Shogun's response to patch campaign

[Bel]

The usefulness of analogies is limited. Sometimes a thing is simply itself, and not like anything else.

I have another analogy for you.

I buy a DVD of a movie that has received good reviews. When I get it home I find that the disk is scratched and won't play, so I take it back to the shop and they are happy to give me a replacement.

However, once I get it home again and start watching the film, I begin to have doubts. There are some continuity problems that I can put up with - after all most people would not notice them, but the lead actor's supposed English accent is appalling; but he does make the most of his part, so I grudgingly accept that.

However, when the hero and the love interest finally get into space on their rocket ship...ohmigod what is this - the space ship is whizzing around like an aeroplane, and there is an almighty, thunderous explosion when they blow up the alien mothership. This is too much, totally unrealistic and I start an email campaign demanding the studio release a director's cut that is scientifically accurate.

Is this analogy any more helpful?

I often think so-called software engineering is much more an art than a science; the most fun I get out of programming for a living is when I can be creative. As an art, should we not compare software to other arts, and not harder disciplines? In many aspects, a large software game is created in a similar way to a movie, with visuals, audio, motion, animation, branding and marketing.

So, by your analogy there is no minimum acceptable standard of functional software? If Quicken did your books and got all your numbers wrong? If all your tetris pieces dropped through the floor making the game unplayable? An MMO that doesn't go online?

No, I do not consider this "Art". I spend good hard earned money for software to utilize the purpose of that software. I've read page 7 of the manual and it quite clearly states I can "load a previously saved game." However, in my previously saved game my sieges would not break off (I believe proven through numerous imperical data but I will concede the Shogun's philosophical argument that I cannot deductively know this, inductively it is quite clear however,) after a load the sieges break. It is not the same game. Thus I am mislead about a key function of this game putting its very playability into question

[Old Celt]

So, by your analogy there is no minimum acceptable standard of functional software? If Quicken did your books and got all your numbers wrong? If all your tetris pieces dropped through the floor making the game unplayable? An MMO that doesn't go online?

No, I do not consider this "Art". I spend good hard earned money for software to utilize the purpose of that software. I've read page 7 of the manual and it quite clearly states I can "load a previously saved game." However, in my previously saved game my sieges would not break off (I believe proven through numerous imperical data but I will concede the Shogun's philosophical argument that I cannot deductively know this, inductively it is quite clear however,) after a load the sieges break. It is not the same game. Thus I am mislead about a key function of this game putting its very playability into question

Well said, Bel!!

[aphex]

Hmmm... I think gameplay may have a more direct parallel with art.
And I guess speccing, measuring and testing it is an artform ;)

[ShellShock]

So, by your analogy there is no minimum acceptable standard of functional software? If Quicken did your books and got all your numbers wrong? If all your tetris pieces dropped through the floor making the game unplayable? An MMO that doesn't go online?

No, I do not consider this "Art". I spend good hard earned money for software to utilize the purpose of that software. I've read page 7 of the manual and it quite clearly states I can "load a previously saved game." However, in my previously saved game my sieges would not break off (I believe proven through numerous imperical data but I will concede the Shogun's philosophical argument that I cannot deductively know this, inductively it is quite clear however,) after a load the sieges break. It is not the same game. Thus I am mislead about a key function of this game putting its very playability into question

There is also a "SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT" on page 79 of the manual, which (if you can read the very small print, which I have trouble doing) limits the warranty to replacing the recording medium.

I sincerely wish that this wasn't the case, and that CA would see the light and issue a patch to fix this bug/feature/reassessment; I'm trying to point out that comparing RTW to other products does not necessarily add any weight to our case. IMHO, your analogies to Quicken, tetris and MMO are more extreme than the the RTW load bug, but this is purely a subjective judgement. For some people the load bug makes RTW unplayable, for others it does not. In your analogies the relevant software is unusable/unplayable for everyone.

