MOO3 finished!

MacLeod · #1 January 26th, 2003, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Why is it people always blame the ones having issues, and not the sub-standard program causing it?

Because it _is_ the hardware of those having issues as the other people don't have those issues.

Exactly, that's because of substandard programming and testing. Just because Joe's computer runs the game fine, and Bob's doesn't, doesn't mean Bob's hardware sucks. Bob might be able dozens of games that Joe's computer can't.

If I made a game on my computer, and tested and debugged it on my computer to the point of it being bug free, I could then bring it to a very new machine made with top quality parts and experience bugs that never existed.

This is because I was stupid and assumed if it worked right on my computer it must work well on everyone's. This is how bugs are born.

Of course there are ways I can program it to reduce the chances of incompatabilities by making less assumptions on my target audience's hardware and reusing older, 'tried and true' libraries where possible, but in the end TESTING is the key.

And that still doesn't account for gameplay bugs which have nothing to do with the hardware (i.e. the old bug at the end of Act II in NwN).

This isn't to say that poor hardware configs don't cause problems, but they are by NO MEANS the only source of problems.

As Pheonix-D pointed out, problems with copy prot schemes aren't limited to the stupid, or to those with poor system configs (or to pirates for that matter), they WILL screw all of us at least once as time goes on, give it time, they'll get you too!

[ January 26, 2003, 04:33: Message edited by: MacLeod ]

Graeme Dice · #2 January 26th, 2003, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
See... that is part of the problem. The game is not Civ 3, it is Civ 1.5. Most of the best changes in Civ 2 (hit points and firepower, for example) were thrown out.

And so what? Why should it have to make huge improvements on Civ II to be a good game? A game only has to provide five hours of enjoyment to be cost-effective, and anything on top of that is a pure bonus.

The game is still better than it's immediate predecessor SMAC, which has the ridiculous unit design mechanism that allows you to kill attackers armed with the best weapons by putting better armour on you units.

Quote:

Did any of your friends buy the game on the weekend it came out? Cause I did, and it crashed, a lot.

Yes, we all did, and it didn't crash at all. Bear in mind that I have no idea what you mean by "crashed a lot". I'd look at a game that crashed once an hour as being perfectly stable, although a little bit annoyning. It's only when crashes start to occur every ten or fifteen minutes that it gets aggravating.

Graeme Dice · #3 January 26th, 2003, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MacLeod:
As Pheonix-D pointed out, problems with copy prot schemes aren't limited to the stupid, or to those with poor system configs (or to pirates for that matter), they WILL screw all of us at least once as time goes on, give it time, they'll get you too![/QB]

Doubtful. I've got over 100 CD-Rom based games sitting in my room right now, and not one of them has ever caused me problems due to copy-protection.

MacLeod · #4 January 26th, 2003, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:
Originally posted by MacLeod:
As Pheonix-D pointed out, problems with copy prot schemes aren't limited to the stupid, or to those with poor system configs (or to pirates for that matter), they WILL screw all of us at least once as time goes on, give it time, they'll get you too!

Doubtful. I've got over 100 CD-Rom based games sitting in my room right now, and not one of them has ever caused me problems due to copy-protection.[/QB]

How many have copy protection schemes?
Copy Protection schemers are looking more and more outside the CD to determine if their CD is 'legit' or not. Last time I checked (admittedly, about 6 months ago), SecuROM refused to allow it's games to run on a wide variety of CD burners or on systems featuring certain burning software and *gasp* virtual drives.

My cynical dispositions are telling me this is the beginning of a trend. Also, please note the Last part of the sentence you quoted wasn't entirely serious.

[ January 26, 2003, 04:56: Message edited by: MacLeod ]

MacLeod · #5 January 26th, 2003, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Yes, we all did, and it didn't crash at all. Bear in mind that I have no idea what you mean by "crashed a lot". I'd look at a game that crashed once an hour as being perfectly stable, although a little bit annoyning. It's only when crashes start to occur every ten or fifteen minutes that it gets aggravating.

We seem to have different standards, I expect my games to run for several hours on end (assuming I don't Alt Tab excessively or have any invasive programs running in background). Almost all my games meet this standard of mine.

I personally would have to describe once an hour as pretty unstable, especially since you may lose at least 15 minutes of gameplay since your Last save (and I've had a few games that didn't even have a save).

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Edit: I've read the "DO NOT BUY Civ 3" thread, and basically, it comes down to Atrocities complaining that he only got a month's worth of play out of a game. If you get a month out of any game before getting tired of it, then I would think it's up there as one of the best of all time.

In that case it would be more economical to Subscribe to a porn site for $10-$15 a month than shell out $50 for a game. I expect at least 2 months, but 3 is what I'd rate a good game. Truly great games Last years.

I've played UO for 5 years, and back in my younger days Doom, and it's extreme editability Lasted me about 3. SE is also another long Laster, though I'm too tired to remember how long ago it has been since I started playing SEIII.

Graeme Dice · #6 January 26th, 2003, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MacLeod:
I personally would have to describe once an hour as pretty unstable, especially since you may lose at least 15 minutes of gameplay since your Last save (and I've had a few games that didn't even have a save).

Like anything else you do on a computer, you should be saving no less than every five to ten minutes. If it's word processing, I save every thirty seconds.

Quote:

I expect at least 2 months, but 3 is what I'd rate a good game. Truly great games Last years.

I expect no more than a week of play from a game that is a true classic, because that's all the time one can spend on a game if you wish to play more than one a month.

Quote:

I've played UO for 5 years, and back in my younger days Doom, and it's extreme editability Lasted me about 3. SE is also another long Laster, though I'm too tired to remember how long ago it has been since I started playing SEIII.

Sure, a really great game gets more play time, but that doesn't make one that only Lasts a weekend a bad game, just a normal length game.

Phoenix-D · #7 January 26th, 2003, 07:33 AM

"Like anything else you do on a computer, you should be saving no less than every five to ten minutes. If it's word processing, I save every thirty seconds."

Some programs don't -let- you save this frequent, or become unstable if you do. And frankly one crash per hour is pretty bad. Most games I've played do -far- better than that. Metroid on the gamecube has crashed about as much as some of the better PC games I've played. Twice, and I've played it for twelve hours.

Phoenix-D