Why am I having trouble liking this game?

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Why am I having trouble liking this game?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Why am I having trouble liking this game?

yin26 posted 02-25-99 12:42 AM ET
I've played Civ I and II hours on end without much complaint, except for the stupid caravans that never seemed to reach their destinations without having to be told where to go again, by which time I forgot where I was sending them.
On that score SMAC is great.
But after 20 or so hours, I just don't like the game. The tech tree isn't at all intuitive (o.k., it's supposed to be about the future), the diplomacy is irratic and often just silly, and combat sucks.
Is it just that my preference has shifted toward real-time? I keep heading back for more Rainbow6--the graphics, the immediate feedback.
Have I lost touch with this genre or has SMAC somehow just missed its mark? I'd be very interested to know if there isn't some nagging feeling in most of you that this game failed.
Scrubby posted 02-25-99 12:47 AM ET
I skipped the CIV II era, I never got into like Civ I. But with SMAC I feel like its a brand new game even though I know it is basically the same. The difference though is enough to make me come back for more. I refer you to my post lower down "An embarassment of riches" where I mention that there are a lot of good games around right now in many, many genres. Go back to Rainbow 6 (try Half-Life-- awesome) but come back to SMAC later, perhaps when you're back in the mood. I think you'll be plesantly surprised at its depth and character.
PawtheUnstuk posted 02-25-99 02:06 AM ET
SMAC is a really interesting game and is a thing unto itself. I admit, the tech tree takes some getting used to. Although there is logic behind the technologies, it isn't immediately obvious.
It sounds like you've changed. Go back to RTS, come back later when you get bored.
The I can't figure out my signature old timer.
kjchen posted 02-25-99 09:09 AM ET
I've found that using Blind Research, the structure of the tech tree tends to be somewhat invisible to me, anyway. I know some of the basic categories for discoveries that I'd like to have (need a better weapon? Set your scientists to Conquer. Want some of those terraforming technologies? Better get going with Explore). With the exceptions of Doctrine: Mobility and Doctrine: Flexibility, I don't really know off the top of my head what technologies confer which benefits. I consult the datalinks heavily when trading technologies (I do wish there was a dialog that would allow you to pick from the three relevant choices on the table -- the two proposed trades and the counteroffer -- as opposed to always viewing the technology that the computer wants you to divulge).
At some point in the future (when I've developed a coherent strategy for playing the game), the vaguely obfuscated technology tree may bother me. In the meanwhile, I'm too busy keeping Miriam's brainwashed minions out of my colonies to notice.
Pragmatist posted 02-26-99 12:13 PM ET
yin26: Sounds to me like you're just burned out on the Civ family mechanics. I think I'd have liked this game a lot less if it came out right on the heels of Civ2 and I was still playing the game 2 nights a week. As it is I hadn't played Civ2 for a year and I'm really enjoying picking it back up with the very healthy SMAC slant. Try putting the game down for a couple of months and then trying it again. If your immediate response to this is "Oh no, couldn't do that!" then i'd suggest you re-examine how much fun you're really having playing the game.
carlos posted 03-02-99 08:42 AM ET
One of the reasons that SMAC isn't as addictive as the CIV games is that you don't get a feel of progress. You just don't see your faction mature. In part this is because the units pictures don't have the chronology you used to have (from legion to nuclear weapon). They keep the same chasis, and the different infantry units don't have unique characters, they're all the same. There's also no social progress feeling since the available political choices seem to be only a mild variation on a basic theme and not a trend over time to a more human political system (like the serie Monarchy, Republic, Democracy just to be, unless you felt rebellious and went for fundamentalism). Also the option of a peaceful worldwide group of friendly factions is unrealisable. Aggression seems the one characteristic all the factions share. That's too bad since the game looses in depth as a result. In all the game seems to lack in the building and growing feel which I think is what most Civilization builders were looking for.
Jason Beaudoin posted 03-02-99 09:13 AM ET
Well said Carlos! It's incredible how you've nailed down the problems of the game. I think that is why I personally have such a hard time with the unit graphics, and other aspects of the game. It's very true that you don't get that same feel that you'd find in CIV II. Frankly the game is not that much fun to play, and you just explained to me why.
UndertakerAPB posted 03-02-99 09:56 AM ET
My I be the first to honor Carlos and Jason for coming to there conclusions to this game.