Even in this situation, a license agreement such as the one that comes with RTW would probably protect the software supplier from having to do anything about the bug. Undoubtedly a spreadsheet that could not do it sums would not sell; but how much do we/CA/SEGA think TotalWar sales will be affected now and in the future by the lack of support? I suspect not very much, as the vast majority of buyers never visit forums like this, and would never realise that there was a bug that needed fixing in the first place.

[Bhruic]

There is also a "SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT" on page 79 of the manual, which (if you can read the very small print, which I have trouble doing) limits the warranty to replacing the recording medium.

You're talking about the legality of the situation, when I believe the rest of us are talking about the ethics of it. If it were legal to hang a dog by its neck and beat it with a stick, I don't think that would make it ethical.

In the same vein, the fact that legally speak, CA and Activision aren't required to support RTW doesn't make that the ethical choice. I think many of us would prefer to deal with a company that displayed ethics, when it comes to situations such as this.

Bh

[Colovion]

ethics have no place amongst the wolves of currency

[red comyn]

For some people the load bug makes RTW unplayable, for others it does not. In your analogies the relevant software is unusable/unplayable for everyone.

but how much do we/CA/SEGA think TotalWar sales will be affected now and in the future by the lack of support? I suspect not very much, as the vast majority of buyers never visit forums like this, and would never realise that there was a bug that needed fixing in the first place.

1. How can you class a bug (lets call a spade a spade) which changes the very nature of a game as anything other than unplayabe, it takes the difficulty out of the whole game. If every time you loaded the game it put 1,000,000 in your bank then would it ruin the aspect of developing your economy? of course it would, so how soes this differ?


2. This will be of course why people are taking other more extrene measures.

[ShellShock]

1. How can you class a bug (lets call a spade a spade) which changes the very nature of a game as anything other than unplayabe, it takes the difficulty out of the whole game. If every time you loaded the game it put 1,000,000 in your bank then would it ruin the aspect of developing your economy? of course it would, so how soes this differ?

I don't think this bug makes RTW unplayable, but it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of it. That's why I use Windows hibernate so I do not have to reload. My point however is I think for the majority of people who bought the game it is not unplayable as they will not know the bug exists, never having visited one of the RTW forums. They may think the game is a bit easy, and wonder why...but that will be as far as it goes. If this bug made the game unplayable, then there would logically be no-one playing it, which is patently not the case (or the posters on the various forums must have very vivid imaginations).

I had played several campaigns (starting last September) before the community realised that there was a problem. By definition the game certainly was not unplayable for me during those campaigns.

Ignorance is bliss.

[ShellShock]

ethics have no place amongst the wolves of currency

Quite.

And sad but true.

[Shambles]

I don't think this bug makes RTW unplayable, but it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of it. That's why I use Windows hibernate so I do not have to reload. My point however is I think for the majority of people who bought the game it is not unplayable as they will not know the bug exists, never having visited one of the RTW forums. They may think the game is a bit easy, and wonder why...but that will be as far as it goes. If this bug made the game unplayable, then there would logically be no-one playing it, which is patently not the case (or the posters on the various forums must have very vivid imaginations).

I had played several campaigns (starting last September) before the community realised that there was a problem. By definition the game certainly was not unplayable for me during those campaigns.

Ignorance is bliss.

By the same token,
I was also un aware of any bug, But stoped playing the game,

The battles were pale in comparison to Stw, So There was no real insentive for me to play custom or historical battles,

So i focused my efforts on the campaign,
The bugs Did make it unplayable, people lifiting seiges, after you saved,
and Factions that were at war with you would now accept alliance proposals,

This in turn made the campaing mode pointless, So seeing as i already owned a better game of the same style "STW"
I Did discontinue playing rome,

So i guess for Some pleople this game is unplayable,
I know this Becous i am 1 of those people

[red comyn]

Sorry shellshock my mistake for all my posts read unplayable as made so easy as for there to be no point in playing. I can see how people could enjoy it in the very short term, as they looked at the pretty things but surly as you settle into it you notice the flaws. If anyone really found playing with this feature I can post a link for a great fish shooting game - Small barrel II, this time you use a shotgun!

