As a fan of Steel Panthers and Steel Panthers World of War, _and_ of the star colonization sim genre, I was really looking forward to this game. Well, looks like I was wrong.
Even in version 2.1, the game has serious problems. Especially in the interface area.
For example:
1) It's the 3'rd or 4'th time in two days that the game gets stuck in a loop, requiring that I acknowledge some communication end. Well, great, I've acknowledged it 20 times already. Can't it just bloody let me play the game now?
I consider it to be a serious bug. In fact, a show stopper, since there seems to be no obvious way to continue the game at all (short of reloading a saved game from an hour ago), once that happened.
2) It's probably the 30'th time (again, in two days!) that I double-click on some star system, but instead of being taken to the planet, I end up chasing some scout across the galaxy. Is it really that hard to grasp the notion that, when double clicking on a system, any sane person probably wants to get to their colony there? No, seriously.
3) It's a pain to tell what the heck do I have selected at the moment.
4) There's no obvious way to tell when some important stuff happened, like a planet growing from a colony pod to a colony with one city. Or when it sprouted a second city. Clicking on all colonies to check for such stuff, gets really old really fast.
And so on, and so forth.
I'm really disappointed
You're not much into micromanagement, are you? 
Yep, notification of certain events like you mention would be nice...at first. But it gets very old when you have 20+ planets. Still, it would be a nice option for certain players.
The "loop" you describe regarding communication is fairly well known--easiest way to get out of it is to continue clicking the check button in the center of the menu button bar at the top of the screen. Two clicks generally does the trick. You absolutely do NOT have to exit the game to get around this.
You can tell what you have selected by looking at the name in the upper left hand corner of the screen--what ever you have selected will be acknowledged there.
The "click on a star system, get taken for a ride" is a real PIA. I'm sure there was a noble reason behind it, but I have the same opinion of that "feature" as you do.
Basically, I can sum it up like this: I have played Stars! (another 4x sim) extensively. Many others, too (Spaceward Ho!, Master of Orion, Civ, and more). If you though STUN was painful, don't go near Stars!. Stars is far deeper, far more complex, and is SO FREAKING FULL of micromanagment that even I don't enjoy it much (and that's saying something).
Andrew created a novel game here--if you've played a bunch of 4x games, I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it. He managed to gracefully weave real-time into a genre that pretty much lacked it, and to be honest this is probably one of the most enjoyable 4x games I've ever played. Sure, there are a few bugs, and the interface could use some (ok, a lot) of work. It's still among the best 4x space sims ever developed.
If you don't believe me, go find yourself of copy of MOO2. I got bored with that in about a week. Stars! made it about a month. There have been a handful of others..most so unremarkable I can't even recall their names right now.
I still play Master of Orion and Spaceward Ho!, both great games in their day, and SUDG is also on my "frequent play" list.
Yep, notification of certain events like you mention would be nice...at first. But it gets very old when you have 20+ planets. Still, it would be a nice option for certain players.
The "loop" you describe regarding communication is fairly well known--easiest way to get out of it is to continue clicking the check button in the center of the menu button bar at the top of the screen. Two clicks generally does the trick. You absolutely do NOT have to exit the game to get around this.
You can tell what you have selected by looking at the name in the upper left hand corner of the screen--what ever you have selected will be acknowledged there.
The "click on a star system, get taken for a ride" is a real PIA. I'm sure there was a noble reason behind it, but I have the same opinion of that "feature" as you do.
Basically, I can sum it up like this: I have played Stars! (another 4x sim) extensively. Many others, too (Spaceward Ho!, Master of Orion, Civ, and more). If you though STUN was painful, don't go near Stars!. Stars is far deeper, far more complex, and is SO FREAKING FULL of micromanagment that even I don't enjoy it much (and that's saying something).
Andrew created a novel game here--if you've played a bunch of 4x games, I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it. He managed to gracefully weave real-time into a genre that pretty much lacked it, and to be honest this is probably one of the most enjoyable 4x games I've ever played. Sure, there are a few bugs, and the interface could use some (ok, a lot) of work. It's still among the best 4x space sims ever developed.
