posted 02-22-99 12:00 PM ET        

Mike's comments start with MH:
_____________________
In short, what I was trying to tell you that, judging by today�s standards, I think that the game could have been much better. First, let me tell you what I really like about the game:

1) The best thing, in my opinion, is the voice overs. That was so well done! It adds so much to the game. My favorite is Yang�s voice!

MH: Me too. In fact Brother Greg said he spent an hour listening to them.

2) Engineering your own government is great. Another Firaxis first and a really great feature!

MH: Yes, I was shocked to suddenly be in Economic Paralysis early on in the
game after playing around with the settings without concentrating on the
effects. I didn�t notice until my cash ran out. Really hard to get out of that
one. Great options. I like the effects of the changes. One thing though I wish
it would automatically pop up the Social options screen when I get a new advance
that allows new social advances. I keep forgetting to look at the effects. It
would make a perfect customisable option. Show me the social engineering menu
when I get a new option Yes/No

3) Being able to create your own units is wonderful. I love customising my own units since I like to create a unit to suit my own purposes. One of the best units that I�ve heard of thus far is a cruiser with a troop transport and a carrier deck. It allows for a pretty good strike force.

MH: As I said I haven�t experimented with that much yet, I�m going to do that soon.
MH: The defaults are addequate for me as I�m learning the basics.

4) I really like the movies. I just think that generally, they are really well done.

MH: I agree.

5) The Council is a great idea.

MH: Yep, although for some reason people won�t vote for me when I�m at war with them.

6) The borders in SMAC is probably the best thing that they did for game-play. Borders are needed for any game of this kind.

MH: Yes, very useful.

Now, the reason why I�m so disappointed is because a lot of the things that Firaxis has been telling me since I created a web page on SMAC is not in the game.

1) Sure, we can create units, but we cannot add any new chassis, armour, weapons, etc. because they are not in common formats. This was something that Firaxis had said would be in the game.

MH: Right, I can understand the Chassis issue as you described before, I hadn�t looked at the customisation yet. I also assumed this was going to be in.

2) Low on Special Effects (SFX). Why didn�t they create new SFX for each new unit? Why not create a little animation when the units are fighting, or bombing, etc? If the good people at Blizzard Entertainment can do it in Starcraft, than it can be done in SMAC. (Actually, I would have totally automated the air units since they just strike one target and then come right back home).

MH: Can�t you do that with the go to command? I�ve never tried it. The SFX doesn�t bother me, I always check the power/strength attributes when the units are fighting.

MH: That side of the graphics doesn�t bother me.

3) The Units all look the same. Why not make a unit look REALLY different when you get a new armour class, or a weapon, etc? Why not make several different chassis (3 or 4 for each chassis) that change when you get better techs?

MH: I find it helpful that they look the same i.e you can always tell an infantry or cruiser unit and generally you can tell how hard it is through its colour. Some of the special abilities should be more obvious. It�s hard to tell an artillery unit from a normal unit with the same weapon for instance.

4) They originally said that you would be able to choose between health care and education choices. They took it out because they thought it would be too confusing to some gamers. I don�t agree with that decision, and it would have been nice to add it to the game.

MH: I think this should have been in as well, I was a bit disappointed that they dropped them. They could have made them optional if they thought it was confusing.

5) I have a PII 333Mhz machine, with 12MB video RAM, 96MB of RAM... so why is the game still slow at times? I had to load the low graphics so that it would play well.

MH: I don�t understand that at all. It runs fine on mine. I haven�t had any slowdown on a PII 233 64mb ram and 8mb video ram.
Don�t get me wrong, I like the game.... I�m still playing it and I played it last night. I�m just disappointed. I guess I should have guessed that it would not have been much different from the demo. I don�t know. I guess we�ll have to wait and see what Activision does. I�m going to get a copy of Civilization: Call to Power. If they didn�t do a better job, than I�ll lower my expectations. If they did however, Firaxis has to do some hard thinking about what they did wrong with this game. Either way, I still think that the genre can be better represented. I think that a good mix between a Starcraft model and Civ II is the way to go.

MH: To be honest I think the things that are in are enough to make this game stand head and shoulders above any competition currently available. The things you suggest would make it better but they wouldn�t really affect the gameplay (except the economic/health options) and that�s obviously what they were trying to concentrate on.

posted 02-22-99 12:03 PM ET            

MH: Yes really good stuff, the real quotes used all the way through are all intelligent and well suited to where they are used. The paraphrase of Descartes with the brain talking from the jar had me laughing my head off.

You know what they could have done?.... They could have put little cut-scenes (little movies) in a little window in a corner somewhere of the interface when something happened. Like, when you make an air strike, you�d see a movie of little plane barring down on a unit or a base. Or, when a faction steals a tech, you�d see a spy running out of a base with blue-prints in hand and soldiers firing on him in the background.

MH: I think that would have been good for a while but in the end that sort of thing happens so often you�d get bored of them and I�d turn the option off. (assuming it was optional)

Or, another idea would be to create the artillery units so that they look like artillery units and have them fire like artillery units, with a little explosion, the kick-back from the firing of the artillery piece, and then another explosion on the defending unit one second after.

MH: That would have been perfect.

Just little things like that would have been really cool.

What really bothers me about the game is just what you said.... that the units with special abilities don�t look any different than the others with no special ability. That would have been so easy to add in, but they just didn�t focus on that, and that really surprises me.

posted 02-22-99 04:19 PM ET            

Am I the only one seeing a disconnect here?

I'm assuming that if more types of infantry, more distinctive artillery, etc., were possible without becoming a mess or slowing the game down, they would have done it. I agree with you mostly, but... but... the speed and confusion issues!

As for the movie idea window, PC Gamer has consistently panned that feature as a slow down and a distracter in games that had it. Maybe the technology has improved, but still...

And oh yes, the one gameplay complaint, all of those old choices were basically the same exact thing, from what I understand: pay more for this to happen, pay less for this. So volunteer troops would cost more, and conscripted ones less. Instead, they just did the Social Engineering screen, and tied that to "morale." Health care: pay more for higher growth and happiness, less for more research and slower growth. Kind of repetitive.

posted 02-22-99 07:50 PM ET            

That's all I have to say about graphics is: If Blizzard Entertainment can produce a game as good as Starcraft, which does have all the bells and whistles, runs very smoothly, has excellent AI, and still make it run on a P133, than there is no reason why Firaxis couldn't have done it. They even made it a very clean program with little need for a patch (admittedly they did release a patch for the multiplayer).

