Back from Civ3...

Securion · April 20, 2002, 15:50

After a pretty long time with Civ3 I just couldnt stand it any more.
Im playing SMAX again.
I have REALLY tried to get used to Civ3 and the way the game plays but, come on! Its boring! And im not going back again.

So my question is...

Will there EVER be an Alpha Centauri II or something like it?
(thats "sci-fi civilization" for you morons)

Or is Master of Orion 3 the only hope?

I KNOW this have been asked 5 000 000 times but I have never seen any real answer from anyone making games.

Well well... SMAX is it. And im back for good.

Maniac · April 20, 2002, 16:14

Three times hurray for the return of the lost son!!

I'm glad you made the right decision in the end.

As for SMAC2, I for one am not holding my breath for it.

RedFred · April 20, 2002, 16:33

Yet another one! Welcome back.

Sprayber · April 21, 2002, 15:02

I played my first SMAX game in two months just this morning. I never did go to CivIII. I just got burned out on SMAX for a while. I've spent time over in the AC fiction forums but not here. I think a little time away from the game is good for your prespective.

Neptunus · April 22, 2002, 18:54

Not only I'm back to SMAC/X after a relatively short period of Civ(III)-ing, but I have returned to the SMAC forums after an absence of more than a year.

Although I might have been the first to purchase Civ III in my home country (of course the day of its first release), I don't feel like messing with that again (Civ II was much better).

I just want to sent a simple message to all Firaxis people...

SMAC/X was and still is Firaxis masterpiece. It's a rare jewel in the gaming industry, an inspirational crescendo of unprecedented depth in concept, design and execution.

Unfortunately, given the Firaxis current product (Civ III), I wouldn't wish for a SMAC sequel. I think that this precious game should be left "untouched". I wouldn't bare to feel the same feeling of "alienation", the one I felt during my first Civ III game compared to those magic moments most old Civers felt as their first Civ II game evolved...

I am afraid that no matter how high any such possible investment for a SMAC II may be, Firaxis will only achieve to destroy the image of a successful title (although a small part of my deepest self just wishes to be wrong).

I may sound "romantic" but I want to believe I see thinks realistically. There will be no SMAC II. People at Firaxis know well that no matter how well a game performs in the market (i.e. is selling), it's the game's lifecycle which matters. And in that "battlefield" SMAC (and Civ II as well) is a clear winner. Hopefully Civ III has (?) taught them a bitter lesson : Winning games need much more than high investments to create. Even worse, better sequels need also guts and determination. Because in the long process, guess who's loosing if the "much-promising" sequel can't stand the comparison with a 3-4 years older legendary predecessor.

Keep SMACing...

Capt Dizle · April 23, 2002, 11:09

It is always worth noting that the people who did Civ2 and SMAC are not at Firaxis anymore.

You wouldn't let some grad school kids take a Rembrandt and "redo" it. God forbid the hacks at Firaxis get to touch SMAC.

I hope BR gets this RTS thing out of his system with RON and goes back to TBS.

Neptunus · April 23, 2002, 17:59

You got it right ! Strict, to the point and with much fewer words...

Mongoose · April 23, 2002, 18:02

That's jt. Concise, sometimes even terse?

InsertNameHere · April 25, 2002, 12:01

I'd just like to see SMAC as polished as CIV3, with more scenarios and a campaign or two. Just imagine the Xenofungus..... They could do a graphics upgrade patch or something if the didn't want to mess around with the mechanics.

Mongoose · April 25, 2002, 12:16

Quote:

Originally posted by InsertNameHere
I'd just like to see SMAC as polished as CIV3,

Are you out of your mind? Nobody, not even the biggest Civ3 fans I know, has EVER called that game 'polished'!!

What you're really saying is that you want the fancy-shmancy eyecandy graphics that Civ3 has. The cost of that candy in terms of linear game play is unacceptable, IMNSHO.

You're in grognardville now, Bucco. Don't be bragging up the shiny buttons on your new coat when you haven't faced the dragon!

[Apologies for the mixed metaphor.]

InsertNameHere · April 25, 2002, 13:26

In comparisson to CTP2, Civ2 and SMAC it is polished, but by no means should better graphics alter how well the game plays. But I'd really look forward to some official campaigns.

BTW, i rarley play Civ3 compared with how often i play SMAC.
(I was even in a game of SMAX when messenger said the apolyton mail "someone has replied to you....." arrived. )

Capt Dizle · April 25, 2002, 16:07

Well, pardon me. I hadn't noted any official Civ3 campaigns.

