Non-Civ gamers' critique and opinions of Alpha Centauri

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Non-Civ gamers' critique and opinions of Alpha Centauri

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Non-Civ gamers' critique and opinions of Alpha Centauri

Vostok posted 02-24-99 04:41 PM ET
Well, perhaps im a civ gamer in my second heart, as Master of Orion and Romance of the Three Kingdoms are up there for my all time favorite games. RTS games tho are my favorite genre, and i hate first person shooters so, take where ive come from into consideration if i say something disagreeable.
I think this game is wonderful, but has some substantial atmospheric and lesser fundamental flaws that may shut out all but hard core civ players.
First, the terrain is just great -- how farms, roads, forests all map to the contours of the underlying terrain is very impressive. There is very little blockiness on land-mass shapes so chacteristic of these sorts of games (with random generator especially), and so far once i understood what the random map options mean (where does it explain that in documentation? it took my awhile to realise erosion factor=Dt_Mountains) have been VERY impressed with the random map generator.
Watching the landscape develop over time is amazing, as conquered cities become 'in your mind' less and less so until they're part of your province just like any other location. The economic systems used, while oddly defering speciality to ambigious terms of 'energy', is well done, if it does tread sometimes a fine line between very complicated but nearly almost mindlessly simplistic.
Diplomacy is also very complex, except that once again (like much of the game) it threads around depth and shallowness. It is frustrating that one sees a very complicated diplomacy system (far better than in any other game ive played, perhaps even so far as the best yet!) presented through ten canned catch-all responces. Couln'dt there have been at least i little more time spent on just adding some more things to say, even if just 'eye-candy'? The planetary council, is unfortuately, the least developed aspect of interaction. With only a few really important (or feasable) options to vote upon, and no 'round-table' discussion or debate (which would have been very fun to simulate -- the facist declaring "He stepped on my shoes first!!") what depth could have been there is lost. It remains the old MOO 'diplomatic win' scenerio to give the game a bit more depth than sheer military conquest.
What don't i like?? Well, the planetary council is one but most of all, and perhaps fundamentally wrong, i don't like the empire building system as related to population. In Romance of the Three Kingdoms (v.1,2,3,4 take your pick) provincal population and army size were directly related and a function of each other. If you conscripted 50,000 men and the provence only had 120,000, it would simply never recover because of the ruined growth rate. And armies measured this way in the tens of thousands was quite common, and by the end of the game usually the few remaining superpower had enourmous 200,000+ clashes over crucial campaigns. In Alpha Centauri, population rates do not even begin to match the scope of a 'planetary' dominion when 1 pop = 1000 citizens. At the end of the game, what are there, if at most, 200,000 and thats at the extreme end. Very poorly done, even if realism was sacrifised for game mechanics.
Which brings up Alpha Centauri's paradox -- such a complicated game is quintessentially superficial. So you 'research' Quantum Mechanics 2, (or whatever), what is your, ahem, prize? A big gun. Tons of research but modeled and pushed into a round hole. You get a 'super unit'? What does it do different? Well, it has red armor, and it, well, thats it. The vauted 'depth' is really just a system of upgrades, with only seven or so unit types and 32,000 variations of those 7. Fun fun... Besides, for i civ game im very tired of non-peacful interaction. This game is still the tired model developed back in the 386 days -- build an empire of cities whose only purpose is research and military construction, then go trounce your opponents. Even *with* compicated diplomacy there is no 'simcity' creativity or passivity, no peaceful construction. Just more build kill.
This game also drones badly like some StereoLab album, its just without Laetitia Sadier's voice it ceases to be music but 'experimental sound sets'. With only 3 or four sound effects, horrible music (no offence to the composer) i find my self entering a zen-like nothingness of mind. Look at StarControl 2, a game with music piped through its PC speaker! yet is by many considered to be the best in many music categories because of the depth the added to the game. *Ur-Quan music was the best, but the Zot-Pot-Pik was pretty fun too * Here there are simply a collection of ambient sounds. If your not going to give us music, give us an option to use our own at least.
