Lest face it - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Lest face it

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Lest face it

Aga1 posted 03-17-99 09:17 PM ET
Most of you bought the game because it had sid's name on it and that it was made by brian renoylds.It was all hype in the name.The game sucks and i am glad i returned it.Most of the reviews for smac were judged on the name of the designer.(HINT:PC Gamer)Smac is like going from Civ2 to the commodore64 belive that what the game looks like.
Giant Squid posted 03-17-99 09:31 PM ET
*Xenofungal bloom* A mindworm attacks and you die in agony, clawing your eyes out. For more info, see Voice of Centauri, on Non-SMAC Related.
<-:-)-E
Giant Squid
"Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"
Quaker posted 03-17-99 09:47 PM ET
I was realy surprised with the PC Gamer rating. I mean SMAC deserved a Decent rating. But not 98%. Definetly not. If Civ 2 never existed, and SMAC was the first game in this genre i would say its amazing. But after Civ 2 i expected something much better. SMAC was supposed to replace Civ 2 on HD. But it failed miserably. Civ 2 with better AI is a better game, in my opinion.
Aga1's point are all valid.
Giant Squid posted 03-17-99 09:53 PM ET
Not true in the least. I saw Sid's Gettysburg, decided it looked boring, and didn't get it. (Though my parents got it for me as a present eventually, and it ended out being pretty good )
The truth is, we all like TBS games, we suspected this would be one of the best of them since it had the industry's best designers as well as an interesting concept, so we bought it. And personally, I haven't regretted that decision one bit.

<-:-)-E
Giant Squid
"Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"
Q Cubed posted 03-17-99 10:32 PM ET
No.
I bought the game because
� I downloaded the demo after hearing about the game.
� I liked the demo.
� I liked the game.
� So I bought it. Sid can go hang himself for all I care - if the game is good, i'll buy it.
Freddz posted 03-17-99 10:41 PM ET
I'd say most of us bought the game on the demo. I thought the first 100 turns was terribly interesting.
For those who didn't try the demo, I'd say you are pretty much right. Hype was there in magazines and so on.
I hope Sid doesn't get suicidal after seeing Q's remark, I think Civ 1 was the best game ever made...
Pax posted 03-17-99 10:43 PM ET
Quaker: how are Aga1's points valid? The only real point I could extract from the post, besides the fact that Aga1 thinks that "the game sucks", is that the reviews of SMAC, specifically PC Gamer's, were based solely on Sid's name. No proof or explanation is offered which validates nothing as far as I'm concerned.
Personally, I thought PC Gamer's review was right on the money, if one looks at their previous reviews. Civ2 received a 97% and SMAC is an evolution (read: improvement) on that design. Therefore, at least for me, it deserved the rating it received. Actually, I don't think any game should ever crack 95% but considering PC Gamer's review policy, it makes perfect sense.
And I bought the game because the demo hooked me, not because I blindly purchase any title with Sid's name on it. So there .
Pax
TheClockKing posted 03-17-99 10:50 PM ET
While I own every Sid game except Gettysberg I do not by them because they have Sid's name on them I buy them because they are great games. I bought this game after playing the demo and I happen to think the A.I. is improved. I also do not get Quaker's point about if this was the first game in the genre that that would make SMAC a better game.
Freddz posted 03-17-99 10:53 PM ET
Dammit Pax, what do you think they shall give to SMAC 7. 387%? I do think a game should be able to crack 95% if it is near perfect. We must agree to disagree.
Pax vobiscum
Pax posted 03-17-99 11:01 PM ET
On the Pax-o-meter review scale, I give SMAC a hearty 95 howler monkeys out of 100 . I agree - a game should be able to crack 95%, just not as often as PC Gamer has games doing it. And, I guess if I have to, I can agree to disagree. But only if I really have to .
Pax who thinks simians are damn cool
Shining1 posted 03-17-99 11:31 PM ET
Sid Meier's name is a good thing to have in a game title. But it's not enough to sell many games by itself.
On the other hand, I'm at a lost to explain that PC Gamer score, except that they didn't have enough time to get into the endgame properly.
I bought the game because I found I wasn't really enjoying CivII much anymore. The Nuclear cheats on Deity irritated me, as well as the same old graphics and such, and I'd mastered the tech tree enough so that I could post complaints about the glaring holes in it on the Old Forums.
Happily, this problem has been solved. ALMOST - and hopefully it will be fully solved by the time version 3.0 is released.
Quaker posted 03-19-99 10:30 PM ET
explanation: "But after Civ 2 i expected something much better."
