posted 09-10-99 10:02 AM ET            

The Firaxians should spend their times listening to their disgrunted users instead of trying to shove unnecessary and unwanted knowledge down their throats.

posted 09-10-99 02:48 PM ET         

The initial release of SMAC should have been sold for $35 and had a big stamp on it's cover saying "Beta Release". Six months later they come out with another version of SMAC that has all the bugs fixed. The people who bought the Beta release can buy this for $15, everyone else pays $50.

That was the honorable thing for Firaxis to have done. The dishonorable thing they did was to present a Beta release product to us for finished product price ($50).

posted 09-14-99 07:12 AM ET         

"I still remember how much fun I had ripping the "Easy to read bug list" to pieces... "

Is this guy playing with a full deck?

posted 09-14-99 07:56 AM ET            

While your impatience with people complaining is understandable, especially since it's all pointless now anyway, the "SMAC is less buggy than most games" argument is just about the weakest one you could use.

Try this one: "At least SMAC didn't have to be recalled."

posted 09-14-99 02:20 PM ET            

Aredhran, what did you expect? Tips of the Day are for new or slow users. You as a super advanced player shouldn't be able to glen anything NEW from "SMAC Tips of the Day". Do you expect him to post the formula for capturing mind worms? Eco-Damage? What exactly are you looking for? Analyst's Tips of the Month?

Yin, too funny. But that is a plus...

White Cat, don't make me laugh so much!

First off, you didn't rip ANYTHING to pieces. You seemed to not be able to read half the Alkis list. More proof you are a Firaxian? Seriously, the Bug list wasn't all bugs, but as I REMEMBER it, you picked on the "enhancements" and went "Bug? Well, I thought the enemy was SUPPOSE to be able to that. Duh." Maybe I may have misremembered it as you don't seem to be willing to admit that if your spreadsheets, word processers, email clients, telnet applications, or in the real world, car, boat, or house had as many FLAWS in it, both percieved and real, that the makers would be paying YOU money ( Refunds for software, or refunds with interest and punititive damages for real world items). Even held up to the cheesy entertainment one-off standards, SMAC's quality for LONG TERM play is low. And it's SUPPOSE to be a long term replayable game. That fails to meet its designed goal in my book, making it a failure to meet its GAMIBILITY goals. Finacial success? Well, we've heard from JKM that Firaxis laughed all the way to the bank 400% more than they expected, so expect them to not DEVIATE IN THE SLIGHTEST. This means we don't want to see you complaining about Civ3, Sid3, or any OTHER products. You like bugs. Fine. But us Fifty-Five Percenters demand higher quality from our games and entertainment.

"Should I point out that SMAC is less buggy than the majority of games on the market today?"
Let's get real. Most of the new games I'VE played have far fewer bugs in them than SMAC. Many of them much more complex then SMAC. Firaxis has informed us that Quality is a NON-ISSUE, as they do not care about it in the slightest, just marketting hype. They only PATCHED SMAC to stave off the bad publicity so that it wouldn't overcome their marketting hype.

Quality and Customer Satisfaction should ALWAYS be of concern to you, the Customer. If you down-play it, just one person doing so, is often the only justification needed to ignore 1000 complaints all saying the same thing... "please correct odd behaviours X,Y, and Z". I've seen this happen TOO often in the Software Authoring sectoring.

Please feel free to defend SMAC itself; How it's general game play appeals to you, and it's many bugs do not stop your enjoyment of the game. Indeed, it does have a lot of fun in it to many. I myself enjoyed SpeedSMAC play.

But choosing to defend a company that thinks Quality is a NON-CONCERN is not a wise thing. And I'd prefer you NOT to send THAT message as you are in a very small minority in the world.

posted 09-15-99 04:13 AM ET            

Let's define "complex", since you wish to take me to task over my statement. Graphics? Customization? Opponent Engine? Just LOOKS complex? Economic Sim? User interface?

What's the categories? Are you going to want to disect it by large company, small company, known talent, or anything else as well?

Games less buggy? Well, Populous 3, Imperialism 2, Railroad Tycoon 2, Test Of Time, Mob Rule, Sim City 3000, John Madden's Football (YOU Pick the version), Aquazone Deluxe 2, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Heroes of Might and Magic 3, LOTS of RPGs... The list is very long. Heck, I'm even willing to toss in Settlers 3 (which they have patched NUMEROUS times in a SMALL increment matter to close out MP "cheats"). Many had larger teams of people working them, which is it's own problem that anyone with serious large team experience will tell you (if they had to COORDINATE that work).

The only game I thought was BUGGIER than SMAC in the last 12 months was CtP. And that's an IMPRESSION, not a documented fact. I didn't like it enough to play it more than a couple of times, so I am not remotely aware of any bugs... just "features" I didn't like.

Large complex games are OLD HAT. The Software Industries have worked out how to do them, long ago, just like any other COMPLEX application. But we've been given enough snapshots of the creative and authoring processes at Firaxis, and had their internal, external, implied, and implemented priorities and goals laid out. In none of them that I recall is QUALITY a factor (Fun and replayability, yes, quality, no). Heck, JKM has said that the first QUALITY considerations don't hit until BETA, and then it's too late to fix it... that was in his old eyes article where he explained that he is the network admin, general programmer, and only QA person in Firaxis, and it's ALREADY in or past EA and contracted QA.

posted 09-15-99 06:34 PM ET            

Of course I do. Anyone who doesn't bash the game must be a biased employee.

Ooh, SMAC got FOUR WHOLE PATCHES!! (Actually, it's three patches. Learn to count.) Oh, that must set the record for the greatest number of patches to a game ever! Civ2 had what, 17 or so? And I'd don't recall many people saying that was a horrendously buggy game.

yin26: You're right. I should have said "far less buggy." However, I fail to see why it's self-defeating, since "buggy" is a relative term.