Well, theres my very long review, probably have some discrepencies, but there you go.
VvGaMeRXvV posted 02-24-99 05:32 PM ET
The armor adds defense values. If you have ever played Civ or Civ 2, there were the ADM values and the HP/FP values. ADM is attack/defense/movement and HP/FP is hitpoints/firepower. These definitely effect the gameplay. So when you get the new technology your units can move farther, defend better and attack with more power. Of this whole game, the unit design workshop is probably the most approved of with the exception of the auto-design option.
Glak posted 02-24-99 09:22 PM ET
Nah I'd have to say that the unit design system is pretty bad. They should just remove it and throw some real units into the game. Sure making your armor red gives you a little more defense power but is that all there is to it? In the civ games when you got a tech you didn't just put red armor on your chariots, you got knights and other neat units. Everthing looked different and had neat names that made you want to go out and kill someone. Units just had more style. I mean if pictures don't matter why have pictures at all? I also miss the good old fashioneed rivers from the original civ. They weren't as realistic but they looked better.
BTW: Romance of the three Kingdoms II (genesis version) was like the best game ever (exception: Starcraft, Starcraft beats all)
I was always Cao Cao, the weird thing is that I have read some about him and we seem somewhat similar, I even had a similar beard (but it kept growing)
yin26 posted 02-25-99 02:01 AM ET
Vostok:
I really think you nailed it. I posted a question "Why am I having trouble liking this game?" and I think you hit most or all of the problems. Very well done.
It's hard to explain how willing (nay, desperate) I was for this game to up the ante. But this really reminds me of simply changing a desktop theme. Sure, the icons are different, but that's where the fun ends and the disappointment begins.
yin26 posted 02-25-99 02:03 AM ET
Vostok:
I really think you nailed it. I posted a question "Why am I having trouble liking this game?" and I think you hit most or all of the problems. Very well done.
It's hard to explain how willing (nay, desperate) I was for this game to up the ante. But this really reminds me of simply changing a desktop theme. Sure, the icons are different, but that's where the fun ends and the disappointment begins.
Richard posted 02-25-99 10:34 AM ET
AMEN!!!! This is CIV II with goofy-ass names, differnent eye-candy, and fewer developmental options
Rubikahn posted 02-25-99 10:46 AM ET
I wonder if Sid actually had anything to do with this game - or just added his name to it. Or maybee it's just that Sid has had such wonderfull games in the past that my expectations were just too high after waiting so long for SMAC to come out?
Ender4000 posted 02-25-99 11:49 AM ET
so then if they had added different names and pictures for the new units you'd like the game?

I happen to love the new unit design, gives you a lot more options and makes the game much more in depth. In civ there was always certain useless units and certain great units, and when you reached the great units first you won.
Dredd posted 02-25-99 12:12 PM ET
I'm not sure you are giving the game enough time. Try playing once as each of the different factions, and you will see that you need to play seven different styles in order to succeed. In Civ2, I could take ANY nation, use the same tired old strategy, and win on Deity level - consistently. This is not possible in SMAC, from what I've seen, playing on the higher levels.
The diplomacy, while presented in a bunch of recurring catch-all phrases, delivers more options than any system I've seen. Sure it could use some tweaks (I also like the "barter" system in Lords of Magic SE), but at least your allies ARE allies, unlike in Civ2. No one ever gave me units in Civ2!
The unit design system - well, take it or leave it. Turn on auto-design if you don't like it, but I find it enjoyable being able to - and forced to (auto-design off) design my own units. Almost like a game within the game. Do I sacrifice defense for cost? Should I add AAA? Decisions, decisions.
I have been playing every game as peacefully as possible. Sure there will be times when a war may flare up, but this is nowhere's near as prevalent as in most games, where it's "let's all gang up on the human." Take either MOO or RTK; both games tried to make up for poor AI by ganging up on the human.
Not sure I understand your research criticism. Technologies do not just allow "a bigger gun", they allow development of base facilities, projects, and in some cases enhance the abilities of your terraformers or the production of your resources.
