ENOUGH - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  ENOUGH

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   ENOUGH

Shining1 posted 04-07-99 01:48 AM ET
I'll be back for patch 4.0. Until then I'm gonna finish Baldur's gate and play Starcraft - maybe even write a campaign or something.
Firaxis can get this bad boy finished, like Brian Reynolds promised. No victory errors, no infinite range missiles, no page faults, no incorrect sounds played for popup menus, no stimulus response A.I, and fix those wonders that everyone is complaining about. I don't even care if it's an industrial 12 or a cunning 2 megabytes.
Thank you, I've enjoyed the game for the last two months, and it's worth persevering with. I'll like it even more if I can return to the definitive version.
But enough is enough, for the moment.
yin26 posted 04-07-99 02:19 AM ET
Shiny,
You always make me laugh:
"I'm sick of it! No more! Well, not right now anyway...Really! Enough is enough! Well, until patch 4 comes out...But not until then, I swear! Well, maybe just a few turns, but THAT'S IT!"
I'm with you. I couldn't have written it better myself. Hope to hear from you soon-- .
P.S. I'll try to hold down the fort while you're resting...
Analyst posted 04-07-99 11:59 AM ET
I'm beginning to feel the same way.
I took the game with me on my trip to be with the family over the holiday weekend. I have a younger brother who hasn't bought the game yet. He was interested in seeing it because he's always loved Sid's games and I've been talking about SMAC a lot.
Loaded it onto my Dad's machine (P-166, hardly a clunker) to show my brother and the first thing that happens is that the auto run of the installation program fails. No prob. Got it installed by hand. After that, the opening movie fails to display. Oh, well, don't really need the movies anyway. Fortunately, bypassed that without a crash, but it was immediately apparent that the bugs relating to sound (severe stuttering, etc.) were all there. Also had a hard time with slow movement, followed by a very early game crash.
Not exactly a great demo for my bro', but I did cheerily infrom him that most of these problems seem to have been fixed by a patch. Unfortunately, my brother doesn't have net access, and that patch was too big to put on a disk, so he's just going to have to wait until they start shipping the patched version, except we can only speculate about when that might be (or if it will work on his machine).
Then we started talking about what else the patch fixed. He wasn't thrilled to realize that, in addition to substantial elementary fixes, there are probably 20+ game rules/design changes in the patch that affect game balance and play. Plus, I had to explain to him about things like the stealth "fix" of the highest reactor level and other undocumented changes affecting game play (like unlimited range missiles for the AI).
So then he wanted to know if it was still a challenging game. Whereupon, I had to say that, as a Civ vet, he'll have little or no learning curve to putting a whooping on the AI, but hey maybe MP . . . er . . . oh yeah, bro' don't have 'net access.
Not only did this little demo of the game fail to close the sale, but it also got me to wondering why I've spent so much time on it myself. It was certainly frustrating and awkward trying to explain to my brother why he should go out and by the product in its current state. It's also hard to argue with Shining1's characterization that the game remains unfinished in it's current form.
Last comment: I was really dismayed when I read the transcript of the live chat with Brian. He seemed to be hedging pretty mightily on the when and if of future patching. It seems like we're going to have to accept that v3.0 is our indefinate future.
Darkstar posted 04-07-99 02:05 PM ET
Analyst - In the world of coding, when you have a bug you can't find, you grab a warm body, sit down, and show them the code. During this process, you generally find the bug if its a simple logic problem. Sounds like that is what happened with you and your brother. By the by, take the patch, and zip it (using multi-span) across floppies. Just mark them 1/4, 2/4, etc to save time figuring out what is what.
Other options include: A) If you have a CD-RW, you could cut it into the RW in Rom format, then reuse the RW later. B) If you have an external IOmega Zip drive, put it on IOmega zip cartridge/disk and use the Guest system to drop it on your brothers system.
And you play SMAC because there just isn't much in the way of Turn Base Strategy games being released. So its that, or the old ones... Civ, Civ II, MoM, MOO, MOOII, Deadlock, Deadlock II, Empire, Deluxe Empire, Global Conquest, Stars!, Spaceward Ho... (Yes, If its suppose to be TBS, I will EVENTUALLY buy it/download it... just most things I wait for it to go to the clearance shelf...)
