posted 04-06-99 11:18 PM ET        

Anyone remember when Firaxis announced the time they were gonna Beta test. I don't remember exactly how long it was, but I remembered my reaction: How on earth were they gonna have enough time to playbalance 7 factions? How were they gonna find all bugs? I almost posted a protest. Then some silly thought crossed my mind: they must know what they are doing...

We all know there was pretty much a race to get finished first; CTP or SMAC. First out, better sells. Maybe. In the long run? Maybe. I'm not so sure. Bad rep's a bad thing. Firaxis won the race; the game was filled with bugs. Now Activision was "too late", but still, and amazingly, they seemed to have rushed their product...

Why do game companies release their games without the proper Beta testing? Why? Are they cheap? Impatient? Because if it is just a money thing, then I'm not so sure that all the people here in this forum admiring Sid Meier and Brian Reynolds will like the fact they are admiring two people who are business men foremost, not passionate game creators.

I think one can tolerate a certain amount of bugs, mayhaps a crash or two for some(few) users, half good interface maybe(actually no) and so on. But can one tolerate game companies not doing their best for their clients? Did Firaxis do their best? Was it unreasonable to test the game a few of months more with four/five times as many users? Is it wrong by me to state that they SHOULD have, and that they were wrong in not doing so?

So, like any good mind worm it boils down to: incompetence or greed, or just for the sake of winning against the suers? 'Cause it sure wasn't about you, the customers, they rushed the game. Actually, if you think it was, I'll write that down as incompetence.

Enough said, you guys can carry this forward...

posted 04-06-99 11:42 PM ET            

Anyway, I think any problems related to beta testing were due to the fact that Brian and Sid had never done a Public Beta test before. HOWEVER, I do find it remiss that Firaxis and EA testers missed some of the more obvious bugs (useless autoformers for one).

Methinks the beta testers were more worried about playing the game than finding bugs. On the other hand, their whole focus was not on finding bugs, but on playbalancing, and suggestions for improvements, so you can't blame them too much.

posted 04-06-99 11:48 PM ET            

Comparably, this was a quality-made game. I bought the original Sierra's Lords of Magic when it first came out. That Was basicly a Beta they released. You name it, it didn't work right. Each patch they released, new problems started to occur. I DID LIKE THE GAME after some of the fixes.

It is just business. The Almighty Dollar is the reason for about every Business Decision.

posted 04-07-99 12:36 AM ET            

Your attempt to get me to delete the game was commendable (but I had already deleted it, waiting for patch 4). So, that bought you some time...but watch it, Little Lamb--or I'll send you to Kalahari's house (he claims to be a veterinarian, but we know what's going on).

posted 04-07-99 12:39 AM ET            

I don't know if this speaks wonders for Brian's much heralded design process though. Build the prototype, play it, go back and reprogram, play it again, and gradually you get a classic game out of it.

Unfortunately, he left out the problems inherent in that process. Because anyone who has programmed even the simplest of games knows that the smallest of changes can involve redoing a large amount of the code. So iterative programming seems a recipe for spagetti sauce, as far as the code goes.

Leading to the patch and release strategy, whereby they can get the game to 99% stability, release it, and THEN go back and rewrite the thing so that it runs coherently.

A bit of iterative work is unavoidable for any program. But more than 3 iterations starts to mess things up, even if you can 'hold the whole box in your head' like Brian (paraphased from gamespot interview). Maybe they should have a go at making a 1000 page design document first . Or at least find a point to stop the whole thing and rewrite the game from scratch (well, okay, it took three years as it was. But on the other hand this might have saved time at the release end.

posted 04-07-99 01:54 AM ET            

Actually, what will happen when you follow those directions is...oh never mind, it will ruin the joke if I tell you the punchline. Not that it was funny, mind you, it wasn't. Now I know that you deleted the game or else you wouldn't have been so far off base.

