posted 09-14-99 06:57 PM ET            

It would be impossible to relive everything that has transpired. However, let me share a few things with you to answer your questions.

SMAC was a greatly hyped endeavor. It was common to see a discourse between Firaxis and the public and BR certainly made all of the reviewer circuits to pump things up. Needless to say, high expectations will result in a demanding public.

Negative criticism therefore flowed along 3 major paths.

1)Many civers quickly realized that SMAC was just a storyline and coat of paint over the existing civ 2 engine. This generated heated battles between what I termed the SMACophants and the disgruntled. However, the numbers of the disgruntled rapidly grew as time on the game proved how little creativity was applied to many aspects of the game.

2)I don't know what release of the game you have, but the initial release was unstable on numerous systems and contained alot of in game bugs like terraformers that spin in circles and automated bombing routines that don't work. Yes, four patches cleared up a lot of this. However, it was only the vocal masses that got Firaxis to fix most of this as they openly denied that most of the problems existed. Even in the face of overwhelming proof.

3) Firaxis has developed a major public relations problem with their "dedicated" community. BTW, I define dedicated as someone who plays the game not just because of the cool looking box and that they are looking for a continuation of the Civ experience. Firaxis then compounded their problem in a number of ways. First, the already mentioned denial of bugs and lack of responsibility for the instability issues. Second, BR goes public and asks his dedicated fans for ideas and support on the Civ III game. Third, JKM posts an article attacking the same community that provided so much input to civ III and calls them a bunch of pathetic losers and blames everyone except Firaxis for their predicament.

Needless to say, this will probably clear up a few things that you are reading in the revived posts. However, I will also give Firaxis credit for creating this forum and openly soliciting constructive criticism. OTOH, you will also note their hypocrisy as Firaxis no longer forwards the link from their company site. In fact, I don't even think they have a dedicated SMAC site at all anymore. Obviously, this shows that they chose to get out of the kitchen when it got hot.

posted 09-15-99 02:52 AM ET         

Beta-1

posted 09-15-99 03:33 AM ET            

My 2nd grade daughter counts better than you! Come to think of it, so does my two year old. SMAC has had 3, count them, THREE patches. Version 1.0 was the release, v2.0 was first patch, v3.0 the second, v4.0 the third. Three patches! If you're going to bitch, at least do so, accurately.

JAMiAM
The Firaxian Psychophant

posted 09-15-99 08:35 AM ET         

Thanks for the summary; maybe the moral of the story is to not over-hype the product and set expectations too high (does "The Phantom Menace" ring a bell?).

Bubbe --

Nope, rsc doesn't stand for "ReSource Consumer"...but after all the posts I've read, maybe it should stand for "Reluctant SMAC Consumer"

posted 09-15-99 11:56 AM ET            

First off, I wasn't bitching. I simply answered RSC's question as best I could. Therefore, please keep your insults to yourself. You are not being fair to me by doing this.

Also, Darkstar already corrected the patch count and regardless of whether it was 3 or 4, I think that everyone will agree that a lot of the things that were patched should have been caught in Beta. Fair enough?

RSC,

I last looked at the Firaxis site on Saturday and could not find a link. If they have added one, then great and I will correct my position accordingly. I will now go and check to be sure.

Also, as you can see from JAMSTILL AM's post, more than a little bitterness remains even when it is totally uncalled for. I guess what I have learned from all of this is that people can love things in different ways. With SMAC the two predominant groups either love it entirely and have absolutely no room for constructive criticism; and the second group love the game, but realize that it could have and should have been much better. I suggest you might look at the old threads and see where Yin did some incredible work in putting a bug list and specific fixes together. Clearly, people only put in this kind of work on something they love.

Hope you enjoy SMAC

posted 09-15-99 12:07 PM ET            

I just went over to FIraxis and I did not see a "community" site. Their "Interact" site is for their forums and there still is not a section dedicated to SMAC. Is it possible you found the link from EA or some other source?

BTW, I don't consider this nitpicking. Accuracy is important and I am happy to admit when I'm wrong.

posted 09-15-99 01:08 PM ET         

Hope you don't mind my jumping in here. On the SMAC front web page (after clicking "English"), the lower right has the "Community" button. Clicking on it will take you to the following address.

http://www.alphacentauri.com/index2.html

At that page, the "Link to Forums" then gets you here.

Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting. If your point is that the SMAC forums can't be accessed at the same web page as all the other Firaxis forums (SMG, AMA, CIV3), then you're right. Rather strange.

BTW, Uncleroggy, in case you didn't catch my recent comments on the "MOOII Strategies" topic, I finally did get around to reinstalling MOOII. Thanks for prodding me to revisit that classic.

Ed the Spook

posted 09-15-99 01:16 PM ET            

I apologize for the snippiness in my post. I was in a nasty mood yesterday, and responded inappropriately to your helpful post. However, the simple fact of the matter is, Darkstar is wrong in his counting, and is perpetuating a misconception. One that I take a particular exception to, since it gets bandied about as evidence for a buggy product. To say that the UK/US split is two "sequentially" distinct patches is a load of hokey. There have been three, and only three patches for this product. If you are to count each language version, as a separate patch, you are wrong. There have been three patches which have been imported into the various different release versions.

posted 09-15-99 01:45 PM ET            

Apology accepted and please remind me when I need to give one out.
I just think that all of this is better served with a civil tone and I learned my lessons the hard way in the old days. You probably remember that I was a bit of a hot head on occassion back then.

I checked both Firaxis and EA and they both list SMAC 4, SMAC 3 and SMAC alt color 1 in addition to the UK patch. I'm counting this as 3 patches. However, what happened to patch 2.0? I'll look for it in the old threads, but I'm sure it is there because it is the one that solved all of my instability crashes. Did they combine some?