[Bel]

If one only has time to play the game in 1-2 turn spurts, this game is completely pointless to play. Anyone who says otherwise has never tried it.

[Bel]

MikeB's latest thoughts:

"Mongoose - this issue was never dismissed as a feature. I've just checked the Shogun's wording to make sure.

There's been an awful lot of stirring the pot on this one, I'm afraid, with people reading what they wanted to read into the Shogun's announcements rather than what was there. "

[slackker]

i'm actually tempted to go over and read the responses but i guess it will boil over to here ;) the title can be renamed: CA staff responses

[AggonyKing]

fill me in, what patch campain?

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Shogun does have valid points and not so valid ones. He has every right to defend all of them. However, as a forum "admin and CA staff", the arrogance in his style is unacceptible, which would still be tolerated were he a commoner.

The guerrilla tactics... individuals who are set on damaging the TW series (no matter how good their declared intentions)... on a board that we pay to keep running?

No single person who sells a good or service can speak in this tone. The natural response of the customer starts with refusing to buy, ascends to as serious sanctions as boycoting and can reach the extremes at agitated overreactions. "...on a board that we pay..." You pay for that board, Shogun san, because hundreds of thousands have already paid you. Cheap semantics like this won't lead the devs or the community anywhere.

I'm sure that Shogun was having hard time controling his emotions at the time his post was made. That may sound like clearing his false style but I hope it won't repeat. This very individual writing this message has very recently taken one whole week off the ORG not to reply to a silly post at the Watchtower in a way that would do much more harm than good. People with key responsibilities like Shogun san should behave with much intenser attention than a bare forum regular in similar cases.

(Just to set everything straight, let me repeat my resident belief on game developpers' intentions of always making their games good. They are artists before all and their products are artistic creations. They never intentionally make bad or broken stuff.)


-

[Quietus]

-
Shogun does have valid points and not so valid ones. He has every right to defend all of them. However, as a forum "admin and CA staff", the arrogance in his style is unacceptible, which would still be tolerated were he a commoner.No single person who sells a good or service can speak in this tone. The natural response of the customer starts with refusing to buy, ascends to as serious sanctions as boycoting and can reach the extremes at agitated overreactions. "...on a board that we pay..." You pay for that board, Shogun san, because hundreds of thousands have already paid you. Cheap semantics like this won't lead the devs or the community anywhere.

I'm sure that Shogun was having hard time controling his emotions at the time his post was made. That may sound like clearing his false style but I hope it won't repeat. This very individual writing this message has very recently taken one whole week off the ORG not to reply to a silly post at the Watchtower in a way that would do much more harm than good. People with key responsibilities like Shogun san should behave with much intenser attention than a bare forum regular in similar cases.

(Just to set everything straight, let me repeat my resident belief on game developpers' intentions of always making their games good. They are artists before all and their products are artistic creations. They never intentionally make bad or broken stuff.)


-

Hey Mouzaf,

I'm not sure if you know, but some people are going beyond boycott. Some are actually sabotaging the Amazon.com rating so to blackmail CA into releasing a new patch.

[Kraxis]

"Guerilla tactics" might be a strong term, but I find it pretty close ot the mark considering the intended targets of that statement were going all out at CA by deliberately lowering scores at sites and writing horrible reviews, and telling people to do the same on CA's board. They were intently trying to hurt CA, not by not buying their products but by scaring other people away. I see no reason why CA should allow that on their board, do you?

He most certainly doesn't mean people who have a gripe with the start-mode of the save/load issue. He might not like that people are so vocal about that part, but that is not guerilla tactics and I know him better than to go that far out of bounds.

[Morat]

Sabotage is an awfully strong word to use. I've read many of the reviews and most of them explicitly say the reason for their rating. Admittedly not many will read this but still. I would also say that it is fair to take into account the support the product is given when giving a rating. CA have told us that they can only give us one real patch. That's not particularly good support. Even believing that the AI reassessment is in fact intentional rather than a flaw there are plenty of other bugs in the game that require fixing. Yet they cannot fix them. Until they do is it treacherous or destructive to say that the product is currently defective and the only way to get a will be able to get a faultless game is to purchase the expansion? I suggest not. If any actions are to be described in these terms it is CA and Activision's.

