Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
PC Gamer: 98% for SMAC. What rating would YOU give it?
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
PC Gamer: 98% for SMAC. What rating would YOU give it?
|
| Author | Topic: PC Gamer: 98% for SMAC. What rating would YOU give it? |
| Freudianslip |
posted 03-07-99 01:53 PM ET  
98% seems a little high, to me. A good game, but in all honestly, I think the staff at PCGamer may have done a little pre-SMAC-crack-packing, if you know what I mean. Considering some of the weaknesses in the combat system, auto-gov problems, counterbalanced with the ultra-cool secret projects and interesting tech-tree, I'd probably lay down a clean 86%. How about the rest of you? Thanks for your time! |
| Kyle |
posted 03-07-99 02:01 PM ET
Sounds about right to me. The game is better than Civ2, and that deserved the 97% |
| Freddz |
posted 03-07-99 05:23 PM ET
A sequel made on a game made three(?) years ago is supposed to be much better... I will give it 91% basically 'cause I played the demo so many times. I don't seem to be as happy now that I have the full game, don't ask me why. |
| Shining1 |
posted 03-07-99 06:38 PM ET
91% seems pretty good, if a little high. While I could agree with it, something around the 85% range (with a 9/10 for addictiveness) should apply. I definitely wouldn't give it 98% While the static visuals are okay, the combat graphics suck. And the sound isn't quite 10/10 either. The interface doesn't rate more than 7/10, though I admit this is a very complex game to organise properly. Using the Gamespot scoring, which I agree with, I would probably go: Gameplay: 9 Which gives a result of 8.5. |
| fredmoss |
posted 03-07-99 06:41 PM ET
If the game worked, I would give it a 9.2. Since it is so buggy and crash prone. I give it a 0.0. It means nothing if it "looks cool" and does not run properly |
| yin26 |
posted 03-07-99 07:40 PM ET
To break the 90% barrier, I think a game should have substantially good gameplay and reliability. SMAC took steps backwards in my opinion. 81% (good post) |
| Freddz |
posted 03-07-99 08:44 PM ET
Yeah, I agree with Shining and Yin. But I played the demo 25+ times so they must have done somthing right. I think more would have felt the game to be better if they hadn't played the demo. Then again there would have been even more bugs... Today I feel that something is missing that is hard to put the finger on.... As I said 91% was partly because of me obsessively playing the demo. Only counting the full game certainly gives something in the 80s(%), and probably not in the higher 80:s either... |
| uncleroggy |
posted 03-07-99 10:45 PM ET
90% Chris Pine admitted they only got rid of 90 % of the bugs so I'll go with Chris. Btw, Shining1. I want to caution you on using the word sucks. People will start to lump you in the same group as me and Yin26! From your perspective, that is probably not good! |
| CeoTJ |
posted 03-07-99 11:03 PM ET
SMAC is not as reliable as Civ2. Smac is better than Civ2 in gameplay and complexity but not in reliablity. I give SMAC a 85. CeoTJ "The SMAC\Civ2 datalinks" |
| Zoetrope |
posted 03-08-99 04:42 AM ET
I won't give a number, just an opinion. If I'd been Firaxis, I would have omitted the fancy 3D turns, put in an option to _really_ skip all the tedious movement-watching, and concentrated on modularising the design rules and interface. Remember the vessel of good measure? It was shaken down. Complex software needs constant shaking down to make it leaner. Btw, Chris Pine didn't say that Firaxis had left 10% of the bugs in (!), he said that SMAC had only 10% as many bugs as other games. So unless other games typically never have any bugs removed before release (!), it's doubtful that the currently popular interpretation is anywhere near correct! |
| Darkheart |
posted 03-08-99 05:41 AM ET
My ratings: Gameplay: The strongest aspect of SMAC, I think nearly everyone that played it suffered from severe attacks of "just one more turn!". Rating:92% Interface: The control interface is a little messy and difficult to use. There were quite a few functions I didn't even know about until I played a couple of games. It was also annoyingly easy to "lose" units on the screen and have to hunt around for them. Changing production at bases was less than easy too particularly once you started to get more than 20. Rating: 68% Graphics: They are functional but boring, most units look almost exactly the same. This was partly a constraint of the workshop engine but in general I found the graphics unispired and tedious. Also no Animations with units to give them charecter, all static slides. This was acceptable a couple of years ago but these days we expect much more. Rating: 45% Sound: When it was there the sound was alright, the musical score was quite good but there just wasn't enough! No feedback from units which would have added much more charecter, no talking to commanders nothing. Sound hardly featured in the game at all, another big failing in SMAC. Rating: 44% Multiplayer: As playing over the internet in realtime is way too expensive and I don't have the patience for play by e-mail my only option left was my LAN. However SMAC inisits on having the CD in the drive at all times (UK version) so that effectively put an end to that. Why the hell supply a game with multiplayer and then kill it stone dead for your audience...? Rating: 0% Replaybabilty: The game definatly has stacks of experimentation you can do with it and you could definatly play it for quite a while without it getting too samey. However I found myself tiring after 3 full length games played on different difficulty levels. It's probably headed for the shelf soon but may well get taken down again later... 