BTW, you could really have some fun with me beacause Firaxis calls them "enhancements" instead of patches anyway.

Ed,

Yes I was going into their Interact section and thanks for confirming that I'm not losing my mind along with all of my hair. I can't seem to get to the screen that you are talking about though. I get a server error if I try to access the old SMAC site and I have a hunch that is what you are talking about.

Hope you are having lots of fun with MOO. I noticed your post yesterday, but I haven't had time to MOO lately as I have been playing TOT so that I can review it.

RSC,

I might suggest you look at my review of SMAC in the columns over at APOLYTON. I say this because you will see that I also have a lot of good things to say about SMAC as well as criticisms. Funny though, they ran the Pro's section and I haven't received a single email saying that I was too generous or anything like that. However, the Con's are up next and I'll bet you a nickel that my email will fill up with hatemail. The column is "A Bubba's Eye View".

posted 09-15-99 02:09 PM ET            

This is the history of Firaxis "Enchantments"

Version 2
Version 3
Version 3.1 (available ONLY in US and UK editions)
Version 4

I am not counting languages as seperate versions (as then you'd have to do ALL the flavors... US/UK/German/French/Italian and whatever else they may have translated it to). Apparently, some of our oversea native English speaking friends took exception to having to put up with AMERICAN spellings and American slang, and this was corrected.

Version 3 was the first release of SMAC that had combined US and UK. The UK version had previously had some copy protection that the US did not. The requirement for that protection went away between Version 2 and 3, and therefore Firaxis only produced one version for the English language originally.

I might still have patch US 3.1 sitting on an archive CD-RW, although I cannot promise (I may have tossed it as well, when I copied version 4 updater over. I just don't remember.) I do recall that it was named differently from the patch version 3 updater that was listed on the Firaxis site.

Firaxis did NOT mention this incremental move from Version Updater 3 to Version Updater 3.1. At the time, we (this community) were raking them over the coals about a GREAT many things, and either did not feel like adding more fuel to the fire ("Oh, you correct a MISPELLING, but not the Unlimited Missile Range Bug? Must be because [insert some insulting remark involving behinds, heads, and barely finding keyboards]"), or was just on their depressed side of their manic-depressed PR cycle.

So please pucker up and kiss it. And I hope you get feeling better/more positive soon.

posted 09-15-99 04:23 PM ET         

Yes, sorry if I was unclear. The link
to the forum is not from the Firaxis site,
but from the alphacentauri/aliencrossfire
site(s). As Ed mentioned, you can go to:

http://www.alphacentauri.com/index2.html OR
http://www.aliencrossfire.com/index2.html,

then click on "COMMUNITY" on the lower right,
and there is a "Link to Forums" at the top,
before the listing of Fan Sites.

rsc

posted 09-15-99 04:50 PM ET            

I just checked it out and it's the real deal. I'll recant my "too hot in the kitchen" statment to the 75% mark as I'll leave the last 25% to cover the question as to why it isn't with the others at the main company site. Fair enough?

posted 09-15-99 05:47 PM ET            

Or the SMACophants people got sick of the whining and left, thus making it look like no one liked that game...

"...and contained alot of in game bugs like terraformers that spin in circles and automated bombing routines that don't work."

Please learn the definition of "bugs" before raving about them. Those are AI weaknesses, a completely seperate issue.

"However, it was only the vocal masses that got Firaxis to fix most of this as they openly denied that most of the problems existed. Even in the face of overwhelming proof."

Please explain:

1) How you know that it was your ravings were the reason for the patches.
2) When and where Firaxis denied the existance of bugs. Whenever I saw a bug report, JKM or someone else would almost always respond with "Send me a saved game."

(Re: Causes of Firaxis "PR problems")

"Second, BR goes public and asks his dedicated fans for ideas and support on the Civ III game."

Uh... so what? Sounds like good PR to me.

"Third, JKM posts an article attacking the same community that provided so much input to civ III and calls them a bunch of pathetic losers and blames everyone except Firaxis for their predicament."

This is simply a barefaced lie.

Darkstar: What was changed in version 3.1?

posted 09-15-99 07:52 PM ET            

Normally I wouldn't even respond once to your accusations and insults. However, I don't want to look like I'm dodging one or two valid points that are hidden in your venom either. As I won't flame you in my response, perhaps you could develop a little decency and show similar respect?

Point 1:

Post game release Yin and I were the two most obvious voices pointing out problems, bugs etc... I even got hatemail from people that make you look like a nice guy. Six months later there are dozens of voices who now contribute their criticisms and this obviously riles you up a bit.

Certainly, there are far fewer voices in this forum overall. The post counts and dates confirm that. But to say that all of the SMAC supporters have left because of whining is simply meaningless. A real supporter would stand up for the game and prove their points. Instead, we only seem to have you and your insults and name calling.

BTW, a personal example of this is that Shining1 and I used do disagree about 75% of the time. After spending tons of time on his SNAC mod he is now far more critical than me.

Point 2: I define a bug as a designed/advertised feature that doesn't do what it is supposed to do. Therefore, If the manual says press key x and the bomber will bomb each turn and it doesn't, well isn't that a bug. There were dozens of these things and I will let you spend your time digging up the patch notes and threads to prove the rest to yourself.

posted 09-15-99 08:13 PM ET            

Point 3: Firaxis has publicly stated that they wouldn't have done Enhancement 4.0 as they did not think that any of the items presented were game breakers. They even denied that some of the items even existed and the particular point of contention is the infinite range PB's. This problem still exists and there are people in the threads who have saved games to prove it. Was I a bit too general? Perhaps. But the point is proved nonetheless.