Shinging1 - That sounds like Old Yin Talk. He said that about "Enhancement 2.0". ;-) "I am just going to de-install SMAC and never ever play it again until Enhancement 3.0 comes out, which we are promised they will fix the infinate ranged AI missiles and other bug fixes (memory leaks, terrain.exe crashes, etc) and general enhancements!"
Yin26 - I am glad to see you have regained your balance. I wonder if CtP had much to do with that? It helped me better appreciate SMAC...
-Darkstar
HGB posted 04-07-99 02:19 PM ET
Darkstar--my sentiments exactly. There's nothing like a week with CTP to make one appeciate the job Firaxis did in designing SMAC, quibbles aside. A user friendly help system, management information available on a single screen, reasonable play balance, good defensive units always available at a reasonable price, specific information on what different government types do, etc., etc., etc, (I sound like Yul Brynner.) I bet the guys at Firaxis (who must be having a great time reading the CTP forums, which tellingly are not even on the official Activision website) didn't think they were making a great coup of game design when they put in an autosave and made sure that the game doesn't leave battles offscreen or obsured by popup messages. Yeah, there are things I don't care for in SMAC, but overall its a great game and Firaxis is still working to improve it.
Shining1 posted 04-08-99 01:33 AM ET
Yin,
LOL. Yeah, but this is stretching the Sid meier "one more turn" legacy a bit TOO far.
To be honest, I haven't really missed it during the past week. The rugby has been on, Blizzard is now giving away single player campaigns, and the joys of a joint 3rd/4th level Cleric/Ranger make up for the lack of Gravships and Planet Busters. It's a small thing, but I think the rangeless A.I missiles have left a number of people feeling fed up with the game. Regardless of the reality of debugging SMAC, there's a perception that these things just shouldn't be in a version 3.0.
Plus I'm starting to remember my inital irritations with the game, like the one size fits all combat animation. It's been a remarkably addictive game to survive it's flaws so far, truth told.
Darkstar: Old Yin talk? I though I was being polite.
Analyst: That may be a good sign. If anything, promising Games or Enhancements delivered to a schedule is probably to blame for 90% of all errors in all recent games. Continuing to use the system that broke the game for the patches makes absolutely no sense at all.
If someone at Firaxis hasn't had a big arguement with someone at E.A about this, then it's about time. Because otherwise Blizzard will rule the world, and they will all become poor while their relatives are used as servants (C/o Scott Adams).
tfs99 posted 04-08-99 01:52 AM ET
They should have really numbered the latest rev as 1.3 or maybe 1.03. I agree it is really poor that they haven't fixed the unlimited range bug. And some of the other _GROSS_ bugs.
I have a friend who designs for a fairly big name game franchise/line and when I told him about these kind of bugs in SMAC he was flabbergasted that they hadn't been fixed by the 2nd patch.
And it was disquieting to see BRs comments in the online chat about when we could expect the next rev.
But even so Shiny ... give it another chance ... JOMT is calling you! And you still have to find the NDEE (Naked Deidre Easter Egg). So please ...
SMAC n ... Ted S.
Shining1 posted 04-08-99 02:05 AM ET
JOMT? Jolly Old Missile Therapy?
Darkstar posted 04-08-99 02:49 AM ET
The *scary* thing is that we were reassured by Brian that the AI unlimited Range Missile was fixed. That is what *bothers* me.
The bugs that should have been fixed but was not, since pre 1.0 days if I don't miss my guess, that speaks of either very poor management/prioritization, or very large and critical bugs that we haven't experienced being fixed (SMAC goes crazy and reformats your harddrive.... that sort of critical failure). The only OTHER thing that I can think of is that the programmer that is suppose to fix it thinks the computer should be allowed to do so, and therefore REFUSES to make the change. (I have been this stubborn over design before, but it was a specified FEATURE, not a bug. And once the program went past upper management, the masses demanded we change it back. Programming can be like that sometimes...)
Stubborn programmers can be gotten around. Critical bugs come first... but what are the ODDS that is what is going on? Hummm...
-Darkstar
Analyst posted 04-08-99 08:24 AM ET
Darkstar, thanks for the advice about zipping. I really don't know a heckuva lot about these computer thingies beyond finding the "on" button (and sometimes that's hard ). Stoopid question: isn't the patch download already zipped? Can I zip something that's already zipped? [Told you I didn't know much. Now I'm opening my mouth and proving it.]
