 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by yin26
Read my edit above. If you are going to participate in a forum, learn some manners. Now go to your room without dinner. |
Oh, sorry to ruin your B*tch fest Yin.
BTW, you could follow your own advice.
I hope you don't go too hungry.
Salve
Last edited by notyoueither on 07-02-2002 at 14:16
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cossack
|
 |
Moscow
Nov 2001 time: 08:17
|
|
I have to admit that I think the post from the MOO site was hit the nail on the head. CIV 3 will pass any reviewers test unless it has been tested for some time or the review has considerable Civ playing experience.
The point is that the flaws of Civ 3 become blatently apparent after a week or so and I won't go into them as we all know what they are, even Mark G so don't tell me to look at the strategy forum for solutions, these are effectively solutions to programming problems/design flaws.
However, people are complaining about FIRAXIS and its their fault, but this is not necessarily the case, as I am aware (and maybe I am wrong) but I checked out Infogrammes website and I believe that they and not FIRAXIS own the copyright/brandname to the CIV series and thus contracted FIRAXIS to write CIV.
I'm not sure if anyone but FIRAXIS and Infogrammes knows what that contract contains, but I am sure there was a deadline date and significant financial penalties for time overruns or non-delivery of product, plus bonuses for exceeding sales targets etc. (the latter is why I think the graphics were animated so it would appeal more to the average gamer).
It is probably the inflexibility of this contract or the lure of sales bonuses and the thinking that the Christmas sale period will aid this that forced FIRAXIS to release effectively a beta version to avoid these financial penalties.
Why does this seem strange? Well take SMAC it was a pretty well finished product even without the patches and look at all the beta testers in the credits (let's not get into the Brian Reynolds issue). I am sure they wouldn't want to sell a beta version if they could have taken some more time to finish off the product properly.
There are two conclusions here, the first is that either FIRAXIS management misjudged the time it would take to completely program and fully test CIV 3, and thus produced a flawed final product or secondly, the contract was too lucrative to resist even with the time constraints. This is the question people should be asking, although for liability reasons Firaxis will never answer it they know themselves who is responsible and that person is probably towards the top.
I am sure we will never know which is the case but much of the blame has to go to Infogrammes if their management was not willing to renegotiate the contract deadline and didn't care about quality control of a large brandname product. Hence they have tarnished their brandname and own name with so many civ fans, not a good business move.
In the end I believe Infogrammes is at fault as opposed to FIRAXIS and if you really want to take your revenge you can short sell Infogrammes stock but you may lose more than you US$50 bucks doing so.
Just some thoughts
The English Cossack
|
|
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:17
|
|
No fight with you Cossack.
It was a take off on your sig. I like movies (and history). I quote them (movies and history) whenever possible. Sorry, no offence intended.
BTW, I'm not pissed that the game ain't *all that it can be*... yet.
I do not believe that the developers are done with it. I am happy to be patient and let them do their jobs.
I do however understand that some people may be upset that the publishers released a beta in a pretty box and sold it to the public. However, I think that many people who lack the hard core gamer mind-set (and some grognards) still find Civ3 as it stands to be a lot of fun.
Salve
Last edited by notyoueither on 07-02-2002 at 15:23
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Tarquelne
|
|
"CIV 3 will pass any reviewers test unless it has been tested for some time or the review has considerable Civ playing experience.
The point is that the flaws of Civ 3 become blatently apparent after a week or so and I won't go into them as we all know what they are..."
I really hate statements like that.
It's certainly true that Civ3 has obvious flaws... but the issue is: How bad are the flaws? So bad that Civ3 should get a bad review?
_All_ of us don't think so, but that's exactly what the statement above implies.
I played Civ1 when it came out, and Civ2, and have been playing Civ3 since it came out... and I think the game is well above average. I was disappointed that it didn't have a number of the features that SMAC had, but was willing to appreciate Civ3 for what it is, not thoughlessly condemn it for what it isn't.
Who wants to say that I don't have "considerable playing expereince"?
What I want to say is: Watch the way you (and not just the poster who made the statement I quoted above) throw around the phrase "we all". I've seen it in a number of places where it was attached to a statement I know that "we all" don't agree with.
To be utterly blunt: Does "we all" not mean what I think it means, or are just there a number of really sloppy thinkers among the hard-core Civ3 detractors?
BTW, the Subject line of this post is sarcastic.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Tarquelne
|
|
Cossack:
I don't care what your main point was, you also made an overgenerous generalization about what "we all" believe.
The main point of this message is simply pointing that out. We all hate you.
"I didn't say the game was not worth playing, but obviously you are one of those 'sloppy' civ readers..."
Hmm... the odd thing is that I didn't say you thought the game wasn't worth playing either. How strange... _I'm_ the one who used the phrase "thoughtlessly condemn", but at that point I was talking about all those who abuse the phrase "we all" - and I do think that the phrase "thoughtlessly condmen" applies to most of them. Not _necessarily_ you.
See? "We all hate you." is still wrong, isn't it? Or do we all simply ignore things if they don't make an essential contribution to the main point of the post? Is that an rule of English I'm not aware of? I know this isn't the first time I've been criticized for actually paying attention to everything someone writes. Do you feel I'm picking on you for not commenting on your main argument?
Anyway, I think we all know that I was right.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|