Point 3:

I have no problem in BR coming out and asking for Civ III ideas. In fact, my contribution was a 10 page, single spaced word document with over 40 concrete suggestions and explanations. You can ask Yin if you doubt my word as he put together the whole list. BTW, What did you contribute?

JKM's article stands for itself and I suggest you read if you haven't done so already. His comments were insulting as he stated that we want to have bugs in the game so that we can bitch about something and that his opinion was that we also criticise in order to create a persona for ourselves. Not only is this gibberish, but it slao shows his arrogance in accepting any criticism whatsoever.

Finally, his article also goes into great detail on the fallacy of the the bug free game due to the herculean efforts necessary to produce a piece of software and run a company. Yes, I thought this was all hogwash and I suggest you check the Civ III list over at Apolyton and cross reference the ID's of critical posters and their contributions. Heck, Yin put the whole darn thing together and that must have taken a 100 hours or more. BTW, you won't see my name on the thank you list because Yin forgot to include it since I sent a word doc instead of posting in the threads. That's why I told you to ask him direct.

Final point, a lot of this revolves around Firaxis releasing the product before it was finished. Your example the patch only strengthens my position and weakens yours.

posted 09-15-99 09:17 PM ET            

Actually the alt color file was a true enhancement, and not a patch. It was released to take care of concerns about the red-green color blind issue. It did not correct any "bugs" or change anything but the color. SMAC 2.0 went away when 3.0 came out (Darkstar's 3.1 is a unicorn ) and only stayed around because of scenario editor problems introduced in the 4.0 patch.

Admittedly, my initial snippy response was colored by your past attitude, and I appreciate your acknowledgement of it. It is therefore all the more refreshing and enjoyable to see you contributing to the forums in a constructive and civil manner. Thanks, and my apology is reiterated.

Darkstar,

Don't have a problem, when I'm pissing. But, maybe you can suggest a cure for my hemorrhoids?

posted 09-15-99 11:36 PM ET            

It's nice to know that I wasn't losing my mind about the 2.0 patch... OOPS I meant to say enhancement.

Like I said before, this patch fixed my crashes and made me pretty happy.

I guess this means that I was both technically correct and technically wrong!

BTW, you must have been reading a bunch of the old threads back in march/april. I gave up participating in the flame wars almost 5 months ago following some good advice from Analyst. I have to say though, there's that little part in each of us that just loves to get into it and we have the devil to pay keeping that voyeurism in check.

See ya around.

posted 09-16-99 12:48 AM ET            

"Normally I wouldn't even respond once to your accusations and insults."

The only insult in my post was "SMACophants," and that is a term used to demean my group, not yours. (Well, maybe the talk of "ravings"...)

"But to say that all of the SMAC supporters have left because of whining is simply meaningless. A real supporter would stand up for the game and prove their points."

They did. At first. But brick walls start to make for boring conversation after awhile. (Oops, was that an insult? )

"Point 2: I define a bug as a designed/advertised feature that doesn't do what it is supposed to do. Therefore, If the manual says press key x and the bomber will bomb each turn and it doesn't, well isn't that a bug."

I assume that is only part of your definition, otherwise the unlimited-range missiles wouldn't be bugs. However, if you are trying to claim that "automated formers make stupid decisions" and "AI is too easy to goad into war" and "the design workshop isn't user-friendly" and "you can't set more than 4 waypoints" and "there should be more default base names" are bugs, then get real.

"Firaxis has publicly stated that they wouldn't have done Enhancement 4.0 as they did not think that any of the items presented were game breakers."

I'm fully aware that posters on this forum helped discover and confirm the missle bug and others. However, I am highly skeptical that your ravings (there's that word again!) did anything to convince them to make a patch for a problem they knew about.

Frankly, if I were JKM, I would be serious de-motivated to provide support by all the mindless Firaxis bashing around here. I would have thrown my hands up in disgust before 3.0. Good thing for SMAC players that I'm not and Firaxis QA provided good support.

"They even denied that some of the items even existed"

I've heard this claimed over and over again. I want proof. Tell me the thread or the article when a Firaxian said this. (Don't say the "I'm not aware of any remaining issues" interview. That was done before or just as it was discovered that the missile bug was discovered to still exist after 4.0.)

"I have no problem in BR coming out and asking for Civ III ideas."

Then why did you list it as a reason their PR sucks?

"BTW, What did you contribute?"

Didn't know about it. You might be interested to know... ah, nevermind.

"His comments were insulting as he stated that we want to have bugs in the game so that we can bitch about something and that his opinion was that we also criticise in order to create a persona for ourselves."

You are lying. He _never_ said that we "want" bugs. He said that they do have a side benefit of promoting community, which was the only point that I (and most other people who are "punting for jobs" at Firaxis) disagreed with. The point of the article was that we will never see a completely bug-free game, which should be blindingly obvious.

"...the herculean efforts necessary to produce a piece of software and run a company. Yes, I thought this was all hogwash..."

You seriously think running a company and programming a game is a easy?

"...and I suggest you check the Civ III list over at Apolyton..."

What's that got to do with the viability of a bug-free game?

"Your example the patch only strengthens my position and weakens yours."

You brought up patches, not me. And I still say that SMAC is a far less buggy than most games these days.

Uncleroggy, Yin26, and others would be well advised to check out the "Why SMAC Sucks Testamonials" thread that was pulled up recently.

posted 09-16-99 01:25 AM ET            

I read it when it first came out. I think it's funny. So what's your point? The unlimited range missle bug, however, isn't funny. Jeff's article isn't funny.

posted 09-16-99 02:04 AM ET            

Yeah, I remember the days of fire, hell and brimstone! You, Yin26, and Brother Greg going round and round! Venom and spittle flying everywhere, tufts of fur scattered hither and thither. I lurked from December thru March when, seeing the water was QUITE warm, decided to pull on my baggies and dive on in. I was JAMiAM, until a forum crash in May screwed up that user name. Hence, JAMstillAM.

posted 09-16-99 04:53 AM ET            

White Cat, I'd be interested in what you contributed. You are a college student, according to your previous statemets. From your attitude, you seem relatively young. That doesn't leave much room since you didn't know about the Civ3 list. Are you the little brother to someone in on the design? Or merely a Firaxian whose gone back to school? (Note this... WINK! That's a, I say, That's a joke.) Seriously...