If you don't believe me, go find yourself of copy of MOO2. I got bored with that in about a week. Stars! made it about a month. There have been a handful of others..most so unremarkable I can't even recall their names right now.
I still play Master of Orion and Spaceward Ho!, both great games in their day, and SUDG is also on my "frequent play" list.
Well, as I've said, I clicked the checkmark about 20 times. It's an _endless_ loop. Clicking on "close" creates a new "communication ended" message, clicking the checkmark opens the comms again, closing it creates yet another "communication ended" message, and so on. Repeat ad infinitum.
Hmm... Maybe I should try _without_ clicking the "close" button in between?
Well, what can I say? You can probably tell that I'm annoyed to heck and back.
And well, ok, there's a lot of crap in the star colonization sim genre. Not gonna argue with you there. I don't even have to look back in time farther than MOO3, where noone tested if it's possible at all to take the game off auto-play (a.k.a., override the governors), before going gold.
Which, I guess, is my whole problem. It's not that SUDG doesn't have new ideas. It's that it feels that the whole PC games industry keeps happily going down a slope where it's perfectly ok to release a buggy, dysfunctional and untested beta. It seems that the general publisher attitude for the last few years, it's been more and more like "oh, it makes it to the start menu (two times out of three), so it's good to sell."
This kind of thing just shouldn't happen. I shouldn't have to ask around for workarounds to get one of the most basic game functions to work. My time is more valuable than that. I bought a game because I wanted to spend some time playing, not some time discovering bugs and workarounds.
Maybe I should just stick to console games, after all...
Or maybe a few of us should start sending a bill to the game companies for the time lost testing their buggy games. If they insist on using the customers as beta-testers, they should at least pay us for it.
Hmm... Maybe I should try _without_ clicking the "close" button in between?
Well, what can I say? You can probably tell that I'm annoyed to heck and back.
And well, ok, there's a lot of crap in the star colonization sim genre. Not gonna argue with you there. I don't even have to look back in time farther than MOO3, where noone tested if it's possible at all to take the game off auto-play (a.k.a., override the governors), before going gold.
Which, I guess, is my whole problem. It's not that SUDG doesn't have new ideas. It's that it feels that the whole PC games industry keeps happily going down a slope where it's perfectly ok to release a buggy, dysfunctional and untested beta. It seems that the general publisher attitude for the last few years, it's been more and more like "oh, it makes it to the start menu (two times out of three), so it's good to sell."
This kind of thing just shouldn't happen. I shouldn't have to ask around for workarounds to get one of the most basic game functions to work. My time is more valuable than that. I bought a game because I wanted to spend some time playing, not some time discovering bugs and workarounds.
Maybe I should just stick to console games, after all...
Or maybe a few of us should start sending a bill to the game companies for the time lost testing their buggy games. If they insist on using the customers as beta-testers, they should at least pay us for it.
Here's the way I see it work on my system. Try it on yours:
1. Communication comes in from my wimpy neighbors to the south.
2. Them: "We have bad things to say to you, matey."
3. Them: "You give us $1000, you not fear our ships."
4. Me: "Go to hell." Technically, the conversation is over.
Typically, clicking the ACK (check button) or Close will close the window. But sometimes...it doesn't, and the comm window reopens.
When this occurs, I always press the ACK button and it goes away. I think I've seen the cycle repeat it self if I click Close a second time. However, it does sound that maybe you're hitting a bug that for whatever reason I don't see.
Here's a take on the "buggy" software state of the industry. I manage a software development team myself (unfortunately NOT in the gaming industry), and I see this ALL OVER THE PLACE. Upper management is always focused on the here-and-now financial picture, and everything (can you say software projects) is wanted yesterday.
**** the testing! **** the documentation! Just get it out the door! It doesn't make us any money on the development floor, now does it?!?!?
