SMAC vs Civ3 - Page 2

Panag · January 13, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Ah, so Panag is *Rasbelin's* DL.

this is really ignorant , ....

DrSpike · January 13, 2003, 11:57

You forgot to tell me to have a nice day.

Panag · January 13, 2003, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
You forgot to tell me to have a nice day.

sjee man , first you acuse someone of being a DL and then you wish them to wish you a nice day , ..... in a SMAC versus Civ3 forum , ......

DrSpike · January 13, 2003, 12:12

Hehe.

Ok, back on topic.

I am glad some people opted for civ3 actually (though I voted for SMAC I had to think about it), because it isn't as bad as some make out.........I spent some time defending it elsewhere.

The reason I ended up plumping for SMAC is that it is (at least in theory, though the direct IP implementation was poor) a great MP game, whereas so far it looks like civ3 fails in that regard. If this was a predominantly SP debate I'd be inclined to go for civ3. It's easy to forget how bad the SMAC AI was, and there were (are) large balance issues with some air units and the ubiquitous crawlers........but civ3's shortcoming are fresh in everyone's minds.

A couple of things there to discuss anyway.

P.S that post doesn't make me Panag or Rasbelin's DL though.

Alex · January 13, 2003, 13:25

oh, that's the first time I read a panag's post without his trademark...

Anyway, there's no debate. SMAC wins hands down... despite its arguably weaker AI.

SMAC has much more personality and polishing.

DrSpike · January 13, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexnm
oh, that's the first time I read a panag's post without his trademark...

/me takes a bow.

DrSpike · January 13, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexnm

SMAC has much more personality and polishing.

Personality I concur with.......but aboot polish I'm not so sure. What's your take on the glaring balance issues I outlined?

Alex · January 13, 2003, 15:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike

Personality I concur with.......but aboot polish I'm not so sure. What's your take on the glaring balance issues I outlined?

Hm, I re-read your post... it seems that you have a few good points. I have to agree about air power and crawlers... especially because the AI don't have the slightest clue on how to use these things...

DeathByTheSword · January 13, 2003, 15:37

before anyone thinks this is a +1 i just have to say:

SMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSM ACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMAC SMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMACSMAC

DrSpike · January 13, 2003, 15:40

Hmm, what a well-reasoned argument.

spartak · January 13, 2003, 17:09

SMAX of course...

Method · January 13, 2003, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasbelin
Civ III - good in my opinion, because of...

- Bartering table and nice resource system.
- Improved graphics (3D).
- New concepts like UUs and culture.
- Working game play and interface.

-bartering table

...resources

-3D? not like BRAC's 3D...
-eugh, fair enough.
-eugh, ok.

is that it?

Rasbelin · January 13, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Ah, so Panag is *Rasbelin's* DL.

Booooo!

/me throws several tomatoes on Spiky.

DBTS,

come up with something better.

TKG,

I only made up that list very quickly. If you let me sit down and play Civ III with the latest patches for several hours, I'm sure I can come up with other reasons too. It's a long time since I last played it.

DrSpike · January 13, 2003, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasbelin

Booooo!

* Rasbelin throws several tomatoes on Spiky.

Sorry......in the circumstances I couldn't resist.

Rasbelin · January 13, 2003, 20:22

Aye, aye, I understand.

Cyclotron · January 13, 2003, 21:14

Civ3, because I haven't played SMAC.

VJ · January 14, 2003, 01:06

Quote:

graphics

Umm... graphics mean almost nothing in a TBS-game (IMO).

Quote:

units

Units aren't as complex as in SMAC.

Quote:

civs

Quote:

From Europe, there are about 10 civs, all of them have been with a close contact with UK/England.
From America, there are two civs, which both formed after 14th century.
From Africa, there is one militaristic civ from 19th century.
From Asia, there are 2 world's biggest and longest living civilizations.
And one imperialistic, small one.

Quote:

and there is PTW

Which added an non-working MP, and another 10 european-based civs
for EU-countries to wave their penis's.

Spike -- > I think we all know who in here is panaq's DL...

have a nice day

DrSpike · January 14, 2003, 05:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

Spike -- > I think we all know who in here is panaq's DL...

have a nice day

Please enlighten me.

And have a good one yourself.

Panag · January 14, 2003, 06:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

Umm... graphics mean almost nothing in a TBS-game (IMO).

Units aren't as complex as in SMAC.

Which added an non-working MP, and another 10 european-based civs
for EU-countries to wave their penis's.

Spike -- > I think we all know who in here is panaq's DL...

have a nice day

hi ,

graphics ; because they might be appealing to one , maybe not to someone else , .....

units , if they are not good , make them yourself

smax is something else

mp is maybe not that great but PBEM works almost fine

10 , where

there is no need to use some language , .....

and try to stay on topic guys

have a nice day

Zoid · January 14, 2003, 06:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasbelin
Nevermind... here you go, little Smacists.