I am sure it was over 100 hours for Yin to get together the Civ3 list. WELL over. He sweated over that thing for more than I'd think is possible for free, but...

Running a Company can be easy (Been there, done that). But it does bog down easily, and it's easy to lose sight of personal priorities. That's why there are so many different places making money helping execs redefine or rediscover how to keep their personal priorities up there, and manage the stress that can come along with being an exec.

Making a GAME can be easy. It depends on what is trying to be done, how it's being done, by who, by how many, and for who, among other things. I've got friends that do that exact thing, and I can say that it's just like any other programming gig. It's a matter of surroundings, including the people.

I really don't know what they changed in version 3.1. And you can spot that unicorn yourself by going to EA's Tech Support link and doing a search on the word SMAC. I did that yesterday after signing out from here, just to see if it's listed. I am guessing that it's mostly a matter of localization. I could go look in the readme and see if it says... or you could. But whatever it is, Version 3.1 and Version 4 are the Updated versions available.

No... it's worth noting that they held sending SMAC to manufactoring to finish patch 2. (This is a pet peeve of mine with game companies.) Why didn't they just update what they were going to make? They held out until Patch 2 was done! They did a LOT of bug fixing in it, AND included that cludge called Multiplayer PBEM/Hotseat. PBEM is definately a mixed blessing to the fans. Still, there would be almost no SMAC interest at all without it.

Jeff Morris implied that the Particular Game Community can only survive by playing the game. He stated that they Community members rush out, buy the game, and realize their community life is over. Then they find the bug, realize they have something to share, and jump back on the boards ASAP and start flaming away for the discovered "bugs". This is PARAPHRASED, so slam me where I am wrong, but JM truly did imply that you are a loser low life whose only purpose being here is to bitch and complain about what you percieve as bugs so that you might start a dialog with the community. That's pretty much what got the uproar kicking around here.

And the point was why can't Firaxis make a quality product. There was a LOT of dancing around the main source of bugs... the programmers. You got to code it to be there. He covered User Stupidity (not understanding how something works), User Stupidity (not understanding how their computer works), User Stupidity (not intuitively understanding the inconsistancies of the design and therefore being confused or misunderstanding what the UI meant/is showing), User Stupidity (User not thinking), and Bad Hardware (Misconfigured by Stupid User). He mentioned that there were other things, but it was truly a master-piece in how he deflected and misdirected. I really don't feel like going over that old trail at the moment, and most of the threads from then have survived, so you can look them up if you are truly curious about both sides of the debates, rants, and outrages.

Just keep in mind, White Cat, that bugs are unforeseen interactions between code segments and conditions, unwanted behavior, or inconsistant behavior. The inconsistant behavior causes user confusion.

And to be honest, to USERS, user perceptions can make a perfectly integrated feature be a bug. Like circling Automated Terraformers. They are circling because they can't decide what to do. That's the way their decision code works. If your city was to have a hail storm, those circling formers take off for it (had it actually happen a couple of times in game). But to a user? must be a bug...

Perfectly bug-less? Even a PERFECT game is going to have a few confused users. That's just a reality. But you can have a game whose bugs are limited to user misunderstandings and non-baseline hardware problems. It takes different things to achieve BOTH of those items (One for software implementation and design review, and one for testing expected targeted hardware). Hardware testing tends to not be done, beyond a few base parts (usueally the testers or authors machines in small companies). It's expensive, and just cuts into the products PROFITS. The other is a matter of non-conflicting methodologies and team-work, etc, etc, etc.

Mind you, you CAN squash out all the software bugs. But it's expensive, and in products that are one-offed, it's not a priority. Better to pocket the difference.

I was here when they denied more than just missile range. Like they could have a bug in their IP MP where if an Opp Engine calls a vote, SMAC crashes. Etc. etc. etc. They told us to shut up and get out or shut up and send saved games, but in both cases, SHUT UP. That's lousy PR, and the real start to the loss of their fan confidence. No matter HOW stupid or insane, your customer is PUBLICALLY always right. You can make jokes about them in private, but you are CORDIAL in public.

Damn, I'm starting to get all fired up again...

I'm going now, before I fire up further...

posted 09-16-99 11:30 AM ET            

As I said before, I'm not going to waste time with flame wars.

Saying that I was making a barefaced lie is an insult as plain as day. You called me a liar and not only is that uncalled for, but it speaks more about your lack of decency than any accuracy of any comment(or is calling someone a liar a compliment?). In short, it only proves that you want to call names instead of stating your position on the point.

With that said, I will only add that perhaps you should spend your time reading the referenced articles and threads for the information you desire. It's all there if you open your mind to it. I won't spend my time doing this, because you will instataneously disagree with anything I say simply because you can't bring yourself to agree with a single point that I have made.

Case in point, I named exact specifics of game features that did not work as bugs and you threw in a whole boatload of other issues that I never discussed and tried to make it seem as if I was talking about them. I call this debating tactics, word twisting and disingenuous. It is also totally counterproductive to a meaningfull discussion.

