Galactic Civilizations II impressions

[Ragnarok-X]

btw. Im pretty amazed by the people who *defend* Firaxis here. It was clearly their fault and i believe FAR more than 75% of the initial buyers had major issues with the game. Firaxis did not even fix their stuff in the first place, i absolute remember that a fanboy made some kind of dll-swinging .exe which solved the memory-lads. When the official patch was released, it included that fanmade fix. Unfortunally this is where im dissapointed from the so called god of gamers Sid Meier. I remember playing Civ 2 when i was like 10 years old, i remember Colonization, and Pirates Gold. Civ 4 was a catastrophe.
Now, months after release, its good and modable, but thats no excuse which would allow a company to sell crap. Its like your car-shop is selling you a so-called new and intact car, which is in fact missing both its brakes and its gas pedal.

[Fyron]

Civ 2 and Colonization were mostly Brian Reynolds and others though, with Sid's name tacked on...

[Graeme Dice]

Ragnarok-X said:
btw. Im pretty amazed by the people who *defend* Firaxis here. It was clearly their fault and i believe FAR more than 75% of the initial buyers had major issues with the game.

And I don't believe that, especially not when, of the 4 people I know who bought it, not one of them experienced any major issues whatsoever. If it was 75% of all initial buyers that had problems, then at least three people in a group of five should have problems.

[Fyron]

...assuming statistics actually worked that way. 5 people is an irrelevant sample size.

[Yoda]

Well, if 75% of all people had a problem then the odds of 5 people (picked randomly) having no problems is .25^5 = 0.0009765 so about 1 in a 1000. Of course, I can't confirm that the five people cited above didn't have problems.

Note: I'm not defending Firaxis, I've never played Civ IV and don't plan to, my brief experience with III was quite enough.

[Saber Cherry]

Yoda said:
Well, if 75% of all people had a problem

Note: it was actually "major problem", not "problem".

"Major" is subjective. There are tons of people posting on the GC2 boards saying, "Congrats - the game is flawless - I love it - whiners are posting problems, but I haven't experienced any."

These people are wrong. They have experienced problems, but they didn't notice or didn't care. Major problems, though - that's totally subjective. I was mostly even with the other majors in my first GC2 game, but had by far the weakest military... and suddenly found a "Lucky Ranger", then another one 5 turns later, each with stats sufficient to destroy all other empires combined (no enemy ship was strong enough to damage it). I crushed a nearby empire (the strongest in the game) taking not only no losses, but no damage. Due to a random event that happened twice in quick succession, I went from 'struggling' to 'godlike' and the game became boring, as my victory was inevitable regardless of my past or future actions. So, I quit.



As I said in my first post, this kind of 'annoyance' is widespread, but can be easily fixed. I consider it on some levels to be a major bug, since it destroyed the game for me and made it unplayable until the issue is resolved (many others have complained about "Lucky Ranger" power and frequency), and on others a trivial bug, since it can be fixed in a few minutes. I can see how some people would not classify it as a bug at all, let alone a major one. There's also a bug where you can upgrade every ship in your empire for free. The debt limit is -2000 BC, a 'feature' to prevent people from accidentally ruining their empire with an accidental purchase. However, upgrading all ships in your military for 100,000 BC, when you only have 1 BC, will leave you with -2000 BC; since that is the debt limit. Again, this is a major gameplay bug, but a minor game bug, as it can be fixed in minutes. However, Stardock's official word is that "It's a feature, not a bug." So, who knows whether it will be fixed? (I give it an 80% chance within a week.) And furthermore, it's plain how 'aggressive' or 'competitive' players would find this to be a major bug, since you can't possibly compete with Metaverse players who exploit it, unless you exploit it at least as much as they do. Yet others who don't notice a whole lot, and assume their racial pick of +20% social production is working (actually, it did nothing before the patch today), will say "The game works fine for me; I don't know what they're complaining about."


So... 5/5 people not noticing major bugs - especially occasional bugs, exploits that are not technically low-level bugs, bugs that are specific to specific hardware configurations, and etc - is not just a statistically small sample, but actually irrelevant. I estimate from my experience that 80% of randomly selected players of randomly selected games would say, "I never experienced a bug" regardless of how buggy the game was... simply because they are not attuned to it, don't know what bugs are, forgot about them, weren't annoyed by them, enjoyed the fact that it let them do something they couldn't otherwise, or whatever. It would take a spectacularly buggy game for Joe Gamer to notice a bug.

[Yoda]

I totally agree with you that what one person considers a problem, another may not. But if 75% are experiencing what they consider to be "major" problems (whatever they may be), it is unlikely (1 in 1000) that you will randomly select 5 individuals that report no problems.

I'm not saying that these people were found; I'm not saying that the fewer than 75% had major problems. I was just responding to Fyrons comment about how statistics work. A sample size of 5 can be relevant, though the method of collection could make it irrelevant.

I certainly don't appreciate rushed, and buggy games, and I am not commenting on the quality (or lack thereof) of GC, or CIV IV. I've never played either game.

[Fyron]

75% was a fairly generous exaggeration anyways.

I still say 5 is an irrelevant sample size, especially when there is no randomness to the selection.

[Yoda]

I agree that the method of selection leaves a lot to be desired.

[Saber Cherry]

Er, sorry, Yoda - I may have come across as aggressive, but it was meant to be general commentary that happened to quote you.