Why didn't any review sites...

[Bobolini]

have the problems we are? I find that quite odd.

 

[Shepherdboy]

Perhaps they reviewed beta copies and were told that problems would be fixed in the release. I think most reviews of pre-released software focus on the supposed features of the game and not problems that the beta release may have.

Shepherdboy

 

[Uty]

These places tend to have top notch hardware. Average users tend not to.

 

[goonie61]

i was thinking the same thing, a review for a pc game should include its playability. like the bugs in the game, how much memory it uses, how it plays on a non super computer with super hardware.

 

[Shepherdboy]

It would be nice if the reviews let you know those things, but in the case where they are reviewing a beta, it is possible that problems with the beta would be cleared up by release. In that case it wouldn't be fair (or accurate) to report that the beta was buggy.

I think this may beg the question as to how useful pre-release reviews are. They may help you decide that you want to buy a game based on its promised features, but you'll still be taking the "bug" risk by purchasing it right away.

With many programs, I wait to see how they turn out for the user community before I buy. With Civ 4 I just couldn't wait. I'm ending up waiting anyway though--for the patch!

Shepherdboy

 

[venn]

Many review sites have a "retail only" policy.
I'm guessing they didn't find some of these problems cause of what's been mentioned before, the top notch hardware thing. It's not just high-end systems, it's high-end systems with quality hardware. None would have a GeForce 5 series card, either.
Plus, ever seen the reviews for a hyped up movie? It's a possibility they're biased towards Civ 4, cause, hey, it's Civ 4.

 

[IQof20]

I used to review software for a living and I can certainly state quite clearly that I would not be working any longer nor getting any pre-release copies if I smacked someone down for bugs w/ abandon.

These folks expect feedback on bugs and playability but only expect you to write about the overall feel and topic of the game instead of bugs.

Not to say that you can't state that something was buggy (when you review enough software/games you eventually get a feel for what is critically flawed and what is just having some issues). However, you don't generally comment on something being flawed w/ bugs unless it really is riddled with them and that the feedback/support you are getting from the manufacturer during the review is minimal or nonexistant. Only then would I write something about it and then only after telling the vender that I was about to write about it in my article.

Unfortunately, this is the nature of the industry. Surprise!

 

[TheBarnacle]

These places tend to have top notch hardware. Average users tend not to.

this is probably true, but in that regard then, they're doing the readers a dis-service by not testing playability on various machines, etc. if i were to review a car and say "the hummer II is a fun tank to drive b/c you can intimidate other drivers and look cool doing it!!!" without telling you it gets less than 8 mpg (real world), then i'd be sort of irresponsible, huh?

regardless, i'm miffed at everyone on this. i'd just assume get my $$ back (not "store credit"!!!!!!!). i want cash in pocket.

 

[Uty]

Barnacle,

I have to admit .. I feel that in order for your analogy to hold true the reviewer would have to have access to better roads than the average driver.

 

[maartena]

have the problems we are? I find that quite odd.

They work for a company that can afford to replace their gaming hardware every year for the newest models. They will probably make sure they have at least the "Recommended Requirements" for each games, and probably will test the game on more then one machine - e.g. ATI vs NVidia.

Firaxis themselves of course also has fairly current gaming hardware to develop the game on. They may have tested it on a few older card, but since there are so many different cards out there they can't test them all.

Most reviewers and previewers get sent the "gold" code, which is usually ready about 1 month before the CD-presses start rolling. They'll just receive a CD-R disc set made internally by Firaxis which is why you see a lot of reviews in the 2 or 3 weeks prior to a release.

Then there are als previewers that get a beta version from Firaxis, but they are usually bound by restrictions as what they are allowed to write about. Sometimes beta versions come with features that aren't making it in the final game because it just didn't work out that well.

Either way, you can bet they probably aren't testing on any hardware older then 3 years, and they bought the good stuff 3 years ago.

They also buy complete major brand systems (so no build-your-self with possible hardware conflicts), and their systems are most like re-installed from a Ghost image after every game test where our computers have a Program Files folder that is longer then out screen can display.

In short: They have a much more optimized system then most of us.