Darkstar:

"You seemed to not be able to read half the Alkis list."

Not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the ones that I had to ask what "bug" they were referring to?

"Seriously, the Bug list wasn't all bugs,"

My point exactly. The thread was titled "Bug list" not "Bugs, missing features, AI weaknesses, and design decision I don't happen to agree with."

"but as I REMEMBER it, you picked on the 'enhancements' and went 'Bug? Well, I thought the enemy was SUPPOSE to be able to that. Duh.'"

There was no mention of it being a list of requested "enhancements."

My point is that the creators made the very dishonest claim of "Look! 170 bugs in SMAC!" when most of the stuff there was either very trivial or not a bug at all.

"SMAC's quality for LONG TERM play is low. And it's SUPPOSE to be a long term replayable game."

*shrug* I'm still playing it, even though it has to fight for time with other games and college work.

Why is it bad that the game was a financial success?

"Most of the new games I'VE played have far fewer bugs in them than SMAC."

Not the ones I've played and/or read about.

"Firaxis has informed us that Quality is a NON-ISSUE"

Oh dear, I must have missed that post. Could you point it out to me? :>

"They only PATCHED SMAC to stave off the bad publicity so that it wouldn't overcome their marketting hype."

Perhaps you're the Firaxian? How else did you get the internal memo that said "We must patch the game, but only because it would be bad PR otherwise."

Regarding the "bug" list (which featured such highlights as "the scrollbar isn't aligned properly" and "the manual doesn't have an index"), I came up with replies for 50 of them right off the top of my head. There were a whole bunch of others that were just feature requests or similar, which I noted.

So yes, I would consider that "ripping it to pieces."

posted 09-15-99 07:37 PM ET         

It is evident that you have an expanded view both of your own forensic ability and indeed the wisdom of your comments. Frankly, I have neither the time or inclination to address these further with you as, even if you are not a FIRAXIS employee, you are showing all the signs of trying to punt for a job there. However, it is a mistake on your part to allow your overbearing arrogance to outweigh those excellent points that you make.

I shall comment first generally and then specifically on a smaller matter.

You did such a good job at ripping apart the buglist issue that I started re-examing this. Yes, I now understand. And you are absolutely right. Everyone else on this forum is a moron and you are the only person that really understands what FIRAXIS were about in this game. So all of those things that caused annoyance to the community here were actually figments of our imaginations or, as you claim, of our acts of industrial espionage to obtain these from the jaws of the Firaxian shredder. I don't think so - neither do you.

White_Cat - you have a screw loose somewhere and I don't know where. I will refer to one fact - that Civ2 was patched 17 times.

Fine. Is your argument then that SMAC was effectively patched 20 times or 21 times?

posted 09-15-99 08:19 PM ET            

Effectively patched 20 times? What does that mean? Are you referring to the total number of bugs fixed? Civ2 had smaller, more numerous patches, while SMAC fewer, more comprehensive ones. So what? Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Were you unable to comprehend that my statement about SMAC setting the record for greatest number of patches was sarcasm?

posted 09-16-99 03:41 AM ET            

That was a joke about you working for Firaxis. See the smiley? It wasn't sarcastic. I wouldn't EXPECT the immortals and their servants to venture in these besoiled halls until SMACX is within a week of being on retail shelves.

Someone will have to do the math. But I didn't interpret your comments on Alkis List to be CLOSE to tearing it apart. More nitpicking. Being a nitpicker, I figure I'm a pretty good authority on spotting someone doing that. And remember, bugs are unwanted or inconsistant behavior. You said "most of the things on the 'Bug List' weren't bugs at all". Most = majority, so that means 51% of the 170+ listed items are not bugs? that's quite a claim. Like I said, someone will have to do the math. Skimming it, it seems to me you skip 2 items out of every 3, making you merely commenting on 1/3. That's the impression I got then, and still have after looking that bubbled thread over.

You are correct. It's my professional (damn, there's that word again) opinion that they only patched their product to stave off the bad press out noising their hype. We all know what opinions are worth, right? Well, there's something left out of that equation... some people's opinions carry more weight than others. Not claiming anything, but just as everyone has a behind, not everyone get's their behind kissed.

It's 4, you stupid twit, 4 patches. I'm getting tired of people getting INSULTING because they are ignorant that FIRAXIS has released FOUR FREAKING PATCHES! They patched version 3 to version 3.1. (That's a seperate patch from 3.) THEN patch 4, which happened to be VERSION 4, was released. As I have said elsewhere, Firaxis didn't bandy it about that they patched Enchantment 3 to Enchantment 3.1 But they did it. If they HADN'T done that, then yes, it would be 3 patches. Go do a search on keyword SMAC on EA's tech support. You will see Enchantment Version 3.1 listed about Version 4. That version 3.1 is different from the official Enchantment version 3.0 that was first released on Firaxis's web and ftp sites. Total? 4.

Now, you want to get insulting, fine. You are the one that feels compelled to try and defend SMAC and Firaxis. You are in the posting minority here, and you and Imran are the only posters even DEFENDING SMAC or Firaxis at the moment. That says a LOT about Firaxis's "loyal" fan base. That the majority of visitors/lurkers side with the majority of posters opinions, otherwise they would post their defense. I've done my flaming, my debating, and even my joking on this subject. You can go dig it out for yourself.

Or, you can try and be a bit civil. You earned the twit remark by trying to match an Emporer of Arrogance without all your facts lined up.

You want to see where JKM tells you that Quality is a corporate non-concern to Firaxis? Go read his last article. You dug up the crossposted Bug List entry, so you can dig a little and find it. If I recalled the address, I'd post it for you. I don't remember the URL as it wasn't that important to me to send to a bunch of peers and friends. It didn't strike me as an excuse piece like the previous editorial of his. You might remember the flap about the editorial. It revealed that a good number of people that are or have been active will not be buying any future product of Firaxis, except maybe Civ3... depending on what they HEAR about Civ3.

