Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who is Firaxis:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who is Firaxis:

    [Go straight to conclusions and final conclusions if you don't wanna read the thinking part]

    Firaxis is a gaming company. To know who she is, we need to do as a person: look at what we know of her: goals, what she did, her intentions, if she did what she said she would do.

    We first need to establish the possibilities, to after be able to evaluate the percentage of chance of every possibility.


    Possibilities:

    Goals: Firaxis, as a gaming company, may have a few goals.
    Here are most possible possibilities:
    1- Making money (wether it is to continue make games or for better income, money is necessary)
    2- Making games
    3- Keeping a certain reputation


    Percentage of chance of possibilities

    Now we evaluate the percentage of chance, and this can be done by making the relation between possible goals and what they really do:


    What was done:

    Taken from GameSpot's biography of Sid and recently discovered by me (it's not drectly Firaxis, but it may well be Firaxis' spirit since formed by same people):
    Worse, MicroProse tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans of its most storied franchise by releasing CivNet a mere four months before Sid Meier's Civilization II, without letting anyone know of the latter game's impending release until after the sales curve of CivNet had flattened. The controversy deepened when Civilization II shipped with no multiplayer options, but with some evidence of multiplayer hooks buried in the code.
    MP was out in an expansion for Civ II also. An expansion was made for SMAC. We see that expansions are common for games that sell well.

    We also see that they didn't included some things such as stacked mouvement and others, but that they did make an evolution of the core of the game and genre (culture, borders, colonies, bombarding, ressources, etc.) even if it is not perfect nor perfectly balanced. We also see that Civ games all are trying to evolve (I dunno for SMAX, only played SMAC).

    We also know that Civ III, which is Firaxis' last born, is the first to be victim of such unbalancing compared to the norm in gaming industry's good game. Civ III is the first to have such dishonors and not beeing at the top as much as its predecessors. We also know that it isn't enough for some in term of depth.

    We also know that some important members recently quit.

    About if Firaxis done what they said they would do, well we can consider here that they did. They say very little (not including the "maybe it's a good idea, we'll see" and such) and even less about what's important (general lines. I'm not including "yes, this unit will exist"), except when it's an evidence, when it's already VERY sure (which doesn't cost anything to say BTW).

    [edit: like Yin said (next post), Firaxis became bigger]


    Analysis:

    By looking at what we know, we can evaluate (IMHO) that, as they always did, they will try to rentabilize, so money is an objective of Firaxis (at which extent, we do not have enough information to say, but enough to have given an XP pack few months before Civ II).

    Basing on the fact that they didn't made any "marketting rentabilization" by making games that have nothing new but only a well selling name, such as pokémon is the worst exemple. They also didn't made some games with nothing new or improved, only with an image (we can look at some games puting 4 XP packs with new maps and functions they could have put from beginning, and many other marketting strategies). Notice here that I do not know Microprose's history by heart, but I stil read a little about it (GameSpot's Sid biography).

    If they made games that evoluate and keep evoluating, there may be two reasons: wanting to make games, money or Firaxis' reputation (which can be for making games or future money). The conclusion to this should be given by looking at other factors (other paragraphs) in this analysis, but we know that better games are generally made by people that love them. We also know that a big parts of ideas were thought in Apolyton and that what makes the core of a game (thus evolution) are such ideas plus chosing which ideas to put in and how.

    About what they said, we cannot take out any information, except that they kept their promises, but didn't made really alot of promises except in the context I already said. So Firaxis future is, from an exterior eye, unestablished. A promise about future would probably give us a very good idea, but Firaxis is silent.


    Conclusions

    Possibility of goal 1: Money
    We seem to be able to be quite sure that money is a goal. It is a goal enough to make XP packs for MP, but not enough to simply make idiotic games. Counter factors to this is that making idiotic games would, at long term, lessen the reputation. They also put a beta on the market for Xmas time (they stil can repair some...)


    Possibility of goal 2: Making games
    Making games seems a goal if we look at the company's evolution since the beginning (til Sid's beginning) but some important members quit, so we fo not know if something changed (reorganization, etc.). But the primary question here is: do they want the same game that we want?... Depth, etc.? Stack units was definetely a bad decision, but such imbalances?... Are they stil as perfectionist as they were with Civ II or SMAC? This is what we have nothing to be able to respond.

    Possibility of goal 3: Reputation
    Since very little information is given about future, we cannot alot but that many other companies never say ANYTHING until it's sure. Personnally, I prefer when the say more but say what is sure, what is "we hope", what is "maybe", what is "never", etc.



    FINAL CONCLUSIONS:

    Because of the recent changing from perfectionist to Civ III, we can't be sure what kind of game Firaxis wants to put out nor if they lost some perfectionism. But we know they simply kept the same strategy Sid always used for marketting. We could have judge more easily if it wasn't the first time, but when something arrives for the first time, we see what comes. Like if physics laws would all fail for the first time, you can't judge from what you know since what you know is based on some things that aren't stil valid. Thus, we can't be sure about Firaxis about their goals since it may have changed. What we DO know is that something DID changed.
    [edit: as Yin said (next post), Firaxis became bigger. Maybe some problems from this even if restraining some others]

    PS: Sorry if the text isn't perfectly structured, but I think that the general idea of my text is there.
    Last edited by Trifna; January 11, 2002, 04:26.
    Go GalCiv, go! Go Society, go!