Is there any real good reason why Firaxis would not make an artillery piece look and act like an artillery piece?

No.

...and that goes for all of the units and weapons.

Like I said, I really like the game and there are some great stuff here! Firaxis did make a great game, and I just love those voices! Well done! The game play is far superior to CIV II as well.

Some of you may feel betrayed or even upset with me for cutting-up a game from Firaxis, but I'm sorry, I just tell it like it is, unlike a lot of those reviews I've been reading.

BTW, I posted this conversation that I had with Mike so that our message would be heard by Firaxis who could possibily fix some of these things in a patch.

posted 02-22-99 08:34 PM ET            

Thus they included the reduced graphics set for slower PCs. Sure, they could have made voxel created graphics, and limited the game to some 100 fixed units or so, and it would have run quicker. But then you lose the customiseability, which is one of the greatest strengths of the game.

However, I must agree that a unit with artillery should be fairly easily distinguishable from one without...

And yes, I did say to MikeH that I love listening to the voices. So much so that I forgot to read the description of the tech itself more often than not.

As for your points - the units in common formats will be in either a patch or an add-on pack (or at least is under investigation). Not the same in the game I know, but it may be there someday. Esp if people clammer for it - Hint, hint.

Special effects for each unit - well, that would mean hundreds of special effects, no? Even just for artillery, that's one for each weapon type. Then the same for close-in weaponry. Probably new annims for air weaponry as well. Personally, I find that to be fluff. As for comparing it to Starcraft (which you did a LOT), may as well compare Apples to Oranges. Until we get super computers (Pentium Vs maybe), we'll never get a game as pretty as Starcraft with the depth of SMAC.

I have a Pentium II 400, with 128M ram (not THAT much better than yours, but a bit, yeah), and I haven't noticed a single slowdown yet. I don't know what your problem is there, esp as Mike hasn't noticed it either. Maybe you're just playing on a Huge map, I don't know.

Personally, the only minor quibble that I have is that as you pointed out, some special abilities such as artillery are not readily distinguishable. And that's a minor quibble. Also I haven't tried to take the time to really look into how much of a difference there is between artillery units, and normal. It was never that important to me.

posted 02-22-99 09:33 PM ET            

To be honest, I can't see any visual difference between the low res and high res units, though there is a major performance change between them. But I think starcraft is not the game to compare them with, as their units are all 2D animations. SMAC uses 3D voxhals, which, unless I'm mistaken, are more or less what Total Annihilation uses, so that's a better place to look. The main difference is that a 2D animation gets rendered (painfully slowly!) in the company studio, while a 3D unit gets rendered by your own home PC. Which is more or less equivilent to the difference between renting 'Starwars' on video and staging the entire thing in your back yard.

Futhermore, if you've read BR's designer notes, he mentions that only ONE person was responsible for the unit drawing, and even then was hard pressed to come up with enough stuff (e.g the problems with making a chaos gun that looks equally cool on a infantry unit, a needle jet, and a cruiser). Compare this with Bizzard's veritible LEGION of artists (doing 2D animation), and the difference becomes immediately apparent.

posted 02-22-99 09:54 PM ET            

The slowdown (and current sound problems) seem to be totally unexplained so far, especially as far as system specs go.

posted 02-22-99 10:26 PM ET            

On the other hand, the unit battles are a little bit disappointing to watch, scarcely more fun than pen and paper combat, really. A grand total of two battle animations are used, regardless of weapons (okay, three with artillery. Which still uses lasers to resolve art/art battles). Even CivII had more variety (sound wise, anyway).

I take issue with the idea that there are two different areas, graphics, and gameplay, and that the two are completely independant. Chunky graphics, ugly looking or misleadingly drawn units, lack of visuals, or a poorly drawn interface (none of which SMAC is guility of) all detract from the enjoyment good gameplay, and the opposite (which SMAC is 'guility' of) adds to it.

posted 02-22-99 10:49 PM ET            

I have a Pentium II 366 with 64 MB of RAM.

I get the exact problem you describe of jittered sound where the machine just freezes and repeats a single sound for about 1-2 minutes. Then everything just goes on as though nothing happened. So I treat it just as a little nuisance that isn't really that much of a problem.

However, it normally doesn't happen at all unless I've played all night. It also get's really bad if I'm multitasking communication programs at the same time that I have on at all times on my networked machine.

Given all this, I think it probably has to do with buffer space. When it starts to happen, reboot your machine. I find that totally eliminates the problem.

posted 02-23-99 05:20 AM ET            

My main problem when playing is telling at a glance which units are artillery units. I think the units look cool. It's hard to design a unit which doesn't fit together very well and they all look like they fit in with the SMAC game but if I can't tell which unit is artillery without clicking on the unit it's a pain in the arse. It normally only gets to be a problem when you have a lot of units in a confined space, such as the little corner of the world where I am finishing off the peacekeepers. The amount of times I've moved units right up to a base without realising I should have been bombarding from afar was stupid and now I'm checking with the unit thing which comes up in the left hand corner. It takes a couple of seconds for the unit details to cooly fade into view, which is fine normally but a bit frustrating when you have a lot of units to check.

Oh and there should have been a paragraph break at the end of the first post, Jason says the "Don't get me wrong..." paragraph.

posted 02-23-99 10:46 AM ET            

But...

Many of my own opinions about the game were formulated in part (in conjuction with my own experiences) on discussions with people who love TBS games and those that generally don't play them. If you talk with someone who isn't nut for TBS games, they're going to have one look at SMAC and say: why did you buy that for? They won't realize the depth behind the game as I have.... and there is a significant amount of depth in SMAC. No one is arguing that.

But, how is Firaxis going to attract more people to the genre by releasing a game with questionable graphics? Even if us "Hard-Core" TBS gamers are ok with it, how can they say that this is the best that they can do?

