posted 08-03-99 01:55 PM ET        

No SMAC. No SMAC AX. No Civ3. No Gettysburg! No Antietami! Firaxis shall NOT have any more of our money!

JM, you were over the line as a public representative of Firaxis. In running your smoke and mirrors spells, and applying the biggest freaking diaper you could to Firaxis, you have insulted all of Firaxis's customers. We require an apology, or your job.

posted 08-03-99 02:22 PM ET            

I'd rather have the apology (and let Jeff have a 2 to 6 week paid vacation to relieve some of that stress and anger). He insulted us in public, he should apologize the same way. But failing that, its his job. If you don't support such, you are just validating his points about brainless consumers that want to whine and bitch.

posted 08-03-99 02:30 PM ET            

And I'll complain about those games as well.
Because I demand perfection. We all should. But maybe if JKM needs a break to get a thicker skin, maybe so do we. Do his veiled insults really bother me? No, because as I learned as a kid, names will never hurt me. And you know what, the truth hurts. He's right, we complain too much about a stupid game. I wish it was better, but I think that well of patches has run dry. So I'll play it like it is or I'll delete it and then I'll stop complaining.

posted 08-03-99 02:31 PM ET            

I think that JKM expressed some interesting insights based on his view of these forums from the beginning until now. Beleive me, the composition and tone of these forums has changed dramatically over the past year and a half. All of the *originals* have left, and now the forums seem to be dominated by an extremely vocal minority of whiners.

Look around... the very people that JKM was *supposedly* talking about are also the first ones to start screaming and whining... point proven.

posted 08-03-99 02:49 PM ET            

And a small clue... This isn't whining. This is an expression of dissatisfaction, as well as a dialogue/debate, about a situation that discussion and debate *can* change. Whining is "My feet hurt. I'm broke. I don't want to go to work."

I have whined here in the past. I may do so again. But whining, this is not. NOT unless you beleive that JM's expressed attitude is the corporate attitude of Firaxis, and that they don't give two rat's butts about what their customers think. If that is what you think, then this is whining. But I have no intention of just wasting electrons on JUST this paltry forums. EA executives email and street addresses as well as Firaxians are available to the public.

We've tolerated such insults long enough. You have to say, enough is enough, and try and make a change at some point.

posted 08-03-99 03:04 PM ET            

I agree with him that JKM speaking publicly on the net is the same as speaking for Firaxis unless there are disclaimers everywhere.

The irritating part about JKM' article, other than his foray into Psych 101 (or is that Graduate level stuff? Maybe HK can tell us), is that there is no admission of responsibility that it is up to Firaxis to make a better game. There are deficiencies in SMAC, what Darkstar and others are looking for (in my interpretation) is a dialogue with Firaxis.
Not subtle insults and condescension for having the audacity to say "hey can this be made better?"

Goob

posted 08-03-99 03:48 PM ET            

You are right in that "This is an expression of dissatisfaction, as well as a dialogue/debate, about a situation that discussion and debate *can* change." is not whining.

Whining is "He insulted me, I demand an apology... or his job".

I'm singling you out because I believe that you have stepped over the line. You are demanding that we boycott Firaxis products and you are demanding that Firaxis fire JKM... just because he said something that insulted you. He didn't insult me! I actually think his observations are right on the mark.

Be aware that I'm only attacking one half or your dual persona. I tend to agree with your other half... the part of your persona that logically states facts in a clear and unemotional manner. For instance I agree with your views on the software engineering, or lack thereof, in SMAC. I also agree with your views on the combat system.

Unfortunately, the side of your persona that you have shown in this thread has all of the maturity and lucidity of a 4-year old.

Again I ask you (the logical you, not the whining 4-year old), what does JKM have to apolgize about... state quotes from his editorial, not the over inflated interpretations that you have shown here.

posted 08-03-99 04:30 PM ET            

Dual sided? Not at all. Simply expressive.

I could be over the top. JKM has a history of being highly condensending here when he gets short on patience. And I've had previous private conversations with Jeff, which was quite informative and respective. But he did express the same "All customers are pretty stupid and shouldn't be using our products" attitude DID slip through on a couple of subjects. He needed a vacation then, and I am not sure if this isn't his way of getting it.

But if you want me to go quote "I think you are all dweebs.", I can't. You have me there.

posted 08-03-99 05:02 PM ET            

You've got to admit that some people have gone out of their way to piss him off.

posted 08-03-99 05:35 PM ET         

First off, i would like to point out that taking Jeff Morris' comments as though there were as representative of Firaxis is ludicrous at best... clearly the editorial is Jeff Morris' opinion... a fact that cannot be disputed seeing that he wrote the d*$# thing... but to blame Firaxis for his comments and to place a ban on buying any firaxis product for his veiws is ridiculous... it would be like believing that all citizens of the united states are adulterers simply because their president has commited acts of adultry... perhaps a overgeneralized example, but hopefully my point is clear... do not project the views of an individual to the company he works for simply because he works for them. Darkstar made the comment "There is no way for him to make public comments without them being taken as from Firaxis. The people and company are one and the same." but i beg to differ... Jeff's comments are quit clearly written as an editorial and should be taken as his own beliefs and it never even occured to me that his comments were those of Firaxis... take this theoretical example... Say Mr. X is the company PR representative of a gaming company... he writes an editorial which quite clearly states that he considers those of asian persuasion to be a wholly inferior race and culture to anglo culture (no hate here just an example and besides i'm chinese). well... should Mr. X's entire company be blamed for this comment? quite obviously, since Mr. X hates all Asians... then the Company must hate Asians... guilt by associate... think about it... as for demanding an apology from Jeff or even more laughably the firing of him shows only how shallow your character is... i'm sorry but it's true... since when has the voicing of someone's opinions (on a matter where no personal or even specific attack on anything was being made) be cause for public apology or dismissal... if anything darkstar's attacks on Jeff's and Firaxis' reputation for one (ONE!) editorial about a general comment on the gaming comunity calls for darkstar's apology to Jeff and Firaxis in my mind..

another comment... it is our right to complain about a game... but you must realize no matter how much you complain any single game will never become the ultimate game that everyone loves since quite simply it has NO flaws... ummm... and i would like to play this game... No game... NO game is capable of this... since invariably someone somewhere will want more features... and this is good... this is healthy... this is how better games are made... time heals all wounds... forget about the faults of SMAC and let the people at Firaxis do their jobs and make SMAC2 and SMACX all the better...

by the by, i would really like to know why Jeff Morris deserves this kind of hate since after reading his editorial a few times i really do not see why he deserves it... okay... so an apology needs to be made? surely there is SOME specific example why he needs to do so... making demands with out adequate reason is very much like the ravings of a lunatic...

posted 08-03-99 07:02 PM ET            

Cobell Ta, Luna hasn't touched me very much. Has she touched you?

As I have said before, JKM is the main point of contact for a great many people to Firaxis. His words and actions are representative of his employer. That is a fact of life in the business world. As I have also said before, I've worked that side of the business. I've done Tech Support, Quality Assurance, and even a stint in PR. Most companies would have issued him a pink slip the day that article hit the presses. The NICE ones would have called him at home, and told him not to come in for a week or two... he needed a vacation. I've seen it happen at ComDex for the *Head of QA* at a company I work make a dry comment while on the mike. We thought it obvious it was a joke. It didn't get taken that way by the majority of the audience.

As for the article itself, Jeff never truly touched on bugs. Oh, he drew us a picture that said "Many bugs are merely a misinterpretation of customer expectations of what the program is to do" and "imagine all the problems that exist due to us not being able to guess or predict or understand what your hardware is." After that, he ignored the issue. Aside from a small, underhanded slap at the developers for putting them in there in the first place. I design and write software. I know how they get there. But the picture Sir JM was painting with his emphasis was that its all "User stupidity" and "User hardware stupidity". That's serious looking down and "not our faulting", by itself. Bugs start at Design, and develop further in Implementation. You hope you don't design something so poorly, and they only slip in with transposed variables, typos of using ">" for "=" and what not. As a developer, I can tell you that you can't do much about hardware. You can do SOME testing, but mostly its just pray that it won't have problems with 80% of your target market platforms unless you have a big monster supplying money. The last bug I will discuss here, which is the first of JM's above, is User Misinterpretation. Most of those, are simple bugs... the UI (User Interface) guy should have made it cleaner and less likely to be misinterpretted, or their is an inconsistant behavior where 3 times you do action X, result Y happens, and on the 4th time, you have to do action Z to get result Y. Examples of these are having to use the keyboard to "Long Range Fire" or "Bomb" or what not, even though there is a menu item. The Menu Item doesn't work, or got manu'd while pointing at another action. In some cases, the program was altered after the manual was written, so the user can't RTFM and learn it, or learns it wrong.

