posted 02-28-99 05:52 PM ET            

How many players in a game - well, the storyline (on the web, go read it), and the design of the game itself limit it to eight factioins. There is no way right now to reduce that. If you think it is necessary (after playing for a while), start up a thread asking for it (oh, hang on, maybe that's what this is, no?).

To customise Map size, one of the menu options lets you do this (can't remember right now, I'm at work).

And yeah, the first three tutorial scenarios were a little boring, but they are meant to be a beginner's guide to SMAC. If you know the genre, they're probably pretty much teaching you stuff you already know. Apply the patch though, and there are four more (from memory), though I haven't played them myself.

Graphics - well, they don't look like Stracraft for argument's sake, however, this was a design decision, because you will notice as you play that they are designed around customiseability. So that the same gun you see on your infantry is the same gun that you see on your rovers, etc. Basically, they're all built from scracth, by adding all the pieces together. Plus, all the units can actually have a facing, as pooposed to CIV II, where units all face the same way. That's why they don't look picture perfect.

But don't give up yet, there is a lot of depth to the game, if you spend the time looking for it.

posted 02-28-99 08:27 PM ET            

You see what I mean about SMAC?! This is exactly the same impression that I got about the game. This is why I've been complaining about SMAC. It just isn't very impressive, and I really don't find it a terribly fun game.

It's really too bad that the game turned out this way.

posted 02-28-99 09:01 PM ET            

And yet in the big debate with MikeH, towards the end you say: "I'm not bored and, I'll repeat, I think that Firaxis made a great game."

Though a couple of posts after that, you do reply that you are getting bored with it. Still, you're contradicting yourself...

Anyway, after a few short pointers, he/she went back, cos he was having fun. Sure, maybe it ain't the most intuitive game out there, but that I think comes hand in hand with the type of game. I found it reasonably easy, using the TUTOR. Now I can actually recognise what a square will produce without having to shift-right click on it.

It is there, just that sometimes it ain't completely obvious (allright, except for artillery =). As for making it bleeding obvious to anyone - well, I dare say that would be a lot of added work, and not really worth the effort, IMHO. But in the end, I haven't found the learning curve to be so much higher than MOO2, or the original CIV when I got it.

posted 03-01-99 08:37 AM ET            

Why do you even bother trying to question the credibility of my posts by attempting to find some form of self contradictions? What are you trying to say?

Let me put it into terms you may be able to understand: Basically, the it is a great game. It is an improvement over CIV II, it has many great new features which I enjoy, and the voice overs are probably the best thing about the game.

BUT!...

...the unit graphics are just terrible and the SFX are pathetic. Making it worse is that they often look the same. This coupled with the automation problems, the repetative dialog with other factions, ...it just makes it boring after a while. I can only pay it for about an hour before I find myself wanting to do something else.

So, (and this is for you Greg, so pay close attention...) this is a great game but it could have been made much better. It didn't meet my expectations at all (not even close) and I'm disappointed. I like the game because I find myself still playing it, but I've felt much more enjoyment playing other new games of the previous year than I have with this one. In terms of "fun", well, it's OK, but not an incredibly fun game.

Is that clear enough for you? Probably not, but I know what the problem is, and maybe this will help you understand: you're thinking that I'm contradicting myself simply because I can see both good and bad things about this game. That is not a contradiction. If you can find one instance where I've seriously said that I love the unit graphics, than you've got yourself a case.

posted 03-01-99 11:09 AM ET            

I don't think the computer suffers from any production limitations (as in having to maintain units)... do the believers have a bonus here? For example: In my last game, the believers had 4 cities. EVERY turn for 11 straight turns, they attacked me with 4 impact speeders. That's 44 impact speeders supported by 4 cities... and this is not far into the game. I would hate to see what the factions could do on higher difficulty levels!

In this new game, I finally have a foothold, but am having to be an obseqious sycophant just to stay alive.

Also, is there a way to tell how much tech you are generating for research?

posted 03-01-99 12:25 PM ET            

I just read this thread and I think that you might be making a big mistake. Do not edit the game until you are good at it. Newbies should never edit games. I'm new to the game and even though I am tempted I make sure not to edit the game. You see we newbies do not understand the game well enough. Chances are you are ruining the game for yourself by undermining some sort of important concept.

I also noticed that you started on a higher difficulty. If you are having trouble you don't need to change the game, just play a lower level until you get better.

Also make sure to play all of the factions, this will let you see things from all points of view and accelerate the learning process.

posted 03-01-99 02:05 PM ET            

Also, it may be easier or more appropriate, particularly in early games, to play as an appropriate faction. I tried to start one game as UoP, but that required adjusting my style, so I slid back to comfortable old Morgan. I'll learn to adjust to other factions later, when I'm more familiar with the game.

Besides, Freudianslip's description of the Believers' advances in the first 10 or 20 years is astounding when compared to what I saw from them, even in my first game when I had no clue what I was doing or why.

