posted 02-25-99 08:02 PM ET        

Most people, including myself, had to warm up to the game, seemingly for two (and a mix of these two) reasons:

1. Long-time Civ fans noticed immediately all the similarities to previous Civ games and thus had to (or, in many cases, looked forward to) find(ing) what all the hype was about.

2. People new to the series were overwhelmed by the lack of help in the manual (no index, for example) and had to (or, again, looked forward to) discover(ing) how to operate the game in any kind of pleasant way.

1+2 = Very few people, neither verteran nor green player, enjoyed the game itself immediately. It took time for most people to discover what makes the game unique and how best to unlock those elements.

What this seems to indicate is that Firaxis was woefully out of touch with its audience. When both long-time gamers and people new to the game have to work through such initial confusion, disappointment, and frustration to finally come to like the product, somebody failed somewhere. In this game market where so many games grab you from the very start (true, many become dull just as fast, whereas SMAC does seem to becoming more interesting as I play on), Firaxis made a lethal decision (or was just ignorant) to design the game this way.

The only reason I bought the game was because of the Meier/Reynolds legacy. I unquestionably bought the hype. That same legacy, and some encouragement from the peole on this board, were the only things that kept me from returning the game. I can say now that I'm glad I kept it.

But it seems to me that SMAC was built by a relatively small group of people who grew used to their own vision without giving much thought to the gamer in general. And though the Firaxis team does seem to be lurking here now, I'm not sure they can (or even want to) make the kinds of changes that they could have easily made had they been seeking "our" input when it mattered most.

posted 02-25-99 09:11 PM ET            

And how does 1 show out that veteran players did not enjoy the game immediately?

Methinks that your arguments are flawed, though I will grant that for a newbie, it would be hard to learn. But hey, when I first played CIV, I had no idea what I was doing. As for not much thought to the gamer in general, well, I think that argument lacks any sort of logic or evidence, personally.

posted 02-25-99 09:25 PM ET            

[An old-timers joke].

Well, my experience being limited to this forum, I can see evidence for case #2, but not for #1. But then again, my newbie/long-timer is based on a different standard [length of time here on the forums], so it not surprising that I disagree that long-timers didn't buy on hype.

And I really don't understand what you mean by "confusion, disappointment, and frustration." This game seems to my to be everything I thought it would be, and what little confusion I had quickly disapated.

Also, Firaxis has always been here, and always seeking advice and comments. My experience with dealing with game companies is limited, but I sure think that Firaxis did a bang-up job.

posted 02-25-99 09:48 PM ET            

I agree that I don't have evidence. In fact, that's what my post was intended to gather.

While I realize it takes time to get used to any game, I just feel (again, no evidence--except several other people's posts and my own experience with the game) that SMAC made me work too hard to enjoy the game early on.

Gettysburg!, in contrast, was almost immediately accessable to me. The idea of flanks, morale, and the importance of position (entrenched on a grove on a hill, for example) were both brilliantly designed and immediately clear.

Perhaps what I wanted was that same intuitive feel, that same ease of use on a surface that nearly seamlessly covered great depth. Perhaps it's the interface of SMAC itself and the way that one needs to hunt for information, or that, for example, I can't move the diplomacy window and look for the name of the city I would like to coordinate an attack on. Little things like that add up after awhile, making the experience much harder than it needs to be.

I agree. These are easily dealt with if one is a bit patient. I am learning to enjoy the game immensely, but I was mearly gathering evidence as the how these issues affected people in the first few days of play.

posted 02-26-99 12:03 AM ET            

I got SMAC the day it arrived in the store and loved it from day one.

I liked CIV ... liked CivNet ... did not like CIV2 ... love SMAC!

posted 02-26-99 12:31 AM ET            

SMAC may be full of realistic future techs, but the new things gained from each tech seem counterintuitive... Secret projects are the same way... I find myself checking the datalinks *much* more often than I read the civilopedia, right from the start... It takes several full games to finally get a hang of the tech tree, and this is further exacerbated by the default setting of blind research (an option I think is great to be there, but not necessarily as a default; the first few games a person plays, to really learn the tech tree, this should be turned off)...

Along with this natural tendency to push players away are some minor annoying interface things, such as the inability to move popup windows to see the terrain beneath (it'd be *so* nice to be able to view a nice map in the middle of diplomacy)... The interface also seems a bit sluggish to respond to clicks...

