's your problem. Just be glad that Firaxis will patch it anyway.

 

[Psyringe]

Needless to say, I don't think anyone would buy such a product.

Free drinks shipped to me? I have to pay for one drink, and the company sends me free "updates" based on my feedback? I'm in. Where can I join?

Seriously, the drink analogy is as flawed as the car analogy or most others. Video games are a whole different thing because a) they have to be made for a wide array of utterly complicated, yet very diverse machines, and b) it is very easy for the customer to get a "repair". It's not as if you had to bring your game to a repair shop and leave it there for two weeks in order to get it working. The patch, once issued, is just some mouse clicks away.

Hence, in the software industry "non-perfect" products are to be expected much more than in other industries, where either the product doesn't have to be that compatible with that many environments, or where repairs would involve costs and efforts.

I agree that better testing would have been good for Civ4, the number of people who have problems with the game, as shown in Frewfux's poll, is too large for convenience. But I'm certain that these problems will be sorted out, like Firaxis did with all their titles.

 

[Zinegata]

If games were tested to the level that some of you guys are demanding, they would easily cost $150 to $250 US, each. I don't see the market for such games.

Fallacy. Smaller companies like Paradox are able to release and patch games better than Firaxis can, even though their games are more complext than Civilization, and they still sell for $50. Given the sheer volume of sales Civilization is expected to generate, both Firaxis and Take 2 could easily have spent more money on testing and still make a profit.

If Firaxis/Take 2 did not spend money on testing, it was because they wanted to make more money, and not because they were forced to. Frankly, I wouldn't think too highly of them if that's indeed their policy.

 

[Zinegata]

Free drinks shipped to me? I have to pay for one drink, and the company sends me free "updates" based on my feedback? I'm in. Where can I join?

Sure, but because they didn't test it, you didn't know that the drink actually caused allergies in some people. So, when you drank it, you suffered from the said allergy. Nothing that can kill you, mind you, but enough to irritate you for a day or two. But, hey, Gatorade will send you FREE drinks in the future that may or may not have that allergy problem anymore! You'll happily drink them too, yes? =)

Now, are you so inclined to join in? =)

Seriously, the drink analogy is as flawed as the car analogy or most others.

Analogies are never meant to exactly match the situation at hand, thus it's easy to look for flaws in analogy. It all boils down to coming up with other arguments to show that your main point (that was supported by the analogy) is correct.

Video games are a whole different thing because a) they have to be made for a wide array of utterly complicated, yet very diverse machines,

And I can also say that human bodies are even more utterly complicated and diverse than computers and software, yet food testing is a strict standard adhered to.

and b) it is very easy for the customer to get a "repair". It's not as if you had to bring your game to a repair shop and leave it there for two weeks in order to get it working. The patch, once issued, is just some mouse clicks away.

First, note that patches take several weeks to release, if not months. Hence, it's almost the same as leaving it in the repair shop for two weeks, if not worse. =)

Second, why should anyone release a product that needs repair right from the outset? Sure, maybe have a few defective products, but one out of five?

Hence, in the software industry "non-perfect" products are to be expected much more than in other industries, where either the product doesn't have to be that compatible with that many environments, or where repairs would involve costs and efforts.

I rebut by saying that the software industry remains non-perfect only because there are those willing to justify the poor quality of work being released by many software companies. If consumers demanded more and refused to buy shoddy products, the said companies will either shape up or ship out.

I agree that better testing would have been good for Civ4, the number of people who have problems with the game, as shown in Frewfux's poll, is too large for convenience. But I'm certain that these problems will be sorted out, like Firaxis did with all their titles.

My only point really is that if Firaxis wants to keep more customers, release a game that works. Don't release a game that may or may not work but they promise to patch. Paradox, Blizzard, and many other companies can release games that work out of the box. Firaxis and Take 2 should be able to do the same, and people should stop making excuses for them.

 

[Psyringe]

Sure, but because they didn't test it, you didn't know that the drink actually caused allergies in some people. So, when you drank it, you suffered from the said allergy. Nothing that can kill you, mind you, but enough to irritate you for a day or two. But, hey, Gatorade will send you FREE drinks in the future that may or may not have that allergy problem anymore! You'll happily drink them too, yes? =)

Now, are you so inclined to join in? =)

Not really. I certainly won't endanger my health for testing a drink. However I have no problems investing a couple of dollars for some enjoyment which may or may not work out. And I don't really risk much - if the game doesn't work or if I don't like it, I sell it at ebay. The possble gain (hours of fun) outweighs the possible loss. So I still don't follow your analogy.

And I can also say that human bodies are even more utterly complicated and diverse than computers and software, yet food testing is a strict standard adhered to.

