Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
What do you think makes SMAC different from CIV?
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
What do you think makes SMAC different from CIV?
|
| Author | Topic: What do you think makes SMAC different from CIV? |
| Wraithfire |
posted 02-24-99 07:35 PM ET  
I think that SMAC is not really an empire building game... It is instead a "faction" building game impling a totally different style of gameplay. Empires unlike factions are less self-interested and more society-oriented... the reason why I think some people don't feel as connected to SMAC is because it seems to provide less of a sense of an enduring stable society that one gets from an empire builder like CIV. The point Empire builders is stablity and longevity (preferably for all time), & rest. However SMAC with its factional orientation is about motion, motion, motion... This is because factions are about the here and now, the moment, and how each ideology deals with it. The moment and ideals are what drive them and sparks their actions. That's why you don't see "happy" people in Smac... not because there aren't any, but because they aren't what's important. What is important? Talents... thats right! talented people that can bring about the perfection and promugation of one's ideology at the current moment. A factions sense of the moment is also what brings about the idea of the council... only in a factioned (unstable)world do you worry about your surroundings and find an UNsque council... In the Age of Empires (sorry about the cliched title, but its a good description), you would never have found the idea of a "world counil" and this is because people identified with their kingdoms and empires, and less with factions though these still had major effects (usually bringing about the downfall of an empire)... That's the true difference between SMAC & CIV is that one is oriented towards the empire (the society) and the other is aimed towards the faction (ideology & self interest)... So is SMAC an empire building game? It's my belief that its not meant to be one... instead it is a great representation of modern factional politics something more interested in pursuit of its own ends and less for the good of the society on the whole... Thanks and I hope to hear your takes on SMAC ;-) |
| DanS |
posted 02-24-99 08:08 PM ET
I agree. If SMAC were meant to be an empire game, we would be encouraged to optimize our empire (Civ & Civ 2). However, it seems we are being encouraged to optimize our ideology or way of life, not our empire production, etc. Planet is there to fight back. You've been pushing the thread for the last couple of days, and you've got a good idea. So I had to respond. |
| outlyr242 the rebirth |
posted 02-24-99 08:08 PM ET
I also think there is a big difference between the worldview behind the creation of CIV and SMAC. Each game is in effect saying this is how to "win" at history. Certainly no game can, or even claims to, encompass all that it takes to build an empire or run a faction. But there must be some level of believability in the "way things are done" presented in the game if it is to be playable. This view point won't hold for games like Mario Bros. or Tetris, but those games do not take history as their starting point. With Civ and SMAC we are working in a particular environment, one that must be believable. These games give a predominantly western view on history and future. Both games tout technology as the key to success and survival. But a debate on this here would be too much of a digression. Belief in "The Empire" parallels the American predicament as a world building power, as America vs the Soviet Union. This is to say that CIV came from an American view point that saw the world as a place of competing ideologies: Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Apartheid, Democracy, Monarchy, etc... Belief in "The Faction" parallels our more current American predicament where we have home grown terrorists and sects. Environmentalists, Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers, KKK, Republicans, Democrats, Anti-technologists, On-liners, Microsoft, Netscape, etc... This is not to say that these things did not exist before or that world ideologies do not exist now. They do but our media-based attention is drawn now to the battle for inner city streets and not to the battle for Saigon. |
| DanS |
posted 02-24-99 08:15 PM ET
Yes, Rebirth is quite right. I was going to write the same thing about Soviet Union v. US being the backdrop for civ and how this is no longer "reality." |
| Wraithfire |
posted 02-24-99 10:29 PM ET
Thanks for your replies Dan & Rebirth... Sorry about pushing this subject, but I really want to hear what others think about the relation between Civ and SMAC... Take Care and Hope to Here from more of you.. Wraithfire |
| Deadron |
posted 02-24-99 10:44 PM ET
