Jagged Alliance is in a dire need of good luck. One of the best strategy series of the 1990s, which is still used as reference material by many developers, aspiring and mature alike, faced numerous problems upon entering the third millennium. The bug-fest that was Jagged Alliance 2, bankruptcies of two (and if you count Interplay — three) its publishers, cancellation of Sir-Tech's version of JA3, ownership changes…
A year ago, many thought that the sad story would soon reach its happy ending. Strategy First managed to stabilize its condition, while MiST land seemed finally on track to deliver a solid game.
Or so we believed. Alas, that was just an illusory reprieve, a brief intermission in a frustratingly drawn-out drama called «The Birth of Jagged Alliance 3D». In September 2005, Moscow-based GFI lost the rights to develop Jagged Alliance 3 and Disciples 3. Nearly two weeks ago, a second lightning struck when Strategy First inexplicably terminated GFI's license to develop, publish and distribute JA3D. Neither party gave explanations.
Today, we're giving you an exclusive opportunity to see the conflict through two lenses at once, as well as a glimpse of what the future may hold for the much-maligned series. The view from Moscow is presented by Vitaly Shutov, GFI's head of PC product development. From Canada, an alternate take on things is offered by Richard Therrien, VP product development of SFI.
AG: Why did Strategy First pick MiST land to work on the next Jagged Alliance title? We heard that SFI was considering Nival, but that deal didn't work out for some reason.
Vitaly Shutov: I won't claim that someone else was taking part in tender to work on JA. It is rumored that other Russian companies also aspired to develop the game, but I can't comment on what conditions. MiST land was chosen thanks to several reasons. At that moment, we and SFI shared the same vision for the Jagged Alliance franchise, plus, they were our North American publisher for Cops 2170 and ALFA: Antiterror. Note that all this had happened before SFI got into financial difficulties.
So, they were publishing our tactical strategy games overseas and had their own brand of a tactical strategy game that they wanted to make a sequel to. Besides, Cops and ALFA were not the only common grounds for both companies — GFI published many SFI titles in Russia (distributed by Russobit-M). As you can see, all the necessary prerequisites for a successful jointly-developed project were there.
Richard Therrien: The deal was done with GFI. I was not personally involved in the signing of this deal but what I gather is that it was felt the early ALFA prototype showed to be promising and there was interest for both parties involved to get into a mutually beneficial agreement both on development and publishing.
AG: What was the original plan for the Jagged Alliance franchise to develop? What design document was used for Jagged Alliance 3D — the original work by the Sir-Tech development team, or a brand-new creation of either SFI or MiST land? In fact, was the Sir-Tech's design document for JA3 used at any point during the development process?
VS: We created the design document under the supervision of Strategy First. We were discussing all the details directly with them. The initial concept and vision of the game were suggested by SFI. Our task was to put some «meat» on the bones. We were offered to build on the stuff created by the team that tried to make JA3 before us, but there were no useable materials, so none of them went into our game.
RT: Basically, the design documentation was worked onto by me and Yaroslav Astakhov who was the project leader on Jagged Alliance 3D for MiST land — South at the time. He has left MiST land a good while ago.
The original design doc for JA3 was not directly used although I wished to include several items but the team felt these additions would make the project too ambitious or so I was told. Then again, we were supposed to get a JA2 game in 3D, not a JA3 game so I did not insist too much.
AG: There is a rumor that MiST land proposed a very drastic re-imagination of Jagged Alliance in a first version of the JA3D design document — it was more of a traditional RTS game, complete with large battlefields, light armored vehicles and artillery. Later, some of the ideas surfaced in another MiST land's game — Warfare. Can you either shoot down this rumor or confirm it?
VS: Yes, we planned to have long-range artillery, but it would be available only to enemy forces. They would be able to launch a strike if the player had failed to destroy artillery in an adjacent sector before taking on a next mission. We wanted playable tanks and some other vehicles. But we, as trite as it sounds, didn't have enough resources to pull that off, because it's really hard to realize this kind of stuff in a game where everything can be broken, destroyed or razed. That's why these ideas were saved for Jagged Alliance 3.
RT: I don't remember having been approached with a RTS model for JA3D. This is something they may have discussed internally and apparently did since they later came out with some sort of real-time version.