With that I bid you adios, good bye and adieu. I encourage you to continue spending your money on shoddy software and I hope that I am there one day when you purchase a stereo, tv, car or something else that doesn't work. It will be my laughter you hear when the clerk tells you "hey buddy, yeah I know it's supposed to work properly: but, you know we are running a pretty tough business and sometimes things just don't work out. Here Mr. White cat, write down your address and we'll see about sending you some stuff so that you can fix it for yourself".

posted 09-16-99 08:13 PM ET            

I am tired of people cutting slack for things they LIKE but not upholding ALL to the same measures.

"I just loves to see those craters form around my cities. Thanks Yang! Thanks Miriam!"

And yet, they'd bitch if their TVs decided to drop every other screen pixel until they turned it off and let it cool.

People certainly got upset about those Pintos that caught on fire a little more often than other cars. But damn it! That car company was competing in a rough market, and just wanted to get us a small affordable car that we could enjoy driving around in! And you can go look at Pickup Trucks and Truck Station Wagons (You know, SUVS). They still have the same kinds of bugs. LOTS of rupturing gas tanks that catch on fire. So why did we pick on the Pinto so much? Must just need something to group bond over, or cause we are just Pinto haters.

Seriously. I work in the software field. I have no tolerance for cutting others slack that I wouldn't expect to recieve. Life's tough, making software is tough, it's ALL tough. You can't handle that, get the freak out now. It's not just Software Authoring that demands high amount of hours and lots of sacrifices of personal life and time to meet unreasonable deadlines. You can't handle that pressure cooker, then find something you can handle.

In no other sector of Software Authoring is such low quality acceptable. Would you like the software that differientates between nuclear explosions and meteor pops to be of the same quality as SMAC? What about the software that drives many ICU's life support systems? The Air Traffic Control Software that tracks and displays all the Air Vehicles in the Air?

But since the users keep cutting Game Companies slack, Game Companies think you have the patience and brains of a GNAT!And they are generally RIGHT. They just wait out a week or two of complaints. After all, unhappy users will go play something else, and the company won't have to do anything.

There ARE other reasons for that Tude. Like, it's generally not a QUICK fix. Color problems for SMAC was a pretty quick change. But making a new version of the code involves digging through it, finding just what is misbehaving, making a fix, and then finding some vehicle to update your customer's copy. Generally, unless it's critical, or costing you serious sales, they haven't a short term motive to do so.

Notice that... short term. Long term, yes. That's customer satisfaction and brand loyalty. But that's harder to show on quarterly report.

Additionally, people don't want to go back into something they just spent huge amounts of time on and in, and go back into it again. Especially if they are involved with other projects and it's been a while since they did the game in question. That's why you often see the less experienced people doing patches and upgrades to something. The more senior got tagged to do something else, and it's not important enough to trouble your more VALUABLE assets over.

Example? Who did SMACAX? Was it BR? nope. His time is better spent on Civ3. So Tim "No Bugs" Train got it. Why? Experience on SMAC, and not needed as desperately elsewhere. (As he's lead, that's a pat on the back as well. I think that's his first serious lead that hes been credited with, but I don't have his Resume handy, so I could be wrong...)

Quality is something WE have to pressure them on... Otherwise, with a forgiving customer base, it gets CUT a little more each time, either outright or effectively (Not funded in the same proportion as previous smaller projects), and the result? Lower quality. More problems.

Economics is the Ruler here. If your users accepted 200 bugs in the previous project, they are probably willing to accept MORE in your NEXT project. And that is truly how many companies make these decisions at funding time. How'd we do on that last one? Lots of noise and complaints, or just your typical whiners and thorns in one side? Typical huh? Well, then we can cut back a little more...

I've sat in too many projects from their inception to their completion. Heck, I've DONE that myself. It's budgets and economics, and WE, the source of the profits, have to apply the only leverage we have to persuade them to raise the priority... IF you thought or want the Quality to be a higher priority next time around.

posted 09-17-99 12:47 AM ET            

Well said.

Can I give you a what if?

What if it was Bill Gates/Microsoft that we were talking about?

I bet there would be 100 times the outrage directed against them as we see here. I base this estimate on all of the gratuitous slaps I see directed against them in this forum and almost every other site on the web.

Just adds to the obvious hypocrisy you pointed out.

posted 09-17-99 08:42 PM ET            

Eris, nice to see that you're feeling better. Salud!

posted 09-27-99 09:34 PM ET            

Darkstar:

I never said the the missile and maintenance bugs were trivial, just the most of the (real) bugs on the Easy-to-read list were. As someone else noted awhile ago, the only real siginficant bugs remaining are infinite-range missiles, thinker/transcend maintenance, disappearing bases/units (although this kind of sounds like a system configuration issue), and possibly one other that I can't remember right now.

> From your attitude, you seem relatively young. That doesn't leave much room since
>you didn't know about the Civ3 list.

I don't understand what my going to college or my "attitude" has to do with not knowing about the Civ3 list at Apolyton. I don't read Apolyton (or The Game much until a few weeks ago), that's why I didn't know about it. What does the "doesn't leave much room" part mean?

Re: version 3.1 patch

Okay, so that does make four patches, although I'd like to see if anything was actually changed sometime. However, it was only recently that you found out about that. Everyone who talked about "4 patches" before that was doing it out of simple mathematical ignorance.

> No... it's worth noting that they held sending SMAC to manufactoring to finish
> patch 2. (This is a pet peeve of mine with game companies.) Why didn't they just update
> what they were going to make?

IIRC, patch 2 was to fix issues/balance that they discovered after SMAC was sent to manufacturing. I recall BR posting to Usenet that, since lots of people wanted PBEM and hotseat, that he tried it out and found that it was much easier to implement than he'd thought. However, since it was already in manfacturing, they couldn't add it to the shipping version. Since a patch can be released anytime, they simply did it at the same time the game hit stores.

If you have something to indicate that they held back the game so they could finish the patch, please post it.