If you can remember my name I was the first one to mention my disappointments,and loss of realism in this game.
All I can do now after not playing this boring game for 2 weeks now.Is to pre-order CTP and pray that our expections are answered!!!!!!
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE,
Undertaker
mooman posted 03-02-99 10:20 AM ET
Wow undertakerAPB, you are my hero...what vision, way to lead the radical rank out of slumber...brah.
MoSe posted 03-02-99 10:49 AM ET
Do you know addiction? It comes along with assueFaction. Unless you're able to force yourself into 'I quit', you get used to the product you used to use, and you grab whatever new but familiar comes out, even it cannot recreate the wonderful sensations of your first fix (hey, I'm not speaking literally out of experience here!).
So, the game has indeed new features (diplomacy, workshop, social engineering, terraforming, ...) implanted over the too-well-tested game principles and engine. I'm eager to exploit it, I long for playing it, but YES, I realize it didn't gave me that sheer excitement I got with its predecessors.
Am I weird if I state that at some point in your evolution as a gameplayer, plain fun is not a mandatory feature of a good game? (still helps a lot I admit...).
I don't know how, I feel I agree with Carlos and still enjoy the game enough.
MariOne
(to be read as (postp)one and not as juan (one, 1))
Calanor posted 03-02-99 11:47 AM ET
Hmm, Undertaker, why do I feel that most, if not all, of your posts are fairly pointless? While not exactly the first time I encounter people that constantly whine about a specific game on that game's official board (*recalls the TA board and shivers*), I never really figured out the thought processes, if any, leading to such whining. Do you expect people who enjoy the game to "see the light" all of a sudden, "realising" that the game actually stinks? Constructive criticism is all good and well, but to simply whine about the game being "boring"/"lame"/whatever only makes people consider you a nuisance. As for CTP, your constant ramblings of a game that hasn't even been released yet is more likely to make me avoid the game out of sheer disgust, rather than make me interested in the title (*recalls the TA board once again*).
Regards,
Calanor
Singularity posted 09-06-99 06:41 PM ET
Well, this looks like Yin's first post.
Krushala posted 09-06-99 06:43 PM ET
Yes I remember this one. When I first lurked in these forums.
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: Why am I having trouble liking this game?
yin26	posted 02-25-99 12:42 AM ET I've played Civ I and II hours on end without much complaint, except for the stupid caravans that never seemed to reach their destinations without having to be told where to go again, by which time I forgot where I was sending them. On that score SMAC is great. But after 20 or so hours, I just don't like the game. The tech tree isn't at all intuitive (o.k., it's supposed to be about the future), the diplomacy is irratic and often just silly, and combat sucks. Is it just that my preference has shifted toward real-time? I keep heading back for more Rainbow6--the graphics, the immediate feedback. Have I lost touch with this genre or has SMAC somehow just missed its mark? I'd be very interested to know if there isn't some nagging feeling in most of you that this game failed.
Scrubby	posted 02-25-99 12:47 AM ET I skipped the CIV II era, I never got into like Civ I. But with SMAC I feel like its a brand new game even though I know it is basically the same. The difference though is enough to make me come back for more. I refer you to my post lower down "An embarassment of riches" where I mention that there are a lot of good games around right now in many, many genres. Go back to Rainbow 6 (try Half-Life-- awesome) but come back to SMAC later, perhaps when you're back in the mood. I think you'll be plesantly surprised at its depth and character.
PawtheUnstuk	posted 02-25-99 02:06 AM ET SMAC is a really interesting game and is a thing unto itself. I admit, the tech tree takes some getting used to. Although there is logic behind the technologies, it isn't immediately obvious. It sounds like you've changed. Go back to RTS, come back later when you get bored. The I can't figure out my signature old timer.
kjchen	posted 02-25-99 09:09 AM ET I've found that using Blind Research, the structure of the tech tree tends to be somewhat invisible to me, anyway. I know some of the basic categories for discoveries that I'd like to have (need a better weapon? Set your scientists to Conquer. Want some of those terraforming technologies? Better get going with Explore). With the exceptions of Doctrine: Mobility and Doctrine: Flexibility, I don't really know off the top of my head what technologies confer which benefits. I consult the datalinks heavily when trading technologies (I do wish there was a dialog that would allow you to pick from the three relevant choices on the table -- the two proposed trades and the counteroffer -- as opposed to always viewing the technology that the computer wants you to divulge). At some point in the future (when I've developed a coherent strategy for playing the game), the vaguely obfuscated technology tree may bother me. In the meanwhile, I'm too busy keeping Miriam's brainwashed minions out of my colonies to notice.