People who I talk to who feel no loyalties to a particular company will give me their honest and unbiased opinion about a game, revealing their true impressions. It demonstrates instantly the aesthetic appeal a game. I like those kind of opinions because I myself had my own biases for the game, and it is a true reflection of how the game is viewed by the public.

posted 02-23-99 11:14 AM ET            

Both would be perfection but I have to vote for getting the gameplay and atmosphere 100% at the expense of the graphics if necessary. Having said that the graphics are good, clear and functional and the movies are superb. I can live with the artillery units problem but I'd have thought that this was something that might have been mentioned in Beta testing. Stick a big fat A on the flag if necessary. My friend Phil said one of the faction leaders said to him "Do you know that Santiago spends all her time looking at her cannon?" Well I play as Santiago and I have a hard time telling where my cannon are. Perhaps it should read "Do you know that Santiago spends all her time looking for her cannon?"

posted 02-23-99 11:46 AM ET            

BTW, the atmosphere that you are refering to is directly woven into and dependent on, to a large degree, to aesthetic elements that we've been discussing in this thread, and it definately matters a great deal whether the graphical aspects of the game are up to par. This is the very point that bothers me so much. I just don't get that feel that I did when I played CVV II.

posted 02-23-99 01:00 PM ET            

First off, we shouldn't confuse the problems of voxel technology with only having one artist making units. No one has (to my knowledge) ever complained about the needlejet graphics in the pre-rendered pictures (like the Monument pics), and likewise with the rest of the unit art.

Second, while the graphics are admittedly not as flashy as StarCraft's (though I always found SC graphics to be a bit cartoony) or Age of Empires' (now *those* are units...), we were trying to do something vastly more complex than either of those games did.

The issue is really not an artistic problem. (Don't you think the pre-rendered art is just great? The barren landscapes of the Hive bases, the austerity of the 'Ivory Tower' University bases? And the movies!)

The issue is a technical problem. How, short of designing and pre-rendering all 32,000+ units, do you easily show strength and speed and domain (land, sea, air) of so many units? How you do put the pieces together without bizarre overlapping problems? How do you show such complex units quickly? (Think polygon count: hexagon does NOT equal circle, despite what some games would lead you to believe.)

posted 02-23-99 01:45 PM ET            

1. Sound problems I fixed by shutting off anything that wasn't necessary like your anti-virus TSR's. Then I changed ds3d and eax settings in alphacentauri.ini to ZERO=0. Sound stuttring disappeared. (this is on a Pentium MMX 233 LAPTOP w/32 M RAM so if works for me it should work for you Pentium II 5 gajillion MHz 5 Terayte RAM people)

2. Yeah, my major gripe about SMAC is the graphical eye candy. It just gets really oppresively terracotta after a while -- BUT only when I come up for air whilst playing. Seriously, I think the graphics of the game suit the style of play just fine. No game is perfect and SMAC certainly isn't. However, in gameplay, immersion and addiction it is as close to perfect as I can stand. Think about how we'd all be complaining if the graphics were top notch but the game were boring.

posted 02-23-99 06:44 PM ET            

There seems to be a large amount of criticism of the graphics in SMAC, but I'd actually like to know WHAT it is that people find poor about them.

Mike H complained purely about visual information - he can't see the artillery pieces. Solution: make artillery a weapon type rather than a special ability (after all, it is in real life).

I complained about the lack of variety in the unit-unit battles - everything seems to use lasers. A few more 2D files (like the explosion set) using machine gun effects or missiles or beams would fix this (like the marines in starcraft - you see the result of firing showen as a burst of sparks on the target). I know it's just dice combat, but please make it should look good, too.

[And I'd like to see ground tanks. Big, heavy assed rolling thunder with a twin track base. But that's personal.]

Otherwise, the units are fine. I love the sinister looking Missile Cruisers, the stealthy probe teams, the retro looking armoured speeders (well, maybe not..), the heavy, mechanical formers, etc. The eye candy is not bad, really. Only the chunky needle jets irritate me, really.

The remaining complaints all seem to ASSUME that the graphics look bad, and then go on to explain why they should/shouldn't look like the 2D based Starcraft.

Chris Pine: AoE? Nah. Despite it's playability/personality problems, Total Annihilation still takes the cake for units. I love those heavy core tanks...

posted 02-23-99 09:44 PM ET            

I realise that creatomg 32000+ different graphics for the units is unrealistic and I realise that there are technical problems with creating graphics for this. Don't you think that I had already thought about that?

Why not have a graphic set that you can choose from? For example, if you want to create an AAA battery, you would set the different tech, and then choose the graphic. Why not do it that way? You would only have to create about 100 different graphics.

Instead, Firaxis only created less than a dozen different looking pieces(hence the chassis), and called it 32,000.

I also realise that Starcraft has a completely different engine and mechanics, so maybe that was a bad example.

I think maybe there should be a good mix between TBS and real time. For example, why not make the air units almost complete automated. Why not make it so that they fly to the target you choose, attack it and fly back home all in one move and all animated. They are only able to attack one unit anyway, so why not animate the entire thing. Other games have done this successfully in TBS games.

posted 02-23-99 10:09 PM ET            

As for automated air attacks - well, just maybe it is so that you can't just hide air units in a base with AAA, fly out and atttack, then fly back straight away, without having to worry about counter attacks. sure, air units could scramble, but that's not the same, is it?

Created less than a dozen pieces, and called it 32,000? See my first point. There really are 32,000 (or so) different units. Show me any other game that has this, cos I don't think there is one. And if there was, you'd see that they had to cut back a little on cartoony, perfect looking graphics. It can't be done, and not just for tech reasons.

And I have yet to see any game mix TBS and realtime well. It is fine as is, and if they want realtime, go play MP, which IMHO is the only place you'd even vaguelly want to play SMAC in RT.

As for sales - well, CIV II was one of the highest selling games ever. Why would they need to expand that audience? why go for graphical fluff, at the expense of gameplay, which is after all what sucked people into CIV II int he first place.

posted 02-24-99 01:25 AM ET            

Although I realise that all that nitrate (and superphosphate?) in the soil of Chiron gives the land a dominant copper color, it would be much nicer to have more variety in the landscape. Surely there are silicate mountains, aluminium rich soils, sulphur deposits, and several different kinds of shrubs to color the landscape? A little work with the tiles could make all the difference.

posted 02-24-99 04:20 AM ET            

Here are my perceptions:

- Portraits are great and give you a good sense of the characters. This helps in gameplay, because it enhances the sense that you are playing against real personalities.

- Landscape is great. The 3D aspect really contributes to the sense of this as a real planet, and gives some gameplay depth, especially as units roll over the hills.