Terminology in general, not only of techs and secret projects, but of currency units and other game mechanics, is also flawed... "Energy" is used much too interchangably; it's economic allocation, it's credits, and it's the equivalent of Civ trade... Especially for players unfamiliar with Civ/2, this would be extremely confusing... "Economy" is also used in more than one case... This undermines the online help to some extent...

All of these things are fairly minor individually, but altogether tend to push a gamer away at first... Once the learning curve is overcome, I agree, this is the best turn-based strategy game ever made... The problem is up-front magnetism, which the game just has little to none of... Unless I'd been *very* excited about the game to begin with, and been familiar with earlier works of Sid and Brian, I may have given up on the game before topping the curve, and been very disappointed...

posted 02-26-99 02:22 AM ET         

Having said that, I also believe that the
depth and postulation are likewise the
causes of a "disconnect" between game
and gamer. As support for this conclusion,
I offer the following:

This thread is very similiar in theme (although greatly improved in civility} to several others I have read on this and other boards. Here I must disagree with
Brother Greg. I think ths is more signficant than " a few very vocal people on these forums that complain about the game ". I would submit that the vast majority of people who feel this way never post, particularly on THESE boards where even a casual reading will show that such opinions are rarely met with tolerance. Recall shortly after the demo was released there was a long and heated thread on why SMAC was too much like Civ. Let me say that I disagree vehemently with that argument. But, such a conclusion has been expressed often enough to give some support to yin26's 'trend'-- many people had to "warm up" to the game.

A second support, and admittedly the weaker of the two, is that poll that Mark G. has going on the Apolyton Home Page {at least that's where I seem to recall it} concerning what effect the demo had on people's purchase decision as related to how they thought they would think. Here is where yin26's argument starts to break down. The Demo changed very few minds. I conclude there is no up front "hook'. Since ' Sid' or ' Sid and Brian' games in the past have featured such a hook, at least in some degree because of the pre existing connection between the game's subject and the gamer, somebody expecting the same is going to be disappointed.

Now comes the part where I believe yin26's argument collapses. This game cannot simultaneously serve as a primer for TBS and as a masterpiece of depth. If someone needs a primer to the genre, go get Civilization. You need arithmatic before algebra! This in no way indicates that Firaxis was out of touch with their audience, even if the constant interaction between the Firaxis team and us in these forums over the last year + didn't immediately put the lie to that statement.

Quite the contrary. The audience in question is experienced Civ II players who craved more depth, better AI, better diplomacy, more strategies, more ... Well, you get the point. SMAC delivers!!!

SMAC delivers in the way of a great lady whose secrets can be gained but slowly and with great care, not like some whore whose promise is that of instant gratification followed by...nothing.

posted 02-26-99 02:39 AM ET            

Your points are well taken, however I think you are too rigid in arguing that a game with exceeding depth can't ALSO act as a primer for TBS. Which is just my point with SMAC. There was apparently an almost deliberate (or ignorant) disregard for all but the very loyal crowd that is willing to make all the pieces fit together.

For such people (I count myself closer to this group), the game unfolds itself splendidly.

But Firaxis' BIGGEST mistake is in assuming that a complex game cannot be easily accessable to a new player. The logical conclusion of this kind of thinking is a product line that an increasingly fewer number of players will bother to understand (albeit those who do will swear up and down that its God's gift to the game world and their little secret).

There is no doubt that SMAC has and will sell very well. Most people will learn to enjoy it.

But, for the first time in memory, I will think very carefully before buying my NEXT Sid Meier game. It's sad in a way.

posted 02-26-99 05:18 AM ET            

I can't say I been a major fan of Sid Meier,
until SMAC.

posted 02-26-99 05:49 AM ET            

I can see how some things might be difficult at first. [And I do agree that the tech tree is generally counter-intuitive].

However, I'd suggest that we old-timers represented a larger cross-section of gamers than it may appear. The evidence is now lost, but if the old boards were still around, then you'd be able to see how the debates raged. There were many features we mostly agreed with [and many of them showed up] but there was also a lot that were controversial [in-game tactical combat, for one].

posted 02-26-99 08:22 AM ET         

This may not be the greatest game since "pong", but one thing is very clear - Firaxis is a great company. You don't know how fortunate you are in having a company that actually listens to (and cares) about it's customers. I get the impression that your input does matter and that the changes you are suggesting in these forums will, if possible, be incorporated into patches or updates to the game.

