Who agrees with this.

[AnubisWoD]

The bad decisions lately that QS has made in Moo3 is the cause of lack of listening to the people on the forums and listening to possibly Infogrames or the certain people you should just ignore.

[AnubisWoD]

BTW I think that the idea of the longer it takes for you to finish the turn the more interest you have to pay on things is a stupid idea. Timed turns should be enough and both should be an option.

[TCO]

I think the bad ideas were the result of too much attention to clueless fan requests on message boards. And not enough attention to what the publisher, who is funding the project, had to say.

[Big Dave]

And how far do you think automotive manfucturers would get if they took that view? "Oh, we don't need to listen to our customers, they'll take what we give 'em and they'll like it!" The nanosecond Ford or Chevrolet takes that attitude they're out of business. Both MOO3 and Civ3 are a case of the (should have kept) silent partner opening their mouth and trying to give input to hurry the product out the door so they can get their ROI.

Big Dave

[moomin]

Originally posted by Big Dave
And how far do you think automotive manfucturers would get if they took that view?

American car manufacturers have already explored that option. Then came the Japanese Lesson. But then comparing cars and games is an exercise fraught with its own problems. Most people have a clue about what makes a car great, for instance.

Both MOO3 and Civ3 are a case of the (should have kept) silent partner opening their mouth and trying to give input to hurry the product out the door so they can get their ROI.

We don't know about Moo3 for sure yet, but Civ3 sure was rush. Howerver, many of the things that made Civ3 unplayable were clearly design decisions and not artifacts of rushing. No amount of time would've fixed city flippin' for instance, once they've decided that was a good idea.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Big Dave
And how far do you think automotive manfucturers would get if they took that view? "Oh, we don't need to listen to our customers, they'll take what we give 'em and they'll like it!" The nanosecond Ford or Chevrolet takes that attitude they're out of business. Both MOO3 and Civ3 are a case of the (should have kept) silent partner opening their mouth and trying to give input to hurry the product out the door so they can get their ROI.

Big Dave

But I trust real market research much more than I do silly caterwauling on the web...DAVE!

[AnubisWoD]

Originally posted by Big Dave
And how far do you think automotive manfucturers would get if they took that view? "Oh, we don't need to listen to our customers, they'll take what we give 'em and they'll like it!" The nanosecond Ford or Chevrolet takes that attitude they're out of business. Both MOO3 and Civ3 are a case of the (should have kept) silent partner opening their mouth and trying to give input to hurry the product out the door so they can get their ROI.

Big Dave

Which leads to another instance. I personally think that Quicksilver should have gone to a company like Sierra or Activision and asked them first (if they did not) to publish moo3 as those company's have lets say a reputation of not screwing people over. Besides a couple of times that sierra may have (Babylon 5 game comes to mind) but Infogrames is terrible and should not be compaired to that. They should stick to the console games.

[moomin]

Anubis, you have no idea what kind of nagotiations when on when QS settled for Infogrames as their publisher. If I were doing the deals, a reputation for "not screwing games people over" probably wouldn't be high on my list of desirable priorities, compared to, say, money - but then I mostly plan to deliver on time and by spec. (Including, of course, to plan to exceed planning...)

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by Big Dave
Both MOO3 and Civ3 are a case of the (should have kept) silent partner opening their mouth and trying to give input to hurry the product out the door so they can get their ROI.

Big Dave

If by "Silent Partner" you are referring to Infogrames, in both cases I think you are wrong. Infogrames most definetly is not in the "Silent Partner" role. For one simple reason that time and again I suspect people forget around here....

At this point in time, Infogrames owns Civilization, and Master of Orion (and Master of Magic and Colonization) lock, stock and barrel. Its their property. They acquired them when they got Hasbro's computer game division, and Hasbro got 'em when they bought out Microprose. And just as you would have a large say in the management and development of any property you own, Infogrames has the right to request and require quite a bit from developers working on their properties. And thats just what Quicksilver is... A developer.

Being a "Silent Partner" typically implies someone who has made an investment in a company or property, and expects a return on the investment, but does not have the time, skill, knowledge, or interest (or some combination there of) to take an active role in the management. IIRC, it usually also implies that they have at best a 50% stake invested in the property. I'm sure someone could have a majority stake and still be considered a "Silent Partner", but that does sort of change the situation.

But that just doesn't apply to Infogrames. They own these games outright. They have the time, the knowledge, the skill, and the interest to participate in the management of the games. Firaxis and Quicksilver are not partners where these games are concerned. They are contracted developers. You might say they are employees. They were hired to do a job. Sure they have a LOT of leeway in doing that job, but in the end, if Infogrames tells them they have to do something without arguement, unless their contract says they can argue that point, well I don't really know that they have a choice in the matter.

So considering all of this why shouldn't QuickSilver (or Firaxis) listen to Infogrames?