Re: Your feature/bug comments. In the TI thread, I observed that, once upon a time, when Brian worked for MP and MP had a message board, first purachasers of Civ II (*ahem*) figured out the unlimited range missiles/nukes thing and reported it as a bug. We were told 'tis not a bug, but a feature, as it was too hard to program the AI to use these things well when they had limited range. Since this was the declaration of the omniscient designer, we accepted. Now comes the same "feature" in SMAC, a very similar game by the same designer. Strangely, it's now a "bug", not a "feature", and even more strangely, still exists after it's been represented as being fixed. Is it the persistence of "legacy" code that the designer is unwilling (for obvious resons) to admit to the existence of? Is it the flaws of the iterative programming process, as has been suggested in another thread? Is it office politicking? Who knows? But what "bugs" me (pun very much intended) is that no one apparently gave the patch a test run on this point or the claim never would have been made. Which brings me to . . .
Shining1, I have to admit to some agreement with your point that rushing patches can be deadly (like rushing out a patch that claims to fix game features that remain unfixed--ha!). I was around when Brian rushed out a Civ II patch containing the first autosettler routines that also contained an infinite loop bug that caused the game to lock up when the automated settler got on a railroad. That wouldn't have taken much testing to find either. I've heard of other games where a patch also wreaked havoc with the program, so I certainly don't want to see a rush job. OTOH, I would like to see a clearer admission from BR that there is still basic work to do and a firmer commitment to the idea of doing it as a priority. I got the distinct impression that expansion packs and the like are already becoming greater priorities than finishing the polish (pretty generous description) on this game.
Jason Beaudoin posted 04-08-99 03:24 PM ET
Being a profit conscious company, I'm sure you're right: Firaxis is more interested in the next product rather than fixing old problems.
Before SMAC was released, I posted a topic about buggy games and the lawsuits that sometimes follow. Particularly, I was discussing the Ultima Online lawsuit, and I was debating that companies, such as Firaxis, should be accountable for releasing a product that does not function correctly. Still today, I strongly believe that the PC gaming industry is getting away with a helluva lot when they release a game that has bugs, and it sickens me to see that the so called "professionals" in the gaming industry would release such sloppy products. I would not want to put my name next to a game where quality is lacking.
The one thing that best describes SMAC is the word "incomplete". The amazingly inovative features and the somewhat improved AI is crushed by its weaknesses such as buggy gameplay, useless governors, disfunctional formers, terrible all-around aesthetic appeal. Regarding the aesthetic aspects of the game, it seems to me that they purposely decided not to complete some of the graphics and unit sounds, and release it as is. For the life of me, I cannot understand that. I'm not so much disappointed about the bugs in the game or Firaxis' apparent indiffirence to them, but I'm disappointed because other gaming companies have demonstrated that this can be avoided by working to complete every part of the game, and making sure it is properly game tested.
I hope a time arrives when people can expect a bugless game in the box they buy it in, but I think that it will probably come after a company has been forced to change it's ways by a damaging lawsuit.
Analyst posted 04-08-99 04:17 PM ET
And with Tim Train's new post in this forum, I now feel even more uneasy. Perhaps we should facetiously suggest the "limited range missile" as an expansion pack unit?
micje posted 04-08-99 05:13 PM ET
Analyst: You can zip zipped files, but they don't get any smaller. But you CAN put programs on multiple disks in this way (of course Win95 should be able to do that). You have WinZip 7.0 I assume? I love it.
Jason: I think it's a pity that many companies think that their work is nearly over when they release the game. You can tell that Firaxis is getting fed up with SMAC and wants to move on to their new projects. I understand that. I would probably feel the same way. But it's also a pity, since they have a great product that still needs a lot of work. I think they rushed the game too much. They sent SMAC 1.0 to the publisher when they were still getting loads of feedback from the demo players. The SMAC 2.0 patch was based on that feedback, and SMAC 3.0 (which I think was completed only 3 weeks after the official release of SMAC) on the feedback of the people who bought the game.
BTW, I am surprised about the amount of flak drawn by the unlimited missile range bug. It's not a bug that I come across often, personally. What I really detest is the implementation of the design workshop. The governors and auto-whatevers don't bother me so much because I always manage everything myself, since I know EXACTLY what I want to do. Queues solve much of the work, and since I plant forest everywhere, I don't need to terraform much.