You're neglecting my second point, "ease of repair". Personal health is certainly something that is not to be risked. Hence the strict standards. A game doesn't risk health ... well, aside from sleep deprivation and its associated problems.

First, note that patches take several weeks to release, if not months. Hence, it's almost the same as leaving it in the repair shop for two weeks, if not worse. =)

No, because - as opposed to a car - you don't really need a computer game. Not having your car for weeks is ugly, because you need it and have to make a lot of arrangements if you don't have it. Not being able to play a game yet is frustrating, but you can easily do something else with your spare time until it is fixed.

Second, why should anyone release a product that needs repair right from the outset? Sure, maybe have a few defective products, but one out of five?

Because for most people it is perfectly enjoyable as it is. But I agree, 1 out of five is too much.

I rebut by saying that the software industry remains non-perfect only because there are those willing to justify the poor quality of work being released by many software companies. If consumers demanded more and refused to buy shoddy products, the said companies will either shape up or ship out.

I don't regard Civ4 as a shoddy product. The jury on this one isn't out yet, it depends on the following patches.

I can follow your logic, but I don't like the premise of having to wait a lot longer for a game while the developers iron all bugs out. I'd rather have the game sooner and risk having to deal with some bugs, as long as I know that these will be fixed. After all, it *may* work fine for me already, as Civ4 does since day one.

For a game that I will play for years, it doesn't really matter whether I have to wait some weeks for a patch.

 

[Zinegata]

Not really. I certainly won't endanger my health for testing a drink. However I have no problems investing a couple of dollars for some enjoyment which may or may not work out. And I don't really risk much - if the game doesn't work or if I don't like it, I sell it at ebay. The possble gain (hours of fun) outweighs the possible loss. So I still don't follow your analogy.

It doesn't endanger your health, true, but the product nonetheless fails to fulfill its purpose. The severity of the consequence of not being able to run a game is not the issue to be debated (it won't ruin your health or anything. At worse it will annoy you), but the analogies presented demonstrate how "failing to fulfill a product's purpose" is unacceptable in any other product outside of software. You buy a product that works, not one that doesn't. Those who say that we should accept software that does not work are thus adhering to a double-standard in terms of judging the quality of a consumer good.

However, you defend your double-standard with some nice arguments, so let's dissect your arguments too, shall we? =)

You're neglecting my second point, "ease of repair". Personal health is certainly something that is not to be risked. Hence the strict standards. A game doesn't risk health ... well, aside from sleep deprivation and its associated problems.

Nope, it doesn't risk health, but remember, what is the game's purpose?

A game is meant to bring enjoyment. The worse sin a game can commit is thus to annoy a player as it is the opposite of making a player enjoy the game.

If a game does not run out of the box, it has failed to achieve its purpose. To the consumer, the value of the product is worthless because what he expected to get from the money he paid (enjoyment) did not materialize. Repairing the problem later, no matter how easy, is already too late. You already failed the consumer and a patch is just an attempt to make up for the failing.

Food does have strict standards, but remember that food's purpose is to sustain life. Without food a human being will die. It is thus the worst sin for a food company to release a food product that can do the precise opposite of that, which is to kill a customer through poisoning.

Food companies are judged by how strictly they test their products so that they sustain life rather than take it. Game companies likewise should be judged how they test their products so they can sustain the enjoyment of players rather than detract from it. Therein the analogy lies.

No, because - as opposed to a car - you don't really need a computer game. Not having your car for weeks is ugly, because you need it and have to make a lot of arrangements if you don't have it. Not being able to play a game yet is frustrating, but you can easily do something else with your spare time until it is fixed.

But I can argue you don't need a car either - just commute using a bus! =)

Again, it boils down to whether or not the product fulfills its purpose. It doesn't matter how vital or non-vital the purpose is. It either does what it's supposed to, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the company should be criticized.

I don't regard Civ4 as a shoddy product. The jury on this one isn't out yet, it depends on the following patches.

If you say it will depend on the patches, then it's saying that the product released was a shoddy product.

If a car, a washing machine, or whatever doesn't work when you buy it, it is returned and refunded. The company selling it takes a sales loss and is castigated. The same can even be said for most games released in the gaming industry - games with shoddy releases are returned, refunded, and ignored. Civilization is thus lucky that there are people making excuses for it. Anywhere else, without double-standards (which I attribute to the loyalty of Civ fans), people would simply not have bought it and allowed Firaxis to fold up.

I can follow your logic, but I don't like the premise of having to wait a lot longer for a game while the developers iron all bugs out. I'd rather have the game sooner and risk having to deal with some bugs, as long as I know that these will be fixed. After all, it *may* work fine for me already, as Civ4 does since day one.

