Galactic Civilization

Create account
Login
Downloads
NewsGroup
Community
Purchase
Galactic Forum
Strategies
Mods
Empires
Do you still think GalCiv 1 is fun even with GalCiv II out?
758 votes
1- Yes
2- No


re poll: Would you pre-order on-line a Master of Magic 2?
  Search:   
Go to Bottom         Go to Bottom
#75  by Citizen PherdnutChiken - 7/6/2004 2:10:24 PM

Hmm... That actually seems like a pretty strong response given how many people typically post here.

#76  by Veteran Solo4114 - 7/6/2004 2:28:40 PM

SC3/4 (I'D call it 3 since I'd rather ignore the 3rd one) would indeed be a real challenge. Anyone left who is a fan of the series is more likely a fan more of #2 (and 1, of course) and probably is rather opposed to #3 or just outright hates it.

From what I understand, there's still some legal issues to sort out between Toys for Bob (Fred and Paul) and Accolade/Infogrames/Atari's ownership of various intellectual properties. Infogrames still holds the trademark for Star Control games, but if my info is accurate, Fred and Paul own the copyrights exclusively -- meaning no sequels of the game content. Meaning no Spathi, Chmmr, Arilou, etc., no ships looking like the old ships, no references to old plot lines, no discussion of the precursors as depicted in the previous games, etc.

Unless Fred and Paul licensed Accolade to make sequels as WELL as the trademarks (in which case I'd advise them to sue their old lawyer for malpractice), any sequel would either have to secure the right to make a derivative work from the originals, base the game on NOTHING by way of content from the previous three games (which kind of defeats the purpose of doing a sequel in the first place), or get ready for a lawsuit.

      
#77  by Citizen PherdnutChiken - 7/7/2004 5:49:08 PM

You know, I think you guys might be going about this the wrong way. If you asked the same question about Gal Civ 2, I think you might find people's approach to the idea of preordering a game they won't be seeing a screenshot of for at least a year, they'd be equally tentative.

#78  by Citizen Norlion - 7/7/2004 7:46:02 PM

Yes, MoM was the best thing since the PC itself. I popped by from MasterofMagic2.com. Galciv is great but Mom 2 would be awesome. I would definately pre-order MoM 2. I could probably get ten of my friends on board.

          
#79  by Veteran fsk5809 - 7/7/2004 8:05:42 PM

I think Stardock would be nuts to pay money for the "MOM2" brand name. I think you'd be better off spending that money on development instead. Call it "Master of Drengin" or "Magic Civilizations" or such and people will get the idea.

                      
#80  by Veteran Draginol - 7/7/2004 11:29:02 PM

fsk+ You reach the core issue.

Stardock WILL make a Civilization as fantasy style game after GalCiv 2. The question is whether it should be Master of Magic 2 or some new title.

#81  by Veteran Grand_Admiral_Thrawn - 7/7/2004 11:37:50 PM

I believe that from what I have seen there is a large demand for some old games to get a facelift. There is also demand for something better than Civilization III. From what I have heard, nobody trusts Atari to do anything credible at this point in time. So I think you have a market, but perhaps a unique game would be better, as you would not have the huge cost in rights to MoM2.

                      
#82  by Citizen HoopSnake - 7/8/2004 12:49:46 AM

Maybe the costs aren't that huge... I mean what's the point of sitting on these rights if they are never used.
Anyway - I like the name Magic Civilizations. That says it all really.
Oh - will GalCiv 2 come first or MagicCiv?
J.


            
#83  by Citizen Moser_Alchemist - 7/8/2004 1:50:34 AM

Stardock WILL make a Civilization as fantasy style game after GalCiv 2


This is the most important news to me at least. We KNOW a fantasy style strategy game will get made. My gut feeling is that putting your own stamp on the game by using your own name for the game would ultimately be best.

1) More resources for game development.

2) More freedom to take the best from MOM and similar games and dump their weaknesses.