You want more access to Firaxis statements? Then do your own homework. I have followed several different Gamer News sites, depending on who covers what shops, while waiting on certain titles and have come across a variety of SMAC, Firaxis, and Civ related material. You can check the Designer Journal Articles, interviews, and archived IRC chats with Tim Train, Brian Reynolds, Chris Pine, and of course, Jeff Morris. There is even an article bouncing about by that Firaxian CEO Jeff in which he tells us they aren't ready to quite tell us that Sid3 is the sequel to SMAC and Civ3 is just Civ2 with a new paint job... but they might change that... Which was odd, as Brian told us it's SMAC with a Civ mod, and they are considering what [final] changes to make to it while they await testing, art, and media.

Many of the Firaxian statements on this board have been erased out of existance. Some were to delete statements that weren't PC by Firaxians. Those are gone (Examples are JKM stating he'd "NEVER be able to get Brian or Sid change their methodologies in the slightest just to make quality a priority in the business. They'd laugh or can him, and they are the legends and therefore must know better and know exactly what they are doing, no matter what he thinks." This was in a thread he started asking for ways or suggestions to create or improve Quality, and how do companies OUTSIDE entertainment do it. That was about the time of the Yin Top Bug List.) Others are gone in crashes and whatever else accidentally swallows threads.

Lurker was a bit over the top, if interested in trying to talk civilly. But it's understandable, considering the general flow of things is that the newer people come in and defend SMAC versus what they perceive as an attack on their game (it may be, but sometimes it wasn't). After sticking around for a while, they slowly turn into, let's face it, us. That wears away one's patience. Not an excuse, just an understanding.

Frankly, I am amazed at Imran's steadfastness in all statements SMAC. That's either True Love, or even more thick-headed in myself. I think it's love, but I have a romantic streak. As I said, others might disagree and think it stubborness on Imran's part. But in any case, you can see that when he does take the time to post a counter statement, it's now quite brief. That, I suspect, is due to the Been There, Argued That sentiment too many times... and getting shelacked by flamers for daring to give them a significant target. (I'm trying to bait him... Come on Imran!

I believe Lurker's bit about "is it patched 20 or 21 times" is from the fact that Brian Reynolds has admitted in a couple of chats that they did use Civ2 code, and by reason of extension, Version 4 of SMAC would be like Civ2 patch 21. BR's admission isn't legally significant since the lawsuits have been settled.

I think it unfortunate that SMAC is a smashing financial success as we would ALL benefit from improvements in the Firaxian authoring process. If SMAC is super great, then you stay with that formula to get a second finacial boom. That will be Civ3. That should secure their finances, and then they will be more secure in branching off... or going for a three-pete. That decision will be purely up to Brian, Sid, and Jeff. It's easier to do something that you have experience doing, but after a while, you want a change of pace.

And Civ3 will most likely be a success. The question is to WHAT degree. Good? Great? Beyond Imagining? How much punch is left in the name with the consumers? And will the mass of civ titles wear them out? What about SMAC and Firaxis experience?

I bet those are a few things that EA, Hasbro, Microprose, and Firaxis have had meetings over...

re: "not read half the bugs". That's a dig. About you skipping/omitting a large portion of the list, and asking about items, with a few other things tossed it. It wasn't a "tearing something apart" level of attack on the Alkis list.

And trivial to you is not trivial to others. And some where not trivial. Missile chassis range bug is going to aggravate people... ruin their fun. And Fun is what we all are after, and maximizing Fun is a STATED goal of the Firaxis creative process...

posted 09-18-99 05:27 PM ET            

No, really. That's a serious question. It never occurred to me to even look for patches online, so I must never have run into a serious bug somehow.

posted 09-18-99 10:05 PM ET            

Oh, btw, all those games you mentioned.. no where close to the complexity of SMAC. Wait there is one.. CTP, and that was even MORE buggy than SMAC.

posted 09-19-99 04:52 AM ET            

ALL of those games I listed are complex. ESPECIALLY the RPGs (We'll just give it to the games like FF7, the latest Ultimas, etc.). Some are more complex than SMAC in certain ways, some in other, some overall. NONE of them were as buggy (had as many bugs in them that I personally encountered) as SMAC. That's the base I use to judge games by... like any consumer. I know you are one of the most HARDCORE Defenders of SMAC, and have only encountered the minimal of bugs, and don't like to admit that you only pay 33% of maintenence on Transcend, been hit with unlimited missiles, and all the other things. You won't swear that you AREN'T suppose to get breaks on the hardest level, or that the computer didn't have a sub air carrier (despite the Opp Eng doesn't EVER build them that we know of. Not a design it uses in the current version) in range, etc etc etc. Fine. Dedicated Hardcored. I hope SMACX gives you many new things to enjoy about your game.

DID I say SMAC is just like Civ2? I don't believe I DID say that. It's certainly similar, and it's been admitted that they did use Civ2 code. If you are reading between the lines, that's your business what you come up with when I didn't intentionally write something there.

But look over that list, Imran. Tot = Updated Civ2. Certainly as complex. Pop3 = More Complex (with its total 3D World spells and Person Engine). I can EASILY go on breaking it down. SMAC has a lot of OPTIONS, but is actually quite a simple set of modules and a few extra routines. There are only a few objects and they can interface with each other in extremely limited ways, compared to many programs, both games and applications. You are mistaking what the interface presents to you as complexity. Do you think SMAC is more or less complex than your web browser? Word Processer? Email Client? Well? The truth might just shock you...

posted 09-27-99 10:09 PM ET            

I know that _your_ comment was. However, my line "Of course I do. Anyone who doesn't bash the game must be a biased employee" was in response to George6865, who gave every indication of either being serious or trying to use that as an insult. I quoted him when I responded to it.

> Someone will have to do the math. But I didn't interpret your
> comments on Alkis List to be CLOSE to tearing it apart. More
> nitpicking.