So, we march forward, knowing full well this strategy will bite us in the *** (and it ALWAYS does). Six months later, after the giddiness of the initial money take, they start saying things like "hey, why are our support costs so freaking high?" We retort "Remember all that testing you wanted us to skinny down or skip? Remember how we compacted six weeks of development into three with half as many developers? Remember how that case of Jolt soda was supposed to turn us into robots?" However, that typically gets miscontrued as a call for more rigid documentation, and off we go inventing all sorts of new procedures that we won't be able to use come the next time crunch. Viscious cycle.
Consoles are buggy as hell, though, too. UI is generally cleaner than PC games, but some recent titles have had some atrocious bugs that make you ask "You guys DID test EVERY level, DIDN'T YOU?!?!?"
People go out and buy the software anyway. Maybe someday they'll wake up...but probably not.
1. Communication comes in from my wimpy neighbors to the south.
2. Them: "We have bad things to say to you, matey."
3. Them: "You give us $1000, you not fear our ships."
4. Me: "Go to hell." Technically, the conversation is over.
Typically, clicking the ACK (check button) or Close will close the window. But sometimes...it doesn't, and the comm window reopens.
When this occurs, I always press the ACK button and it goes away. I think I've seen the cycle repeat it self if I click Close a second time. However, it does sound that maybe you're hitting a bug that for whatever reason I don't see.
Here's a take on the "buggy" software state of the industry. I manage a software development team myself (unfortunately NOT in the gaming industry), and I see this ALL OVER THE PLACE. Upper management is always focused on the here-and-now financial picture, and everything (can you say software projects) is wanted yesterday.
**** the testing! **** the documentation! Just get it out the door! It doesn't make us any money on the development floor, now does it?!?!?
So, we march forward, knowing full well this strategy will bite us in the *** (and it ALWAYS does). Six months later, after the giddiness of the initial money take, they start saying things like "hey, why are our support costs so freaking high?" We retort "Remember all that testing you wanted us to skinny down or skip? Remember how we compacted six weeks of development into three with half as many developers? Remember how that case of Jolt soda was supposed to turn us into robots?" However, that typically gets miscontrued as a call for more rigid documentation, and off we go inventing all sorts of new procedures that we won't be able to use come the next time crunch.
Viscious cycle.Consoles are buggy as hell, though, too. UI is generally cleaner than PC games, but some recent titles have had some atrocious bugs that make you ask "You guys DID test EVERY level, DIDN'T YOU?!?!?"
People go out and buy the software anyway. Maybe someday they'll wake up...but probably not.
Oh, when comms come in, it tends to work more or less ok. I invariably hit the loop when _I_ start the conversation.
Many thanks for telling me about hitting ACK again, instead of "Close". It looks like I might just be able to (finally) actually finish a SUDG game.
Other than that, amen. At the old company it was like this too. When I whined at the boss that we need more testing, the answer was, "well, test it yourselves." So I explain that noone finds too many bugs in their own programs, because the problems I could think about, already have "if" blocks in my code, to avoid or gracefully report the problem. So what's needed is someone who does things in the wrong order, and whatnot. The answer? "Uhh, well, then find someone who's between projects and ask them to test your program."
And if you want a really bad case of paperwork, there's this project for a big corporation that my brother is working on. They had to spend one _year_ doing paperwork about how they'll go about doing the project, when they're eventually allowed to start programming. Endless pages after pages of exactly what must happen when you click on each button, and when you right click it, and when you just hover the mouse over it, the exact number of pixels between each side and the text inside, and so on. (Incidentally, good luck with the internationalization, if they want the exact extents in pixels specified in advance.) And it's a big project, so lots and lots of buttons and text fields and icons and whatnot, to describe like that.
About consoles, though, hmm... I must have missed the buggy games, then. I've had a Dreamcast, a Playstation, a Nintendo 64, a GBA, and a Playstation 2 so far. There are only two buggy games I can think of, and own. The first, which needed a patch, is PSO. And even then, it was an obscure exploit which allowed team-killing in multi-player, not the kind of PC game bugs. Then there's Tokyo Extreme Racer on the Dreamcast, where I've seen two cars get stuck (deep) into each other once, and which had frame rate problems when played on a VGA monitor instead of a TV. Again, I'd say it's rather mild compared to the crap that gets released on PCs.
