It's still a Beta

cdcool · Post by **cdcool** » May 26 2005

I should have waited before I brought this game, still to come, was not my reason for buying this game.

I'll put it way until it's complete and finished.

przy · Post by **przy** » May 26 2005

OK, have a nice day.

JXai · Post by **JXai** » May 26 2005

Or instead of being so glum, you could give some constructive feedback and perhaps the game could end up being better than you hoped.

Cauldyth · Post by **Cauldyth** » May 26 2005

Well, the game as it currently stands is a ton of fun to play for me, and far less buggy than most things you'll find on the market. To top it off, I've never seen a dev team so responsive to customer feedback.

Hopefully the distribution isues haven't done too much damage to sales...

-Cauldyth

Post by **Balthagor** » May 26 2005

In my mind, a beta is an product that has many areas that do nothing and that often crashes. Also a beta is a test platform for checking that certain game aspects work.

- All game aspects work (with some minor bugs being addressed, hey, no one is perfect

)
- All buttons when pushed "do something" (excluding the aforementioned bugs)
- The game is extremely stable.

red · Post by **red** » May 26 2005

Balthagor wrote: - All buttons when pushed "do something" (excluding the aforementioned bugs)

But you took out the buttons whose function you weren't going to finish. It's not quite accurate. By your pre-release measure the game was incomplete; but since you have lowered the standards, it's done.

Cauldyth · Post by **Cauldyth** » May 26 2005

Just because a feature was removed, that doesn't mean the product is incomplete. Removal of features that "don't work out" is standard in any software development. The only people that know they ever existed are the people that had access to pre-release versions (or read posts by people who had such access).

-Cauldyth

cdcool · Post by **cdcool** » May 26 2005

Thanks Red, exactly my point.

cdcool · Post by **cdcool** » May 26 2005

Cauldyth wrote:Just because a feature was removed, that doesn't mean the product is incomplete. Removal of features that "don't work out" is standard in any software development. The only people that know they ever existed are the people that had access to pre-release versions (or read posts by people who had such access).

-Cauldyth

So why did they let us know of features that won't happen, so we are inticed to buy the game?

With all of the features as presented in the manual, this would have been a great game, with what's left at this point, it's a good game, and a solid effort of accommplishing something that has never been done in simulation.

I would have prefered that they wait and produce a great game and not a good game with maybe some added features added later.

Should have never happened this way.

BlueKnight · Post by **BlueKnight** » May 26 2005

You also have to keep in mind that the manual(s) are often written months if not years ahead of a game going gold. It would be nice if the manual were written closer to when the game was to be completed or could be updated right before a game is release but doing so could delay the release date by weeks if not months while you wait for the printer. That is what readme files on the CD are for...

cdcool · Post by **cdcool** » May 26 2005

BlueKnight wrote:You also have to keep in mind that the manual(s) are often written months if not years ahead of a game going gold. It would be nice if the manual were written closer to when the game was to be completed or could be updated right before a game is release but doing so could delay the release date by weeks if not months while you wait for the printer. That is what readme files on the CD are for...

-
I don't buy into your reasoning: You don't publish a manual and have this many feature ommissions in a game that is going to be released, and when it's relaesed say that the game will need a total re-haul for some of the missing features to work.

- Diplomacy

- Loyalty

- Covert Ops

- Intelligence

- Some ministers doing nothing

- NBC weapons

- Partisan and guerilla

- World Market diplomacy

- cabinets feedback

Cauldyth · Post by **Cauldyth** » May 26 2005

Not to mention the fact that you can't read the manual until after you've bought it, so it's hard to argue that the manual was luring anyone into anything. As for the SR2010 site, I don't see a whole lot of any feature claims at all, to be honest.

Bottom line: The PC gaming industry is notorious for the complaints in this thread. SR2010 is actually one of the lesser offenders. Compare it to other recent complex strategy games I've looked at in recent years, like MOO3 (never fixed by the developers), RTW ("yeah, some things are broken, but we're not going to bother with another patch.") or anything by Paradox (where the usual rule of thumb is "wait for 2 months of patches before playing."). I haven't looked at Superpower2, but the reviews, both official and user, suggest it was in even worse condition on release.

Like 99% of games, SR2010 has some issues, but the fact that we're getting the worst of them fixed within 2 weeks of release is impressive.

-Cauldyth

cdcool · Post by **cdcool** » May 26 2005

Cauldyth wrote: Bottom line: I haven't looked at Superpower2, but the reviews, both official and user, suggest it was in even worse condition on release.

Like 99% of games, SR2010 has some issues, but the fact that we're getting the worst of them fixed within 2 weeks of release is impressive.

-Cauldyth

Well, I can tell you Superpower did have problems, but it was related to features not being implemented.

You guy's seem very proactive, only time will tell on the outcome of the game.I hoping for the best, just very dispointing. I'm finsihed venting now.

So let's move on, and I hope all of the features as presented in the manual will one day beome a reality.

Beorn · Post by **Beorn** » May 26 2005

Personally, I love this sytem. The game is playable and lots of fun. Meanwhile, input is being taken for the final touches as they are added. In the world of computer gaming, it really doesn't get much better than that.

I suppose it could have been advertised as a stable, nearly done game, but anyone who visited these boards would have known the situation -- and, for those who want to be cautious in their gaming purchases, that (and playing the demo) are really the steps to take.

markuk · Post by **markuk** » May 26 2005

I think itâ€™s the common state of the gaming industry; small developers are pressured by their publishers to get their products out as soon as possible.

There are exceptions, but in these occasions the game would have a substantial development team to get the software completely finished and working before release.

All in all, SR2010 is not a bad offering, I think they made a mistake not making a more playable diplomatic aspect, which, although it will be fixed with the coming patch, will affect the reviews of the game and consequently the sales, but the game is functional and playable.