[Message Edited]

                            
#84  by Veteran Solo4114 - 7/8/2004 10:22:34 AM

The costs to both the copyrighted info AND the trademarks will be significant. Atari's not stupid -- as soon as they figure out there's a market for this stuff, it's blood in the water for 'em, and puts them in a VERY favorable negotiating position. And licensing is ALL about who holds the power in negotiating, as my licensing professor used to say.

See, Atari CAN do it in-house and make money off of it. Even though MOO3 was basically panned, they KNOW they'll make their money back just because people will buy on the brand name alone. Now, the level of discerning consumers will come into play MORE with an older game like this (largely because the fan base will be rabidly loyal to the original and therefore pretty picky), but you KNOW if they slap MOM2 on the box, SOME people (and probably enough people by Atari's standpoint) will buy just for the name.

If Stardock is considering doing its own fantasy themed 4X game, I'd say screw the licensing. Just do your own game and do it right. Like you did with GalCiv. This way YOU own all the rights, YOU determine all the priorities regarding how, what, when, etc. in terms of development, and YOU get to keep all the money.

Under the circumstances, I'd bet Stardock could turn a better PROFIT from making its own game, even if it was able to generate more raw income from a MOM sequel (or other licensed property).

The OTHER major consideration is that by doing your own game, Stardock strengthens its own mark and reputation in the industry as a developer/publisher. If Stardock does an "MOM clone" style game, and does it well, it won't matter that it doesn't have MOM or Klackons or whoever in it.

Basically, ask yourselves this: did your business model for GalCiv work? Did you turn a nice profit? If so, follow the same model and figure that, even if it doesn't rake in gobs of cash, you are doing more for building "equity" in a sense in the value of the Stardock name.

Finally, there's always a downside to sequels -- namely high expectations from established fans (the folks you want to sell to the most). If you make your own game that simply has a similar theme to it (no rights violations there), nobody has any preconceived notions of what the game OUGHT to be, so you have less to worry about in terms of backlash.

My advice: do your own game and, to the extent that you can (don't know about this aspect of the industry) shop it around to publishers or distribute it purely through Dregin.net. You guys have a good thing going here, and it COULD become a model for the industry -- IE: small developers ignoring major distro/publishing companies (Activision, Atari, EA), and selling directly to the consumers. Personally I'm rooting for this model, as I tend to believe it gets you a less adulterated product, and one where the developers get to give you THEIR vision of the game, as opposed to EA or someone saying "Cut this. Our marketing research says people don't care about this feature. Oh, and have it ready for Christmas."

      
#85  by Citizen nazrix - 7/8/2004 12:02:13 PM

It may be more likely, but it isn't certain that Stardock make money doing there own thing. In business, and the games market, nothing is ever certain.

Btw, do you think people are stupid. Why DO you need to stress the OBVIOUS? All your points are BLOODY OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain. And you sound really ARROGANT.

#86  by Veteran Grand_Admiral_Thrawn - 7/8/2004 1:03:33 PM

Hey no need to insult people. We don't do that here.

Those were simply the big points that he laid out. He was expressing his own opinion. Don't flame people for that.

                      
#87  by Citizen PherdnutChiken - 7/8/2004 1:16:08 PM

Yikes! He's just a conversational typist without italics. Relax.

Anyhoo, I personally think MOM would be a hard game to top as IMO it hasn't happened yet. MOM's only weakness was that it was buggy and had a few exploits which is much less of a big deal in a single player game. My personal ideal would be an update with some new toys (some new races and spells etc..) and then a true sequel. This would give Stardock the chance to really soak their brains in the balance of the game and I have no concerns where their commitment to cleaning up Bugs, exploits, and balance issues are concerned.

Now, if Stardock were to do a fantasy game "in the spirit of" Master of Magic, you'd better believe I'd be interested in it. One of the things I would hate to lose from MOM though, is the combat system. The individual figures for each unit thing made the game a lot more interesting.