[Red Harvest]

GAH!

If you read the reviews on Amazon, they are actually quite clear rather than foaming at the mouth rants. There are a couple of goofy ones, but overall you get the picture as a prospective buyer: lots of potential, flawed product, no support coming to fix the major remaining problems, wait for it to hit the bargain bin. Hmmm, that's short and sweet, I should write an actual review...

CA spurned its community, and some of the community are using what little leverage they have to fight back. If CA considers getting the word out "sabotage" then they have bigger problems. CA had plenty of opportunity to respond in a more positive manner on the major remaining problems. They didn't. Blaming the consumer isn't going to get them anywhere.

And those 5 star ratings at this point are absolute BS anyway. I rated it a 1 after reading some on the inane 5 star comments. I was going to give a 3, but I had an allergic reaction to some of the 5's.

And in closing... GAH!

[Red Harvest]

Hey Mouzaf,

I'm not sure if you know, but some people are going beyond boycott. Some are actually sabotaging the Amazon.com rating so to blackmail CA into releasing a new patch.

And it is posts like this that really irk me. Even if this were true (and calling it sabotage and blackmail is not accurate) if the campaign worked we should all be happy. Those of us dense enough to still have an interest in the game would benefit from a proper patch. The irritation should be with the developer, not the consumer.

[nokhor]

i also think the amazon reviews i've read have been pretty fair. they've been specific and reasoned and well written. i didn't come across too many "rtw sucks!!!!!" people have been writing about their problems with the game and have been explaining reasonably well, why they were giving it a rating that they were. it just so happens that its an organized campaign of how a lot feel about the game, instead of a haphazard one of separate individuals but its not like they are slandering it or adding untruths in their reviews. so i think its been a perfectly valid strategy so far.

[Quietus]

The 1.0 scores were pre-determined. The review itself was an afterthought. Hence, it is bogus and fraudulent. The intent and goal of the "campaign" was to lower the score all along (hence sabotage), with people at another forum saying we won't stop until the game is patched (hence blackmail).

If you don't want me to call it blackmail and sabotage then don't do it, simple as that. ( I know my vocabulary, if you don't, then use a dictionary).

Under the amazing scale of RTW as 1.0 star,

* = RTW
**= ???
***= ???
**** = ????
***** = ???

then it follows that there are 5-star games that are 5-times better than RTW. You would be hardpressed to find games that are 2 times better than it, much less 5-times.

[.Spartan]

Not counting the plethora errors and bugs with the VnV & TnT systems or the multitude of graphic files error let simply look at the following list (I forgot who drafted it) of well know issues shall we?? (Blackmail - hardly...)



A. BATTLEMAP



(1) Tactical AI:

· Suicidal generals: persistent reports of generals charging entire enemy armies without support.

· Tactical AI still fails to take adequate measures in avoiding missile fire.

· AI-controlled infantry sometimes maneuver like cavalry units when engaged; repeatedly charging/disengaging and running in circular paths through loose formations. If a feature, implemented poorly with units that have poor charge attributes.

· AI-controlled units guarding the town centre sometimes fail to turn and face approaching enemy units.

· AI siege attackers: AI-controlled reinforcements continue to pursue enemy units that have retreated behind city walls; AI siege armies do not always retreat after their siege equipment is lost.

· AI-controlled units sometimes remain idle while being issued repeated movement orders; "move" or "move out" orders can be heard in an almost continuous loop. Occurs most commonly with AI formations preparing to attack over bridges.



(2) Unit movement/path-finding:

· Generally poor unit navigation in cities and around bridges: individual soldiers often break formation and become lost in streets/alleyways; soldiers still run into the water and drown during bridge maneuvers; bugged path-finding around Egyptian arches.