> JM truly did imply that you are a loser low life whose only purpose being here is to
> bitch and complain about what you percieve as bugs so that you might start a dialog
> with the community.

Well, that was your interpretation of it. Myself and others believe that you got it wrong, and JKM didn't mean that at all. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

> He covered User Stupidity (not understanding how something works) ... and
> Bad Hardware (Misconfigured by Stupid User).

LOL

> He mentioned that there were other things, but it was truly a master-piece in how he
> deflected and misdirected.

I think that the problem is that you and the anti-Firaxians (for lack of a better term) took the article too personally. He was trying to comment on a gaming issue that is a subject of debate Netwide, and you thought he was making a specific attack on you and your concerns.

> And to be honest, to USERS, user perceptions can make a perfectly integrated
> feature be a bug. Like circling Automated Terraformers...

You seem to be saying that "if the user thinks it's a bug, then it's a bug." Well, there were people who _thought_ that sea psi combat having a 1:1 ratio was a bug, when in fact it was a design decision. It has to be a real bug (infinite-range missiles), not just a "perceived" bug (sea psi combat). Perceived bugs by "confused users" are not the company's fault. In the example above, anyone who had read that manual or help files would know that it was a design decision.

Re: not taking the expense to squash all bugs

In economics, there is a price curve (which I don't recall the name of) which gives the relationship of "cost to improve quality" and "cost of not improving quality". The cost of improving quality starts low, going up slowly, and then skyrockets, while the cost of not improving quality starts high, goes down rapidly and then levels off. It looks like this (hope this turns out):

.x.........................o.
.x.........................o.
..x.......................o..
..x.......................o..
...x.....................o...
....x...................o....
.....xx...............oo.....
.......xxx.........ooo.......
..........xxx ooo...........
........ooooo...xxxxx........
..oooooo.............xxxxx...

x = cost of not improving quality
o = cost of improving quality

x-axis = time spent improving quality
y-axis = cost

The point of greatest profitability is where the X and O lines intersect, indicated by the happy face. If they are too far left, they lose customers due to sloppy quality, and if they go too far right the costs of the extra quality outweigh the small number of extra customers they get.

If you are a shareholder in a company, you should _demand_ that they stay at the intersection point. Deliberately deviately from it is _stupid_, from a business perspective. As I've said before, I think that Firaxis is quite a ways to the right on the graph, relative to the rest of the gaming industry. They spent extra money to make a product of above-average quality.

> . They told us to shut up and get out or shut up and send saved
> games, but in both cases, SHUT UP.

Did they actually say "shut up", or did they imply it in some way, or are you just taking the statement "send us a saved game" as a way of saying that?

Uncleroggy:

> Saying that I was making a barefaced lie is an insult as plain as
> day.

True. However, you _were_ lying in what you said, and thus it is deserved. If someone has a hideously disfigured face, and you them them that, it's an insult, but still true. Perhaps I could have put it more tactfully ("You are chronically truth-challenged") but the statement definitely was "called for."

> you will instataneously disagree with anything I say simply because
> you can't bring yourself to agree with a single point that I have
> made.

I will disagree with you because I don't agree with you?

"Thanks, Mr. Wizard."

I don't agree with the points you make because I don't see any valid reason to agree with them.

> Case in point, I named exact specifics of game features that did not
> work as bugs and you threw in a whole boatload of other issues that I
> never discussed and tried to make it seem as if I was talking about
> them. I call this debating tactics, word twisting and disingenuous.
> It is also totally counterproductive to a meaningfull discussion.

The "whole boatload of other issues" was because I was still talking about to the Easy-to-read list, not just your comments on my comments. Perhaps I've been getting the points made in this thread confused with the "Tip of the Day" one.

Back to Darkstar:

> I am tired of people cutting slack for things they LIKE but not
> upholding ALL to the same measures.

I am not excusing Firaxis for things like the missile bug. Those should have been fixed. My points in this debate are as follows (and I've stated this before):

1) SMAC far less buggy than most games on the market today, which is relevant because "buggy" is a relative term.
2) Firaxis is not the horrible Screw-the-customers-Who-needs-QA company that some people here think it is. Specifically, JKM's article was not an insult to SMAC buyers or the posters on this forum.
3) The "Easy to Read Bug List" was a complete and utter joke.

> Quality is something WE have to pressure them on...

posted 09-27-99 11:09 PM ET            

I agree with you that the "Easy to Read" list got out of control. It lacked checks and balances. It lacked credibility. The 4.0 list I oversaw was much more effective in trying to locate the "Top 10" issues--that meant we had to really look for the most important stuff and test our theories rather than just spew them on the screen. Of course, I learned a lot about bug v. feature after doing that. Even still, Jeff did a great job seeing that 4.0 was almost an exact copy of that list we sent. Outstanding work.

The infinite missle range bug, etc., has already been beaten to death. We all know that issue could have and should have been fixed long ago.

As for Jeff's article, let's put it this way: When the QA guy publically proclaims that forums such as this are actually sustained by bug talk, there are BIG problems in the perception of what bugs mean to fans. Jeff says "the fun is over" once the talk about the game fades--"unless it's buggy."

This is Jeff saying "Fans think bug talk is fun. They would rather talk about bugs long after they stop talking about the game."