My comments on the Alkis list were pointing out the many things that weren't bugs, as well as asking questions about the things that were stated but not explained at all ("the sea borders bug"). I don't see how that's just nitpicking.

I'm toying with the idea of totallying up the number of things on that list that were bugs, weren't bugs, were duplicates, etc.

> We all know what opinions are worth, right? Well, there's something
> left out of that equation... some people's opinions carry more weight
> than others.

This borders on the "I'm in the industry, so my opinion is better than your and you have agree with it" attitude, but you may have a point.

> It's 4, you stupid twit, 4 patches.

See my response in the other thread.

> That says a LOT about Firaxis's "loyal" fan base. That the majority
> of visitors/lurkers side with the majority of posters opinions,
> otherwise they would post their defense.

As I said before, the people who like SMAC/Firaxis got tired of the constant arguing and left the forum. If you want to take that as an admission of defeat, fine.

> You want to see where JKM tells you that Quality is a corporate
> non-concern to Firaxis? Go read his last article. You dug up the
> crossposted Bug List entry, so you can dig a little and find it.

You mean the Adrenaline Vault one that caused such a stir, or a different one? If the latter, I've never heard of it, so I have no idea where to look. If the former, he didn't say anything like that in the article.

The Bug List was exceedingly easy to find, because I remembered the title. I have no idea what thread this other article might have been mentioned in.

> You want more access to Firaxis statements? Then do your own
> homework.

Umm, no. *YOU* made the claim that Firaxis said those things. *YOU* find the proof to back that claim up and give it to me. The burden of proof is on *YOU*. If they've posts that have been "eaten" or deleted, that's harder, but at least provide exact quotes, _with context_.

> Brian Reynolds has admitted in a couple of chats that they did use
> Civ2 code

I'd be very interested in seeing this chat...

> And trivial to you is not trivial to others. And some where not
> trivial.

I never said that things like the missle bug were trivial. See the other thread.

posted 09-27-99 10:52 PM ET            

Instead what Firaxis chose to do was release the game, listen (yes I said LISTEN) to what bugs the players found and fix them. They released these patches FREE OF CHARGE. They didn't say "well if you want these bugs fixed, give us $10." If they had of I would be the first to bag them, but they didn't. They made these patches, which were of no benefit to them because they had already made their money.

george6865
>Name one other game that required the creators to produce 4 extensive patches

easy: Starcraft

posted 09-28-99 04:28 AM ET            

Simply hilarious!

posted 09-28-99 07:45 AM ET            

you said:
As I said before, the people who like SMAC/Firaxis got tired of the constant arguing and left the forum. If you want to take that as an admission of defeat, fine.

What? Defeat? Are we battling? At War? I thought we were debating.

If the people didn't step up and say they disagree with the posted majority, it's pretty SAFE to presume they agreed. According to the SMACophants, Yin and I are in the majority of posters here, beating on SMAC/Firaxis for the many "percieved" faults. Only dissenters and other minorities post counter to that. That would mean that most do think SMAC is buggy and/or Firaxis sucks at PR.

But it wasn't the debates about whether things could have been BETTER or is a bug or how to transcend in less then 100 turns or what not that drove this place to become so "dead". It was people losing interest in the game, and for many, their disgust with bad Firaxian PR episodes. The ACOL exodus is a good example of that. The number of people that stopped posting here after JKM's "Mythless Bug" Editorial is another.

I have a few reasons for still being here. One of which is I like the game. Another is I'm keeping an eye out for suggestions on play that would be a less aggressive style of play that I would enjoy more then my current style. That, and I am curious about what kind of buzz SMACAX is going to generate.

As far as admissions of civ code usage, check the BR designer diaries at Game Spot. I recall that was the first place it was mentioned on this forum where BR stated that they began making Alpha Centauri using Civ2 code. Then they replaced the graphic engine with Jackal (SMAC's current graphic engine). Yadda yadda blah. There are a few other places he's alluded to that fact as well, in IRC "Meet the Developer" chats}, but I don't recall where they are archived. That was a while ago, and people got over it and moved on. The only question was how much original code was left in SMAC now, compared to when they started.

I was thinking of a few things about some people's opinions matter more then others. Like a couple of the reviewers for PC Gamer who started out BIG time SMAC fans, and got to be big bashers. Or the guy from CNET. Or... IIRC, there were 5 total (ranging from major to minor that they wrote for), and I'm curious what kind of review they are going to give SMACAX.

I'm not in the business of entertainment software. But I have been in the past. I will probably be so in the future. Although I am part of a few select marketing focus groups (not a big deal, as I know what WE do with those at my company. . It's not the kind of influence that a reviewer has in PC Gamer or the other "trusted" name buzz pieces.

And Cat, after JKM's "Mythless Bug" piece, he did this interview:
http://www.sidgames.com/ac/headers.cfm?select=true&ID=43

It's where he reveals that he is the only QA at Firaxis, and it's not his primary duty (network admin/security with part time programming is). He makes it sound like he, as QA, is involved from day one of a project, and tosses in a caveat that he thinks QA starts with the designer and is a continual thing throughout the development process, but he only gets involved at Beta Testing. He does descrive how companies that are strong on Quality do it, which have large QA departments, and not like how companies with small to none do it do to contracting the QA work out AFTER the product is done. It's a bit slippery double or side talk, but since I've got a high exposure to that sort of corporate doublespeak, I was able to build an imagine that was consistant with my conversations with JM about QA. Might be working against me, but I doubt it.

There's a couple more articles out there after that piece in which Tim Train reveals there are NO bugs in SMAC, so they didn't have to fix any in SMACAX, and I beleive he backs JM's assertation that they don't do QA until it's in beta, which is too late to change anything, as they don't have the finances to delay shipping by even a day for something minor like no-boot/no-play bugs.

posted 09-28-99 06:12 PM ET            

I'm a bit punchy from too long without sleep. Happens at the seasonal changes...

posted 09-28-99 08:42 PM ET         

(And this old man has done too many late-nighters of recent too....)