- Units are terrible. Possibly the worst I've ever seen. This IS a gameplay issue -- right now I'm in the last third of a game where I'm staring at 20 or so units in combat, and I have no clue what I'm looking at. It's a bunch of undifferentiated pixels. Half the time I can't tell which is attacking which. A person walking behind me stopped and said "What the hell is all that?" I had to carefully point out what was units and what wasn't -- all they could see was a bunch of blue squares, which were the health flags.

To my eye (with a technical writing background where we're always scaling screenshots and such), they look like they've been scaled to the wrong percentage or something, aside from having color schemes that make them hard to see.

So in the end I'm not asking for wonderful 3D graphics that all have special animations -- I'm asking for units I can actually SEE! Plain old 2D units would be fine with me, if I could see them.

posted 02-24-99 07:45 AM ET            

Chris:
Thanks for your response. I understand the problems you are describing but I am not asking for the graphics to be pre-rendered for every vehicle. In fact a lot of special abilities add something to the unit in terms of a graphical enhancement. The flaming jets on the drop pods spring to mind or the unit carrying pod that turns a ship into a troop carrier. If that can be done for some special abilities couldn't it be done for all of them? I understand why the units are done as they are and I love the flexibility they give us as players. I just sometimes get confused as to what a certain unit is by looking at it.

I can tell what weapon a unit has by looking at it, I can tell what armour it has and what generator. Those all work well IMO and perhaps we should be congratulating you (Firaxis) on what you have achieved rather than criticising what is not there. It's just a bit frustrating that I can see improvements like Drop Pods which I make rarely and not Artillery which I make all the time. (or my governers do, I'm a bit lazy like that)

Anyway at the moment that is the only thing I have found that was at all frustrating about the game. Which is pretty good and if you read what I've said to Zeotrope below you'll see that I don't even mind that too much.

Zeotrope:
I know what you mean about attracting more gamers to the TBS market but I don't entirely agree. The first TBS I played was Civ, even at the time it looked average at best so why did I get it? A friend of mine said "I've been playing this game, I stayed up this long last night and it's such a good game." etc. So I went and bought it and at first I thought this looks a bit basic but after about 2 turns I was hooked. Is the games market so different now? I bought Championship Manager 2 about 2 years ago. That is a Soccer management game with no graphics to speak of just a few rendered photos of stadiums and all the match analysis in text. I still play that game a few hours a week 2 years later. Why did I buy that? Another recommendation. In most peoples opinion it still wipes the floor with soccer management games which render the games graphically, three years after its release.

In my experience and this might be different elsewhere, people buy games for the gameplay not the graphics. Certainly graphics help but I think Unreal looks better than Half Life. Is it a better game? No. Why not? Half Life gives you atmosphere and gameplay that has literally made me jump out of my seat. What makes a TBS is, in my opinion, the rewards you get when you play. When you defeat a faction discover a tech or create a Special Project in SMAC you get some fantastic quotes and movies. Those are the things which give you a real buzz and keep you coming back. You want the reward and the better the reward is the more you enjoy the game. Of course the game has to be challenging as well you need to earn the reward, but in the end you are thinking

"Yes Morgan my Communist economic policies might be crippling trade and industry but you can think about that long and hard in that torture chamber Bwah, ha ha"

Not

"Oh, I've captured Morgan but I could have done it last turn if I'd realised that was an artillery unit."

In the end that doesn't matter. When I talk about SMAC to my friends who have it we never get past the things that have happened to us to talk about the graphics, except have you seen this special project movie? No. It's great build it as soon as you can. Or those Hivers just landed loads of units on the coast and took my city with the X special project in it. It was so annoying...

posted 02-24-99 07:57 AM ET            

You know, it doesn't matter how Firaxis solves the problem of making the units look significantly different from one another. I was just giving some examples here, like the Starcraft example, or the automated aircraft example. It really doesn't matter which approach Firaxis chooses, as long as something is done about the looks of the units.

...and there is no way that anyone is going to convince me that it can't be done or it isn't practical. That simply isn't true, and I know it.

Yesterday, I made an artillery unit, a speeder, and a mobile AAA gun, and they all looked exacly the same! I had to give them different armour types just so that they'd be different colours!

Now, are you going to try to tell me that they couldn't have made them different? Come on...

You'll notice that an infantry unit at a 1,1,1 level looks significantly different than a 2,1,1 unit. So, why not keep going with that?

There is a solution here, so why deny it?

posted 02-24-99 08:07 AM ET            

I also think that if Firaxis can make the 3d units happen, than scrap them. I'd much rather have the 2D units that you can tell apart than have a bunch of 3D units that you can't.

posted 02-24-99 09:16 AM ET            

R for aRtillery
A for AAA
E for ECM etc

or a combination of two for a 2 ability unit. It would only only need to happen on the abilities which aren't shown graphically. If anyone from Firaxis or the Beta program is still reading this I would be very interested to know if this issue ever got mentioned because it seems like such an obvious thing to spot. As soon as you start getting options like Artillery, ECM and AAA your units start to get confusing. Until this debate started getting going I sort of accepted it because the game was so great.

So I guess I am coming round to your way of thinking Jason the flashy stuff I can live without but unit recognition is very important. Also of course what the enemy is throwing at you. I feel hesitant about concentrating on this issue too much because you CAN find out what your units are very easily by clicking on them and the unit design idea is so good. Also I don't want to spend a lot of energy talking about one negative issue when there are so many positive aspects, enough to make the SMAC CD live in my CD player since I got it and it's not coming out for the forseeable future.

I haven't built an aircraft carrier yet, what does it look like?

posted 02-24-99 11:07 AM ET            

I just can't believe that people here will not admit that this is a problem and that it could have been fixed if the effort was there. It doesn't seem that complicated to me.

How does an Aircraft Carrier look? Like a Battleship with a very, very small runway running accross the bow. I was expecting this great big ship that was dominated by this runway running across the entire ship. You're going to laugh when you see this runway.

posted 02-24-99 11:36 AM ET            

- It keeps getting in the way of my enjoyment, especially mid-game on.

- I'm already seeing it impact sales, as people I know decide to take a pass based on the unit graphics and are waiting for Call To Power. Someone said to me "You had told me about the graphics problem, but I had NO IDEA how bad it was until I actually saw that screen full of units..."

Sales may be good anyway (EBWorld is showing it as the best-selling game), but I bet that won't last after Call To Power comes out unless the unit graphics are addressed.