But let me ask you: Did you stay or leave once the bug talk took over this forum? You left. Many people left. The rampant bug talk killed a lot of great game talk. And for all the work I personally put into the bug lists, I never once thought it was fun. Not once. I would have much rather been playing the game. But legitimate bugs were ruining the game for me, so I tried to help rather than walk away. In the early days, Jeff simply told me "quit being a pain." Yes, he said that. Go find it if you want. But I tried to forget that and presented a well-done bug list that represented a lot of people's work and concerns. Basically I dared him to call me a "pain" again. He didn't. He couldn't. Not in public anyway. Which brings me to his article:

Jeff posts his article saying, in essence, "Well, all the good game talk is over so now the fun bug talk continues. Enjoy!"

posted 09-28-99 02:23 PM ET            

White Cat, JKM told us to literally "Shut up!" in one of his replie to when he posted an article here asking if there were any bugs left in SMAC worthy of attention/fixing. This was after the release of enchantment version 3.0. A WHOLE lot of people said "Infinite Ranged Missiles" are still in the game. He said, "No it isn't. We tested. Brian Reynolds fixed it in his code. It's gone forever, don't ever mention it again." When even MORE people chimed in, as they had found it as well, and with his denials, the community was working up in a tizzy. He told people to stop sending saves of it, that was the OLD version that let you do that, and if we weren't going to cooperate with reporting bugs in 3.0 to go away and leave Firaxis (and him in particular) alone.

After a couple of more weeks of this behavior, with him getting less polite in his phrases (and more desperate in his excuses - Opponent Engine Air Carrier Navy? not even a design in the Opponent Engine's library of templates), and more people chiming in about it and it existed (One person, Jagga, I think was his handle, actually got HIS automated missiles to do this, and kept bugging JM with want a save with this and borehole cluster to prove it? or something similar), JM FINALLY admitted that there MIGHT be an IRM bug, and that he would be interested in seeing saved files of it to help diagnose it. Those had to be made and ran under version 3 exclusively of course... Jagga dumped down his, and a few others dumped their. After that, there was finally an admission that there was a IRM bug left in SMAC.

That whole incident chilled this place. A little after that, Yin began his list of "MOST UNWANTED 5 BUGS" (which ended up having several enhancements/wishes on it and having more bugs/items then what was listed in the title. JM let Yin know that was a No-no, as it made Yin and everyone that helped him look like an idiot to the developer boys and girls {his words, and very true}) That renewed this place for a while. Then SMACX speculation and waiting on enchantment 4... then a little noise, some happy and thankful and some sad after version 4's release.

I think 3.1 was released while we, the fans, were fighting with JM about the IRM bug still manifesting in the game.

Last time I LOOKED for that debate between JM and us, I couldn't find it on the board, as it seems to have been deleted or lost in a crash. (And I was looking cause someone ELSE told me I was crazy, Firaxis would never do that.)

Nice ascii graphic. You sure you are using the right chart? It's not the:

|
^-+--
/ |
( /
-+-/
|

Just teasing.

It's the optimal point and its called the point of diminishing returns. Going past it is getting into inefficency of money or time or both.

I'd like to THINK that Firaxis had used some mathematical formula to arrive at the optimal cost, but frankly, that's just not so. Isn't it SMAC that they paid for the QA by buying a phone system for the company that they set up shop their offices in? I remember BR making a few jokes about this in one of the early (pre release) interviews. So when the QA that got done wasn't in the timely manner Firaxis wanted, and when it wasn't up to the standards that Firaxis wanted, they couldn't say much. After all, they were living on the sufferage of the company to begin with.

That Firaxian story conflicts with EA insisting that EA's QA shop do all testing, which is something that was floated about in the last two months (Brigg's article?). Maybe EA changed policy after version 2.0?

I think it was BR that said they were delaying the release of SMAC until the first patch was ready. That was back aroung the start of this year. Maybe you can find it, but it was posted on the SMAC Web/News. I don't remember it being posted in any forum article, although it got the normal 50/50 reaction of "Great, they are fixing/adding to SMAC!" and "Darn it! I want it now! Your patch is holding up my fun and you making money off of me!". It was before they had gone gold... but about the time they would have, had they not made that last delay.

White Cat, you are on the wrong side. The CUSTOMER is always right. (At least in public.) You are siding with the Developers. Nope. You should be on the other side. See, it doesn't MATTER if it's SUPPOSE to work that way. If the customer THINKS it's a bug, and is supposed to work differently, they got a few choices in dealing with that. Ignore it. Or Try educating the customer "If you were to read the manual..." or change it (either to the way the majority THINK it should be, or in a fashion to make it more clear and intuitive that is the way it should work). Simple choices in software authoring. And highly common ones.

The reason is that you want your customers willing to buy your products, indeed EAGER. But if they think it's buggy, rightly or wrongly, they are inclined to find something else. You often cannot do anything about educating the customer if they aren't willing to properly read the material, so you have to shoot for a clear, intuitive, interface and program consistancy throughout the app. The reason is those are the elements the Shop has control of.

Of course, you will generally have a few users who are just "idiots". That's where risk management and that sort of thing comes in handy.

You and I are just going to disagree about SMAC and Bugginess. For me, it was more buggy then anything else I have gotten in the last 18 months, and still managed to run. I understand CtP was worse in bugginess, but it's a matter of the people you talk to, and which they like better.

And do yourself a favor and stop airing your ignorance about about software design and development. RPGS are extremely complex pieces. It's all the blasted nestled switchs, loops, and if-else if-else if-... sorts of things. {Much more so then any TBS game.} Everything that is a decision gate get's it's own exceptions in the code. Heck, go look at the Might and Magic RPG line. Even back around M&M 3, it's code is going to be more gnarled then SMAC's (as long as SMAC wasn't just one big freaking kludge of spaghetti on spaghetti with super cheesy toppings kind of coding). Played FF7? Between it's 3D world, and just it's materia system, you will end up with something as easily complex as SMAC, code wise. Toss in the other stuff, and it is quickly making SMAC look like a hello world app.

Not that I am beating on you, but... there is complex, and there is seriously twist your mind in Cthulian horror kind of complex. SMAC shouldn't be on the scale of Cthulian horror. It generalizes and breaks into objects {which have a limited few attributes} that are easily manipulated and should have very limited exceptions and special cases in it's code.

