The sad state of affairs

[Texashawk76]

Honestly, I think one big reason this thread is left open is for Paradox to give UV enough rope to hang themselves, if events need be. Callous? Perhaps, but hey, that's just business. Having a flame war with their own publisher/backer on public record certainly can't hurt Paradox's cause, whatever cause it ends up being.

[yak]

Which still means that it DOES NOT crash in every 50 years. If it's playable for 50 years it doesn't mean automatically that it is not beyond that.

In my world "The game is playable for 30-50 years without CTD" means quite exactly that it is not playable without CTD for more than that period. Ubiks statement might be wrong in itself, but then you should take it to him and not lash out on people who just believe what he wrote.

Your defensiveness really is not helping. How about just admitting that this statement was not very well put and that you were not aware of it? I dont think you will convince anyone that you have an objective view on things if you continue to behave like that.

[barisakbay]

I loved the mod and I don't have sufficient uninterrupted time to play multiplayer. So I would gladly purchase a slightly flawed Magna Mundi as long as I knew it would be regularly updated and patched.

[Hatting]

Idem. I dont play much the multiplayer in this kind of games. For me it would be enough if the singleplayer campaign works somehow decent, and the rest of issues are gradually solved with patches some time after the release.

[T.j. Arnold]

In my world "The game is playable for 30-50 years without CTD" means quite exactly that it is not playable without CTD for more than that period. Ubiks statement might be wrong in itself, but then you should take it to him and not lash out on people who just believe what he wrote.

Thank you, that is exactly what it implies. Besides, the gold master failed for a reason. If they let Sword of the Stars II and Pride of Nations pass even though though they were pure garbage, it makes me wonder how buggy Magna Mundi had to have been, which makes me feel sad since I had such high hopes for this.

[dskod1]

Thank you, that is exactly what it implies. Besides, the gold master failed for a reason. If they let Sword of the Stars II and Pride of Nations pass even though though they were pure garbage, it makes me wonder how buggy Magna Mundi had to have been, which makes me feel sad since I had such high hopes for this.

I had very very high hopes for this game as well. I do hope it does get released also sorry if my last post appeared like I was lashing out because I was not trying to appear that way.

[GrafKeks]

What I´d like to ask is if you guys are going to cut out features, or if you´ve been given the time to sort out all bugs. As I´d like to play the MM I´ve seen in the DD´s and Let´s Plays without any cuts to mechanics and features.

[dr eng1ish]

In my world "The game is playable for 30-50 years without CTD" means quite exactly that it is not playable without CTD for more than that period. Ubiks statement might be wrong in itself, but then you should take it to him and not lash out on people who just believe what he wrote.

Your defensiveness really is not helping. How about just admitting that this statement was not very well put and that you were not aware of it? I dont think you will convince anyone that you have an objective view on things if you continue to behave like that.

This would be a valid point if the developers hadn't clarified the statement repeatedly. At this point you're deliberately misinterpreting.

[Top hats daily]

I'm going to parachute into this thread and say that this is pitiful on Ubik's part and a bit unprofessional on Paradox's part. Can't we all just get along?

[Velko]

As an up-and-coming project manager myself, this thread gives interesting insights into various things. Resource management, task priorization, crisis communications - how not to handle them.

I'm taking notes.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Thank you, that is exactly what it implies. Besides, the gold master failed for a reason. If they let Sword of the Stars II and Pride of Nations pass even though though they were pure garbage, it makes me wonder how buggy Magna Mundi had to have been, which makes me feel sad since I had such high hopes for this.

You can't make such comparisons, or rather, you can, but it is goddamn silly to do so, because making such comparisons and trying to deduce anything about the state of Magna Mundi from them is assuming that Paradox is incapable of learning from mistakes that they have acknowledged as such.

[T.j. Arnold]

This would be a valid point if the developers hadn't clarified the statement repeatedly. At this point you're deliberately misinterpreting.