He further goes on and tries to give the reader a taste into how things slip and slide, but have to go out the door sometime. However, this is a mostly illusionary state according to their backer and distributor EA. EA claims they game Firaxis all the time they asked for. There is no reason to believe EA over Firaxis, except for the fact that EA claims to have given Maxis all the time they asked for, and Maxis agrees. However, different products. EA does claim to have the greatest respect for their 2 legendary developers, Will Wright and Sid Meyer. Having listened to a few Real Audio interviews with a few of the EA people while checking out Will Wright and Maxis's soap opera, I am included to believe the EA press releases. So, that means I don't put a lot of stock into his claims that SMAC was booted by too early to market due to the marketting drive. I have seen it happen to other products, so it is a fact of life in the industry. I just don't think it applied very much to SMAC.

JM then goes so far to get highly condescending describing US. He states the only reason we bought the game was so that we could whine and bitch about it, thereby bonding and improving our social life. They did us a favor by leaving the bugs in, which are entirely the fault that you don't understand the game and how it was written, and any demonstratable problems are purely your hardware and stupidity, and that they did me a favor for taking my money, and I should be HAPPY? I presume this is exactly what the HEAD of the QA process for Firaxis is going to follow for a philosophy for SMACAX, Antietima, and Civ3. I presume its the philosophy of he and his associates about Gettysburg! and SMAC. Why? He is the only one talking to us, sharing how Firaxis works. That makes his philosophy THEIR philosophy. And that's just a fact in the BUSINESS world.

Rants, I can do. But this is more than a rant...

I like JM. I enjoyed my conversations with him. I think he needs a vacation. But as a former paying patron, as someone that has payed a portion of all of Firaxis's bills and their employee's, it is out of line to be told, however slyly, that all the bugs in any current or future product, especially Firaxis, is all due to my stupidity, and bad hardware. That's over the top. Or don't you know when you've been insulted?

posted 08-03-99 07:46 PM ET            

Another thought, it�s a well known fact that W95 f**ks up several programs (among them Micro$oft$ own), I wonder if the Mac (shudder..) users has as many problems with their games ? Or is the game only released for PC ? Just a thought...

posted 08-03-99 09:43 PM ET         

I've been in software QA for 9 years, and every point he made is firmly based in reality. If you don't like reality, start your own company and prove the world wrong. Thousands have tried, and none have succeeded... but perhaps you are the one to revolutionize the software development lifecycle, so go for it!

Every software program I've worked on goes out the door with hundreds of unfixed bugs. All are obscure, and most people won't notice most of them. To fix *every* bug, no matter how obscure, would literally *double* the development time. And in that doubled time, new hardware and software is released that will add new things to fix and work on. So no PC program will EVER be 100% bug-free. Not until everyone has the exact same configuration and exact same hardware. That won't happen.

However, some games are released with pretty fundamental bugs... ones that I personally feel should have been addressed. But I don't know what huge, killer bugs they spent time fixing instead of the ones I know about. I assume that the ones that they fixed were far worse than the ones that were released. This is the way I've always seen it work.

Yeah, we all want perfect games. This won't happen. The best a company can do is issue patches to address the biggest bugs that WE, the players, complain about. Trust me, no company knows which bugs we'll consider major and which ones we can live with. They try, but listening to us is the best way to address this.

posted 08-04-99 12:34 AM ET            

I've been a beta tester for MS on Windows 2.0, 3.0, 3.1. I know its sucky. I've HAD to track down the code, diagnose what it does wrong, and rebuild the dll. Then send MS the report, and how to fix the bad boy. I've written device drivers for Windows 3.1. It was too much a hell-hole for this dark one. That experience I have carried forward... as I said, you pray it works on 80% of your target platform in the PC field. But JM makes it sound as if ALL problems are either User Stupidity, or User Hardware, and that is NOT true. Especially with their LAST product. (When I first encounter what I think is a bug in a game, I surf the company site, and then their distributor, looking for data. I also go out and get all the latest drivers for my machine, from DirectX, to my 2D card, to my 3D card, and then do a general windows check... just in case. As I have said, I've been on both sides of the bug issue...)

Matrim99... that's not reality. That's all a PR dance on dodging out and saying "Its not OUR fault... its the users... the users hardware... the publishers... They won't let us do the job! And don't listen to what our CUSTOMERS say, they are only doing it to further bond with each other!". Trust me. You say you've been in the business. Does that list sound like the reason you can't do your job? Have you sent it (or something similar) to your boss? Published it to the world? I understand QA gets the FIRST cut... it loses the time (which he mentioned) when things slide, and it loses the money when profits are down (which I don't RECALL him mentioning). I've been there and seen it. The result is generally a poor product, and the reputation of the company suffers if its not Microsoft. That's reality as well. Things he didn't mention are games are a throw away product, unlike serious commercial apps. So patches and quality aren't very important, because there is always the sequel, or the next game to do and get money from. Companies have limited resources, and they can only do so much... blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. You know what? He'd have been better of trying to explain such matters, rather then tell us "Its all in your mind! That's not a bug, its a feature (great line from M$)! Its you, stupid! Its your stupid machine!". He only touches on the chaos that would be rewriting major portions of the app while trying to QA because the beta testers discovered 100 critical bugs, like no way to win, or whatever.

Reality is, its all a big diaper of "It's not OUR fault." That's never a good thing to say, and you have to wonder why he would even be thinking he NEEDED something like that. Unless you subscribe to the view he was doing us and him a favor by so insulting the hand that fed him. Does that mean you subscribe to his theory that he should be adding bugs to SMACAX so that this SMAC forum will continue in its bonding? I'm curious. Remember, he's probably the one that will be QA'ing it. And certainly Civ3. Think long and hard before you give your answer.

posted 08-04-99 04:25 AM ET            

Yeah, I know you do. Why does it feel that this conversation is starting to repeat itself ?

Of course I don�t want more bugs in order to ensure further bonding on this site, I�m sure no one wants them. JM is way out on this one, as I stated earlier.

posted 08-04-99 05:46 AM ET            

Admittingly he had a couple of points, but he entirely missed the big points on why customers stay here. That makes the article funny, and more like a puff of ill smelling butt descent that disappears once the nose discovers it's there. Like he is really want to tell how much he is looking down on the community, but he receives the opposite effect of being looked down upon.

posted 08-04-99 09:38 AM ET            

But it's not that the product has some bugs in it that makes me not want to buy any more Firaxis games. It's the attitude. And I suspect that holds true for a number of other people.

There are plenty of bugs that have been reported which are machine-independent. Yet Firaxis is awfully prone to pointing the finger at the machine and the user rather than considering that it might possibly be their product. Around where I hang out, this is known as 'Denninger syndrome.' If it's broke, it must be the consumers' fault.

One good example was the number of people who had problems displaying the SP movies. With /tons/ of different computer settings and hardware, but very often with hardware that was extremely common. My computer is a good example of this; I have out of date hardware but it's not like its obscure brands. What's more, SMAC is the first piece of software that hasn't liked my sound card (an AWE 64, if you're wondering). Now, I /will/ try downloading a new driver if I experience problems with several pieces of software, or doublecheck my settings, but when it's only one piece of software I tend to believe it is likely the software's fault. Particularly when 30 or 40 other people talk about having the same sorts of problems. Firaxis has not, to my knowledge, ever given any answer other than 'the problem is on your end'.

Now it's true that some bug reports are about things that aren't really bugs, that some really /are/ hardware or software problems that aren't game-specific, and that some answers that involve the "it's on your end" idea are things that really are "we have a workaround for that sort of situation" -- sort of a both-end problem, if you will. And it's true that some of the bug reports have been about truly trivial things. But overall, my /impression/ from Firaxis has been that they are unresponsive and disdainful of bug reports of /all/ sorts and suffer badly from Denninger syndrome.

So, let's make sure we're all understanding this, since I'm pretty sure it's gone over some people's heads. I am not complaining about the presence of bugs (although certain ones I think /really/ ought to be fixed, if they haven't been with 4, which I haven't bothered downloading). I am complaining about an attitude about bug reports and the general impression I have received that Firaxis just doesn't care, and that they don't feel it's worth the cost of fixing them.

That may be true strictly on the basis of SMAC income... but I wonder how many SMACers are going to stop buying Firaxis products not loudly with a boycott but quietly with disinterest?

posted 08-04-99 10:19 AM ET            

Also, Darkstar, let me just ask if this proposal to boycott Firaxis is a serious one or if your just trying to generate a topic of conversation. If it is the latter, then I congratulate you - you have done an excellent job of this. However, if it is the former, then I must say that your position reflects a certain degree of reactionism that is, to me at least, distasteful.

Now. As for his comments about the forums. I agree that those were somewhat condescending, but the very fact that we are discussing such a topic as this is evidence that he was correct on one level: we do thrive on everything that computer game companies say, etc. However, this does not change the fact that JM was less than diplomatic - it's just that this little lack of diplomacy alone is not grounds for an apology and certainly not grounds for his being fired.

posted 08-04-99 10:23 AM ET            

Eris, you present a very reasoned argument, but I don't agree with you. Your argument assumes that Firaxis knows which bugs are "on our end" versus bugs that are user configuration problems. If they had a much wider beta test (thousands of testers v. 25), they could figure this out statistically. Unless the program is open-source, there are not enough trial runs to know for certain. In lieu of open source and standard computers (such as Mac), problems with the code become complex (i.e., *never* 100% fixable--you can only mitigate the damage).

