copyright limitations related to CTP

[TCO]

To what extent are (were) the Civ3 designers constrained from copying things from CTP? I.e. both concepts and specific items (wonders, etc.)

[Crouchback]

It was the otherway round, hence CTP2 had to drop "Civilization" from the title and Activision couldn't use any of the Civ2 wonders in their products. The original licence was owned by Microprose when Sid was over there, who were bought by Hasbro who brought in Sid's latest company Firaxis, before they succumbed to Infogrames. It made CTP rather strange, full of unknown wonders and odd units.

David

[Earthling7]

The Pennicilin would be a great minor wonder and the Hagia Sophia is a wonder by any standards. Still, I wonder, how can you copyright the Pyramids?

[Dauphin]

Activision couldn't use any of the Civ2 wonders in their products

I still don't get that. Key wonders such as the seven wonders of the world should not have been copyrighted. I understand that the effects and the implementation may be required to be different. But Sid did not own the rights to the wonders of the ancient world. (Sorry to disappoint a lot of you )

[Mars]

It makes me think that they did a good job for the limitations imposed on them. (fans calling it crap cuz sid didn't make it, complexity, limitations on names and coming up with new units) you try making a good game with all that against you

[Crouchback]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Quote:

Activision couldn't use any of the Civ2 wonders in their products

I still don't get that. Key wonders such as the seven wonders of the world should not have been copyrighted. I understand that the effects and the implementation may be required to be different. But Sid did not own the rights to the wonders of the ancient world. (Sorry to disappoint a lot of you )

No, Mircroprose owned the civilization name and the "look and feel" of the first two games. There was a large court battle which got settled out of court just before the release of C:CTP1 that allowed Activision to use the civilization on the first game but not the second and prevented them from using the same wonders amongst other things.

David

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by Mars
It makes me think that they did a good job for the limitations imposed on them. (fans calling it crap cuz sid didn't make it, complexity, limitations on names and coming up with new units) you try making a good game with all that against you

hear, hear... Right you are. It's sad, really. I say, if Sid retires from Civ after this one, allow others to try. Let's hope that CtP3 is good. I'd buy it if the feedback was positive.

[Grumbold]

You'd have to study the contractual fine print to know what the exact limitations were. If hundreds of companies can come up with seemingly identical RTS games I'd be surprised if Microprose could put a copyright on the Pyramids if the basic idea of 'Wonders' was allowed to be duplicated. CtP needed to be a bit different to justify a new game. In the same way CtP did not invent anything for their game except a bit of future tech so I don't see how they could prevent Firaxis using stuff like clerics or army stacks if they wanted to.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Earthling7

hear, hear... Right you are. It's sad, really. I say, if Sid retires from Civ after this one, allow others to try. Let's hope that CtP3 is good. I'd buy it if the feedback was positive.

I really doubt there will be a CTP3 given the poor sales and orphaning of CTP2. Unfortunate really, but there you have it. And frankly, I bet Sid want to do non-civ projects but keeps getting pulled back in. Its guaranteed money in the bank. Who wants a Dinosaur game anyway?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wonders were not copyrighted by Microprose as a result of the deal.

[MarkG]

activision didnt loose the civilization title for ctp2

it's just the original deal with microprose was for one game only, and that was civ:ctp

no official has made any mention on design limitations. in fact, the ctp team was quite into development when the deal was made. activision was making a civ game anyway

[Dida]

Originally posted by Crouchback
It made CTP rather strange, full of unknown wonders and odd units.

David

I think that's a plus. A new game should have some new elements in it.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MarkG


no official has made any mention on design limitations.

There was a "lack of announcements" but not an announcement that there were no design limits. Capiche, Marky Mark?

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Mars
It makes me think that they did a good job for the limitations imposed on them.

I can't agree here. The people who made CTP 1 & 2 didn't fail because of limitation they failed because they did bit off more than they could chew. The designers seemed to think that just by adding sea/space colonies, more techs, more wonders, more units that the game would just fall into place and be great. They obviously didn't realize how hard it is to blend all the elements of a game to make it great. In the end, the CTP series represented a lot of good ideas thrown together haphazardly to make a mess.

(fans calling it crap cuz sid didn't make it, complexity, limitations on names and coming up with new units)

I don't remember anyone saying it was crap because Sid never made it. I do remember people saying IF Sid had made CTP1 or 2 the game wouldn't have been crap or perhaps more rightly, not as crappy.
As far as CTP 1 and 2 being more complex it was the designers were the ones who made the CTP series this wasy. It's their fault if they couldn't pull it off. As far as coming up with new units Sid did it in Civ1. Brian Reynolds did it in Civ2 and SMAC. They didn't have any trouble. Why did the designers of CTP1/2 find this such a tough task???????

you try making a good game with all that against you

If they were so many "perceived" barriers to making a GOOD game why did they do it? Why start unless your going to make a GOOD game? I think they started out with a lot of grand ideas but realized too late that the game would not work as hoped but decided to push it out the door anyway (shame on them) with the PR blazing. They didn't have anything against them the design team/game company just lacked the vision and commitment to make it work.