I'm also told that Gran Turismo 2 used to be buggy, but the version I own is a later one, with the bugs fixed. But ok, that would be the third game.
To put it into perspective: That's 3 (mildly) buggy games out of a whole bookcase full of console games.
By comparison, out of a bookcase full of PC games, I can't think of 3 which just worked as intended from the start. Well, there's Diablo and Diablo 2 (though even Diablo had the worse multiplayer exploits than PSO.) But I really can't think of a third.
Many thanks for telling me about hitting ACK again, instead of "Close". It looks like I might just be able to (finally) actually finish a SUDG game.
Other than that, amen. At the old company it was like this too. When I whined at the boss that we need more testing, the answer was, "well, test it yourselves." So I explain that noone finds too many bugs in their own programs, because the problems I could think about, already have "if" blocks in my code, to avoid or gracefully report the problem. So what's needed is someone who does things in the wrong order, and whatnot. The answer? "Uhh, well, then find someone who's between projects and ask them to test your program."
And if you want a really bad case of paperwork, there's this project for a big corporation that my brother is working on. They had to spend one _year_ doing paperwork about how they'll go about doing the project, when they're eventually allowed to start programming. Endless pages after pages of exactly what must happen when you click on each button, and when you right click it, and when you just hover the mouse over it, the exact number of pixels between each side and the text inside, and so on. (Incidentally, good luck with the internationalization, if they want the exact extents in pixels specified in advance.) And it's a big project, so lots and lots of buttons and text fields and icons and whatnot, to describe like that.
About consoles, though, hmm... I must have missed the buggy games, then. I've had a Dreamcast, a Playstation, a Nintendo 64, a GBA, and a Playstation 2 so far. There are only two buggy games I can think of, and own. The first, which needed a patch, is PSO. And even then, it was an obscure exploit which allowed team-killing in multi-player, not the kind of PC game bugs. Then there's Tokyo Extreme Racer on the Dreamcast, where I've seen two cars get stuck (deep) into each other once, and which had frame rate problems when played on a VGA monitor instead of a TV. Again, I'd say it's rather mild compared to the crap that gets released on PCs.
I'm also told that Gran Turismo 2 used to be buggy, but the version I own is a later one, with the bugs fixed. But ok, that would be the third game.
To put it into perspective: That's 3 (mildly) buggy games out of a whole bookcase full of console games.
By comparison, out of a bookcase full of PC games, I can't think of 3 which just worked as intended from the start. Well, there's Diablo and Diablo 2 (though even Diablo had the worse multiplayer exploits than PSO.) But I really can't think of a third.
Glad to help with SUDG--it's a great game even with its shortcomings.
You're right about bug volumes on consoles--they are much less than on the PC, for a two main reasons:
(1) you can't patch a console game (for all intents and purposes), and the PC dev teams have gotten addicted to "no big deal, we'll fix that bug in the first patch release." Buying v1.0 software is much like buying the first year release of an american-made car from the 80s.
(2) consoles are in a very restricted sandbox; PCs are not. Consoles have very few inputs and almost no variation in hardware setup. PCs are the exact opposite. Many "bugs" in released games are specific to hardware related items, and it's **** near impossible to test every combination before the software goes out the door. Instead, they test common components and then wait for the other cases to show up as bugs after release--then fix them (well, sometimes they fix them).
I have a half-dozen console systems as well...found most bugs on the PS and Genesis platforms over the years. Actually, the old 8-bit Nintendo had a fair # of buggy releases, as did the Atari 2600 before it. (oh crap, I'm getting old). I think what you find is the the console war winner (most pop system) has the most games written for it by a landslide, and invariably some of those titles are produced VERY cheaply...even from major publishers. Still, they are few and far between, as compared to PC bugs. That may change, as consoles and PCs continue to morph towards each other with each new generation.
You're right about bug volumes on consoles--they are much less than on the PC, for a two main reasons:
(1) you can't patch a console game (for all intents and purposes), and the PC dev teams have gotten addicted to "no big deal, we'll fix that bug in the first patch release." Buying v1.0 software is much like buying the first year release of an american-made car from the 80s.
