Shogun has responded to the "patch campaign" over at the com.
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...ID=24704.topic
Printable View
Shogun has responded to the "patch campaign" over at the com.
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...ID=24704.topic
I don't think you should post about the com here at org...The mods have (rightly) said many times that other forums aren't a good topic.
I think we all know the campaign got their attention. There's about 50 NEW reviews by now - if the same response happens to their XP they will be in trouble - so for their sakes I hope they won't fight their own customers and instead do proper QA and think about after-sales service.
I encourage everyone to review the game: positive, negative, however they want - it can only help consumers and offer valuable feed-back to CA.
I'm in manufacturing myself, and personally, I almost like to see negative feedback on my products, because then I can fix a problem that probably has affected way more people than I realize. Also, you can see what bothers the consumer - not always what you think.
This is not a thread about the com. It's about Shogun's response to the patch campaign, which I'm sure will be of interest to the org community.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan
I also think Shogun's response is a legitimate matter of debate at the .org.
There is one really interesting twist in Shogun's post:
The Shogun:
"I see absolutely no reason to let individuals who are set on damaging the TW series (no matter how good their declared intentions) continue posting here. Why would we encourage such behaviour on a board that we pay to keep running? Continued destructive posting will result in the individuals concerned being banned."
I do not surf a lot the .com, so I can only imagine what "destructive posting" should mean.
But if it's only about opinions, then I don't think that these should be conditioned - positively or negatively - by a "we pay for what we want to listen, so start singing" philosophy. It kind of worries me that somebody at CA can think like this.
Of course there has been a lot of criticism lately towards RTW, but there is also a lot of praising. As always, the truth might be somewhere at the middle, and I assume CA and Activision are able to correctly identify where truth stands in this controversy. :bow:
Hmmmm, good point on the thread.
Regarding CA/Sega figuring out "the truth"
There is only one truth, and that is if you anger your customer or damage your own reputation in any way (be it your fault or not) there are often consequences.
Read through this article about campus IT service and see if anythings fit the current situation. See if any of their suggestions have been implemented.
http://staff.valpo.edu/myohe/papers/02repu/02repud.htm
Honestly would you allow people to actively campaign against you on your forum? I can't see why CA has to put up with that. Yeah they won't patch it, but that doesn't make it a right to be allowed to work against them. No honest company would allow that.
You would also get kicked out of a store if you tried to do the same thing there. Where is the difference?
Now I might not agree with how this is handled but I see the Shogun as tied on both hands here.
Kraxis,
Many companies now specifically have websites and forums for people to complain about their products so they can catch problems and fix them.
If you have any kind of campaign against your company aside from a lone crazy, you've alienated customers somehow and should review your policies.
I would welcome anyone interested in this topic to check out last week's Economist's - about how the internet makes consumer the King.
so long as it's a reasoned discussion on what CA have stated this is fine for discussion. as has been pointed out stay clear of discussing .com.
I saw this and had to reply. I respectfully disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan
The TW community is just that: a community. Conversation should be held about any and all matters as the community sees fits. There will always be discussions that some do not care for or see constructive. Can you imagine if TosaInu posted a giant announcement "no talking about the com or you may be banned!"
Instead, in the context of the TW patch and fan concerns, It is my opinion that criticisim be constructive. I don't mean polite, I don't mean cordial, I don't mean butt-kissing. I just mean that "RTW sucks and all you who play it are losers" or similar comments are not productive criticism. Similarly. comments about the com should be productive as well.
Oh and by the way: You're all a bunch of freakin whiners! RTW is the best game of all time so go eat s*** and die! YARRRAAGRGHHHHH!!!
(yes that was a joke)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
Really... hmm. Is this a forum rule or something? I must have missed something here. Not being sarcastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I work in a media company.
This company has a web site and, of course, a forum for viewers. Of course the company pays for the site.
You should see what people have to say when they do not like a certain programme. :furious3: Wow. Criticism towards RTW is nothing compared to that.
On the other hand, this company i work for never witnessed a coordinated campaign against any of it's programmes, like this one against RTW. Again, :bow:
I guess it all comes down to what a "destructive post" is in his mind. If they started banning anyone who posted negatively, I'd find that extremely distasteful. But if they are merely banning people who are trying to campaign against them (via the Amazon route or others), then I can see their point.
