 |
|  |
 |
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001 time: 06:16
|
|
I mean, there are many wich say that this game is not good, that they will return it etc...
The game is very much playable as it is.
Personally, the only problem I see, is that game was rushed a bit.
Now, some people will say that CTP & CTP2 have died because they where RUSHED.
But, there is a difference.
Civ games have BIG fan base, so menu people will like it anyway, which leads to possibility for expansion, cash income, etc...
Conclusion, it pays of to PATCH it regulary.
CTP games had naever had big fan base & Activision was never skilled enough to make a game BALANCED. In fact more people played game moded that in original (mostly CD-mod & Med-mod)
So, they quit CTP1 before it was propely patched & rebalanced. Then they said that they did because they where doing CTP2. Now many people thought that they will finaly do it right, but insted to improve gameplay of CTP1, thay inserted some new features, wich where not propely tested (diplomacy in CTP2 doesn't really work between AIs, AI was the WORST, etc...), and not done it time (game would probably be better if they tried doing CTP1.5).
Then, game was rushed, people didn't bought the game & Activision said NO WAY, we don't wan't lose the money anymore & game was abadoned.
Pity, it had much potential & it was the only civ game in wich I could PRORAGM AI (I had a limied succed because of lack of good documentation, but it did improve AI very much)
I'll miss programming AI in Civ3!
Now the problems of civ3.
If we buy the game they will patch it, if we not it will end like CTP2.
Probably it won't end like that because of ALL GOOD REVIEWS.
Editor (patch)
Unit rebalanced (patch), but I don't think that they'll chage combat sistem, so losing from bosolete units could still be a problem
Corruption (Sohren Jonson said PATCH)
Bombing Issuses (maybe PATCH)
Starting location (PATCH)
MP (probably expansion, maybe some simple MP in patch, like PBEM or Hotseat)
Now why do I think that they will patch it & not live us like Activision:
first, leaving will ruin Sids reputation
second, why do you think they are lurking these froums, probably to tarck bugs & game imbalances (for Patch)
Third, if they plan MP expansion, than they should make SP functional before it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Unknown
|
|
What do you mean, multiplayer will probably be installed in an expansion??? That's terrible! Strategy games today are EXPECTED to have some form of multiplayer, this is absolutely necessary. I will be VERY annoyed if the first (or at least the second) patch does not include MP. Please, please, please do not get so greedy that you release MP for another 50 bucks, Firaxis. My opinion of your company will decline dramatically.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Roulette
|
|
Surprise shock and amazement. PC games need a patch more than 90% of the time. Wanna know why? Because they are more complicated than console games, have higher expectations, and a wider array of hardware and software requirements to satisfy. Beta testing helps, but few PC games are perfect in the first release. It's something gamers put up with because we understand the difficulty involved.
So sit back, chill, and wait impatiently for the patch from Soren and the rest of Firaxis.
BTW, great job on this game guys! I'm hooked!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Libertarian
|
|
[...wagging finger...]
I'll have you know that writing bug-free programs is a piece of cake. I've done it before. I opened my VB, cracked my knuckles, set a few properties, typed in a line of code, and clicked "Run".
And voila! It said, "Hello World" in big blue letters.
There's no excuse for Firaxis releasing its two bugs.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lord Maxwell
|
|
Uppsala - Sweden
Dec 1999 time: 05:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roulette
Surprise shock and amazement. PC games need a patch more than 90% of the time. Wanna know why? Because they are more complicated than console games, have higher expectations, and a wider array of hardware and software requirements to satisfy. Beta testing helps, but few PC games are perfect in the first release. It's something gamers put up with because we understand the difficulty involved. |
No, I don't understand the difficulty involved. I understand the laziness and money hungriness involved, but I don't understand the difficulty. (And I am software engineer by the way.) It's pure greed from Firaxis/Infogrammes that made this game come out without several of the most important things even in the game.
Multiplayer will most likely be added in an expansion, milking you for another $25 for a game you thought was done.
And there are a lot of console games with higher complexity than many PC games that still don't require patches. When you know that you can never fix it once it leaves shop you work a bit harder.
I must admit that I am hooked by the game. But it's cheap, and won't keep me hooked.
quote: Originally posted by Libertarian
[...wagging finger...]
I'll have you know that writing bug-free programs is a piece of cake. I've done it before. I opened my VB, cracked my knuckles, set a few properties, typed in a line of code, and clicked "Run".
And voila! It said, "Hello World" in big blue letters.