  • #2
    When a small company becomes a not-so-small company, the possibility for all hell breaking loose is very high. This happened notoriously to Trilobyte, but it's an age-old problem, and I saw it coming with Firaxis when they went from half a dozen employees total, rented phones and a small fridge full of Mountain Dew (but Gettysburg came from that) to some 40 some-odd employees, a full-time Webmaster who brings nothing much to the table from a public standpoint, artists dedicated to making 3D bobbing heads that indeed DETRACT from gameplay, a split team, one on a golf game while the mother of all TBS games sits floundering in horrid planning and lack of talent as a result of hiring faster than your brain can think ...

    This is predictable in many industries: Going from a dedicated and focussed core group of guys who know each passing day could make or break them to a loosely-formed group of people hired through the trades and who think the company has deep pockets.

    And this has to be said: Sid is a closet designer. The FEWER people working with him the better. This is why he basically did the golf thing on his own and let all hell break down back at the range. The guy NEVER should have let more than 10 people work at Firaxis. EVER. Nor should he ever have allowed Firaxis to have any more public interaction than a logo on a static website. Yes, I said that: By pretending to be something Firaxis really isn't and by hiring people who even less capable of doing the pretending for you, only bad things can come.

    In other words: I think if Firaxis had stayed as small and focussed and relatively secluded as when it first started, they would have seen more profits and we would have had better games.
    I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

    "Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by yin26
      When a small company becomes a not-so-small company, the possibility for all hell breaking loose is very high. This happened notoriously to Trilobyte, but it's an age-old problem, and I saw it coming with Firaxis when they went from half a dozen employees total, rented phones and a small fridge full of Mountain Dew (but Gettysburg came from that) to some 40 some-odd employees, a full-time Webmaster who brings nothing much to the table from a public standpoint, artists dedicated to making 3D bobbing heads that indeed DETRACT from gameplay, a split team, one on a golf game while the mother of all TBS games sits floundering in horrid planning and lack of talent as a result of hiring faster than your brain can think ...

      This is predictable in many industries: Going from a dedicated and focussed core group of guys who know each passing day could make or break them to a loosely-formed group of people hired through the trades and who think the company has deep pockets.

      And this has to be said: Sid is a closet designer. The FEWER people working with him the better. This is why he basically did the golf thing on his own and let all hell break down back at the range. The guy NEVER should have let more than 10 people work at Firaxis. EVER. Nor should he ever have allowed Firaxis to have any more public interaction than a logo on a static website. Yes, I said that: By pretending to be something Firaxis really isn't and by hiring people who even less capable of doing the pretending for you, only bad things can come.

      In other words: I think if Firaxis had stayed as small and focussed and relatively secluded as when it first started, they would have seen more profits and we would have had better games.
      How did you become so knowledgable?
      Sorry....nothing to say!

      Comment


      • #4
        I think that we could easily statistically demonstrate that the expansion of a company creates new problems while restraining some other problems. Wether agreeing or not that it is the case of Firaxis, we stil have lots f other exemples.
        Go GalCiv, go! Go Society, go!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by yin26
          In other words: I think if Firaxis had stayed as small and focussed and relatively secluded as when it first started, they would have seen more profits and we would have had better games.
          What are you saying, that when Firaxis makes a loss on Civ3 and Sid fires half his staff the company will be able to make a decent patch?!?



          Farfetched, but it would be good. You are totally right about Sid being one of those people who can't work with too many others.
          Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
          Waikato University, Hamilton.

          Comment


          • #6
            Could someone please tell me if these problems existed with SMAC!
            Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
            Waikato University, Hamilton.

            Comment


            • #7
              How did you become so knowledgable?
              Sha_g: I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, especially since you and I are locking horns the past few posts.

              Grr: SMAC indeed had lots of these same problems. If you are more specific, I'll be glad to try to remember the whole deal. It was pretty rough for a while. LOL!
              I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

              "Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by yin26
                Grr: SMAC indeed had lots of these same problems. If you are more specific, I'll be glad to try to remember the whole deal. It was pretty rough for a while. LOL!
                So how long did it take to get a full totally playable copy after the release, in months.

                I didn't get SMAC until about half a year ago, and downloaded the latest patch, whatever that was.

                BTW, three R's. Grrr!! not Grr
                Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
                Waikato University, Hamilton.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ah, sorry Grrr! =)

                  Well, this is the point, of course. A good number of people felt it was just fine out of the box. A similar dynamic as we see with Civ3: To some people, the combat mechanics and lack of certain, if 'small' features such as the air bug, etc., ruin the game. Others say it's no big deal. Same thing with SMAC. For me, there was an infinite range missile (Yang) bug that, on large (well, I liked HUGE) maps, made the game unplayable as long as Yang was around. This is also similar to the Large Map issues we see with Civ3.

