Why put out an unfinished game?

[SuperJay]

I assume you say this because SC2 is just StarCraft 2010 Championship Edition, and you would rather have Blizzard give you Civ IV 2010 Championship Edition then have them try anything new with Civ V.

This is an interesting - it would seem that the same guy who complains about people beating dead horses and repeating the same posts over and over has no problems trotting out that old, moth-eaten "You just wanted Civ 4.5" line again and again and again.

So you enjoy Civ5 and it's your favorite in the series - that's cool, I'm glad you like it. But at least be consistent in your standards, and try holding yourself to them once in awhile.

 

[ohioastronomy]

No, they're swimming in money because of the success of their products, most notably, World of Warcraft, which, when it launched, was a bug infested mess that was barely playable for almost a month. People falling through the world, servers crashing left and right, constant rubber banding, quests that wouldn't complete, magical disappearing loot, etc.

Selective memory runs rampant here, kind of like everyone remembering the Civ IV release as some kind of launch day golden child.

I'm sorry but I have to challenge this characterization. You see, I actually played World of Warcraft at launch, and the things that you're saying about it are flatly and completely wrong.

It worked *extremely well*, in contrast to all of the other MMOs that were out. Glitches were far *less* common than competitors, not far more common. It ran on low-end machines. And the gameplay itself was much simpler - you leveled faster, there were glowing highlights over quest-givers, and there was an enormous amount of content. There were problems - but they were far, far, far less than anyone had seen before in a game of that size. And many of them came from the utterly over-the-top popularity; they couldn't add new servers fast enough.

In short, I don't recognize the game that I played *at all* in the way that you're dismissing it. Just as I don't see the Civ 4 that I actually played in the gross exaggerations of it's flaws - apparently a lot of Civ 5 defenders, including the game designers, like to attack the previous version for being awful in lots of ways that don't even remotely match my experiences.

The point stands - Blizzard got it's reputation by being meticulous in stability and game design and it has been consistently true in everything that they do. Other firms, like 2K, have not - and it's well worth pointing that out and holding them to such a higher standard.

 

[testdummy653]

EmpireOfCats, I can't help but feel a big part of your admiration of Valve and Blizzard is their attitude towards Mac users.

I was playing Civ III on my Mac, for like 6 months after they released Civ IV. Since i don't own any non-Apple computers, i was watching and waiting for cIV for mac... Them taking so long is the reason why i never really enjoyed cIV.

In a serious note, ad hominen attacks don't prove points, they just prove ignorance.

 

[vandyr]

I'm sorry but I have to challenge this characterization. You see, I actually played World of Warcraft at launch, and the things that you're saying about it are flatly and completely wrong.

No, they aren't. You're either lying about playing it at launch, or suffering from extremely selective memory. Lag and rubberbanding were horrendous, quests were broken, servers for the first two weeks were up down constantly, players were falling through the world, quests were broken or incomplete. While I commend Blizzard for ironing these problems out quickly, some of it persisted for up to two months.

It worked *extremely well*, in contrast to all of the other MMOs that were out.

The only other mmo to launch at the same time as WoW was Lineage 2 (launched just before WoW), which, by comparison, was damn near perfect, not to mention being light years ahead graphically, than World of Warcraft. Current MMO's, such as EQ and AC were very stable at this point. The only really bad MMO at this time was Anarchy Online, which had probably the worst launch in mmo history to date as far as stability and bugs.

 

[testdummy653]

I'm sorry but I have to challenge this characterization. You see, I actually played World of Warcraft at launch, and the things that you're saying about it are flatly and completely wrong.

It worked *extremely well*, in contrast to all of the other MMOs that were out. Glitches were far *less* common than competitors, not far more common. It ran on low-end machines. And the gameplay itself was much simpler - you leveled faster, there were glowing highlights over quest-givers, and there was an enormous amount of content. There were problems - but they were far, far, far less than anyone had seen before in a game of that size. And many of them came from the utterly over-the-top popularity; they couldn't add new servers fast enough.

In short, I don't recognize the game that I played *at all* in the way that you're dismissing it. Just as I don't see the Civ 4 that I actually played in the gross exaggerations of it's flaws - apparently a lot of Civ 5 defenders, including the game designers, like to attack the previous version for being awful in lots of ways that don't even remotely match my experiences.

The point stands - Blizzard got it's reputation by being meticulous in stability and game design and it has been consistently true in everything that they do. Other firms, like 2K, have not - and it's well worth pointing that out and holding them to such a higher standard.

Comparing Blizzard MMO and CiV should not be done. MMO is a mostly subscription-based process... AKA if the game sucks people stop paying every month. So yes when blizzard releases all it expansion packs they have to be good or people will stop paying, and when there bugs they will fix them asap.