 

[maartena]

this is probably true, but in that regard then, they're doing the readers a dis-service by not testing playability on various machines, etc. if i were to review a car and say "the hummer II is a fun tank to drive b/c you can intimidate other drivers and look cool doing it!!!" without telling you it gets less than 8 mpg (real world), then i'd be sort of irresponsible, huh?

regardless, i'm miffed at everyone on this. i'd just assume get my $$ back (not "store credit"!!!!!!!). i want cash in pocket.

A person that writes a review about a Hummer, will a drive a BRAND NEW Hummer, with ALL FEATURES, and probably double, triple checked by the manufacturor to make SURE there are no problems with the vehicle before any car magazine reporter is allowed to even drive it.

They aren't reviewing a Hummer that has been driven for 6 months, has been used in rough terrain, has pushed over a few trees, and had its rear exhaust replaced because someone drove over a rock that was too large.....

Bottomline is that they can test the game on a variety of machines and test hardware, and they have beta testers out there with a large variety of test machines, but they cannot test the game on EVERY machine and EVERY possible configuration, and when they develop a game that has hard-printed on the box it requires a video card with hardware T&L built in, why would they need to test it on a machine that has a video card that doesn't have that capability?

I see two major problem categories with trying to run the game:

- Those who have a laptop.
- Those who have a video card that is too old.

The first category is a problem with almost every game that has been released in 2 years and utilizes a 3D engine, and the second can be easily fixed by upgrading to a better hardware card.

There are a few others with problems that are not in those above categories, and I am sure those people will have a fix coming to them with the next patch, and in most cases they are minor bugs and graphics glitches that can be worked around.

 

[TheBarnacle]

Barnacle,

I have to admit .. I feel that in order for your analogy to hold true the reviewer would have to have access to better roads than the average driver.

no, you're talking about testing platforms and i'm talking about the ethics of disclosure.

frankly, i fell for the review b/c i assumed (wrongfully) that my machine, which meets the recommended specs, would run the game fine. had they told us "beware, certain cards don't seem to render properly", i might have done some investigation to find my machine wouldn't run it, and i wouldn't [probably] buy the game.

besides, car reviewers DO have better roads than the average driver!!!!

 

[vyshka]

It would be nice if the reviews let you know those things, but in the case where they are reviewing a beta, it is possible that problems with the beta would be cleared up by release. In that case it wouldn't be fair (or accurate) to report that the beta was buggy.

I think this may beg the question as to how useful pre-release reviews are. They may help you decide that you want to buy a game based on its promised features, but you'll still be taking the "bug" risk by purchasing it right away.

With many programs, I wait to see how they turn out for the user community before I buy. With Civ 4 I just couldn't wait. I'm ending up waiting anyway though--for the patch!

Shepherdboy

How would it not be fair or accurate to report that the beta was buggy, when the beta was buggy? What should be said in that case is that they were told these issues had been resolved in the gold build.

 

[Shepherdboy]

Because reporting that the beta was buggy doesn't reflect the state of the shipped game and would certainly turn some number of potential customers away. It's basically giving the developer the benefit of the doubt that the final release will have major bugs corrected before shipping.

Granted, nowdays there seem to be more and more games shipped with major problems. Some have suggested that it's because of the ease of delivering a patch. Maybe...

The only "old" game that I remember being really buggy at release was Pirates! Gold. I remember that there was a major crash bug in the release. In that version of Pirates, you had to go out behind the pub to swordfight people. In the initial release, when you went out behind the pub the game crashed. Microprose (the publisher of Pirates at that time) sent out a patch 3.5 floppy to those who registered or reqested the patch.

Shepherdboy

 

[Shepherdboy]

Oops sorry for the double-post!

 

[maartena]

The only "old" game that I remember being really buggy at release was Pirates! Gold.

I remember having to patch Wolfenstein 3D from its original release because it would boot back to DOS when trying to kill certain bosses, or lock you in an area where the key was not! . I believe there ended up being a v 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 by the time all the bugs were removed from it

There were some pretty major bugs in the original release of Grand Prix, if you would crash in a certain way it would bump you back to DOS, or you had the ability to leave the tracks by being launched from a crash (in a very unrealistic way) and end up on a green field far away from the tracks. You could actually drive around there, but eventually the game would just crash.

 

[!scorpion]

Because they get paid to write positive reviews.

 

[Old Dood]

I am looking forward to the next issue of PCGamer. They will rip apart a game if need be. They did not give glowing reviews on CIV III. I am real curious to what they will be saying about this release.