A delay in releasing the game is often less damaging than releasing a shoddy product. If the game was so good anyway, people would be willing to wait for the release. "Worth the wait" is a quote often used to describe Blizzard products, and those "Worth the wait" products have sold more than the "release now, fix later" products.

For a game that I will play for years, it doesn't really matter whether I have to wait some weeks for a patch.

Not if you can't even run the game out of the box. Then the first few weeks waiting for a patch would matter a lot.

 

[Psyringe]

It doesn't endanger your health, true, but the product nonetheless fails to fulfill its purpose. The severity of the consequence of not being able to run a game is not the issue to be debated (it won't ruin your health or anything. At worse it will annoy you), but the analogies presented demonstrate how "failing to fulfill a product's purpose" is unacceptable in any other product outside of software. You buy a product that works, not one that doesn't. Those who say that we should accept software that does not work are thus adhering to a double-standard in terms of judging the quality of a consumer good.

However, you defend your double-standard with some nice arguments, so let's dissect your arguments too, shall we? =)

With your reasoning, I can happily get mad at the producers of any movie I don't like, because it failed to fulfill its purpose - to enjoy me. Following your reasoning, if I buy a book that annoys me instead of me enjoying it (as it sometimes happens), I should complain about it and demand from the author that he makes a better product because his product failed to fulfill its purpose - to enjoy me. With your reasoning that "failing to fulfill its purpose" is totally unacceptable, and defining a personal notion such as "enjoyment" as the purpose of certain products, you can happily scream blue murder against any book, movie, game or whatever which failed to enjoy you. Not very practical, is it? "Enjoyment" is much too subjective, too personal, too random to *demand* it in a way we demand security from a car, or the ability to quench thirst from a drink. I still don't find these analogies very useful.

I also don't think I have a double standard. Double standards appear when you treat the same thing differently. But I explained why I regard software as being different from, for example, cars or drinks. Seeing this like a double standard is like telling someone who treats a child differently than a grown-up that he has double standards. Maybe the child and the grown-up *are* different from each other, despite both being human. Maybe software and gatorade drinks *are* different from each other, despite both being consumer products. Where's the double standard then?

If a game does not run out of the box, it has failed to achieve its purpose. To the consumer, the value of the product is worthless because what he expected to get from the money he paid (enjoyment) did not materialize. Repairing the problem later, no matter how easy, is already too late. You already failed the consumer and a patch is just an attempt to make up for the failing.

Following this reasoning, games like Civilization III, The Guild, or Master of Magic are unacceptable failures. Civ3 had so many problems in the beginning that I reverted to playing Civ2 for a while. Master of Magic originally had so many bugs that it just wasn't much fun to play after you found them because you ran into them again and again. The Guild would randomly crash from time to time.

Did that annoy me? Yes.

But from all these games I also got lots and lots of enjoyment - because they were properly patched.

And that's the point where we really differ: You want near-perfection out of the box. I want near-perfection as the end product. As long as the end product *does* enjoy me, problems in between don't bother me that much. A game that doesn't work as advertised in its final stadium, like Outpost, MoO3 or Battlecruiser 3000 did, is unacceptable, yes. But I highly doubt that Civ4 will ever belong to that group. The people at Firaxis worked very dedicated on Patches for their previous games, they won't suddenly change that for their flagship.

Following your reasoning, nine out of my ten favourite games are unacceptable failures and shoddy releases. Seeing how much joy I got from them, I beg to differ.

A delay in releasing the game is often less damaging than releasing a shoddy product. If the game was so good anyway, people would be willing to wait for the release. "Worth the wait" is a quote often used to describe Blizzard products, and those "Worth the wait" products have sold more than the "release now, fix later" products.

I got a little disillusioned about that "Worth the wait" phrase when it was repeatedly used for MoO3, which definitely wasn't worth the wait (and they did *not* patch it properly, not even remotely). But that's probably not what you meant. MoO3 wasn't even finished, despite the wait.

Back to Blizzard: A game can be thoroughly tested, work on my PC, and still annoy me. For example, I own Warcraft. It runs. It's stable. But I don't like it at all, I found its gameplay boring and overly simplistic. So, since it failed to fulfill its purpose, it's an unacceptable failure, right? But then, what have I waited for so long?

I also own Galactic Civilizations. This game could be bought while it was in a very early beta stage. It didn't run on many machines. Totally unacceptable, right? No. The developers worked together with the customers to provide the game *the customers* wanted. It is a permanent process. There is no "near-perfection out of the box". It is simply not necessary. Personally, I liked GalCiv so much that I preordered GalCiv2 one full year before its release.

Lastly, it comes down to trust - whether or not you trust a company to make a game that enjoys you. The devs can thoroughly test a game, iron out every single bug, and still fail to enjoy you. Or they can produce a wonderful game, despite its problems in the beginning. I don't trust the developers of Outpost, MoO3 etc. any more, because they have ripped people off. I do trust Firaxis, because they have worked on every single one of their games until it was not only good, but great. It's really that easy.