As for the problems of hardware/software compatability, I am sure that Firaxis did the best that they could considering all the combinations of systems that people have purchased over the years. (You try dealing with Microsoft and their DirectX sometime, it's a complete cluster-****!) Of course no game can hope to work on every system.

I will concede the point that perhaps SMAC was released a tad too soon, but with a feedback system like Firaxis has in these forums, the bugs WILL be worked out eventually.

As to the Sid and Brian bashing,(Sid is a legend and Brian is at the least a rising star in his own right), I can say that putting together a game like this is an extremely difficult undertaking. To the bashers out there - You put out a top-flight game like SMAC - until that time please STFU !

SMAC is going to be a classic -(you can always tell the great games by the amount of sleep you get during the first few weeks after it's release !! )

-Thanks to all for letting me vent a little-
-The Geezer-

posted 02-26-99 09:39 AM ET         

It all depends on your proclivities. I don't play strategy games to prove my mastery of them, but for the subjective purpose of having some intellectual fun. Ironically for Yin25's argument, it is precisely the core fanatics that would have to demonstrate such mastery, presuming that these are the most likely to engage in multiplayer tournaments. But I'm drawn in by the mystery of my own initial lack of understanding in the initial stages. I LIKE stumbling about, getting whacked by the game and then incrementally figuring out how to avoid it next time. And each increment is really quite simple, that's always been the secret behind the SM Civ-type games - it's just there are typically lots of increments.

posted 02-26-99 10:17 AM ET            

When I first played CivII (never owned Civ) I remember wondering what the hell was going on with the city management screens.. It's very frustrating to be playing a game whilst knowing that you just aren't understanding it. But, as soon as it clicks, your on a roll and that's when you get to that great stage where you just can't be dragged from the computer..

Prior to buying Ac, CivII was my favourite game of all time. The only game that I ran on my old 486 that I still play. Now Ac has come along and it's even better(IMO). But, the great thing is that, with all the feel of history that CivII (It still feels great marching out with the first musketeers, etc) brings.. Ac is a sequel that doesn't render the older version obsolete..

A game I was playing recently had me taking a Hive city.. The Hive counter attacked heavily with needlejets and it looked as if they would re-take the city. The Gaians, with whom I had signed a brotherhood pact, flew a couple of intercepters into the city and handed control of them over to me.. They blunted the needlejets attack and allowed me to hold onto the city..

I didn't ask them for the intercepters.. They just flew them to where they were needed and gave them to me..

How cool is that??

posted 02-26-99 10:26 AM ET            

Be careful then when you post things based on the "prevailing" attitude on these forums.

posted 02-26-99 11:05 AM ET            

Who do you think gets the awards by PCGAMER, COMPUTER GAMING, etc.????

posted 02-26-99 11:12 AM ET            

I can vaguely remember the first times I fired up Civilization and Civilization 2, and even Civ for Windows, for that matter. Each of these times I was initially frustrated. Why? Because I did not yet comprehend how to win! I didn't know all of the units. I didn't know all of the technologies, wonders, dependencies, move orders, et cetera. I didn't know yet which of these would be critical to my winning strategy(ies)!

But I also remember learning. And, Oh What A Joy It Was! And Is! Because, I'm experiencing the very same thing once more--and loving the challenge. Thank you Brian, Sid, and everybody else at Firaxis Games!

posted 02-26-99 01:39 PM ET            

I never said sales numbers indicated the "quality" of the game. What I said was a direct response to yin26's question "Did Firaxis' strategy fail?". I don't believe it has, more properly, I don't believe you can tell just by looking at the bloody forums. I don't think "Firaxis is woefully out of touch" with its core audience as yin26 mentions. Remember yin26 bases this conclusion from reading the posts. I say that Firaxis/Sis/Brian will base their final conclusions on the sales numbers which will validate or invalidate their "strategy".

posted 02-26-99 03:07 PM ET            

But of course, I think the game rocks, so you'll have to forgive me.