As for the question about tech, it took me awhile to find that too. Go to the HQ menu, and you can access that from the Laboratories Status sub-menu, or several other points on that menu. At the bottom of the appropriate screen, I believe it is called "Social Engineering," you can balance between Production, Research and Psych (or whatever they're called in this game). There's also an Energy Banks entry in the menu, which may or may not be helpful.

posted 03-01-99 03:39 PM ET            

Why do you have to stratify gamers? There's no need to say things like, "SMAC is for smart people," with the inference being, "you're dumb if you don't like it."

I never watched Star Trek (the couple of times I saw it I found the show campy and badly acted) and yet I have no difficulty understanding SMAC's technologies.

I love SMAC, as well as CivII and host of other strategy games, but I also own and play Quake2 and Halflife just as much.

posted 03-01-99 08:24 PM ET            

I finally have a foothold on the believer's main soil, but I am taking hideous losses... usually losing 3 for every one of theirs I take out. Still, that is part of the challenge I suppose.. makes me wonder why the believers are so killer... .I guess that +25% really helps...

posted 03-01-99 09:30 PM ET            

For me, if I am bored with a game, it is either because I have overplayed it, or because it is crap. I don't think I have ever been bored with a game, yet thought it was, um, how did you put it, "a great game".

So I was just trying to figure out what you actually meant, cos I couldn't figure it out. Now it is clear, though I can still say I can't understand how you could feel both ways at once (and don't try and explain it, I can grasp the concept, I just can't understand it)...

As for the SFX and graphics, I find them fine (apart from the fact that I would like different weapons to make different sounds, and artillery to look different, but that is sucha minor irritation that it barely registers - for me). For you, it is obviously detracting from the game. Me, I don't let eye candy change whether or not I like a game, whereas obviously you do. Fair enough. We're different people after all.

And hopefully that explains my point of view, cos obviously you didn't get it. And no, I didn't fully understand yours, on the boredom thing, anyway, but I certainly do on the graphics front...

posted 03-02-99 09:05 AM ET            

My opinion about the game is evolving. The more I play it, the more I dislike it. It goes far beyond the unit graphics. With some games, even if I do get bored of them, it takes much longer than a couple of weeks of playing. Even if I play a game for a 100 hours, there are times when I am still impressed by the game design.

With some games, I can't help but admire the special attention to detail, the remarkable programming, and the ingenius game design.

The one thing that I really think Firaxis did especially well is the voice overs. In that regard, Firaxis gave that special attention to detail and went beyond what was expected. It added so much to the game. But they stoped there. It's tragic!

I enjoyed SMAC; I played it; but it's about to hit the shelves, because unfortunately, Firaxis just didn't make a spectacular game.

Maybe next time.

posted 03-02-99 09:19 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.''

posted 03-11-99 09:00 AM ET            

True, some games (quake, etc.) are sold almost entirely on how cool they look and how big the weapons are. This doesn't mean they're not fun. I've had Qauke on my harddrive for a LOOONG time, and I still play it every now and then.

But awhile ago I got the Ultima Collection. This has all 8 Ultima games and one ancient LB game called Akalabeth. I had to get adjusted to playing games that had ARCHAIC graphics and DOS speaker sound. First this really turned me off, but as I got deeper into the world I realized that Ultima 4 was an AWESOME game, no matter how old it is. And graphics and SFX DON'T make a game. In fact, the less time is spent on graphics, the more that is probably spent on gameplay.

So, I might be desensitized by my experience with Ultima, but graphics don't hold a candle to gameplay, which will ALWAYS remain great. Unlike the latest in video card wonders, that quickly become a memory.

posted 03-11-99 05:03 PM ET            

I like SMAC. But I do not think that it is as well done as Civ 2 or MoO 2.

Likes: tech tree is well thought out. good ideas for all factions

BUT

Dislikes: dull graphics, poor sound, lack of easy customization in factions, stupid AI.

My dog could beat this game on Transcend. Where are the grand offensives by factions like the Spartans and Hive ? I have yet to see a large scale invasions ESPECIALLY if the computer is forced to go over water. Heck, the Demon boils I see late in the game give me more problems than the computer opponents. My games at Transcend level always end up with me SPANKING the computer in ALL areas (TECH especially). Where is the tech advantage of the University ?? I never see the computer use Supply units. Morgan should be trying to exploit every energy source he cannot reach with cities.

My wish list....

1. Improve the AI. It is not good at all and makes it boring when there is NO competition at all.

2. Improve the sounds. There are less than a dozen weapons in the game. Instead of voice actors for each tech advance, get some great weapon and battle sounds.

3. Improve multiplayer support. Why has this game not been pushed into Heat.net, MPlayer, Gamestorm and Internet Gaming Zone ?? Alpha.net does not cut it especially when it is still in beta and crashed 50% of the time.

4. Allow players to turn off story and play vs the factions and not have to battle Planet at the end. Even out the Mind Worm attacks throughout the course of the game.

I am sorry to say that Brian Reynolds has shown why he will ALWAYS play 2nd fiddle to Sid. And yes I know that Civ 2 was Brians design but Sid was involved in every step of it. Unlike this great disappointment. Great AI has been a trademark of every Sid game ever made. I expected SMAC to replace MoO and Civ 2 on my hard drive but it has failed badly.