JKM tried to engage us in a discussion about this stuff about 3 months ago, when he posted in The Game forum. It seems to me that he's trying to get to a higher level of QA and the editorial was part of his quest, however inelegant. I wish him luck, since Firaxis produces quite complicated games and I buy those games pretty faithfully.

posted 08-04-99 12:54 PM ET            

There are two ways we can handle this crisis.
We can yell at each other. Flame one another, and ruin a once peaceful forum.

OR

We can't change what happened. We can only try to fix what will be. FIRAXIS, to
help with the hardware conflicts I suggest doing MASSIVE beta testing for future
games. Make the games open source so individuals don't have a right to say "why
didn't you fix this?" (unless they don't know how to program." For those people
who still complain, have them spend 1000 hours a week programing a game, dealing
with the fans, debugging the game, and getting it out on time. Some have very valid
and thought out complaints. They should not be punished. Those who aren't happy
with the article or FIRAXIS, LEAVE THE BOARD! Being displeased with a
product is ok. Voicing your opinions is fine. Are you playing the game? Are you
trying to resolve or fix anything? If your answer no, then why are you staying? To
tell you the truth, I haven't had a problem with SMAC. It is far more stable on my
system then Windows. And we haven't updated the hardware in 3 years.

Also, the programers (aka, vorlons) for Babylon 5: Into the fire (a great game to be,
by the way) have called you guys "whiners" FIRAXIS isn't the only programers in
the world you know. Here is the post on the forums relating to the article.
http://ftp.sierrastudios.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000778.html

Those forums are Moderated, so watch your mouth! This is all I have to say. I may
sound like gibberish. I just try to help when I can.

posted 08-04-99 01:25 PM ET            

You know what? From a Tech Support view, that is true. (Gasp? Then what are you making noise for?) But that view is not reality.

There are 4, count them 4, KINDS of bugs. Jeff only mentioned 2, which happen to be the ones out of the developing company's hands. I'll go over them quickly (in order of commonality) for those of you not familar with that part of the business.

Bug 1) User Misunderstanding/Stupidity: This is the user got it wrong. Whether its putting a CD-ROM into a 5.25" drive slot, sticking the phone jack into a cooling vent, or just a basic misunderstand of the method to instruct the program in how to do what he or she wants. There are two solutions to this, education, or a cleaner interface/design (depending on what it is). Often times, the knowledge may be in the Readme, Help file, or Manual. It may be a matter of common sense to the computer literate. There is no hope but redesign of the interface if its a poor interface that is unclear about what does what. And the User Interface programmers can only do so much with a flat screen. Note: This is the category that Jeff was informing us would always exist. And that is correct. But its a firing offense in many parts of the industry to TELL the user its their stupidity, and not the company's problem.

Bug 2) The implementation bug. This are all those bugs that crop up due to typos and basic goofs of writing the actual code. Examples in SMAC would be things like the Transcend Maintenance Bonus (pay only 33%), the fact you cannot put a farm on volcanic terrain but you can use the "stacked/que" forming shortcut command to build one there. This is really the big catch all bin of bugs for most apps. Its all the bugs that are in the problem that aren't due to a design failure. Its the majority of bugs in an well designed app. Its also the area that Q&A can affect the most, THAT is what Software Q&A is meant to shake out.

Bug 3) Design bugs - This is the nasty set that will get you off the Designer's Christmas list quick. These are the bugs that are in a product due to poor design of interaction between elements in the product. In a large software application (generalled called a "system"), it can be difficult to foresee the literally factorial condition states and all the possible ramifications upon the products behavior. This is best demonstrated as why a college CS student can write a simple 2K source line count of an app that does one or two things well, and has no bugs, but Sun or Microsoft can't release an operating system that is bug free. It's not that they are idiots (although many have strong opinions about that), but rather that its generally beyond human comprehension to take into account all the possible interactions with all the possible program elements/objects and all the possible consequenses of such. Mind you, the USER won't know the differenct between this sort of bug, and a basic implementation bug. And they shouldn't. But since this sort of bug strikes at the core ego of the designers as a reflection on their capabilities, they can be very 'hot' issues if there is any 'Blame Gaming' going around. Generally, they get handled in development as a type 2 bug ("When x happens, this odd thing occurs. That isn't what is suppose to happen, is it? Could you guys look into why that thing occurs?") so that the Designers don't engage the Ego and fix it. Otherwise, these sorts of things aren't addressed at all, or are addressed haphazardly. The results to the customer look a lot like the infinite range missile bug. [Disclaimer: I am not claiming it WAS such. The results to the outside world looks like what we saw regarding such. There are other ways that could occur.] If its something none critical, such matters are often overlooked in the interest of keeping the stress levels below someone snapping and shooting everyone. It's all in the group politics and dynamics. It is possible to have more of these than the Implementation bugs, but that is very rare, as Designers try to lay out the design in a clean, orderly fashion that makes sense to them.

Bug D) Driver/Configuration bugs. This is the fourth type. It's commonality depends a lot on the target platform market and the state of the hardware and its current standards. So this can be more common than Bug type 1, or less common than bug type 3. As a guide, a well designed, implemented and maintained product will have this as its #2 most common type of bug.

Q&A's position in the corporate ecology is to shake out the implementation and design issues. Due to politics and delicate egos, they often find they have to be very politic in how they report their findings. Some places will tank a project if its reached Q&A and its reported that it will take too long to correct the problem's diagnosed. Other places will bounce it out the door to shipping. It depends on the target, and the market (Commercial Applications, DoD, Entertainment, Education, Consumer Apps, etc).

JM's article only mentioned that in reality, the users, company, and designers won't allow him to make a bug free game/product. He informed us of the "User Stupidity" bugs. He informed us of the "User Stupid Hardware" driver bugs. And no more. That paints a STRONG implication. Those are each bugs that Q&A's the world over can do little to nothing about. JM does inform us that if the company is willing to pay, and the customers are willing to wait, a Q&A can shake out and identify most/if not all the driver issues. [From his time frame, I would think he meant for about 70% to 80% or so of the target market, not the whole world over, but who knows?], which leaves the user stupidity bugs. So, no bug free product.

That's a cop out. He does [or should, unless its only lip service about his title and department] have control of the mechanism that is to be used to identify the "boo boos" (Implementation) that happened while the product was being put together. Furthermore, Q&A is often the critical element in identifying the Design flaws in a product as they are the front line between the developers and the world. They can't change the code, but they can alert their fellow team members to the problem.

As I said, I've worked both sides of the street. As a Software Designer/Developer, Jeff's lack of mention of code and design bugs was extremely noticable. If I was part of Firaxis, I'd wonder what kind of favor he was setting me up for. As a former Q&A and head of Q&A, his lack of mention of the coding and design bugs is nothing more than a cop out. He wrote a fluff piece that said "It's not my fault, its not our fault, its everyone elses." It sounds like JM is caught in the blame game. Q&A isn't about blame. It's about identifing and verifying that the product you are testing is the product you want to show to the world. If its not, you document the oddities and send everything back up a step or three so that those oddities can be examined and addressed. Perhaps the Project or Corporate Management will decide such oddities are acceptable. In which case, if there are no more oddities at issue, out the door it goes. If there are, then those get focused on.

Often, companies and people get confused about it. It can certainly sound like blame is being placed on a person, when an "oddity" is identified as an issue. And there are people that take each such occurance as a personal attack. This is counter-productive for all, and sad. Q&A is not about spin control or politcs, its about the truth, the way things are, and reality. Its the first chance the product's wheels get to connect to the black top, and you get to see how it handles.

Maybe its my background that makes me see exactly what JM wrote as nothing but cop out. But I think its more likely that you have been told so much that its your stupidity and your hardware's fault for so long, that you have come to believe them and no other possibility. Frankly, that isn't true.

I don't want JM's job. But I do want an apology. We have been insulted for a very long time with this sort of attitude from Firaxis. I think its time Firaxis started to work seriously on their public relations. Whether they like it or not, they have one, and its not coming across well. JM has carried a large portion of the weight, and after so long, one needs a break to rest, recover, and remember that blame games are for kids. We can act like kids in private, but not in public. And his article was public for the gaming world.

posted 08-04-99 05:42 PM ET            

"Eris, you present a very reasoned argument, but I don't agree with you. Your argument assumes that Firaxis knows which bugs are "on our end" versus bugs that are user configuration problems. "

When you're talking about the sort of thing with only 1 or 2 bug reports, I'd agree, but the specific example I chose had /dozens/ of bug reports made about it. Many, many people posted their hardware configuration. If I see that many different types of hardware experiencing an essentially identical bug, I start looking at my code. I don't trot out the automatic "well, it's probably your hardware" answer.