78% Overall: Pretty good but not awesome, lots of room for improvment particularly on graphics and sound! The multiplayer is just plain stupid, particularly for a game that takes as long to play as SMAC LAN is the only option and yes I can play it on a LAN but only if I buy SMAC twice. SMAC could have learnt a lot from games like Starcaft (for unit personalisation and detail) & other strategy games for improved multimedia. Instead they choose to ignore the multimedia boom of the last 5 years, so SMAC while still very playable just doesn't live up to expecations in many areas... Overall Rating: 72% Darkheart |
| Joe Average |
posted 03-08-99 07:39 AM ET
I'd give it 65%....it's decent but not great, I can't see myself playing this in a month...Mostly because the late game is poorly done. (The guy who designed the demo is brilliant! It cuts off just before the game starts to get tedious....certainly hooked me...) |
| Ender4000 |
posted 03-08-99 08:07 AM ET
I'd give it a 95%. I like the combat, and I'm glad they didn't waste time and resources on improved graphics that wouldn't be needed and would of slowed down the game speed. Imagine how much time would of been spent building units if each unit type had its own graphic. Though I do wish each special ability had its own graphic add in. The end game is much better done than other games, if you are way ahead you can actually finish the game pretty early with a diplomatic/economic victory. If you play correctly the planet doesn't hit you hard except when you should be working on transcendence, and that only takes 2 or 3 turns to build. For me the interface is just fine, there are a couple of minor points I'd improve but I have no problems playing the game and rarely have to open a menu to do anything in the game. The keyboard is your friend. Sound - the sound is great, music always gets turned off in games so thats not a big deal, the voice overs are well done and combat sounds for TBS are usually annoying (just look at axis and allies once), these aren't. Multi-player this is the failing that stops it from getting a higher rating. Problem is any TBS with a lot of depth is going to have multi-player problems. I just don't have the time to spend 8 hours straight playing. |
| Pragmatist |
posted 03-08-99 10:53 AM ET
85% is about right. It's a well-done revision of a prior game (Civ2). I wouldn't give any revision higher than 85% and I wouldn't give this one that rating if it weren't done by the original creators. As an aside: I haven't had any stability problems while running this software on multiple platforms so I don't consider the crash claims to be related to the software. They have to be related to the individual systems that are crashing. |
| CEO Bernard |
posted 03-08-99 11:01 AM ET
90%. Of course, I don't think Civ2 deserved a 97% either. I would give Civ2 a 91% as well. There is little difference between Civ2 and SMAC. Whereas Civ2 seemed to have less problems, SMAC is much better if they get all the problems resolved. Assuming that they get all the bugs fixed, and possibly another enchancement or two (to the diplomacy please) then I would give SMAC a 93%. CEO Bernard |
| Khan Singh |
posted 03-08-99 01:36 PM ET
93%. Gameplay is the most important thing and SMAC has gameplay equal to any game on the market. There are dozens of different strategies to play and the game maintains tension and excitement right up to the end. The graphics are a little weak in some details. And the sound is nothing special, and a little buggy. But SMAC looks better than many games, and much better than most strategy games. It looks better than Warlords 3 and Dune 2000, for instance. I even think the units look basically as good as the ones in Starcraft, they just don't have as much animation and cool combat effects. The graphics do achieve an important effect, making Planet seem alien and strange, yet unique. At no time do I have any trouble confusing Chiron with Earth. Nor does the gererated world ever seem generic. It always looks like Chiron and always an alien "feel" that sets the scene nicely. Nonetheless graphics are important and SMACs are not top of class. I took a few points off. As for bugs, well, except for sound, I haven't had any. Not one freeze. No crashes, no glitchs. And I've played a lot of SMAC. I'm sorry for you guys who are having trouble but as far as I'm concerned this is one rock stable game. I did manage to get it to hang once after editing some of the files, but even then it crashed "politely" to Desktop after Ctr-Alt-Del. It really looks like a first class job of Windows programming to me. The sound glitches can be annoying. But, in the PC