I want to see this game do well. I want Firaxis to make loads of money so I'll get to keep playing the games they put out.

posted 02-24-99 11:37 AM ET         

2) But these should remain special abilities, rather than distinct unit types for gameplay balance purposes. Massed artillery are already pretty powerful (just ask Mr. Yang - how many times have the Hive rolled over base after base with a select group of shock infantry backed by a mass of artillery). There is no quickie antidote for artillery as there is for air (AAA,SAM) and armor (ECM) except for counterbattery or airstrikes. A distinct Artillery unit type would be able to load up on 2 special abilities - now they're limited to one.

posted 02-24-99 11:43 AM ET            

I haven't looked into this but can you customise unit improvements? If so there would, presumeably be no graphics for them.

I don't think this is a simple black and white issue as you make out. Do you remember when everyone was screaming for the release and the demo? What would we have said if Firaxis had said "Sorry but the Beta testers think the Units don't look that good we're going to redesign them and release SMAC three months later, oh and by the way that means you'll only be able to make half as many units as you could before." I'd have been really disappointed, I always backed up Firaxis when people complained about delays, it is a normal part of software development, but a redesign that reduced our options? I don't know. There is always a lot of grey in these issues that you don't know about unless you are involved in the project.

How many times have I switched sides on this issue now? Four in one thread? Oh well.

MikeH

posted 02-24-99 12:00 PM ET            

Mind you I haven't played CTP so I can't make a head to head comparison but in the Head to Head review in PC Gamer UK CTP lost out on every area (in my interperetation), they don't even have borders, except graphics, stacking combat and familiar settings i.e. Earth. but still got the better percentage rating. (incidentely the Editor did mention that a lot of writers had prefered SMAC which was interesting)

posted 02-24-99 12:03 PM ET            

Well, for starters, am a gamer. I can see what gaming companies have done, so I know what is out there and what is capable.

I am also a programmer, but admittedly, I've never created a game. I don't think that any needs to be a programmer to critique a game though. God knows all of those gaming magazine writers are not all programmers.

Would it have been easy to make the unit graphics better? Probably a hellava lot easier than making those movies, which, again they spent 60% of their time (out of the time spent on art) doing. Let's keep that 60% resource allocation factor in mind folks.

You'd really like to be able to have the option of creating 32,000 units rather than being able to tell them appart? How many of you SMAC fans create 32,000 different units? I would rather have 200 'distinguishable' units with all of the SFX, and have the ability to edit those files (which we cannot do with Firaxis' system) than be able to create 32,000 different units. ... which BTW, is a crock statistic since it is just a mathamatically inspired number. No one would actually create most of those units because they would be completely impractical.

posted 02-24-99 12:10 PM ET            

Just for the record, I played a game many years ago that allowed the player to create his own units. I can't remember the name ... it was probably 5 to 6 years ago, but that game had exactly the same problem as this game. Most of the units looked the same. There was an air chassis, and ground chassis and a sea chassis. Although you could put different values on them, they all looked the same.

posted 02-24-99 01:45 PM ET            

I agree that it's hard to distinguish some of the units, and that there must have been *something*, to make them easier to distinguish them besides the text on the unit description. But it's not a game killer -- I've been playing for hours and gotten used to it. I am worried that it's becoming over-hyped. If the rumors scare people away, they're missing a great game and we're risking the chance that Firaxis won't get the chance to create more great stuff like SMAC. We'll see. I suspect that even if the hype about unit recognition slows early sales, that this game will have legs and end up outlasting CTP.

posted 02-24-99 02:30 PM ET            

Jason, I was only commenting on your qualification to comment on changes to make this specific thing work. Do you know how long and how much money other development teams spent on their unit graphics compared to Firaxis? 60% is the figure you quote for the movies but 60% of what? Programmer time? Artist time? Money? Resources? Perhaps of that 60% for the movies very little was resource that could be transferred to unit design. We don't know. (Unless you have more information than you are telling us) So it's not fair to say Firaxis could have easily done X because it's pure speculation on your part.

Apology: (After thinking about what I just said to Jason) For all I know the beta testers and Firaxis improved the unit design tremendously throughout the testing and Beta process, so it was unfair of me to ask why no-one had spotted it. Sorry about that.

MikeH

posted 02-24-99 03:30 PM ET            

�and my AAA gun is clearly named a SAM Missile Battery, so there isn't any practical need to represent this graphically, come on� I must have been brain-dead to think that it should!

�and about the Aircraft Carrier, ah� don't worry about it. There really wasn't any real practical alternative to the runway that runs across the bow. I'm sorry I brought it up.

�the deep pressure haul?� I was way out of line to suggest that, when units have this special ability, it should look like a submarine and not the battleship I just created beside it.

�and about suggesting that there be more SFX� what was I thinking?! Is there really anything wrong with a missile launcher sounding like a laser? �of course not! No� it SHOULD sound like a laser!

�and to think that I would go so far as to request that there be some form of animations with them! With 32,000 units, how on Earth could I expect that Firaxis would have the foresight of creating a graphical representation of an artillery unit. There are so many variables! It doesn't matter that they could have been placed into more general categories (like a tank, an AAA gun, a sub, an aircraft carrier, etc, etc).

�oh� and my fighter, which doesn't look any different from my bomber� but really, why should it. In this time setting, which is far into the future, fighters and bombers are supposed to look the same. The technology of the day is so sophisticated that there is no need for other designs. One is sufficient. God� I can be such an animal.

�the 60% allocation of time (of all time spent on art) to the movies, it really paid off because those are the best damn movies I've ever seen. Even if most of us shut them off after a few game -- that doesn't matter. The time was well spent. And no, it couldn't have been used to create better unit graphics. Even if the units are always seen and are an integral part of the game, the movies still take priority - thank you.

�and I've come to realise (thanks to all of you  ) that graphics don�t matter in a TBS games. I've completely missed the boat on that one, and I should, as so many other TBS fans, face reality, � and come to the conclusion that we should be happy with 1992 level unit graphics and live with it. As long as the GAMEPLAY is there, nothing else matters.

So, you see, I was wrong to criticise Firaxis. You're enlightened comments have shown me the error of my ways, and I'm a better person for it. As Chris Pine clearly pointed out, technically there was no better solution than what Firaxis has demonstrated in SMAC, and I, for one, have no business commenting or criticising Firaxis, since I myself am not a gaming programmer, nor am I a qualified professional critic. My arguments showed no merit --they were illogical and completely uncalled for.