Bh
I can see their point in that no one likes to have such unpleasantness to deal with. I disagree that banning and censorship is the best way to deal with this kind of problem. Unless people are being obscene or woefully ridiculous with no backup to their arguments, I believe such conversation SHOULD be had, and the arguments refuted publicly.
I wish CA would respond with whatever evidence they have to say there is no bug. When people suggested the problem could be avoided by letting the program run long term in the background, a CA staffer responded with insinuation that it would be ridiculous to do that, like avoiding stepping on cracks in the sidewalk. This whole thing begins to feel like a conversation with a debtor and a collection agency. The customers are the collection agency, and CA is in the role of debtor. They don't seem to want to speak with us, but not much progress can be made unless they do.
I should prehaps clarify - discussion of .com is in principle fine. There is a significant danger that any discussion of .com brings their problems here. .com patrons are welcome, .com issues are not.
It appears that they are just deleting threads that have anything to say about the the lousy AI, the reload bug, and the lack of another patch. Oh well, all we can really do is hope that CA has learned a good lesson and the next game is much improved over Rome. Signing with Sega may be the first sign that CA realized they had a serious problem with Activision and the 2 patch deal. Let's hope so.
No, that was Killem54 (or whatever his nick is). He's a moderator, but that's his only affiliation with CA (ie, he doesn't work for them). I have no idea how he became a moderator, as his posting style is, well, I'll be generous and call it "annoying". Moderators should be tactful, but he more often pours oil on the fire than tries to douse it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
The moderators here are a much nicer crew. ~;)
Bh
Indeed. They let you talk about almost whatever you want, without any threat of intimidation, leading to a relaxed atmosphere.Quote:
The moderators here are a much nicer crew.
THe praise is lovely gents, but if you want to give us a pat on the collective head do it in the Watchtower and lets get this thread back on topic please.
With regards to the com, it is run by CA but should be run for the benefit of the comsumer. As long as the post are resonable and constructive and not multiple topics on the same subject then they shouldnt be blocking threads. I for one didnt got there very often until all the chat on here saying how bad they were being for locking threads. If they were deleting them it wouldnt look so bad, but all you could see for a while was a row of padlocks down the side of the board. Which I belive leads new or prospective customers to ask "what they hiding". Which will damage there reputation / profits more than if they just stated what the facts were. If they cant afford the time or personel to fix the flaws in the game then say so. Would others and not just myself have more time/respect for them if they said "look sorry guys we screwed up".
Complain? yes, campagning to damage the company economically? hardlyQuote:
Many companies now specifically have websites and forums for people to complain about their products so they can catch problems and fix them.
Accept it, there won't be another patch whatever you do and the reason is simple: Activision can't win anything with it. Total War is now - since CA belongs to Sega now - a dead end for Activision. Why should they support it any further? CA and Activision are competitors now, they will fulfill existing contracts and nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Why should they support it?, activision has nothing to gain, CA and sega have both things to gain and even more to lose if they dont support it. The good will and support of the people who buy there product, both now and in the future, however the compnay politics work out its the CA company name and the total war brand that will be damamged unless people are in some way satisfied.
Well, here's a novel solution to the problem:
SEGA could invest the peanuts it would take to fix the known serious issues! OR
CA could just factor the cost of the patch material into the X pack. We're paying the whole freight on that one, so money is no excuse at all. The coding has to be done anyway. The only expense would be for QA and patch delivery construction. They could tap the hundreds of willing players on this and other forums to get all the beta testing they could possibly want-- for FREE!
OR
CA could work OT and fix this on their own. Devs are salaried, it's not like they'd be working for nothing. Other companies (e.g. Blizzard) do this all the time without crying it will break them, or they need money from the publisher.
That's 3 solutions in less than 5 minutes of thought. You know what that tells me? It tells me there are WAYS to solve this, just not any WILL to solve it.
There will be a patch. It's just a matter of whether we call it an expansion pack or not, pay for it ourselves or not, and get it soon, or sometime in "late 2005".