posted 04-07-99 02:48 PM ET            

Shining1 - The iterative design process has been with us since the first computer code was ever written. It doesn't tend to introduce new bugs just because you go back and tweak some code to adjust a behavior. New bugs come along when you fold in new LARGE pieces. Bugs are generally one of three types: A) The Typo, which is easily found with most comtemporary compilers; B) Implementation, which is a bug that is caused by how the coder put the code together (i.e. AI Former decides to build Bunker... 2 lines BELOW that is the check to see if the Former's faction has bunker - build bunker, else move). [These are generally minor Logic bugs created by misplacement of code]; C) Logic errors. True Logic Errors are generally Design errors, so the 10,000 page design doc won't help you catch it, unless you see it. (It would be a "bug" in the blue-print as it were) Unforeseen side effects of different elements of the product and how they interact with each other are generally Logic Errors, as the Logic was not thought out enough. Unfortunately in a large, complex system, it can be difficult to impossible to foresee how all the possible elements MIGHT intercombine. This is why Microsoft has 1500 beta testing sites for Windows 2000/NT 5.0 for example. (IICR, Windows 2000 has 25 million lines of code...)
Feel free to pick on the coding practices of the SMAC team if it makes you feel better (it has helped reduce my frustration and stress over some of (IMHO) the bugs and flaws), but unless you really want to state that all code writing is merely the process of creating and eliminating bugs, ad infinitium, I think you might not want to pick on the actual process of code writing and code design (the coding methodologies). That's like a religious matter to many coders. In fact, OOM, UML, Booch and many other strange names and acronyms have started *many* a virtual crusade, ending with many a ruined career.
But it all boils down to the person writing the code. They can be an Artist, a Scientist, a Hack, or a Pasta Chef. The value of their product (how well it works, how well the UI does its job and stays out of the way, etc) is the only TRUE measure of how good that coder and how good that Development team are or did.

posted 04-07-99 06:07 PM ET         

I would go on with many more bugs and play balancing but my friend just showed up and we are starving and so we have to go eat.

posted 04-07-99 06:36 PM ET            

And let's face it: no significant number of gamers has yet proven they're willing, or even capable, of abstaining from a purchase. Why improve things if the damned fools will fork over the cash anyway? Whatever the market will bear, and the market is pretty damned desperate (this same market bought Outpost 2, for chrissakes).

SMAC was okay by the release of patch 3.0. Not great, by any stretch of the imagination (the AI still needs serious work), but okay. It's clearly obvious, however, that little serious beta testing was done, as some of the patched annoyances were so obvious it beggars the imagination to think that 25 gamers could possibly have missed them.

But this is par for the course, and has been for years. Until *you* are willing to return every unfinished game until it's properly completed don't expect anything to change, or for anyone in the industry to take you seriously when you throw a fit.

But then, I've more faith in a smoker's vow to kick the habit than a gamer going without a new toy for a year or so....

Apparently the industry concurs.

posted 04-07-99 09:01 PM ET            

You can also rule out incompetence (basically this is a nicer and more specific way of saying stupidity).

Anyone who could produce software as complex as SMAC, even _WITH_ all of the _BUGS_ and perceived design flaws couldn't possibly be labelled incompetent.

I consider myself a competent software engineer. But I couldn't produce what Firaxis has in SMAC, not from where I am standing right now. I have been programming for 24 years and getting paid for it for 18 years. However, I lack the specific experience required to do something like SMAC (but it would be fun trying! )

Any competent software developer is going to tell you the same thing: bugs exist in production code, always have, always will. Anyone who says that their software is "bug free" is either inexperienced or a liar.

So of the original choices, this leaves only money. By "money" does one mean "greed" or "profit"? Firaxis needs to make a profit, thus they need money. Firaxis is a commercial venture! And from the amount of effort put into supporting the game so far, they are not skimping on the service and support. So I don't think they are greedy.

But the pressure to beat your competition to market is very real. Especially in a genre where the pickings are, at the very least, perceived to be slim. So yes, the answer is money.

But _WHO_CARES_?

How many of us wouldn't jump at the chance to become a beta tester for Firaxis? So why do we complain so much about finding bugs in a released product? It's just a distinction in the timing, not the role. If we wanted fewer bugs and a more polished design, we would have had to wait _EVEN_LONGER_ for the released product.

Granted we have all paid $35 to $50 dollars for SMAC. So perhaps it isn't fair that Firaxis has used us as Beta Testers and Financiers for the game. But again, how you react to that is a matter of perspective.

I could begrudge them the three or four months of interest I could have earned on that $50. But at 4% or so, it doesn't add up to much, about 50 cents. A can of soda -- big deal.

Think about this, if Firaxis came to me and said: "tfs99, how would you like to beta test SMAC-II for us? Pay us 50 cents and you're a beta tester," I'd jump at the chance! My check would be in the mail that day.