Yours sarcastically,

posted 02-24-99 03:58 PM ET            

A variety of upgrades round out the units. Even the most basic unit (let's say mutalisk) has 3 armor upgrades and 3 weapoon upgrades. According to firaxis that is 16 units! I really think that TBS games should steal great ideas when they have the chance. I know that it might be considered less realistic but it leads to better graphics and I think leads to more stragetgy (because you can give units more interesting abilities and know that players won't be able to combo them into some sort of unfair killing machine).

I really think the customizible unit thing is just a gimick (I know that sentence has some spelling mistakes but I don't care) and doesn't add playablility to the game. It is clear that the firaxis people play a lot of SC (just check their website, it shows who likes what) but it is also clear that they didn't learn their lessons. Even Cavedog (that company that vomitted up TA) has learned their lesson and is making TA:Kingdoms more like SC.

Well I should have kept my message short (this thread is already long enough) but I just had to say it. 32000 units is far too many if it comes at the expense of something.

posted 02-24-99 06:25 PM ET            

I never stated that it doesn't matter if you can't tell artillery froma normal unit. I think that would be a good thing, though you agree with me that it is not a major problem, but nonetheless one that should be considered.

Personyll, if it came down to a choice of 32,000 units, with the minor inconvenience of some units looking smiliar, or 200 handdrawn, starcraft looking units, I would go with the 32,000 myself.

However, despite that, I agree that a submersible unit should look different to an aircraft carrier. I agree that artillery should look noticeably different to ECM units. Basically, they should have something similar to the troop carrying ability, in that it is quite easily noticeable.

Now, I do not think they should go back on their whole design process, and redesign the game to cater for 200 units. They would literally have to redesign the whole game, as units would have to be discovered as opposed to advances, different weapons, chassis, etc. I think the graphics, though not as flash a sa starcraft, do a very good job. However, I agree that some of the unit features could maybe stand out a little more (or at all for that matter), which would hopefully mean a fairly minor change.

But just calm down a little but, huh? I think you're misunderstanding some of the points raised, and not really considering what we are saying. After all, you misunderstood me. Mind you, amybe I just didn't express myself well enough. However, I didn't get quite the same impression you obviously did from reading all the posts.

I think the design principle that Firaxis used is great. The fact that I can tell a unit with Silksteel armour from a unit with any other sort of armour. However, as pointed out, maybe it needs a little refining for certain unit types.

Happy now? ;-)

P.S. I am a programmer myself, though not in games, just like you. And personally, I have no idea how much effort it would take to make those changes. Because I do not understand the underlying design principles behind it. Maybe in order to do that, Artillery would have to be made into a weapon, rather than an ability, and this would require major reworking of the tech tree, unit design, etc. So I am not even going to attempt to sugegst it would be easy, nor hard. And I don't think anyone outside Firaxis could guess. However, I agree it should be investigated, if naught else.

I also support anyone's right to question the design of the game, be they in the industry, or the average Joe Schmoe at home, as any opinion is a valid one. I also support Firaxis' right to veto any changes, after due consideration.

posted 02-24-99 06:57 PM ET         

I agree with the sentiment that <somehow> special abilities, especially for AA and perhaps psi related need to stand out better than they do now.

posted 02-24-99 07:01 PM ET            

Let me start by saying that I have been extremely impressed by what Firaxis accomplished with their graphics. It is not small feat to be able to have variable weapons & chassis etc that mix together so well. I also was deeply appreciative that the units were BIG! Darn, I hated games with those TINY units that looked more like part of the landscape than a unit!

What completely amazed me was the various aspects of the game and how well they were done! I usually skip past all the cut scenes and movies in games ... but they seemed almost an integral part of SMAC. Firaxis worked magic in getting someone dead set against cutscene type aspects to LIKE them!

Likewise, while a static unit piece that simply slides around the map would probably have been just fine for me (as long as I could identify it instantly) ... Firaxis has visible terrain altitude changes that the units actually traverse in an absorbing way (hmm ... absorbing?).

And if you don't like watching the units move around ... Firaxis lets you have a MOVE QUICKLY option for it ... and at several different levels (just units with orders, etc).

To the point now ... I think Firaxis had an insurmountable problem to deal with for their units. They had to make them easily distinguishable between factions (so you can quickly tell if a unit is the HIVE or the BELIEVERS). They couldn't just color in the unit different colors, since the armor used those kind of color differences. They also had to make the unit so it was distinguishable from at least 8 different angles as the units moved on the screen. And of course they needed a way to visually display what chassis, weapon etc the unit had (as is discussed adequately above).

No matter what they did, some people would find fault with it, so it was more or less a lose/lose situation. I think they completed the task admirably and am amazed they could do it at all with their small staff (goll darn, give those guys a raise!!!).

However, is it perfect? No!

Do we hold other games up to such scrutiny? No!

Sid Meier games have gotten such a great reputation, that we hold them to a much higher standard. That they continue to achieve and meet that higher standard is a mark of the excellence of the Firaxis team (yes, team). If other games had to undergo such detailed analysis, I'd hate to see the results!

And through all this, the Firaxis team has been more supportive than I can remember any other game company. Just think about it ... there are thousands of us who want Firaxis to strive toward perfection (a lofty goal, eh?) and don't hesitate to tell them about ways to do it. You would need a huge database just to log all the suggestions they must receive! I am curious just how they *DO* keep track of the suggestions!

So, in the end ... yes graphics is important ... but YES, SMAC has the graphics needed and more! Except for the artillery ... that seems to be the sore spot!

posted 02-24-99 07:49 PM ET            

I will usually say #3 and the reason is simple. The unit alone does not a game make. In fact, if the appeal of the game was based solely on the unit looks we would not be having fun with SMAC. But, again no one is arguing this point. We all think the units could have looked better. Sure, I'll go along with that. Distinctions between the units are not clear and could use some improvement. Sure, I'll go along with that too. But I can't advocate the conclusions that follow. Firaxis does not need to remake the unit designs.

Certainly these complaints do have been influenced by RTS game play. Perhaps we should re-think what we are complaining about. It is not that the units are completely indistinguishable, the info is all there on the screen. Mike says that he does not like having to check this info all the time. But I think this view point mistakes the TBS genre. TBS is about having all the time you need to make your moves and plan your strategy, it is not about quickly jumping your unit into battle.

