Back from Civ3...

[Mongoose]

I don't see the point in invading the Civ3 forum. Firaxis knows what they did. The folks at Civ3 General are either having fun with Civ3 or are having fun flaming each other about Civ3. There is not much contribution to be made here by either of those camps.

[SirVincealot]

Read this morning on AVAULT about the coming expansion pack for CIV3:

>>>new map features including airfields, outposts and radar towers, two new terrain sets that allow players to customize their maps; additional interface enhancements like unit stacking and auto-bombard<<<

In other words, it will be more like SMAC.

The same SMAC that was supposed to be "too complicated"...

What a mess

Regards,
SirVincealot

[Impaler[WrG]]

Yep the Irony is Palpatable even to a person such as myself who has only played SMAC and only knows about Civ3 only by READING about it.

I have read some quotes by Sid Meires that go something like "SMAC taut us that More is sometimes Less" so that was their half baked idea for Civ3 the "less is more" consept. Basicaly a 180 degree reversal from the well established paterns the game industry has been using ever sinces it was created. They didn't realize that Less IS LESS, More is is only Less when its done badly, if done correctly more is MORE. The real secret is to get as much in a game and yet keep it accessible and Deep. I hope SMAC2 can learn from the mistakes of Civ3.

[Method]

well if less is more then just think how much MORE could be!

[DickK]

I enjoy playing Civ3 a lot--its a good game but there's no question that SMAC is the better game in just about every way. Caveat: my own view is more than a little biased since I was on the beta test team for SMAC and SMACX so in some sense its my "baby" too

In any case, I completely agree that SMACX is the superior game compared to Civ3 as it currently exists. SMAC's first release was much better than Civ3's first release and, for that matter, is better that Civ3 with all the current patches. I really don't expect Civ3's expansion pack will make it the equal of SMAC, never mind comparisons to SMACX.

As has been noted elsewhere the key difference, for me, between them is the rich backstory in SMAC. The attention to the details shown in SMAC is incredible--it had to be, and was, there from the very beginning. The first release the testers saw was really little more than a late alpha--major features missing or not working. Yet the storyline was there already and made the game exciting and fun to play from the first moment. Like many of you I was and am disappointed with Civ3 because it doesn't look like the "lessons learned" in SMAC got incorporated into Civ3.

The now missing video sequences are just one of many things that I believe are a result of the fact that the investment in SMAC far exceeded the investment in Civ3. But I'd bet the Civ3 revenue has already exceeded the SMAC/SMACX revenue. Civ3 could have, and IMHO should have, been so much more -- but it would have taken another 6-12 months to produce and cost a lot of money. Perhaps the resources weren't there to make that possible--SMAC is a long time back and the investment in "Dinosaurs" was large with no return. The Golf game was running in parallel also and draining resources. Gents, its a business and if Firaxis can't keep the revenue coming in there won't be any future games from that team. Personally, I think there was a hard, cold business decision made: Civ3 will be "good enough" to ship at this point on the calendar and start putting major revenue on the books. Investing another year of effort would add all these neat features but cost a lot and probably not pump up the revenue by an equivalent amount. And there's always the pressure to meet the publisher's expectations because that group is a business too and they need to see some revenue, too.

I hope its not the case, but SMAC/SMACX might just prove to the best TBS for a long time to come simply because of the costs involved. On the other hand, I hope that Civ3 will make tons of money so Firaxis will have the resources to fund another SMAC-like classic!

[Mongoose]

Interesting. You claim, DickK, that the reason for the quality level of Civ3 is that hard business decisions were taken. Implicitly, it seems to me, you are claiming that the talent and vision to have made Civ3 as good or nearly as good as SMAC exist at Firaxis but weren't employed to do so because of the calculus of revenues, costs and time. (Correct me if what I find implicit in your argument was unintended.)

JT, OTOH, and myself, if the truth be told, believe that Civ3 was just about as good as the current Firaxis team could do, at least as far as gameplay is concerned. I concede that a larger budget or more time would certainly have made features like the voiceovers possible. I am not convinved though, that they would have fit without some backstory, which backstory cannot really exist in a game spanning 6,000 years rather than 400.

I am increasingly curious about the reason for Reynolds' departure from Firaxis. I find it nearly impossible to believe that some fundamental disagreement between him and Meier was not at the root of it. Perhaps a matter of vision, perhaps a matter of budget...I wager it involved Civ3.

[mark13]

JT, OTOH, and myself, if the truth be told, believe that Civ3 was just about as good as the current Firaxis team could do, at least as far as gameplay is concerned. I concede that a larger budget or more time would certainly have made features like the voiceovers possible.

I must admit, that's not how I see it - and I do agree somewhat with DickK that Firaxis took some real liberties with Civ3.

But, Firaxis wanted to make it plain from the very start that they wanted to go back to basics. It is my opinion that they *wanted* to dumb the game down from what SMAC had been - they erroneously (IMO) believed that the reason SMAC didn not sell well was because it did not offer the simplicity of Civ2, and was too complex for most players.