I don't see much of a reason, especially when you consider that if Infogrames decided to do a MoM2 or Colonization2 or Civ4 or MoO4, they could pick completely different developers to do the games. Yes, scarey as it may seem, there could be a Civ or Colonization that had absolutely no input from Sid. It wouldn't be the first time a person long associated with a computer game has been severed from that tie. Ultima and Richard Garriot come to mind quite easily. And I'm sure thats just one example.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Bleyn
It wouldn't be the first time a person long associated with a computer game has been severed from that tie. Ultima and Richard Garriot come to mind quite easily. And I'm sure thats just one example.

Yeah, Civ3 and Sid is another sad exemple... oops! That's a corporate secret. Of course Sid practically did Civ3 by himself!

Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.

[AnubisWoD]

Originally posted by Bleyn


If by "Silent Partner" you are referring to Infogrames, in both cases I think you are wrong. Infogrames most definetly is not in the "Silent Partner" role. For one simple reason that time and again I suspect people forget around here....

At this point in time, Infogrames owns Civilization, and Master of Orion (and Master of Magic and Colonization) lock, stock and barrel. Its their property. They acquired them when they got Hasbro's computer game division, and Hasbro got 'em when they bought out Microprose. And just as you would have a large say in the management and development of any property you own, Infogrames has the right to request and require quite a bit from developers working on their properties. And thats just what Quicksilver is... A developer.

Being a "Silent Partner" typically implies someone who has made an investment in a company or property, and expects a return on the investment, but does not have the time, skill, knowledge, or interest (or some combination there of) to take an active role in the management. IIRC, it usually also implies that they have at best a 50% stake invested in the property. I'm sure someone could have a majority stake and still be considered a "Silent Partner", but that does sort of change the situation.

But that just doesn't apply to Infogrames. They own these games outright. They have the time, the knowledge, the skill, and the interest to participate in the management of the games. Firaxis and Quicksilver are not partners where these games are concerned. They are contracted developers. You might say they are employees. They were hired to do a job. Sure they have a LOT of leeway in doing that job, but in the end, if Infogrames tells them they have to do something without arguement, unless their contract says they can argue that point, well I don't really know that they have a choice in the matter.

So considering all of this why shouldn't QuickSilver (or Firaxis) listen to Infogrames?

I don't see much of a reason, especially when you consider that if Infogrames decided to do a MoM2 or Colonization2 or Civ4 or MoO4, they could pick completely different developers to do the games. Yes, scarey as it may seem, there could be a Civ or Colonization that had absolutely no input from Sid. It wouldn't be the first time a person long associated with a computer game has been severed from that tie. Ultima and Richard Garriot come to mind quite easily. And I'm sure thats just one example.

Actually infogrames is becoming the next EA. They also have Unreal Tournamed 2003 Unreal 2 which are more games that sell for a lot of money. I also heard a rumor that they are trying to secure a few more game companys. But I have not heard which ones. BTW I hate Richard Garriot because he acts like a greedy Mr. Burns style character in most of his interviews, if you have read them. Some disagree with me but I can give a few examples. In my opinion I think he desirves it.

[AnubisWoD]

Almost forgot. I dont think that any game company should sell the rights to the game name to a publisher. Its like selling your soul to satan. I think Firaxis still holds the right to the Civ name. It says so when you load the game up (ie. Civ is the property of Firaxis yadda yadda). I doubt if QSI did it as well.

Well I guess not other game developers know who not to get their game published by if they want to keep their game as they want it to be done.

[AnubisWoD]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
Anubis, you have no idea what kind of nagotiations when on when QS settled for Infogrames as their publisher. If I were doing the deals, a reputation for "not screwing games people over" probably wouldn't be high on my list of desirable priorities, compared to, say, money - but then I mostly plan to deliver on time and by spec. (Including, of course, to plan to exceed planning...)

Well you would be suprised. I guarntee that some game companys would probably avoid infogrames. Because infograms is also known for cutting funding to force a release. That is not a good way to deal with the creation of games. While many other companys are more flexible. Though who knows, they may only go for people who have an excellent reputation in the game industry...... which is probably not true.

[ASHBERY76]

The mistake was not keeping to alan emrich's original vision.

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by AnubisWoD
Almost forgot. I dont think that any game company should sell the rights to the game name to a publisher. Its like selling your soul to satan. I think Firaxis still holds the right to the Civ name. It says so when you load the game up (ie. Civ is the property of Firaxis yadda yadda). I doubt if QSI did it as well.

Well I guess not other game developers know who not to get their game published by if they want to keep their game as they want it to be done.

I just looked at the credits, copyright agreements, license agreements and all of that on Civ3. Even called up the game real quick. All of them are quite clear that Infogrames is the owner of Civ these days, not Firaxis. The only thing I saw Firaxis having rights to was their own company name.

Sure Sid originally made Civ when he was at Microprose. But he didn't own it even then. And when he left to form Firaxis, Civ did not go with him.

Same is true for MoO. QuickSilver did not, does not, and has never owned MoO. They are just a developer.