Civ III - good in my opinion, because of...

- Bartering table and nice resource system.
- Improved graphics (3D).
- New concepts like UUs and culture.
- Working game play and interface.

Thanks!

alva · January 15, 2003, 07:06

I never could het a grip of the smac tech tree, in fact I hated it.
With civ, at least to get the basic concepts of the game, you don't even need a manual.

Really didn't like the Unit shop, and what's alot of fluff if the AI can't use it/ doesn't know how too.

DrSpike · January 15, 2003, 08:30

The flexibility in SMAC was bad for the AI, that's for sure, but it made for a great potential MP game. It's a shame it was only really PBEM that took off.

Guynemer · January 26, 2003, 23:31

Both games have their strong points.

SMAC has the unit workshop and social engineering.

Civ3 has resources and an easier diplomatic interface.

However, it is SMAC by a mile due to a more rewarding game experience (quotes, movies, etc.), which just makes it far more fun than Civ3. Firaxis really dropped the ball. Civ3 could have--should have--been much better.

Jamski · January 27, 2003, 08:35

Is this really a question ?

It has to be SMAC. No doubt about it. I have, play and love both games, but its always SMAC that I keep coming back to. I has much more depth and replayablity, the different factions have different characters etc etc.

The telling point in SMAC's superiority is this:
How many people are passionate about Civ3? How many for SMAC? I just can't get so excited about a game of Civ3 as I can with SMAC, or so involved. In Civ beating Persia feels the same as beating Babylon, or Rome. In SMAC I take it as a personal crusade to destroy Miriam's "bible-thumping minions" for example.

Anyway, just my two cents...

-Jam

LzPrst · January 27, 2003, 10:32

ah....the bitter task of choosing between favorites.

tech tree - tie
civ has understandable techs, but no civilopedia entry when getting them, things should be more like Civ1. When you invented something you had a little tune, then a page of historical stuff and finally the gameplay effects. Civ3 is too "fastkey". No enjoyment of the game.

graph - tie
SMAC is a little too dark and gloomy, but civ lacks the movies, and other little treats. also the leaders of civ3 look like cartoon-idiots and hardly resemble their originals at all.

units - civ (workshop bored me nuts)
no contest here for me.

diplomacy - tie
the negotiating table is nice, unfortunately the AI is worse than my mother, unless it's waaaay in her favor she wont trade, even if its in her interest as well. SMAC also had the military coordination possibility...

gameplay - tie
i find both games a little annoying when playing them. in that respect civ2 is actually better. fast, and easy.
not to mention when several cities revolt and you have to go scouring your empire cause you only see them a split second before you're thrown to the next problem.

governments - S M A C
whywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywh ywhywhywhywhywhywhywhy, oh WHY!!! didn't firaxis evolve the social engineering!?!?!!?!?!?!????!?!?!?!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?! ?!?!?
It is acceptable to say "okay back to basics, we need something else" but TO GO WITH THE BASICS. THE GOVERNMENTS OF CIV 1 !!!!!!?????

It is unforgivable!

fun value - tie
i still havent finished a game of civ3 or SMAC by other than conquest and culture. It gets too tedious after a while, and i enjoy starting anew more than trying to figure out what had gone wrong before I saved and quit last time.

overall - SMAC.
not because its much better, but because i expected far more of civ3. It was supposed to cover all that we wished for when playing civ1,civ2, colonization and SMAC. Why are there no minor civs? Civil wars? Wars/declarations of independence?
It should have been better, Firaxis failed.

DanQ · January 28, 2003, 00:48

LzPrst:

This is a warning: watch both the language you use and the context in which you use it. You can express a disagreement and/or frustration without resorting to such measures.

This matter/warning is not to be discussed further publicly in this thread or otherwise.

Carry on...

------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

LzPrst · January 28, 2003, 11:34

sorry, i'll take it out.

TheStinger · January 28, 2003, 11:52

I hated the unit workshop, so CIV3.

Also SMAC was bit too techy and i couldn't get worked up about getting the advances as they didn't mean much to me.

Of cousre it might just mean i have no imagination

Henrik · January 28, 2003, 12:35

SMAC is better than civ 3, but civ 2 is better than both of them...

Inverse Icarus · January 29, 2003, 18:49

i like civ3 better mainly because of the theme. i like human history more than sci-fi stuff.

but in terms of gameplay: social engineering, the unit workshop, and SMAC-civ faction traits (+2 econ, not "commercial") were awesome. were they editable? could you make your own leader with special traits? that'd be fun