Ridiculous. He's basically saying
"the product is shit. we know it. we know you know it. it's too expensive for us to make our product resemble a status superior to fecal matter. deal with it or get the fuck out."
let's all take stock of the reactions to overwhelming opinions of people who play this game and understand that money runs the world and people don't give a flying fuck if something is sub-par because in the end if there's no money in doing something then it won't get done
you win again capitalism
damnit
Criticism is one thing, sabotage is another.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
What exactly are you getting at? I see such terms as "guerilla warfare", and "perpetrators" being thrown around pretty loosely in Shogun's rant. It would be nice if he would have been specific about the nature of his accusations.
If he is refering to reviews being written about RTW, then I don't agree with him. People have every right to rate things as they choose, provided they can back up their statements. I don't consider harsh reviews to be any more of an attack on CA, then I would a harsh movie review to be an attack on Paramount. If people don't agree with what is said in a review, they are free to review themselves and set things straight as they see them. That's freedom of speech in action.
Dear Shogun
If you don't like seeing people complaining about the game then you've chosen the wrong forum to moderate. Reality check. Your hopes of a candy and flowers forum don't coincide with the reality of a large number of unsatisfied people in the community. It's disconcerting to see that closed-minded and ignorant people such as yourself are in a position of authority. I hope you can accept the fact that people have opinions and feel the need to share them with others. Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
Sincerely,
A devoted member of the Total War Community.
Well, one thing we know about CA is they're not the biggest fans of free speech or dissent. Everything written in those reviews is true, if they think the truth reflects poorly on them, their game, and their reputations they are finally correct about something. It does.
I bought this game, paid good money for it.
Now, I say there's a problem with their product, and their response is "We don't want to listen to your complaints. Anyone else complaining will be banned. Get out, then come back and buy the XP when its out."
Well, I won't buy your XP pack then, and you can moderate an empty forum all you want, striking down invisible flamers and locking all threads not praising you.
Crazed Rabbit
I've been an active part in the loadgame threads over there, but I just can't agree with the way it's gone external in this anti-CA bugfix crusade...
IMO, it would have been a lot more contained if ye olde Killemall moderator hadn't inflamed the situation several times.
Still... maybe his posts were meant to inflame so the thread could be 'legally' R&R'd..?
Asking the mods of the forum to allow threads aimed at hurting the image of RTW is a little silly, imo. It's like asking a store owner to let you in his store to hand out flyers asking people to boycott his store. If you want to stand outside the store (ie, public property, in this case, create your own forum), by all means, do so. But expecting him to cooperate is just asking too much.
While I think this crackdown may be going too far in suppressing opinions of the game, I would, in their position, be doing the same thing. Except I'd have booted "Killemall" from the mod team for his flagarant exacerbation of the situation.
Bh
CA have a fair point when they say that they arn't making another patch because it's not up to them. The suits only care about the bottom line ~;) .
Everyone who bought the game has a fair point that it should do what it says on the tin. I want a challenging game, not a challenge to play the game for as long as possible without loading :furious3: .
I hope the expansion pack fixes the 'statistical fluke' and I'll find out because I'll buy it because I really enjoy playing Total War.
All in all, Total War rocks and I don't care that it's broken, all my best toys get broken and I dont care! It's MORE of a challenge for eagle eye action man can't see what's next to him :dizzy2:
Sorry lost it a bit.
Most people are satisfied with the RTW. Those that are unsatisfied are in the minority, and would do well to understand that they're debating from a minority position. If a minority becomes too demanding they will be locked out.
The one patch policy is nothing new. (I don't count v1.1 because that was an emergency fix for MP.) This is how all the games in the series have been handled going all the way back to the first game: STW. It would have been unprecidented for CA to make a v1.3 patch. One patch has never solved all the problems in these games, so you end up buying the second patch in the form of an add-on. The problem for me is that I no longer believe that CA will address the remaining issues to my satifaction even in the add-on. It just too obvious now that CA is not trying to maintain a high level of quality in the gameplay. The fact that many things in the game don't work as they should seems to be ok with CA, ok with the majority of the players and ok with the professional reviewers. It's only a minority of the players who would like to see the game come close to its potential.
I see your point, seeing as it is the main site and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
However, (and you knew there had to be one) the least they could do is setup one single thread that says "List your Gripes Here" and close all seperate threads.