I would also say that SMAC is more "in the moment", in that strategic placement of each base and such seems much more important than in CivII. I really have to worry about not letting someone else build a base in that waterway because they would then cut off my naval access to a chunk of the board. While this could happen in CivII, it seemed less of an issue when playing the computer (more important when playing multiplayer). While playing SMAC, I am thinking strategically from the beginning -- constantly trying to figure out the most important next step. CivII is much more liesurely -- heck, I've got eons to get it right! |
| Pragmatist |
posted 02-26-99 12:29 PM ET
I don't think that SMAC is all that different from Civ2. It is, however, much deeper in terms of available strategies and tactics. If you look at the interface you find significant differences, the right mouse button is fully enabled among others, but the underlying mechanics are virtually identical. |
| Wraithfire |
posted 02-26-99 01:14 PM ET
Hello all, I'd like to present a short and incomplete case for the differences between SMAC & CIV so that Prag and others that hold his position might see them more clearly (although I can not deny that the basic mechanics of the two games are similar) Differences: 1) I love to play SMAC, I didn't have as much fun playing Civ or Civ II... Why? Well first of both CIV's were time consuming... the replayablity for me was not there... This was because every empire was and acted the same in CIV. This for me grew tiring... I know blashemy! But its my opinion... This sets up my next point... Which will have to wait since I've gotta go... oh well Post to ya later... |
| Scrubby |
posted 02-26-99 01:26 PM ET
I think a major reason why I like SMAC more than CIV I or II is that the game mechanisms of city building and tech research work better in the sci-fi futuristic new planet setting. For some this is semantics but I think that it is a key paradigm to understand. Cities in CIV as centers of production for units and upgrades as produced by other cities and settler units never rang true to me. The SMAC convention of "bases" and colony pods better fits the game design. Am I making sense here? Also having cities research tech makes less sense than having your labs do it in the bases. On Earth I always wondered what happened to the people between the cities. Surely not everyone lives in a city? On Planet everyone has to live in a base else suffocation. Here's a good example of what I mean: Ever get attacked in the twentieth century in CIV by barbarians? What the--? Worms make a lot more sense. This is all part and parcel of the wrapper around the game -- the story and plot. Civ was a little too open ended and not at times -- take the example of only two possible endings. SMAC seems to me, to be the maturation of the game system coupled with a coherent and relevant story which rationalizes and provides the particulars. Thanks for the discussion. |
| absimiliard |
posted 02-26-99 01:32 PM ET
Hey, just wanted to address the 'faction' issues. My feeling personally is that SMAC is more an empire building game than a faction game. Wraith & Outlyr: I agree with your analyses of factions in the modern world. The examples of abortion and eco-terrorism are very apt. However I believe that they actually support the view of SMAC as an empire building game. Take it this way. If SMAC is a game about factions then theoretically we should be playing different groups co-existing in the same bases. Each group could do various things and political control of the 'nation's actions would be paramount. Instead each faction has their own bases. The RL analogy would be to say that the eco-terrorists totally control the Pacific Northwest, or that abortion rights advocates completely control New York City. When you look at it that way, it is clear to me that while our empires have philosophical bases they are not factions. There is no single empire we are all members of in SMAC. Do you see my point? |
| Wraithfire |
posted 02-26-99 06:30 PM ET
Scrubby- I like your take on the bases versus cities... absimiliard- I agree with you to some extent about SMAC being an Empire game (after all it is based upon one), but I think that its focus is more on developing your faction then on building an everlasting empire... The main Proof of this point is the Transend Victory storyline... You become "One" with planet imprinting your "Personality" and thus your belief system upon Planet... It's not that you take over Planet by force of will, and force your imperium upon her... As a continuation of my last post: 2) The variety of personalities among the factions... At least at the 1-4th levels of difficulty I have noticed a big difference in the way factions react to you and its not always just because of you... That Pact you have with faction 1 makes faction 2 angry at you... Your social choices preturb faction 3 and you've just been set up by them for a research theft that angers faction 1 the one that you were allied with... And perhaps that is why some people think that the AI is so erratic... Perhaps its not erratic its just that in Smac you don't have control over what the other factions do... there is a whole world out there that you're not in control of. I think that that is what has some people so up in arms about the AI... Now I can't deny that the AI is 100% problem free, but from my experience you can keep a Pact Bro/Sis or two for the entire Game... and then again one of your "Pact" brothers might be playing you as a patsy never attacking you with units, but attacking your rep with the other factions via Probes (I've seen this done and was none to happy with the seeming innocent Santiago)... Grrr... Goota go again, but will continue thanks for your posts again... |
