The question of maturity, it is assumed, means getting more complex and worthwhile (rather than simply getting old!) Given this, assessing the maturity of sites brings about a series of ‘marketing-esqué’ questions such as;

• What ‘need’ is being ‘satisfied’ by the various Civ2 sites? That is, what are ‘surfers’ looking for in a Civ2 site and how does the range perform?
• What new things can be added to enhance the attraction and value of sites?
• Do these sites each offer something different? What are they each trying to achieve?

A lot of sites in 1996 and 1997 suffered from a ‘sameness’ in that the format and content varied little from a large number of others. There were many sites that could be criticised for excessive simplicity bland scenarios, ‘obvious’ hints, and numerous pages under construction. Despite this, it must be acknowledged that there still is effort and goodwill in at least developing a simple site, and sometimes these formed the predecessors of far more mature sites.

Your item discusses the increasing number of merged sites. This has clear advantages, and should in theory lend to higher quality;

• the co-authors can share ideas and be constructively critical of each other’s contribution,
• each may have different strengths to lend to the project, and
• the burden of the time needed to develop a ‘top’ and current site is spread across a number of contributors.

• broken links from abandoned sites,
• potential suppression of ‘individual flair’, and
• ‘buck-passing’ of the workload.

The fact that authors are also forking out ‘good money’ to host their sites is also to be congratulated. It demonstrates not only are they prepared to put in some effort to develop a site for others to enjoy, but put their money on the line to ensure a quality product in the name of ‘Civ fan philanthropy’.

Cam Hills

BACK TO THE ARTICLE