The idea that did come up was to have a 'smart pause' system fairly early on and MiST land's argument was that the game needed to evolve. To this I had to apply my veto, as I did not and do not want to have multiple Jagged Alliance games with different tactical rules and since the turn-based system of JA is not broken, I would rather build on it.
It is not unusual when a new developer gets to work on a known game system or franchise for them to tend to steer its essence in another direction. I guess this is one way of appropriating the project, marking it with one's own touch. It is probably a challenge too to deliver something that would outdo the original making it a different beast in the process.
I do not believe that just wanting to be different is the solution. The question to ask ourselves is not 'is it different' but 'is it better'. This would have been a radical departure from the known JA system rather than an evolutionary move. This was especially not a good idea, given that there was no true Jagged Alliance game that had been published in a long time.
The fans know that the original team is not working directly on the project and are looking at all this suspiciously. They are expecting a better, or at least an equally good Jagged Alliance game, not something else they could have gotten from another title out there.
I don't remember hearing about large maps with armoured vehicles. There was to be some fixed artillery in some maps, like mortars, but that does not sound like what you are describing. Having not seen Warfare, I cannot comment. It might have been built on top of what was done to create a real-time JA but only MiST land or GFI could give you the answer to this.
AG: When and why it was decided to have Africa as a setting for Jagged Alliance 3D?
VS: We had several ideas ranging from Latin America to the Middle East. In the end, we settled on Africa, since it was the closest match for the tropical setting of the original JA. It's hard to say whose idea it was. We were just sending various ideas to SFI, and this one got approved.
RT: This was MiST land's idea from early on and I had no problem going for it.
AG: Who came up with the idea of having JA3D in real-time with «smart pause»? Also, there were rumblings about using phase-based combat [like in ALFA or Combat Mission]. Was it actually on the board, given the fact that early incarnations of JA3D used a modified version of ALFA: Antiterror's engine?
VS: We had no plans to have phase-based battles in JA3D. The uncertainty with gameplay modes began when SFI filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During that time, the game switched several coordinators at Strategy First. Sometimes a person would write us a letter and then leave for another company shortly thereafter. We felt the project was almost on hold, because the news we were receiving contradicted each other. It was hard to tell what game we were making and for whom.
RT: I can't say who actually came up with the idea. All I can say is that I made it clear from the beginning that it was out of question. Initially, the game was supposed to be built over a modified Cops engine, at least which is what I was told. The choice to move over to a modified ALFA engine was even a surprise to me at the time and I do not believe I was all that comfortable with the idea. They were the ones who knew about their technology so I let them decide on this.
In any case, the only base I imagined that could be useful for a conversion to Jagged Alliance 3D would have rested in the rendering engine, not the logic, not the interface nor any other related game structure.
AG: Who and when decided to stick to a mission-based structure for JA3D? According to your post in the «MiST land Diaries» blog, it was Strategy First. So, who really made that decision and why?
VS: That was the initial plan. JA3D was conceived by SFI as a bridge between Jagged Alliance 2 and 3. The game was supposed to be developed using the Cops 2170 engine, and it would contain a few missions just to «warm up» the fans. I believe, at that moment, Strategy First were very impressed by good sales of Jagged Alliance 2: Wildfire in North America. They had a feeling that they should make another title under this brand (whatever that would be) as soon as possible, and then later do everything properly in JA3. Many lances were broken over this issue. And since, as I've said, SFI was a total mess at that time, sometimes we were basically working on two different projects, and sometimes not working at all.
AG: Jagged Alliance 3D in its recent E3 2006 incarnation was a different beast than Jagged Alliance 1 or 2 — for starters, it had a mission-based structure instead of an open-ended world. In a post in the « MiST land Diaries», PC development head of GFI Vitaly Shutov stated that it was SFI's decision to stick to missions. So, who really made that decision and why?
RT: Initially, this was supposed to be a short project, the main idea being to reproduce JA2 in 3D. The MiST land team, once faced with the prospect of creating a strategic layer for open play lamented that they could not realistically do this in the short time the project was supposed to last. I argued that it should be in the game but they succeeded in convincing me that they could not do it, at least for this project.