· Scenery interaction: units often become stuck in narrow passages, between rocks/trees, in siege towers, and amongst massed formations; rare reports of soldiers walking through walls and closed gates; soldiers in siege towers and on ladders occasionally fall through solid wood.

· "Ford" river crossings are sometimes impassable.



(3) Unit functionality:

· Horse-archers: reports from some players that bow-armed cavalry fail to fire on the run when skirmish mode is engaged. Possibly related to bugged animation cycles; units go through the motions of firing arrows but arrows are not (or rarely) released. Cantabrian circle still functions fully. Javelin-armed cavalry are unaffected.

· Various problems associated with the use of multiple selected (ungrouped) units: aberrant maneuvers provoked on move command to several selected units; ignoring attack orders; incorrect processing of attack orders given to multiple unit selections comprising a mix of ammo-depleted and range-capable missile units (all engage in melee, despite the cursor highlight suggesting that ranged attack is available for some units).

· Various problems associated with the use of grouped units: unselected units comply with commands issued to other units in the same group; grouped cavalry does not run at the speed of the slowest unit, but at that of the quickest (eg. grouped cataphractoi and horse-archers will run at horse-archer speed).

· Phalanx mode: soldiers sometimes do not hold formation adequately in phalanx formation, when ordered to attack, soldiers shuffle around and break formation; phalanxes have trouble attacking uphill, even on gentle inclines.

· Canine unit (wardog/warhound) "formations" cannot be selected or attacked, even when their handlers are defeated or routed off the battlefield.

· Javelin infantry may become stuck and refuse further orders when ordered to launch missiles or change formation.

· Hiding in long grass is possible on snowy maps and in places where no long grass is visible.

· Bridge routs: occasional recurrences besides documented changes in v1.2.

· AI-controlled reinforcements are sometimes inappropriately flagged "not yet arrived on battlefield" and cannot be selected/attacked.

· Disappearing ladders: on rare occasions, siege ladders do not appear on the battle map if constructed in preparation for a siege assault.

· Fighting on city walls: soldiers deployed on walls sometimes shuffle around and fall to their death on pressing "start battle"; units deployed on walls "fight to the death" even if their adversary is on the ground below; units "fighting to the death" sometimes do not fight back when engaged in melee.



(4) Interface/graphics:

· Minimal UI: cut-scenes reset map and card visibility settings if they were originally toggled off; upper edge of screen blocked from cursor interaction when buttons are toggled off; message tiles often obscure the left-most unit card when toggling cards off and on with active messages; sluggish/unreliable response to time control hotkeys when MUI is active.

· Coastal tiles: frequent reports of large grey angular coastline tiles in the distance when fighting in coastal regions, relating to the presence of coastal structures such as ports/cities.

· Victory screen: rare reports of victory screen failing to appear after all enemy units are defeated/routed.





B. CAMPAIGN MAP



(1) Strategic AI:

· Unit construction: occasional reports of AI favoring mass construction of low quality troops early on in campaign games.

· Naval units: rare reports of the AI conducting single-turn blockades frequently and indiscriminately.

· AI incongruity on reload: reports that reloading a saved game "resets" AI priorities/flags provoking inconsistencies in diplomatic behavior and strategic planning. Refer to stickied thread on "Loadg ame issue".



(2) Diplomacy:

· Illogical AI behavior: requesting ceasefire with considerable concessions, only to attack next turn; refusing "unfair" diplomatic offers only to accept less advantageous agreements immediately afterwards.

· Labile diplomacy: occasional reports of AI factions frequently signing and breaking treaties.

· Protectorates: multiple problems related to protectorate system and status of ex-protectorates. Full assessment still pending. p223.ezboard.com/fshogunt...=1&stop=20



(3) Characters:

· Generals get checked twice for trait awards in manual battles.

· "Scarred" trait: over rapid trait progression with repeated battles (GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle works in one way for manual battles, and differently for autocalc; manual battles without engagement always trigger battle1/battle1r).