world, sound problems don't even really count as bugs, do they? Every game has sound that craps out sometime. With regard to the automation, who really cares?. So the autogovernors don't work, big deal. In Baldur's Gate your party of six characters can't follow one another down a hallway for crying out loud. In Caeser3 your market ladies can't find food no matter how hard they look, not even in the overflowing granary right next to their market. And I'm supposed to get upset at SMAC because the autoformers don't do exactly what I want? Forget it. The automation is still much better than any game I've seen. Baldur's Gate and Caesar3 are certainly not bad games. Lousy pathfinding and all, I'd rate BG at 95%, and C3 at 89%. While they both have better graphics and sound than SMAC, SMAC has better and deeper gameplay. So I think 93% is a fair rating. |
| Scrubby |
posted 03-08-99 01:37 PM ET
SMAC: 93% CivII: 89% CivI: 90% Half-Life: 95% (though it's wrong to compare FPS to TBS but hey...) By the way, anyone notice that Trotter at PCGamer is giving games incredibly high ratings -- the guy has no where left to go when a really really good game comes out... Also didn't they give Sin an Editor's Choice? For my purposes I read PcGamer AND CGW AND Gamespot and pc.ign.com. Sometimes PCGamer gets too caught up in its favourites... |
| CrayonX |
posted 03-08-99 04:06 PM ET
I'd like to reply to Scrubby but first my rating... 87%.... While I do like the addictive gameplay I find that towards the end I was spending about 80% of the time watching units move around while I sat there and stared blankly at the screen. Also, the Auto-Build feature for formers is much worse than the Auto-Engineers for CivII. Those formers start going around in circles and not building anything even though there is obvious stuff to do with the terrain. My advice, DON'T use Auto-Build. I'm wondering if they made it terrible on purpose, but I figure on the easier levels (or at least on Citizen) they should at least make the governer AI a little better. I also thought the Enemy AI would be less generic than they are. I played once as UofP and almost every turn Pravin Lal made some sort of threat. Isn't he supposed to be a peacemaker? I had a naked rover wandering around his area for exploratory reasons and he threatened war every other turn. Does this make sense? Scrubby... I've noticed Trotter's high mark tendencies as well. If you read his articles he's not very objective and has certain biases for certain companies (he seemed to take it very personally when Avalon Hill folded). And remember when Dennis "Thresh" Fong got hired and all he talked about was Quake, then he mysteriously (?) disappeared, and the new guy is a lot better. They even published a letter from someone in their "Letters" section saying something like "Glad to see you now have someone who doesn't talk about Quake all the time." It's okay to have biases, but when you're doing articles or reviews for a genre, there has to be some objectivity. We readers are not stupid. Even though I don't like Riven-type games I don't think it deserved a 40% from PC Gamer (they'e obviously biased against those kind of games). There's all kinds of gamers out there, PCGamer, not just 3D Freaks, RTS nuts, etc. And personally, I smell something funny about the SMAC review. I don't think they played it enough to say that it's worth a 98%. CrayonX |
| cousLee |
posted 03-08-99 04:56 PM ET
rating, hmmm. First let me ask, rate it compared to what???? Compared to Civ2? compared to what is currently available in the same genre? in any genre? on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being AOL? |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 03-08-99 05:27 PM ET
Mmm, ratings... Well, Civ2, I should say deserves a 98% SMAC? I disagree with most and give it a 95%. Hey, as I said before I loved it! Now for others: Baldur's Gate - 96% Imran Siddiqui |
| ddandb |
posted 03-08-99 11:06 PM ET
After rebate SMAC only cost me $24. (which is all it's worth) To me that makes it a low budget game. So for a cheap game I think it's pretty good and give it a rating of 85. On the other hand if I would have had to pay $40 to $50 for it than I would have expected more of it, been disapointed, and given it a lower rating. |
| Scrubby |
posted 03-08-99 11:21 PM ET
Hey CrayonX, yeah, PCGamer has a tendency to extremes I notice. But that, I believe is a byproduct of rating games on a percentage scale -- an incredibly informative and misleading method all at once. It's funny when extremePaintBrawl gets 6% and an issue later SMAC gets 98%. Sometimes I prefer CGW's five star rating (in effect an out of ten system)... Both magazines should do something similar to Gamespot's segmented review marks with a weighting to the "Overall Tilt". As for William Trotter he's an old school grognard. You can see him wrestling with his board game prejudices when he reviews games. The biggest reason I buy PCGamer is to read their columns, of which Trotter's I really enjoy... he's totally committed to gaming and it shows. As for Thresh, he was hired to talk about multiplayer when Quake II was all there was to talk about. Mike Luton (his replacement) I hear is a capable, and more well rounded writer but he's leaving apparently... But I digress... Imran: I loved Baldur's Gate but you know what? SMAC obliterated it. Not only do I not play BG anymore, SMAC relieved me of all desire to play it. Heroes III, which I just got is also great (a 93% from me), but SMAC still gets a good share of time. I'll give BG a 89%. One last thing, the perfect rating system (IMHO) for a game would require a few things: 1. A reviewer (or two) who states his/her preferences for games UP FRONT. 