Shining1: Blizzard IS good at making bugless games, aren't they? I can't think of a single Diablo or Starcraft bug. Maybe bugs are easier to spot in RTS games, but still... I got Baldur's Gate this weekend. At first I loved it, and I played the entire weekend. Then I got fed up with the incessant walking. I really wished I had a gravship... Or even a horse. (A horse! A horse! My AAA Blink Singularity Photon Hovertank for a horse!) And I don't like pre-fab stories. If I want to watch a bad movie, I'll rent one. When I play, I want to determine my OWN fate.
Shining1 posted 04-09-99 08:49 PM ET
Micje: I was also referring to the DiabloII policy of not giving a release date at all. Second half of 1999 is an ambitious target as it stands - and basicially I don't care exactly when the game comes out.
But you're right, diablo, for all its flaws and limited gameplay, has never crashed or suffered any obvious bugs at all. Starcraft had never crashed, and Broodwars has crashed only once (unfortunately, right after I destroyed the Overmind on Char - not happy).
Warcraft II used to crash continually when the movies were played, but that was the only time.
Jason B: I disagree entirely with the first point of your post - Games companys make money from games that keep selling. WarcraftII sold 2 million units and is STILL available in stores. Command and Conquer keeps on going, and just as well considering Westwood's other games recently. Same for CivII, which finally died this year, and Diablo to a lesser extent. Unlike movies, which only have the first 2-3 weeks to make money (unless they're very good, or Titanic), games can have a much longer 'half-life'.
firesky posted 04-10-99 12:56 AM ET
Being fairly new to SMAC and these Forum's..I was first drawn to the support and troubleshooting heading..almost 2000 post's in 5 days and thread after thread of cry's for help and fustration must be disheartening for any gameing company. I for one hope this isn't the "norm" for every game that is released in the future. makes me wonder who is beta testing these games? I do see the hard work Jeff and others are doing to help these people, But history will prove that sticking your finger in the hole in the dam is only a band-aid..eventually the shear wieght of what your trying to block up will come crashing thru. In short the situation needs to be delt with quickly or like the original poster of this thread, thier target audiance(hard-core gamers) will
wait until the endless patches and so called updates are released before they will even consider playing the game.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: ENOUGH
Shining1	posted 04-07-99 01:48 AM ET I'll be back for patch 4.0. Until then I'm gonna finish Baldur's gate and play Starcraft - maybe even write a campaign or something. Firaxis can get this bad boy finished, like Brian Reynolds promised. No victory errors, no infinite range missiles, no page faults, no incorrect sounds played for popup menus, no stimulus response A.I, and fix those wonders that everyone is complaining about. I don't even care if it's an industrial 12 or a cunning 2 megabytes. Thank you, I've enjoyed the game for the last two months, and it's worth persevering with. I'll like it even more if I can return to the definitive version. But enough is enough, for the moment.
yin26	posted 04-07-99 02:19 AM ET Shiny, You always make me laugh: "I'm sick of it! No more! Well, not right now anyway...Really! Enough is enough! Well, until patch 4 comes out...But not until then, I swear! Well, maybe just a few turns, but THAT'S IT!" I'm with you. I couldn't have written it better myself. Hope to hear from you soon-- . P.S. I'll try to hold down the fort while you're resting...
