SMAC is being severely spanked...

Alex · May 1, 2003, 22:40

... at the GalCiv forum, more specifically in this thread.

We already discussed how weak the AI in SMAC is, but our beloved game is being so dissed out there that somehow I thought it was unfair...

CEO Aaron · May 2, 2003, 03:22

No need to start an inter-board flame-war, if those morons can't appreciate a better game when they see one, it's their loss. And when are people going to stop crying about the AI? If you want to play a game that a computer has a chance of beating you at, Chessmaster is quite challenging.

Frankychan · May 2, 2003, 04:11

*yawn* Why should I care what some bozo's are thinking in another thread. If they had any brains, they would be in this thread and witness the glory that is Sheng-ji Yang.

But then again.....if we can't say anything nice, we shouldn't say anything at all.

Frankychan · May 2, 2003, 04:15

additionally, we would already have a bias for AC and they have a preference for whatever game that waste of plastic is.

So no matter what, I don't think there would be objectiveness in the debate.

Take THAT GalCiv!

Jamski · May 2, 2003, 05:05

Hey, I started playing GalCiv yesterday, and its going straight into my select list of games that I'll play for ever. It will join SMAC, Civ1, Colonisation and MoM. There is no higher honour I can imagine for a game to say it is as good as SMAC, but I will say so for GalCiv.

SMAC:
Graphics : adequate
Sound : adequate
AI : interesting
Gameplay : strong
Replay : infinite
Feel : involving

GalCiv:
Graphics : adequate
Sound : adequate
AI : strong
Gameplay : strong
Replay : don't know yet
Feel : pretty involving

Overall I would recommend GalCiv to anyone who likes SMAC. In a way it's the real sequel to SMAC and MoO2.

(SMAC stays as my No.1 game though

)

-Jam

Maniac · May 2, 2003, 07:25

I'd say the SMAC AI isn't very good, but that's only because SMAC is the most deep and complex game in the entire Civ series. No wonder then the AI performs better in other games!

Static Universe · May 2, 2003, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by War of Art

SMAC:
Graphics : adequate
Sound : adequate
AI : interesting
Gameplay : strong
Replay : infinite
Feel : involving

GalCiv:
Graphics : adequate
Sound : adequate
AI : strong
Gameplay : strong
Replay : don't know yet
Feel : pretty involving

Please define "pretty" in this context. More involving or less involving than SMAC?

Quote:

pret·ty
adj. pret·ti·er, pret·ti·est
1 Pleasing or attractive in a graceful or delicate way. See Synonyms at beautiful.
2 Clever; adroit: a pretty maneuver.
3 Very bad; terrible: in a pretty predicament; a situation that has reached a pretty pass.
4 Ostensibly or superficially attractive but lacking substance or conviction: full of pretty phrases.
5 Informal. Considerable in size or extent: a pretty fortune.

adv.
1 To a fair degree; moderately: a pretty good student.
2 In a pretty manner; prettily or pleasingly.

Nit-picky this morning, aren't I?

Lazerus · May 2, 2003, 12:14

Nitpicking so much so that you should be slapped

Making him have to replace pretty with fairly, which would mean as of right now abit less.

Smax - best 4x strategy game I've played.

Solver · May 2, 2003, 14:17

GalCiv isn't same stuff for the look & feel of it... I am yet to see ANY game with a better atmosphere than SMAC has. See, all those tech voiceovers, excellent personalities for each faction leader, and lots of other stuff gives SMAC a fantastic atmosphere. And storyline... uhmm

.

Now, GalCiv, IMHO, doesn't have that much of a fantastic atmosphere of feeling to it.

As far as the AI goes, well, I hope they get Soren Johnson working on it for SMAC 2, then the AI could be quite appropriate, even with all the (amazing!) complexity.

Jamski · May 2, 2003, 15:38

adv.
1 To a fair degree; moderately: a pretty good student.

...and...

2 In a pretty manner; prettily or pleasingly.

Yes, its not quite as involving as SMAC, for example the Drengins are not as "evil" as the Hive - but they're still pretty** evil. However SMAC is far ahead in this dept. compared to almost every game. GalCiv does provide both more of a challenge, and more routes to victory - its a bit deeper. A worthy No.2 - every fan of MoO2 or SMAC should buy it.

(**Pleasing or attractive in a graceful or delicate way

)

-Jam

Alex · May 2, 2003, 16:12

Quote:

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
No need to start an inter-board flame-war,

I wasn't trying to start one, after all we're all Apolytoners... I just wanted to see some brilliant minds mounting some good defense (with sensors and bunkers) against that cruel assault.

CEO Aaron · May 2, 2003, 16:41

Well, unfortunately if I reply, there _will_ be a flame-war. I have extraordinary troll powers, after all.

Seriously tho, I bought Gal Civ, and while I haven't played it much, I was sort of hoping for something that at least reflected 4 intervening years of improving graphical technology.

As to the gameplay and such, I'd really need at least another 3-6 months of playtime to make a valid comparison. There were levels to SMAC that I was completely oblivious to for an awful long time, and the same might be true of Gal Civ.

Maniac · May 2, 2003, 16:56

May I ask what "4x" means?

AnubisJJ · May 2, 2003, 17:11

E(X)plore, E(X)ploit, E(X)pand, E(X)terminate

Maniac · May 2, 2003, 17:39

Ah thanks.

BustaMike · May 2, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

As far as the AI goes, well, I hope they get Soren Johnson working on it for SMAC 2, then the AI could be quite appropriate, even with all the (amazing!) complexity.

Ridiculous! Soren got the Civ3 AI to be so tough because the game is horribly simple. When you have exponentially less options, of course the AI will do better.