On your "Firaxis is not the horrible Screw-the-customers-Who-needs-QA company that some people here think it is. Specifically, JKM's article was not an insult to SMAC buyers or the posters on this forum." Yes it is. Any company that has 4 major products (Sid3, Antitiem, Civ3, and SMACAX) in the works, and only a (part-time!!!) QA position is definately demonstrating by ACTION that QA is not a priority in the slightest. If you can't see that, you are just being blind in your loyalty. If SMAC was the huge financial success that it is said to be, enough to more then pay for the funding of Civ3, Antitiem, and SMACAX, just why haven't they expanded their QA staff? They could afford to more then double their staff which they did, mind you, but no extra QA?

You can't just do QA at the end of the development lifecycle if you want to deliver a true quality product. Go read ANY of the Management literature that has been written, taught, and practiced in business since the 80's. Jeff admits in his interview at SMAC Nexus (That url I gave you in the thread YOU refused to bother looking for anything) that the good and quality strong companies do it from the beginning through the lifetime of the product... but that FIRAXIS doesn't until Beta Testing.

It's too bad that the thread in which JM asked for suggestions and aid in how to improve QA at Firaxis was lost (Deleted or Crashed). Several kicked in with suggestions and common business practices, and Jeff had many interesting comments, questions, and replies.

JM's editorial was quite a blast to the fans that have participated in trying to make a game they like, better. That was insulting to ALL Firaxis customers and fans that have ever suggested anything, emailed them, or posted on any SMAC/Firaxis forum. And if you can't see that, well, you are just blind once again out of loyalty or love. His later works only had light slaps, which could be taken as humor by most.

"3) The 'Easy to Read Bug List' was a complete and utter joke." No, you saying you tore it to SHREDS is a joke. You didn't. The list itself is just what it is. A list of bugs, percieved or real, with some ideas for enhancement changes, some of which could correct a bug, and some of which would just make that user reporting the request happy. Look that over, White Cat. That's a pretty fair example of the stuff people report to tech support. Some of it is in the "RTFM" category (ie Ocean Psi is only 1:1, not 3:2 like land based {note: I don't recall this ever being listed as a bug in the alkis list, but it's a good example you came up with}), some of it is vague ("Two Words: Sea Borders" ), some of it is enhancement request (Can you add a feature so I can download alt.binaries.pictures.sci-fi while I am playing IP games?), and some of it is honest to goodness bugs (petty and great).

On the economics of quality... I agree. I just don't think there were project economics or risk management involved... more likely, what they could get for free. From their office Landlord and from EA. That's actually QUITE understandable to me, as I doubt they would have as much CAPITOL available as they did say following Civ2. However, with their great and well deserved reputations as known hit makers, EA would fund them quite well... It might have wanted a larger piece of the pie to eat more then it's normal costs though, which Brian, Sid, and Jeff (Briggs) weren't willing to give up. And that I believe is a VERY likely scenario. They are in it for the money. To think differently shows you aren't using your logic skills, but going for unwarranted loyalism that they haven't displayed being worthy of in some time.

SMAC is LOUSY with bugs. If it was a building, it would be condemned as a health hazard, despite being a solid looking building. And while it gets me riled from time to time, it's still a good game. I just want Civ3 to be of a level of quality that won't detract so much from my fun when I play it. What can I say? I know everyone isn't as anal about these things, but a large amount of bugs offends my professional sensibilities, which spoils my fun.

And as a guy that buys between 2 to 10 games a month and enjoys trying them out, I'm that target audience so many companies shoot for... willing to blow a little bit of cash for the fun of trying something different.

posted 09-29-99 03:08 AM ET            

"Certainly, there are far fewer voices in this forum overall. The post counts and dates confirm that. But to say that all of the SMAC supporters have left because of whining is simply meaningless. A real supporter would stand up for the game and prove their points. Instead, we only seem to have you and your insults and name calling."

SMAC supporters [that were on this forum] located on Firaxis.com (and Apolyton):

Imran Siddiqui
Greg Woodstock
Mike Hefferan
Snowfire
jsorense
Rich Junack (aka YYYH)
Octopus
Spider
Hugo Rune/toFfegI
JohnIII
Frodo
darkgrendal
Director General
Thue
Victor Galis
Fjorxc
Victor Galis
Talon

posted 09-29-99 01:19 PM ET            

I think we have about a third of those at ACOL as well. You might want to drop by Imran. I'd be interested to see what SMAC Team League you'd be interested in joining, or if you'd want to start your own. You know you'd be welcome, although I understand you are a strong supporter of Apolyton, and quite busy.

Is Victor Galis such a strong supporter you had to list him twice?

But the Firaxis Forums DOESN'T have a SMAC forum, unless you are counting the Official Civ3 forum. That seems to have one out of eight posts saying "{some sort suggestion for Civ3}, just like/almost like SMAC!".

But supporters of SMAC? This is the official SMAC forums... Not being and posting here is not supporting the game in its official home. Posting about it elsewhere is nice, especially if you can improve your own enjoyment or help someone else with their enjoyment of SMAC. Aside from that, you aren't supporting it, are you?

I will repeat for those of you who have missed it, I like SMAC. The majority of my concerns are with quality, and its maker crafting of Civ3. I hope that they do even better with Civ3. SMAC is a nice game, on par with Civ2 (IMAO), DESPITE it's sub-standard quality for a long term TBS game. I hope Civ3 is a true master-piece whose bugs and other issues are so minor, they only affect a very small percentage of games and only a few users who have stumbled across them. That isn't something that can be said for SMAC. But then, Firaxis was trying to prove they could still make a hit TBS game, and not a true master-piece of the Computer Entertainment world...