Yeah, I also read that article, including the infamous claim that griping about bugs was one means to keep discussions alive.

If JKM instead recognized that people mainly go to forums to "socialize" (although some go only to flame for the fun of it) and stated so, he could have saved a good stretch of grief. I go to game forums first & foremost to check on "net friends", but my slow-witted mind does need to pick up that occasional strategy tip that someone else is willing to share.

posted 09-29-99 02:00 PM ET            

But, I can tell you from personal experience as a software developer, we do look through the complaints and kudos to see what was liked and what wasn't when preparing to do an upgrade/expansion, or sequel (and sometimes, something similar). Now, if a developer is just MARRIED to an idea or a feature, then it won't matter if you've got a million unique complaints against it. That developer is not going to change that. But luckily for entertainment consumers, it's rarely that the exact same set of developers are the team that do the sequel or major expansions. Therefore the consumers have a shot of getting a change in the next expansion of the product line.

The problem with design inconsistances though, is it is often a sign the developers couldn't think of a something BETTER to do... or something that was implementable in the time frame they had available. So just saying, "This SMAC Combat system freaking bites!" isn't helpful. Saying "I find the combat system (to be subpar in comparison to the beauty of the game that is SMAC) /or alternate sentence ending: (sucks little dollies heads). Armor should be used to subtract from the damage inflicted by the weapon, thus making a hover-tank that is 13-4-3 immune to anything less then something armed with impact(4) weapons. This would then help (redress the many loop holes in SMAC's combat system) /or (make so much sense that even an idiot like you can understand why armor is good)". [Polite phrasing is always better recieved, but we will read not so friendly stuff if it is thoughtful and what we would consider to be an intelligent alternative.]

The difference? The "This bites" statement just says you don't like how something is. You could just be a whiner, or just having a bad day. For all the Official people know, your spouse just left you-you just totaled your car-and your dog just died. But in the second, there is an Alternative listed, showing you put some thought into it. You still may have had a bad day, but you are providing a seed for them to consider in making the game better.

So, my tip of the day, is if you REALLY want them to improve it, provide reasons and alternatives (how you would have liked to see it done) when reporting what you consider design flaws.

Bugs just need to be reported, with how you got it so they can repeat it. And maybe a save demonstrating it, if it's a complicated set-up, or you aren't sure HOW you got into that position.

posted 10-01-99 03:14 AM ET            

I don't know how many of those patches were published (as distinct from inhouse only), but the version numbers tell a story.

posted 10-01-99 01:20 PM ET            

A lot of those patches were nothing but documentation changes, not code. A word in the German language was wrong, but they updated the version number for ALL versions for their own convience. Look at the jump from 2.4.1 to 2.4.7 for instance. 6 increments, and they are all about translation errors or corrections to a few words. As I remember it (doesn't mean I'm right) there were 3 major releases that changed/fixed stuff. And most of those a great many civ fans didn't even know existed. They weren't connected to the internet, so therefore kept running the game as it came out of the box.

SMAC, on the other hand, right out of the box let's you know you need to go patch hunting. Too many odd things going on for many people. Version 4 isn't as wildly inconsistant as earlier SMAC, but IRMs and Too Cheap Top Levels are a couple of features that many advanced players feel cheated by. That's generally your hardcores, who are you biggest fan base, and that hurts the game and company. Just look around here if you need proof.

Of course, there are many other bugs or oddities, but that's old ground around here.

I do hope that Tim Train was mistaken and that a good number of the creepy crawlies got irradicated while he and his team were making SMACAX. That would make for a pleasant surprise and an early Christmas gift to their fans.

posted 10-04-99 04:36 PM ET            

That's why I stopped posting. For the most part, I disagree with the bug hunters. However, the endless debates over these points (which haven't advanced or changed in the last year) seem like a Dantean punishment for the unreasonably disputaceous. I won't willingly immerse myself to that circle of Hell.

This brings to mind another critique of the bug-obsessed -- that the hardcore players are the biggest and most important fan base. Let's get over that bit of self-absorption. How many Transcend Ironmen are there? That old thread had about 50 or 60 participants right? Even if there were 20 nonparticipants for each participant, that makes a maximum of 1200 "hardcores" for a game that sold more than one million copies. "Bugs" -- whether intentional game elements or programming errors -- that annoy only the members of this rarified group are almost definitionally unimportant.

posted 10-05-99 04:40 AM ET            

But my life experiences say you are wrong. That's fine. Each has their own, and as you say, it's what you have to draw on.

Your contention is that the majority of sales were to transient fans? If they sold a million units, that would certainly be true. And they never visited Firaxis.Com or here or... That's one reason a few industry insiders or initiates get mad about the "release now, we will patch it later". Most of your customers WON'T get the patch goes the argument, and seems to be VERY true, based on registrations versus downloads/patch distribution in MANY sectors. From OS to entertaiment...

Too much time BEHIND the Sysadm/SuperUser on boards when I was younger tells me that the vocal few are the speakers of the masses. If the masses disagree, they post. Simple law of forum discourse. We drew you out after all.

However, I invite you to bash the Quality Crusaders... only everyone's enjoyment will suffer. The less an outcry, the more the company will have a problem in justifying spending budget on Quality concerns. That's basic economics... never enough in the budget to do what they want, so they have to prioritize and trade off.

posted 10-05-99 08:24 AM ET            

"Name one other game that required the creators to produce 4 extensive patches and has probably another 4 patches worth of bug fixing they refuse to do."