Heck the stamp would cost almost as much as my 50 cent fee!

posted 04-07-99 09:54 PM ET            

Bravo! Tell it like it is!

posted 04-07-99 11:28 PM ET            

I am not advocating piracy, of course. Many game designers work very hard to produce quality products that will make you feel like you've spent your money in a good way. Then there are the pieces of filth. I've been burned more times than I care to remember.

I seem to have strayed from my point a bit, but to sum up: SMAC is not perfect, but it's doing much better than a lot of other computer products. I seem to recall there being a first person shooter which was shipped with such bug ridden multiplayer mode that it patches were needed just for that. Hell, Microsoft is going to charge 90 USD for Windows98 Second Edition, which is basically just a major bug fix for Win98.

OK, I'm rambling again. Back to homework for me.

posted 04-07-99 11:44 PM ET            

Who cares?

I think lots of people care. If you feel that it's okay for a game to have bugs because the game hasn't been tested enough, I can't disagree more. You seem to think(in your argument) that everyone who bought the game waited day and night for it to arrive; lots of customers found out the game existed maybe a month before it came, or later. They expected a game pretty much free of obvious bugs.

Should they print "Hey, this game hasn't been tested nearly enough, we are just shipping it to you so you now so you can enjoy it fully in a few months... IF we care to fix it fully" on the box to be fair to their unaware customers then? BR has made some statements that makes us wonder if the game will be fixed further...

Lots of people make up their mind if the game is worth playing after a week. If they are annoyed about bugs or crashes, they sure aren't gonna say: "Hey, thanks Firaxis, I'll happily wait for all the patches so the game will run bug free. Thanks for letting me test it.". No they get tired of the game. I did after waiting for patches in Europe(boy, that took some time). It sure isn't fun paying 50$ for being one of your "Beta testers" when the game has crashes, obvious bugs and and some balancing issues. I want a good game right away.

So, as many of you may have pretty much figured out, I was trying to make a point: Firaxis isn't stupid, they were just out to get the cash, not making the best possible job for their customer (by tesing the game a few months extra before release).

Are we going to remember this the next time we see nice pics of a game and hear fancy promises from game creators about the quality of the AI and so on.

Should we admire people making a game that they knew weren't ready for the market? Or should we make a point that we don't tolerate that the gaming industry treats us like idiots? 'Cause it seems we are, if we don't start remembering these things before a company like Firaxis release their next game. At least the majority, who bought the game and don't care to be a Beta tester without the power to change(well at least nort without ruining ones sex life by sitting here all days).

I have rushed this post, so I apolagize for any spelling errors.

Yin: I am your most evil ally , it's just that I have too little time nowadays to write as much as I want (well in here anyways...)... I will try to write something in consumer action(btw, CTP seem to have more obvious bugs than SMAC. Too bad, I really liked some of their new concepts).

posted 04-08-99 01:10 AM ET            

Obviously, this is impossible with a game, at least if you're trying to make a reasonable attempt. You can't just sit down and turn out a masterpiece first go. But the rules still apply, adding extras causes problems.

Metaphorically, it's like an aerial shot of parts of Rio, for instance. Magnificent villas surrounded by slum housing (you know this, but I wanted to use that metaphor ).

posted 04-08-99 05:56 AM ET            

(1) Firaxis is neither incompetent nor stupid.

(2) Yes, Firaxis expects to make a handsome profit from SMAC.

posted 04-08-99 06:49 AM ET            

Secondly we have the very obscure/rare bugs which only will only show under the right conditions and on some systems i.e they never occured for any of the beta testers, the v3 sound bug is one of these.

The missile bug should never have been in the gold version NEVER EVER.
I discovered it halfway through the FIRST game I played, nuff said.
The useless auto former option should simply have been removed and then maybe introduced as an _enhancement_ later on.

posted 04-08-99 08:30 AM ET            

AFAIK you're the only one around who's happy about the AUTO formers.

posted 04-08-99 08:40 AM ET         

In general, my formers do a great job improving their home bases. When I notice one has spent the last 4 turns spinning its wheels, it usually means there's nothing left to terraform -- at that point I'm usually ready to give it specific orders to build an echelon mirror or borehole somewhere.