Static Universe · May 3, 2003, 06:14

Pretty* wide range of opinion here, but I may have to look into GalCiv more. I thought it was more MoO-like, and I never liked MoO 1 or 2.

WoA:

Thanks for the clarification. :b

* 5 Informal. Considerable in size or extent: a pretty fortune.

Solver · May 3, 2003, 06:46

Quote:

Ridiculous! Soren got the Civ3 AI to be so tough because the game is horribly simple. When you have exponentially less options, of course the AI will do better.

Not exactly, although I see your point. Yeah, Civ 3 is simpler than SMAC, but the AI does well with what the game is because Soren taught it to do so. Actually, he is an amazing programmer, I can tell you that being a programmer myself.

Now, he worked on Civ 3 AI *alone*. And didn't have a lot of time for it. If we imagine SMAC 2, that keeps the complexity, but has a team of AI programmers, like 5 of them, with Soren in the lead, I have no doubt that the AI could actually be making some use of the complex things in the game, and provide a challenge.

CEO Aaron · May 3, 2003, 17:38

The Civ 3 gameplay was horribly nerfed to make it much more AI friendly, the AI is still just as dumb as ever. Removing zones of control and the addition of culture is just a way of making the AI not pay for it's blind stupidity. Now you're _forced_ into a blanket war of attrition against a foe who's gettting production and research bonuses you'll never see.

On the Gal Civ front, so far I'm not very impressed. The appalling lack of documentation is making adjusting to the gameplay virtually impossible. Add to that the fact that your expansion options are severly curtailed (early growth is entirely dictated by the map, ie: the proximity of habitable planets), and the simplistic and linear good/evil factionalism, and I'm left looking around trying to find the alleged strategy in this strategy game. Even CivIII was gracious enough to tell me what techs lead to what units/facilities I can build. All I have to say to the Gal Civ developers is: Get your act together.

Jamski · May 3, 2003, 19:08

Quote:

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
All I have to say to the Gal Civ developers is: Get your act together.

Well, whatever you have for or against GalCiv - the developers certainly have got their act together. Whether you like it or not is another thing...

Mr. President · May 3, 2003, 20:08

They say that GalCiv has much less micromanagement. You know how much I hate micromanagement. Anyway, if it ever shows up here I might buy it.

Flubber · May 3, 2003, 20:20

I don't need another good game-- my addiction to smac takes up enough time

Frankychan · May 3, 2003, 23:54

What I like the most about SMAC is the depth of diplomacy. There are SO many options when dealing with other factions that it's crazy. You have three different ways to say 'NO', and all other goodies in the game that it's unbelievable.

AFAIK you can't be the other races...what's up with that? In SMAC, you get to play other factions as well as the aliens (provided you have SMAX).

What-evers, I say.

Uchuu-kun[SM42] · May 5, 2003, 11:10

You know what's *really* bad?

Getting hooked on a Civ:CTP game, as well as a few SMAC/Xes - then coming upon a thread about the "spiritual* successor" of SMAC - ALL DURING FINAL EXAMS!

*Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit

[size=.5]*sigh* Dude, I am so royally screwed...[/size]

CEO Aaron · May 5, 2003, 12:03

Prez,

Did you not _read_ the rest of my post? They haven't even published a tech tree, or a chart which outlines the effects of all the planetary improvements I can build, or even a basic listing of units. And I haven't limited my research only to the 'documentation' that shipped with my copy of the game, I've also made an exhaustive search of their so-called 'Encyclopedia' on the galciv website.

I mean, how can they have DESIGNED the game without having made a tech-tree? The tech tree listed in the manual is not only illegible (grrr PDF), but only goes 3 levels deep at the most. I could get more information by playing the game for less time than it took me to unearth/read through their 'manual'.

For me, one of the signature qualities that makes a decent strategy game is that you don't have to keep the rules a secret to make it challenging. And thus far the only challenge Gal Civ has offered me is to my patience. So, I say again, when the developers get their act together, I'll reconsider my assessment of their game, but until I get some real documentation, I can't say anything good about their product.

Hydro · May 5, 2003, 13:05

CEO Aaron,

Then I assume you are unhappy with Moo3 and its worse documentation? I know my final verdict will await the long-awaited patch. I'm not going to bother with GC for a while - I'm still feeling burned. Plus, I hear SMAX calling...

That said, SMAC/X did a nice job with its manual, which was augmented by the maligned Strat Guide (which I find to be a in-depth reference manual). BR did a quality job with SMAC, the AI and age not withstanding. That quality still shows long after the game has become elderly.

Hydro

thinkingamer · May 5, 2003, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
For me, one of the signature qualities that makes a decent strategy game is that you don't have to keep the rules a secret to make it challenging.

Amen brother, but i bet this is same to all civ1-3, SMAC documentation too; specially in SMAC while it DOES have full tech tree it also DON'T have many essential info. If you consider how much formulas SMAC uses in the "behind scenes" during the game, I can say that SMAC provably has many "rules in secret" as GC (which i haven't played yet). For example, the formula for the price of the economical victory: I could not even find out this information even in prima's official strategy guide for SMAC!

Basicly, my point is that while Galactic Civ is not only one who "to keeps the rules a secret", this awful practice must be stopped or game developers will lose fans like myself.

Jamski · May 5, 2003, 15:16

True, I'm loving GalCiv, but I had to hunt down all the formulas myself on the internet or by asking people on the Stardock forums. The infomation is out there...

...but you have to hunt for it.

Sadly this if more and more often the case in modern games - no big manuals anymore - they cost too much

-Jam

MattyBoy · June 3, 2003, 01:32

Quote:

... - ALL DURING FINAL EXAMS!
...
*sigh* Dude, I am so royally screwed..

Study is hard, I agree. I ascended a Nethack character the day before my last exam. If it turns out that I failed, I will never forgive myself.