There's no excuse for Firaxis releasing its two bugs. |
You are actually good if you got Hello World to run without bugs in VB. Sucky programming language.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JustJoe
|
|
Alexandria, Virginia
Nov 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
Well, We all know they could have held the game back and finished things here and there that are known problems, and usually the programmers, testers and such have no control over it. It appears to me that the Money counters needed to beef up numbers before the end of the year and wanted something to be around for the holidays and that is why this was rushed out the door. Dont blame the guy at the PC in the jeans and Fat Albert T, with the Jolt IV and Cheezy Puffs programming the game, Blame the guy in the Suit, Driving the Benz drinking his Latte...
Those money guys have WAY more power than a lowly programmer...And they are ultimetly to blame on the Sell now, patch later mentality...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Auslander
|
 |
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Oct 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lord Maxwell
No, I don't understand the difficulty involved. I understand the laziness and money hungriness involved, but I don't understand the difficulty. (And I am software engineer by the way.) It's pure greed from Firaxis/Infogrammes that made this game come out without several of the most important things even in the game. |
If you don't understand the difficulty in developing software and making it compatible with different hardware, then your NO software engineer. I don't care what title your company gave you. MS Access is not a software development tool.
Last edited by Auslander on 07-11-2001 at 21:47
|
|
|  |
 |
|
morb
|
 |
San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA
Nov 2001 time: 21:16
|
|
I think giving pikemen and indirect ability to repell attacks from modern type weapos/troops is absurd. If a civ is so far behind that they don't have the ability to defend themselves with more modern weapons, it should be expected they lose instead of put up a battle, let alone win it. What is then the point of even having more potent weapons? Just so you don't get bored? If I have an obviously superior weapon, I want an obviously decisive victory. The point of advancement is to gain an advantage, not to just remain competative. This bugs.
quote: Originally posted by Grumbold
The only people complaining about hardware compatability faults are those experiencing them. Its the universal software bugs that are annoying.
Programs are never bug free when they are first written. Part of the development is iterative test and fix cycles. When lots of bugs get through to the live code, either there was inadequate testing, insufficuient cylces or someone decided to release "as is" despite knowing the problems. I'm not suggesting Firaxis need the sort of painstaking cycle they use for developing command and control software for navy ships (otherwise Civ III would be slated for release in 2004, probably slipping to 2006) but there is a lower limit that I believe they failed to reach.
Peter Triggs, check out the release party highlights. I think it was there. |
That's it right there. Infogrames (what kind of name is that anyway?) seems to have inharited MicroProse' bad habbits. The last time MicroProse released a game which didn't need an immediate patch to be playable, was when it cost $3.50 (tree fitty for non-southpark fans) to see a movie in the theater.
Some unforseen bugs can always be expected to crop up esp. when it comes to compatibilities. Its simply impossible to account for every possible combination of hardware/software in a closed test, so I welcome those kinds of patches. But in civ3, we have a game with missing features, blatent neglect of known bugs and overall a game which doesn't deserve to be sold for $50 "regular" and $60 "special edition." The movies included nobody cares about anyway, the tin can is nice, but by itself isn't a selling point and I remember buying games (farely recently) which came with reference cards and "tech or stat sheets/posters" in the regular edition. They just wanted your money, but didn't have anything "extra" or "special" to offer.
I think both Firaxis and Infogrames are to blame here. Firaxis for not doing a thorough/limited public type beta and Infogrames for being the greedy little *****es that they are.
I know the game is fixable, but that's not the point. I'm not just *****ing for the fack of it, I obviously care about civ3 and the game industry at large or I wouldn't even be typing this. Its sad to see potential wasted.
Brian Reynolds left because he wanted no part of this type of business. The people at Blizzard show how its done with every game they DO release. Their games are never flawless, but they don't require patches just to fix what was obviously brocken when released. When they patch something, its usually some obscure hardware incompatibility, cheat lockouts, rare happenstance type bugs or minor game imbalances.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tani
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Auslander
If you don't understand the difficulty in developing software and making it compatible with different hardware, then your NO software engineer. I don't care what title your company gave you. MS Access is not a software development tool. |
there are two main branch of bugs - implementation vs logic. we are talking about logical ones, how the concepts were not well developed (eg. high corruption rate as a problem is a logical one, not caused by a typo, ie. not implementation), not about how it doesn't work with a certain video card. the console games are simply not patchable, if there's any logical error/bugs, it's dead. pc games on the other hand can be fixed with a patch. the difficulties in regards to logical error/bugs are the same between the two type of game developers. any software engineer would know the difference (or the lack thereof in this regard).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
aderen
|
|
SomePlace
Nov 2000 time: 05:16
|
|
most bugs are hard to spot and occur at wierd cirumstances.
civ3 bugs (misfeatures) occur every single time you play the game.
It appears to me that the developers have never played the game or the testers did a really bad job. Public beta would obviously uncover most unbalances and bugs that everyone is complaining now. I guess we all are just beta testing the game for $50 bugs. Maybe infrogames was cheat and didn't want to spend money on testers, so they let the customers do that job.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|