I personally don't like the graphics in Civ3 any better than SMAC. The artwork is a matter of taste and it doesn't suit mine. I don't like the interface any better than SMAC.

Polish? Civ3 hasn't even got wonder movies.

Its the mechanics of gameplay that need to be tweaked IMHO.

Sikander · April 26, 2002, 01:58

IMO Civ 3's graphics and interface are a great leap backwards from SMAC's. The only graphics in SMAC which I don't like are the unit graphics. They are far from clear and look like guys mowing their lawn etc. The aircraft in particular are ugly. The interface is pretty damn good though, with a lot of power to manage your empire from the various screens.

Civ 3 otoh drove me crazy with both it's interface and it's graphics. Those leader graphics looked terrible, like a bunch of cabbage patch kids or dried apples or something. And I was none too impressed with the little cave man dude who beats the other cave man dude with his club either. I felt like I was playing a video game from the 1970s, and it isn't all that impressive to women when one spends hours playing a game which sounds like a professional wrestling match. Civ 3, a bad but thankfully fading memory.

InsertNameHere · April 26, 2002, 08:21

Ok, ok, no changes to the graphics exept the units, maybe. I'd just like to see some official campaigns for SMAC and SMAX that fit with the story. Thats one of the things I hate about Civ3, no story to 'propell' you along.

SirVincealot · April 26, 2002, 14:54

It's the funniest thing - I was gaga over Civ3 when I first heard about it.

Then they mentioned all the things they had CUT from the SMAC paradigm and I wondered: "Those are strange decisions..."

Meir's explanation that "cgi movies don't add to the gameplay" seemed especially far-fatched. No, they don't actually PERFORM anything specific. But it's like this: these types of games are working on a clear model of EFFORT and REWARD. It's not like a shooter where you mow down the enemies, feeling the rush of victory every few seconds. Civ3 and SMAC are games where one will spend 30(!) turns building a MASSIVE, faction-altering project, sweating about whether the other civs will get there first, pushing it ever so slightly ahead with the "Hurry" button. A little movie to CELEBRATE my success is not so much to ask! ... And the SP movies in SMAC are astonishingly good; I always reload the game to watch "the hunter-seeker algorithm" or "self-aware colony" (we MUST dissent...)

As a matter of fact, I find the whole rewards system in SMAC far, far superior to Civ3. Every tech gives me a clever quote from a historical or imaginary source, each new improvement pats me on the back, each major achievement I make is proudly presented on my monument (what is with that palace in Civ3? What the heck is THAT?) It is an indiscribable thrill to hear I was THE FIRST with a naval force on Planet, or that my faction bred an alien life form before anyone else. If that is not what an EXPLORE, DISCOVER and BUILD game is, then I don't know what it could possibly be.

Further: all the fictional quotes and CGI movies create an abundantly rich, fascinating backstory for the FICTION of SMAC. It elevates the "what will happen this turn" into "must-see-what-I'll-accomplish-next". In Civ3, my efforts are just that: abstracted victories without a proper framework. In SMAC, I am involved in the most fascinating epoch of human history, and I'm making a difference. Finally, the fiction makes a convenient excuse for a leader that presides over a few millenia of history!

Speaking of leaders: seeing my avatar's face in Civ3 is a TERRIBLE idea. I play as the English and I don't look like the Queen (yet!) The leader is ME - this is important: any physical representation of myself on screen breaks the illusion.

Another thing: getting rid of 3D terrain was a HUGE step backwards, as far as I am concerned. For one thing, the rolling terrain of SMAC is far more "believable" and strategic than the billiards table of Civ. Notice I say "believable" - I'm not talking of realism here. I'm speaking, specifically, of the ILLUSION of being there. When the ground shakes and mountains are created, I feel the environment as a PRESENCE. When I drown my opponent's farms and mines under 500 meters of tidal floods, I cry victory. When I raise a hill into a mountain and trap rainfall there, doubling my farm output, then drill to acquifer to see my energy rating skyrocket, I feel like I made a real difference. Which, of course, is EXACTLY the point of an EXPLORE, DISCOVER and BUILD game. And of a game where the environment itself plays as a faction. There are, really, 8 factions in SMAC.

I was disappointed to return to the units in SMAC; the sprites look and move like inanimate images. The wonderful LIFE on Civ3 is sorely missed. Having said that, the ART is much, much better in SMAC - I am talking design basics, here: color, shape, contrast, ect. The overlaying menu is also much, much better. MANY times in Civ3 I have wished for a hyperlink from the build queue to the Civilopedia. Having to quit the city screen, load the info, quit the info and re-load the city screen is a CHORE.