Of course, I agree that more beta testers would've been a good idea. And they could do it at no expense, which is the part that really throws me. I understand that many people who volunteer for beta-testing are complete unknowns in terms of quality of their reports, but I think totally ignoring the huge base of players as potential beta testers on that basis is a poor decision. /Particularly/ since so many computer gamers -- especially the hardcore type of gamer that tends to be attracted to strategy games -- are either computer geeks by profession or by quite serious hobby.

*shrug* In any event, it probably doesn't matter. I've decided to, as I said, vote with my wallet. We'll see what happens with Alien Crossfire and Civ3.

posted 08-04-99 08:13 PM ET            

Whether the game is truly buggy or not, when you get down to it (and unless you think real time is an abomination - the only thing that will save you), SMAC is not a particularly good game. The design improvements are similar to brilliant cutscenes in other games; they make you go ooh and aah for a few minutes, but before long you find them dull and you're left with the same, uninspiring turn to turn micromanagement and dismal combat. (The most fun I had with SMAC recently was cheating completion of all the secret projects and watching the movies one after another - even then, some of the movies are pretty twey - the citizens defense force takes the cake for it's feature footage of crappy artwork).

It's not a matter of FX's attitude to fixing bugs, or JKM's open admission he thinks we're a pack of losers, but simple competition. Will SMAC-AX be more fun per dollar or per hour than DiabloII, DescentIII, Heavy GearII, C&C2, or replaying Starcraft or HoMMIII? Hell no. The game's problems require a whole new game to fix, because I'm damned if I'm going to pay extra money to see that dumbassed 20 frame combat graphic or those incredibly slow moving ugly assed voxhals creeping around the screen (and I can't wait to compare this with c&c2, which also uses voxhals, and to see the difference - which should be a revelation).

JKM's article is little more than an excuse for the fact that, six months or so after it was released, SMAC still has bugs and performs incredibly badly - I mean for f*ck sake how much f*cking computational power does it take to move one f*cking voxhal two squares distance? If the game stays as it is, a 500PIII and 128meg of SDram would seem to be a bare minimum. And you'd better exit and reboot every half hour.

I can do without paying for more of that. Not to mention the fact that, amoung all other games, SMAC is the only one that doesn't feature a windows menu for it's autoplay function. That's the single difference that really stands out for me. Even CivII has one of these. Not SMAC. Nice, convenient, user friendly windows are not for this game. Black space will do perfectly fine.

From a gameplay point of view, SMAC does well, and saves itself from it flaws. From nearly any other, it's a badly programmed piece of crap, and the realisation of this will gradually creep up on you until you reach your "threshold of irritation" and stop playing the thing. This is fine - I've paid money and that's that. Just don't expect me to pay more.

And, since FX is making the same game again (CivIII), buyer beware - you have no gurantee this isn't just Brian's retirement plan.

Please, FX, no more excuses. Make a good game, or go to hell.

posted 08-05-99 12:10 AM ET            

bomberman

posted 08-05-99 01:08 AM ET            

Like I said, I have paid for SMAC, and that's fine. But the expansion pack is a different matter. You can sell by reputation - but only once. Make a bad sale, or fail to fix one as expected, and you lose that reputation.

You are perfectly entitled to like this game, bomberman. But you also have to understand that not everyone agrees with you.

On purchasing SMAC, I had several expectations. The fundamental one was that this game would be an update to CivII. This was not exactly borne out, in that rush combat became much more decisive in SMAC and the combat system took a step backwards. The graphical slowdowns were no joke either - low res caviar only made the game playable for me.

On finding the game crash within 2 hours, as well as the farm readout bug, the slow units, and the crap combat, I was a little disappointed. But the gameplay made up for it, to a point. Once, however, you can beat Transcendance via a military strategy in under 200 years (the record is irrevelant, but I don't think I've ever outdone Darkstar's 150 years on a huge map - not that I have ever seriously tried, either), the gameplay becomes less than exciting. And the flaws, like the crummy interface and the lack of windows for movies or startup, also start to grate.

posted 08-07-99 04:16 PM ET            

I work at CVS in the local mall. We are the only ones that sell cigarettes in the mall. Now because we are in the mall (and have big ass restrictions to follow) and have a monopoly in the mall, our cigs are expensive. Very expensive. Yet, people buy them. People that think they are expensive just leave and don't buy them. Yet that doesn't hurt CVS. Many people buy them already, so it doesn't matter if 3 or 4 people a days say I won't get them.

posted 08-07-99 06:29 PM ET            

And if Firaxis don't realize they are skating TOWARDS thin ice, then it serves 'em right if they fall in.

posted 08-08-99 03:52 AM ET            

It's this - Yin, Uncleroggy, Analyst, ted, Darkstar, Player2, Stargazer, and all the others who have joined the darkside are not by nature hardcore Activision fans who want to see firaxis torn into little pieces and flushed to hell. In fact, they were, up until SMAC, all hardcore inner circle members of the Sid Meier fanclub.

This isn't a backlash against firaxis by people who wanted SMAC to fail. This is a backlash by a group of elite veterans of Sid's game who desperately wanted it to succeed, and are extremely upset by firaxis' response to date wrt the games flaws.

The point being that when your inner circle abandons you, or starts posting "I hate firaxis" messages in the forums, this is a significant event. No more than an Omen, perhaps, as far as current sales and profits and corporate interests are concerned, but a significant sign for the future.

[After Ctp and SMAC, it's debatable whether CivIII will sell as well as you suggest - and certainly you are one of the least likely people to make an accurate prediction.]

posted 08-08-99 12:45 PM ET            

Let�s examine the article piece by piece, shall we? JM opens by discussing about bugs, and eventually comes to the third paragraph, which actually begins his substantive discussion. In this paragraph, he starts with, �An interesting extrapolation of the perception that �most games released today are buggy� is the inverse statement that �some games released today aren�t buggy.�� He then proceeds to say why this cannot be so, and why the PC platform for games doesn�t allow for bug-free titles � in short, he�s arguing to say �ALL games released today are buggy.� If you have taken a course in logic, you will have to concede to the validity of this last part.

He follows this line of reasoning in the fourth paragraph, where he provides a hypothetical example of the perfectly plausible fact that �computer diversity will never allow a bugless game to exist.� His example is that a user had incorrectly set up the computer game SMAC while installing it and that that resulted in an inability to use the game. While his choice to use Alpha Centauri as an example might have been less than ideal, he is nevertheless indicating that this problem can happen to any game, no matter how well written. To relate to Darkstar�s recent post concerning the four types of bugs, JM is indirectly suggesting is that, if a program (admittedly not SMAC) does not have design or implementation bugs, which can be hypothetically controlled by the company, it would still have user misunderstanding and driver configuration bugs, and that is a result of the very nature of computers. Understanding that previous sentence is critical, as it is the core of JM�s argument, and, had this been a technical essay, it would have been his thesis.

After going on to explain why the example�s particular user misunderstanding would have to be considered a bud, JM returns to the �real world� and begins to explain why, due to the nature of business and due to corporate reality, design and implementation bugs usually have to exist as well. (I will concede that he did not explicitly mention the �four types of bugs,� but why would he have, as that would have made the discussion technical?) The eighth paragraph, in which he relates the financial angle of gaming to Quality Assurance, is where he begins his argument of this subtopic. He makes an altogether reasonable argument as to why, in the real world, products are often rushed out the door, further enhancing his reasoning as to why all games are buggy (remember, that is what he is arguing). The argument, for those of you who do not have the article before you, is that deadlines for releasing computer games often have to be met, regardless of bugs, due to the financial pre-planning of pre-production advertising, the securing of duplication facilities, and so forth. In short, JM has made a reasoned argument as to why

The eleventh paragraph, where JM begins his discussion about the gaming community, is where he abandons both his thesis and his diplomatic tact. As he has abandoned his thesis of the fact that �all games are buggy,� I will not continue my study of the article as closely as I have had, but I will proceed nonetheless.

Many people here on these forums have feigned being insulted by his statements. If you really have been genuinely insulted, two things: one, in that case and only in that case, JM owes an apology, and two, get a life. It is true that what he said, especially about how a fan forum discussion of the game cannot exist without bugs, is false, but that is no reason to be insulted. I pity those who are so hypersensitive to every little thing that they think is said about them. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient reason to justify the hysteria that has been generated, especially by Darkstar, who has exercised particularly bad form in this debacle. JM�s central topic � that of buggy games � has yet to be refuted by Darkstar, despite his exceedingly long post, or anyone else. His second topic, that of the Internet communities, was rude, but not nearly to the extent that some other people have been in their responses to his article.

One last thing: Imran�s Flaming Party. In countering the histrionics of some of the individuals on this forum, we should not stoop to the levels that some of people have chosen. The Flaming Party has not been productive, nor has it contributed anything of value since I last checked.