A community that is discouraged from posting their concerns on the official website is going to find somewhere else (The Amazon ordeal). Would CA rather have people posting in their main site, where they can control it, or in a public area? Sounds like they've made their choice and they can't understand why no one likes it.
It's been repeatedly stated the Amazon campaign and its results are not up for discussion - Cat
After having exchanged a couple emails with one of the staff at CA I think the problem is one of lack of communications from CA and the fact that CA can't fix the problem because of Activision. Even if they wanted to distribute another patch I don't think they can. Rome belongs to Activision and I don't think anything will be different until the first game or expansion is released under Sega. If after that happens and CA fails to deliver a decent game or reasonable patches I will abandon CA all together. Till then I will maintain hope that they do GET it but can't do anything other than what they are doing.
As far as I can tell, the Shogun has only promised to ban people "set on damaging the TW series." You make it sound like he's vowed to ban anyone who comes to the forums with a complaint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
1) A few of us need to watch the language.
2) I thought Cat and Nelson made it clear that the Org forums were not to be used to sling insult or abuse at CA and its Org patrons. We wouldn't allow someone to say such a thing to you. Why would we allow you to say it to others?
Well no, I didn't mean that you'd get banned for complaining - but that the thread would be locked and/or deleted rather quickly if there was a new person coming with a complaint about near anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab Urbe Condita
Valid complaints can't be heard/posted on the official site anymore because they've all been heard already. Doesn't that seem a little strange? The mods probably think it is getting rather old with people complaining about the poor quality of the game without very much other substantial threads besides ones pleading for improvement, hence the lockage. However, that very reality speaks volumes about what the people who are enthusiastic about this game are concerned about.
:help:
I'm sorry.
I got carried away in my anger at their patronization. I have edited the post.
Crazed Rabbit
For quoting whats in my sig I was accused here by a CA staff member of being destructive.
I've been playing Medieval since.
Why? Because my N.I. (natural intelligence) decided that indeed I would be better off doing something other than playing RTW.
Many did it before me and many will do it after but all because they are not satisfied.
Fundamentally as I see it CA themselves & Activision are doing the most damage to the TW series by poor design decisions and long term poor support.
I have not partaken in campaigns against CA just argued for better support.
I agree that the whole review thing on amazon probably wouldn't have happened if the moderation and communication had been handled better. I don't understand though how they can lock and ban people from making posts disagreeing with shogun, whilst leaving threads open that agree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by aphex
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...ID=24780.topic
Even more strange was I had seen a post after Killemall's post which basically said "isn't this double standards ?" which appears to have been deleted.
Doing stuff like that has only inflamed the situation (as Aphex said) leading to the whole amazon and email campaign thing.
Shame that moderation policies got in the way of game issues.
Cheers
Starkhorn
You know, I have to take issue with that. CA spent four years developing this game! That is hardly what you'd expect from a company that doesn't care about its products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
More likely Activision blew the whistle and forced them to release before it was quite ready. Either that or the code has just proven too complex to fix. But I don't think one can assume they don't care about their games or their customers. After all, they've given us five great games and expansion packs, most of which have been very well received.
I just hope that when it comes to the XP, they have paid attention to some of the criticisms of RTW, particularly the complaints about quick battles and the less than ideal campaign and battle AI. If they fix these things, and also design it to be as moddable as possible, then I can probably live with a few minor bugs ~:)
I think it all comes down to the market RTW was targeted to. CA wanted to attract the massive "casual gamer" market and they did.
Casual gamers do not find a lot of "bugs" and are less apt to recognize them or feel they ruin the gaming experience. They do not really get very "deep" into the mechanics of the game, and just play to enjoy the grandeur and spectacle of it all.
Hardcore fans, DO find a lot of problems, which they consider bugs, but which the much larger "casual gamer" market feels are inconsequential.
The same could be said for the MP community. It was not the market RTW was targeted to, so there was less emphasis placed on it and more on the "wow" factors and "feel" of the single-player game.
Since we are not the target market, I can understand CA's decision to not to waste resources on us and make changes which will not increase the satisfaction of the main, and larger target market.