Would you call patch 3.1 and 4.0 extensive? I hardly think so. And there's really not much left to patch anymore. I said in April that patch 4.0 would probably remove most bugs from the game, and that we then would have time to collect all remaining bugs, which would be squashed in v5.0. I was a little disappointed in the number of bugs fixed in 4.0, but that would still be feasible if FIRAXIS said that they were making a final patch and they'd ask us to track down all remaining bugs. There have been no show-stopping bugs around since a ver long time.

As for naming games for which more than 3 patches are written, that shouldn't be too hard, I think? Quake2 had twenty patches, I believe.

"Let's get real. Most of the new games I'VE played have far fewer bugs in them than SMAC. Many of them much more complex then SMAC. Firaxis has informed us that Quality is a NON-ISSUE, as they do not care about it in the slightest, just marketting hype. They only PATCHED SMAC to stave off the bad publicity so that it wouldn't overcome their marketting hype."

SMAC is the most complex computer game I have ever played. Period. After 8 months I still discover new things. There are still special abilities I've never used. SMAC may have its faults, but not its lack of complexity, or the few remaining bugs (although these should be fixed). Its faults are the weak AI (unavoidable) and the slow multiplayer gameplay. SMAC just doesn't remain challenging. BTW, could you either give the quote where FIRAXIS said "Quality is a NON-ISSUE" or stop paraphrasing?

"Large complex games are OLD HAT. The Software Industries have worked out how to do them, long ago, just like any other COMPLEX application."

Yeah right. MS code never has bugs, I guess.

"But look over that list, Imran. Tot = Updated Civ2. Certainly as complex. Pop3 = More Complex (with its total 3D World spells and Person Engine). I can EASILY go on breaking it down. SMAC has a lot of OPTIONS, but is actually quite a simple set of modules and a few extra routines. There are only a few objects and they can interface with each other in extremely limited ways, compared to many programs, both games and applications. You are mistaking what the interface presents to you as complexity. Do you think SMAC is more or less complex than your web browser? Word Processer? Email Client? Well? The truth might just shock you..."

What's so complex about a 3D World? And there were only 15 or so spells on Pop3, only a handful of building types, only a couple of unit types. Thank god it was 3D, or Pop3 would be boring as hell. (It was pretty boring anyway). You could give only a very small number of orders. Really, except for the nice 3D-engine, I don't see a hint of complexity. It's even a lot simpler than Pop1.
There are only a few objects in SMAC? Let me list some of them for you: bases,units,factions,techs,base facilities, special projects, terrain types, SE options, population, food, minerals,energy. I've only named the most obvious, but even this list consists (according to the HOMM standard) not of a few objects, not of several objects, but of A PACK OF OBJECTS.
And yes, I do think that SMAC is more complex than the average word-processor (not bloaty MS-Word) and also more complex than Netscape 3.0 e.g. Comparing SMAC's complexity to an email-client is ridiculous. Come on! FIRAXIS could write an email-client in a week.

posted 10-05-99 08:39 AM ET            

I used to be a frequent poster and have been a lurker for over a year. I say this so you know that I am not making these comments from a vacuum or casual-gamer perspective.

I agree with you that you have every right to complain about bugs and design decisions you don't care for, especially in this forum. I agree that the forums here mostly represent the negative opinions. I hope you and the other complainers ensure that Firaxis makes Civilization III even better. I must take issue with you when you infer that the majority of SMACers have the same negative feelings about SMAC. You have no assurance that this is true. I have my doubts.

I, for one, am quite satisfied with SMAC. I have an older PC which requires me to turn off most of the animations and play it with Civ-like icon movement, but I also have a newer laptop at work where I play while traveling. I have never experienced a crash with SMAC on either system. I have noticed some oddities and things I would have changed had I been in charge. I recognize the annoyance one feels when a bug (like the missile range bug) is encountered. Nevertheless, SMAC is fun! I have played countless hours on single-player and have found it new, different, compelling, interesting, visually appealling, and most importantly, FUN!!!

Therefore, I, like many others, will simply continue to lurk here on occasion while spending most of my limited free time playing the game. You may see more of me when the expansion is available and I am able to participate in productive chatter about the new strategies, units, projects, etc. that have been added to this already immersive QUALITY game. Then again, maybe not. It has been a long time since I saw enthusiasm here, other than from the occasional newbie (Imran being the notable exception).

I don't wish to reiterate will's argument, but want to expand on one topic. Hardcore gamer is not limited to those who frequently post on the designers' websites. There are many gamers, like myself, who socialize and discuss the games in 'real' life with 'real' friends. That does not make them us inferior or under-informed group. We read the reviews and comments from the magazines, newsgroups, and websites, but don't create a public forum for ourselves. We are still important, and sometimes influential, consumers.

Good luck in your quest to make Firaxis better. I am sliding back into obscurity for now.

posted 10-05-99 02:08 PM ET            

Have you ever built an email client? An Email Server? I've built both. One of those was for Lotus.

Ever done 3D modeling? Wrote a 3D engine? I have. Got a couple current still being used (One Army, One Air Force).

Ever done Game Programming? I have. Not ALOT, but enough to think I have a reasonable angle on several aspects.

I'm not blowing smoke about these things. SMAC is a lot simpler then you think. It's due to the percieved FLEXIBILITY that it seems to have that makes you think it's highly complex. Do an OOP study on it, and you will see it breaks down into a few simple objects with extremely limited interaction quickly. If they didn't design it that way, I HOPE they have been revising the SMAC engine (for use in Civ3) to make THEIR life easier. The benefit to US, the customers, is an improved product quality, as similar 'object concepts' can share code, there by making it easier to find and eliminate implementation bugs (ex. Human CAN'T build on Boreholes, AI can. Same code used for checking base location would yield same results. And only need fixing ONCE.)

That's not a dis to SMAC. I've said it before, and will say it again. In MY opinon, SMAC is equal to Civ2. That's not a bad thing. Most of my complaints are in the implementation. There are a couple of design decisions that with the curtesy of hindsight make you go "huh?". But that's HINDSIGHT, which is always 20/20. (My specific example is combat model, but that's another thread.)