 

[Maestro_3295]

I love these forums. I get to read for HOURS about peoples hatred toward Firaxis for a game that I know they love. I get to hear all these oddball arguments defending or deriding the game and its creators. Then, when I get bored, I go into the multiplayer arena and get my ass kicked by masters, or do the same to newbies. I swear, half the enjoyment I get out of this game is browsing through these posts.

 

[BaneBlade]

Very interesting discussion here, can't resist to throw in my 2 cents even though i'm far from a conclussion in this case in general (CIV4 works like a charm for me, except the ****ed up MP).
I got my first computer at my 8. birthday, and owned atleast one since then, 99% for gaming/surfing, so essential i used it as a console. Just the usual maintenance/problemsolving/upgrades that went with this led to what i would say a nice knowledge of computers and their workings. Though i liked it immense IT IS a little bit strange that i reached my current level of expertise through using non-working soft/hardware. What i'm trying to say if this whole plugin-(game/gfx-card/memory/network-cable) and play thing worked, i would essentially not know what this thing under my desk does and is.
Truly hard/software are far more complicated than your average car, but the complications coming with it are way out of bounds, imho. When a man(friend of family) who's in computing&networking since the very start, who studied it and runs a very profitable firm in this business tells me this about problemfixing(he talked about firmnetworks with not more than 50 PCs involved, and for relatively easy tasks eg. clerkswork): Basically i guess what's wrong, maybe i have an idea, otherwise i'll just try some things like reinstalling drivers/software, problem's solved, fine. Otherwise i'll keep on with this 'till A)problems are maximising through my working b)time runs out for me c) i have no more ideas, whereas i'll erase the whole thing and build it new from backups. So is this frickin strange or not?
Our LAN sessions involved normally a 5H to ONE DAY gear up phase, 'till evreyones PC were running, and we're talking not about rocketscience, we're talking about features in the OS and in the games WHICH I PAID for.
Only some months ago i had to tell my parents i'll no longer maintenance their PC cause i drives me crazy(they live 50kms from where i live, so normally no big deal), i was really tempted to throw this ****in thing through the window, and that though i aquired a really buddhalike-relaxedness when i'm fixing these boxes over the years. So WTH, my parents paid 1200 bucks to get a ready-running out of the box PC, along with all necessarly programs they will ever use. Nowhere on the carton, nowhere in any of the the license agreements or manuals was stated: This PC/Software package is ready for/surfing/office work/emailing out-of-the-box, but make sure u got additional knowledge or technical advisory,cause in 80% of all cases it won't work for long without problems if you use it as expected!
Now about analogys: Lets take take a modern car, the next complicated consumerarticle i can think of:

Mechanic: Jeah, your car is truly broken, so i messed around for some hours but it still don't work, i suggest you buy a new motor (powersupply/memory/gfx/HD), otherwise it'll be really expensive.
Me:Woot??
Mech: Jeah you know, these things are so sophisticated nobody with the proper education/training to understand/repair them can any longer say what they're doing...but i'm nearly sure changing the motor wil help!
Me:Woot?
Mech: If u don't like it this way, i suggest you don't drive on public streets(surf the internet) anymore, after u got the new motor...
Me: Woot?
Mech: You know, its COMMON-SENSE, u truly can't drive these dangerous streets in our days without real expertise about the many hazards there are and the approbiate additional hardware, like a 50.cal-machinegun, ballistic or reactive-armor(better viruskiller, firewall, router, anti-spyware).
Me:Woot?
Mech: Of course u'll have to take some courses, read some books about it, in short, dedicate a not so small part of ur life to it, otherwise you are in even more danger of rendering ur car useless most of the time, these defensive measures are sophsticated, too!
Me:Woot?
Mech: So what now, shall i mess around some more hours or switch the motor?
Me:While you were explaining, i've come to the conclussion i don't need it any longer. Surely, i can go on foot, even when that means i no longer can attend school, need a new job, can't go where everyone else goes and know what everyone else knows...
Mech: WOOT???

 

[calyth]

Testing software against various computer set-ups is not rocket science. All it requires is a few techs, some hardware and some gray matter.

Shipping out products with a high failure rate is very short sighted. The next time, the customer will be much more shy about buying a product from you. If I have problems with a company's product, I usually don't buy anything more from them unless it's an unusual circumstance.