I have also come to understand over the past 4+ years, that it will always be that way, until CA decides to target the MP market or the hardcore fanbase. I am waiting on that day, and will then buy into the TW series once more, but not until I am sure it offers what I am looking for in a game.
Aw heck you exchanged emails with a CA staff member and didn't post them here? How inconsiderate ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyr
I have to agree though, from what I've read they have a contract with Activision and they can't release another patch unless Activision agrees, which they apparently don't.
So I'm inclined to think that if there's going to be some sort of campaign, it should probably be directed toward Activision rather than CA or gaming mags.
Again I tend to agree, except that I heard the XP is stll under contract to Activision, though I don't know if that's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyr
Yes, I can overlook the flaws in RTW if we see a substantial improvement in the XP. As I said to another poster, RTW shows all the signs of being rushed to market prematurely. I'm hoping that with the XP we will see the polish that was lacking in RTW. I'll be very disappointed if we get the same old game with nothing more than a new map and units. But CA has dropped a few hints here and elsewhere that that will not be the case ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyr
Yes, they wanted to appeal to a broader market, and there's nothing wrong with that, except that I think they went too far in the direction of dumbing things down.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
Surely it couldn't be all that hard to offer a comprehensive list of options as in games like Imperialism II or Panzer 3D. In those games, you can set virtually every variable to suit yourself, or just pick from a variety of presets. There's no reason I can see with a game like RTW that they couldn't design it the same way, to appeal to both the RTS crowd and the tactical/strategy buffs. Or perhaps even better, make the game as moddable as possible so the mods can create just the game they want.
I realize of course that modding won't be a solution for the MP crowd. I sympathize, but since I'm not an MP'er this is not something that affects me.
Companies that care about quality and reputation pay attention to the small details and keep the hardcore customers as happy as possible.
Just as an example, the scarred general bug - it's unfathomable that someone playing a Roman faction for 4 hours straight would never notice all the "Scarface" "Cruelly Scarred" family members popping up after 1.2 patch was released.
I think even a casual gamer would start being annoyed at this - I know I had several generals all named Scarface. ha ha - isn't that funny - the first time.
Lucky for CA, they can rely on hardcore customers to fix this stuff for them...but what happens when they drive those people away?
Now, I hope CA can talk with Sega before they launch the next TW, and explain that there will need to more after-sales service and support. They should be using the experience frm RTW to push for this. (Lemon into Lemonade.)
Actually, I have to agree with you that some of the bugs are so obvious it's unfathomable how they were missed. In my first few hours of playing RTW 1.0, I found so many bugs I could scarcely believe my eyes.
Also, they didn't fix all the bugs the community listed before 1.2. The broken pathfinding in cities is one that comes to mind. I'm sure there were others, but I no longer have the original list.
Anyhow, I have to agree with you that CA needs a more flexible patch policy. A game like RTW is obviously too complex to be limited to just two patches.
I didn't say they don't care about the game. I said they are not interested in maintaining a high level of quality in the gameplay. That's why they don't see something like the loadgame issue or fast battles as issues that should be addressed. Of course, CA isn't one person, but some key proqrammers who were interested in gameplay left before RTW was released. You can readily see the shift away from gameplay in RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I think Shogun's response is a good thing, it acknowledges that CA is concerned with people campaining against their game.
Industry in general is getting more and more driven by profitability, revenue is increased at the expense of quality. QA is considered a cost to a product not an asset to it's making. If a company knows it's selling a faulty product but believes it can get away with it, it won't hesitate to release it, the only driving factor is increased short term revenue.
So when a company realises there's enough people out there unhappy with the product to the point where it could impact future sales, what they do is either improve product or lose a big chunk of profitability.
For those people who complain about other customers 'smearing at RTW', I only have to say to them that if everyone adopted their attitude to faulty products then everything we'd buy would be total junk...
I think even if CA doesn't release a patch the message as sunk in and they'll make sure their next product fixes the existing bugs, I'm sure there will be new bugs and news debates but I hope there will also be a better emphasis on QA and customer support.
Oh, and for all the companies who continue decreasing support for increased profitability, I just wish you all to go bust...