After the 99.999999% perfection that was civ 2, SMAC deosn't look that good. Its hard to improve on a such a near case of perfection, but you could, say, throw in better AI and add another nine to that percent. SMAC is a ok game, but not better that civ 2. That's my point.
micje posted 03-20-99 03:25 AM ET
You call a TBS game without build queues perfect? CivII was fun for a while, and I've kept it on my HD for a long time, but I don't think I'm ever going to play it again. SMAC is much better. OK it stand on the shoulders of giants, but still...
The main thing that was wrong with CivII, was that when you were 1/3 of the game, you knew if you were going to win. But actually winning took forever. In SMAC, the AI surrenders, and you've got the economic and diplomatic victories.
Zardoz posted 03-20-99 11:40 AM ET
Sid's name on the box probably sells some copies of the games. If a game has Sid's name on it I will at least get the demo to see if I am going to like the game or not. Why? I know from past experience that it is probably going the be a good, if not great, game. I bought SMG and TA at the same time, played SMG first and didn't get around to TA for a month.
Does SMAC deserve a 98% rating? Maybe, maybe not. IMHO SMAC is a deeper, better game than CivII, so then if CivII was a 97% then SMAC is a 98% of above. The state of the art has changed quite a bit since then however, SMAC is still a very good game mid to upper 90's would be reasonable score.
4Horses posted 03-20-99 12:41 PM ET
How many times are we going to discuss this topic?.......and in how many different threads?
Kudro70 posted 03-20-99 04:49 PM ET
We will discuss this topic 37 times in 15 different threads. So far, we're only at 12 discussions in 5 different threads, so, as you can see, we've still got a ways to go. *BG*
Sorry, I know I don't post here often, but I just couldn't resist.
Oh, and as far as the topic goes: One! of the reasons I checked out the demo was because Sid's name was on the game and since I have become totally obsessed with every Sid game I've bought in the past I decided to check out the demo. I bought the game ONLY for the gameplay which I would have done with or without the Sid Meier name on it.
So, in my case Sid's name probably encouraged me to try the demo on the day it was first released rather than waiting a few days before trying it. Either was, I bought the retail version on the day it was released and I'm glad I did. Not because SMAC has Sid's name at the top of the box but because SMAC is one of the best games ever made!
Kudro70
Imran Siddiqui posted 03-20-99 05:33 PM ET
Aga1 has railed against SMAC, ever BEFORE it came out. He's been advocating CTP since the get-go. I think he works for Activision.
Imran Siddiqui
Victor Galis posted 03-20-99 08:52 PM ET
SMAC desrves it! If CivII got 97% and SMAc is better, then it should be 98%.
SMAC has:
-build qeues
-borders
-better allied AI
-Planetary council
-Better explaination for barabarians (/Planet)
-Better unit design
-AI Surrender
-Better Social Engineering
-Stacking with allied units
-Sea Colonies
-Orbital Buildings
-and more
This is what makes SMAC better than CivII, CTP is a wannabe.
Plasmoid posted 03-20-99 09:08 PM ET
Well does have one advantage, it's being ported to Linux
Now if only SMAC would be ported*hint**hint* then I'd be on happy SMAC(dreams of Format C: float through his head)
Aga1 posted 03-20-99 10:14 PM ET
Heres a IDEA on why Pcgamers review is false.PCGAMER reviews are usally delayed by 3-4 months. Some how they got the smac review too quick its as if they reviewed a beta or the demo its self.
On Civ2 and smac in reply to Victor Galis and other ones like it.Civ2 was released in 1994 or 95 in those times civ2 was a revelutionary game in both game play and it had cool graphics.In 1999 where voodo and tnt rule and where you have graphics like unreal and gameplay like west front.In this age SMAC sucks it is nothing like civ2 was back in 94
Kudro70 posted 03-20-99 10:55 PM ET
Aga1:
Civ2 was released in 1996.
You are right, Civ2 gameplay WAS revolutionary when it was released, in fact, until earlier this year NO OTHER game has come close to matching it, IMO.
I can't say about West Front, I only played the demo, which is all it took to tell me that it wasn't much different from East Front, (no real surprise there) which I did buy and was bored with in 2 weeks.
To tell the truth, I don't care if there is NEVER a TBS with 3D acceleration, if it doesn't improve gameplay or immersion, why bother?
Unreal? No comment, different genre.
Oh, the game that "came close" to Civ2?
Well, it has deeper gameplay, more automation, build queues, social engineering, etc,etc,etc. In short, it has EVERYTHING that Civ2 has, AND much, much, more.