One thing you left out with testing against combination of hardware is that it takes time. Some hardware sites test parts over 24 hours (Tom's did a 10+ pwoer supply test, each of them were stressed for 24 hours or until breakage). Plus, there are so many combination of hardware out there it's almost impossible to cover them all. And then you'll still be blind to the hardware & software unstable computers.
Your second statement is true if indeed there is a high failure rate (at least if the gamer is being rational about it), and I agree if the antecent is true. Looking at the forums usually isn't an objvective way to detect this rate. I only ran into stuttering while panning (I'm beginning to suspect that the game also seriously stress the CPU, cause it ran faster while I accidentally OCed the computer), and had a CTD while accidentally OCed. And there are plenty of others with higher specs than I do that gets CTD crashes regularly. Looking at this forum alone make it feel like it has a high fail rate. But then how many Civ 4 gamers actually goes onto this forum.

And I can also say that human bodies are even more utterly complicated and diverse than computers and software, yet food testing is a strict standard adhered to.

Oh we're complicated as hell, yeah, but I'm sure if I put some kind of poison in everyone in this thread's food, we'd all get sick. There are also stuff that "normal" person don't get sick from, while others will die from - like shellfish, or peanuts. IMO Civ 4 bugs being talked about here are more like food allergies. It isn't like everyone will get a CTD on turn 40. It's like some people get Cheshire Cat, some see only the bread yields, while others don't have any problem (beside an unoptimized engine). Large computer programs usually have much higher complexity than food safety, and as complexity rises, so are those pesky annoying to find bugs.

 

[Zinegata]

With your reasoning, I can happily get mad at the producers of any movie I don't like, because it failed to fulfill its purpose - to enjoy me.

And why do you think I did not use the movie industry as a point of analogy? =)

Simple: Because movies are subjective products. It is useless to argue over the merits of something whose value will differ from individual to individual. It's silly to get mad at something like that.

However, the point of "fulflling its purpose" still applies. If I was not satisfied with a movie, I will not watch it again, nor will I buy its DVD, and I will probably shun the next movie the same team produces. A consumer good should be judged by how it fulfills its purpose. Should one start complaining to the movie houses over the quality of a film however? Not at all, because it's a subjective thing.

This, unfortunately, is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the technical support that Civilization IV is released with. Technical matters are objective matters. They can be improved and complained upon. A product either works or does not work according to the cold hard facts of science (including computer science) that is not muddled by human subjectivity.

If you want a proper analogy concerning movies, imagine if you entered a movie house and the projector was damaged. The projector thus displayed something that was grainy, cut out from time to time, and was a headache to watch (even if the film itself was great). Wouldn't you want a refund?

(BTW, the drink analogy is not flawed in this respect. If the drink causes an allergy, it is because objective biological science determined it would do so.)

Following your reasoning, if I buy a book that annoys me instead of me enjoying it (as it sometimes happens), I should complain about it and demand from the author that he makes a better product because his product failed to fulfill its purpose - to enjoy me.

Well, it depends on the book. Particular books have particular purposes. Some books aren't meant to enjoy. Some are meant to provoke, others are meant to teach. That's why there's a preface to many books - it explains what the book is for.

But again, if you're talking about books that mean to enjoy, it's a subjective rather than objective matter, which is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

With your reasoning that "failing to fulfill its purpose" is totally unacceptable, and defining a personal notion such as "enjoyment" as the purpose of certain products, you can happily scream blue murder against any book, movie, game or whatever which failed to enjoy you. Not very practical, is it? "Enjoyment" is much too subjective, too personal, too random to *demand* it in a way we demand security from a car, or the ability to quench thirst from a drink. I still don't find these analogies very useful.

And the problem with your reasoning is that you only took into account the subjective variables in giving enjoyment to the consumer, and the subjective variables were never even in the topic to begin with (no mention of tank vs spearmen, charging artillery, etc here). The objective variables, such as "releasing a product that can install", is what is being argued about here. And a product that does not install can be just as annoying, if not more so, than bad game mechanics/design. In fact, the objective elements have to be fulfilled first before the subjective elements even come to play!

It is true that it's, for the most part, useless to argue about subjective matters (though there can be a methodology that makes it possible to turn a subjective matter to an objective one in terms of improving a product), but it's not what we're arguing about =).

I also don't think I have a double standard. Double standards appear when you treat the same thing differently. But I explained why I regard software as being different from, for example, cars or drinks. Seeing this like a double standard is like telling someone who treats a child differently than a grown-up that he has double standards. Maybe the child and the grown-up *are* different from each other, despite both being human. Maybe software and gatorade drinks *are* different from each other, despite both being consumer products. Where's the double standard then?

Simple. Because as I pointed out, other games with bad tech support/releases don't have people defending them. There are no people making excuses for them. Civilization, frankly, is starting to develop a hard core of apologists who'll defend the game regardless of its faults, technical or otherwise. It's not at all an uncommon phenomenon. Even that monstrous piece of software known as Battlecruiser has its own band of defenders.

