 |
|
Fabnadderer
|
|
Hi all,
I'm a long time lurker and player of Civ 2, SMAC, SMACX and now Civ 3.
I like this game. I don't like that air superiority doesn't work and neither do the fortresses nor the coastal fortresses. These can easily be fixed in the patch. There may be other bugs, but I haven't experienced them.
My only complaint is that I wouldn't be so confident that Firaxis will address your concerns. Doesn't anyone remember Alien Crossfire? Firaxis promised to fix that and they never did.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lord Maxwell
|
|
Uppsala - Sweden
Dec 1999 time: 05:16
|
|
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. |
MS Access isn't a software development tool. I know that after I lost a round of office politics and got a piece of old code in VBA for MS Access on my desk. It was pretty fun to wade throught the MS site with thousands of work arounds for known bugs. (Especially if you need to have the same application run in both Access 97 and Access 2000.)
Mostly I develop in more serious languages. (Including but not limited to C++, Smalltalk, Java, Prolog. I avoid VB whenever human possible.)
But the problems faced by Civ III aren't compatibility issues. It does fine in that area. (Far fewer complaints than most other games.)
It's the classic problem: The accountant decided it was finished, and shipped it. He decided it was finished to they could get some sales before christmas for the entire world.
I just think it's hilarious what crap we pay for when it comes to games.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Calanor
|
|
Uppsala, Sweden
Nov 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
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. |
Hmm, actually Access supports VBA, so I guess it is not completely unreasonable to call it a software development tool 
Besides, the issue here was not hardware incompatibilities, but rather missing or flawed features. Personally, I don't have any real problem when Civ III is concerned - I'm enjoying myself thoroughly. However, the lack of MP is a bit annoying - I did hope that they'd break the Civ tradition of releasing a "..Net" or "Ultimate.." version of the same game.
quote: Originally posted by morb
(snip..) 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. |
You can't be serious. Diablo II was riddled with bugs - many quite obvious and far from all of them system specific. Not only was it a crappy work of programming (something most who are experienced when it comes to coding would agree about - just ask the D2 hacking community), it featured imbalanced/useless/not properly tested skills, interface bugs, barbarians jumping through iron bars, severe memory leaks - oh well, the list could be made quite long. Blizz have managed to produce pretty bug-free products in the past, but since the release of D2 I don't feel that one could say that they "show how its done".
Last edited by Calanor on 23-11-2001 at 03:07
|
|
|  |
 |
|
taffarel
|
|
Edinburgh, Scotland
Nov 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
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. |
The man has a point. Games will always require patching due to new technology. I'm using a Kyro II graphics card (64Mb) and I've had to patch a couple of games to get them to run properly. Most people build their own machines and may have parts that don't conform with this or that, and occasionally cause game crashes. Software manufacturers cannot possibly cater for every single hardware configuration because there are literally millions.
That said, however, there is a lot of laziness around with PC developers. The worst being a game requiring machine specs that are too high. Most developers seem to assume all PC owners can afford the latest technology. (Take it from me that they can't!) There seems to be no effort to make games run on lower spec machines. Remember, that Amiga and the CBM64/Speccy lasted so long due to the fact that the programmers really had to work to do something new to get folks to buy their products (and you couldn't really patch games on those machines.) Patching has become necessary because the PC simply is a more complicated piece of machinery than a console, and it always will be.
Civ 3 is still a good game and it should become better when it does become patched. PC's have this to their advantage. Put simply, if you find a console game bugged or to easy or it's got no re-playability you can't get it patched. Patching is something that can be used to IMPROVE a game as well as fix bugs. Take NHL2002 for example. This game has got add-ons galore, roster updates etc. EA are well known for not supporting games very well after release and for releasing updates every year (NHL1996 -2002) but people still buy them year after year. EA only make minor tweaks every year but still improve the games (usually) and buy NHL every year. Also, how about Championship Manager games!?? A new one every 6 months at £19.99? Still buy 'em. I don't feel cheated because they keep me playing till the small hours.
Civ 3 seems to be little more than an update, but it still has the POTENTIAL with some patching to be so much more. Yes, they should have done better first time, but life is all about second chances, right? Give Firaxis a chance to prove that.
