posted 03-10-99 06:03 AM ET        

Bean counters will be the ruin of the game industry. Just think about how many of 1998's games were tarnished or outright ruined by greedy accountants trying to fatten the bottom line of the major game publishers. If Activision hadn't flogged Ritual Entertainment so hard in order to beat Half-Life to store shelves, would Sin have required a freakin' 20MB bug-fix patch? If MicroProse hadn't promised suitor Hasbro that Falcon 4.0 would ship by year's end, would that incredibly promising flight sim have left the hangar with enough bugs to populate an insect zoo? If Cendant hadn't forced Sierra to shove NFL Football Pro 99 out the door in order to sweeten its Havas deal, would gamers have unwittingly paid $50 to become beta-testers?

Yes, these and other games were patched (with the hugely notable exception of NFL Football Pro 99, which was flat-out recalled) and ended up (or will end up) being damn fine games. But come on, gamers should not be put through the wringer like this. What's more, gamers should not tolerate companies that put them through the wringer like this. No one would tolerate a mechanic who installed defective spark plugs. No one would tolerate a dentist who performed a root canal when he was supposed to fill a cavity. Gamers should not tolerate companies that sell buggy games.

We all know that some bugs are going escape the developers' best efforts to squash them. We can tolerate that. We don't mind downloading a minor patch that fixes a problem we might never even encounter. But no one's going to convince me that a developer didn't notice that you could bake a cake while one of its game's levels is being loaded.

And you know what else irritates me about accountants? How many decent games that shipped in the last quarter of 1998 didn't get enough time on crowded retail shelves to make any kind of impression on consumers? Game-industry journalists practically kill themselves trying to review the mass quantities of games that ship in the holiday season. When January and February roll around, they have almost nothing to review. I mean, it's not like people suddenly stop buying games after December 31.

I know one thing for sure: if the situation continues, these bugs are going snap around and bite this industry right smack on its bloated ass. But in the end, I guess the accountants would still win. Somebody has to tally the losses, right?

posted 03-10-99 07:55 AM ET            

Therefor its so important that companys actually follows up their products... And there are more and more examples of the neglection of SOME of their costumers... Fireaxis/EA still have the chance to get the patch out, and the decision on holding back a 3.0 patch untill ALL enduser have the 2.0 patch is a good decision!!

The game is one of the best I've played for very long, and is extremly addictive... But reading trough the fixlist of the 2.0 patch, I find myself saying, "yes thats annoying and thats too...." So it creates expectation, and the coming soon only adds to the sensation...

I will also add that the game has never crashed on me, BUT moving ONE unit can somethimes be VERY slow, and it realy is affecting gameplay... This bug should according to the fixlist be fixed in 2.0, so its just frustrating not to be able to patch it... My system is a socalled highend system (PII 400 128MB++++).

posted 03-10-99 09:00 AM ET            

That said, I have encountered ZERO bugs in SMAC that effect the outcome of my games. Yes, there are some annoyances (my least favorite is the AI PBs that movement constraints), but they are being addressed.

posted 03-10-99 09:40 AM ET         

So for christsakes, next time a program crashes all over you, try it out on another machine before you run off and start posting about "buggy" programs. You might just end up doing yourself a favor and identfy a bug on your machine, which you cant return to the store as easily as a program in a box.

posted 03-10-99 09:40 AM ET            

There are bugs in SMAC. Are the bugs so bad that the game shouldn't have been released? No. Firaxis deserves a lot of praise for paying so much attention to the consumer -- something a lot of companies do not do, and not just in the gaming segment of the software industry.

I work with Microsoft SQL Server 7.0. This is a huge product in terms of both Microsoft corporate strategy and in terms of how much it improves on it's predecessor. It has bugs in it. Are they "show-stopper" bugs? No. Should Microsoft not have shipped it? Absolutely not. Would I recommend it as a product? Absoultely. If there are bugs in one of the showpiece products from a company with more resources than Firaxis could ever dream of, then what is the chance that games coming out from small companies are going to be "bug free?"

There are many games that are travesties. Read through PC Gamer -- when a game is truly bad, they don't pull punches. Look at the review of Xtreme Paintbrawl, or Battlecruiser 3000 AD. Look at the initial release of Red Baron II. The loudest and most appropriate complaints in the industry are directed at companies that release games without even bothering with due dilligence QA, and then have the nerve to charge $40.00 for a boxed piece of crap.

posted 03-10-99 09:31 PM ET            

Overall, SMAC is a relatively stable game. However, I get the feeling that it definitely could have used another month or two of hard core Q.A - the PB and farm readout bugs, for instance.

Firaxis was working to a deadline, Feb 16, when the game was going to be released. IMO, this is a mistake.