Besides, the rules by which children and adults operate are again, a largely subjective matter. Consumer goods can be judged by objective measures. Human beings, for the most part, can't.

Following this reasoning, games like Civilization III, The Guild, or Master of Magic are unacceptable failures. Civ3 had so many problems in the beginning that I reverted to playing Civ2 for a while. Master of Magic originally had so many bugs that it just wasn't much fun to play after you found them because you ran into them again and again. The Guild would randomly crash from time to time.

Did that annoy me? Yes.

But from all these games I also got lots and lots of enjoyment - because they were properly patched.

So you would object to any attempt to force the gaming industry to adopt a standard where you would never have been annoyed in the first place?

That's a pretty noble thing to do, accepting a burden for a company that you are already paying good money to in the first place =)

And that's the point where we really differ: You want near-perfection out of the box. I want near-perfection as the end product. As long as the end product *does* enjoy me, problems in between don't bother me that much.

*shrug* That is indeed my point. If you wish, we can agree to disagree.

A game that doesn't work as advertised in its final stadium, like Outpost, MoO3 or Battlecruiser 3000 did, is unacceptable, yes. But I highly doubt that Civ4 will ever belong to that group. The people at Firaxis worked very dedicated on Patches for their previous games, they won't suddenly change that for their flagship.

*shrug* Again, here we may agree to disagree. Nonetheless, I contend that a good first release is the most important thing to a game. I myself have patience for patches if it's a game concept I like (the subjective part), but I also realize that most people will not have the patience for patches. I would consider it incondierate if I simply told those people "wait for the patch, the game will be better then". No, the game had better be released good and ready for all of our sakes, and for the sake of the game as well.

Following your reasoning, nine out of my ten favourite games are unacceptable failures and shoddy releases. Seeing how much joy I got from them, I beg to differ.

Only because you have shown patience to wait for patches. Some who played Master of Magic who ran into the crippling bugs simply returned the game. Others who got pissed at Civ 3 did not wait for the patches and simply returned the game.

Besides, none of these games offered as crippling as a disability as Civ IV - one of out five that cannot run out of the box? Come on! That is a catastrophe!

I got a little disillusioned about that "Worth the wait" phrase when it was repeatedly used for MoO3, which definitely wasn't worth the wait (and they did *not* patch it properly, not even remotely). But that's probably not what you meant. MoO3 wasn't even finished, despite the wait.

*shrug* So return the box.

What hurts a company is not complaints. What hurts a company is loss of sales.

Back to Blizzard: A game can be thoroughly tested, work on my PC, and still annoy me. For example, I own Warcraft. It runs. It's stable. But I don't like it at all, I found its gameplay boring and overly simplistic. So, since it failed to fulfill its purpose, it's an unacceptable failure, right? But then, what have I waited for so long?

And you demonstrate only the subjective side. Blizzard in this case has fulfilled all of its technical and objective obligations to you. Hence, my point that they are the gold standard in terms of technical excellence is enhanced. It is not a technical failure in any way.

What Blizzard didn't fulfill is the subjective side of the equation, which as you pointed out is something that is silly to complain about. =)

I also own Galactic Civilizations. This game could be bought while it was in a very early beta stage. It didn't run on many machines. Totally unacceptable, right? No. The developers worked together with the customers to provide the game *the customers* wanted. It is a permanent process. There is no "near-perfection out of the box". It is simply not necessary. Personally, I liked GalCiv so much that I preordered GalCiv2 one full year before its release.

Wow, I applaud Galactic Civilization then. I didn't know they ran such a program! I'll add that to my collectors list then =).

Herein lies the problem however: Galactic Civilization said they were selling a beta stage version. They never said they were selling a finished product. Along with the word "beta" is a promise that it isn't guaranteed to work. They thus fulfilled their technical and objective obligations to the consumer properly, and at the same time they got feedback on the subjective end to improve the game overall.

Civilization IV however, is not being sold as a beta version. It is being sold as a retail version.

Lastly, it comes down to trust - whether or not you trust a company to make a game that enjoys you. The devs can thoroughly test a game, iron out every single bug, and still fail to enjoy you. Or they can produce a wonderful game, despite its problems in the beginning. I don't trust the developers of Outpost, MoO3 etc. any more, because they have ripped people off. I do trust Firaxis, because they have worked on every single one of their games until it was not only good, but great. It's really that easy.

Trust, however, is built up on a mountain of measures. Again, there are two measures to be considered. The first is the objective, which covers the technical requirements. The second is the subjective, which covers the gameplay and artistic requirements. The companies that one should automatically give trust to is one that can give both.

Firaxis, with its poor showing in the technical side, does not deserve the automatic trust being afforded to it by many fans. I myself honestly have not had much trust in them since Civilization III. They're not the company that they were before.