2. A breakdown of ratings for graphics. Sound/music etc. 3. An overall "tilt" mark, weighted with the other marks. 4. A comparison with games of like genre or flavour. It does no good to say Game X, a RTS, is 88% versus Game Y, which is also 88%. Their not equal. 5. Clear criteria statements for the marks a game receives. I.E. a games deserves 8/10 on graphics if, and only if it does... whatever. 6. Unless it's Extreme Paint Brawl, give the game a month to percolate. I suggest then, that anyone who's rated the game in this thread return in about a month's time to re-mark SMAC. I think it'll only improve. 7. A written blurb on PROS, CONS, BOTTOMLINE that PCGamer and CGW do pretty well. And, though some people hate it, a final thumbs down or up on purchasing the game (perhaps with a disclaimer). Wow. Did I say all that? |
| Andy_UM |
posted 03-08-99 11:30 PM ET
Well, I do think that SMAC is a great game, fully worthy of a 89% or so rating. Myself, I absolutely love the game. In my opinion, a 98% is about right. But, that's all it is, MY OPINION. I'm sure that there are people out there who can't stand TBS games, and some who do, but somehow SMAC leaves them cold. The point is, by PCGamer's own descriptions, anything greater than 90% is a game that you should buy regardless of any previous genre-loyalties. Do you realize what this is saying? If a RPG gets a 95%, then, in accordance with PCG's ratings, I should run out and drop $50. Back in the day, when I first subscribed to PCG in 1995, They adhered to this strickly. There were many games that got an 84% which I played for many an hour. Today, it seems that PCG has forgotten what made their magazine great - the honest and fresh reviews. Now, every sorta-descent game which is released opens up with an 85%. I think that SMAC is a great game, worthy of an enthusiastic review. I would not sell any organs to own it, maybe some folks would, maybe people would chuck a kidney in order NOT to play this game, but who cares. PCG has sold out and I think that from all the previous posts here we all know it, so let's just get back to enjoying SMAC or Solitare or whatever we chose. |
| Gee |
posted 03-09-99 12:16 AM ET
I would give SMAC overall 85%. Gameplay 95% Addictivity 100% Sound 85% Graphics 80% Replayability 95% Programming Quality 80% Originality 85% Learning curve medium to medium-hard. Generally a great game but bugs and poor graphics decrease its overall rating. |
| yin26 |
posted 03-09-99 12:29 AM ET
Gee, How dare you say this game has bugs? It worked on the computers at Firaxis, therefore (the only logical conclusion, of course) is that your machine is to blame. And I would kindly ask you to watch such slander. And I DEMAND that next time you send us all a 4-page minimum essay on what you think a bug is, how you've dealt with bugs in the past, and where you were when you first heard that Darkhorse had been killed. You might also include your philisophical consideration about how you could possibly deserve to live in a world where your computer works properly (though this is optional). MY computer always works. I even run software on it that hasn't been programmed yet. How? I built it myself from paper clips and gum. That's it. Works just fine. Obviously, then, you're just lazy, stupid or simply trying to flame Firaxis--and I'll have none of that here, mister. This is clearly a 99%+ game. If you don't understand it or can't get it to work, you must not have read the I.Q. warning clearly printed on the box. [Gee, just in case you might actually confuse me with some people here, I'm on your side with the bug thing |
| uncleroggy |
posted 03-09-99 01:51 AM ET
Zoetrope, I did not realize my interpretation of Chris Pine's remarks were either current or popular. Actually, the only thing I was trying to illustrate was the smugness that seems to prevail at Firaxis when someone like me points glaring flaws in this game. Therefore, I feel it important for me to adjust my rating. I will now use a baseline that all games are 90% bug free. Since Chris as assurred us that SMAC has only 10% of the errors of these other games, Smac only has 1% bugs. As a result, I humbly upgrade my score to 99%. OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!! Note: I am submitting this scoring system to PC gamer to be formally used for all future reviews. |
| CrayonX |
posted 03-09-99 03:01 AM ET