Any company that has only one part time Hat of QA but has multiple teams putting product together ASAP, has quality as a lowest priority. Any company that doesn't DO QA until Beta testing has quatility as a non-issue. Go check the Jeff Morris Interview that where he describes how he, the only QA at Firaxis who is also the fulltime network admin and programmer all can be, only get's involved at beta time for quality assurance. THAT'S a non-issue or no concern on Firaxis's part for QA. It's pretty standard in many software authoring shops, unfortunately. QA is hard to view or be sold as a "Value Added" area/process to management. They just slow down a product from reaching the door. So there is a lot of looking around on how to improve things, and cut down QA. Like outsource it (so you don't have the QA people full time on your payroll/overhead), and do it all at once. {"Why should you have to do it more then once?" is a common question when it's budget time} For early QA, you have the coders and developers doing it. The problem with all of this, is that it rarely survives the reality... reality goes: progress is slipping, so developers and coders don't have time to make but the most passing of checks that all they changed works. After all, the company is paying SOMEONE to check that downstream. Projects run over budget, or headhunters dial up your key boys and girls and make them an offer that has to be matched (too good for them to pass over). So money gets shortened out of tail end activities... a little less hype, and a LOT less outsourced QA product time. Yadda yadda blah.

Most people in any sector of the Software Industry can tell stories of a product being "slightly" buggier then the target for going out the door. Many developers will just shake their head in shame as alpha code was marked production and bounced to manufactoring.

Hey, Sun's had 20 years to get the bugs out of it's UNIX flavor, and it's still got them. But then, we are talking kernels, and cooperative systems. As far as Microsoft goes, Windows NT 4 code is like 25+ Million lines of code. That to SMAC's what... 20,000 source? Maybe 40,000 source? (When I say source, I mean original. Most GUI systems have an underlying framework to do the scut work of showing dialogs, positioning windows or text, etc etc etc) It's just not that complex. Like comparing an amoeba versus the Milkyway galaxy. Two very seperate orders. AND if SMAC's bug ratio to working ratio was as LOW as Microsoft's or Sun, there would be ONE person, ONE, that would have experienced an error. Statisically speaking (Hey, 1 million units sold of SMAC right). Or... we all did. Same one error, just in a bad spot that the testers never ran through.

If your corporate sponsored customer bulletin board is highly anti-you and/or your anit-your-product, there is a serious problem. Either in PR, or product. Or both. That's a fact of life. You expect to gather more of your disgruntled customers steam then is proportional, as you are the official place, but you expect to have them balanced or drowned out with HAPPY customers ESPECIALLY in entertainment sectors. Not sympathy and "join the club and listen to MY Horror story".

Landon, thanks for the reminder. But here is the CRITICAL reminder to all that have stayed completely quiet. If you don't give them feedback of some kind, it leaves a BIG hole in what's going on in their understanding of customer satisifaction area. It's a lot easier to blow off a Yin or Darkstar if you have 200 incoming messages/posts every day that says, "Wow! Great job!". But when you have 50 messages/posts a day of "You guys sux! my baby sister could do better!" and not ONE kudos, you think the world hates you or your product. THAT'S for real as well, and considering the feedback I got from certain developing team members of SMAC when I wrote them, I'd say they weren't exactly drowning THEN, at the height of the "We love SMAC." season.

My experience is that for every 1000 users you have of a product, you get one emailer or poster. For example, for a product with 100,000 users, I expect the team to get feedback from 100 users, over the product lifetime about what they liked or didn't like about the product (not bug reports, but general feedback). From a million units sold, I wonder if Firaxis got a 1000?

I'm very serious about this people. Disagree, flame me, whatever if you don't like my saying what I say. If you LOVE SMAC, then post a "thank you/I LOVE SMAC/I Want to have BR's Baby!"... or email them. Show your support. Otherwise, the world is going to look to them like it's full of Darkstars and Yins with a lone few Imrans out there.

posted 10-05-99 09:54 PM ET            

Poor you. Elm is an email client. Sure, it's pretty basic, but it does the job, and its complexityis REALLY very low. And Eudora is just elm with a lot of interface sugar on top. Programming the path-finding in SMAC is a lot more difficult.

"Ever done 3D modeling? Wrote a 3D engine? I have. Got a couple current still being used (One Army, One Air Force)."

Congratulations! That sounds a lot more interesting than builing email clients. Please notice that SMAC also has some 3D modeling (you can see it in the Workshop). Not as complex as Pop3, but nice.
Building a 3D engine is a job that's been DONE. It's not easy, but for the most part it IS walking the beaten paths. The programming in SMAC is much more original.

"I'm not blowing smoke about these things. SMAC is a lot simpler then you think. It's due to the percieved FLEXIBILITY that it seems to have that makes you think it's highly complex. Do an OOP study on it, and you will see it breaks down into a few simple objects with extremely limited interaction quickly."

I told you, they're not a few objects. At the bare minimum there are 15 objects, and probably much more.

"If they didn't design it that way, I HOPE they have been revising the SMAC engine (for use in Civ3) to make THEIR life easier. The benefit to US, the customers, is an improved product quality, as similar 'object concepts' can share code, there by making it easier to find and eliminate implementation bugs."

Yeah yeah, I know OOP. One function:
bool BuildImprovement(ImprovementType i);
Called by both the AI AND the autoformers AND when the player presses s AND when he selects Build Solar Collector from the menu. This is also the cause of IRM. SMAC is not built this way, as the bugs show us. That shocked me. I bet it is one of the reasons why they didn't make it open-source (same goes for Microsoft).