[AnubisWoD]

Originally posted by Bleyn


I just looked at the credits, copyright agreements, license agreements and all of that on Civ3. Even called up the game real quick. All of them are quite clear that Infogrames is the owner of Civ these days, not Firaxis. The only thing I saw Firaxis having rights to was their own company name.

Sure Sid originally made Civ when he was at Microprose. But he didn't own it even then. And when he left to form Firaxis, Civ did not go with him.

Same is true for MoO. QuickSilver did not, does not, and has never owned MoO. They are just a developer.

Bleh, they should have been like Microsoft to IBM and demanded they keep the rights to the things they create er i means "get"

[AnubisWoD]

Wait, on the Autorun it said that Sid Meyers Civilization Civ and Civilization are registered trademarks of Firaxis. So they can do whatever they want with those names. Infograms only owns the current game by contract, and then they only own the release, not the patchs.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper


American car manufacturers have already explored that option. Then came the Japanese Lesson. But then comparing cars and games is an exercise fraught with its own problems. Most people have a clue about what makes a car great, for instance.

Good point, and many who think they know what makes a great game seem to forget that different people like different things, so what may be perfect to you will not be so or someone else.

We don't know about Moo3 for sure yet, but Civ3 sure was rush. Howerver, many of the things that made Civ3 unplayable were clearly design decisions and not artifacts of rushing. No amount of time would've fixed city flippin' for instance, once they've decided that was a good idea.

Hmm, rushed? Maybe a litle, but city flipping was not a rush or any sort, nor a broken design flaw. See there is a little thing called culture, if you don't buil;d any, if you only know how to play via ICS for example, then you won'tr have culture and will lose cities. It's a simple concept.

Just because something doesn't fit your style of play doesn't mean it's broken or bad, unless of course you think your opinion is the only correct one or you can't or won't adapt to change.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Hmm, rushed? Maybe a litle, but city flipping was not a rush or any sort, nor a broken design flaw.

We agree city flippin' isn't a rush artifact, I wrote as much. I still suggest it's simply bad design, and the overwhelming majority seems to agree. As do Firaxis, since they've patched it so it's workable these days...

See there is a little thing called culture, if you don't buil;d any, if you only know how to play via ICS for example, then you won'tr have culture and will lose cities. It's a simple concept.

Simply not true. I am a builder and always out-culture everbody else by a wide margin. But factors such as distance to capital and number of "othercultured" adjacent square still made cities flip regularly.

[Garth Vader]

You seem to indicate that city flipping has been patched to the level where its workable. That indicates that proper play testing and balancing could have corrected it before first release.

[moomin]

I don't think they realized people wouldn't like the whole concept. Propbably they imagined that more people where like Ozzy and would cotton to random flippin'.

A closed or open beta would probably have caught that, but I doubt the designers would have done so by themselves, no matter how much time they were given.

[Skanky Burns]

If they put more effort into accurately planning in the first place, they wouldn't be in a "6 months till the game is complete, 1 month of development money left" situation.

Civ unfortunately didn't have a chance - losing 3 months of development due to B.R. leaving.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
If they put more effort into accurately planning in the first place, they wouldn't be in a "6 months till the game is complete, 1 month of development money left" situation.

Civ unfortunately didn't have a chance - losing 3 months of development due to B.R. leaving.

Maybe he saw this coming and bailed?

[Skanky Burns]

Civ 3 was a much better game 6 months after release than at its release, from some staff at Firaxis working on the game. Having the whole team with 3 months extra, I'm quite sure that the release of the game would have been of a much higher standard.

But thats just speculation.

[IncreduloDriver]

Just to clear things up, Firaxis does not own Civilization or any other trademarks. In this case, Infogrames owns Civilization and asked Firaxis (back when Infogrames was Hasbro) to make Civ3. Just take a look at your MGE CD. It lists extensive copyright and trademark information right on the CD, all of which belong(ed) to Hasbro. Never had Civ belonged to Sid.

The same is true for MOO. MPS owned the TM since the first, and it got passed down to Hasbro and eventually to Infogrames. Infogrames (then Hasbro) *asked* QS to develop it. QS has no control over the name.

As for poor little Civ, if I were some powerful guy at Infogrames, I'd be asking Firaxis right now why they weren't able to get a *complete* Civ3 out on time and on budget, and I'd be at least auditioning new developers for Civ4. It hurts Infogrames' reputation just as much as it hurts Firaxis' when incomplete beta products with bugs and gameplay balance issues galore get released as full versions. I'm just speculating, but I'll bet somebody at Firaxis got chewed out for the whole fiasco.

Civ4 without Sid & the Firaxis team isn't really that frightening to me. I just hope QS manages to pull off a good MOO3.

[Mellian]

me thinks the people in this forum are pretty negative concerning Civ3 and Moo3 I don't see much point in being overlly critical for nothing...as it just makes thingsless fun.

-Mellian

[moomin]

Well, Mel, ya know what they say... once bitten twice shy.