| DanS |
posted 02-27-99 01:12 AM ET
Wraithfire: this is really a silly storyline though... I mean how can you become "one" with Planet? The fact of the matter is that human beings are a conquering race, if nothing else. If Planet fights too hard, we will kill her. Planet can kiss off (can you guess I would never play the Gaians?  )I'm the most impressed with the factions. Not because of what they are (nobody, thank god, is like these people and they are a bit corny). However, it's our <i>identification</i> with a particular faction that's important. I would suggest that if you take a poll of all the gamers on this site, you would come out with mostly even numbers for all factions. Now that's interesting! For instance, I'm surprised at the number of people who say they are playing as the Peacekeepers. The Peacekeepers? Isn't this a war game? --> So you see my point. I think this fact (a balanced game in many, many respects), will show up when everybody starts playing multiplayer. Scrubby: yeah, what ever happened to suburbs and hamlets? But Civ was never meant to be a <i>simulation</i>, just a very addictive, fun, engaging game. All of the necessary simplifications were a bit elementary. |
| QuienSabe |
posted 02-27-99 02:36 AM ET
DanS, I would love to play the Gaians against you in a multiplayer game. "One with Planet" that's the biggest problem the human never understood. We never became harmonious with our enviroment. (Too late now folks) But New Age/Greenpeace meandering aside I Everyone seems to have a favorite faction which mirrors either their philosophy or QS |
| MOCKBa |
posted 02-27-99 08:37 AM ET
Very interesting and thoughtful postings I say. I am only on my fist � hour of SMACing, so the subtleties of this game is still unknown to me. But I do know what I am missing. First, a patch to upgrade my game to version 2.0 so that I can play e-mail games. Because that is why I bought SMAC, and therefore was quite annoyed to discover that my UK version is unpatachable now  BUT I do fondly remember one empirebuilding game called Imperialism from Frog City. It is exactly the kind of game that I would like to play in e-mail. I did do a lot of Warlords III, but the game was too focused on luck and single units. I feel that SMAC will focus much more on strategic descisions than tactical finess - not saying that there is no room for that in SMAC. Now, how SMAC will live up to that is yet to be discovered, but I hope that the focussing on factions instead of similar working empires will reward a subtle and rewarding "battle" with my old pbem-friends. Also this factioning makes the extra-SMAC diplomatic dispatches a lot more fun since you are using rhetorics based on your factions. Those diplomatic e-mails and ICQ chat sessions were half the fun of Warlords III pbem. The "factioning" of SMAC might just be a good thing. Also the variying ways of victory will alow each person to have a different agenda instead of the Warlords III "Kill-them-all" strategic "death match". -- MOCKBa |
| Wraithfire |
posted 02-28-99 05:09 PM ET
Dan S- I don't think that the storyline is silly... Why? B/C if I was one of the faction leaders and had the opportunity to become "One" with the Planet I would see that as profitable and well advised... This is because man has always sought dominion over nature after all most of humanity believed and still do believe that we (meaning mankind) were given dominion over the Earth... I do not agree that man is a race of conquerers, instead I would say we are acquirers... we seek to better ourselves through position and posession... Conquering Planet would gain man much, but it would require a larger amount of energy than peaceably taking over Planet. Why do I say this? From my understanding of physics (and I might just be wrong on this account...) when you have to force something (conquer Planet) due to its resistance (and Planet would resist)it requires more work then when that same thing has no resistance (implanting your beliefs into Planet would produce this effect, unless you were struggling with your own personality at the time... then things might get hairy)... Also there would be the chance that Planet would rebel one day if it was conquered... whereas if you had become "One" with her, then why should she rebel agaist herself... Now I think you do have a point and perhaps there should be a way during the game to "Kill" Planet with certain side effects: the disappearence of fungus, mindworms, etc... perhaps even Chiron itself would fall apart... I think the storyline is far fetched (since I don't believe in Sentient Planets) by the way, but not impossible if such a being as Planet existed... The factions most impress me as well and they are the main reason I play the game, without them I'd not give SMAC a second look or the $30-45 that it costs... MOCKBa & QuienSabe- thanks for the posts Take Care and Keep SMACing ;-) |