The learning curve is what makes the game, not detract from it. It is because I can't sit down and know everything about a game straight from the manual that makes it more enjoyable.

If I wanted that, I'd play Q2.

And, although I don't always find the exact answer I'm hoping for in the manual, I more or less (at times less) like that manual. I may wonder about terraforming, but read up on diplomacy because it caught my eye instead, and then figure out a different way to solve my problem...it forces me to do some of the stuff on my own. It makes yah think.

Anyhow, a few cents from me.

Archer

posted 02-26-99 03:12 PM ET            

On the other hand, I also have a number of gripes that I feel are justified given the number of TBS games that I have seen in the last two years.

1) I was a bit put off by the overly simple resource and trade models. Trade is almost non-existent as a factor and requires all the thought of let's say, breathing. I submit to this audience that the people who play TBS are primarily intelligent, strategy oriented people who appreciate the intellectual complexity of the games more than what I call "eye candy". I say go play the real time games if you want shoot-em-ups. As a result, I think that the game designers are afraid that a deep game will automatically result in a game that is not fun and difficult to sell. Therefore, I think it a fair criticism that more effort was paid to sound and graphics than to devising a game that encompases creative ideas in the aforementioned areas. I would love a game where you could destroy your enemy through an embargo or where you had to show diplomatic cleverness to get a much needed resource that you didn't have.

2)I would have thought by now that Firaxis could come up with a much better combat system. One unit fighting at a time is a joke. However, I also thought that they did a great job with the artillery.

3)Although they made great strides with the diplomacy, the various options are still too predictable. Counter offers are weak and what about the ability to pass compliments and insults to provoke responses? Sometimes I just want to scream at Yang and say "Come and get a piece of this Hive Boy!"

4)Helicopters were the biggest piece of crap unit in Civ II and they haven't changed a bit. Obviously, Firaxis paid no attention to the great ideas I have seen on the forums in this area.

5)Why can't a base produce more than one unit at a time? Why can't resources be stockpiled to build an army? Other games like Imperialism have gotten past this linear thinking so why can't SMAC.

6) I think that the design a unit idea could only be described under the theme of "Never has so little been done with so much by so many". You have so many units that look alike and so much memory and attention paid to upgading and modifying that it just doesn't work. In short, it's an idea that sounds far better than it works.

This is just a few of the problems that I have with the game. I would appreciate hearing if you agree or disagree. However, please limit insults to my being fat & bald as those are both true.

posted 02-26-99 03:45 PM ET            

It's possible that the greater complexity of SMAC makes it exponentially harder for the novice. I'm not a good judge. As an old-time Civver, I had no trouble with the demo. Admittedly, some of the finer tricks of maneuvering through the game are complex (like how you predetermine your own number of PC votes, autoforwarding, etc.) are quite difficult to figure out. But those are details -- the basics seemed pretty straightforward to me.

However, if the game does discourage newcomers, it's probably unavoidable. It's hard to make a complex product accessible to neophytes. After all, if your first foray into spicy food is lamb vindaloo or the three-pepper curry at a Thai restaurant, you probably won't have a good experience.

posted 02-26-99 04:26 PM ET         

Since I enjoy this game so much, why do I feel a little let down?

On the one hand, I haven't played a game that is this addictive, since MOO2. I do not even the mind the first 6-8 hours of learning I needed after all these years of RTS playing, to play a decent game at the Librarian level. It has polish. Once you get used to the interface, it is lot less mouse-clicks than Civ2. It creates the "one-more-round" attitude, even better that Civ2 did.

So why am I not fully satisfied?

This is still Civ2. SMAC took a great game, added more finesse and sophistication (about governance, economy, polity etc), added variations in play style, simplified where called for, and made it even more fun.

But, in its soul, it's still Civ2.

Yes, TODAY I'd rather play SMAC than Civ2, but I do know that I, actually, am playing a more refined, better designed, more enjoyable (heresy!) Civ2.

By the way, the engineers (oops, formers) are still too dumb to work on their own.

posted 02-26-99 06:03 PM ET            

honestly, i understand why some of you people disliked SMAC at first. I hated most of the games you seem to like at first (i.e. WarCraft II, C&C, Dune, etc.) Those grew on me, though, and i have to say this:
Fenris is right.
RTS games are often shallow, and often all one has to do to crush the AI is to learn a few strategies...and to crush human players, sometimes it's just a matter of size and force.