The expansion pack is coming in September. It's not wise to spend months doing a new patch for RTW, when they can concentrate on the expansion, which should fix most of the bugs.
Admittedly it's possible to draw that conclusion ~:) Certainly I agree that those issues you mention - and others, like the campaign/battle AI - ought to be fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
However, if CA has a contract with Activision, and Activision will (a) not provide money for QA and (b) not allow CA to release a patch that hasn't been tested by Activision's QA, then CA's hands are tied, it seems to me.
Look, I understand the frustration of people on this board, and I'm unhappy with the situation too, but I'm willing to give CA the benefit of the doubt until I see (or rather, read about) the quality of the XP. If the XP also turns up with obvious issues, I won't be buying it until they are fixed, and if they aren't fixed at all, I might go buy a piano instead ~:)
Yes, because everyone knows that after buying a game, you then have to pay more money to buy an expansion to get the bugs fixed in the game. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zawath
Bh
To put a slight (lmao) tilt on this, you have the same right to customer service with this product as any other.
Lets take a car for a bigger example. You buy one it dives, but the handling is very poor as the suspension is missing, it wont do over 20 miles an hour, the electric windows dont work and the engine cuts out sometimes.
You take it back but it comes back now does 30 suspension is there so handels better but electric windows now go up and down everytime you turn it on engine still cuts out.
So you take it back again and are told by the dealership that they have a strict one go at fixing it policy as anything else would impact on there profits, but if you wait for them to develop a new engine they will let you buy one from them, which should also fix the windows.
Ok bit big, cars cost lots more than RTW so lets go for a television, cheap on from one of those 24hr tescos. So you get it home just in time to watch corrie. But it switches itself off only half the channnels work, and youve got to rest all the channels. So it goes back to the maker, it comes back its on all the time, but youve still got to reset all the channels and some still dont work, but there is a note saying that this is a feature of the televisonnot a problem so ther not going to fix it.
Now everytime you try and ring there call center they tell you your not allowed to discuss the matter as it might make them look bad and bar your number so you cant call back.
Im sure we could come up with relevent examples, phones for instance and the recenly withdeawn sony eriksson k700i for instance, or any other product you care to mention. I know these are extreme examples but seams to be what CA are telling us, and as a consumer you wouldnt stand for it with any other product, just because this one cost you less dosnt mean it shouldnt do what it is ment to.
Harun: Actually, for the casual gamer, which is probably the majority of players of RTW, they wouldn't notice the scar problem, since they do not delve that deeply into the game to even check for general's bonuses.
I know when I first started playing Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri game, I played it as a casual gamer to start out and enjoyed it very much. I put it away, and several months later, I broke the game out and actually decided to take a lot of time to learn its nuances. My enjoyment increased and I found out I had missed out on a great many things which I never noticed when playing it casually.
This is more than likely the cause of the big difference of opinion between the groups. What you hardcore players take for granted as obvious, is not obvious to casual gamers and not a big deal for them since they enjoy the game for other reasons.
I understand your frustration. I have had 5 years of the same for the MP side of the game. But I realize that RTW MP is more enjoyable for the casual gamer (which the game is targeted for), and not as popular with the hardcore MP community. I resigned myself to waiting for an MP-focused TW game. Until then I will wait to purchase another TW game.
Before we install the game we have to agree to an EULA that absolves Activision and CA of any responsibility. I think this is legally how they (any many other software companies) protect themselves - we the poor consumer have to agree to put up with any defects, or we have the choice of not installing the software, and presumably getting our money back (although I don't know if anyone has ever tried this after they have taken the CD out of the packaging).Quote:
Originally Posted by red comyn
Also the analogy with other products is not as straightforwards, as there are different degrees of fault. CA have said that the load siege bug is a design feature. We can imagine a car having many such "design features" that we do not like, but you would not be able to get the manufacturer to change them under warranty.
yes there may be many things that niggle about something that we may have liked done slightly differant, but what im saying is that if something else in another product affected it performance/usfulness as much as the A.I. stopping everything and restarting everytime you reload does then you wouldnt let the manafactuer/supplier just fob you off by telling you it was ment to be like that, so why should we here?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShellShock
You shouldn't. To be quite objective about it, The Shogun's statement never actually uses the word "feature". He rather refers to the AI behavior as "reassessment" several times. My position is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, calling it a turkey doesn't make it not a duck.Quote:
Originally Posted by red comyn
But whatever you call it, we are right to speak up if we believe it hurts the quality of the game. I think there is a severe disconnect on that point. CA doesn't seem to understand that software performance which may not strictly fall into the definition of "bug" is still quite actionable if the public perceives it as a problem or undesireable.