Speaking of chores: WHERE IS THE WORKSHOP? I am still shaking my head over that one. I used to spend HOURS designing new units in SMAC. That's the "BUILD" part of the game, no? If there is to be a Civ4, there better be a Unit Builder. 'Nuff said.

Finally, and this is 100% subjective (so you may stop reading now!) I found discovering electricity far LESS interesting than stumbling into Superstring Theory or Digital Sentience. Once the WONDERS, the feedback, the pat in the back, the thrill, the unit designing, in short, once the FUN of discovering electricity is gone, what's the point? I mean, ELECTRICITY, man: I got me a wire with LIGHTNING in it, for gawd's sake! Can you imagine how exciting this must have been for Washington, Volta and Tesla? Civ3 made the miracle of harnessing electricity MUNDANE. And that's the worst sin!

Enough!
SirVincealot

Jethro83 · April 27, 2002, 22:57

I sit on the fence between SMAC and Civ III.

Both have their advantages over each other.

And both have horrible, horrible mistakes.

So I like to go back and forth between them (though since installing Empire Earth, I've been into that instead of SMAC). Time to brush off the dust on my SMAC CD and play again methinks.

Method · April 28, 2002, 08:59

there sure is nothing like a few months of civ 3 to make you appreciate SMAC

Mongoose · April 28, 2002, 09:41

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
there sure is nothing like a few months of civ 3 to make you appreciate SMAC

AMEN!!

Neptunus · April 28, 2002, 17:31

for SirVincealot

Not only for expressing (or I should say mirroring) my (and many other people's) thoughts about the "Firaxian Evolution" from SMAc/X to CIVIII, but for looking at the whole issue from the right perspective. His post should be read by every member of the Firaxis team.

gwillybj · April 28, 2002, 20:20

Firaxian De-volution? or, Regression?

Ogie Oglethorpe · April 29, 2002, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
there sure is nothing like a few months of civ 3 to make you appreciate SMAC

All the annoited ones will return its just a matter of when.

Talent · May 2, 2002, 15:43

"SMAC/X was and still is Firaxis masterpiece. It's a rare jewel in the gaming industry, an inspirational crescendo of unprecedented depth in concept, design and execution. "
YES!!!

you are so right my friend.
I just came back from a relatively short time playing CIV3 which broke my heart and made me spit (figuratively) in the face of Sid Meyer and all the bozos in the CIV 3 team!!! (Sid was obviously to busy designing his RIDICULOUS golf game to actually take the time to make a good game for us his REAL FANS!!... I mean who cares about a #$#@$^% golf game!!!)

I too remember the first game that I played on CIV2 with much fondness, with wondrous and beautiful music in the background so incredible was the experience ( I think I could almost name all my cities on that game and even PROBABLY EVEN!!! trace back my map) Such an incredible game it was!

when I first played SMAC I realised that this WAS IT!!

SMAC is still the best game out there and it still has above and beyond all the best elements, governements, diplomacy, etc...

I share your fear of a SMAC2, seeing what these idiots did to CIV with this bastardisation of a game, I am afraid that they can do no right and that if SMAC2 ever comes out it will be a pretty to look at WASTE OF MY TIME!! (which is what CIV3 is).

I mean really, it's like they went out of their way to do EVERY THING WRONG!!!
And what happened to the promise of religion, race and culture in the game? What happened to all the great things that CTP discovered? What happened to all the great ideas of gameplay found in SMAC? I thought (naively and romantically as well perhaps) that CIV3 would be the culmination of what ALL these guys discovered from CIV2, SMAC and CTP. It turns out it's just a more modern, much more boring version of CIV2 with ALL the WRONG changes made to the game.
the only good thing about CIV3 is the bartering within negotiations feature... AND That's IT!!!

I do understand that there is animosity within the Firaxis, Infogrames, Microprose extended family but it doesn't change the fact that A GOOD IDEA IS A GOOD IDEA regardless of who came up with it. The best model for governement is the "levelled and categorised" govs in SMAC (also CTP came up with some interesting govs)
I feel that we (the gamers) have been punished with a terrible game because of the stubborness, laziness and narrowmindedness of Sid Meyer et al.

I am not only sad about CIV3 but obviously a little ticked off!!