I would contest that, and say that SMAC did not sell well because it did not have the name 'Civilization' on the box. It had Sid, great - but the Civilization legacy is well-respected as well, and the number of avid civ-players who have tried their hand (recently) at SMAC and absolutely loved it is *staggering*. At first, of course, they hadn't realised that this game was so closely related to Civ.

The single-player experience was also Firaxis's priority. 'We want to make the AI as good as possible, therefore we must mould the game around the AI'. This was a deliberate design decision, IMO...they knew exactly what they were doing. Maybe they wanted to attract a new crowd, those who would normally play games like AoE, I don't know - or maybe the idea was to create a game that was compelling for two weeks, and then got boring - players will buy something else, which means more money.

In many ways, it is a shame. Firaxis started out as a gamers' company, in much the same way that Paradox (Europa Universalis) are now - they wanted to make a great game. They did with SMAC. Over the years, they slowly became more commercialised - and as is the way with many companies over the years, the gamers themselves got shafted. And then we end up with Civ3. Compare it, if you like, to Maxis - SimCity was originally excellent, innovative, compelling stuff - 16,000 Sim expansions and games later, along with the commercial monstrosity that is 'The Sims' (the game was made to sell copies, pure and simple), it is not. Or even Microprose, the company that Firaxis themselves branched from. That is what has happened here, I fear.

As for Reynolds - I agree with Mongoose that Reynolds opposed this commercialisation process, and wanted to make another good game. Rise of Nations will be worth a look, I think, if past performance is anything to go by.

Yeah, Infogrames rushed the game out of the door, so as not to co-incide with the release of MoO3 (since delayed many times, of coruse) and had the game been released six months later, it would have been polished, with a few bells and whistles attached - but it would still have been the same, basic, simple, uninteresting game it is now.

That's my tuppence, anyway.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Mark13 you've pretty much summarized what I have been posting for about the last month over on the Civ3 general discussion boards.

But I just wonder a second. All the things we suppose have credible evidence to support this view numerous i.e. quotes from Soren and Sid kinna confirm this view. But..... perhaps what they're doing is abit of spin doctoring. All of sudden the minor criticisms come rolling in from the boards about how dumbed down and featureless CIV3 is. Ummm... Ummm... We meant to do that, Yeah thats the ticket.
Are there any quotes that talk about the development of CIV3 prior to its release that give any indication that they meant to get back to basics? I don't remember.

I find DickK's comments fascinating. Assuming he is for real, he has about as good an insight into the mindset of Firaxis as any. we all knew early release was a bad thing and that profit genreation was the driver in this situation. It's just a shame that poor project choices such as Dinosaurs drained the needed development dollars away from the real center piece of the Firaxis offerings.

Shame that SMAC didn't find its following. I agree had they only tagged on a CIV title to it the sales could have been staggering. Iguess they thought that with Activision CTP coming out at the same time the whole Civilization name was a bit overplayed.

As for Reynolds as long as we're speculating, I'ld wager his creative differences (if any existed at all) were all around the dumbing down of the game and thereby tarnishing his two masterpieces CIV2 and SMAC.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Shame that SMAC didn't find its following. I agree had they only tagged on a CIV title to it the sales could have been staggering. Iguess they thought that with Activision CTP coming out at the same time the whole Civilization name was a bit overplayed.

I don't think this is the case, OgOg. Firaxis had no rights to the name Civilization then. They (Firaxis) are making Civ3 because Hasbro Interactive (successor to Microprose, purchaser of The Avalon Hill Game Company and predecessor to Infogrames) contracted with Firaxis to develop it. I have no doubt that if they could have worked Civilization into the title of SMAC, thay would have done so in the proverbial heartbeat.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Thanks for the correction Mongoose. I remember when it (SMAC) came out and CTP came out that only one could have the name. So Hasbro owned the CIV name rights and Sid owned his own Monikers rights. Sid banked on his name being the draw (too bad it wasn't that big of a draw) whilst in reality as just recently shown with CIV3 it really was the brand equity of CIV franchise that brought big sales. Now it all comes back to me. I remember now. (I remember how everyone was so livid that the crap that was CTP was going to drag the good name of CIV through the mud and how SID should be outraged.) Funny thing, fortunately the good people of Firaxis were able to accomplish that little feat on their own. J/K for all you FurX fans out there. Thanks again for jogging my memory Mongoose.

[rwprice]

Don't you think the content and setting have anything to do with sales? I agree with the level of excellence that SMAC contains, but for a lot of people, the sci-fi setting just isn't what they like. I've seen posts by people who say that they had a hard time making a connection in their minds to some of the wonders and advances, because they had no real-life counterparts. Civilization benefits from its connection to actual human history. I think that's a much bigger reason for lower sales than the name of the game.

[RedFred]

Good point rwprice. Comparing the sales of CtP v. SMAC it is easy to see that a very large number of people have very little in the way of an imagination.

[DickK]

{pinch} Ouch! yep, I'm real. However, I really have tell ya that I don't have and don't claim any "special" insight. But I've been a gamer for 30+ years and a software professional and computer game player for 20+. I've been involved with various test efforts and continue to be occasionally involved in such (exclusively with strategy games because that's what I love to do and you can't be a good, unpaid tester for something if you don't like the game genre).