Is it the common held opinion that Civ 3 is poor? I think it's OK and can't wait for a patch.
quote: Originally posted by Lord Maxwell
You are actually good if you got Hello World to run without bugs in VB. Sucky programming language. |
Incidentally, it's not that bad at all. I've recently downloaded a freeware game called Eastside Hockey Manager, and quite frankly it's a better game than a lot of full-price games, and could quite easliy have commanded a £30 price tag. The game was coded solely in VB and is Ice Hockey in the style of Championship Manager. (If anyone want's the web address to get it let me know and I'll e-mail it to you.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ludwig
|
|
CivIII is a great game, patched or not patched, but it WILL get old quickly if something isn't done about the scenario situation.
I never got into SMAC after playing it twice because I never saw the point of trying to come up with a scenario or playing someone else's. There's no historical situation to model, or even to what-if, so why bother making a scenario? CivII, on the other hand, I might still play tonight, since the scenarios kick so much butt. There really is no limit to the number of times I can play the "Visigoth", "Viking", or "Arab Conquest" scenarios as different civ's.
Firaxis has to respond to the concerns of the scenario community to empower those guys to go out and lengthen the game's useful shelf life. If they don't do that, then they deserve to have the game go to CTP2 Hell. If they DO do that, then I tip my hat to the entire project, even if they don't patch air superiority.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
I am a lot less tolerant of bugs in games as I am in bugs of productivity software. The main reason? I am used to problem tracking /solving at work, but when I play a game I want to have fun. This game has very subtle flaws and when you first realize that your advanced tank is no match for a horseman you tend to get a little upset. I have noticed many other gameplay problems that have been mentioned on this board (Audio problems, lack of resources, corruption, etc...) but the unit imbalance really makes the game unplayable for me. I enjoy winning the game through military conquest, but the game makes that near impossible even at the easy setting (for me anyway). I never had this many problems playing Civs 1 & 2. I hope they fix the problems, because I like the new look for Civ and the interface is much cleaner. I want the game to play more logically. I am sorry, but there is now way a knight (with a sword!) can take out a tank (with modern artillery shells). Don't believe me? Stand in front of a cannon and I will light the fuse (you can wear plate armor if you think it will help).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
Overall I do like Civ3 alot. I also there are many who seem to hate this game. First off if you hate it so much return the game and you dont have to worry about it any more. I do have somethings I dont like about Civ3, but I still like it. Currently I am going to collage and my major is computer science. On thing I would like to point out to people is for anyone who programs software of any kind it is that the earlier they find a big and fix it the cheeper it is. After the program is finished it cost much more money and takes more time to fix bugs that come up.
When you program anything you can never program something that does not bugs in it, this is just a fact of life. All companies that make software have it tested before they release it. They etheir get a company that specalizes in beta testing to test it for them or they test it own their own. When you test a program it is impossible to test for every thing that might go wrong, so bugs do get through the beta testing no matter how much you test the program.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cian McGuire
|
|
Philadelphia, PA
Aug 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
quote: Anyway if they didn't thinked about MP till now, I don't think they can do it quickly. |
They've already got some of the implementation in place- check the jackal.txt and the jackal.pcx- obviously they had some of the MP done...
I love the game- I really do. It's has an excellent chance to become a worthy successor and superior timekiller- but that's the problem: it has a chance, not is. Yes, I can understand bugs in relation to hardware compatibility, obscure glitches, and the abuse that a horde of keyboard-toting fanboys can heap on a pile of code looking for ways to 'break'it (re: the 99999999 gold bug or whatever it is), but when things obviously do not work (cases in point: air superiority, fortresses), things that surely would have been noticed during playtesting or the 'numerous' hours each Firaxian played of the game- this is when I begin to get a little upset.
But then I really get pissed when I find out that basic features of the Civ franchise were completely neglected: the scenario maker, historical place settings, shipped scenarios/maps, the list goes on... If they knew that such things would not ship (which they obviously should have since the game went gold a few weeks before shipping), Firaxis should have told us. It's that simple- they knew what we were expected (hell, they acknowledged that months beforehand with coy promises of shipped scenarios and the MP), and it was their duty to inform the public that they failed to meet their's and our expectations.
I personally would have been consoled with this. I would have bought the game the day it came out, just as I did; I would have been content to play the random maps or even random placing on that hideous Earth map; I would never have gotten one shock after another right after I install the game; I never would have had to look around for the Historical Settings Option; I never would have shrugged my shoulders at that and open the Editor determined to correct a minor oversight by correctly placing the civ starting locations; I never would have been perturbed at that; I never would have then looked how to place a city and then sit there with the dawning forboding that there was something definitely missing.
It's not much to ask for really- a little informed knowledge on what I'd be spend fifty odd bucks on.
This is what pisses me off.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|