I love these forums. I get to read for HOURS about peoples hatred toward Firaxis for a game that I know they love.

You know, there is a lovely grain of truth in your statement. Which Civilization do they love? =)

I know I loved Civs I & II, loved SMAC, and hated Civ III to the point of boycotting it. Civ IV I haven't been able to make it run.

And yet, each Civ had very different design teams. Only Civ II and SMAC had practically the same team (headed by Brian and Doug). And each has had different philosophies about the game. With the dramatic shifts in philosophy, discontent is only inevitable, especially with the sometimes blind loyalty some people show to a game (just look at Battlecruiser -_-).

Personally, I tend to follow the designers rather than the companies or the brands. In the case of Civilization, my favorite team is the team of Brian and Doug, which is why I picked up Rise of Nations and enjoyed it (from the subjective view). On the other hand, I've tended to take any game by Soren with great skepticism (I borrowed a copy of Civ IV before buying it, for example, which was lucky for me since it didn't run), because his games, frankly tended to be poorly optimized on release. I sometimes wonder if there would be less of these arguments if we tracked designers instead of their companies or brands, but then again, we'd probably find a way to mess it up.

BTW, I'm glad that you have been entertained! XD

 

[Zinegata]

One thing you left out with testing against combination of hardware is that it takes time. Some hardware sites test parts over 24 hours (Tom's did a 10+ pwoer supply test, each of them were stressed for 24 hours or until breakage). Plus, there are so many combination of hardware out there it's almost impossible to cover them all. And then you'll still be blind to the hardware & software unstable computers.

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if hardware combinations are truly an impediment to game testing or just some excuse invented by an apologist. By my experience, most of the time, if there is a hardware incompatatibility it will be apparent the moment you install the new component. If you can get a set of hardware together that can run one game, it would still work with another. That's mostly why we have DirectX in the first place.

However, note that most PC games don't have have the "doesn't run out of the box" problem that Civ IV has (except for a small percentage, less than 1%), even games that have more complex gameplay and graphics. I personally feel it's more because the current Firaxis programming team just isn't skilled as skilled as they should be (and there have been reports of memory leaks, which are software-derived problems). I certainly don't think they did a good job with Civ III. They don't seem to have markedly improved by Civ IV.

Your second statement is true if indeed there is a high failure rate (at least if the gamer is being rational about it), and I agree if the antecent is true. Looking at the forums usually isn't an objvective way to detect this rate. I only ran into stuttering while panning (I'm beginning to suspect that the game also seriously stress the CPU, cause it ran faster while I accidentally OCed the computer), and had a CTD while accidentally OCed. And there are plenty of others with higher specs than I do that gets CTD crashes regularly. Looking at this forum alone make it feel like it has a high fail rate. But then how many Civ 4 gamers actually goes onto this forum.

Still, I think most other companies at least managed to get the game to run out of the box at a rate higher than 80%. =)

Bugs, CTDs, etc, - a computer program will always have some of these however, so as long as they don't come in droves after release the product can be acceptable. Right now, Civ IV doesn't seem to be that acceptable.

Oh we're complicated as hell, yeah, but I'm sure if I put some kind of poison in everyone in this thread's food, we'd all get sick. There are also stuff that "normal" person don't get sick from, while others will die from - like shellfish, or peanuts. IMO Civ 4 bugs being talked about here are more like food allergies. It isn't like everyone will get a CTD on turn 40. It's like some people get Cheshire Cat, some see only the bread yields, while others don't have any problem (beside an unoptimized engine). Large computer programs usually have much higher complexity than food safety, and as complexity rises, so are those pesky annoying to find bugs.

Precisely why I used the allergy analogy ^_~. Note that the strict food testing standards I refer to also cover allergies.

 

[Psyringe]

(Note: I am in haste right now, I hope I can still express myself unambiguously)

@Zinegata: Okay. In my previous post I explained why I thought your logic had a hole. You bridged that hole with the distinction between objective and subjective criteria. So, in conclusion, I can understand your reasoning and I don't think it is "wrong". I happen to have a different opinion though.

You say that the worst sin that a game can commit is not to fulfill its purpose, i.e. not entertaining its player. You say that this entertainment must start right out of the box, to prevent any annoyances. But you draw a strong distinction between the possible reasons for that. If the game is not entertaining because of gameplay issues, then you don't see much wrong with that, because these are subjective matters. Hoiwever, if the game is not entertaining because of technical reasons, then this is a serious problem.

I can understand this line of reasoning, but mine is different. I think about the user, not in abstract categories like "subjective" or "objective". The user wants to have a good time with the game. If he doesn't have that, then in practice it doesn't matter whether this is due to subjective gameplay reasons or objective technical reasons. Why should I care about such an academic distinction? When a game isn't fun, I sell it, or I shelve it, no matter what exactly is the reason.