Yin: I tried the paperclips and gum thing too, but it messed up my floppy drive. Someday I'll figure it out.  Everyone: Baldur's Gate 88% (yes better than my SMAC, but I guess only until I finish BG. I find BG kind of annoying -- I keep getting killed. I'm not too hot with RPGs. I played FF7 until I got the funky plane, then I kind of lost interest in it). Civ2 96% (but only after the 2.42 patch, before the patch I'd say around 92%) Moo2 91% although I liked Moo1 better (especially the variable research tree) SimCity 3000 gets a 89% (it gets monotonous after a while, but for some reason I still play it -- guess I'm a cartographer at heart And....the worst game I've ever played... Rise and Rule of Ancient Empires 5% -- did anyone ever like that game??? |
| Bruce Hake |
posted 03-09-99 03:48 AM ET
You know, it's really weird that someone would take the time to find a dedicated game board in order to be snotty and sarcastic. In over 10 years I've played hundreds of games, have designed and programming some myself, and always prefer turn-based strategy. I think the top 10 rank like this: Alpha Centauri........99 |
| Freudianslip |
posted 03-09-99 04:48 AM ET
Bruce... I've never seen Merchant Prince before. What sort of game is that? Is it similar to Colonization? |
| anoona |
posted 03-09-99 06:31 AM ET
GamePlay 4 GameDesign 7 Graphics 2 Sound 4 quotes are Stupid and don't lend to the gameplay. The only thing good about the game is the different factions but the use of them is limited. |
| mauibound |
posted 03-09-99 09:09 AM ET
Having received my issue of PC Gamer yesterday and having now actually read their 98% review of Alpha Centauri, I was struck by the fact that PCG's review seemed to focus on what SMAC professed to be, rather than what it is. For example, they talk about the advanatages of the automated governors and automated formers (which most people at this site agree do not work very well) and the myriads of victory conditions, which also have bugs PCG didn't seem to note. I further noted that SMAC was not anywhere to be found on PCG's "Play List" which lists the games their staff can't put down. You would think a 98% would be somewhere on that list? Really seems to lead me to the conlusion that PCG reviewed this game too fast and was too influenced by the game's name and hype (much of which PCG created).... Don't get me wrong.. I think SMAC is great, I would probably rate it in the 85%-90% range and maybe higher... but a 98% rating with a review that doesn't demonstrate real knowledge of the game "as it works" seems a bit suspicious. Maybe I am just a bit niave. |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 03-09-99 02:07 PM ET
Everyone talks about bugs, but don't you realize that not everyone has come across bugs while playing SMAC? Oh, Scubby, the reason I rated BG over SMAC (by 1%) was I just more for the reason that it is really one of the few great RPGs out there. I love it! Imran Siddiqui |
| Aga1 |
posted 03-09-99 03:23 PM ET
Firaxis must of payed alot of money of pcgamer for that score.How many smac ads were in Pcgamer ? |
| Gee |
posted 03-09-99 03:36 PM ET
Amen to that Yin!!! Found ANOTHER bug recently. A friend was playing. He told me that a window comes up from yang saying he wants to speak to him. When he clicks ok the window slides down and then the same window slide up again. He has to press ok it five or six times and then for some reason it stops. Whats more is you never get to talk to yang. Of course when you try to talk to him via the council he ignors you because he thinks you bitched him. |
| PlanetRuler |
posted 03-09-99 03:42 PM ET
Here is my two cents. I give it a marginal 65%.The number would remain higher were it not for the patches released to fix the game and it will drop with the number of patches coming. There are all around problems with this game, namely tedious and repetitive gameplay, poor graphics, sound, stability and lack of depth. I will not devote pages of dialogue to why I think this because I don't have the time nor do I care. I think Firaxis had the right concept but dropped the ball in execution. Next time a round Firaxis I hope you really blow us away. SMAC in my humble opinion is worthy of 65%, and it could have been higher. But I am sorry anygame that I have to do that much work(downloading patches and fiddling with txt files) continues to degrade in playability. If they wanted this much access to the game they should have waited fixed the things that patches are for and will be for, made an more in depth menu for "tweaking" the game to suit your tastes, a major overhaul of graphics and the way they interact with the rest of the game. I'm sorry but there is a lot of problems across a lot of systems with graphics and then again there isn't for others. Like i have said before I would have waited another six months for a great SMAC game, but as it sits now it is a fair game. 65% is all it should have gotten. And for me that will continue to drop as patches and other fixes are released. |
| VvGaMeRXvV |
posted 03-09-99 04:51 PM ET
I'd give it a 89%. It is a good game but I think going from civ to civ2 was a greater leap than from civ2 to smac. I am actually back to playing Civ2 now because SMAC is just not my cup of tea. Civ2 didn't deserve quite a 97% but atleast PC Gamer doesn't throw around 100% to every above-average game like AOL's Antagonist, Inc. does. Maybe the next Sid creation will be worthy of dethroning Civ because I dont think Civ2 or SMAC are deserving of the crown. |
