| Main Civ II Civ III CTP II SMAC RoN GalCiv MoO3 Alt.Civs Misc About | |||
![]() |
News | Archive Interviews The Column Newsletter | Radio Contests Forums Links | Chat |
||
|
| |||
| |||
|
THE COLUMN THE PHYSICS OF DEVELOPMENT & RELEASE OF A CIV STYLE GAME By TheLimey July 1, 2000 NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.
At this point, I decided that further effort here, though not useless, would not result in a scenario that I could ever be truly happy with. I was already aware, at this point, in Alpha Centuri & Civilization: Call to Power. I had ruled out SMAC, as being irrelevant, due to its time setting and its lack of customization, at least to the point where it would be useful to the project, which I had in mind. CtP, I had seen in quite a few magazine previews before, and it looked very flashy, rather than the deep and customizable game that I was looking for. As luck would have it, it was right around the time that I had exhausted Civ2, that CtP was released, perhaps a week or so previously. I watched with interest the forums regarding CtP, and saw the many arguments raging, about CtP"s merits or lack thereof. I could see that these were all very subjective, but these were not what interested me. Amongst these postings was talk of the "exposed" nature of much of the game data of CtP. This was what I was really looking for, at that point, so I went out and spent my $30 or whatever it cost, at CompUSA at 57th and 7th (IIRC) in Manhatten. I got home and installed the game, but my first reaction wasn"t to play, but to check out these text files that had interested me. Information overload was my first reaction, but I took things slow and worked at looking at the obvious first, through to the least obvious. I played the game for the first time a couple of days after I had bought it, and it was pretty much what I had thought to expect at this point; clumsy, something to get used to, slightly emotionless. It wasn"t the worst game I"ve ever bought, either, not hard on the eyes, and civ-like enough , that I felt like I was playing a civ game. I could see the flaws and beauty in the design. Over the next few months, the CtP forums were busy; talking about the game"s problems in general, what needed to be fixed, specifics of the fixing (of balance, interface, economy, government, etc.) Mods started to appear based on these discussions, and much work by their creators. It was all like a wish list, where "we" as a community were fulfilling our own wishes. Though I"m not certain, I think that there is a good chance that CtP has been the first "flawed" game to be "fixed" by its fan base at this level. The whole issue of the fan base "fixing" the game through modifications had many interesting and thought provoking aspects, and still does now. There were many people, including some making the modifications themselves, who were bitter about needing to modify the game, since they felt the game needed to be fixed in so many ways, and Activision should be doing that. Regardless of this bad feeling, it was obvious that CtP could become a significantly different game. This was the biggest beauty of CtP. Activision added yet another edge to the whole argument, by not conceding that the problems perceived by so many were problems at all. Then in patching the game, they backtracked on their position, without saying "we got it wrong". Of course, you can understand the motives behind Activision"s actions here; consider that they had two choices, with two pretty obvious primary outcomes. Firstly admit nothing. This would add to the disappointment of a certain number of people, and perhaps many in a subtle way. Secondly, admit that they got a number of play balance aspects mixed up. This would placate a small group of people who were talking about this "non-admittance", yet in a larger picture, would not cause people who had a negative view of CtP to change their view, simply on the strength of this statement. Their admittance might also have a longer and more damaging side effect, in that this "official admittance" might be reported, perhaps in editorials in the same magazines that had given CtP bad reviews. This may have damaged Activisions reputation further, or more likely damaged the CtP franchise, in ways that the game"s existence and state would not have. I guess the best solution would have been to quietly fix the "problems" and adding a less clumsy and cumbersome interface through patching. It seems though, that CtP although initially quite the successful release, did not have the continuing sales record that would motivate Activision to continue to seriously support it. Fixing the franchise through the release of a second title, although not stated, was and is, I believe, in their mind. There were, are and I"m sure, will continue to be polls on the relative quality of CtP, compared to other "civ titles" and it often does badly, especially with those who have played with unmodified versions. I do, looking back with fresh eyes one year on, believe that CtP1, with the latest crop of mods and patches, is a credit to the genre, and perhaps the best of what is available now. Unfortunately, for all that CtP1 is, its still not the panacea of customizability that I desired, partially since it had opened my eyes to new possibilities. I wanted to see nuances in my scenario now things that are just out of reach with CtP1. As it stands, I hoped for these to be in CtP2. I, shortly before the second patch, bowed out of the AI debate, and scenario design, when I realized that this game was seriously impacting my work and home life, so I decided to take a little holiday.
--------- About the author: A DBA, and a would-be post-WW2 scenario creator. Want to comment on this article? The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.
|
|
Apolyton Civilization Site -- Copyright © Daniel Quick
All trademarks and trade names are the property of their respective owners. | |