| Morgan Metagenics |
posted 02-28-99 08:39 PM ET
I whole heartedly agree with the above. A faction is much easier to "get into" and that much easier to hate. Since this game appeals to a higher intellectual bracket than say, quake etc., the players are likely to have strong opinions that fit into one of these ideologies. That is a game mechanic that in a way transcends the game itself, giving the player more of a sense of duty, loyalty, and of course more fun. Not to say that it hasn't been done before in effect (MOO/MOO2 anyone?) But empires are a bit more faceless than a faction. The faction is much more believable and identifiable because it so opinionated. An empire has dissenters of all sorts. But back to CIV II, one thing I think that was wonderfully improved was commerce. I always thought caravans were annoying. With supply rovers, economy is much more believable. but that's just me M-M |
| Morgan Metagenics |
posted 02-28-99 08:47 PM ET
And one more thing - about the storyline I think the storyline is kind of a bit too "Green" myself. I'm sure a lot of environmentalists would love to join the planet and become one. That doesn't seem but again, that's just my opinion M-M Not just capitalism as usual (tm) |
| Ender4000 |
posted 03-01-99 08:28 AM ET
I think the pace of the game is much better. First off the terraforming is much better than in Civ II. In civ II by the mid game controlling the settlers was boring, you were doing the same exact things, maybe building roads and irrigating again. In SMAC you usually do just enough farms/sensors to get a city going to size 5 or 6. Then you get the next tech and start building boreholes/condensers, then you get the tree farm and start working on farms, then you get the tech to raise terrain so you can do that. Then you get mag tubes if you so desire, then you get techs that start making fungus the posible way to go so you can build fungus around. Second the tech tree seesm to be thought out better so that you aren't always shooting for the same exact thing. I can tell you in Civ II exactly what order I went for things... the great library, leonardo's workshop, adam smiths trading, railroad, space ship. I pretty much did that every single time. With the various factions, different ways to win, and different posible main enemies I don't tend to play the same way any 2 games in a row. |
| DanS |
posted 03-01-99 11:25 AM ET
Wraithfire: I was only pointing out that the storyline of the game has a gaian bias in this respect. I cannot at all identify with the gaian faction, and therefore find it a little absurd to become one with Planet. I would leave Planet a perfectly terraformed Earth upper crust (people have to vacation and live, etc.), and a completely used up core. You know, like all modern cities... That being said, I identify with several factions in the game. When I play the game, it is fun to role play and explore <u>my</u> basic assumptions, ideology, way of life, etc. It's a thoroughly enjoyable exploration of self by trying to act the "type" character--somebody with extreme ideologies. This wasn't the case with Civ I & II, of course. The focus of these is on power and the projection of power (i.e., empire). Thoroughly enjoyable, but different. Let's rename MOO to be SMAC very lite. I could identify a little with the science guys, but I was always the most comfortable playing the humans. Why? I suppose because I'm a human being. I can think of nothing less enjoyable than trying to figure out who plays the humans in a multiplayer game of MOO. |
| DanS |
posted 03-01-99 11:31 AM ET
Further, I have no problem with a suspension of disbelief to play a game, so I'm not concerned that the storyline is far-fetched. Of course it is, but it would be a very bad storyline indeed if it weren't a little far-fetched. I only object, seeings as I will probably never play gaian, even for kicks. Planet is "foreign" to me. Planet fights me, I fight back. If Planet must be destroyed, then so be it. |
| Freudianslip |
posted 03-01-99 11:38 AM ET
Gaia.. .I like the "one with planet" idealogy.. it's actually one of the reasons that I picked up the game. Being sort of an idealistic conservationist, I like the idea of a planet completely whipping the ass of someone who thinks just because they walk on two legs they have the right to render extinct 80+ species a day. I smile when the worms devour thousands of my citizens. I laugh when fungal blooms cover the map. I grin like a monkey when demon boils obliterate my well-formed cities. Of course, sometimes I think it's fun to play as the ruthless militarist. That's part of the charm of SMAC, you can be who you want to be (or even, who you don't want to be.) |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.