If you don't like the game, take it back. But I really think you should give it a chance. You may find yourself sucked in...
Jason Beaudoin posted 02-25-99 12:37 PM ET
Vostok: That was a very honest review. That is exactly what I think about the game. There some very good things about it, and some very bad things about it. ...and the unit graphical representation and the SFX are the major problems with it.
It just floors me when I hear PC Gamer giving this game a 98% mark. I will never buy a game using their advice, that's for sure. They could, at the very least, be honest about it and point our SMAC's major weaknesses.
Check out the thread JasonB and MikeH's Big SMAC debate, and you'll see that we've been talking about this for some time. Some of us share your opinions.
Jason Beaudoin posted 02-25-99 12:38 PM ET
Vostok: That was a very honest review. That is exactly what I think about the game. There some very good things about it, and some very bad things about it. ...and the unit graphical representation and the SFX are the major problems with it.
It just floors me when I hear PC Gamer giving this game a 98% mark. I will never buy a game using their advice, that's for sure. They could, at the very least, be honest about it and point our SMAC's major weaknesses.
Check out the thread JasonB and MikeH's Big SMAC debate, and you'll see that we've been talking about this for some time. Some of us share your opinions.
Jason Beaudoin posted 02-25-99 12:39 PM ET
Ooops, sorry for the double post!
SnowFire posted 02-27-99 05:46 PM ET
PCG is giving it a 98%? Excellent! Which reminds me, I've always found their advice very sound.
Personally, and I've said this before, I don't care that the graphics aren't as pretty, or there aren't as many diplomatic phrases. To quote Shakespeare, "The play's the thing," and the play in SMAC is second to none. Chaos needlejets are just as neat as knights to me.
MrSparkle posted 02-27-99 06:00 PM ET
Vostok-

You are really what this forum needed; this is the first post I've found that seems to be opinions formulated by truly unbiased player.
I have to disagree with you slam of the unit building system. I found that to be very enjoyable, and I think that it'll really come into play when multiplayer really gets rolling. The AI factions have a tendancy to make the same core units over and over.
Yes, music bites, and you're right about the diplomacy. IMHO, you can NEVER have a too-complex diplomatic part of a game of this genre.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Non-Civ gamers' critique and opinions of Alpha Centauri
Vostok	posted 02-24-99 04:41 PM ET Well, perhaps im a civ gamer in my second heart, as Master of Orion and Romance of the Three Kingdoms are up there for my all time favorite games. RTS games tho are my favorite genre, and i hate first person shooters so, take where ive come from into consideration if i say something disagreeable. I think this game is wonderful, but has some substantial atmospheric and lesser fundamental flaws that may shut out all but hard core civ players. First, the terrain is just great -- how farms, roads, forests all map to the contours of the underlying terrain is very impressive. There is very little blockiness on land-mass shapes so chacteristic of these sorts of games (with random generator especially), and so far once i understood what the random map options mean (where does it explain that in documentation? it took my awhile to realise erosion factor=Dt_Mountains) have been VERY impressed with the random map generator. Watching the landscape develop over time is amazing, as conquered cities become 'in your mind' less and less so until they're part of your province just like any other location. The economic systems used, while oddly defering speciality to ambigious terms of 'energy', is well done, if it does tread sometimes a fine line between very complicated but nearly almost mindlessly simplistic. Diplomacy is also very complex, except that once again (like much of the game) it threads around depth and shallowness. It is frustrating that one sees a very complicated diplomacy system (far better than in any other game ive played, perhaps even so far as the best yet!) presented through ten canned catch-all responces. Couln'dt there have been at least i little more time spent on just adding some more things to say, even if just 'eye-candy'? The planetary council, is unfortuately, the least developed aspect of interaction. With only a few really important (or feasable) options to vote upon, and no 'round-table' discussion or debate (which would have been very fun to simulate -- the facist declaring "He stepped on my shoes first!!") what depth could have been there is lost. It remains the old MOO 'diplomatic win' scenerio to give the game a bit more depth than sheer military conquest. What don't