Pragmatist	posted 02-26-99 12:13 PM ET yin26: Sounds to me like you're just burned out on the Civ family mechanics. I think I'd have liked this game a lot less if it came out right on the heels of Civ2 and I was still playing the game 2 nights a week. As it is I hadn't played Civ2 for a year and I'm really enjoying picking it back up with the very healthy SMAC slant. Try putting the game down for a couple of months and then trying it again. If your immediate response to this is "Oh no, couldn't do that!" then i'd suggest you re-examine how much fun you're really having playing the game.
carlos	posted 03-02-99 08:42 AM ET One of the reasons that SMAC isn't as addictive as the CIV games is that you don't get a feel of progress. You just don't see your faction mature. In part this is because the units pictures don't have the chronology you used to have (from legion to nuclear weapon). They keep the same chasis, and the different infantry units don't have unique characters, they're all the same. There's also no social progress feeling since the available political choices seem to be only a mild variation on a basic theme and not a trend over time to a more human political system (like the serie Monarchy, Republic, Democracy just to be, unless you felt rebellious and went for fundamentalism). Also the option of a peaceful worldwide group of friendly factions is unrealisable. Aggression seems the one characteristic all the factions share. That's too bad since the game looses in depth as a result. In all the game seems to lack in the building and growing feel which I think is what most Civilization builders were looking for.
Jason Beaudoin	posted 03-02-99 09:13 AM ET Well said Carlos! It's incredible how you've nailed down the problems of the game. I think that is why I personally have such a hard time with the unit graphics, and other aspects of the game. It's very true that you don't get that same feel that you'd find in CIV II. Frankly the game is not that much fun to play, and you just explained to me why.
UndertakerAPB	posted 03-02-99 09:56 AM ET My I be the first to honor Carlos and Jason for coming to there conclusions to this game. If you can remember my name I was the first one to mention my disappointments,and loss of realism in this game. All I can do now after not playing this boring game for 2 weeks now.Is to pre-order CTP and pray that our expections are answered!!!!!! DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, Undertaker
mooman	posted 03-02-99 10:20 AM ET Wow undertakerAPB, you are my hero...what vision, way to lead the radical rank out of slumber...brah.
MoSe	posted 03-02-99 10:49 AM ET Do you know addiction? It comes along with assueFaction. Unless you're able to force yourself into 'I quit', you get used to the product you used to use, and you grab whatever new but familiar comes out, even it cannot recreate the wonderful sensations of your first fix (hey, I'm not speaking literally out of experience here!). So, the game has indeed new features (diplomacy, workshop, social engineering, terraforming, ...) implanted over the too-well-tested game principles and engine. I'm eager to exploit it, I long for playing it, but YES, I realize it didn't gave me that sheer excitement I got with its predecessors. Am I weird if I state that at some point in your evolution as a gameplayer, plain fun is not a mandatory feature of a good game? (still helps a lot I admit...). I don't know how, I feel I agree with Carlos and still enjoy the game enough. MariOne (to be read as (postp)one and not as juan (one, 1))
Calanor	posted 03-02-99 11:47 AM ET Hmm, Undertaker, why do I feel that most, if not all, of your posts are fairly pointless? While not exactly the first time I encounter people that constantly whine about a specific game on that game's official board (recalls the TA board and shivers), I never really figured out the thought processes, if any, leading to such whining. Do you expect people who enjoy the game to "see the light" all of a sudden, "realising" that the game actually stinks? Constructive criticism is all good and well, but to simply whine about the game being "boring"/"lame"/whatever only makes people consider you a nuisance. As for CTP, your constant ramblings of a game that hasn't even been released yet is more likely to make me avoid the game out of sheer disgust, rather than make me interested in the title (recalls the TA board once again). Regards, Calanor
Singularity	posted 09-06-99 06:41 PM ET Well, this looks like Yin's first post.
Krushala	posted 09-06-99 06:43 PM ET Yes I remember this one. When I first lurked in these forums.