Please, look at the example set by Blizzard in its developement of both Starcraft and Diablo II. SC was delayed way beyond the scheduled christmas release date (I suspect they got ambushed by Total Annihilation, and had to produce a much better game that was originally on the box (if you check the screenshots, you'll see they're badly out of date). The quality came first.

Now Diablo II. Its release date is 'Sometime in 1999'. Now that's a good idea. No deadline, no weekly updated to uninformed managers, nothing.

It must be said, patching is NOT a survival strategy for game companies. The credibility hit a game takes from the line "good, but it had a few bugs" can chop off thousands of sales (I didn't buy Fallout2 or Sin for exactly that reason - I heard that report).

posted 03-10-99 11:36 PM ET            

Watch it kiddo!

posted 03-11-99 04:56 AM ET            

As for my dime, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Imrans last post. Though I'd love to be able to put the blame on EA for rushing Firaxis, the fact remains that someone from Firaxis - I think it was Brian - made a point out of telling us that they had taken EA by surprise by delivering the gold master according to the plan in December. So I guess that whatever gameplay bugs remain in the game now, the blood is on the hands of Firaxis (most likely it can even be narrowed down to their QA department). Not that I think there's much blood in the first place, but then I'm also one of the happy ones without any program-level bugs.

posted 03-11-99 05:35 AM ET            

let me address this topic from the reverse side, as you brought it up:

>EA put the release date out in Feb. to coordinate a worldwide release (great job there), and get the manuals done!

Well, I live in Europe, and luckily I got an US SMAC version. Luckily, coz EA distribution policy didn't work, in Italy at least. So here the game was actually released as all games do, with the difference that I had to unnecessarily wait because of EA claimed but not realized purpose.
Maybe I could advise you (or rather EA, sorry) to revise your world atlas (or maps, or howdoyousay). I came to know (I suspected it already) that for many Europe means UK, F, D: oh well, that's business. Italian release (just want to make clear that I do not care for it) is expected for Easter time though mentioned along with the former 3 countries in the game credits (!), talkin about *coordinating* and *worldwide*.
You say "great job there". Seen from here, this looks indeed their major failure, something that made me even lose my temper for a while. The reason is that EA tried to walk a different way, set an ambitous goal, but failed, and what's the worst made the non-addressed customers feel as EA was trying to make fools of them.
As I stated elsewhere here around before, if I were in charge at EA that would have been enough to have someone else doing the job next time (i.e. fire the marketing staff).

Icing on the cake, taking what OmniDude reports:

>(Firaxis)...had taken EA by surprise by delivering the gold master according to the plan in December

having problems beacuse of a partner respecting the scheduled timeplan, well, nuff said.

As for the front side of the topic, no real bugs for me, just minor details (tho some of them look more like design rather than programming flaws) like many others already reported.

Thanx 4 your patience

posted 03-11-99 11:36 AM ET            

Yes, I think there are far too many games released too early and while they are still really "development" or "beta" products. You have to remember though that there will always be bugs in software. If you are lucky then most of them are very minor and will never be found.

There is only so much testing you can do, e.g. in Genotech II it was possible to crash the game by pressing 1,4 & break simultaneosly, however no-one ever reported or complained about it.

I also don't think that SMAC falls into the above category, for the it works correctly for most people and most problems are caused by specific machine configurations and not inherient bugs in the code.

I'm more concerned about the shortcomings of the game in graphics, sound & interface etc. which are just not up to scratch compared with most other game software.

posted 03-11-99 04:22 PM ET            

As for the interface, I have no complaints, and I think more is accessible from the main view than ever was in Civ 2.

posted 03-11-99 07:24 PM ET            

Imran: E.A, I believe, was responsible for *setting* the December date, which was my whole point. The fact they had a date was bad enough. The fact that firaxis was able to meet it is a credit to them on one level, although there might have been tense moments in the office if anyone suspected that a few bugs had fallen through the net.

posted 03-11-99 08:36 PM ET            

Does anybody remember the auto industry in America during the 70's and 80's? What a load of crap they unloaded on us back then. My parents, for example, bought a brand-new Ford Thunderbird in 1981. 50,000 miles later it required a new engine. Yes. A new engine! I could list countless other example of windows that stopped going up and down, transmissions that never worked for more than a month or two, but you get the idea. That same industry tried to unload these bloated sorry excuses for a machine on places like Japan, where streets are narrow and owning a garage is a luxury. No market research, mind you. Just unloaded them at the docks and waited for the money to roll in. Well, the money dried up. Chrysler went bankrupt. Even as we speak factories are closing.
I was the first on my block to own a Toyota pick-up. I lived in Orange County then, which is where Republican headquarters are. You should have heard the comments: "Communist! Buy American!" "Hey, you're putting our people out of work!" (I bought a Harley a few months later, and that made them quiet for a while, but it broke down, too, so I sold it.)