i like?? Well, the planetary council is one but most of all, and perhaps fundamentally wrong, i don't like the empire building system as related to population. In Romance of the Three Kingdoms (v.1,2,3,4 take your pick) provincal population and army size were directly related and a function of each other. If you conscripted 50,000 men and the provence only had 120,000, it would simply never recover because of the ruined growth rate. And armies measured this way in the tens of thousands was quite common, and by the end of the game usually the few remaining superpower had enourmous 200,000+ clashes over crucial campaigns. In Alpha Centauri, population rates do not even begin to match the scope of a 'planetary' dominion when 1 pop = 1000 citizens. At the end of the game, what are there, if at most, 200,000 and thats at the extreme end. Very poorly done, even if realism was sacrifised for game mechanics. Which brings up Alpha Centauri's paradox -- such a complicated game is quintessentially superficial. So you 'research' Quantum Mechanics 2, (or whatever), what is your, ahem, prize? A big gun. Tons of research but modeled and pushed into a round hole. You get a 'super unit'? What does it do different? Well, it has red armor, and it, well, thats it. The vauted 'depth' is really just a system of upgrades, with only seven or so unit types and 32,000 variations of those 7. Fun fun... Besides, for i civ game im very tired of non-peacful interaction. This game is still the tired model developed back in the 386 days -- build an empire of cities whose only purpose is research and military construction, then go trounce your opponents. Even with compicated diplomacy there is no 'simcity' creativity or passivity, no peaceful construction. Just more build kill. This game also drones badly like some StereoLab album, its just without Laetitia Sadier's voice it ceases to be music but 'experimental sound sets'. With only 3 or four sound effects, horrible music (no offence to the composer) i find my self entering a zen-like nothingness of mind. Look at StarControl 2, a game with music piped through its PC speaker! yet is by many considered to be the best in many music categories because of the depth the added to the game. Ur-Quan music was the best, but the Zot-Pot-Pik was pretty fun too Here there are simply a collection of ambient sounds. If your not going to give us music, give us an option to use our own at least. Well, theres my very long review, probably have some discrepencies, but there you go.
VvGaMeRXvV	posted 02-24-99 05:32 PM ET The armor adds defense values. If you have ever played Civ or Civ 2, there were the ADM values and the HP/FP values. ADM is attack/defense/movement and HP/FP is hitpoints/firepower. These definitely effect the gameplay. So when you get the new technology your units can move farther, defend better and attack with more power. Of this whole game, the unit design workshop is probably the most approved of with the exception of the auto-design option.
Glak	posted 02-24-99 09:22 PM ET Nah I'd have to say that the unit design system is pretty bad. They should just remove it and throw some real units into the game. Sure making your armor red gives you a little more defense power but is that all there is to it? In the civ games when you got a tech you didn't just put red armor on your chariots, you got knights and other neat units. Everthing looked different and had neat names that made you want to go out and kill someone. Units just had more style. I mean if pictures don't matter why have pictures at all? I also miss the good old fashioneed rivers from the original civ. They weren't as realistic but they looked better. BTW: Romance of the three Kingdoms II (genesis version) was like the best game ever (exception: Starcraft, Starcraft beats all) I was always Cao Cao, the weird thing is that I have read some about him and we seem somewhat similar, I even had a similar beard (but it kept growing)
yin26	posted 02-25-99 02:01 AM ET Vostok: I really think you nailed it. I posted a question "Why am I having trouble liking this game?" and I think you hit most or all of the problems. Very well done. It's hard to explain how willing (nay, desperate) I was for this game to up the ante. But this really reminds me of simply changing a desktop theme. Sure, the icons are different, but that's where the fun ends and the disappointment begins.
yin26	posted 02-25-99 02:03 AM ET Vostok: I really think you nailed it. I posted a question "Why am I having trouble liking this game?" and I think you hit most or all of the problems. Very well done. It's hard to explain how willing (nay, desperate) I was for this game to up the ante. But this really reminds me of simply changing a desktop theme. Sure, the icons are different, but that's where the fun ends and the disappointment begins.