Well, one more thing, really. Everyone involved in this has been so rude it is unbelievable. Rude to JM, rude to naysayers, rude to eachother. If this discussion was serious in its feigned indignation over JM's statements, it would have been a more civil, polite discussion than the one we see here.

posted 08-09-99 12:32 AM ET            

This seemed to be have been JKM's point.]

If you look at these comments in a general sense, they have some merit, at least as far as reminding the public that sometimes it is their fault and that the company cannot be blamed for every tiny little perceived fault in the game. For instance, SMAC classes offensive units as defenders when the Opp Eng is under attack. This is a stupid thing to do, gamewise. To humble ignorant me, it looks like a bug. But in truth, it's a design issue. No sea borders? Again not a bug, a design issue.

You can apply a similar, if somewhat more perverse logic to the infinte range missiles, which aren't fair and can ruin a game, but which also aren't a bug per se, but a design issue (read: flaw). Or the singularity engine having only 30 hitpoints and 7 against mindworms. Bug? No, design issue.

[In this case, firaxis actually responded that the game was correct, and the manual was wrong - in effect, the reactor bug wasn't a bug. Consumer feedback convinced them otherwise - in this case JKM's perception of user created bugs was accurate, but the company still had to fix the bug.]

So JKM makes some reasonable points, though they don't serve to actually make SMAC a better game or the customer any happier. But what grates with the people on these forums (the one's who've complained, at any rate) is the read-between-the-lines aspect of the article, and what it says to them directly:

1) There are no bugs in SMAC except the ones you've purposely created.
2) We can't actually fix the bugs in SMAC, it costs too much and takes too long.
3) You are all losers for whining about bugs.

posted 08-09-99 01:10 AM ET            

I realize that there is a few threads, but considering I quoted parts of it in THIS thread, I will have to lump you in that group of people that just don't care to do their own research or work. Frankly, I've grown tired of trying to help the dense on this, and am just surfing at the moment because I was told by a few that there was some hilarious responses and counters.

Firaxis has proved to me that they think the customer is a sucker. That's worse than Sierra in my book, and that's pretty low. Until I see signs that's different, it's going to take a very incredible game to motivate me to support Firaxis finacially. Civ3 won't be it, since its just a SMAC mod.

<rant mode set to low>

Oh, and Techno... you are falling in a trap of misdirection in your arguments. Don't do that. I have NEVER said that SMAC should be "flawless". I have in the past expressed my disappointment at the number of "bugs" I've seen in the game (even if they are "features"). That's a typical fan reaction that expected more. But if you would care to read JM's article again, he states that if you give a QA enough time, they can shake out the Configuration issues. Might require lots of more money than the company wants to fork over. But there would still be bugs due to the "User Misunderstanding of what the Program is or does" (known in the business as User Stupidity).

I apologize for getting insulting in this post. But at this point in the flame war, I find it difficult not to, as aside from "the Imran Party bit" (which I entirely agree) to counter someone raising the same tired valueless counterpoints who wasn't bothered to, or cannot due to amount, read what has been said and countered before. Although I do welcome your calmer attempt at it Technocrat. Much better than the Defenders saying "All of you are just ****ing grade a morons!".

posted 08-09-99 01:38 PM ET            

As for "falling in a trap of misdirection in (my) arguments," I have never said, suggested or even implied that anyone has expected SMAC to be perfect. The whole point of my post was to demonstrate that JM's article has been misinterpreted, and neither you nor Shining1 have actually taken the time to rebut any of my arguments. Shining1 merely restated the misperceptions that I have been trying to correct, and your post doesn't even address what I have wrote outside of my observation that you have not been using quotes to show where JM was in error.

I apppreciate that it might have been difficult to avoid getting insulting in your response, Darkstar, but had you read what I wrote, you would have known that the grounds for your ending statements were non-existent. By failing to read what I wrote concerning your quoting methodology carefully before going on about how I am an incompetent researcher, you have become a hypocrite in the capacity that you did go over my writings to accurately see what was written. I wish I had not wrote that particular statement so that I could have avoided this symantic debate, but I did, and as it was a valid observation that has not been countered, I will stand behind it and everything else I wrote concerning the interpretation of JM's article.

posted 08-09-99 01:43 PM ET            

You seem to be the modern day Analyst of old! Would you consider defecting to ACOL? Unless you already have.

posted 08-09-99 05:22 PM ET            

I did not find anything significant in your posting. Tell me, are you autistic? That is the only way I can see that you can so ignore what I have previously written and disectted of the article. I am not trying to pick on you. I am just curious. I have a few autistic friends, and a doctor friend of mine claims I am borderline autistic. Could be. But I think I am just arrogant, stubborn, and and slightly odd without significant physiological factors.

But to sum up what has me so fired up with Jeff's article, is his half truths, misdirection, and underhanded swipes. At his management, the developers and consumers. As I have said, if JM wanted to vent and bash, it would have been best to have done it by an alias or private ID. But then, he'd been flamed to death by the SMACophants for daring to suggest SMAC isn't perfect, or Firaxis that greatest slice of heaven on the planet.

Let's do your favorite exercise... Dissect the article.

Paragraph 1: Introduction. He informs us that many people think their games have bugs. He also mentions that current played games will have players that think they were cheated due to some bug or unincluded feature.

Paragraph 2: JM admits many games have been released with lots of bugs. Here he states to return products you don't like, or the game companies will not get the message. Otherwise bitching in newsgroups and forums is pratically useless, as their is no impact to the developer's bottom line.

Paragraph 3: Logic game by Jeff. He plays the "Most" games buggy = less games bugless. Game. Cute Line "Even more interestingly, it seems what the public wants, if not demands, is a 100 percent bug free title." - Makes it sound like it's news to him that customers don't like or want bugs in their product. Sarcasm, or set up for his third page? You'd have to ask him, and hope for an honest answer.

But he's just establishing his major line of defense for not being able to get his job done. Lines to love "Even worse, it seems all parties concerned -- the developers, the consumers and even the machines -- actively combat any effort to achieve this goal." Here he starts his 'Its not my fault routine.' He is stating that the developers, the consumers, and their machines, are ACTIVELY trying to make bugs. That's a pretty strong statement. Developers... That would be Brian Reynolds and the rest of the PROGRAMMERS in Firaxis case. They put in the bugs. And the Consumers are adding in their own. And of course, the consumers machine's OS is going "My user/owner is running a JM Q&A's product. Time to alter the program and add in bugs."

You know what? None of that flies. As Jeff spends the rest of page one, and page two, on why he can't do his job, I really don't feel like covering old ground. But are you, Sir Technocrat, ACTIVELY trying to add bugs to your products? Do you believe that your machine is? That the programmers who made it put the bugs into it just to give their QA guys a hard time, or something to do?

Is this the end of Jeff's not my faulting? Nope. He continues with "In short, on the PC platform as it currently stands, there can be no such thing as a bugless game." Mind you, why will they always be buggy then? Because the developers, the customers, and the customer's OS are purposely and "ACTIVELY" putting in bugs. That's some powerful secrets of the software world, if that were true.

Paragraph 4: We get Jeff being kind and saying anything that the user thinks is a bug we will call a bug. Mighty kind of him, as this is his audience. Users.

He then goes into his example of "No monitor selected bug" causing SMAC to crap out. He tells us that its a very common problem, and that the programmers could have written a few lines of code to check for it. But they didn't. So SMAC won't run. In this one example, he's established that its the programmer's fault for sloppy code and not checking, and the user's fault for not setting his monitor type. Wow. Passed the buck twice, and he's only getting started. He then touches on how the industry needs to do hardware testing to catch such simple stuff, and how it takes using "stock" components. How such testing issues are at the very center of Q&A. And then caps his efforts of buck passing in this paragraph with "...insures it sure won't remain stock for long." That means he places no faith in stock component testing. Can't keep up with the market. That is certainly true of a small company. But here, it's more of a whine than an explanation to the audience. Venting.

His next paragraph (#5) is : "My point is this: The developer cannot realistically tell a customer they haven't experienced a "bug." Other games worked on the consumer's system, and they paid money for the new one to work on their system, but it doesn't work. It is a rare person faced with this prospect who will consider the possibility that his computer may be to blame. Technical support avenues of various flavors can solve the problem, but the fact of the matter is that the customer had problems, and in their minds and the minds of whoever they discusses it with, it will be portrayed as a bug."

What's that say? We can't make users understand it wasn't us, its their own setup and hardware. The user has other things that work, and thinks ours should as well. If the user would just read the manual, readme, online help, online hints and tips, the online readme, the newsgroup, the related newsgroups, the other places that tell him how to straighten it out, then he'd solve "HIS" configuration/driver issue so our software could run, then he wouldn't be a silly user. He'd be smart like me. And I wouldn't have to waste my time...

Sorry, got into rant mode. Anyways, that is what he says. They can't tell the user to RTFM and update their drivers and correctly configure their system. Why? Because the customer is always right. What's worse, the user with the problem is going to bitch about it to others, which could hurt sales. Everybody: (chorus) A bug is a bug is a bug... but its not our bug.