Sure you can compare DLC to something a subscription MMO, or you can say they need the money for server usage. But really the subscription, plus actually buying the game expansion pack, makes them so much money.

Money talks.

 

[Jharii]

It worked *extremely well*, in contrast to all of the other MMOs that were out.

I respectfully and heartily disagree. Lagfests and server crashes were abundant for at least 2 months. Crossroads, Tarren Mill, Ashenvale/Astranaar/Splintertree. All slide shows. You could almost start pinpointing when the overload was going to crash the servers. It was bad. Bad times 10.

And yes, there were a lot of other bugs. Let's also just say that /stuck was macro'd.

 

[vandyr]

Even LOTRO, which was touted as one of the best mmo launches ever, didn't have skills for some of the classes past level 40 for up to a year, among other missing features. Its just the nature of the business.

 

[Vellis]

I'm sorry but I have to challenge this characterization. You see, I actually played World of Warcraft at launch, and the things that you're saying about it are flatly and completely wrong.

It worked *extremely well*, in contrast to all of the other MMOs that were out. Glitches were far *less* common than competitors, not far more common. It ran on low-end machines. And the gameplay itself was much simpler - you leveled faster, there were glowing highlights over quest-givers, and there was an enormous amount of content. There were problems - but they were far, far, far less than anyone had seen before in a game of that size. And many of them came from the utterly over-the-top popularity; they couldn't add new servers fast enough.

In short, I don't recognize the game that I played *at all* in the way that you're dismissing it. Just as I don't see the Civ 4 that I actually played in the gross exaggerations of it's flaws - apparently a lot of Civ 5 defenders, including the game designers, like to attack the previous version for being awful in lots of ways that don't even remotely match my experiences.

The point stands - Blizzard got it's reputation by being meticulous in stability and game design and it has been consistently true in everything that they do. Other firms, like 2K, have not - and it's well worth pointing that out and holding them to such a higher standard.

I played at launch too, but since it's already been pointed out three times that you're suffering from selective memory I won't go there =p

What I do want to point out is that other game developers don't have the luxury of time that Blizzard and Valve have. Blizzard has WoW subs and Valve has Steam. Neither one of them have to rely on investors or sales of their next title to continue operation, because they both have a magical source of income that will likely never go away. A company like Firaxis doesn't have that luxury. They have to develop the best product they can with the amount of time and money they're allotted by their budget and investors.

In the case of Civ V they obviously ran out of one or the other before completing the product that they wanted, but that's how the real world of software development works. I'm not going to say they didn't make any mistakes along the way, because I can't say for certain that they did or didn't. What you have to realize is that most developers are forced to play by a different set of rules than Blizzard.

 

[cr0ws]

This game is so bugged I literally had centipedes and spiders run out of the box when I opened it!

 

[PieceOfMind]

I was playing Civ III on my Mac, for like 6 months after they released Civ IV. Since i don't own any non-Apple computers, i was watching and waiting for cIV for mac... Them taking so long is the reason why i never really enjoyed cIV.

In a serious note, ad hominen attacks don't prove points, they just prove ignorance.

Wow, I certainly didn't intend it as an attack. I'm sorry that you read it that way and perhaps felt the need to defend yourself. I am pretty sure I have read threads where EmpireOfCats has used both companies as good examples of how games producers should approach both PC and Mac users. This is not an attempt to discredit his or your position, just to remind him of another point that perhaps shouldn't go unmentioned. If you note the smilie at the end, you'd realise I was trying to keep things friendly.

And your closing comment is just uncalled for. Maybe you are taking this too seriously?

 

[EmpireOfCats]

EmpireOfCats, I can't help but feel a big part of your admiration of Valve and Blizzard is their attitude towards Mac users.

That doesn't hurt, no . But I've been a very impressed customer for both companies for a while:

Exhibit A: Blizzard is still putting out patches for Diablo II, including (minor) new features. After what, ten years? EDIT: Oh, and yes, they made sure it works on OS X and not only OS 9 for the Mac. Nice.

Exhibit B: When I first registered with Steam for Left 4 Dead, as a lark, I typed in the code on my original HalfLife CD (not: DVD). Guess what, it not only worked, it gave me access to about six other games for free. I finally played BlueShift.

There are a lot of things that they do wrong, of course -- Left 4 Dead 2 is inferior to the first version, dumbed-down, console-orientated, with weak characters, mostly pathetic maps, and bots that seem to have the same model AI as Civ V. But I can't see either company releasing a game that was simply not finished the way 2K has with Civ V. This is not so much about Blizzard or Valve being good but 2K being bad.

 

[Jharii]

Exhibit A: Blizzard is still putting out patches for Diablo II,

But... but... they only release perfect, finished games!

I jest, I jest.

 

[vandyr]

But... but... they only release perfect, finished games!

I jest, I jest.