                  I gave up on SMAC after the 4th patch or so. I never played SMACX. So if you were to ask me, SMAC was playable from the start but never got all the elements in order from a certain perspective. Looking back, though, I feel SMAC had more polish from the start than does Civ3.
                  I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

                  "Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by yin26
                    Ah, sorry Grrr! =)

                    Well, this is the point, of course. A good number of people felt it was just fine out of the box. A similar dynamic as we see with Civ3: To some people, the combat mechanics and lack of certain, if 'small' features such as the air bug, etc., ruin the game. Others say it's no big deal. Same thing with SMAC. For me, there was an infinite range missile (Yang) bug that, on large (well, I liked HUGE) maps, made the game unplayable as long as Yang was around. This is also similar to the Large Map issues we see with Civ3.

                    I gave up on SMAC after the 4th patch or so. I never played SMACX. So if you were to ask me, SMAC was playable from the start but never got all the elements in order from a certain perspective. Looking back, though, I feel SMAC had more polish from the start than does Civ3.
                    That brings me back to my point in other threads really, Civ3 is fine, except for a few things:

                    Corruption
                    Multiplayer
                    Scenarios
                    Difficulty Levels
                    Slow Computers

                    See my ideas for these here (Bottom three messages)

                    PS: BTW 2 exclaimation marks,
                    Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
                    Waikato University, Hamilton.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Also, you've gotta remember a certain project called "Dinos". After that failed, and Firaxis had no doubt poured a fair bit of money into it (people don't work for free), they were in desperate need of a sucessful hit. What could garentee them this more than a new Civilization game? Ofcourse, civ3 was being worked on at the same time as Dinos, but by Brian Reynolds. And, as Firaxis have stated, after he left, civ3 defaulted to square one, more or less.

                      Sadly, Firaxis decided to do a pretty half arsed job on civ3, knowing they could cash in on the name. Activision mentality, anyone?

                      I think Yin is definately right when he says Firaxis should have stayed as a smaller, focused company. And they should have left civ3 in the hands of taggers along (Morris and Co.) Sid should have overseen his baby and made sure it didn't get raped again (as if it hadn't hadn't happened enough already with the CTP series).

                      But I guess the pile of money Sid sleeps on every night clears his concious sufficently for each new working day.
                      If the voices in my head paid rent, I'd be a very rich man

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Zanzin
                        Also, you've gotta remember a certain project called "Dinos". After that failed, and Firaxis had no doubt poured a fair bit of money into it (people don't work for free), they were in desperate need of a sucessful hit. What could garentee them this more than a new Civilization game? Ofcourse, civ3 was being worked on at the same time as Dinos, but by Brian Reynolds. And, as Firaxis have stated, after he left, civ3 defaulted to square one, more or less.

                        Sadly, Firaxis decided to do a pretty half arsed job on civ3, knowing they could cash in on the name. Activision mentality, anyone?

                        I think Yin is definately right when he says Firaxis should have stayed as a smaller, focused company. And they should have left civ3 in the hands of taggers along (Morris and Co.) Sid should have overseen his baby and made sure it didn't get raped again (as if it hadn't hadn't happened enough already with the CTP series).

                        But I guess the pile of money Sid sleeps on every night clears his concious sufficently for each new working day.
                        Sad but true.
                        However, I wouldn't go so far as to compare Civ3 to ctp. Really, how EVIL can you be!
                        Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
                        Waikato University, Hamilton.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well, this is the point, of course. A good number of people felt it was just fine out of the box.


                          Me! me!

                          --

                          Anyway, do not underestimate the effects of losing half of the team (and very important members of said team) in the middle of the gaming process. There is a reason that Civ3 is less like SMAC and Civ2 and more like Civ1. I think if BR and co stayed, you would have seen a more SMAC-like Civ3. Remember, even though the team left, I bet they still had a deadline to make (remember Infrograms isn't even the company that is Firaxis' normal publisher), that didn't change when the company did.
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                            Well, this is the point, of course. A good number of people felt it was just fine out of the box.

                            Me! me!

                            --

                            Anyway, do not underestimate the effects of losing half of the team (and very important members of said team) in the middle of the gaming process. There is a reason that Civ3 is less like SMAC and Civ2 and more like Civ1. I think if BR and co stayed, you would have seen a more SMAC-like Civ3. Remember, even though the team left, I bet they still had a deadline to make (remember Infrograms isn't even the company that is Firaxis' normal publisher), that didn't change when the company did.
                            Well I find Civ3 to be a great improvement over Civ 2 but I still need a fix to the Corruption problem!
                            Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
                            Waikato University, Hamilton.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well, this is the point, of course. A good number of people felt it was just fine out of the box.


                              Why are you here?!?!

                              The only reason Apolyton exists is a bunch of us "whiners"

                              Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
                              Waikato University, Hamilton.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X