Psyringe said:
(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.
Absolutely right =).
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.
Not exactly. What I said is that it's, for the most part, useless to debate about gameplay quibbles for they are
subjective. The opinion will vary from person to person and there is (mostly) no objective standard that we can base our decisions on. It may be possible to reduce gameplay down to an objective analysis (which I've tried to do in Apolyton, in discussing the spearmen killing tanks issue), but as a whole subjective issues is something that's pretty much useless to debate, because no universal conclusion will come out of it. Some people just like the game, others don't. No need to make a fuss over all of it.
Thus, if a game has gameplay you don't like, don't buy it, which is worst to a company than complaining about their product. I certainly would never buy something coming out of Derek Smart, for example, after first hand experience of what he terms as "gameplay" (and that's already putting technical issues aside). However, I'm not going to tell Smart to stop releasing games with that sort of gameplay. If he wants to provide that sort of entertainment, and there
are some people who like that kind of entertainment, I've no right to stop them.
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.
Because the objective and subjective elements combine to form an overall experience for the player. A good game can be brought down by technical issues, while a technically sound game can be brought down by bad gameplay. In the first case, I refer to a wonderful quote said so many years ago -
"How good can a game be if it won't even install?". The player can't even try the game out, so any enjoyment he may have derived from the subjective elements would be automatically denied to him.
On the other hand, if the technical performance is sound, but the gameplay sucks, the game won't sell either. Sure, the game runs, but if I'm not enjoying it, I won't play it either.
I refer to Blizzard and Paradox as the gold standard merely on the objective, technical issues. Their games run out of the box and they are well-supported. I've never said however, that subjectively both companies deliver superior gameplay. However I can say that I personally like the gameplay both companies deliver, as do many thousands of others (millions, in the case of Blizzard).
*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.
And my whole point since the beginning is that patches are simply an excuse used by gaming companies and apologists to deliver a technically unsound product. In any industry (other than software, it seems), a 1% failure rate already represents an extremely high rate of failure, the sort that gets brand and factory managers sacked. If a company wants to release a piece of software, it should at least fulfill the criteria of being able to run out of the box.
Minor technical glitches are acceptable. It's unreasonable to ask for fixing a CTD problem, for example, if it will occur only once a year in 99.99% of computers. However, glitches that result in the total failure of the product are not acceptable. Firaxis/Take 2 can thus in no way be considered as a gold standard company in terms of technical support. Their patch releases merely represent a belated effort to make up for something
that should never have happened in the first place. Whoever ordered the release date moved up should be sacked.
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.
And as I've mentioned, not all players will display the same patience. I display the same patience, and I do rate some technical flops highly if I like their game play. However, even if I do have patience I refuse to be inconsiderate to other people who are unable to run the game. They deserve to be able to play the game as much as you or I do, and if the gaming company fails to deliver, it's our duty to call them on it.
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.)
And again, not all consumers would test the game first (I did, and I'm glad I did because the game wouldn't run on my PC. Lack of memory, it seems). Besides, why not release a demo first now instead of a flakey retail version? It would satisfy your need to try out the game while lessening the problems of the game not being able to run out of the box.
Frankly, Firaxis/Take 2 did the community a disservice by moving up the release date. They're not worthy of the loyalty being showed by their fans.
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.
Assuming Civ IV sells only a million copies (a conservative figure), that's 50,000 people who can't run the game.
Assuming Civ IV sells more, let's say 2 million, that's 100,000 people who can't run the game.
100,000 is more people than all the members of Civfanatics and Apolyton combined.
In business, a 1% failure rate for a consumer product is not acceptable. 5%? Close to catastrophic.
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.
My Civ 2 ran fine out of the box, as well as SMAC. I've never encountered anyone who was able to run either game out of the box either.
They always corrected them. They never were coding wizards, but made up for that with excellent design.
Civ 2 and SMAC had excellent design, I'll agree. However (and this is subjective) Civ 3 was utterly bad to the point I boycotted it. Civilization is a strategy game. There is no strategy in Civ III. Even Vel, the famed writer of the SMAC guy, gave up on it after he realized that there was but one strategy to success in that game - massive expansion, big armies, and exploiting the AI to buy and sell techs. You didn't even need to research yourself.
And Civ 2 and SMAC were both written by excellent coders by my estimation. They got the game to run on Pentium Is with only 8 MB of RAM, and without massive slowdowns. Civ III needed a system nearly eight times more powerful but suffered massive slowdowns until patches. Civ IV needed another eightfold increase in computing power and is a technical flop. It's more a case of they
had great coders but not they don't.
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.)
I've never been a fan of Soren Johnson, and I have to say bluntly that his A.I. improvements (and I do know something of the subject, objectively) is a joke. They were not achieved by improving the computer's ability to make smarter decisions. The A.I., for example, still adheres to the same "send every unit to the nearest city" attack algorithm. It cannot do even the simplest of the non-linear strategies: the feint. And the unit pathfinding it still poor, and the Civ A.I. is still unable to cope with seas and oceans. The Civ III A.I., frankly, for all intents and purposes, is the Civ II A.I.
The only reason why the Civ III A.I. is so competetive is because the player was stripped of his tools, or the rules were bended to accomodate the A.I.'s shortcomings. Point by point, here are some of the primary things done to make the A.I. seem better when it's really the same A.I. in use since Civ II (maybe even Civ I!)
1) The 4-turn tech limit. All techs now took a minimum of 4 turns to research. This was done because the A.I. was incapable of producing the mega science cities human players could build. So, instead of making an A.I. that can build a great science infrastructure, they put a cap on the speed you can get techs. Result: People stopped bothering with techs and they just dumped it all on cash. The A.I. would be willing to sell techs anyway (and the player could resell them right back).
2) New stacking rules. The reason why the A.I. seemed dumbed before was because it moved units in stacks. However, in Civ 2, all you needed to do was to eliminate the top defender to kill a stack. So, they took out the "kill the top defender" rule in Civ 3. Thus, the computer seems to be a more competent opponent, but it's still not really "smarter".
3) Taking away firepower. This one is just lovely. This was done so that even obsolete units could stand a chance against more modern ones. Why? Because the A.I. is bad at upgrading and still used obsolete units in the field. So, he gave those obsolete units a chance so that it would seem the A.I. is tougher.
I could list a lot more areas where the Civ III team simply cut features (i.e. spying, since the A.I. didn't know how to use spies) because the A.I. couldn't handle it, but the gist of it is this: The Civ III A.I. is not smarter except perhaps in very tiny increments. It is still essentially the same A.I. as Civ II. Soren made the A.I more challenging, but he did this by throwing away almost all strategy in a
strategy game.
But again, if you enjoy it, it's your cup of tea.
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.
Frankly, I trust Brian and not Firaxis at it is today, and I definitely have little trust in Soren. The main reason I'm interested in Civ IV is that they at least re-instated that depth of civic development the game once had in SMAC (I love the concept of cottages, forges, etc). I'm also willing to give the game a chance when I can actually get the thing to run. But right now, to me whatever luster Firaxis once had is gone. I don't rush to buy their games anymore, and I approach any game I buy from them with skepticism.