| Freddz |
posted 03-09-99 05:25 PM ET
PC Gamer in Sweden gave SMAC 91% btw and Civilisation: Call to Power 92%. Close call  .I certainly hope CTP will be better(for me that is), 'cause I haven't really replayed this game nearly as much as I hoped to. In fact SMAC been "on the shelf" for a week. |
| wrigley99 |
posted 03-09-99 10:01 PM ET
Computer Games Strategy Plus (cdmag.com) gave SMAC, which they liked a lot, 4/5 stars. Their reviews are somewhat tougher than PCG, or CGW even; that's why I subscribe. Actually, a large chunk of their editorial material can be found on their website, making subscribing a little unnecessary, unless you want to support their efforts. It's a brave little magazine, with a refreshingly cheeky attitude. Give it a read. |
| Throgi |
posted 03-09-99 11:03 PM ET
I Haven't found a single bug in SMAC yet so maybe its only on certain systems. Of course i do have a 450mhz so...... About the rating i give it a 94% and Civ2 a 92%. The graphics in SMAC may not be the latest 3d accelerated FPS graphics but in a game like this the graphics aren't the most important thing. The gameplay is, and it is addictive. I even had the volume turned down the first time i played it and the lack of sound didn't detract from the experience at all. Obviously, if i was addicted to it with the sound off then it dosen't really matter that it exists period (as long as the sounds aren't annoying). Anyway, some of you should reconsider judging the game based on graphics and such and should consider the gameplay as the determining factor. (END RANT NOW) Throgi |
| UndertakerAPB |
posted 03-10-99 12:13 AM ET
For now I will give it a 80% percent. But my vote can easily change after CTP comes out next week. |
| BoomBoom |
posted 03-10-99 08:06 AM ET
Mmm, I'd say about 91%. It looks good enough, sounds good enough, does not crash at all (maybe it is the American version?, serves you right if it is for getting it earlier), it is extremely deep, and it actually one of the precious few games that is actually thought provoking. Other games: Thief, Dark Project 90% (Bloody hard) |
| Freddz |
posted 03-10-99 08:09 AM ET
Yeah, I agree graphics is far from all important in a game like this. I think the choice of a brownish planet is not so fun though. In that sense, I enjoy just watching a happpy greenish pic from CTP. BTW, Undertaker C:CTP will be out the 30th, it has been delayed since they want to implement a few Beta-test ideas. |
| iratheous |
posted 03-10-99 08:34 AM ET
Woudl you rather have the game two weeks earlier WITHOUT the new idea's implemented or two weeks later WITH the games implemented. this is assuming of course that the idea's in question would be implemented in a patch within a month or so after the game was released. |
| Freddz |
posted 03-10-99 08:58 AM ET
Iratheous, I don't fully understand what you are trying to get at, but you seem to be talking to me. Since you ask though, I would much prefer to have it all in the game, therefore released later. The SMAC patch for Europe hasn't been released yet(it is undergoing testing I have heard), and it seems like ages ago the US patch was released. Moreso, I hear some people have been getting new problems with the released patch... So yes, I would rather have a less buggy game released a bit later, than a game you will tear your hair off waiting for a new patch(that's the principle, taken a bit far I admit). |
| kjchen |
posted 03-10-99 09:04 AM ET
Freudianslip: I'm suspicious of any review which boils its end result down to a single result. What exactly were their justifications in the article for the 98% rating? (please don't tell me to go buy the magazine myself, or I'll suspect you're a shill for PCG) It seems that some people seem to take reviews as a rigorous measure of the goodness of the game, which is a behavior that I caution strongly against. A perfectly reviewed strategy game won't be appealing to a person whose sole interest is first-person shooters, and a universally-panned game may have elements that some players may enjoy (as much as it may prejudice opinion against me on these boards, I have to say that I actually enjoyed Deadlock for a couple of weeks before it became tiresome). Reviews are useful guidelines: if well-done, they expose bugs which impact gameplay and highlight features which enhance it (poorly-done hype reviews which bear little resemblance to the delivered product are a rant for another day). Ultimately, the decision to enjoy a game or not rests with the player. To me, SMAC plays very similarly to Civ II, which is one of my favorite strategy games of all, so in that light, a 98% rating might be justified. Those players who were expecting greatly altered play from the original Civ games obviously didn't get what they expected, so their indignance at such rave reviews is similarly justified. |
| iratheous |
posted 03-10-99 09:21 AM ET
sorry, it wasn't meant as a direct question to you freddz. it was more of a general question. I was just wondering because many people here damn a company if they make them wait for the game.. And then these same people will damn a company because they make them wait for a patch to implement features that werent in the game becuse it was rushed to please them. |