IMUHO, the proble with CA and its 'Community' could be solved, if CA were to adopt a policy of greater communication and interaction. MORE than exists presently.
THE major problem with RTW is that CA failed to communicate and advise the Community regarding the direction they were taking RTW; and that "direction" was taken WITHOUT sufficient Community involvement!!!
*I* and, quite apparently, MANY others, particularly veterans, were SHOCKED, at what RTW turned out to be. I don't mean this in either a negative or postive, simply the fact of.... NOBODY KNEW!
Nobody knew how dramatically *different* an experience RTW would be in comparision to previous TW versions. Yeah, we saw screenshots of the Campaign Map, but, generally, that was about it! as far as we knew that was the major dramatic difference.
This, imuho, is where the animosity toward CA lies.
Lack of communication and involvement.
In the last decade or two there has been a whole business theory developed upon *Empowering Customers*.
I can't think of another industry, Computer Software, where listening and empowering your customers is more vital toward CONTINUING success.
It wasn't always this way. Gosh, I can remember when Shogn first came out. I had a problem getting the game to run properly (I don't remember the specifics) or something. I believe it had something to do with one of my firewalls or something.
I spoke DIRECTLY with Richie in the Strategy Newsgroup. We went back a forth a few times. He used the same firewall, problem found, problem solved, feedback absorbed. He was a great guy! This was before he worked directly for CA. In the early days, there were lots of such coversations between Org members and CA members.
To my eye, this sort of interaction and involvement has been on a declining course, to the point of who knew about RTW. Offhand, I'd say the devolvement began with the issue of Campaign Multiplay. When CA had problems delivering on that, they went quiet; and, IMO, if we hadn't badgered them they might never have talked to us about the issues.
---
The .com site was created to PROMOTE the game. No other reason. If the site no longer serves that purpose, time to end it; not indulde in censorship.
Additionally, the .com issue, again is one of their own making. From the outset, *they* let that site run wild!!! The manner and style of posting at the .com s/h been reigned in a LONG time ago.
So now they are reaping what they sowed. I would have suggested rather than resort to belated censorship, that they should have shut the site down and created a new one with new policies.
What's that saying, "Sorta like shutting the barn door after the animals have been let out (??)".
---
Sounds fine, but you know what the problem is?Quote:
After having exchanged a couple emails with one of the staff at CA I think the problem is one of lack of communications from CA and the fact that CA can't fix the problem because of Activision. Even if they wanted to distribute another patch I don't think they can. Rome belongs to Activision and I don't think anything will be different until the first game or expansion is released under Sega. If after that happens and CA fails to deliver a decent game or reasonable patches I will abandon CA all together. Till then I will maintain hope that they do GET it but can't do anything other than what they are doing.
We, that is we *Veterans*, have heard it allllllll BEFORE!
Before there was Activision, there was (if I recall the company correctly) Sierra, and the same Patch mantra was spoken by CA: "It's not up to us!".
Personally, I'm tired of the same ole song...
Other Developers take a different approach, why can't CA?
Is EVERY developer limited to a single patch?
Have other developers released *unofficial* patches?
Especially when a feature like Load Game does not actually load the game you left but instead ruins the game you left...
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShellShock
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!! :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bel
Hmmm... I think gameplay may have a more direct parallel with art.
And I guess speccing, measuring and testing it is an artform ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bel
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShellShock
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
ethics have no place amongst the wolves of currency
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
2. This will be of course why people are taking other more extrene measures.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by red comyn
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.
Quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
And sad but true.
By the same token,Quote:
Originally Posted by ShellShock
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
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!
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.
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. "
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 :book:
fill me in, what patch campain?
-
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shogun
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.)
:bow:
-
Hey Mouzaf,Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
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.
"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.
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.
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!