I think the CTP 1 and 2 games and crew deserved every criticism aimed at them. They pumped up these games as being spectacular when they knew they couldn't deliver. Besides, with the game prices as high as they are today and PR flying like it does the game buyer has every right to trash a company/design team that doesn't deliver!

PS: don't know what happened with the "quotes" but hopefully this makes sense.

[cassembler]

Yeah copyright laws are kinda fuzzy- I'm sure both sides have "cosen their battles" so to speak about what to "borrow" form each other.

I could see how one could copyright a type of unit in a game, though I think they'd have to be pretty damn unique... Like the Starship Enterprise, unique to Star Trek (I think).

But seriously, how many games have goblins or dwarves?
"The Pyramids" probably couldn't be copyrighted, though "Leonardo's Workshop" probably can be, because it's a created title to something...

Any laywers in the forum?

[connorkimbro]

what happened with the quotes is you wrote them wrong. the end quote should look like [ / quote ] minus the spaces.

[TCO]

cassembler, capiche. What I want to know is how copyright concerns infleunced the design.
Wether from hard cores resrtrictions, negotiated settlements or just "picked battles".

[Skanky Burns]

Simpleton, Try this format:
[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Or if unsure, press the quote button above where you type

[Simpleton]

Thanks for the quote help everyone. I've done quotes right before but I guess my brain must still be on vacation!

Thanks to your help I've fixed the post.

[Moral Hazard]

Actually Mark, I remember one of the designers saying that they couldn't have a throne room for legal reasons.

There are definitely restrictions on what a game system can borrow from another game system. For example CTP couldn't use the Civ's method of resources they did however use a similar method, but they couldn't use an identical method. Using similar methods is a grey area, take Wizards of the Coast's (AD&D) recent suit against Verant (Everquest); not sure what happened there.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by Grumbold
In the same way CtP did not invent anything for their game except a bit of future tech so I don't see how they could prevent Firaxis using stuff like clerics or army stacks if they wanted to.

Not quite true. I still prefer the PW system of CtP, and the trade system was a great improvement.

Whatever happens, I would hate to see a Sid monopoly on Civ games. I am aware that though Activision came up with some really interesting ideas, the games weren't great. But we must not get into a situation where we need to wait at least five years for the next title because Firaxis has the same power as Microsoft...

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Earthling7


Not quite true. I still prefer the PW system of CtP, and the trade system was a great improvement.

Whatever happens, I would hate to see a Sid monopoly on Civ games. I am aware that though Activision came up with some really interesting ideas, the games weren't great. But we must not get into a situation where we need to wait at least five years for the next title because Firaxis has the same power as Microsoft...

Hear, hear! PW system was great, as was their trade system, as were unconventional units. A decent AI was all CTP2 lacked. After CTP2's sales though, I wouldn't expect anything too civish from another developer for awhile. Besides, the kids are all into real time now.

[Zanzin]

CTP1, and it's sequel, CTP1.25, were abysmal pieces of shite. Admiteddly, CTP 1 wasn't all bad - but it gets it reputation ruined by CTP "2" - which, in effect, was exactly the same game as CTP1 - except we had to pay for it again, the AI was actually worse, the graphics were more or less the same, and they cut out the alien end game. In many respects, CTP2 was worse than CTP1 - infact, going on what usually happens in the games industry, CTP2 should have come out first - because it was the poorer of the two titles, and technologically inferior.

Sorry, still angry with Activision. I want my money back.

[Solver]

The main thing I disliked about CtP series was stacking. I prefered Civ 2/SMAC combat model way over that. Civ 3 army concept seems nice with me, though.
I also think that CtP just lacked Sid. Civ 1,2 and SMAC just have that feeling probably given by presence of Sid, while both CtPs lack that.
Also, it has to be said, that CtP 2 is a terrible game out of the box - AI is even worse than one of Civ 2, though with Medieval Pack it's a very cool game.

Oh, and almost forgot - there will not be CtP 3, it's official, and confirmed by Activision good time ago.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Earthling7
Not quite true. I still prefer the PW system of CtP, and the trade system was a great improvement.

Whatever happens, I would hate to see a Sid monopoly on Civ games. I am aware that though Activision came up with some really interesting ideas, the games weren't great. But we must not get into a situation where we need to wait at least five years for the next title because Firaxis has the same power as Microsoft...