Well, I'm sure 90% of the users lurking here won't bother looking through 50 pages of dialogue to see if that's the case. It was poorly stated and isn't helping their case at all. And they never directly said that the statement was wrong, in light of our complaints (not a good sign).

Besides, there are many CTD's and bugs: again, the game's "final" master failed multiple times for a reason. Paradox is willing to release some material in "questionable" (as nice as I'll get) states, and yet this wasn't able to do so, which means something.

It's not unprofessional for Paradox, they have a reputation-of-sorts to maintain. Although a lot of their products are hit-and-miss (about 50% do well critically), if the game is blatantly buggy they shouldn't release it.

You can't make such comparisons, or rather, you can, but it is goddamn silly to do so, because making such comparisons and trying to deduce anything about the state of Magna Mundi from them is assuming that Paradox is incapable of learning from mistakes.

How can I not make comparisons? It's widely acknowledged that those games are, honestly, horrid, and were basically unplayable at launch, yet they were released. If this game is as buggy as the intial post suggests, and they won't release it in light of these other titles, it must be especially so.

[yak]

This would be a valid point if the developers hadn't clarified the statement repeatedly. At this point you're deliberately misinterpreting.

No, the developers didnt clarify the statement. They stubbornly refused to acknowledge that such a statement had been made. And when it is pointed out to them they still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that it means what it means.

Which is really not helping them make their case and i would like to help them see that.

So this is not about whether the statement is true or not, it is about how the developers present themselves here.

[ywhtptgtfo]

It really is a matter of being unable to maintain momentum and workload, when you are also working a "real" job and having a demanding family life.

[...]

To blame people who work under such conditions for turning out only 50%, even if they give 110%, kind of adds insult to injury.

I don't think there's any significant complaints about the effort you've spent. Peter's point is mainly about organization and planning.

Yes.

Might it not be a good idea for the Magna Mundi team to appoint a single spokesperson and only make formal official statements? Pretty much everything which could be said about "the Sad State of Affairs" has been said already, and the current discussion is simply repeating this in a manner which is threatening to become dangerously overheated.

I've already suggested that like 40 pages ago.

No, the developers didnt clarify the statement. They stubbornly refused to acknowledge that such a statement had been made. And when it is pointed out to them they still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that it means what it means.

Which is really not helping them make their case and i would like to help them see that.

So this is not about whether the statement is true or not, it is about how the developers present themselves here.

Agreed.

All it takes is for Zolotaya to come out and say to us:

Hey guys I understand the CTD issue was poorly communicated on our part, so let me clear this up: The SP game is completely stable and CTDs are almost non-existent.

Hope this addresses the worries. Cheers!

[Peter Ebbesen]

How can I not make comparisons? It's widely acknowledged that those games are, honestly, horrid, and were basically unplayable at launch, yet they were released. If this game is as buggy as the intial post suggests, and they won't release it in light of these other titles, it must be especially so.

No, no, no. That does not logically follow!

That would only be the case if you assume Paradox is incapable of learning from its mistakes and now applies the same standards of testing and quality of what they are willing to publish as they did in the past.

Given that Paradox has repeatedly and in public acknowledged that they dropped the ball on SotS2 and that they are working to ensure better release quality, making such an assumption is unwarranted.

Depending on to which degree Paradox carries through with its publicly proclaimed policy, the requirements for a new game to pass quality assurance can be anything from "of the same shoddy quality to out catastrophic failures" (no change done to policies) to "not perfect" (going to the other extreme) and is most likely somewhere in between.

The only thing we know is that the release candidates did not satisfy Paradox current QA standards, not what those standards are or how they compare to standards governing the releases of older games.

[T.j. Arnold]

No, no, no. That does not logically follow!

That would only be the case if you assume Paradox is incapable of learning from its mistakes and now applies the same standards of testing and quality of what they are willing to publish as they did in the past.

Given that Paradox has repeatedly and in public acknowledged that they dropped the ball on SotS2 and that they are working to ensure better release quality, making such an assumption is unwarranted.

