Does SMAC deserve the 98% it got from PC Gamer?

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Does SMAC deserve the 98% it got from PC Gamer?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Does SMAC deserve the 98% it got from PC Gamer?

Cino posted 03-11-99 07:08 PM ET
In the latest issue of PC Gamer SMAC recieved a 98% rating. That's the highest rating PC Gamer has ever given a game(better than Half-Life or Civ II). Do you agree with this? They're basically saying it's the best computer game ever made. Does anyone think they're wrong? Let's have a vote! Thanks.
Victor Galis posted 03-11-99 07:39 PM ET
It is the best, no doubt about it.
QuienSabe posted 03-11-99 08:06 PM ET
Yes, definately.
After a few annoyances in getting started
(fixed by reading the forums) I have found
SMAC to be the most enjoyable PC game
experience I've had. My opinion only of
course.
SMAC appeals to my SF interests but there
is something underneath this all. There is
a very deep and satisfying experience here.
Playing SMAC has prompted me to search out
some meaningful reading (2 examples: Red
Mars by Kim Robinson and Our Angry Earth
by Asimov and Pohl. I can't remember when
a PC game has ever prompted me to delve back
into reading.
Firaxis deserses extreme credit for SMAC and
PC Gamer's review is right on!
QS
Freddz posted 03-11-99 08:12 PM ET
Has the Firaxis crew gotten aliases and started answering posts?
Brother Greg posted 03-11-99 08:37 PM ET
Cino: Yeah, I reckon that it is. Bugs aside, it is a great improvement on CIV II (which is IMNSHO the best game prior to SMAC), expanding so many areas that it ain't funny. It needs to be patched to address some of the bugs, but tell me a game that hasn't.
It may also not be everybody's kettle of tea, but from a person who thought CIV and CIV II were the best games ever written, yeah, SMAC is a great improvement.
Freddz: Why not just give your opinion, rather than posting innuendo about the posters and Firaxis both? If you disagree, say so...
Freddz posted 03-11-99 08:42 PM ET
Sorry just couldn't resist it. Don't take it too seriously though. Actually most of us have answered this one, in another 98% thread.
Borodino posted 03-11-99 09:01 PM ET
A resounding yes!
Victor Galis posted 03-11-99 09:08 PM ET
Also read Nemesis by Aasimov, the planet Erthryo (sp?) in that book is much like planet.
Shining1 posted 03-11-99 09:52 PM ET
Like my english teacher - nothing ever deserves a 100% grade.
But, yes, I think this is potentially the best single player game ever. Bug issues aside, there's some balancing to be done, and the A.I can always use a extra kick. Plus the battle graphics/sound thing....
Currently, I think the replayability is its best feature. Multiplayer is a drag, even at hotseat level, which puts SMAC into serious trouble as overall best game of all time. Better multiplayer games might arrive along with a proper senario editor (SMAC needs a T.A style expansion set sometime soon).
Answer: SMAC doesn't deserve 98%. It's a bloody good game, though.
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: Does SMAC deserve the 98% it got from PC Gamer?
Cino	posted 03-11-99 07:08 PM ET In the latest issue of PC Gamer SMAC recieved a 98% rating. That's the highest rating PC Gamer has ever given a game(better than Half-Life or Civ II). Do you agree with this? They're basically saying it's the best computer game ever made. Does anyone think they're wrong? Let's have a vote! Thanks.
Victor Galis	posted 03-11-99 07:39 PM ET It is the best, no doubt about it.
QuienSabe	posted 03-11-99 08:06 PM ET Yes, definately. After a few annoyances in getting started (fixed by reading the forums) I have found SMAC to be the most enjoyable PC game experience I've had. My opinion only of course. SMAC appeals to my SF interests but there is something underneath this all. There is a very deep and satisfying experience here. Playing SMAC has prompted me to search out some meaningful reading (2 examples: Red Mars by Kim Robinson and Our Angry Earth by Asimov and Pohl. I can't remember when a PC game has ever prompted me to delve back into reading. Firaxis deserses extreme credit for SMAC and PC Gamer's review is right on! QS
Freddz	posted 03-11-99 08:12 PM ET Has the Firaxis crew gotten aliases and started answering posts?
Brother Greg	posted 03-11-99 08:37 PM ET Cino: Yeah, I reckon that it is. Bugs aside, it is a great improvement on CIV II (which is IMNSHO the best game prior to SMAC), expanding so many areas that it ain't funny. It needs to be patched to address some of the bugs, but tell me a game that hasn't. It may also not be everybody's kettle of tea, but from a person who thought CIV and CIV II were the best games ever written, yeah, SMAC is a great improvement. Freddz: Why not just give your opinion, rather than posting innuendo about the posters and Firaxis both? If you disagree, say so...
Freddz	posted 03-11-99 08:42 PM ET Sorry just couldn't resist it. Don't take it too seriously though. Actually most of us have answered this one, in another 98% thread.
Borodino	posted 03-11-99 09:01 PM ET A resounding yes!
Victor Galis	posted 03-11-99 09:08 PM ET Also read Nemesis by Aasimov, the planet Erthryo (sp?) in that book is much like planet.
Shining1	posted 03-11-99 09:52 PM ET Like my english teacher - nothing ever deserves a 100% grade. But, yes, I think this is potentially the best single player game ever. Bug issues aside, there's some balancing to be done, and the A.I can always use a extra kick. Plus the battle graphics/sound thing.... Currently, I think the replayability is its best feature. Multiplayer is a drag, even at hotseat level, which puts SMAC into serious trouble as overall best game of all time. Better multiplayer games might arrive along with a proper senario editor (SMAC needs a T.A style expansion set sometime soon). Answer: SMAC doesn't deserve 98%. It's a bloody good game, though.