Analyst	posted 04-07-99 11:59 AM ET I'm beginning to feel the same way. I took the game with me on my trip to be with the family over the holiday weekend. I have a younger brother who hasn't bought the game yet. He was interested in seeing it because he's always loved Sid's games and I've been talking about SMAC a lot. Loaded it onto my Dad's machine (P-166, hardly a clunker) to show my brother and the first thing that happens is that the auto run of the installation program fails. No prob. Got it installed by hand. After that, the opening movie fails to display. Oh, well, don't really need the movies anyway. Fortunately, bypassed that without a crash, but it was immediately apparent that the bugs relating to sound (severe stuttering, etc.) were all there. Also had a hard time with slow movement, followed by a very early game crash. Not exactly a great demo for my bro', but I did cheerily infrom him that most of these problems seem to have been fixed by a patch. Unfortunately, my brother doesn't have net access, and that patch was too big to put on a disk, so he's just going to have to wait until they start shipping the patched version, except we can only speculate about when that might be (or if it will work on his machine). Then we started talking about what else the patch fixed. He wasn't thrilled to realize that, in addition to substantial elementary fixes, there are probably 20+ game rules/design changes in the patch that affect game balance and play. Plus, I had to explain to him about things like the stealth "fix" of the highest reactor level and other undocumented changes affecting game play (like unlimited range missiles for the AI). So then he wanted to know if it was still a challenging game. Whereupon, I had to say that, as a Civ vet, he'll have little or no learning curve to putting a whooping on the AI, but hey maybe MP . . . er . . . oh yeah, bro' don't have 'net access. Not only did this little demo of the game fail to close the sale, but it also got me to wondering why I've spent so much time on it myself. It was certainly frustrating and awkward trying to explain to my brother why he should go out and by the product in its current state. It's also hard to argue with Shining1's characterization that the game remains unfinished in it's current form. Last comment: I was really dismayed when I read the transcript of the live chat with Brian. He seemed to be hedging pretty mightily on the when and if of future patching. It seems like we're going to have to accept that v3.0 is our indefinate future.
Darkstar	posted 04-07-99 02:05 PM ET Analyst - In the world of coding, when you have a bug you can't find, you grab a warm body, sit down, and show them the code. During this process, you generally find the bug if its a simple logic problem. Sounds like that is what happened with you and your brother. By the by, take the patch, and zip it (using multi-span) across floppies. Just mark them 1/4, 2/4, etc to save time figuring out what is what. Other options include: A) If you have a CD-RW, you could cut it into the RW in Rom format, then reuse the RW later. B) If you have an external IOmega Zip drive, put it on IOmega zip cartridge/disk and use the Guest system to drop it on your brothers system. And you play SMAC because there just isn't much in the way of Turn Base Strategy games being released. So its that, or the old ones... Civ, Civ II, MoM, MOO, MOOII, Deadlock, Deadlock II, Empire, Deluxe Empire, Global Conquest, Stars!, Spaceward Ho... (Yes, If its suppose to be TBS, I will EVENTUALLY buy it/download it... just most things I wait for it to go to the clearance shelf...) Shinging1 - That sounds like Old Yin Talk. He said that about "Enhancement 2.0". ;-) "I am just going to de-install SMAC and never ever play it again until Enhancement 3.0 comes out, which we are promised they will fix the infinate ranged AI missiles and other bug fixes (memory leaks, terrain.exe crashes, etc) and general enhancements!" Yin26 - I am glad to see you have regained your balance. I wonder if CtP had much to do with that? It helped me better appreciate SMAC... -Darkstar
HGB	posted 04-07-99 02:19 PM ET Darkstar--my sentiments exactly. There's nothing like a week with CTP to make one appeciate the job Firaxis did in designing SMAC, quibbles aside. A user friendly help system, management information available on a single screen, reasonable play balance, good defensive units always available at a reasonable price, specific information on what different government types do, etc., etc., etc, (I sound like Yul Brynner.) I bet the guys at Firaxis (who must be having a great time reading the CTP forums, which tellingly are not even on the official Activision website) didn't think they were making a great coup of game design when they put in an autosave and made sure that the game doesn't leave battles offscreen or obsured by popup messages. Yeah, there are things I don't care for in SMAC, but overall its a great game and Firaxis is still working to improve it.
Shining1	posted 04-08-99 01:33 AM ET Yin, LOL. Yeah, but this is stretching the Sid meier "one more turn" legacy a bit TOO far. To be honest, I haven't really missed it during the past week. The rugby has been on, Blizzard is now giving away single player campaigns, and the joys of a joint 3rd/4th level Cleric/Ranger make up for the lack of Gravships and Planet Busters. It's a small thing, but I think the rangeless A.I missiles have left a number of people feeling fed up with the game. Regardless of the reality of debugging SMAC, there's a perception that these things just shouldn't be in a version 3.0. Plus I'm starting to remember my inital irritations with the game, like the one size fits all combat animation. It's been a remarkably addictive game to survive it's flaws so far, truth told. Darkstar: Old Yin talk? I though I was being polite. Analyst: That may be a good sign. If anything, promising Games or Enhancements delivered to a schedule is probably to blame for 90% of all errors in all recent games. Continuing to use the system that broke the game for the patches makes absolutely no sense at all. If someone at Firaxis hasn't had a big arguement with someone at E.A about this, then it's about time. Because otherwise Blizzard will rule the world, and they will all become poor while their relatives are used as servants (C/o Scott Adams).