Not only did SMAC come close, IMO it has surpassed it by quite a distance. No, not a revolutionary game, if it were it would be the first of a brand new genre, by definition. But there have been some other games that weren't revolutionary and still quite good, like maybe Unreal? Baldurs Gate? Quake? That was pretty popular wasn't it?
Kudro70
MadMordigan posted 03-21-99 04:02 AM ET
The great thing about TBS games is they do not need graphics. The ultimate TBS gameis Chess...any mechanic will tall ya about chess games played with socket sets.
As for myself, I'd play a good game if it was only ASCII graphics. What makes SMAC cool for me is the way I think when i play, not the way the cathode ray oscillates.
Q Cubed posted 03-21-99 08:56 AM ET
To the people who desire voodoo-style graphics on this game:
Tell, me, how would multiple-polygon rendering, 3d-acceleration, and advanced lighting effects benefit a game like this? For games like this, that's nothing more than eye candy. And like all candy, it makes things rot - and in this case, it'll be your brain. Twitch games like Unreal and Half-Life have a knack for doing that. That's not to say they can't be enjoyed - hardly. It's to say that those games have nothing in the way of mental stimulation like games like SMAC.
Victor Galis posted 03-21-99 11:22 AM ET
Ahh, yes chess, the original TBS game... Perhaps, now you will tell me chess should have holographic pieces with super detailed animatation, and etc..
Sure, SMAC isn't revolutionary, but what is today. It's all been done, all you can do is make it better.
"CTP is a wannabe."
Nylan posted 03-21-99 12:28 PM ET
Aga1
Don't try to compare West Front to SMAC. One is a battlefield simulation, the other is a TBS. I have West Front, and I like it, as I have liked all the Battleground series. But its a different genre. Besides, if you think it is graphics that makes a good game, you should have known that SMAC would let you down.
Nylan
-I have faith in skepticism
Quaker posted 03-21-99 05:26 PM ET
The reason i said Civ II is better than SMAC except for the AI is just my personal prefrence, i still like Civ II better.
But i have to disagree as for the PCG score. OK, SMAC has improved certain aspects of the game (building qeues). But the PCG score is not how good the game is when compared to its ancestor, its a score of how good the game is when compared to the rest of today's games. And maybe you would still enjoy SMAC with ASCII graphics, but a game with better graphics would have been a better product, and therefore more deserving of a high rating. Who cares if in Civ II you couldn't scroll the screen with a mouse - you had to click on squares, and in SMAC you can. In every modern game that has a map in it this is possible, so it doesn't mean SMAC should get 98%. All the minor improvments from Civ II make it a better game (for some ppl, not me). But it doesn't make it the best game in the industry, which is what the PCG score is supposed to reflect.
BTW i've read things about CTP, and i'm not gonna say its a wanna be untill i play it. CTP might be a very good game as matter of fact. Is the demo out yet?
Trombone1 posted 03-21-99 05:58 PM ET
To say the least i was extremely surprised when my friend informed me that the game had recieved a 98%. I thought it was very good, but not quite thAT good. I'd probably give it a 93-95%
Many things contribute to me saying that it is not quite as good as civ 2. but a few things stand out.
ITs simply not earth. One of the major merits of civ was that you felt at home. You were on earth, playing the russians, or romans, not the morganites, or the hive??
It feels more like home, it feels kewl beating down those affiliated with the UN. SMAC just isn't the same feeling. it feel far flung, but not quite as kewl as civ
and the other major concern would be the fact that i have to rediscover everything. I fail to understand why i must rediscover flight, the internet, and lasers. for gawds sake you landed on the planet in a bloody space ship near the year 2500, darn it. I played the game expecteing to be researching teleportation devices, building killer satilites, and defending with mechnized infantry at least in the first turn. Why is it you start so low? its too much like civ, it needed to be more radical. The gamereally just isn't different enough. I mean . . really . . .i thought we were in the future now?? The game feels low tech . . . anyways
thats enough for now, i hope i'm not the only one who thinks this.
Nylan posted 03-21-99 08:27 PM ET
Trombone1
I know what you mean about the tech, but if you think about it it makes sense. The techs are not so much discovering how to fly, but working out how to use the materials at hand. The quote for Orbital Spaceflight says this quite well. I would just say that the 'simply not earth' thing is something which I find to be no problem, though I can see where you are coming from.
Nylan
-I have faith in skepticism
SnowFire posted 03-21-99 11:38 PM ET
Trombone1: You should be glad that they didn't follow our suggestions back in the summer. We were thinking that since you literally have to build everything from the ground up, you'd be fighting with repeating rifles when you first landed simply due to lack of production capacity. To be honest, from a realistic standpoint, SMAC probably accelerates too fast the tech curve at the beginning simpoly because the facilities don't exist yet to build them. How do you build a computer with nothing but sand? Remeber Yang's quote about sand to a dataprobe- there's a million steps inbetween before you can even hope to build a new computer, much less turn it on.