I mean: eg: CIV3 still has only Democracy, Republic, Monarchy and Communism...what the hell! they don't even have fascism or corporate republic!!
I mean forget creating such a tasty and acurate system as SMAC and forget actually doing some creative work and TRYING to come up with modern governments, but COME ON!!! what about the governments that already exist in the world!!!

I find it hard to believe that any of these CIV3 creators can form coherent sentences, let alone create a game!

Needless to say, I am back to SMAC for good and CIV3 is a coaster for my orange juice!

Later,

Jac de Molay · May 3, 2002, 10:33

Some very good points here. I'm scratching my head as to whether BR will venture back into the TBS genre since he is clearly a master of it. I still play SMAC much more frequently than Civ 3, and have been searching in vain for SMAX as well. The difference between the two? To me, it's one word: ELEGANCE.

Dave

Alex · May 3, 2002, 11:05

I'm going to print SirVincealot's post and frame it and hang it on my wall, because he expressed precisely what I feel about this Civ3 vs. SMAC issue.

And Dave, you summarized it perfectly too: ELEGANCE.

Junta · May 3, 2002, 15:23

In the six or so years since I first played Civ II, I can still remember that first game. The thrill of getting my butt kicked by the pathetic AI; the agony of watching my valiant little soldiers fall as I tried to take a worthless desert city. I can also remember many of my glorious triumphs and bitter failures from both Civ II and SMAC(X). But with Civ III? Hell, I can't even remember the first half of the game I'm in right now. By next week, the memory of my tanks rooling across the land will be lost to the ages. Hopefully that is what will happen with Civ III....

Junta

SirVincealot · May 3, 2002, 15:52

I have played Civ3 and... that's basically it.

I am replaying SMAC for the fourth time and STILL finding subtleties I had missed. There is a DEPTH to Alpha Centauri that never fails to astound me.

I, for example, just realized on this fourth play through that there is not only a quote with each tech discovery, but a separate text entry that ties all the preceeding advancements, down to the fiction aboard the Unity!

I get a sense that SMAC was written by a team of WRITERS - people who love to read, write and extrapolate. I have a subscription to SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and can attest that the science in SMAC is damn solid.

I am amazed at the degree of both ERUDITION and POETRY evident throughout this game. What a achievement! I have mentioned it on the WomenGamers forum as one of precious few arguments that computer games CAN attain the level of ART. Art in the purest sense: an aesthetic achievement that makes us see the world in a new way...

Best regards,
SirVincealot

Blake · May 4, 2002, 02:38

Once upon a time I read a SMAC conspiracy theory (on the SMAC newsgroup, I believe). The gist was that SMAC was too damn good, players like it too much and played it too much and didn't want to buy other games. (= less revenue)

Firaxis learnt from this mistake, and decided to never make a SMAC2, (also Alien Crossfire being no longer available...).

This was before Civ3. Ofcourse I dismissed it as an amusing joke post, which no doubt it was intended was.

If Firaxis was involved in this conspiracy then they did exactly what would should be expected with Civ3, make it crappy so people wont play it for long and quickly look for new games (to buy).

A load of carp? Probably.

Jethro83 · May 4, 2002, 05:04

I can believe that conspiracy theory... sort of.

But people buy future releases to see what new and exciting features are added.

Sadly, Civ III lacks such features (with the exception of aspects like Culture, Unique Units, etc.) and is a somewhat backward turn. Why they did it... I don't know. Maybe so that we have to pay for each feature in several individual expansion packs (love to see how they'd be able to make it 3D though).

Method · May 4, 2002, 20:11

IMHO the only problem with SMAC compared to civ3 is the AI's exaggerated sense of their own might. in civ3 the AI would only declare war if...well they would just never declare war at all.

Conversely that was the worst part of the game. i got really bored fast because NOTHING HAPPENED. although SMAC wars are kinda bad too. the ai declares war because of SE choices and then DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT. it ends up being a waste of commerce engergy i could be getting. BTW i play on thinker.

Neptunus · May 5, 2002, 13:13

First of all I think we should all say THANKS to Securion for being the first to bring up this topic and therefore gave us all the opportunity to make a VERY INTERESTING thread.

Second, I call someone of you who can (I would have done it if I just knew how), to post a new topic in the CIV III general forum (I never even watch that forum) with just a link to THIS VERY TOPIC. I think it would be a good idea if we could be ...well... a little provocative and just see the results (if you see what I mean).

Third (as a reply to Talent), I still wish for a SMAC2... I just wish that (above and beyond any "conspiracy theories") that the team that made SMAC have the full potential for an even better game. What just frightens me is that they might not have the will to do it...