tfs99	posted 04-08-99 01:52 AM ET They should have really numbered the latest rev as 1.3 or maybe 1.03. I agree it is really poor that they haven't fixed the unlimited range bug. And some of the other _GROSS_ bugs. I have a friend who designs for a fairly big name game franchise/line and when I told him about these kind of bugs in SMAC he was flabbergasted that they hadn't been fixed by the 2nd patch. And it was disquieting to see BRs comments in the online chat about when we could expect the next rev. But even so Shiny ... give it another chance ... JOMT is calling you! And you still have to find the NDEE (Naked Deidre Easter Egg). So please ... SMAC n ... Ted S.
Shining1	posted 04-08-99 02:05 AM ET JOMT? Jolly Old Missile Therapy?
Darkstar	posted 04-08-99 02:49 AM ET The scary thing is that we were reassured by Brian that the AI unlimited Range Missile was fixed. That is what bothers me. The bugs that should have been fixed but was not, since pre 1.0 days if I don't miss my guess, that speaks of either very poor management/prioritization, or very large and critical bugs that we haven't experienced being fixed (SMAC goes crazy and reformats your harddrive.... that sort of critical failure). The only OTHER thing that I can think of is that the programmer that is suppose to fix it thinks the computer should be allowed to do so, and therefore REFUSES to make the change. (I have been this stubborn over design before, but it was a specified FEATURE, not a bug. And once the program went past upper management, the masses demanded we change it back. Programming can be like that sometimes...) Stubborn programmers can be gotten around. Critical bugs come first... but what are the ODDS that is what is going on? Hummm... -Darkstar
Analyst	posted 04-08-99 08:24 AM ET Darkstar, thanks for the advice about zipping. I really don't know a heckuva lot about these computer thingies beyond finding the "on" button (and sometimes that's hard ). Stoopid question: isn't the patch download already zipped? Can I zip something that's already zipped? [Told you I didn't know much. Now I'm opening my mouth and proving it.] Re: Your feature/bug comments. In the TI thread, I observed that, once upon a time, when Brian worked for MP and MP had a message board, first purachasers of Civ II (ahem) figured out the unlimited range missiles/nukes thing and reported it as a bug. We were told 'tis not a bug, but a feature, as it was too hard to program the AI to use these things well when they had limited range. Since this was the declaration of the omniscient designer, we accepted. Now comes the same "feature" in SMAC, a very similar game by the same designer. Strangely, it's now a "bug", not a "feature", and even more strangely, still exists after it's been represented as being fixed. Is it the persistence of "legacy" code that the designer is unwilling (for obvious resons) to admit to the existence of? Is it the flaws of the iterative programming process, as has been suggested in another thread? Is it office politicking? Who knows? But what "bugs" me (pun very much intended) is that no one apparently gave the patch a test run on this point or the claim never would have been made. Which brings me to . . . Shining1, I have to admit to some agreement with your point that rushing patches can be deadly (like rushing out a patch that claims to fix game features that remain unfixed--ha!). I was around when Brian rushed out a Civ II patch containing the first autosettler routines that also contained an infinite loop bug that caused the game to lock up when the automated settler got on a railroad. That wouldn't have taken much testing to find either. I've heard of other games where a patch also wreaked havoc with the program, so I certainly don't want to see a rush job. OTOH, I would like to see a clearer admission from BR that there is still basic work to do and a firmer commitment to the idea of doing it as a priority. I got the distinct impression that expansion packs and the like are already becoming greater priorities than finishing the polish (pretty generous description) on this game.