| UndertakerAPB |
posted 03-10-99 10:03 AM ET
Just found out thx Freddz. I guess this two week delay would be good for the game, since they have extra features to put in. |
| Khan Singh |
posted 03-10-99 10:28 AM ET
Scrubby, you make a good point. Since SMAC came out I haven't played any more Baldur's Gate either, and I was close to the end. SMAC also looks to have much more replayablity than BG. So I think I should boost my SMAC rating a point to: SMAC 94% A few other ratings for games from the past few years: Jedi Knight 98%--- Graphics engine was one step behind Quake, but otherwise the best FPS ever made. Age of Empires 96%---Far and away the best RTS animation and graphics, good gameplay too. Half Life 95%---Very memorable FPS, but not quite the blast to play that JK was. Gettysburg 91%---Very original RTS with authentic manuevers, great gameplay and terrific sound and graphics. But clicking on the little flags could really get annoying. Sanitarium 83%---Great story, but no real gameplay. Starcraft 89---Played it right after AoE and thought it was more limited and not as pretty. Much better campaigns though. |
| Seth |
posted 03-10-99 07:47 PM ET
I think SMAC is a great game. It deserves to be up there with my other two favorite games, Fallout and Grim Fandango. My ratings are: Gameplay: 10 Graphics: 7 Sound: 7 Interface: 10 Multiplayer: N/A Depth: 10 Bells and Whistles: 4 Tilt: 10 Overall: 82% To contrast: All of the percentages are purely mechanical. I don't go by those scores when I rate a game. If I went by how much I like the game I would have given all three a 100% score. |
| Freddz |
posted 03-10-99 08:04 PM ET
BoomBoom, I would be harder on Civ1. I really think it didn't deserve more than 99,4% And no, I never got tired of it either. |
| Bruce Hake |
posted 03-12-99 03:40 AM ET
Freudianslip, Merchant Prince is a Civ-like game in medieval times released by QQP (which used to be a GREAT game company for a couple of years) in 1993. Microprose (Sid Meier's old company, near Baltimore) re-released it as Machievelli (or something like that) a year or two later. Stodgy graphics, sure. But a wonderful mix of exploration, commerce, war and diplomacy. SegaSoft's Empire of the Fading Suns from 1997 is a copy, more or less, based in the future--one of the few games I leave on the hard drive. My wife and I built a home LAN for awhile back in 1995, and we spent several great weekends playing each other at Merchant Prince. Of course, I always won, by being more ruthless <g>. |
| Biddles |
posted 03-12-99 06:19 AM ET
All you people have been reading pc mags too much. A 50% rating should be an average game, quite playable, but with nothing that sets it apart from the field, a 75% er should be a great game, inovative and challenging. A game that scores 100% (or 98%) should be impossible to make, none of these games are *perfect*. SMAC and civ2 could take a hell of a lot of improvement, these ratings are way too out of whack. -Biddles |
| Slap |
posted 03-12-99 06:46 AM ET
If I'd never played CIV or CIV2, I'd probably judge this as a 90%+, but I don't see any progression in SMAC. Shouldn't ratings be based on what has gone before, a base which moves forward? Maybe 98% would be warranted if this game had come out, say, 3 or 4 years ago. Today? Come on! |
| Freudianslip |
posted 03-13-99 01:40 AM ET
It's hard to put these ratings in perspective. For everyone, I suppose the bottom line is that ever-elusive and difficult to quantify element: fun. SMAC wins big points for me on tech, interface, AI (I'm not so good so the AI seems quite tough to me...), but unfortunately it scores sort of low on the "fun" scale. I've been gone for 3 days, and I don't even have the urge to start a game up. Not a good sign when I've only finished one game.. If I ranked my games on raw "fun", perhaps indicated by the hours-spent-playing ratio vs. the hours-I-thought-I-spent-playing ratio, ignoring everything else, those with the highest rankings would include: Civilization I |
| Maheno |
posted 03-13-99 11:38 AM ET
I buy my copy of PCG quite religiously but, with SMAC, I think they fell down a few notches. The review is superficial at best. It doesn't add anything new to what has been said more eloquently elsewhere, and I basically smell publication deadline and must ride-on hype. That being said, what rating would I give SMAC (using their system)? Probably somewhere between 90% and 94%, under the condition that the CLASSIC landmark is uplifted to 95%+. I guess my main point is: no, SMAC is not a classic. Not at all! Unlike Civ and Civ2. The problem with the 98% rating is that with that kind of a mark, one would expect a truly timeless and awe inspiring game. And SMAC simply does not deliver. I really like it even with its mediocre graphics (in this day and age!) and its depressing brownish feel (I know it's an alien planet, but come on!). SMAC has good gameplay, great depth and excellent game mechanics. The game is also very polished with almost no bugs (quite rare these days) and a superbly detailed storyline. But to play God on Alpha Centauri is unfortunately not as engrossing as on good old planet earth. Is this what made Civ a classic? ...Can't wait for CTP..;-) |