Paragraph 6: Here, he just is setting us up for a taste of economics. Points out game companies are for profit companies, and they want their money.

Paragraph 7: Tells us he thinks games and game companies were better in the past, before serious big business kicked in. States that it would be nice if everyone was super-rich and did the game for fun and love. But throws in the bucket of cold water on this fantasy world of was and never be. Explains its easy to get a clone okayed, as that is a safe bet to Management/Investors. And that Hype Machines are a way of life, as they help drive sells and make sales predictable. Also that money into hype machines seem more sound than into development. he closes this paragraph with "some products are rushed out the door because if they don't hit that final milestone, the company will tank and the game will never be released." An explanation of why games go out unfinished. He doesn't explain that its the GAME COMPANY ("Developers"), not investors, that are the ones that want it out in the market place. That is their source of future income. The investors would LIKE for that to happen, but that is why its Risk Capital. Sometimes, it fails utterly. Sometimes, it yields great (Starcraft, anyone?).

Paragraph 8: This is his why QA gets the short shaft. He explains that due to the FINANCIAL environment and needs, the Hype machine has to have its product. Delays in production mean less time for testing. While the developer wants to make a quality product, and understands that QA needs another 6 weeks to 3 months to test and shake out the bugs, they want to eat sometime, and so the product ships on time. He does educate us somewhat on the Hype machine, and how it messes with PR and Markettings spell, and is very expensive, to maintain if they do miss their date. Since the initial money the company got from investors is eaten up in salaries and bonuses for the developers, they can't afford to pay anything not already budgetted. Not without cutting someone out of thier money, which means that person leaves. They are doing it for the money, not the love of the game.

Paragraph 9: Short paragraph. Amounts to 'That's reality. It sucks to make a sucky/buggy product, but we got to be payed. Consumer loses everytime a company makes that choice. But we gotta eat.' (Paraphrased, not quoted.)

That's the end of page 2.

Paragragh 10: The set up of his perfect world and beginning stepping off the deep end (according to some). Talking about how the Hype machine is building the anxious product waiters...

Paragraph 11: Explains how the waiters are having fun trying to imagine what the product is or will be implemented. How it forms the center of their community.

Paragraph 12: Talks about how the community reaches a climax in its anticipation of the product. And how the reality shatters the community, as there is no room left for the what will bes. Only thing the game commune has left is the bugs.

Paragraph 13: Group bonding over bugs, and how it allows everyone to stay together by whining about the bugs. Implies that the community has a blast chatting and no game can compete (which would make it the logical next step in his arguments re: Expectant Commune). States that bug serve the place of news (which there isn't much of any, as the game is "done"). States that bugs are the way that the consumer tries to initiate dialogue with the developers.

Paragraph 14: States that he himself expects flawless games, that install and teach him how to play. Then lets him win and have a good time. Also states that all games, no matter how long in development or test, will eventually have user perceived bugs.

Paragraph Last (15): States why he collects his pay, if you accept his article as written. Games have to meet a minimum level of quality, else the customers tell their friends that it sucks, so their friends won't buy it, so the developers can't eat. Game companies do rush products out the door, but not nearly as much as the public claims (sounds like a shot at telling the public to "shut up. You don't know about rushing." to me, but...) Then pulls a nice double statement by saying the goal is to make a bugless game, after informing us just above "Developers who want to stay in business need to deliver a product that works as advertised and satisfies the customer to the point they tell all their friends to buy it." (The goal is to advertise truthfully about the product, and match or exceed market quality.) *I* see those as two seperate things in the corporate world. And that is what my experiences tell me.

I disagree he presented a thesis. He's presented a 2000 word or less essay on why JM cannot do his job. A pass the buck and let me make sure you see the diaper.

Now, I really dislike pulling something apart too far. The reason is simple... it's a lot easier to pull a statement out of context. When you pick apart something, especially down to a paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence sort of thing, the overall tone and meanings tend to get lost. The Synergy of the parts tells us more about the Poster/Author than any small bit. But hey, that is the game we are playing, now isn't it?

A small note:
JM shifts back and forth in who he means when he says developers. Sometimes its the whole company, and sometimes its the coders, depending on the context.

Technocrat, I believe its your serve.

posted 08-09-99 10:03 PM ET            

Darkstar, I'm glad to see that you have given up your arguments over whether I inaccurately accussed you in that quote statement I made.

Well, you say that you have read my posts "thoroughly," but you provide yet *another* reason for me to suspect that, in fact, you have not read it thoroughly, but rather have skimmed it or read it lightly. If you would be so kind to notice that, at any location in my writings, I have never once said that JM presented a thesis in his article. Also, and this relates to my objection to the thesis question, I have already previously and directly implied that this article was not an essay (I had said, "...had this been a technical essay..."), and yet you have said it to be so. My observation concerning whether this is an essay is, at best, another symantic dispute, but as for your contention that I had said that there had been a thesis, I did not, and I deny it. Read my posts and you will see that what I am saying is correct; I had very carefully and consciously avoided saying that there was a thesis, due to the fact that there is none. (I will admit that towards the end of my writings I used the word "thesis" liberally, but this was in reference to what I had previously outlined as what would have been his thesis). As for whether I have ignored previous arguments that you have made, what relevant arguments have you made previously that I have missed? You mention none, I'm afraid. If I really did, and you're not just ranting, then I'm sorry.

I had not dissected the article paragraph by paragraph, but since you have chosen to do so, I will accompany you.

Paragraph 1&2: Well, I think we're all in agreement here.

Paragraph 3: As I have stated previously, this is where JM begins his substantive discussion. Your "cute line" quote is merely a device used by JM to reflect that the public at large really does want a bug-free title. Despite your sarcasm concerning the motivations of JM in making this statement, you do not seem to disagree that this statement is true.

As for the "all parties...actively combat any effort to achieve (the goal of a bug-free game)" quote, I am willing to concede that this statement was not the wisest one he has made, but nevertheless what he trying to say is that everyone has reasons as to not allowing the perfecting of code in the games. He DOES NOT say or imply that they are actively trying to MAKE bugs, but rather he is saying that they all have reasons why they might want a game to be released before it has been made bug free (I disagree w/ JM that the customers should be included in this). My interpretation of this is supported by later partsof the article, wheras yours is not.

As far as whether the PC platform does not permit a bug-free game, despite your sarcasm (yet again), that is, as I have said previously, the core of his argument (see above to find out what I'm discussing). You seem to believe that it's just another sentence, but I maitain that it is the core of his argument. Again, see above as to how your "four types of bugs" post relates to this statement. As it is the core of his argument, your intimations concerning this statement are at the center of this debate over the interpretation of the article.

Paragraph 4: In this example, JM presents an example as to why his position about how computers necessitate bugs is correct. He does not blame the development team, as he states (in the 5th paragraph) that they could not possibly anticipate every "possible incorrect configuration," but rather he blames computer hardware diversity. As for blaming the user, well, in this particular example, the user really is at partial fault. After this, you use quotes from the fifth paragraph, and so I will move on.

Paragraph 5: First of all, I dispute the notion that JM doesn't have "faith" in stock component testing, but rather he doesn't have faith in the ability to keep the stock-base wide enough to cover all hardware on Earth and to keep up with the latest hardware developments. Your accusation that it's a whine is without reason due to this explanation.

Paragraph 6 (what Darkstar has said to be 5): "My point is this: The developer cannot realistically tell a customer they haven't experienced a "bug." Other games worked on the consumer's system, and they paid money for the new one to work on their system, but it doesn't work. It is a rare person faced with this prospect who will consider the possibility that his computer may be to blame. Technical support avenues of various flavors can solve the problem, but the fact of the matter is that the customer had problems, and in their minds and the minds of whoever they discusses it with, it will be portrayed as a bug."

None of your interpretations of this section of the article reflect what was his intention by bringing this up. Namely, anything can happen, and when it does, it will be thought of as a bug. Your sarcasm does not change the fact that this example has to be considered a bug. I have already stated that his choosing this as an example is less than ideal, but his point is valid despite its susceptibilty to misinterpretation.

Paragraph 7 (6 as you say): Hmmm.. I think we're all in agreement here.

Paragraph 8 (7 as DS says): You seem to trivialize the power that investors hold over companies, especially small ones. The designers want the game out, but when it is completed. Financial realities (such as what you have said, namely that the games pay for their incomes) dictate that they need to release games, sometimes even if they're buggy. Ironically, by trying to sarcastically rebut JM's argument, you have provided another reason as to its validity.

Paragraph 9 (8? the one about the "hype machine"): We seem, strangely enough, to be in accordance here as well. I don't see any counter argument presented against this paragraph.

Paragraph 10 (9 according to DS): Again, you do not provide a counter argument. Why is this? These last paragraphs are important ones in that they provide significant "real world" evidence as to why his position is correct.

Paragraph 11 (10?): These next few paragraphs are the ones where I disagree with JM, but as I said earlier, they are not sufficient cause in and of themselves to warrant an apology and certainly not his job. In and of itself, it is also insufficient to be insulted by, and I revert to my previous statements concerning this issue.