They wanted to go with the mission structure and that was part of a long stretch of discussions and negotiations between Yaroslav and me. I provided several alternatives to reach some in-between solution but I was consistently told that they lacked the resources and time to achieve any of them. Point in case, the game would not have had any random encounter. Basically, their platform did not support the mechanisms required to implement those possibilities.
They presented me with a structure that included some alternate scenarios that would branch out based on certain player decisions or actions. I thought that if the maps and contents were well enough constructed that it could still make for a worthwhile JA game.
I then finally conceded that we might have to stick to branching scenarios, provided that some space was left for replayability and that the whole of the Tactical system, the whole of the characters' profiling and interactions were accurately reproduced and balanced and that of course the wit and humor quality was in there. In simple words, I wanted the Jagged Alliance ambiance to remain intact.
It was certainly not my wish to go down that road from the beginning though.
One other point to which I conceded was the lesser number of MERCs to be involved.
In any case, this project ended up being much longer than initially hoped for. I do not believe in cheap and quick development. Bad evaluation of what is required to do a project, especially on the timeline, consistently leads people to cut corners and in the end, they end up having to try and fit square pegs in round holes and it ends up taking as long to complete than the larger version would have taken while quality takes a hit.
AG (to Vitaly Shutov): As far as we know, it was presumed that Jagged Alliance 3D would become the remake of JA2: Unfinished Business while JA3 would be *the* sequel. When did JA3D and JA3 switch places?
VS: I didn't quite get your «switched places» bit — no one switched. It's just that JA3D was a different beast than JA3, and we were working on realizing it step by step, until we were flooded with an endless stream of requests which effectively overridden the original idea.
AG (to Richard Therrien): When exactly did the project split into JA3D and JA3? As far as we know, it was presumed that Jagged Alliance 3D would become the remake of JA2: Unfinished Business while JA3 would be *the* sequel. What was the motivation behind this move and who did it come from — SFI or MiST land?
RT: SFI was behind this move and it was there right at the time of signing the agreements with GFI.
JA3D was, as stated earlier, meant to be Jagged Alliance 2 in 3D. It might have had an alternate storyline, making it some sort of UB in 3D. The lack of strategic layer cut that short anyway.
Jagged Alliance 3 was always meant to be the full-fledged sequel to Jagged Alliance 2 as you say.
The motivation was simple and straightforward:
Asking a studio to do the full Jagged Alliance 3 game from nothing meant a high risk for failure or at least a very long development cycle. The game would be a long way off and it made sense to segment the effort in two phases, both for economic and technical reasons.
If the first phase proved conclusive then the second effort could be built on top of the previous.
This should actually not be thought about as a split though but rather as a parallel effort.
Initially, since we were told that JA3D would use a modified Cops engine, it seemed reasonable that the project could be done in a reasonable amount of time. JA was much closer to Cops than to ALFA, well it seemed to me anyway. We hoped that a good Jagged Alliance tactical game would help revitalize the franchise and give a platform to then create a worthy JA3, also in a reasonable amount of time.
All of this made sense, so long as the end products are good.
AG: There are contradictory reports on who was running the show on Jagged Alliance 3D. According to GFI, the development team was under constant pressure from SFI, and the latter sometimes gave assignments that effectively annulled their previous orders. Was it really so?
VS: Yes, I have mentioned it above. The crux was that JA3D was originally conceived as a totally different game. The team we formed was not right for the requirements that we were given later by Strategy First. Right after SFI had solved their internal troubles and stabilized their condition, all guidelines changed. And that caused problems.
RT: I of course kept an acute eye over every version that was delivered and created reports pointing out the problems I could find and most often offering solutions or pointing out alternatives.
These basically dealt with everything such as missing elements and problems with implementation, from the visual aspect of the rendering to the interface and gameplay.
The 'orders' these reports may have gone against would not have been previous SFI 'orders' or recommendations. I think they may have been caught in between me and GFI. I often mentioned that I would not approve of a gold master unless I felt the game was finished and I was told that although what I wanted would make a better game, they were short on time since they were close to release.
The assignments were simple and had one main drive: that is to make this game truthful to Jagged Alliance. I did not want this game release before it was ready.