They changed the way tile improvements and trade worked but the concepts of improving tiles and establishing trade existed. Similarly they added proper armies to combat but kept the A/D/M system traditional to wargames and greatly expanded the unconventional unit list and other areas. I am not saying nothing good came from CtP. A lot of improvements were made that sadly did not quite come together into a superior whole. Had CtP2 been more polished and managed to achieve commercial success then perhaps we would see many other developers attempting to find an opening in the genre. Many would fail but one or two truly new and good games would have emerged. Competition is a good thing, even if it only serves to make sure Sid/Firaxis don't rest on their laurels.

[hexagonian]

It's not so much a question of new features so much as its a question of the perceptions of those new feaures and having the name 'Sid' behind them. Most players are looking forward to the new additions in civ3 - if Firaxis had merely changed the graphics, then there would of been a HUGE howl of protest over the lack of innovation. (And there are currently some howls that they should of gone farther in pushing the envelope).

Innovation is a good thing, and to criticize the CTP series because it had taken a different approach to many of the basic concepts is unfair. After all, people's perceptions are often based on trying to retain the feeling that they had when they first played civ1 or civ2 - and that feeling often takes a conservative approach that does not want to deviate at all from the formula.

For instance, if civ3 had been released before CTP, and Sid/Brian had decided to incorporate unconventional units, then I bet that most fans would of accepted that concept as revolutionary and very cool. It's the same with many of these new features being promoted in civ3. If you look closely, there are a lot of concepts from the CTP series that have made their way into civ3, yet few here are willing to admit that the CTP influence is a positive thing - and you can safely bet that Firaxis did take a look at many of the concepts from CTP as a basis for their decisions - their execution of these concepts may be different, but not necessary superior.

Thing such as:
- Stacked combat
- Unit support costs payed on a global scale
- Captured Workers/Settlers converted into your own new workers (CTP slavery)
- Minor Wonders similar in concept to CTP2 Feats of Wonders (emphasis on the word concept though)
- Leaders - (implimented in CTP2 Activision Scenarios and fan-created Mods)
- More civs - (easily implimented in CTP1 via a text file edit, but not at all possible in civ until civ3 - and in fact CTP can support up to 32 civs at one time)

The slaving concept in CTP has actually deeper, because not only could you capture slaves, but your food costs for slavery were less - (a reflection of history) and owning slaves carried a built-in risk (loss of a slave city due to revolt if not properly garrisonned and the dangers of not getting Emancipation Proclaimation).

Likewise, I thing that stacked combat is actually better thought out in the CTP series, from a playabilty standpoint (for instance, the ability to stack all units and move them as a single entity for ALL units is not present in civ3). In fact civ3 may very well boil down to a race to be able to build an army first (the race to tanks concept), but this is speculation at this point in time, so I cannot say with any certainty which setup will be superior.

There are features of civ3 which are very promising (unit resources, culture), but I think these features are as more of an evolutionary process that comes about because civ3 is now the most current release of a civ-style TBS game.

CTP had its flaws, but its as much due to the skill of current players and their ability to master these types of games at a much quicker rate due to past gaming experience as it is due to design flaws within the game.

[Earthling7]

hexagonian, I agree with you. I was never the biggest supporter of Activision, but it saddens me that they are out. I can only hope that others will try.

I am sure that Civ3 will borrow quite a bit from CTP. Civ2 was not much more than a graphical overhaul over Civ1, some features even removed. CtP broke the ice, took the concept further, and now Civ3 does the same. Innovation can only be a good thing.

If we so desperately want to keep Civ 1 and 2, then why bother with further releases? If people want to play Civ1, let them. If they are ready for innovation and new features, then let's embrace Civ3 and whatever the future brings.

[Madine]

I agree that CTP gets an undeserved bad rap.

Stacked combat allowed numerical superiority to be better reflected. It also emphasized having a balanced attack force more.

The ai is weak, but is it worse than SMAC?

[Myrddin]

CTP2 out of the box was poor, but the mods made it interesting.

Civ3 seems too close in concept to Civ2 with few major new features and my guess is that it has been designed to be an 'accessible' game to attract a new generation to Civ style games, and in particular, an average game will be short.

How much I will play will probably depend on how much mods will add to the game with new ideas, units techs etc - could each Age be expanded to the same scale as the original design?

[cassembler]

Civ2 was not much more than a graphical overhaul over Civ1

I somewhat agree with this statement, though I think it had enough improvements to make it a Civ2 vs a Civ1 Gold.
I feel the same about Civ3. I think it's been expanded enough to be able to call it Civ3.
Didn't think so about CTP2, though I did enjoy CTP1 for quite some time right out of the box.