Jason Beaudoin	posted 04-08-99 03:24 PM ET Being a profit conscious company, I'm sure you're right: Firaxis is more interested in the next product rather than fixing old problems. Before SMAC was released, I posted a topic about buggy games and the lawsuits that sometimes follow. Particularly, I was discussing the Ultima Online lawsuit, and I was debating that companies, such as Firaxis, should be accountable for releasing a product that does not function correctly. Still today, I strongly believe that the PC gaming industry is getting away with a helluva lot when they release a game that has bugs, and it sickens me to see that the so called "professionals" in the gaming industry would release such sloppy products. I would not want to put my name next to a game where quality is lacking. The one thing that best describes SMAC is the word "incomplete". The amazingly inovative features and the somewhat improved AI is crushed by its weaknesses such as buggy gameplay, useless governors, disfunctional formers, terrible all-around aesthetic appeal. Regarding the aesthetic aspects of the game, it seems to me that they purposely decided not to complete some of the graphics and unit sounds, and release it as is. For the life of me, I cannot understand that. I'm not so much disappointed about the bugs in the game or Firaxis' apparent indiffirence to them, but I'm disappointed because other gaming companies have demonstrated that this can be avoided by working to complete every part of the game, and making sure it is properly game tested. I hope a time arrives when people can expect a bugless game in the box they buy it in, but I think that it will probably come after a company has been forced to change it's ways by a damaging lawsuit.
Analyst	posted 04-08-99 04:17 PM ET And with Tim Train's new post in this forum, I now feel even more uneasy. Perhaps we should facetiously suggest the "limited range missile" as an expansion pack unit?
micje	posted 04-08-99 05:13 PM ET Analyst: You can zip zipped files, but they don't get any smaller. But you CAN put programs on multiple disks in this way (of course Win95 should be able to do that). You have WinZip 7.0 I assume? I love it. Jason: I think it's a pity that many companies think that their work is nearly over when they release the game. You can tell that Firaxis is getting fed up with SMAC and wants to move on to their new projects. I understand that. I would probably feel the same way. But it's also a pity, since they have a great product that still needs a lot of work. I think they rushed the game too much. They sent SMAC 1.0 to the publisher when they were still getting loads of feedback from the demo players. The SMAC 2.0 patch was based on that feedback, and SMAC 3.0 (which I think was completed only 3 weeks after the official release of SMAC) on the feedback of the people who bought the game. BTW, I am surprised about the amount of flak drawn by the unlimited missile range bug. It's not a bug that I come across often, personally. What I really detest is the implementation of the design workshop. The governors and auto-whatevers don't bother me so much because I always manage everything myself, since I know EXACTLY what I want to do. Queues solve much of the work, and since I plant forest everywhere, I don't need to terraform much. Shining1: Blizzard IS good at making bugless games, aren't they? I can't think of a single Diablo or Starcraft bug. Maybe bugs are easier to spot in RTS games, but still... I got Baldur's Gate this weekend. At first I loved it, and I played the entire weekend. Then I got fed up with the incessant walking. I really wished I had a gravship... Or even a horse. (A horse! A horse! My AAA Blink Singularity Photon Hovertank for a horse!) And I don't like pre-fab stories. If I want to watch a bad movie, I'll rent one. When I play, I want to determine my OWN fate.
Shining1	posted 04-09-99 08:49 PM ET Micje: I was also referring to the DiabloII policy of not giving a release date at all. Second half of 1999 is an ambitious target as it stands - and basicially I don't care exactly when the game comes out. But you're right, diablo, for all its flaws and limited gameplay, has never crashed or suffered any obvious bugs at all. Starcraft had never crashed, and Broodwars has crashed only once (unfortunately, right after I destroyed the Overmind on Char - not happy). Warcraft II used to crash continually when the movies were played, but that was the only time. Jason B: I disagree entirely with the first point of your post - Games companys make money from games that keep selling. WarcraftII sold 2 million units and is STILL available in stores. Command and Conquer keeps on going, and just as well considering Westwood's other games recently. Same for CivII, which finally died this year, and Diablo to a lesser extent. Unlike movies, which only have the first 2-3 weeks to make money (unless they're very good, or Titanic), games can have a much longer 'half-life'.
firesky	posted 04-10-99 12:56 AM ET Being fairly new to SMAC and these Forum's..I was first drawn to the support and troubleshooting heading..almost 2000 post's in 5 days and thread after thread of cry's for help and fustration must be disheartening for any gameing company. I for one hope this isn't the "norm" for every game that is released in the future. makes me wonder who is beta testing these games? I do see the hard work Jeff and others are doing to help these people, But history will prove that sticking your finger in the hole in the dam is only a band-aid..eventually the shear wieght of what your trying to block up will come crashing thru. In short the situation needs to be delt with quickly or like the original poster of this thread, thier target audiance(hard-core gamers) will wait until the endless patches and so called updates are released before they will even consider playing the game.