Well, 100,000 miles later--yes, 100,000 miles--I was terribly inconvenienced by my Toyota truck. Why? I had to replace the clutch. $78. 100,000 miles cost me $78 (minus religious oil-changes and gas).

The U.S. auto industry is still trying to recover for this fiasco. Even loyal Americans could no longer justify buying crap. The industry heads all said "But nobody wants to slow down and be the loser. We've got to have new models rushed to market."

Meanwhile, the Japanese produced quality cars that to this day run 100,000 miles plus with few problems.

posted 03-11-99 08:36 PM ET            

As for the being late, well, it's only late if you set a dealine. Programming is like this - you can't hope to set accurate finish times, because it's a creative process. And one small change can mean a huge amount of recoding.

As for shooting itself in the foot, it's a choice between releasing a late product (= shooting yourself in the foot), or a dud product (= shooting yourself in the head). I think the bullet wound up somewhere around shin height...

posted 03-11-99 09:16 PM ET            

It is called Apple. Better products, far more stable, standardised, yet with one big problem: won't run Windows software (won't run it well that is - there are emulators, but they run very slowly).

The result: Less than 5% market share.

posted 03-11-99 09:25 PM ET            

The average performance increase between a 1950's car and a 1990's one? Bugger all. The
reliability/safety increase? Whoa Momma.

The computer industry can't do that - yet. Performance is still increasing at a ridiculous rate. Safety and reliability are secondary concerns, still. We're at the 1930's of computer automation - things are
still getting much faster every new design, and people are breaking down regularly, or getting 'killed' due to lack of safety features.

I think, with the power of modern processors, that the ceiling may soon arrive, where you can do ALMOST everything you want on you new 1000MHz rig, and that any 'new model' that comes out will reach 1950's status - new styling, more space for the kids, and "Hey, it's this years model. Now you don't want to be seen with 'last years' model on your desk, now, do you?" (current example: Imac)

And then Denmark and Australia (which, when combined, might almost be the same as New Zealand ) will come in and standardise everything so that it works. Computers will be in every home, simply because mobility of information is getting be as important as mobility of self was becoming in the 1950s. And the geeks will go off and play with their 'home genetic engineering kits'.

posted 03-11-99 09:28 PM ET            

I'd like to point out that Civ 2 had its share of bugs in the early versions. In the readme for the 2.42 patch, there are 14 changes listed by version 1.04, including some fairly major ones, such as, "Corrected GPF that occurred for users who didn't have sound cards installed in their computers.", and "The "Accelerated Startup" algorithm has been enhanced to correct some problems (such as two cities in the same square on some preset maps) and improve some features.".
By 1.07, the number of changes had more than doubled, with some changes such as, 'Population will no longer "loop around to zero.'", "Aegis cruisers will defend their stacks against missile and air attacks as they should. Before, the Aegis ability was often overlooked when determining which was the "best" defender for a stack.", and "Corrected problem where new units were created with 'NONE' as home after a large number of cities had been built.".

posted 03-11-99 09:33 PM ET            

Shiny,

Good points, as usual. But I DO think the computer business is being run by morons because they, too, think they have to come out with new models just to survive--reliability and compatibility be damned.

They are simply drunk on Moore's Law. But in the process they are also making Murphy's Law standard fare. Hey, I love the monumental increases in processing power. It's a great time to be alive, in my opinion.

But when I can't play "Spank the Naughty Nurse" on my 450 Mhz PII because of a page fault, I become, well, less than dazzled by it all. Don't you?

posted 03-11-99 10:22 PM ET            

That's why I back Firaxis - they are good guys (oh, God, I han hear a SMACophant accusation coming on). Their program crashes on certain hardware/OS configs, but that's pretty much beyond their control.

posted 03-11-99 11:00 PM ET            

It's just lag. Cellphones are a great example. First come out - massive. New model - big. Newer model - small. 1997 model - "where the hell did I leave... oh, it's in my back pocket".

1999 model - cheap, comfortable size, very popular. And companies have stopped trying to make ridiculuously small phones and are concentrating on adding internet style features to the rich phones and making contracts cheap or avoidable for the poor phones.

Industries just take time to catch on to the fact that one trend is over and the next is beginning. I'm betting in five years time there'll still be companies promoting a Quentium1000 - 16GHz MMMMMMMMx processor for home use - when the smart people have got their congolmerate friends together and are
talking about internet security, reliability and 'what colour next years model will be' (Steve Jobs is a legend).