Hell, Sony is still putting out entire expansions for Everquest from 1999, but everybody hates Sony

 

[Abegweit]

And it was all ATI cards. If you think that they missed that in playtesting... well, I have a bridge to sell you...

Sounds like you already bought one. BTW, I had an ATI card at the time and it worked perfectly for me so I could understand how they might overlook it.

 

[Bushface]

I think that a warning sticker should be applied to every copy of Civ 5 in the shops, with a similar display on every on-line seller's site. Something like this :-
WARNING ! This is a beta version. You may find bugs which cause stated gameplay features not to work, balance issues making one line of development vastly superior to all others, and absence of the complexity which you may have found attractive in previous Civilization games. Please post your comments on any forum devoted to Civilization 5 or direct to the developers, but note that such feedback will probably be ignored.
This game requires an internet connection to be playable, as it uses "Steam", a service which will clutter your computer and delay loading and closing down and also loads patches automatically: that will render any saved games unplayable.

Unfortunately, a warning of this type was not available before release.

 

[vandyr]

I think that a warning sticker should be applied to every copy of Civ 5 in the shops, with a similar display on every on-line seller's site. Something like this :-
WARNING ! This is a beta version. You may find bugs which cause stated gameplay features not to work, balance issues making one line of development vastly superior to all others, and absence of the complexity which you may have found attractive in previous Civilization games. Please post your comments on any forum devoted to Civilization 5 or direct to the developers, but note that such feedback will probably be ignored.
This game requires an internet connection to be playable, as it uses "Steam", a service which will clutter your computer and delay loading and closing down and also loads patches automatically: that will render any saved games unplayable.

Unfortunately, a warning of this type was not available before release.

Too long. The warning should just state "Warning: This title may cause you to go emo"

 

[PieceOfMind]

That doesn't hurt, no . But I've been a very impressed customer for both companies for a while:

Exhibit A: Blizzard is still putting out patches for Diablo II, including (minor) new features. After what, ten years? EDIT: Oh, and yes, they made sure it works on OS X and not only OS 9 for the Mac. Nice.

Exhibit B: When I first registered with Steam for Left 4 Dead, as a lark, I typed in the code on my original HalfLife CD (not: DVD). Guess what, it not only worked, it gave me access to about six other games for free. I finally played BlueShift.

There are a lot of things that they do wrong, of course -- Left 4 Dead 2 is inferior to the first version, dumbed-down, console-orientated, with weak characters, mostly pathetic maps, and bots that seem to have the same model AI as Civ V. But I can't see either company releasing a game that was simply not finished the way 2K has with Civ V. This is not so much about Blizzard or Valve being good but 2K being bad.

I too would not put 2K very high on my personal publisher rankings (not that I have any, but if I did ). After all, they're the ones to thank for the 60% price-hikes on Steam. But personally I'm not a fan of Blizzard games... I liked Warcraft II but that's about it, so unfortunately I don't really follow their recent performances.

Thanks to Steam, Valve are pretty much in my face all the time now. I do play TF2 though, which I enjoy.

Anyway, I see you've said that it's not so much about Valve or Blizzard being good, but 2K bad. I wonder then, what other comparable publishers are there that would be worth mentioning? What is 2K relative to other publishers? Not that I've looked into it much, but I don't get the impression that 2K are atypically bad. Lots of games seem to get released buggy these days.

 

[Jharii]

Sounds like you already bought one. BTW, I had an ATI card at the time and it worked perfectly for me so I could understand how they might overlook it.

Really? What model? Because the issue spanned a huge gambit of cards, particularly since the issue was a compatibility issue with the chipset itself.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-133106.html
http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2208259-81-1.aspx

Heck, Firaxis even had to patch it themselves.

http://www.firaxis.com/support/support_detail.php?gameid=6&cat=2

So, either you were one of the rare (unique, perhaps?) few without the issue or you are misremembering. Either scenarios is possible. But if you do just a little bit of searching, you will see that the issue was rampant.

Even more comical was the fact that many packages contained duplicates of DISK 1 on both disks, even though the second was labeled DISK 2. The latter happened to me as well.

 

[Jharii]

Anyway, I see you've said that it's not so much about Valve or Blizzard being good, but 2K bad. I wonder then, what other comparable publishers are there that would be worth mentioning? What is 2K relative to other publishers? Not that I've looked into it much, but I don't get the impression that 2K atypically bad. Lots of games seem to get released buggy these days.

I would categorize BioWare as a company that has very solid releases. Their reputation has been rather stellar for a decade, and even longer if you go all the way back to Shattered Steel (one of the most underrated games ever, imho).

 

[vandyr]

I would categorize BioWare as a company that has very solid releases. Their reputation has been rather stellar for a decade, and even longer if you go all the way back to Shattered Steel (one of the most underrated games ever, imho).

I like me some BioWare. And Black Isle (R.I.P. ) and Arena Net.