AG: How productive was the development process in general? Who had the final 'OK' or 'nay' on what goes in the game? Did MiST land put forward any ideas for JA3D that were subsequently axed by SFI? And vice versa, what (if any) was forced by SFI on MiST land?
VS: Naturally, Strategy First had the final say. We didn't put forward any feature-related ideas for JA3D. I.e., SFI gave specific requirements which we reflected in the design document. After that, we were green-lighted and went down to work. Some time later, our Canadian partners began making changes to the concept.
I think that when SFI was still in euphoria after JA2: Wildfire, they wanted to create a small but solid game and make some quick money. When euphoria wore off, they decided that they needed a bigger, AAA-title. Soon, the rights to JA3 were secretly bought off by another company, and JA3D was not fit in SFI's plans anymore.
This is the source of conflicting demands that were laid down by Strategy First — at times they wanted us to restart the whole project from scratch, or asked us to introduce features that would require massive investments from GFI (note that SFI did not finance the project).
RT: The development process appeared to be real slow. Communications were not optimal one could say. My understanding is that after Yaroslav's departure from MiST land, the team had been amputated, including the main programmer. I could see some progress for a while but at the rate things were going, I was projecting a good year more of work if 3D was to be properly balanced, polished and tested.
Basically, I had the final say. The ideas that were part of the design documentation that I approved were partly from MiST land and remained. The African premises, the mission based structure are examples. Those that were rejected, like the smart pause system did not make it into the documentation. The real-time version that came to me as a complete surprise was axed as soon as I heard about it. Beyond this, I always insisted on details that would insure the appropriate amount of polish would be included in the game.
AG: African Alliance was announced around the same time as JA3D became turn-based. What features were excised from the previously phase-based JA3D after such radical transformation? Do you know what caused AA to appear? Was this project sanctioned by Strategy First?
VS: African Alliance did not depend on SFI in any way. When relations between us and Strategy First were still going well, there were plans that our overseas partners would publish AA in North America. At least, SFI showed some interest. However later, that project got canned, and some of its material made its way into JA3D, some was simply thrown away. The cancellation helped Jagged Alliance 3D rather than harmed it.
RT: Just to make things clear, it was never the plan to have a phased-based nor a real-time JA3D. We never sanctioned African Alliance and we were not informed of it before the announcement.
AG: Initially, GFI were supposed to work on Jagged Alliance 3D and Jagged Alliance 3. However, a year ago, the latter was dropped in favor of another Russian developer. We can't help but wonder as to why… Did MiST land have any concrete stuff on JA3 to show to SFI?
VS: The trick is that JA3 and JA3D were developed under the same contract. So, one can't lose the JA3 license and continue working on JA3D. Moreover, SFI informed us about their intention to terminate the agreement only in late August, so we haven't even prepared our response (by the time stipulated in the agreement) when our partners unexpectedly issued the infamous press-release.
Before that, we were officially working on both Jagged Alliance games in full accordance with the agreement. When we found out that JA3 was being developed by another Russian company (and we found out that quickly enough, since we have a good knowledge of our local market), we asked SFI's president a direct question if that was true. His reply was, «I will neither confirm nor deny this».
That is when we began wondering if JA3D would ever be completed… at least under that title. At the same time, we stopped working on JA3.
So, to recap: the agreement in question refers to two projects — Jagged Alliance 3 and Jagged Alliance 3D. You cannot revoke one license without revoking another.
RT: MiST land never had anything concrete to show us for Jagged Alliance 3. They did mention from time to time that they had ideas for it though but I would then tell them to forget about JA3 and concentrate on 3D since a complete design existed for 3 already.
In any case, I would not have accepted to look at anything in regards to JA3 until I was satisfied with what was going on with 3D.
Furthermore, I had already worked on completing the missing pieces of JA3 and was not willing to negotiate the design and its scope.
AG: Last year, GFI lost the rights to develop not only Jagged Alliance 3, but Disciples 3 as well. While D3 is definitely an off-topic in this interview, we feel that the decision to revoke both licenses was caused by the whole state of the «MiST land — GFI — SFI» affairs. Can you elaborate on this? At what stage the development of MiST land's Disciples 3 was aborted?
VS: The story behind Disciples 3 is simple. Having seen what was happening around JA, we decided to stop working on Disciples 3. That's all.
