Lots of Features AND Smart AI - Page 2

Deornwulf · May 9, 2002, 16:45

Cyclotron 7 - My sig refers to my desire to simplify my life so I can spend more time playing computer games....

There is also the possibilty of simplifying something too much.

Panag · May 9, 2002, 17:05

hi ,

SMAC is something totally different , you cant compare it with civ3 , ...!!!

have a nice day

Deornwulf · May 9, 2002, 17:17

Panag - Not to burst your bubble or anything but check some of the txt files in your game folder. Some of them are directly from SMAC or SMAX. There are also the TBS and 4X factors to consider. CivIII and SMAC fall under the same classification.

Have a day

Panag · May 9, 2002, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Deornwulf
Panag - Not to burst your bubble or anything but check some of the txt files in your game folder. Some of them are directly from SMAC or SMAX. There are also the TBS and 4X factors to consider. CivIII and SMAC fall under the same classification.

Have a day

hi ,

well , civ3 is completely different , their are "vague" reminders , ...

ask Gramphos , ....

have a nice day

nato · May 9, 2002, 17:39

Ogie - No, my brief comment wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at jt ... and I only said it to him because he was rude. Also I really have no clue about why he is here.

Your comments were much more reasoned, and your second post is as well. The thing is ...

I'm tired of all threads transforming from their original topic to how terrible Firaxis and Civ3 is. One guy makes a post like yours or jt's, and then its all gossiping about Firaxis from then on. Its kind of a thread killer.

All posts end up being like the one I'm making now.

Anyway, you are right about Firaxis going after the wider but simpler market we smart guys look down on, and that it pays off. I guess with a market economy, who are we to argue with the market? Just like millions of dollars going to pro sports ... its idiotic and childish, but you can't argue with the market.

Ah well its all just talk anyway. Not like I expect a thread by little old me to change things ... I'm not that deluded!

It just struck me as a way to get both lots of features and good AI, which seem to be considered mutually exclusive. I figure it never hurts to mention ideas ... someone might find it useful.

Dominae · May 9, 2002, 18:17

I always thought Alpha Centauri was the TBS die-hard game par excellence; the casual gamer could stick with Civ2, but any serious fan would have tried SMAC at some point (and probably enjoyed it).

Hearing that Sid thought that SMAC was a failure because it was too complex is really depressing and funny at the same time. It means that he now thinks of "good games" as "games that sell". This is a really bad way to think about things. A game could be incredibly complex, and still be a good game; people who wanted to enjoy it would have to put up with a steeper learning curve, but they would only benefit in the end. Personally, I was never a pro at first-person games (what can I say?... my reflexes aren't all that great), but the advent of great games like Counter-Strike has "forced" me to learn how to swing the mouse around like any other Quake pro (nah, I'm really not all that good).

Yes, a hard game may turn some players away, but this can be remedied by a good tutorial and campaign scenarios. Homeworld is a perfect example of a very difficult game that is nonetheless a joy from beginning to end. Making the game fun for experts and beginners is smart game design.

Back to the topic of the thread: I think that (at least in Civ), all players should play by the same set of rules. What is really needed is not hack solution to problems of bad gameplay (stupid AI), but a well-designed, smart AI. I'm quite certain this is possible. Whether Firaxis wanted to expend the resources to create such an AI for Civ3 is a another story altogether.

Dominae