Last paragraph: I will address your suggestion that the goal is to make a bugless game: it is explicitly stated that the goal is to make a game that works. I don't know where you got that idea.

Note: Darkstar, our paragraph numbering seems to have diverged. In my copy, which is a printer-friendly one, paragraphs 4&5 (what you say are simply 4) are seperated by an advertisment, and it is possible that the paragraph was split to make room for that commercial.

Another thing, DS. You say you have found nothing of significance in my posts, but you do not back this statement up with any arguments. This indicates one of two things: either that you have not actually read the posts carefully (which I suspect), or that you lack the ability to rebut them, which I am loath to suspect.

A note on your small note: If your interpretation of the article requires you to think that the definition of the word "developers" changes within the article, you are on very, very shaky ground.

Finally, as to your "curiosity" as to whether or not I am autistic. No I am not, and it was highly, almost egregiously, rude of you to ask that for the reason that, if I had been autistic, that would have been a highly degrading observation for you to make. As such, you genuinely ought to apologize for that, but I'm not really going to ask you for an apology as I am not autistic. The fact that such rudeness has been displayed in this supposedly nominally intellectual of debates adds further weight and merit to my previous complaint of the rudeness that is being displayed.

posted 08-10-99 02:16 AM ET            

I'd flame apart your statement of disbelief on the various meanings of developers, except that its a small side issue and your misunderstanding. But once again, you are trying to trap matters down in misdirection of logic.

Your side of this flame is JM didn't insult us, nor whine, nor play the "it's not my fault" blame game.

My side of this flame is that JM did insult us, whine, and play the "it's not my fault" blame game.

You might win the lack of "whining" aspect, but you won't win the "insult us" aspect. You yielded that point, and stated that he did indeed insult us, if purely by accident. That leaves only the "Blame Game" aspect for consideration. Is he playing it? Yes. You are trying to dance around the issue. You think he provides logical arguments as to why Q&A, and he, can't do the job.

Come to think of that, that means we are in agreement. He is playing the blame game. Either the job got done, or it didn't. Statements for a job not BEING done are called excuses.

Score 2 for the Dark One, and 1 unagreed.

That makes it, "thank you, drive through".

And you will have to wait for Judgement Day if you expect an apology. You are the one that's been highly self absorded at skimming and ignore statements. And there is nothing wrong in being how you are. I had asked you because you are showing a narrowness of focus and consideration that is part of being autistic. I asked, because I *have* that behavior, and having so recently been shown why a friend wants to actually check for such things (coupled with other things not "visible" in this electronic format), it simply stood out to me. If you think it was a shot at you, you are wrong. It's called hightened sensitivity and possible projection on my part. This is a shot. I find you highly insulting in and of your virtual self. None of your "debates" have seen here have ever been anything less than a shuck and jive BS of dodging any issues or statements you can't counter with occasional insulting comments and purposeful red herrings to misdirect from the original debate. It's a tactic of someone that cannot stand a reasoned debate. This is NOT a reasoned debate. I have not seen you allow such an event that you post in to stay such. But then, I've never seen you win one. Care to point me to a thread where you did? Just out of curiosity...

posted 08-10-99 02:57 AM ET            

Would you like to stop writing books to each other and post sensible lenghth arguments that people could actually be bothered to read!

The only reason I could see justification for writing that much would be if you were writing part of a story thread.

posted 08-10-99 12:16 PM ET            

You claim that "none of (my) 'debates' (that) have (been) seen here have ever been anything less than a shuck and jive BS of dodging any issues or statements you can't counter with occasional insulting comments and purposeful red herrings to misdirect from the original debate." However, yet again, you fail to provide supporting arguments or the reasoning behind your arrival at this conclusion. Moreover, I believe it is fair to say that that quote is much more readily applicable to you than it is to me. I have repeatedly asked for you to counter my reasonings with explanations of your own, and you have continuously avoided doing so. A specific example of this is in my last posting, in which I openly invited you to argue against my previous positions, yet you have not done so, instead sinking to a level of rudeness and hipocrisy that I did not think you capable of. I'm dodging issues that I can't counter? On the contrary, it is you who this holds true to, not me, as I have systematically gone over your posts (why do you think I did that paragraph-by-paragraph analysis last post? For the fun of it? No - to counter you!) and rebutted them. The irrationality that you are displaying in you pathetic attempts at avoiding any serious argument is laughable, especially as you are accusing me of things that I am not guilty of and that you are.

As for the autistic isssue, you have pronounced that you did what you did for my interests, as you have "been shown why a friend wants to actually check for such things." Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that I did suffer from it. What were you intending on doing, prescribe me a drug? I doubt that very seriously. Rather, I think it was to imply to a passer-by that my arguments and positions were founded in mental illness, and as such it is extraordinarily spiteful for you to do so. You say that I am "showing a narrowness of focus and consideration," but you do not provide any evidence for this. I would suggest that you are reacting to the fact that I am trying to my initial topic - that of the interpretation of JM's article. I would also say that I have demonstrated a willingness to engage you on a wide range of fronts, from quoting concerns to thesis-related symantics to actual issues related to the article, such as the paragraph-by-paragraph interpretation posts.

Let us now consider the "insult us" topic, as you say. When did I say that JM insulted us by accident? I have never once said anything of the sort. On the contrary, I have previously washed my hands of the whole issue about the validity of the points JM advanced concerning the online forums and how the "need" bugs to have something to discuss. What I did say, however, is that those statements alone were not enough to warrant an apology from JM - let's not lose sight of the fact that that is what this is all about, an apology from JM or his job. The fact that you believed that I thought he insulted everyone by accident is even further evidence that you were not reading very carefully.

As for the "blame game" issue, you provide no example in the article as to where JM was trying to blame other people for QA's problems. On the contrary, I believe that JM was doing exactly what the title of the article implied - that he was explaining why a game could never be bug-free. The only way you could effectively argue that he was blaming others for his own incompetence at a QA job would be if he was explaining why he specifically couldn't get this bug out or that bug out. Rather, he is explaining why, no matter how great the coding, there will always be "bugs" in games despite any conceivable effort a gaming company could take. Your position is only true if QA is expected to rid games of every possible bug that there was (inculding user-stupidity bugs), but I don't believe that QA is expected to do such a feat. Apparently, our views as to what is expected from QA divisions are different, but realistically, I think that your position that QA is EXPECTED to rid programs of all their bugs is astonishing, and I doubt any QA could live up to that. Of course, if that isn't your position, than you cannot say that JM is playing any "blame game" whatsoever.

Darkstar, the irrationality and incoherence that you exhibited in your last post is perplexing, and I am tempted to simply attribute it to the time of day you posted. However, I think that it is closer to the truth to say that it is due to the fact that you have run out of any logical arguments supporting your position and have instead decided to resort to flaming me. This is evidenced by that absurd point-system you tried to establish, the lack of any presentation of any thought-out argument, or any real argument at all, and so on. You say that this is not a reasoned debate, but is has been on my end (just try to debate that), whereas your end of the debate has exhibited a preposterous amount of rudeness, irrationality, beating-around-the-bush (you have never done anything other than this), and sarcasm. Should I be surprised at this, given the fact that you initially wanted JM's job over this article?

One more thing. You claim, "This is NOT a reasoned debate. I have not seen you allow such an event (that is, a debate)that you post in to stay such. But then, I've never seen you win one." Well, if that is the case, then outside of this debate, you have never seen me in a debate at all, which I find funny. You see, in these BBs, I have only been in two debates - this one, which has yet to be ended, and one in the "Alien Crossfire" thread over the economic system SMAC employs, which I won. Given the way you said that, you seemed to be implying that you have seen me lose debates often - but this cannot be the case, as I have just demonstrated.

posted 08-10-99 01:48 PM ET            

If you find my tactics aggravating, take a look at what you hate most. THAT is what you are doing. It's common projection. I am PRESUMING I do the same, as I see you as trying to argue down at me while flat ignoring everything said and stated.

Don't flatter yourself. You did the paragraph by paragraph counter point for your own amusement. You asked what I saw that so irritated me. I mistakenly thought to try and show you. I say mistaken, in that this IS a flame. It is not a reasoned debate. You can't move me or my opinion. I was past the point of caring at the time you chimed into this issue, that I haven't tried to move you on the level I normally use in my debates, not flames, here. So we are just exercising our typing skills at the moment. No amount of your rhetoric will move me from my opinion. From you attitudes and history of posting here that I have seen, no amount of rhetoric or evidence would move you as well. So it's best to go our seperate ways.

Otherwise, we get into things like this...
*******************************************
Techno, we haven't even agreed to what it is we are "Debating". You keep moving your position. My position is this is a flame.