I've watched enough of Gal Civ to be impressed but the game won't be my fix for MOO 3 gone horribly wrong. It's simply not the same for me without the combat and ship design that made the other MOOs so enjoyable. I do plan on getting around to playing it when I finally get a PC again and my Homeworld 2 obsession has finally wained a bit, but who knows what other gaming crack may have grabbed my attention by then. I could easily see this being the same case for a MOM style game that wasn't quite the same thing as the inspiration thereof. Topping MOM is a huge challenge from where I stand. I have never enjoyed any fantasy strategy game as much as that one.

#88  by Veteran Solo4114 - 7/8/2004 3:10:26 PM

Yeah, since we don't have italics here, I tend to capitalize points that I stress, and I type the way it sounds in my head. Not trying to be arrogant or anything, just offering my opinion. If it's obvious to you, kudos. Great minds think alike.

I don't think people are stupid, though. I just hadn't seen those issues raised in the discussion thus far, so I figured I'd bring 'em up. Plus, most of what I write is just sort of free association/stream of consciousness. >shrug<

Anyway, Pherdnut brings up a good point in terms of the "it's good, but it's not [insert game title here]" issue. A quality sequel to MOO1 & 2 would certainly do well, if only because of the brand name and peoples' loyalty to that brand.

Same would go for an MOM sequel, I expect. A fantasy-themed game that wasn't an official MOM sequel might do well in terms of filling a void, but it could still be overshadowed by a well-done official sequel. The main advantage of actually licensing/buying the rights to the content and the marks would be that you corner the market.

The flipside of that is people who say "Well, yes, it's the official sequel, but it's not what I would've wanted in an official sequel." See Star Control 3 for an example of this. StarCon fans are STILL pissed about that to this day. Why? Because although it was the "official" sequel, it screwed up much of the original work that Fred and Paul had done -- in other words, it didn't live up to fans' expectations of what a sequel ought to be. Had that game been named "Alien Races" or something, and not involved any Star Control content, it might've been received much better. So, there's definitely a balancing act in terms of official sequel vs. "similarly themed."

Personally, since I never played MOM, I'd probably end up buying a sequel or a themed game, long as Stardock was the company doing it. Other fans who've had years to compile wishlists and build up expectations might react differently.

I guess it'll come down to a marketing strategy and Stardock's own risk vs. benefit assessment. They could eliminate competition buy effectively buying it out and taking it over, or they could figure that Atari will botch the job like they did with MOO3 and Stardock will again fill the void for gamers who fell that the "official sequel" doesn't quite match up.

I'll be interested to see what decision Stardock ends up making, either way, and since I'm not particularly wedded to MOM, I might change my vote from anti-pre-order to "yes" if they did a sequel.

      
#89  by Veteran fsk5809 - 7/8/2004 7:04:04 PM

Stardock could always go the "ID" route. They could make a good core engine, release it under a Stardock brand name, and THEN sell the rights to make a MOM2-skinned version of the game.

                      
#90  by Citizen nazrix - 7/9/2004 12:57:08 AM

Sorry. Stress got to me

#91  by Citizen nazrix - 7/9/2004 12:59:19 AM

The stress of waiting more than 10 years for MoM2

#92  by Citizen nazrix - 7/9/2004 1:02:56 AM

Solo4114, if you want to try MoM, you can download it at underdogs.org. You gotta try it, if only to find out what the fuss is about

#93  by Citizen aliss77777 - 7/9/2004 10:24:03 AM

I would preorder MoM2. I would pre-order 10 copies if it got Stardock to make this game.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!! MoM is the best fantasy strategy game of all time! I still play it a lot now. How come no one has made a remake of this game yet?

please stardock, make this game! you will be very popular. "women will want to get to know you."

#94  by Citizen nazrix - 7/9/2004 11:19:48 AM

There are plenty of remakes.
Check out the links page of
http://www20.brinkster.com/kadirclan/ Link
It lists remakes, some near completion, some barely begun

#95  by Citizen MartialDoc - 7/9/2004 1:55:27 PM

MoM 2 is an awesome idea. If these guys decide to go with it, though, they'd better stick pretty close to the original if you ask me. I really like Gal Civ except for the combat. I like controlling units in battle.
If they are to remake it, I hope that they dabble a bit with the races and magic but use the same spheres of magic and races as in the original.
A multiplayer is a must, too. Better AI than the original (that's a given). And a trade system similar to that in Gal Civ. Not complex but enough to make a difference in the game.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

      
#96  by Citizen LDiCesare - 7/10/2004 2:52:12 PM

Solo: Did anyone point out that making successfully 'MoM2' would mean more sales, if not more profit, than, say, 'Elemental'. This means more people would know Stardock and more would be likely to buy Stardock's following games, thus better long term profit.