But autoformers building stuff on volcanos is REALLY not the reason why some people are disappointed in SMAC. For everyone whining about a tiny bug I've heard ten people whining about the fact that it is SF instead of history. (I think the setting is terrific. The movies are better than in any other game except Civ2, the voice acting is without equal, the tech blurbs are very intelligently written, the techs itself are very well thought out, planet looks supremely inhospitable (ugly like a ugly , not like an ugly 320x200 picture of a supermodel), and I've even started to appreciate the music. Yes, I love SMAC and FIRAXIS for this!).

What's bad about SMAC is multiplayer (not that that's a big surprise), the stupid AI (do you have experience with this, Darkstar? would you have done it better?), the diplomacy (because it makes you yearn for truly intelligent leaders, with REAL personalities), and the awful combat sounds.

If all bugs are squashed, the game will be about 5% better than it is now. However, it's Firaxis duty to squash bugs if we find them.

I'm not going to buy SMACX (I never buy expansion packs) but I'm still looking forward to anything Firaxis will make. Since february, about 30 games and demos have come and gone, but SMAC is still the best game on my HD. And I don't think that is going to change in the near future.

"Any company that doesn't DO QA until Beta testing has quatility as a non-issue."

Well, you don't even do spell-checking in your final release :-) (Neither do I) That doesn't mean that the quality of your posts is a non-issue to you. Sure, SMAC had bugs. It still has. But was the first version so bad that it was unplayable? I've never played a demo to death like the SMAC demo. That's quality too!

Hey, Sun's had 20 years to get the bugs out of it's UNIX flavor, and it's still got them. But then, we are talking kernels, and cooperative systems. As far as Microsoft goes, Windows NT 4 code is like 25+ Million lines of code.

My CS teacher wrote an OS (minix, the prequel of linux). It has 27000 lines of c. That the basis of an OS. It's got a kernel and it has preemptive multitasking and a file system and a memory manager. That's all you need for a kernel. So, the other 24973000 lines in Windows NT are just extra services, like the GUI.

"That to SMAC's what... 20,000 source? Maybe 40,000 source? (When I say source, I mean original. Most GUI systems have an underlying framework to do the scut work of showing dialogs, positioning windows or text, etc etc etc) It's just not that complex. Like comparing an amoeba versus the Milkyway galaxy. Two very seperate orders."

The milky way galaxy is somewhat more than 1250 times as big as an amoeba. Try comparing your brain to the Milky Way. Or an amoeba to MY brain :-)

The game I'm working on consists now of about 5000 lines of code. I've only implemented the GUI (it's still very basic) and the combat system (even more basic). I need to add at least 6 more "objects" which would bring my game to about 20000 lines of code. Then I would have a VERY basic version of my game, without any AI. Nothing even approaching the complexity of SMAC. And you say my game would have as many lines as SMAC?

On another note: TERRAN.EXE is about 2,7 MB. If SMAC would have 40000 lines, that's about 68 bytes per line. Well, we all know that they didn't write it in assembly, but even so, isn't that a bit much?

"AND if SMAC's bug ratio to working ratio was as LOW as Microsoft's or Sun, there would be ONE person, ONE, that would have experienced an error. Statisically speaking (Hey, 1 million units sold of SMAC right). Or... we all did. Same one error, just in a bad spot that the testers never ran through."

I'd settle for any web-browser or OS that crashed as rarely as SMAC.

"If your corporate sponsored customer bulletin board is highly anti-you and/or your anit-your-product, there is a serious problem."

First, I'm not really interested in what most people think of SMAC. I'm interested in SMAC itself, and in making it a better game.
Secondly, most people here do appreciate SMAC. I've always noticed that the games I liked best were the games that I wanted most to improve.

"But when you have 50 messages/posts a day of "You guys sux! my baby sister could do better!" and not ONE kudos, you think the world hates you or your product."

We're trying to improve SMAC, and give USEFUL feedback, right? Not getting Firaxis to commit mass suicide? Just getting the facts straight.

posted 10-06-99 04:38 PM ET         

SMAC has two code paths (1 human & 1 AI) for a very good reason - a reason you should as a developer understand. Quite simply the AI does not require the same functionality as a human player and therefore CANNOT share the same code.

To make this easy to understand lets look at the unlimtied missile bug that's been going around for a while.

Human code (called each time the user tries move the unit)
1. check that the move is valid (zocs, etc)
2. if the move is valid
a. decrease fuel
b. handle moving into cities and attacks.
c. if no fuel remaining destroy unit
3. draw unit in new position

AI code (evaluated once)
1. Evaluate possible options
a. what units/bases can I attack this turn (ie. are in range)
b. what can I attack in future turns & where do I need to move to in order to do this.
c. housekeeping options
d. do nothing
2. place unit in desired square

As you can see the code required would be significantly different and therefore multiple code paths are REQUIRED.

At this point I'm sure you're thinking, well why not have a small piece of inline code that would work for both. This is a reasonable solution insofar as it goes but it does rule out significant AI optimisation which I think we can both agree is important.

AI optimisation comes down to how much processor time the developer is willing to allocate to the AI per turn; we'd be really pissed off if the AI turn took a day to complete! Generally we make the AI better by increasing the number of computations it makes (i.e. evaluating attacks, allocation of resources, future plans, etc). We can does this in two ways; increase the processor allocation or by optimising the AI code.

I believe it is the optimisation of the AI code that has made this bug so hard to squash. Obviously the AI is going to spend a lot of time figuring out where to move units and, where and when to make attacks so the developers will have spent a long time getting it as optimal as possible. This will make it impossible to use the human code (which is relatively very slow).

posted 10-06-99 05:21 PM ET            

Thanks for the reply. I still disagree with your theory that the vocal bughunters represent a silent majority. As I recall, when the game first came out, there were a lot of people who expressed their delight with the game on this forum. I've also seen people pop in once on a bug debate to say that they don't understand the fuss. SMAC also garnered praise from professional reviewers. I've heard nothing to suggest that these voices were unfairly biased.

posted 10-06-99 05:56 PM ET            

Zig Heil!