On the other hand, TBS games are often much more deep...you can't just go in and learn a few tricks to crush the AI...you often have to do many subtle things at once...and if you forget one, it'll cost you down the line. Often, you have to ponder about a move (Do I want to attack him? Or do i just want to steal a tech instead?) instead of making lightning decisions (Oh man! He's got 12 siege tanks! better get my lurkers and guardians down there!). I got hooked on this after my gf told me that i might like Civ (this was before we were together, but i digress...). She was right. I was hooked, and anxiously awaited Civ2, and i love that...now, after anxiously waiting for SMAC, as well as CTP, i am not dissapointed with what Firaxis has come up with. What Firaxis has done is to create a game that is far deeper than Civ2, in which one has to make sure one is in harmony with nature...or nature will crush you (I HATE HAVING 20 MINDWORMS POP OUT AND WORMRAPE A BASE!!!!). One also has a larger option of covert ops, more government interactivity (atrocities, councils, proposals), and global warming actually does more than alter the terrain from grasslands to swamps...you actually LOSE land.

As for TBS SMAC setting up RTS SMAC? Look at TBS Outpost (which i love) ending up as RTS Outpost 2 (awful, a shame what they did with it...). I don't want the same thing happening to SMAC. One may be able to incorporate RTS elements, such as actually controlling battles...but i wouldn't want to do that in a big game.

All in all, I don't think that I, or many other of my friends are dissapointed with what they got in SMAC.

posted 02-26-99 06:24 PM ET            

> Many games (like Starcraft and Total > Annihilation) have thin little manuals,
> but that's because you only need about 3 > pages to show you everything that you can
> do in those games.

First of all don't ever but TA in the same sentence as SC unless you are making fun of TA. I know that you are exaggerating about the SC manual so I won't discuss that. However I think that your whole argument is flawed. You could put the rules of chess on an index card yet it is considered to be a very deep game. SC is exactly the same. I have been playing everyday for a year and yet I still have much to learn. TA on the other hand.... ok you are right about that one. I don't even want to get into the details on that one.

> They really have no depth, sure they look > good, but in reality they are as thin as a > dime. For those of you not resident

I played civ and civ2 for many years. I do not think that either of them comes anywhere near SC in depth. Very few people truely experience SC the way it is meant to be played. Oh and no you can't learn everything in SC from the manual or even by picking it up in play. There is a private SC forum (where a lot of the old times at the forums fled to after it got too bad) and we have been discussing a single unit's attack (terran valkyrie) for many weeks now. Only today have we finally figured it out completely through extensive testing. Their are many other issues that most SC players have never thought about.

posted 02-28-99 07:41 AM ET            

I am still interested, however, in the argument that a complex game can't be easily taught. If that means that it would take time to teach it, I agree. The best flight simulators on the market, for example, spend a GREAT deal of time teaching the player what to do. The complexity is enormous--without the hand-holding scenario walkthroughs, few newcomers would ever make it past the learning curve.

I realize that Firaxis targetted the hungry, veteran TBS gamer--which was how my post started. What target that audience? Why not give the newbies (which, if it matters, I'm not) more help? The so-called TOURs are a joke. The TOUR dialogue boxes are only slightly more helpful, but even those only pop up after you've pissed a good portion of your game away. Sure, once I realize "Hey, wow, I can do that?" the feeling was great, and my next game was far more interesting. But I keep feeling like it's one big easter-egg hunt. Some people here like that feeling. I can see its appeal, but it seems the result of poor design more than anything else. I would much rather be constantly surprised at how every game is intelligently different, demanding in turn different strategies to win. The faction idea introduces a very welcome taste of that, but not enough, in my opinion (I am thankful, though, for the taste).

And though it sounded melodramatic to say I will think twice about buying a Sid Meier game again, it was true (I'd still buy it though). After all the thousands of hours this very talented team (the best in the business, one could possibly argue) spent producing so much, to not allow a player (new and old) the option to have it explained is a mistake. If continued, such a strategy (if that's even what one would call it) will needlessly exclude an unthinkable number of new fans--and possible a few of us old ones who don't want to have to play a few games first to discover a function (or a technology) they should have been (coherently) told about from day one.