                      
#97  by Citizen Ellestar - 7/10/2004 3:53:06 PM

Solo: Did anyone point out that making successfully 'MoM2' would mean more sales, if not more profit, than, say, 'Elemental'. This means more people would know Stardock and more would be likely to buy Stardock's following games, thus better long term profit.

I agree. IMHO it's more important to make a sequel. Almost every old TBS player will buy MoM2 sooner or later if it will be a good game. Also, it's a good PR for Stardock.

         
#98  by Veteran Solo4114 - 7/11/2004 10:17:03 AM

Oh, absolutely. If Stardock did make a successful sequel, it'd absolutely boost its name in the industry. Assuming they manage to please the long-time fans, or assuming that they make a great game on their own, it's a win-win. Ultimately, as long as they have creative control and thus get the credit for development, either scenario turns out well, with the MOM2 scenario turning out probably better because of the strength of the MOM brand (as you've said, more sales that way).

What I'm focusing more on is the scenario where Stardock makes a great game, but the long-time fans end up feeling like it just isn't an "official" sequel (or at least wishing it wasn't). Imagine that MOO3 had been a great game. I mean a well put-together game that was legitimately fun (I haven't played it, but everyone I've talked to and most of the reviews I've read suggests that it isn't). Now imagine that the fans reacted by saying "Well, yeah, it's ok, but it should've had features X, Y, and Z, and I really didn't like how they did Q, and anyway, the original was better. Just give me updated graphics."

Despite the enthusiasm I've seen on this board for the project, there's still a hint of this type of reaction, even within this thread. Some players are already saying "Oh, I'd want them to keep this and that, and just fix the bugs and update the graphics and sound." Others seem interested in seeing what new ideas Stardock would bring to the game (though, perhaps I'm putting words in their mouths). And this is a pretty harmonious board, all things considered.

All I'm saying is it's a risk that must be calculated. From my own intellectual property perspective, I want to OWN as much of the rights to anything I make as is possible. But that's me looking at things from a more long-term and decidedly legal-oriented perspective, rather than a business perspective focusing on, say, the next three quarters.

      
#99  by Citizen Tarvok - 7/11/2004 2:58:25 PM

I would like to offer a counterpoint to the people who argued that "it's all about the mechanics" and "screw the name, just make the game." I, for one, am hungering for a true MOM sequal, not a "MOM inspired" "fantasy themed civ like" game. I want to see the same roster of magicians. I want to see my old friends, the Heroes and Champions. If I don't see Bagtru the Orc Warrior, Warrax the Chaos Mage, and Torin the Chosen One, I'll go berserk!

Okay, not really. But I want multiple-unit combat, the simple city management system (please, no "by square" population allocation), and above all, THE COLOR. Color color color—I am absolutely mad for color in games, and was very depressed during the nineties, when "dark" was all the rage. (Can we get more blue light and shades of gray, red, or brown in here?)

I'm too old to get excited about a totally new set of characters. I'm about to download the demo for GalCiv and give it a try, and if I'm pleased (and without MOO's captains, governors, races, and COLOR, I may not be), I just might get on board for a non-MOM fantasy-themed civstyle, but certainly not enough to preorder. If you guys can get the rights to MOM and start developing (and I share another poster's concerns about Atari deciding to sit on the licence), I am preordering THE DAY you make the preorder available.

<<   <-   1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 8 9 10   ->   >> 
   Page 4 of 16   

Go to Top    Go Back to Message Board    Go to Top
To be able to post something you have to become a member
Click here!



Copyright 1995-2021 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.