But having said this, I notice one thing missing from the comparisons to SC and TA. In RTS games when you click on a distinct unit it makes a distinct sound. Even if you could not see the difference between a Peewee from a Fink, the sounds are a clear distinguishing characteristic. So I ask all of you: By keeping the units the same as they are now but adding a distinct (customizable?) sound element would the above mentioned problems be solved? The sound element could be added in the Workshop screen and turned on or off for individual units.

I am more concerned about this as a design concept not as a workable patch because I know nothing about how such a fix could be created.

posted 02-24-99 10:20 PM ET            

For me it's not about distinguishing any two units; it's about getting an island covered with infantry units at battle, and my screen turning into a swirling mass of black and blue pixels in which I can't even tell where to click. Fortunately, the planes are distinguishable from the infantry and don't participate in this confusion.

As my probably last post in this topic (I think everything has probably been said), I will agree that unit queues, governors, and (my addition) Build Road To and Build Tube To commands make this significantly more playable than other games in the genre. (I'm amazed to hear CTP doesn't have build queues -- I mean, MOO2 had this years ago!) These elements really allow you to concentrate on strategy, although they all have minor bugs that I'm sure will get handled in one patch or another.

And the distinct characters, planetary council, and borders really enhance the sense of playing with real personalities.

posted 02-24-99 10:21 PM ET            

Great, I can design over 32000 different units. And I mean it, great. But I think it could have been a bit more user friendly.

An improvement I would like to have is be able to make units obsolete and upgradable(say from 4-1 police to 6-1 police, or 1-3 trance to 1-4 trance and so on) in the City meny(also). Or even have an option where that is automatic even though a prototype is not created. All to make game flow go smother and to not have to shift menus so much to make units obsolete.

I really think the prototype idea is cool and realistic, but it also slows the game too much for my taste* (together with having to make units obsolete and so on) as there are not enough automation options for unit design.

Having more good automation options for unit design would make the game one whole level better.

* I suspect prototyping is the crook in this cause it would otherwise be easy to have an option making some units obsolete(with a question where you had the CHOICE of keeping both types of the same sort eg (4)-1 and the new (6)-1 suggestion from the comp). Now Firaxis had to consider the extra 50% prototype minerals more before making units obsolete, I guess.

Also where do I see the votes I have for the council? Wherever they are, they and the other factions votes should have been displayed TOGETHER somewhere I think.

posted 02-24-99 11:50 PM ET            

There could be a number of fixes to the unit graphics problems:

1) More chassis types - add bombers, submarines, tanks, and a few MAJOR unit types (of use to everyone) like aircraft carriers. These would be only semi-customisable at best, but of enough use that most players would need one or two per game (more if you depend totally on aircraft like me ).

2) Limit some weapons to certain types of unit - currently the twenty or so weapon/equipment types can be placed on almost every chassis. Seeing infantry with plasma shards or chaos guns is a bit strange, while there's also no point in placing hand weapons on fighters or hover tanks. Maybe its a bit TOO conventional, but a list of Light, Heavy and Energy weapons might be useful.

3) Perhaps also add some kind of ammunition quality value or similar idea as a way to increase the attack strength of a weapon. This would avoid the proliferation of silly 'Guns', which seem to be the only way to increase a unit's attack strength. Maybe even reinclude the 'firepower' rating from CivII.

posted 02-25-99 12:03 AM ET            

Some special abilites just don't below where they are, either. Artillery, AA capability, etc, are NOT special abilites, but weapons in their own right.

"See my laser cannon? 450nm wavelength, 12 shot rechargable capacitor, fully field tested. Oh yeah, and it can lob shells 50kms as well. Pretty handy, eh?"

posted 02-25-99 03:20 AM ET            

SMAC is a great game and has incredible depth. But some of the SMAC zealots out there seem uncomfortable with the critizisms.

I, for one, actually find the graphics sort
of charming, the TBS type of game is an
abstraction by nature so abstract graphics are no problem to me. I acutally avoid some
of the identification problems by renaming
the units in some bizarre and meaningful manner. The graphics hardly hinder the game
IMO.

The game was frustrating to me at first do to
the sound bugs and frequent crashes. After
downloading DX 6.1 and tweaking the .ini file
SMAC runs pretty well (even if a bit sluggish) at times. But this is world domination game, I appreciate the time to think things over. Rome wasn't built in a
day as they say.

The entire forum is great and hopefully the
3.0 patch (so soon!) will get us thru the rest of the annoyances. SMAC acolytes, this
is a game, not a religion. The critiques will only make future games better. Nice work SM and BR, thx for SMAC.

QS

posted 02-25-99 05:14 AM ET            

Thinking about systems I've developed the front end UI is normally the last thing we concentrate on after we have got the beckground stuff working. After all you can always pretty it up later. Sometimes the UI has to come first. The customer says we want it to look like this and that's their and our starting point. I don't know how it is with a TBS, from the Firaxis game philosophy it sounds like they start with the back end which is what we are all really interested in. Anyway the projects where we start with the UI tend to be nicer looking and slightly less functional (I don't mean they don't work, just that they have less functionality). I had a point when I started this paragraph.....oh well.

In a tbs game what people see on the map is their main guide to what is going on in the game. It is backed up with all kinds of secondary charts and screens, in SMAC the city screen is also very important but there are loads of others. These are all really well thought out and instinctively easy to use. I have never found myself thinking where's this menu or what screen do I do that on. I would have thought that the same type of thinking would have gone into the unit design. Is this unit clearly distinguishable from that one? Is it instinctively obvious to an average person that that is a Buggy with an artillery piece on it? Is that laser an AAA gun?

How about if Artillery and AAA were weapons but worked like the armour. When you got weapon increases you could also build better artillery pieces and the artillery weapon would change colour. Same with the AAA. So that buggy with the green artillery gun is a [5] artillery and the one with the silver barrel is a [9]

Another point I think is worth mentioning again (can't remember who brought it up first, sorry) is the weapon sounds. I was reading a post the other day when someone was saying something like
"The boom boom sound is artillery and can be used to soften up targets from afar and the fizz fizz is a standard fighting sound." It would have been nice to have a different noise for each weapon. I'd feel a lot more satisfied if I created a new weapon and got a great new noise to go with it. eg 1-1-1 scout unit "fizz fizz" my new Shard interceptor
"KHRAZZZSSHOOOOOOOM" bye bye scout unit, now I feel really satisfied, and I'm thinking, "Ha ha! Great, I wonder what the next weapon will do?" Until then I'm going to build more of these "KHRAZZZSSHOOOOOOOM" guns. (forgive me I am a Spartan fan so I like big guns)

posted 02-25-99 08:21 AM ET            

I just think that the obvious was missed and I'd like to know why. What were the technical difficulties that led to this. Was the topic even discussed? Was it recognized early on but pushed aside because of deadlines? Enquiring minds want to know.