RT: As you said, this is off topic.
AG: So why the rights for Jagged Alliance 3D were revoked just now? Is it related to certain event(s) in the recent past, or simply based on SFI's latest assessment of JA3D's quality?
VS: To repeat myself, the reason is that JA3D didn't blend in with the latest plans of Strategy First. As for the quality… First, at E3 2006, we showed the game to the president of SFI, and he said: «Everything I've seen is great; we're completely satisfied with this». Second, we had a press-only presentation of JA3D at Games Convention 2006, and it caused a storm of cheers among journalists.
In order to show the game's quality before shipping it to stores, we will release a demo so everyone will be able to play it and decide for themselves if the product warrants a purchase. We have nothing to be ashamed of.
RT: It was estimated that Jagged Alliance 3D could not be completed adequately for the scheduled release date.
AG: In a recent post (dated 09/03/06) in the «MiST land Diaries» blog, it is mentioned that Strategy First currently owes an undisclosed sum of money to GFI. Quote: «SFI is not going to pay any penalties, they don't like to settle the accounts on the whole and generally speaking, they owe us a lot of money…» Can you comment on that? Who currently owns code, art and other assets of the Jagged Alliance 3D project?
VS: All assets of this project will remain in our possession, since GFI fully founded its development, and Strategy First paid nothing. As for SFI owing us money — our legal department is already working on this issue. I cannot disclose any further details.
RT: That is Mr. Shutov's perception of things. The fact is that we do not owe GFI a 'lot' of money. I am not willing to discuss contractual particulars in public so I will leave it at that.
AG (to Vitaly Shutov): Having lost the license to JA3D, GFI decided to continue the project and announced that they would release it under a different title in October. Why do you hold on to this release date when you do not depend on Strategy First anymore? From what we see, it is next to impossible to, as you said in the «MiST land Diaries» blog, «remove mission-based structure that was forced on us, and bring about a map with sectors» and be in time for October launch. Have you discussed the possibility of delaying the release to improve the game — in fact, comply with all major requests from the fans?
VS: We're discussing this matter right now. It is possible that the game will be slightly delayed. You see, development of any game can continue ad infinitum. And every time you'll want to ship it, «millions of fans» will be demanding dozens of exciting new features.
I get the publisher's point — if a game is ready, then why change its fundamental concepts? Programming is not an issue. The engine we developed for JA3D can accommodate unrestricted travelling between map sectors — not only on foot, but also by using trains and helicopters. The story, the already recorded dialogues are much bigger problem than that.
But, as I've said, right now we're considering our options, and this is one of the reasons why we still haven't revealed new title and concept of the project. We will announce them soon.
AG (to Vitaly Shutov): How else the game formerly known as JA3D will be affected by the recent developments? What will happen to its story, settings, and, more importantly, characters? Can you reveal the new title of the game?
VS: Unfortunately, I can't tell you the new title now — you'll have to wait until the official press-release to find this one out, but there not so many possible names to choose from.
However, what I can say for sure is that since it's not Jagged Alliance anymore, we will change portraits and voices of mercenaries, as well as parts of storyline (where it was supposed to cross with other JA titles).
AG (to Richard Therrien): With Jagged Alliance 3D gone, what's next in store for the cult franchise? From your posts at SFI forums, we know that JA3 will feature not one, but 5 fractions, and even more open-ended world than in JA2. You're probably not ready to announce the game right now, but can you drop us some hints about what to expect?
RT: Just this then: Jagged Alliance 3 will have a lot of parameters that will be subject to randomization on starting a new game. We might (or might not) have a non-random initial setup, like some sort of 'official' game. This still has to be verified but is likely to happen.
This goes so far that even some characters that you meet may act different from game to game and have different allegiances and agendas.
In that sense it may feel more open ended since the player actions should also have an impact on how other enemy and friendly factions do in that world. Player actions and decisions will also affect how people react to him and his band.
Under certain circumstances, it will be possible and desirable to undertake cover up infiltration actions and avoid triggering the area into battle by way of stealth or just by going in as strangers without apparent weapon.
The game settings will not be in Arulco this time but in a totally different part of the world. It will offer a greater range of environments than previous JA games offered.
And the game will not look like a floating platform in space.
Vova
