posted 02-25-99 04:51 PM ET            

Do you think you posts telling people who seem to like the game that it is no good is going to mystically convince them that it is no good? Your observations are hardly a matter of fact, they are your observations (i.e. opinion). You are entitled to them, but and again here is the question, what are your intentions by stating them over and over? You don't like that game. Great. So get on with playing something else, you aren't selling it (your opinion) to anybody here, and nobody here is apparently interested in convincing you otherwise. I certainly am not.

This would be like me going over to a StarCraft forum and saying I didn't like it because of X, Y & Z. So what? Maybe you can state it once but after that big deal.

So, on behalf of the entire forum in one loud voice "Yes, PlanetRuler, we had heard you and your message. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri sucks. It is boring. We acknowledge your opinion and respect your right to have it. Goodbye, and better luck next time on finding a game you like."

Bill for representing entire forum - 1000 energy credits.

posted 02-28-99 01:43 PM ET            

WRONG!!! I am allowed to state my opinion freely and as many times as I please. Democracy sucks hunh? AS I recall I have made two posts under different subjects about SMAC, and in a negative light. My earliest posts were in favor of the game if you care to go scrolling around. So excuse me for having an opinion, at least I am honest about this game and even though I am one of Sid's biggest fans... I am allowed ot be disappointed. You play and enjoy the game I have no problem with that but don't speak for the entire forum because not everybody shares your opinion.

By the way when you log into the forum did you read what it said under THE GAME... "discussions of the game, what's cool and what's not", I think that entitles a lot of us to our opinion's.

posted 02-28-99 02:04 PM ET            

Yes, PlanetRuler. It does say "discussions of the game, what's cool and what's not". I emphasize "discussions". Whining (as in "mindworms Yawn boring", "Why did I pay 85$ Canadian" and "What the hell was the point of this game") are not really points for discussion.

What sets these forums apart from those at others sites is the highly intelligent level of discourse. I enjoy visiting this forum almost as much as the game itself.

posted 02-28-99 02:06 PM ET            

Democracy? You're likely thinking more about 'Freedom of Speach'. Don't let your addeled brain confuse the two.

posted 02-28-99 04:40 PM ET            

However, PlanetRuler isn't exactly going about this discussion with the utmost care in an argument. I'm reminded of the old "this isn't an argument" skit of times yore. The points he brings up aren't really debatable or answerable. "Why did I pay $85..." - the only answer I can think of is "I'm a dumb ass". And that's not a slam, that's just the kind of thing that question engenders.

First off, PlanetRuler - did you play the demo? Did you enjoy the demo? Did you wait for magazine reviews? How about friend's reviews? Usenet posts? Did you do ANY research into this game whatsoever? Or, to put it another way - why did you buy this game a mere two weeks after it's release?

Earlier, PlanetRuler had remarked on what a pitiful AI SMAC has. This, I agree with to a point. Often the AI doesn't seem very agressive, or intelligent in attack. Even with the lauded grouping of units and whatnot, there comes a point in every game where the AI can and does not give any kind of useful defense (about the time I've developed Mind-Machine interface and have the double whammy of helos/drop troops). The diplomacy is often decent, but also often the computer decides that it's going to be gung ho and declare vendetta on me when it's woefully underprepared for the can of whooped ass that it will unleash. It unleashes amazingly unimpressive sneak attacks...on my formers. It does not seem to be able to use air power in a useful way. The only thing I've seen the computer do somewhat competently is use artillery. In short, I don't believe that the computer adapts well to new strategies, or lightning attacks. In general, I'm very surprised if a war against a computer player goes on for more than 10 "hot" turns. And in that time, I've captured or destroyed every single city they own, with maybe the exception of a couple of sea bases floating about.

The computer also has a poor build strategy. Instead of having cities with some kind of specialization, it seems to have all cities try to do about the same thing, and all cities will not do everything well. It does not build satellites in any of the 6 huge games I've played, which means PBs, if you want, will truly destroy everything. And usually you can finagle yourself to be governor, so vendetta isn't an issue either. Not that every computer player against you is a bad thing either - they don't seem to co-ordinate particularly well.

However, there are other times when the computer does EXACTLY the right thing. For instance, the computer uses it's power in the council quite well, often to my detriment. It does do a decent job of terraforming, though this is often hampered by the problems of cities being built too close to each other (watch the monsoon jungle any time a CP has it). The computer uses probes FAR better than I do, especially against UoP. Most of the time the computer will realize that it is hopelessly outmatched, and surrender, or beg for Truce - though this is often wronged by social engineering that you have, since the CP won't like you or declare truce if you have a social choice they hate. The computer uses missiles well too, though not as great as they could.

However, the thing that the computer does best, is really act out their roles. You can be a schizo Dierde, using Fundamentalist/power/thought control type stuff. Or even police state, for that matter. The hive can go green. Morgan can go to Fundamentalist/Green. Etc, Etc. You can play however you want to. The computer factions act a certain way, and do it well. I don't feel like I'm opposed by 6 generic players when I play - I feel like Yang will be the evil empire that I must overtake, to destroy his despotic ways, or Santiago must pay for her abuses of power, and I'd better watch out for that Zakharov guy...Obviously it depends -when I played Yang, and had a PoliceState/Planned/Knowledge/Thought Control world, I felt like Dr. Evil, and wanted to crush the anarchic upstarts Dierdre and Lal. That's sort of the point though, is that this game does really suck you in on many levels to the world of AC.

Anyway, this is intended as an example of what a useful, constructive criticism is. This game has flaws. It's too much like CivII. The AI isn't perfect, and does dumb things at times. The graphics aren't as beautiful as we'd like (though the world map is a thing of beauty IMO). Some things aren't balanced. Some things are buggy. Some things are slow. Give examples of each. But don't say things like "THIS SUKZ!" or something to it's effect.

mooman, Grover, and hcainesjr - you guys are actually worse than PlanetRuler. Not unexpected, just worse. NO ONE needs to hear what you think of PlanetRuler sucking, or of anyone sucking. Unconstructive criticism is one thing - but unconstructive crit of unconstructive crit is just stupid, and wastes my computer's time downloading the text. Character attacks are NEVER called for. And before you get there - I'm not insulting you at all. I'm talking about your specific posts - these are a waste of anyone's time.

posted 02-28-99 04:50 PM ET            

However, just telling Sid the game sucks (and dissing Brian outright - now that should get you flamed!) doesn't really help Firaxis fix the problems or make a better game in the future.