| 4Horses |
posted 03-13-99 03:41 PM ET
I haven't seen the score sheet so I don't know how to come up with a percentage. But to me...98%.....4 out of 5 stars....tells me that this is a game I must own. Is it??? If I hadn't played Civ II then I would think this was a fantastic game. But I did play Civ II and was instantly addicted. Civ II had an emotional involvement that SMAC lacks. I'm not saying this game isn't any good. It's a wonderful game. I especially like amassing my forces and conquering an enemy one city at a time. I love the heavy artillary. I love the atrocities. But for me, this game didn't live up to what I was hoping from a sequel (if this is what we are calling it). I think this game and these forums should be good building blocks for SMAC 2. Unfortunately for Firaxis and the rest of us, I won't buy SMAC 2 based on name alone. I will have to do my math and maybe play a demo to see if I want to spend my money on it. But looking at some of you....and ya'll sound like you've played every game on the shelf....for you to say this game deserves a very high rating (98%)....I just don't see it. |
| Richard |
posted 03-16-99 08:42 PM ET
This game should get at most an 80%. I've listed the many failings of SMAC under "Sid, say it ain't so" and will post possible improvements soon. This game is a basic DUP of CIV II, and for that reason alone it should be slapped around a bit. BREAK NEW GROUND. |
| yin26 |
posted 03-16-99 09:09 PM ET
Great Richard--now you've done it! You've just sent the bugle call for every SMAC-head who can't tell a temple from a rec. commons to come in and cry: "But, but, but...this game is the FUTURE and, and, and...that game is the PAST!" Unleash the hounds! |
| Freddz |
posted 03-16-99 11:40 PM ET
I'll up my grade 1% for SMAC as I've just learned that Activision is going to release a patch(ugh) for hotseat and PBEM. |
| Vidle |
posted 03-16-99 11:45 PM ET
I would give SMAC and 88% or so. It really is a good game, but im not sure if I would call it a classic just yet. This puts SMAC in some nice company. Total Annihilation- 96% The standard by which all RTS are judged. The reason I upgraded my comp(twice). MOO- 95% Estimated a GPA drop of .5 due to this game alone. Civ2- 94% Only old game to make transition to new comp. Dune2- 92% Started my love with the RTS genre. Vidle |
| Borodino |
posted 03-17-99 08:23 PM ET
I can't give the game an exact numerical rating, but I think that PCG was justified in its rating. [I must also admit to wanting to like the game, and a strong desire can make up for a lot]. I've not had a single techinical problem with the game [something I can't say about many game companies -- cough, Sierra, cough, ahem...] I actually like the graphics, although the artillery/normal unit thing does bother me a bit. I miss the customization of CivII, but I like the factions. All in all, upper 90s, CivII's peer. Better in some ways, worse in others.... |
| LLGamer |
posted 03-17-99 08:55 PM ET
The discussions of SMAC in these forums remind me of other controversial releases. For example, the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" elicited a lot of emotional debate. You had people who saw it and loved it, people who saw it and hated it, and people who never saw it but loved/hated the idea of it. Such games have moved into the realm of art and are now subject to the rules of taste and preference. I think if everyone here realized that, and accepted that, we might have fewer silly, childish name-calling arguments. One thing I would like to point out is this: if FIRAXIS is unsuccessful with this genre, won't that scare off other companies? If you are a TBS fan, I believe you should be supportive of FIRAXIS, else suffer the inevitable fate: wandering down the isle of your local software store picking through the endless first-person shooter ripoffs. What do I mean by 'supportive'? I know I don't mean mindlessly oblivious to faults. I mean that we acknowledge faults, give constructive feedback, and support efforts at improvement. If we scare off prospective buyers with rants about 'bugginess', we could contribute to driving this series out of existence. Do I want to see improvement? Certainly. Do I think that the genre needs some innovation and improvement? Absolutely. But look at it from the FIRAXIS business point of view. They needed to get a solid money maker out in a somewhat reasonable amount of time, just to stay in business. The cold reality is that these guys need to feed their families, which they need to balance with our needs as users. From what I gather from my experiences and most of the comments, they did a good job, but need to clear up a few issues. Maybe a SMAC2 could address deeper issues, like smarter AI and more innovative modifications. Now, I don't want to get the usual flames of 'but why should I support a company that ships garbage'? You shouldn't, and FIRAXIS is clearly not that sort of company, in my opinion. Else, be prepared for another three year wait for the next true strategy game... |
| Krushala |
posted 09-06-99 08:18 PM ET
88% |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.