 |
| |
|
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Hear, hear, and I am so glad for the so-called 'whiners' and their view on this game, because they offer a perspective that will never come from the developers.
|
hex, I disagree. Take a look at this thread...
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=38347
This will go a long ways in our desires to make the game more playable and enjoyable. And you don't see any whining in it (at least something really blatant). 
quote:
Incidentally, I challenge you to produce testimony from the 20% who will hate group movement and proximate unit activation sequencing. |
The 20% of those that raved about and enjoyed playing Nemo's SF and RF. 
Lib, we are on the same page, I guess it does come down to temperament and style. You and I know that many of the desires and fixes will be in the expansion pack that we'll pay $29.99 for. For 20%, that'll be fine (like me); 20% will scream that they shouldn't have to pay for that; and 60% won't care one way or the other. You'll see. Personally, I fully expect to buy the expansion pack in order for me to finally get the scenarios so I can play the game again. But others have a difference of opinion on that and that's fine. No decision will be acceptable to all parties involved, esp. since it probably will come down to having to buy the expansion pack for the scenarios and fixes, or not having them at all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Steve Clark
|
|
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
Cap, I would agree that's an accurate assessment. Civ always has been about units, the common thread that connects 6000 years of history. Historically, there are more real-life units on this earth than in the past. So what do you do? Eliminate the Modern Age from the game altogether? Or if you abstract it even more, wouldn't you lose the critical control you would need at the beginning? Even with better control of modern units, you can't get away from the sheer numbers (just like in Civ2). So what's really the solution?
For me, that's why I have been keying on scenarios for the 2 years I have been here. If I want to play grognard in the modern age, I'll load up a WW2 scenario. If I just want to fight with 7 different kinds of war chariots, I'll play an ancient age scenario. When I said many times that if you want the [insert your favorite] age to last longer, go play a scenario and don't mess with the regular game. Instead what they did was to take four full scenarios and merged them together into the Civ3 regular game. That was not the right design choice, imo. Instead, they should have made the regular game not too short but not too long, and concentrate more on designing, testing and releasing as many scenarios as possible (as well as the full ability to create new ones). Oh well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
A couple weeks ago, I was delighted to discover my wife playing a game of Civ3. I looked over her shoulder and saw fortified units (including workers) all over the place. "Why," I asked, "aren't you using those units?"
"I don't know what to do with them," she replied, "and they're too much trouble to mess with."
Out of the mouths of newbies...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
i think that's why they put the "automate" button there... |
Sadly, you're probably right. That probably IS why they put that button there. It would be like airlines providing oxygen masks for the reason that they intend to supply no air to the passenger compartments.
quote:
They certainly screwed up by releasing the game unfinished, but while they are still working on it, i won't say they exaggerated the product. |
Then kindly reconcile the exaggerations that I enumerated in some detail on the previous page.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
Hopefully it will not crash so I can see the end! |
Oh, you're in for a real treat: a message complete with exclamation point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kolyana
|
|
Desert Dog: HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.
Yes, it is hard to believe that is all your infor when you finally win a game, but Lib was *not* attacking your post.
Now I *really* hope that you get to finish a game, then it'll all make sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You Won!"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heliodorus
|
|
Colorado
Nov 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
Wow, all the way to page 3 before a true ad hominem attack (I hope Desert Dog's was a misunderstanding, as a couple others seem to think).
Now, in this whole debate about stacked movement/logical activation, I think the most important point being overlooked is this:
Firaxis chose to commit multiple "sins of omission," the analysis of which leaves me extremely disappointed, and contemplating whether I should be angry (which I will choose against, because life is too short to get angry about disappointment with a game).
The most egregious sin of omission is clearly that the production team did NOT PLAYTEST THOROUGHLY ENOUGH.
I don't care who's fault that was (and in fact it was everyone's fault in the production cycle because no one put a so-called foot down). I also don't care what the motive was for this omission (although it clearly smells of financial incentive/release date).
From that omission comes a host of other omissions which have ONLY widened the rift between the fan community and the production crew.
Specifically, the production crew repeatedly chose NOT to reveal that they made the playtesting compromise. Moreover, they continually chose not to reveal future plans for patches/improvements (possibly because they didn't want to reveal the playtesting compromise). So what you have is a production crew that compromised its integrity, and instead of redeeming its integrity in admitting this, it continued in the denial. Finally, they are still choosing not to fix the issues brought up by the community that hugely detract from gameplay enjoyment (maybe because they can't, now, who knows, really).
The result is a game that could easily have been MORE fun, and a fan base that is justifiably upset that an easily identifiable problem was never addressed. Moreover, the fan base is justifiably upset with its perception (and perception IS reality) that it was ignored in both pre- and post-release stages (oh, and if you're not disappointed that they didn't playtest more, you SHOULD be, because that was the biggest insult committed against everyone who bought Civ3).
Finally, now we have the opportunity to be outraged that Firaxis/Infogrames actually could have prevented this sequence if they had actually playtested more thorougly...
The omission of right action is almost always (and this is a personal belief) the moral equivalent to the comission of wrong action. In other words, in my view of things, the actions of Firaxis and Infogrames produced a sub-standard product, and they were comfortable with those actions - therefore, they were comfortable releasing a substandard product. They did not care about quality.
On the one hand, I hope it bites Firaxis and they learn a lesson from it in lowered future sales. On the other hand, I don't want to be vindictive - I want to get some fixes that make THIS game better NOW.
So, for the record, shame on Firaxis for poor QA standards. Look what you have wrought here!