JM insulted us (which you implicitly agree with, by stating his remarks concerning users and customers were quite poor, you could find insulting, but would rather wash your hands and not argue over). I see you as just folding on the issue, stating something along the lines of "Well, its not worth his job.". I agree, *if* this had been just a single or a rare instance of such. But with Firaxis's long history of insulting their customers, it is worth his job or their income, if an apology or a statement is not meant.

Second, my Flame is that the JM article was an excuse, a diaper, a classic "passing the buck", which as a professional in the Software Industry, and having been the Head of Q&A management, I found extremely insulting. When discussing a job or task, either it gets done or it doesn't. If it gets done, than reasons and techniques that happened are 'Formuli of Success'. Anything that hampered it are obstacles overcame. When the job doesn't get done, reasons stated for that NOT happening are 'Excuses'. If you succeed, you don't need excuses. If you fail, you do. JM sites reasons QA cannot do its job. Time constraints, Hardware variety, User Misunderstandings. Are their bugs in SMAC? Yes. Was JM's job to get them out? Yes. The only issue of debate is what is an acceptable amount of bugs remaining. For some users, one is too many. I tend to follow industry standards (since this is what I was taught), which is more along the lines of .01% to .001% to be a good 'relatively bugless' product. That's a pretty small figure, but when you take into account that includes the thousands that started, then having 100 to 500, depending on who you ask, isn't that bad. But again, this SIDE point is a matter of opinion. HOW MANY are too much? I think Firaxis's Quality Process failed to deliver, for whatever reasons (whether inside or outside of JM's control). If you think different, fine. But that is a matter of opinion. Just as being insulted or not, is a matter of opinion.

Third, my Flame is that Firaxis needs to take some form of proactive action to correct this problem of bad PR relations attitude. Perhaps, my dissatisfication with the company is unduly reflecting on JM. Except that as a member of Firaxis, its actions and attitudes reflect upon him, just as his reflects upon it. If Firaxis does not correct this attitude, we, the consumers, should exercise our powers of financial abilities, and stop providing Firaxis with any fiscal support, or at least the majority of fiscal support.

These are flames. You can no more make me reconsider my position that you can make the Sun stop shining.

You can agree, disagree, or ignore.

Tech, you have done more than post here and on the economic thread. We have tangled here at Alpha.owo in the past. In fact, we didn't tangle on the economic thread, but on others. For examply. you were trying to attack Shining1's position that Firaxis's product DISAPPOINTED him. (Another matter of opinion that you desired to argue.) There are several other conversations and threads I remember you doing the same thing on. Attacking people on a point of OPINION, and trying to tell them they were wrong. If they responded to you, you'd focus on a couple of their sentences, and purposely misdirect them to other subjects. And claim they ignored you and your points. My only regret is that I was foolish enough to allow you to do the same to me, when I knew your SOP for getting your thrills and chills.

If you want to have a debate, that is something I occasionally enjoy. But we will have to AGREE on what it is we are to DISAGREE on. So far, we haven't seemed to have done that, which might be why we seem to be talking past one another, and becoming irritated in the process.

posted 08-12-99 06:32 PM ET            

Darkstar, if you want to call a truce, that's fine by me, but then do not turn around and continue the discussion. In the interests of winding this down, I will limit my comments to counterpoints of some important topics I think you raised.

First of all, you say that I have debated like this before, not just here and on the economic thread but other places as well and you claim that you have seen me engage in predictable debate tactics. I find this highly unlikely, as I have just been recently taught these debate techniques (the ones that I have been employing in this thread, that is), and I could not have employed them earlier, as I did not know them - I hadn't been taught about them yet. Where are the threads in which I employ such tactics as you describe, that lead you to your conclusion?

Another thing, and in the interests of reconciliation, I am not sure that I ought to be posting this: I think you describe my debate techniques incorrectly. I do not "select sentences" to attack, but rather I identify my opponent's arguments and rebut them systematically, often using quotes to demostrate that I am not misconstruing his/her arguments. In your case, however, often entire positions would be presented in just a few sentences, without any supporting arguments, and as such, to rebut them, the quote I would use would often necessarily encompass entire contentions of yours, not only making it appear as though I was attacking a sentence, but also precluding me from addressing any supporting arguments. Returning to your assertion that you knew already that I employed this technique, I will once again say that I find this unlikely as I had just learned this method of argument.

I honestly thought that, by a logical presentation of rational explanations and arguments, you could have been persuaded that the interpretation I argued for was the only reasonable one given the wordings of the article. However, I now acknowledge that this idea of mine was (yes, extremely) naive, and I'm sorry for starting this debacle-within-a-debacle, as both of us were arguing futilely. This fact notwithstanding, I still have yet to see any examples of my ignoring anything that was said in this. On the contrary, I think I systematically went over and addressed everything you said in each of your responses, the exception being in this post. I am also bewildered at your admitted reluctance as to whether or not the reverse is true - I supplied many examples of this as we went along. Also, I did NOT keep moving my position, as you said, but rather I carefully maintained both a contiuity in my objectives and in my systemized reasoning. From the beginning I established that I was addressing the interpretation of the article that everyone was employing.

One other reason my motivation in engaging in this was naive was that I had thought your displeasure lied entirely within the article, as your first post here suggests (i.e., you were calling for apologies based on the article, not the overall performance of Firaxian QA). This is perhaps why I was under the impression that you could be persuaded to change your mind - if your anger was based pretty much only on the article, my goal might have been achievable. However, a few sentences that you wrote in your last post (the last few in the third paragraph after the asterixes) made me realize that you are mad mainly over more than just the article - you are also mad about the overall treatment Firaxis has given its customers in the past, and continues to do so. As such, there is little point in my arguing over the article as that is not the sole cause of your Firaxis position, which I don't entirely disagree with.

Concerning what is probably the most sensitive issue, the autistic question you had asked - you should have said that that was the reason for asking in the first place! That would have precluded any appearance of malice, and I would not have reacted in the way which I did. Given that as the reasoning, the question was not rude as I had thought. As far as any information I might possess about the disease, sorry, but I don't have any. Not only do I not have the disease, but I have never met anyone with it, and when you asked the question I will admit I had to look it up in some medical glossaries that a relative of mine has. Very embarrassing, I must say.

posted 08-13-99 01:59 PM ET            

What's sad is that Firaxis truly has the power to change my opinion toward their better. But they are not exercising it.

posted 08-23-99 02:47 PM ET            

There is no reason for ANY of us to be here. According to the latest buzz, Firaxis is after the beer and pretzel crowd, and not anyone hardcore enough to actually VISIT a game forum or have spent considerable time having fun analyzing the differences in how their games play above tutorial/citizen level.

Heck, they might not even BOTHER with anything past chieftain in Civ3, as it's not worth the delays in reaching the market, paying salaries for the added time to program the additional complications, etc. etc. etc. They have already decided that QA is not a priority in the slightest (go read JKM's new article in which he tells you that), so what next to be eliminated as they no longer target the hardcore, merely the new masses with a PC?

I don't mind paying the hipocritical price to remain here and educate my fellow "hardcore" gamers of certain issues. Firaxis's corporate culture says we are all unimportant to thier policies, profit, or play style. This forum is just here as EA offered it.

EA, on the other hand, is a publisher that does make games I enjoy and support, so again, I don't mind staying on for a while longer. Ultimately, its EA that gets the credit for my traffic, not Firaxis.

posted 08-23-99 04:20 PM ET            

Ah, I see. So, You choose to boycott the game, but continue to play. If you really want to hurt the company, why not go the hole distance? If you are going to boycott it completely, you should ultimately boycott the distributor as well. After all, Electronic Arts is distributing their game. They would be just as guilty for supplying you with the defective product some believe that Firaxis is offering. By NOT boycotting the distributor, you BECOME the hypocrite.

I have read JM's interview. What it tells me is that Firaxis is a small company where many of the people there wear several different hats. Many such companies exist. Take, for example, ID Software. In the beginning, ID worked out of a Garage in Dallas, which was real cool because you could drive over to their place and actually talk to the guys in person. Everyone did a little bit of everything. I suspect that Firaxis is very similar.

The Interview also tells me that Firaxis cares deeply about serious customer input, and that they ARE capable of determining the difference between the Yahoos that want to do nothing but tear their games apart and those "Hardcore" gamers that would prefer to see the games improved. Unless you are wearing rose-colored glasses, I would have expected others to see that. However, some people got hung up by the label "Whiners", immediately assuming that JM was applying it to them, and continued their complaints.

posted 08-23-99 07:16 PM ET            

Actually, I LIKE JM's newest interview. In that one, he makes no excuses. He makes little to no (depending on who you ask) insulting comments. That was, by itself, much more in line with what I would expect from a Small Company that has QA and customer satisfaction nowhere in their goals or objectives. JM does much better telling us how it IS rather than telling us why Firaxis has bugs in their product, and always will.

For his latest article, I have to say that I don't mind JM's position in Firaxis. After all, I am merely a "hard-core enthusiast". But Firaxis might...

Now, that might be hipocracy, but I see it as a clarification by JM...

posted 08-25-99 11:56 AM ET         

Beta-1