One thing I will say positive about Acti, as I pointed out in my Making of BC vid on my live-video page, is that they have the money and resources to do full scale productions. However, in all my dealings with them, I find them to be clueless when it comes to knowing what they should be making...and what they think gamers want. They really have shifted focus in the last eight years to the "Broad Appeal" business model. Games like Interstate 76 aren't made there anymore, and all in house development has been suspended for many years now. They buy companies like EA and simply stripmine the licenses they own. The exception to that rule are companies that have creative autonomy in their contracts...such as Raven and ID. The licenses that have really kept them afloat all these years have been Doom, Quake, Spider Man, Tony Hawk and in some cases Star Trek as well. But the biggest Star Trek successes they had in terms of the quality of the games was due solely in my mind to the developers. In House Team - Armada 1, Raven - Elite Force, Totally Games - Bridge Commander. The rest of the Trek titles...Away Team, Hidden Evil, Stafleet Command III, Invasion and the like weren't all that great...but thats my opinion of course.
I would say that Interplay turned out just as many titles that were hits financially and with the fans as Acti. The business model at Acti usually consists of - interfere with development, take tons of useless focus groups, marketing profiles, push the title out no later than Quarter 4 for shareholder portfolio and finally fire the team responsible for making the product no matter how good or bad it was to make a cleaner looking balance sheet.
If Raven or ID or Valve or Blizzard let go of each team after completing a project...then gambled on whether they could get them back after leaving them in limbo while deciding whether or not to make a sequel for three months...they wouldn't have gotten very far.
Interstate 82 was a great example of this. No one who was involved with I76 was involved, and the game lacked the magic of the original. Starfleet Command was made originally by Interplay and Quicksilver...so all the sequels in my mind are based on that work, so its not necessarily re-inventing the wheel.
With Interplay I can remember...25th Anniversary, Judgement Rights, Klingon Academy...I also remember Spectrum Holobyte making A Final Unity. I think and honestly believe that...if you make a quality product...no matter how long you take, it will be successful. Example...my favorite company...Blizzard. They have delayed games to get the balance and gameplay perfect before release...they have even cancelled whole projects that they felt weren't meeting their quality standards. At Acti, they would take a substandard product that they know is lacking and say, "ship it...lets see how much return we can get for what we put into it". Blizzard doesn't do that...because they know that ultimately it will damage their reputation and standing...and more importantly the "faith" they've garnered in the gaming community. The minute you abuse consumer faith in your product...you're on the downslope.
I would agree however that Acti did make some really fun games in the past. I really liked Interstate 76, Muppet Treasure Island, Mechwarrior 2, Heretic II, Elite Force, Battlezone 1 and 2, Armada 1, Twinsens Odyssey and Bridge Commander (-: There are probably a few more though I can't think of any at the moment. Its a big company with the second largest distribution in the world for games...they're bound to have successes. But they've also had their share of failures and...dissapointments.
Bethesda is known for taking risks and actually blazing new trails in development. Things that Acti would never attempt to do, and ironically they have so much more money to work with than Bethesda. Bridge Commander was a project that Larry Holland and his team devised - began work on - then took it to Acti to pitch and they picked it up. Same for Raven and Elite Force. So it isn't so much Acti always coming up with good ideas, as they were the ones who were controlling the license during that period - right place, right time. Armada 1 was a sci-fi RTS similar to Dark Reign that was already in development at Acti before they got the Trek license. When they acquired it, they simply decided to shift the focus of that RTS by dropping in Star Trek units and having Patrick and others voice the cut-scenes - opportunity knocked.
Bethesda had to make Legacy to obtain the license...the two were linked. So I wouldn't say that's all they are capable of...I'd be more inclined to say that they and Maddoc were handed a mess...and they made the best of it they could. That game had been cancelled three times and was previously in development at Acti if that gives you any idea. I think we can look forward to some positive things coming out of Bethesda in the future...now that they have a blank canvas from which to begin work. And personally...I loved doing Tactical Assault with Quicksilver...great game and really was fun to play. Its on a handheld is the only drawback...but it was designed really well for a handheld game. But thats Quicksilver for you...quality and they always put their best foot forward.
If anyone would like to publish this novel I've written please let me know, (-: I hadn't actually intended it to be this long but my writers typing skills just went to town, lol.
