Tweet
[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):
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.
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.
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.
Comment