· Senate offices: ex-office trait is not registered following reappointment to a previously held office ((office)again triggers giving twice as needed).

· Coward trait: is not given if the general avoids combat in battle (GeneralFoughtinCombat always returns true, causing trigger battle4 to never go off; trigger needs revision as if it worked properly the coward trait could by gained simply if the enemy retreats).

· Rare reports of spies acquiring traits specific to generals.

· Isolated reports of family members who die in battle described to have "died peacefully" if they weren't generals during the final battle.

· Transferred retainers are sometimes not immediately deleted from the retinue of the donating character (corrected by closing and reopening the character description).

· Character portraits: continue to age after death; portrait images can sometimes be replaced by inappropriate/non-portrait pictures.

· Disappearing characters: issuing a move/attack command to selected units within a stack, then stopping them prior to reaching their intended destination (by pressing backspace) makes the general in the original stack disappear; losing the commanding general out of two (or more?) family members in a battle may lead to disappearance of the surviving character(s). In either situation the description for the disappeared character states "died peacefully".



(4) Economics:

· Paved roads sometimes do not provide the correct land trade bonuses.

· Colossus wonder does not provide the correct naval trade bonus that its description states

· Financial reports continue to calculate diplomatic tribute from ex-protectorates or when active protectorates are bankrupt and cannot provide the required diplomatic tribute (in either case no actual tribute is received for the turn).



(5) Land/naval warfare:

· Multiple-army sieges: only the attacking stack is represented in battlemap/autocalc during attacks on a settlement besieged by several stacks.

· Naval warfare: battle outcome summaries do not correctly register the number of ships sunk in a naval engagement.

· Elephants killed in battle by their riders are resurrected on returning to the campaign map.

· A distorted coast-line battle map is loaded when fighting on the road east of the port of Sidon (the depressed terrain one grid south of the small hill).

· Naval/land units sometimes become stuck at certain points in the map and cannot be selected (eg. fleets at the port of Corinth).

· Lost siege supplies: if an attempt is made to relieve a besieged AI army prior to its supply time limit, it is sometimes incorrectly flagged to be at the extent of its supply and will "fight to the death" as reinforcements in the subsequent battle. This also means that the siege succeeds automatically if the relieving army is defeated before the reinforcements arrive.

· Diplomats/spies/assassins are capable of blockading retreating armies.

· Gates of Syracuse: isolated reports of permanent damage refractory to repairs/upgrades if opened by a spy during a siege.

· If a rival faction enters a protectorate agreement under the player, any player-led sieges of that faction's settlements will be deactivated but the besieging armies will be unable to leave.

· Rare reports of entire stacks teleporting to distant parts of the map when disembarking from a fleet.



(6) Unit statistics/properties:

· Praetorian Cohorts are available prior to Marius reforms.

· Pharaoh's Guard flagged as carrying shields contrary to unit models.

· Egyptian Desert Axemen have high armour attributes contrary to unit models.

· Long-Shield Cavalry are not listed in the unit building files for Spain and Numidia.

· Seleucid Cataphract Elephants construction requirements should also include "resource elephants".

· Typing error in "descr_mercenaries.txt" variables for "unit merc horse archers" under "pool Armenia".

· Bedouin Archers flagged as carrying shields contrary to unit models.

· Illyrian Mercenaries have no bonus against chariots and elephants.

· Thracian Armoured General has the same statistics as the unarmoured form.

· Praetorian Cohorts are recruitable prior to Marius event.

· Thracian Phalanx Pikemen are no longer recruitable after a specific barracks level.

· Gallic Naked Fanatics can be recruited at a farming shrine.

· Silver Shield Legionaries can be trained prior to Marius event.

· Sarmatian Mercenaries do not suffer the "mount" penalty when facing elephants/camels.

· Rebel Archer Warbands have blue Chosen Swordsman as unit commander.

· Spain has blue generals.

· Royal Pikemen use spears (and should use spears) but their name indicates otherwise.