Oh, and all of this means Libertarian was more right than he knew, doesn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
Steve, with all due respect, we have told them what needs to be done to improve this game. We have done their play testing and have given them detailed reports. But they keep refusing to acknowledge our emissary. They don't need Infogrames' permission to treat us with common courtesy.
Besides, I doubt that the game is being spec'd by Infogrames. (After all, their helpful tip is that we should build a nonexistant port for our units to stand on.) It is Firaxis who is responsible that the game is boring. Maybe we shouldn't have offered our input. They've gotten a portion of our money already, and now they're getting our toil.
A frigging thank-you is long overdue. So is an informative update.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
Ming,
Well, I've never told a customer "thank you for pointing out the failings of my ASP page". But I have told many of them, "thank you for helping to make our site better". None has failed to acknowledge that simple courtesy.
Yes, they started a thread asking for our input. I'm too new here to know the terminology, but at Straight Dope, we call a thread that is, from all indications, abandoned by its Opening Poster a "hit and run".
I don't doubt that you have a bit of insider knowledge, given your position, and perhaps that is why you are able to paint their absenteeism with a rosy brush. But from where I sit, I was once their biggest fan. And now I feel like they despise me. Maybe that's entirely my fault.
But maybe not.
-----
John,
You betcha.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
Continuing my own ironic humorous notion - Lib, what WOULD you say if the folks over at Firaxis said thanks for helping make improvements before they actually did anything about them? |
I would say, "You're welcome."
But you've morphed the analogy into a red herring. What we should be thanked for at this point, as I said, is the play testing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesUFarley
|
|
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lemmy
Go Ming!!! 
Someone mentioned Firaxis exaggerated the product, did they really? Did they promise features that aren't in the game? I don't think so. |
Boy are you wrong. I guess you haven't play-tested the entire game yet. I posted several "quotes" from the magazine ads, and the online articles that stated what Civ3 was going to have in the way of features, and it has nowhere near what it said it would. I'll give you one, the "un-precidented editor" with "greatly expanded scenario design capability". To say such a thing, implies everything, but in reality means nothing. I've tested the editor's limits, and those quotes are exgarerated! But I'm not going to get into this with you, as I've argued and WON this point with too many people. And since you just walked in on the conversation it would be a waste of my time. Sorry.
quote:
about Firaxis answering questions:
They could say what exactly they are working on right now, and what they're fixing, but what if they change their minds, and won't to try a different approach, or even worse, they find out it can't be fixed, due to lack of resources or just plain impossible.
Then they would more fans angry then now, because they said they were fixing it (which could be interpreted as a promise to fix it). |
Either way they'll have angry fans, it's naive to think that a game company won't have negative feedback. And I don't know exactly what's bothering Lib on this peticular point, but what bothers me, is that not only have my "posts" been completely ignored, but when they do answer they give us a "when we know something, we'll let you know". Thats fine. But that's also lying. These guys at Firaxis KNOW exatcly whats going on behind the curtain. They KNOW exactly what sort of features are possible, and what aren't. The PROBLEM is, they won't share with the rest of the class, as I said before. And if they change their mind half-way through production, big deal. It happens, just keep us informed. Very simple.
Charles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesUFarley
|
|
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Clark
Firaxis is not HIDING anything. There will be an expansion pack or gold edition or whatever it is called that will include a more playable version and of course, those scenarios. It has to because Infogrammes demands it because they know this license is a cash cow for them. It doesn't matter what Firaxis does or doesn't want to do (or what you want them to say or not say), they are contractually obligated to Infogrammes regarding the distribution of anything related to Civ3. So what good would it do to have Jeff or Dan come here and announce that? It would just cause a needless firestorm. |
Ahh, do we need to go over this again Steve? Ofcoarse they're hiding, you actually think that there are 30 people sitting around at Firaxis staring at a monitor reading a complaint forum wondering "what are we going to do about this". I don't think so. They know exactly what they're working on, and how much progress they're making. What we have here is a group of 30 people designing a product, and on the other hand we have thousands of fans also designing a product... It just so happens that our ideas are either "out of their ability to code" or our ideas are "very good". Take your pick, either way it's embarrasing for them, and that's why they are "hiding" or in other words, avoiding the forums which is essentially the fans. Its a good strategy though, I would probably tuck my tail and do the same thing, If the fans shamed my "design team". ya think?
And I'm sorry to say but Infogrames is no excuse. I don't think it's on the contract anywhere to release a half-tested product, missing so many features to intentionally piss off the consumers, do you? Firaxis could at any point have put their foot down, and said "If we don't finish this, it will affect sales and the company reputation" and stuck to their guns. And even if the contract did somehow force them to do so, what idiot signed it? Think about it. And the more money the product makes the better. In this case they released a crappy product that is losing it's value and sales. Question is, did they have any idea it would do so? Ofcoarse they did, game companies don't walk into the market without a plan. They're a (cough) professionals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LRotan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by John-SJ
Anyway, speaking only for myself, fat chance I'll be buying any expansion pack or gold edition of this game.
John-SJ |
Neither will I. I paid for the game once and didn't get it, at least not all of it. I'm not going to pay for it a second time to get the complete version.
LR
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-12-2001 02:08
a bad system to say the least, but that's reality. Even when they are critical, they never go far enough. Add that to the poor quality of game testing, and it's no surprise why anybody with a half a brain won't buy a game based on those types of reviews
I have played the game EXTENSIVELY and I rate the game a 6.5 at best! I am even doubting that Firaxis can afford or even cares about fixing the major issues. People who complain about the game are called whiners. This pisses me off big time, when I complain it is for a reason. If the game was a 9.0 I would not be complaining I would be playing and having fun. 
Should I go through you first before posting "LORD"? 
|