QuienSabe got it just right when he read my message. I was purposely trying to be funny when I wrote the sarcastic message. It wasn't directed toward anyone in particular. Rather, the purpose was to take the arguments against my suggestions and expose their obvious weaknesses in the most dramatic manner imaginable. It was a way to show how I see those arguments.

MikeH, don't feel torn. A lot of what you are saying is true. I'm sure that there is a good explanation as to why Firaxis didn't make the units better. Maybe they gave it a good shot, but perhaps complications came late in the development stages that prevented them from tackling the unexpected issue of trying to combine multiple unit configurations while representing them graphically. I refuse to believe that Firaxis did not foresee this as being a problem; I just think that they decided to release the game since it was in development for so long.

One thing that I will never accept is the excuse that everyone runs to: "It can't be done". I can't stand the words "I can't", or "it can't be done". I'll never accept that, and some people have raised that as an excuse, which is why I don't understand their arguments. If someone can clearly demonstrate why it is impossible to mesh together the aesthetic qualities of a game like Starcraft into a TBS game, and at the same time demonstrate that every possible angle or solution was convered, including game engine re-design or genre re-thinking, then, and only then will I be satisfied.

posted 02-25-99 02:52 PM ET            

I want a creative graphical animations.

I want a big brawly looking unit when it reaches the higher tech levels.

I want a marine that looks like a marine.

I would like cool new technologies that burp out slime that oozes over an enemy unit and slowly melts him away.

I want huge 10 level artillery piece with a big cannon pointing upward that does a kick-back when fired, and fires this bluish proton energy shell that makes an atomic style explosion on target.

I want a bomber that launches a huge barage of missiles on a enemy target (and the enemy with their hands in the air, fleeing in mortal terror ). Mind you, I know that wouldn't be easy.

I want a submarine to look like some dark object in the water, that breaks out of the water to launch some form of missle at an unsuspecting foe.

Give me a battleship that fires from the side, and as it is doing so, it rocks back and forth from the shock of the cannon fire.

Come on people! Think about it! Use your imagination! This could be so amazing! Think about what that would do for a game like this. It would be simply a sit-me-down, you-can't-touch-this game.

posted 02-25-99 04:34 PM ET            

I disagree heartily with your plea for eye and ear candy for several reasons:

1) Those things take up oodles of space and processor time, which will bar people with older machines from playing. Even with my new Ce400, 128k cache (I could have gotten more, but I'm cheap), SMAC can occasionally lag. It would surely go bovine with the additions you crave.

2) The ear and eye candy take up programmer time. While I agree that the time spent on the movies was largely a waste, as they'll only be viewed a few times, adding too much more to the units would have required subtracting employee resources from programming the game, which is what really matters. After all, Firaxis' budget is not limitless.

3) Graphics and sound take up disk space, and might have pushed SMAC onto two CDs. Every multi-disk program I've had has been a pain in the butt.

4) Any graphics beyond the minimum necessary for unit recognition and a bit of amusement is largely unnecessary. Yes, they give an instant of enjoyment, like the pounding of the heart when one of those X-Com aliens popped out of nowhere to shoot one of my guys. But I come to TBS games primarily for the intellectual challenge, and they add little to that.

You criticize those who say "it can't be done." I agree that, with enough resources, it certainly could be done. But the revenue stream from a $40 game requires some tradeoffs. I think that's why computer game history shows an inverse relationship between graphic beauty and compelling gameplay. The money just doesn't allow hiring enough people to do both, so one must suffer. Given that limitation, I think Firaxis chose correctly. I just wish they'd go one more mile and let us see the unit attributes more easily at a glance.

posted 02-25-99 05:04 PM ET            

Anyway, Flags, symbols, little flashy lights ICK. I still think the way to go is sounds. Use multimedia, not just GFX to help you here. A conformation sound would not be annoying if you only put it on 1 or 2 units, the ones you all are getting confused about. Make the sound short and quick like "click-click" or "wurrRRrr" or something more beefy if you prefer. Make it a no-cost upgrade in the design workshop and put it only on the units you want.

I say this because the game-time problems exampled here are only concerned with a small part of the game. There is no need to rework the entire unit-design just to end the confusion in those few circumstances.

Again I'll state, this is TBS if we cannot take the time to check the info all there on screen then maybe the problem is with our concept of the genre.

posted 02-25-99 05:55 PM ET            

The main one being: I'm bored. EVERY UNIT FIGHTS THE SAME!!! Zap... zap... zap... Boom. I haven't played another TBS with so little attention to unit personality. CivII had the cool sounds - "Fire! Pow pow p'chock!" - why doesn't SMAC at least do this?

Right now, as the Hive, I'm the totally dominant super power on AC (date 2267, I think), gradually working my way through every other Faction on Planet (all of whom have signed pacts with me out of pure fear). Am I revelling in my coonquests? NO!! IT'S DULL!!

If this was Starcraft, I'd be relaxing in the glow of my marines' machine gun fire as they rolled through the enemy base. If this was CivII, I'd be laughing as my bombers plastered city defender and my battleships wiped out their wimpy cruisers.

Instead, the ho hum factor is now almost off the scale as I watch one little laser battle after another.

Don't get me wrong, I still think this is one of the best games ever - and half of my problem is that the tension has been removed (as I'm definitely going to win, and win big). But, alas, there is nothing left in its place other than the desire to finish the game and get a higher score than last time.

posted 02-25-99 08:38 PM ET            

I have to admit that I'm a little bored with the game too.

posted 02-26-99 07:57 PM ET            

SFX I'd like to see:
Machine gun fire (sound and 'burst of sparks' effect)
Laser fire (solid beams between each square, current blast and sound)
Artillery (multiple small explosions scattered across the target square, howiter type sound - do for both sides in artilley battle)
Missile fire (Salvo sound, larger explosions in target square)
Fusion/energy weapons: (target glows red, melting sound).

That's enough for here. But lighting bolts, plasma shards, etc could have their own effects added.

Add to this a variety of death sequences, based on the unit chassis (e.g screaming marine, exploding tank, nosediving aircraft, etc).