Richard	posted 02-25-99 10:34 AM ET AMEN!!!! This is CIV II with goofy-ass names, differnent eye-candy, and fewer developmental options
Rubikahn	posted 02-25-99 10:46 AM ET I wonder if Sid actually had anything to do with this game - or just added his name to it. Or maybee it's just that Sid has had such wonderfull games in the past that my expectations were just too high after waiting so long for SMAC to come out?
Ender4000	posted 02-25-99 11:49 AM ET so then if they had added different names and pictures for the new units you'd like the game? I happen to love the new unit design, gives you a lot more options and makes the game much more in depth. In civ there was always certain useless units and certain great units, and when you reached the great units first you won.
Dredd	posted 02-25-99 12:12 PM ET I'm not sure you are giving the game enough time. Try playing once as each of the different factions, and you will see that you need to play seven different styles in order to succeed. In Civ2, I could take ANY nation, use the same tired old strategy, and win on Deity level - consistently. This is not possible in SMAC, from what I've seen, playing on the higher levels. The diplomacy, while presented in a bunch of recurring catch-all phrases, delivers more options than any system I've seen. Sure it could use some tweaks (I also like the "barter" system in Lords of Magic SE), but at least your allies ARE allies, unlike in Civ2. No one ever gave me units in Civ2! The unit design system - well, take it or leave it. Turn on auto-design if you don't like it, but I find it enjoyable being able to - and forced to (auto-design off) design my own units. Almost like a game within the game. Do I sacrifice defense for cost? Should I add AAA? Decisions, decisions. I have been playing every game as peacefully as possible. Sure there will be times when a war may flare up, but this is nowhere's near as prevalent as in most games, where it's "let's all gang up on the human." Take either MOO or RTK; both games tried to make up for poor AI by ganging up on the human. Not sure I understand your research criticism. Technologies do not just allow "a bigger gun", they allow development of base facilities, projects, and in some cases enhance the abilities of your terraformers or the production of your resources. If you don't like the game, take it back. But I really think you should give it a chance. You may find yourself sucked in...
Jason Beaudoin	posted 02-25-99 12:37 PM ET Vostok: That was a very honest review. That is exactly what I think about the game. There some very good things about it, and some very bad things about it. ...and the unit graphical representation and the SFX are the major problems with it. It just floors me when I hear PC Gamer giving this game a 98% mark. I will never buy a game using their advice, that's for sure. They could, at the very least, be honest about it and point our SMAC's major weaknesses. Check out the thread JasonB and MikeH's Big SMAC debate, and you'll see that we've been talking about this for some time. Some of us share your opinions.
Jason Beaudoin	posted 02-25-99 12:38 PM ET Vostok: That was a very honest review. That is exactly what I think about the game. There some very good things about it, and some very bad things about it. ...and the unit graphical representation and the SFX are the major problems with it. It just floors me when I hear PC Gamer giving this game a 98% mark. I will never buy a game using their advice, that's for sure. They could, at the very least, be honest about it and point our SMAC's major weaknesses. Check out the thread JasonB and MikeH's Big SMAC debate, and you'll see that we've been talking about this for some time. Some of us share your opinions.
Jason Beaudoin	posted 02-25-99 12:39 PM ET Ooops, sorry for the double post!
SnowFire	posted 02-27-99 05:46 PM ET PCG is giving it a 98%? Excellent! Which reminds me, I've always found their advice very sound. Personally, and I've said this before, I don't care that the graphics aren't as pretty, or there aren't as many diplomatic phrases. To quote Shakespeare, "The play's the thing," and the play in SMAC is second to none. Chaos needlejets are just as neat as knights to me.
MrSparkle	posted 02-27-99 06:00 PM ET Vostok- You are really what this forum needed; this is the first post I've found that seems to be opinions formulated by truly unbiased player. I have to disagree with you slam of the unit building system. I found that to be very enjoyable, and I think that it'll really come into play when multiplayer really gets rolling. The AI factions have a tendancy to make the same core units over and over. Yes, music bites, and you're right about the diplomacy. IMHO, you can NEVER have a too-complex diplomatic part of a game of this genre.