Now, the question is whether Civ3 is as good as the current Firaxis could make it or whether if Brian (and Tim and a few others) had been there would it have been better? Tough one and something I've wondered about since Brian left. Bottom line is that I've concluded that Civ3 would have been different if it had continued to be Brian's project, but not necessarily better. "Better" is a problem because we're all comparing what came in the Civ3 box with what our imagination thought should be there. Let's just settle for "better" being "met our expectations better". So if Civ3 is Brian's project would it have met my (our/your) expectations better? Maybe, but I'm not so sure.

Fact: SMAC/X was Brian and Tim Train's "baby". Fantastic concept, well executed.
Seems true: SMAC/X is expensive to produce. It does well in the marketplace but doesn't generate blockbuster revenue.
Fact: Civ3 was Brian's project at Firaxis until he left.
Fact: Brian left and immediately formed a group to do RTS games.

There are facts missing between the last two and lots of possibilities. I doubt it was simple or that we'll ever know the full truth. However, just suppose --

Speculation: Brian wanted to make Civ3 into something really different from the Civ1/2 "franchise", like a shift to an RTS game. Brian says "either I get full creative control or I'm outta here".

IF that speculation were true then I could see how Sid, et al, say "not only no, but hell no". Sid/Firaxis wants to stick to TBS and besides it's a big risk to a cash-cow--in a company that may be cash short. In any case, we know that Brian, Tim, et al, leave shortly thereafter and Firaxis is left to rebuild a shattered project team. Firaxis turns out a Civ3 that gets done quickly, it's true to the franchise and makes a bunch of money.

Complicated way of saying that I think that if Brian had been the Civ3 lead he would have certainly been capable of producing a Civ3 that I personally would have liked better. On the other hand, I wonder if it would have worked out that way. We might have gotten a RTS version of Civ3 or something otherwise so different that I'd be just as disappointed with it as I am with what we've got. We'll never know for sure what Brian's Civ3 would have been--but just maybe it would have more looked like "Rise of Nations" than Civ2/3.

And yes, I believe Firaxis could have done better--with more time and resources invested. Although I suspect it is true, it's speculation on my part is that the time/money investment was the limiting factor for Civ3 and not the creativity and ability of the team. In a way, the team is proving that they're capable of more because the series of updates are making it better and I think the expansion pack will prove it again. Frankly, I don't think it will ever rise to be the gameplay equal of SMAC/X but its a very good game and its making a lot of money -- probably already more than SMAC/X.

[Capt Dizle]

I think its a matter of record that Brian had expressed interest in doing RTS games, but I don't really *think* that was the issue.

My *guess* is that Brian and his design team wanted to do Civ3 as TBS and include depth, complexity and the marvelous scope that they brought to Civ2 and SMAC.

That takes time and resources and that is money. Money that someone decided that Firaxis did not *need* to spend, being that Civ3 was, on its predecessor's rep, going to make a lot of money whether it was a great game or not.

So I think someone (Jeff or Sid or both) told Brian he could not build the game he wanted to build.

I am sure that Brian carried a little chip on his shoulder about playing second fiddle to Sid's violin in the first place. And being told he couldn't build Civ3 the way he wanted, after his sucess with Civ2 and SMAC, well that was just too much.

So, Brian decided (I speculate) that he was by God going to show them that he could make it on his own.

And he left and has gotten the necessary backing and will soon debut and we will see what we will see.

Again, I am just speculating here, but I feel Brian felt he was not getting the respect he deserved AND he just didn't want to be part of a blatant milking of the gaming public.

People think that Sid and company wouldn't intentionally throw a B product on the market, not in the Civ franchise. Well, they did. It is worth noting that Firaxis has hired several high profile types to run the company lately. Someone put Sid on that European tour. Its plain they have big plans and the explotation of Sid's name will continue to be a part of it.

I wonder how long Sid will like being a trained seal.

Thats my take on it, just an uninformed opinion from the outside, rampant speculation from a disatisfied, obsessed fan.

[Capt Dizle]

FIRAXIS Games Appoints Chief Operating Officer
Steve Martin Joins the Company from Absolute Quality, Inc.

Hunt Valley, Maryland, March 28, 2002 – FIRAXIS Games, on the heels of the successful launches of Sid Meier’s Civilization III and Sid Meier’s SimGolf, proudly announces the hiring of industry veteran Steve Martin as Chief Operating Officer.

Steve comes to Firaxis from Absolute Quality, Inc. (AQI), a software testing and technical support interaction center, where as Co- Founder and Chief Financial & Administrative Officer he built AQI into a $10 million business, averaging greater than 100% growth each year. Prior to that Steve was the Controller for MicroProse Software, Inc., a $60M entertainment software developer in Hunt Valley, Maryland. As the Chief Operating Officer at Firaxis, Steve is responsible for the overall business operations of the company and reports to Firaxis's board of directors.

"We're very fortunate to have Steve on board, "said Jeff Briggs, Founder and CEO of Firaxis Games. "He brings a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience that will further strengthen our operations and add another level of depth to our already powerful team. "