(2) consoles are in a very restricted sandbox; PCs are not. Consoles have very few inputs and almost no variation in hardware setup. PCs are the exact opposite. Many "bugs" in released games are specific to hardware related items, and it's **** near impossible to test every combination before the software goes out the door. Instead, they test common components and then wait for the other cases to show up as bugs after release--then fix them (well, sometimes they fix them).
I have a half-dozen console systems as well...found most bugs on the PS and Genesis platforms over the years. Actually, the old 8-bit Nintendo had a fair # of buggy releases, as did the Atari 2600 before it. (oh crap, I'm getting old). I think what you find is the the console war winner (most pop system) has the most games written for it by a landslide, and invariably some of those titles are produced VERY cheaply...even from major publishers. Still, they are few and far between, as compared to PC bugs. That may change, as consoles and PCs continue to morph towards each other with each new generation.
Bingo. That's IMHO the biggest factor. No console publisher would pull a "Black and White", where features advertised on the box weren't even coded until half a bloody year after release. They may have some obscure bug left in the end, but they do know that they have to do their best at testing before release.dragoniv wrote:(1) you can't patch a console game (for all intents and purposes), and the PC dev teams have gotten addicted to "no big deal, we'll fix that bug in the first patch release."
Sadly, I don't buy this. There are a few hardware related issues out there, yes, but about 90% of the PC bugs are:dragoniv wrote:(2) consoles are in a very restricted sandbox; PCs are not. Consoles have very few inputs and almost no variation in hardware setup. PCs are the exact opposite. Many "bugs" in released games are specific to hardware related items, and it's **** near impossible to test every combination before the software goes out the door.
- script bugs (probably Fallout 2 is the prime example)
- memory leaks
- AI bugs
- poorly coded tests in the program (e.g., falling through corners in Daggerfall or through tile edges in Morrowind)
- race conditions between threads (here Morrowind again has to take the crown, as it actually caused a CTD)
Etc.
Basically things which wouldn't work any better on _any_ hardware configuration imaginable. E.g., you tell me what kind of hardware conflict could possibly cause the endless "communication ended" loop.
Again, I'm not saying that the odd hardware issue doesn't exist. But for most publishers and devs it's just become the standard excuse to skip testing at all.
Ah, but the reason for games always working out of the box on consoles is both the true beauty of the console, as well as a fatal flaw.
Think back to the 80s, and maybe even the early 90s. Remember the computers from those days? If you had an Apple ][e and an Apple ][gs, the programs weren't interchangeable. The same is true of a Playstation and a Playstation II.
Why? They didn't have the hardware abstraction layer back then; each program had to conform to the specific needs of the computer it was meant to run on.
Now, we have hardware abstraction layers, which serve as a buffer between the hardware and the software. The abstraction layers takes the software's needs and makes sure that the hardware performs as intended.
Now, this is all well and good for PCs: you can run the same program on AMD and Intel processors (in most cases), or on VIA and Intel chipsets, or using nVidia or ATI video cards.
Well, you cannot (directly) play a PS2 game on a Dreamcast or Gamecube. The reason being that there is essentially no hardware abstraction layer. It is totally unnecessary in the case because all PS2s are alike, all Dreamcasts are alike, and all Gamecubes are alike (let alone SNES, Genesis, Atari 7200, etc etc).
The beauty of this is that it is more efficient: the programming code is optimised to run on that specific hardware configuration.
The problem is that the hardware cannot be majorly updated (though I believe there is room for minor ones, i.e. when the Xbox went to the cheaper TV-Out chip). None of the software would work anymore. At the very least, it would be crashing all the time.
If you think that publishers and devs are skipping proper testing, you're in some cases right. They aren't testing every possible hardware configuration like the people who make consoles are. However, they do test on a good deal of configurations. Generally enough configurations to make the devs confident that the program would work, and if there was a problem, it'd almost certainly be because of a very odd hardware configuration.