*If* I'd draw a distinction, I'd say that technical problems are far better for me than gameplay issues. Technical issues are very likely to be solved by a patch, all I have to do is wait a little. Gameplay issues may be deliberate. The designers may just have designed the gameplay in a way that I don't like. In that case, I'm probably out of luck. I won't get much enjoyment out of the game. Patches may alter the gameplay, but not drastically. A patch won't redesign a game. So, from a customer point of view, a game with just technical issues will in the long run be better for me than a game with gameplay issues. Which is exactly the opposite from your point of view.


Some additional remarks to things you said:

So you would object to any attempt to force the gaming industry to adopt a standard where you would never have been annoyed in the first place?

No, I wouldn't object such an attempt. I'm mostly impartial towards it, because it wouldn't change much. As I said: What I care about, is the end product, not the steps in between. Because this is the version that I will play most. It just doesn't matter that much whether something is released in November and patched till August, or whether it is released more thoroughly tested in August without any previous release. If I have to make a choice, I prefer the November release, because this gives me the chance to play the game months earlier. Yes, there's a risk involved, as I may not be able to play the game until a patch arrives. But that's a risk I take, and that can be minimized by testing the game before I buy it. The November release may actually achieve "near-perfect" status sooner because one million of customers will find difficulties much faster than a few dozen game testers. And even if I make a mistake, I can resell the game with minimal loss. (I could resell Civ4 with a profit if I wanted.)

Besides, none of these games offered as crippling as a disability as Civ IV - one of out five that cannot run out of the box? Come on! That is a catastrophe!

Just for the record, that specific claim is not backed up by the poll mentioned. According to the poll, about 5% of people cannot run the game out of the box; the other 15% *can* run it, but won't, due to bugs. Which is still too much, btw, and will have to be fixed.

Firaxis, with its poor showing in the technical side, does not deserve the automatic trust being afforded to it by many fans. I myself honestly have not had much trust in them since Civilization III. They're not the company that they were before.

Honestly, I see no difference. Civ3 and SMAC, as well as Civ2 (not Firaxis, but comparable due to personnell overlap) had massive issues on release. They always corrected them. They never were coding wizards, but made up for that with excellent design. The only thing that they never got right in Civ2 and SMAC was the utterly stupid AI, something that has changed since Soren Johnson is on the project. The AI still needs massive bonuses to be competitive, but as opposed to e.g. SMAC, it can at least move its units now in a sensible manner. (The AI was the single downfall of the otherwise brilliantly designed SMAC, I would gladly pay full price anytime for a simple remake of SMAC with the sole addition of an AI that can play it. Incidentally, a remake of SMAC may be possible with the modding abilities of Civ4.)

Despite rough beginings, I've had more fun with SMAC or Civ3 than with most other games I ever bought. Actually, I've had more fun with SMAC or Civ3 than with almost anything else I ever bought for a comparable price. I think my trust in Firaxis is well deserved.

But of course, only time can really tell. Let's see how it turns out.

 

[Kilroy]

I guess nearly the entire computer gaming industry should be going out of business then, eh?

Well, many developers are getting bought up by the big publishing houses these days. That's not always because they're floundering of course. In the case of Firaxis, I wonder how much money they actually made off Civ3, considering the game was essentially in beta at release and development continued on it for over a year after the first copies hit the shelves.

 

[Kilroy]

*If* I'd draw a distinction, I'd say that technical problems are far better for me than gameplay issues.

Usually I'd disagree, but in the case of Firaxis I think you're mostly right. Buggy as the Civ3 release was, they did work their ass off fixing it long after the game had stopped selling like hotcakes. At some level they obviously do care about building and maintaining the franchise. Compare this to Activision with CtP, where they had poor support for the first one and pulled support and canceled the franchise within a month after release of the second. And this is just in the same genre. Buggy releases with half-ass support (or any at all, for that matter) are far to common in gaming these days. Incidentally, you can count on this problem migrating to console systems as well as things like X-Box Live become more ubiquitous.

Anyhow, the point of all this is that usually I'd actually take crappy gameplay over technical issues most of the time. If the game is just crappy, I can toss it aside and never worry about it again. I don't care about any patch because the game sucks and I don't care. I'm also less likely to buy it since bad gameplay usually translates into worse reviews when compared to technical issues, game reviewers being as maddeningly forgiving as they are and what-not. With technical issues you're waiting for a patch to make a good game playable and since you've already bought it, you're essentially at the mercy of the developers good graces and commitment to the franchise. In that case you're usually screwed, in my experience - though as a said before Firaxis has been an exception to that so far...