· Inconsistent mass values for certain units: Bastarnae Mercenaries, Bull Warriors, Silver Shield Legionaries and several other infantry units are assigned a mass value of "1" in contrast to comparable units (Bastarnae, Spartan warriors and various legionary units all have "1.3" in mass).



(7) Interface/graphics:

· Dysfunctional construction menu scroll-bar.

· Game transit: reloading screen disappears for a few seconds when loading/exiting a battle; when playing in 16-bit mode, campaign map occasionally resets colours incorrectly when returning from battlemap.

· Movement range highlights: some players report loss of the green terrain highlight indicators for unit movement after patching to 1.2.

· Snowy winter bug: some players report experiencing the snowy winter effect in all regions (including equatorial zones).

· Settlement details window: if the building/unit information screen (on the right side) is closed while the settlement details summary is open, the latter resets automatically to a "default" settlement.

[Quietus]

That list is nary a justification for 1.0 star (it only illustrates the complexity of RTW). .Spartan, if you really are convinced that RTW is 1.0 star, then please, fill in the blanks:

* = RTW
** = ???
*** = ???
**** = ???
***** = ???

Keep in mind 1-star is 20%, 2-stars is 40%, 3-stars is 60%, 4-stars is 80%, and 5-stars is 100%, meaning the last is 5-times superior to the first.

(edit: about the paved roads. There seem to be a special limit to road bonuses. Look at my Guide+therother's comment and the Ludus Magna thread: Effects of Road).

[hoom]

* = RTW 1.0
*** = RTW 1.2
***** = Shogun/Medieval
********** = RTW if problems are properly fixed

Matters of legal obligation are irrelevant.
Matters of who is to blame are irrelevant.
Matters of whether or not its a good idea to publicly campaign for a patch/against CA are irrelevant.

The single relevant factor is that a large number of the people who might buy future product are not happy and likely to refrain from further purchases.

If CA/SEGA/Activision have any business sense they will take action ASAP to remedy this situation.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I know for sure companies that support their product 5 times better then CA.

Louis,

[.Spartan]

I do not believe it deserves one star. However to offset the skew created by less informed posters that rate something 5 stars mainly because it looks good and they themselves lack a technical insights into the game or just basic understanding of things work it is a reasonable course of action. The end result should be 2.5 - all things being equal.

-Spartan

[screwtype]

"Guerilla tactics" might be a strong term, but I find it pretty close ot the mark considering the intended targets of that statement were going all out at CA by deliberately lowering scores at sites and writing horrible reviews, and telling people to do the same on CA's board. They were intently trying to hurt CA, not by not buying their products but by scaring other people away. I see no reason why CA should allow that on their board, do you?

I don't agree with your description, I don't think people intentionally wrote "bad" reviews, they just stated the fact that there is a loadgame bug that can severely handicap the AI (which is already not that flash). Arguably you are correct that they deliberately marked the game down lower than they normally would to "sabotage" Amazon's rating, but I think it's also true that the average rating for the game on Amazon is much too high.

My own opinion is that people have a perfect right to express their views on sites like Amazon or to game mags or any other publication - and just because this is an organized campaign rather than a random occurrence does not make it less legitimate. Consumers have a right to organize.

On the other side of the coin though, I think it a bit unrealistic to expect CA to tolerate calls for such a campaign on its own website. But by banning discussion of the issue consumers are reminded that the com is, after all, not a truly independent site.

In a sense, the patch campaigners have had their victory at the com anyhow. The Shogun's own sticky on the issue effectively announces to every newcomer that there is some kind of issue with the game that hasn't been resolved which has left customers dissatisfied.

[Colovion]

I know for sure companies that support their product 5 times better then CA.

Louis,

Valve, for one. So far they've released at least two dozen patches since HL2 release. Not game-stopping bugs, as I never had any noticable problems; just tweaking and working out any bugs the community brings up. Hell, today they released a patch that fixed ONE problem - in Counterstrike: Source sometimes people's names would come up as duplicates in the game list.... nothing important really - but it was fixed within 3 days of it being apparent it was there.

Activision is a dinosaur.