I agree that *in principle* the "Fully Automate Former" option should do something useful, but as long as the "Improve Home Base" and "Build Road To..." commands work (which on my computer they work just fine), what's your complaint? Anything else you'd be supervising yourself anyway, right?

posted 04-08-99 09:10 AM ET            

It would been great as a later enhancement though...if it worked that is.

posted 04-08-99 11:08 AM ET         

To put it another way, what do you think it *should* do if it worked?

posted 04-08-99 01:03 PM ET         

And the "Build Road/MagTube To..." command builds roads to cities. I use it all the time. You have to specify which city, of course, but that's a minor chore which you can then forget about for the 10+ turns it takes for the former to finish the road.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here; I'm just confused. You said yourself that the IHB command "works quite well," but that you wish the "Fully Automate Formers" command worked the way it should. But the way you think it should work is that it should Improve your Home Base. It sounds to me like your problem is already solved.

posted 04-08-99 01:14 PM ET            

Anyway IMO Fully Automate should be a global version of IHB+BR which would allow the former to improve all your cities as needed so that if City XYZ has a food problem the AI should allocate a couple of formers to up the nutrient output of that city and if there isn't any road to that city maybe a third former should start building it if there's enough FA formers in the pool...

I'd love to see an FA former priority list in alpha.txt

posted 04-08-99 07:12 PM ET            

Deinstalling SMAC, because the range check bug isn't fixed is the stupidest thing I've heard of in a long time.

In all my games of SMAC (almost all at Transcend, Ironman) the computer player has only successful built and used a planet-buster once. It is so easy to prevent a computer player from building a planet buster, that any player who allows a CP to build one, must be grossly incompetent, careless, and clearly deserves to lose his cities. Haven't you ever heard of using probes to infiltrate? Once infiltrated, pay attention! if the CP is building a PB, you have 20 to 30 turns to stop it. Use your probe teams, airforce, army to take out the city or sabotage production. If all else fails build orbital defense pods.

Next let's talk about bugs. Now, I realize this game, like any software product has bugs. Personally except for some annoying sound problems, I have run into almost none.
However, to complain about the number of patches as being indicative of the game quality is pretty silly. Especially, when those complaining seem to be incapable of simple math. For the record the current version of SMAC is version 3.0 the first version was 1.0. If you subtract 1.0 from 3.0 you will find that there have beeen TWO patches not three patches.

Next lets talk about Firaxis support.
CEO Benjamin asserts>
"P.S. Since Neither Brian nor Sid seem to give a crap about what anybody thinks about SMAC (you notice ANY messages from either one of them on the c.s.i..g.s. newsgroup or the SMAC forum since SMAC was released?). I have seen 4-5 messages from Brian on the newsgroup, and NONE from Sid in either place for the past 3-4 months!"

According to Dejanews, there have been ~1200 message from Firaxis employees in SMAC related newsgroups since Jan. 1, Brian has posted 516 messages. Since, it is Brian's design I wouldn't expect to see Sid posting.
So CEO Benjamin how did you arrive at 4 or 5 messages?

posted 04-08-99 10:56 PM ET            

nice observation. I wondered when someone were gonna see my mistake(I actually gulped out loud when I sent the post As for the rest of your post, I could probably chop it into pieces if I was in the mood for arguing. However I'm not. Yin's just posted his life's story. That is more interesting, right now

posted 04-09-99 02:33 AM ET            

But to those who jump on their high horse and defend FIRAXIS as if their nuts were between a screw and a press:

Look, it doesn't take a friggin' genius to see that a) missiles are ****ed up and b) terraformers don't work for **** when on auto. Any SINGLE beta tester should've seen this; I ran into both problems on my very first game.

And there're other obvious and strange quirks that've already been detailed on this forum.

So, like I said before, it beggars the imagination to believe that FIRAXIS didn't know about these things prior to release. They must have; there isn't any other reasonable explanation.

Which means they deliberately released the product with (at least in the case of missiles) game-wrecking bugs. Somebody should've said "let's hold off a week and fix that ball-breaker, then put in a disclaimer saying that the autoformers don't work as well as they should but that we'll patch that problem later on."

Hell, I would've read that news and still purchased the game, without feeling like I'd been had - again (same **** with CIV2). And I was careful; I played the full 100 turn demo several times to see if anything cropped up in the short run (obviously, most of the bugs *don't* show up in the first 100 turns)

Methinks the fanatical pro-FIRAXIS folks are looking to kiss some booty before they submit their resumes to Reynolds and crew....