I can guarantee you that PC software devs spend a lot more time testing than console software devs. All you need to do is look at how long Neocron was in testing and development. 4 blasted years in the making...
Think back to the 80s, and maybe even the early 90s. Remember the computers from those days? If you had an Apple ][e and an Apple ][gs, the programs weren't interchangeable. The same is true of a Playstation and a Playstation II.
Why? They didn't have the hardware abstraction layer back then; each program had to conform to the specific needs of the computer it was meant to run on.
Now, we have hardware abstraction layers, which serve as a buffer between the hardware and the software. The abstraction layers takes the software's needs and makes sure that the hardware performs as intended.
Now, this is all well and good for PCs: you can run the same program on AMD and Intel processors (in most cases), or on VIA and Intel chipsets, or using nVidia or ATI video cards.
Well, you cannot (directly) play a PS2 game on a Dreamcast or Gamecube. The reason being that there is essentially no hardware abstraction layer. It is totally unnecessary in the case because all PS2s are alike, all Dreamcasts are alike, and all Gamecubes are alike (let alone SNES, Genesis, Atari 7200, etc etc).
The beauty of this is that it is more efficient: the programming code is optimised to run on that specific hardware configuration.
The problem is that the hardware cannot be majorly updated (though I believe there is room for minor ones, i.e. when the Xbox went to the cheaper TV-Out chip). None of the software would work anymore. At the very least, it would be crashing all the time.
If you think that publishers and devs are skipping proper testing, you're in some cases right. They aren't testing every possible hardware configuration like the people who make consoles are. However, they do test on a good deal of configurations. Generally enough configurations to make the devs confident that the program would work, and if there was a problem, it'd almost certainly be because of a very odd hardware configuration.
I can guarantee you that PC software devs spend a lot more time testing than console software devs. All you need to do is look at how long Neocron was in testing and development. 4 blasted years in the making...
Heheh...most of the bugs you identify as non-hardware bugs can very well be hardware bugs. However, your ID of the comm "bug" in SUDG is in reality a poorly thought out UI issue. Poorly thought out UI is a big problem in PC games and console games alike, not to mention general computer applications and OSes. Not sure I'd classify it a bug so much as a design flaw.
I don't buy that the ability to patch software means that 99.9% of bugs end up on the PC side. Here's my claim: bugs are the result of overly agressive schedules in which QA time gets cut and programmers cram code not unlike they did back in college (why do you think everyone associates Jolt with software development, anyhow?). The end result: a *very* imperfect piece of software.
So, you still get stupid AI bugs, graphic shearing, script errors in console games--and I say they'd be as rampant as they were in the PC except that:
*consoles are far more fixed, hardware wise, than PC games
*PC games are far more complex than console games from a coding / depth perspective
But, being that neither of us actually work in the industry (much to my chagrin, for me), this is pretty much an educated guess.
I don't buy that the ability to patch software means that 99.9% of bugs end up on the PC side. Here's my claim: bugs are the result of overly agressive schedules in which QA time gets cut and programmers cram code not unlike they did back in college (why do you think everyone associates Jolt with software development, anyhow?). The end result: a *very* imperfect piece of software.
So, you still get stupid AI bugs, graphic shearing, script errors in console games--and I say they'd be as rampant as they were in the PC except that:
*consoles are far more fixed, hardware wise, than PC games
*PC games are far more complex than console games from a coding / depth perspective
But, being that neither of us actually work in the industry (much to my chagrin, for me), this is pretty much an educated guess.
You speak the truth.
I really hate it when a good game falls victim to a bad UI. I fear that Deus Ex 2 will be like that. The interface for it is going to be a "lite" version of the original interface, from what I've heard.
The reason, of course, being that they want the game to be easier to play on consoles.
I miss the System Shock 1 interface.
I really hate it when a good game falls victim to a bad UI. I fear that Deus Ex 2 will be like that. The interface for it is going to be a "lite" version of the original interface, from what I've heard.
The reason, of course, being that they want the game to be easier to play on consoles.
I miss the System Shock 1 interface.