Depending on to which degree Paradox carries through with its publicly proclaimed policy, the requirements for a new game to pass quality assurance can be anything from "of the same shoddy quality to out catastrophic failures" (no change done to policies) to "not perfect" (going to the other extreme) and is most likely somewhere in between.

The only thing we know is that the release candidates did not satisfy Paradox current QA standards, not what those standards are or how they compare to standards governing the releases of older games.

Well, the thing is I personally don't believe that Paradox has learned from their "mistakes". It's a business, do you really think that Paradox would publicly admit they done-goofed if they didn't have to? No corporation, regardless of personal ideology, would like to do so. Announcing to forum users, already an incredibly small margin of the buyers, only occurred because the game was physically unplayable. I'm curious as to what percentage of the buyers knew they could have gotten a refund for the short amount of time it was offered.

This is one of the only cases I can think of where Paradox Publishing publicly admitted their fault (albeit it was a necessity). WWI, PoN, SR I&II, etc., were released in questionable states and nothing major was done from Paradoxes end (albeit, Paradox is just giving the devs the money to make the game, they aren't making it themselves).

I don't really see a trend of quality-control in what Paradox decides to release, how many out-of-house games are great in proportion to "meh"? When the in-house games sell well and do mostly critically well (HoI III being the only real exception, though Paradox seemed to flagship this game prior to CKII), you don't really have much incentive to care about how the side projects do when it's chump change in comparison.

You know you have it good when you can sell multiple music packs for a game that was just released or sprite packs for a four year old game and the fans will still purchase them.

[Texashawk76]

Frankly, what needs to happen is for someone at UV (preferably Ubik or Helius) to issue ONE new thread giving an accurate, no-spin, no emotion response to how the game is doing, lock it, and be done with it until the game is (hopefully) released. Jumping into this thread in dribs and drabs doesn't do them any PR favors. You have one succinct comment on Page 1 from Paradox, and pages and pages of wandering, accusing, and often contradictory replies from the many heads of UV.

As I said earlier, Paradox has set you on a ledge, and are only too willing to let you push each other off. You can either play their game, or push back from the ledge professionally. So you have a choice, UV. Make 1 final official reply, good or bad, lock it, and stick to it - or continue to immolate your publisher and by extension, each other.

I for one, speaking obviously for many, hope you all can step back and finish this amazing-looking game, that Paradox gives you the time to do so, and everyone wins.

[T.j. Arnold]

Frankly, what needs to happen is for someone at UV (preferably Ubik or Helius) to issue ONE new thread giving an accurate, no-spin, no emotion response to how the game is doing, lock it, and be done with it until the game is (hopefully) released. Jumping into this thread in dribs and drabs doesn't do them any PR favors. You have one succinct comment on Page 1 from Paradox, and pages and pages of wandering, accusing, and often contradictory replies from the many heads of UV.

As I said earlier, Paradox has set you on a ledge, and are only too willing to let you push each other off. You can either play their game, or push back from the ledge professionally. So you have a choice, UV. Make 1 final official reply, good or bad, lock it, and stick to it - or continue to immolate your publisher and by extension, each other.

I for one, speaking obviously for many, hope you all can step back and finish this amazing-looking game, that Paradox gives you the time to do so, and everyone wins.

I agree. It makes myself wary as a potential buyer when you state that the game is finished and ready to be launched and is nearly bug free, yet the quality-control measure from the publisher speaks to the contrary and goes as far to state that little has changed. It makes me feel like you're trying to dupe us, and even more so when developers are contradicting themselves.

I just want honesty.

[Helius]

Unless the developer aspires to be a second Derek Smart.

Hey, I actually do have a PhD, man!

[colinljx]

Screw the multiplayer. Just make sure the singleplayer part is perfect on its own and we will gladly pay and try the game.

You can always add in multiplayer later, but no one is gonna care if the singleplayer can't stand on its own.

Satisfy our thirsty, then fill our hunger.