Who agrees with this.

[AnubisWoD]

Originally posted by Bleyn


I just looked at the credits, copyright agreements, license agreements and all of that on Civ3. Even called up the game real quick. All of them are quite clear that Infogrames is the owner of Civ these days, not Firaxis. The only thing I saw Firaxis having rights to was their own company name.

Sure Sid originally made Civ when he was at Microprose. But he didn't own it even then. And when he left to form Firaxis, Civ did not go with him.

Same is true for MoO. QuickSilver did not, does not, and has never owned MoO. They are just a developer.

Bleh, they should have been like Microsoft to IBM and demanded they keep the rights to the things they create er i means "get"

[AnubisWoD]

Wait, on the Autorun it said that Sid Meyers Civilization Civ and Civilization are registered trademarks of Firaxis. So they can do whatever they want with those names. Infograms only owns the current game by contract, and then they only own the release, not the patchs.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper


American car manufacturers have already explored that option. Then came the Japanese Lesson. But then comparing cars and games is an exercise fraught with its own problems. Most people have a clue about what makes a car great, for instance.

Good point, and many who think they know what makes a great game seem to forget that different people like different things, so what may be perfect to you will not be so or someone else.

We don't know about Moo3 for sure yet, but Civ3 sure was rush. Howerver, many of the things that made Civ3 unplayable were clearly design decisions and not artifacts of rushing. No amount of time would've fixed city flippin' for instance, once they've decided that was a good idea.

Hmm, rushed? Maybe a litle, but city flipping was not a rush or any sort, nor a broken design flaw. See there is a little thing called culture, if you don't buil;d any, if you only know how to play via ICS for example, then you won'tr have culture and will lose cities. It's a simple concept.

Just because something doesn't fit your style of play doesn't mean it's broken or bad, unless of course you think your opinion is the only correct one or you can't or won't adapt to change.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Hmm, rushed? Maybe a litle, but city flipping was not a rush or any sort, nor a broken design flaw.

We agree city flippin' isn't a rush artifact, I wrote as much. I still suggest it's simply bad design, and the overwhelming majority seems to agree. As do Firaxis, since they've patched it so it's workable these days...

See there is a little thing called culture, if you don't buil;d any, if you only know how to play via ICS for example, then you won'tr have culture and will lose cities. It's a simple concept.

Simply not true. I am a builder and always out-culture everbody else by a wide margin. But factors such as distance to capital and number of "othercultured" adjacent square still made cities flip regularly.

[Garth Vader]

You seem to indicate that city flipping has been patched to the level where its workable. That indicates that proper play testing and balancing could have corrected it before first release.

[moomin]

I don't think they realized people wouldn't like the whole concept. Propbably they imagined that more people where like Ozzy and would cotton to random flippin'.

A closed or open beta would probably have caught that, but I doubt the designers would have done so by themselves, no matter how much time they were given.

[Skanky Burns]

If they put more effort into accurately planning in the first place, they wouldn't be in a "6 months till the game is complete, 1 month of development money left" situation.

Civ unfortunately didn't have a chance - losing 3 months of development due to B.R. leaving.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
If they put more effort into accurately planning in the first place, they wouldn't be in a "6 months till the game is complete, 1 month of development money left" situation.

Civ unfortunately didn't have a chance - losing 3 months of development due to B.R. leaving.

Maybe he saw this coming and bailed?

[Skanky Burns]

Civ 3 was a much better game 6 months after release than at its release, from some staff at Firaxis working on the game. Having the whole team with 3 months extra, I'm quite sure that the release of the game would have been of a much higher standard.

But thats just speculation.

[IncreduloDriver]

Just to clear things up, Firaxis does not own Civilization or any other trademarks. In this case, Infogrames owns Civilization and asked Firaxis (back when Infogrames was Hasbro) to make Civ3. Just take a look at your MGE CD. It lists extensive copyright and trademark information right on the CD, all of which belong(ed) to Hasbro. Never had Civ belonged to Sid.

The same is true for MOO. MPS owned the TM since the first, and it got passed down to Hasbro and eventually to Infogrames. Infogrames (then Hasbro) *asked* QS to develop it. QS has no control over the name.

As for poor little Civ, if I were some powerful guy at Infogrames, I'd be asking Firaxis right now why they weren't able to get a *complete* Civ3 out on time and on budget, and I'd be at least auditioning new developers for Civ4. It hurts Infogrames' reputation just as much as it hurts Firaxis' when incomplete beta products with bugs and gameplay balance issues galore get released as full versions. I'm just speculating, but I'll bet somebody at Firaxis got chewed out for the whole fiasco.

Civ4 without Sid & the Firaxis team isn't really that frightening to me. I just hope QS manages to pull off a good MOO3.

[Mellian]

me thinks the people in this forum are pretty negative concerning Civ3 and Moo3 I don't see much point in being overlly critical for nothing...as it just makes thingsless fun.

-Mellian

[moomin]

Well, Mel, ya know what they say... once bitten twice shy.