Take-Two gets Civ rights, Civ4 for late 2005

[ChaotikVisions]

Because Atari is one of those rush-it-just-to-rush-it publishers thats stingy with their cash. Now, wether they'll turn out to be worse then Take-Two or not is hard to say. I've only had experience with a few Take-Two published games, but none of them seemed to get pushed out in bad condition or to be lagging in support, so maybe this change will be good for Firaxis.

It'd be interesting to hear if Firaxis has gotten anymore leeway with this contract then they had with Atari. I don't remember the particulars, but I think someone said they didn't have that great a deal with Atari.

On the other side of things, its nice to hear Civ IV confirmed for late 2005.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Nikolai
It's old name was Activision...

Aha, I thought it was the original Atari...

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


Aha, I thought it was the original Atari...

That's what they wanted people to believe when they changed to that name after getting the right to it.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Nikolai
It's old name was Activision...

No it's not. Their old name was Infogrames.

Activision is not the greatest publisher ever but they would never even consider sueing their own fans...

[Nikolai]

Sorry, I meant Infogrames. I have a tendency to mix those two for some reason... None of them are any good though.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Locutus
No it's not. Their old name was Infogrames.

Activision is not the greatest publisher ever but they would never even consider sueing their own fans...

Activision still exists and publish games right?
Have it had any change in owner or anything? I don't think so, but I've not followed so well.

Infogrames is still the concern behind the Atari publisher. It has been taking over companies and titles for some time.

[Solver]

Bad news .

No Atari is great news, indeed. But we do once again get a publisher that's not the developer. So we get a stupid company who doesn't give a damn about how good the game is. We get a company that sets the release date for developers and wants the game done by then no matter what, very possibly resulting in not enough polish.

I hope this won't be the case, but this is my experience with most publishers so far. I know I'd be glad if Firaxis could publish the game themselves.

[Solver]

And yeah, Activison is still quite alive. Doom 3 and Call of Duty are their most recent published hits, and the rumor has it they'll have RTCW 2 as well.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Nikolai
None of them are any good though.

Actually, Activision released the source code for CtP2. I'd say that's a pretty fine act of generosity towards the fans who kept supporting the game all those years

Originally posted by Gramphos
Activision still exists and publish games right?
Have it had any change in owner or anything? I don't think so, but I've not followed so well.

You kidding me? They're one of the biggest players in the gaming busines...

Infogrames is still the concern behind the Atari publisher. It has been taking over companies and titles for some time.

Indeed, only a matter of time before they ruined the Atari name completely and change again to start slurring some other formerly great name

Originally posted by Solver
Bad news .

No Atari is great news, indeed. But we do once again get a publisher that's not the developer. So we get a stupid company who doesn't give a damn about how good the game is.

Yes, because publisher being the developer worked so well for the CtP series And the GTA games are so poor and unfinished

I dunno, but maybe you should buy a few games from a publisher before you judge them?

Plus, they couldn't possibly do much worse than Atari

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Locutus
Yes, because publisher being the developer worked so well for the CtP series And the GTA games are so poor and unfinished

It worked fine with Paradox. Their first game with themselves as publisher(main one that is) is HoI2 and it has been their most polished and finished game so far, by far.

[Locutus]

In other words: games that are self-published can be both good and bad. And games that are not self-published can also be both good and bad. Conclusion: self-publishing is not by definition better or worse than having someone else publish your game.

[realpolitic]

Fortunately if civ4 is garbage, there will be many good strategy games out there. Many members of this forum has talked often about MOO, SMAC, and EU. Maybe we should look to those games' decendendants for our fun. I've had 10 good years with civ, and if the party's over, so be it. I still wouldn't count civ4 out yet, hopefully Take-Two is smart enough to keep it as the strategy game it is.

I still remember the bad old days of board games like Risk, and Axis and Allies whre we'd spend much of our time setting up, and counting the resources we'd get for the next turn by hand on even simpler games.

[Nikolai]

So true. But I still hope Civ will continue to be a good franchise. I only hope they don't do as Maxis did with SC4; make a game that looks better and have new elements, but ultimately feels like the same game as the predecessors, without the special feel...

EDIT: Hey! I just realized I've been an Emperor for 12 posts already, without me realizing it...!

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Locutus
You kidding me? They're one of the biggest players in the gaming busines...

Well, I think I saw their logo on Rome Total war when I played that after my brother got it for Christmas. Still I didn't know if it was owned by someone else, or if they did stand on their own legs.

I tell you that the past three years I've lost more and more of my knowledge on ongoing gaming. I've only stayed tune to Civ. For some reason I don't find mush time for more games then I currently have, and am satisfied with playing them. I don't need many more games. Sure a new game can be fun sometimes, but still I wouldn't have time to really put my sole into it.

My newest game is Pirates! and I sure like it, but since I got back from my Christmas holiday I've not had time to play it. Also RCT3 is quite new, and well, I don't have time to sit with it either. It's gone so far that I don't buy a game before I know I'll have at least some time to play it, or it will be better for me to wait until they reduce the price.

But sure a new game in a series that I love as mush as the Civilization series would I probably buy directly, and take myself time to play. But just that I'm addicted to one game doesn't mean I can't stay away from other cool games that I really would want to play, but can't simply find the time to do.

Then there are some games that I definately will buy sometime in the future, when I see time to play them coming. I'm almost as addicted to them as to the civilization games. Some games might actually rise stronger feelings for me than any civgame. Still those games are often in the way that you can take your time to play them, and can take a break without the "just one more turn" syndrom of cvilization. I think it's the "just one more turn" feeling that has extended to "just another game" when it comes to civilization, and I'me realy exited about what new things Firaxis might add to civ to make that desire even stronger (and ruin our lives again).

I think that the only game other than civ that I'd run to buy on releasedate would be a new instance of Colonization. Other games can wait until I have time to play them. And thus keeping myself updated with what the gaming industry does can wait too. When I feel like if I want a new game I just look what games that look interesting, and try to think of games that I wanted to buy, but never had time to, and see what game I decide to buy. Currenlty I have at least one game on my "whishlist" for games to have time to buy and play. As it looks now I might buy it around easter.

[StarBegotten]

Originally posted by Trip
But I was the first.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...05#post3583405

Ummm, actually I was.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3547561#post3547561