Trombone1 posted 03-22-99 09:09 PM ET
The problem is my friends.
i wouldn't have minded the repeater rifles
i expected some more though. Perhaps some
more sophisticated things would make it much more believable, remember good old earth 2?
but the difference is this is like the year 3000, right now we have the ability and the knowledge to store on a singe harddrive the sive of a check book box. Apporximately 20.0giga bytes of information. This is hundred of thousands of books, each pictures, skematics, and the like.
With that kinda knowledge and 500-10,000
people you'd expect a little more. Also
what kind of colonist are these? as i recall they should have a very large supply of technology from unity, i'd expect a necessary supply of materials, computers, and manufacring materials to start up the hi tech quite fast. Hmmm som how i don't believe they'd be that badly off, and if tyhey were they could at least change the story line to represent it . .
i guess i'll head off to a new thread since this one is at the bottom of the list now.
Victor Galis posted 03-22-99 09:40 PM ET
Well, remember the Unity suffered heavy damage, one of the pods is missing presumed destroyed (possibly seized by the 8th faction).
Redfive posted 03-23-99 05:13 PM ET
Does SMAC improve on CivII? Undoubtedly. Does it deserve a rating of 98% from PC Gamer? Not likely.
The problem: most of us agree that SMAC is an improvement which should _logically_ give it a higher rating than CivII, but by using today's standards, _regardless of genre_, 98% is excessive. This demonstrates a weakness in PC Gamer's rating system (which until now I had not noticed). When you leave room to grade a product in such small increments as percentiles, you open up a can of worms when you reach the high end of the spectrum.
I happen to like PC Gamer and their rating system. It would, however, save us a lot (but I'm sure by no means all) of the controversy we are experiencing if they just used a 0-5 star rating system (which of course they couldn't as other mags have already made use of it).
CivII could have gotten five stars and so could SMAC. Both are superlative games and it would be a simple matter to explain in the post-review blurb that SMAC made many improvements over CivII.
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: Lest face it
Aga1	posted 03-17-99 09:17 PM ET Most of you bought the game because it had sid's name on it and that it was made by brian renoylds.It was all hype in the name.The game sucks and i am glad i returned it.Most of the reviews for smac were judged on the name of the designer.(HINT:PC Gamer)Smac is like going from Civ2 to the commodore64 belive that what the game looks like.
Giant Squid	posted 03-17-99 09:31 PM ET Xenofungal bloom A mindworm attacks and you die in agony, clawing your eyes out. For more info, see Voice of Centauri, on Non-SMAC Related. <-:-)-E Giant Squid "Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"
Quaker	posted 03-17-99 09:47 PM ET I was realy surprised with the PC Gamer rating. I mean SMAC deserved a Decent rating. But not 98%. Definetly not. If Civ 2 never existed, and SMAC was the first game in this genre i would say its amazing. But after Civ 2 i expected something much better. SMAC was supposed to replace Civ 2 on HD. But it failed miserably. Civ 2 with better AI is a better game, in my opinion. Aga1's point are all valid.
Giant Squid	posted 03-17-99 09:53 PM ET Not true in the least. I saw Sid's Gettysburg, decided it looked boring, and didn't get it. (Though my parents got it for me as a present eventually, and it ended out being pretty good ) The truth is, we all like TBS games, we suspected this would be one of the best of them since it had the industry's best designers as well as an interesting concept, so we bought it. And personally, I haven't regretted that decision one bit. <-:-)-E Giant Squid "Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"
Q Cubed	posted 03-17-99 10:32 PM ET No. I bought the game because � I downloaded the demo after hearing about the game. � I liked the demo. � I liked the game. � So I bought it. Sid can go hang himself for all I care - if the game is good, i'll buy it.
Freddz	posted 03-17-99 10:41 PM ET I'd say most of us bought the game on the demo. I thought the first 100 turns was terribly interesting. For those who didn't try the demo, I'd say you are pretty much right. Hype was there in magazines and so on. I hope Sid doesn't get suicidal after seeing Q's remark, I think Civ 1 was the best game ever made...
Pax	posted 03-17-99 10:43 PM ET Quaker: how are Aga1's points valid? The only real point I could extract from the post, besides the fact that Aga1 thinks that "the game sucks", is that the reviews of SMAC, specifically PC Gamer's, were based solely on Sid's name. No proof or explanation is offered which validates nothing as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I thought PC Gamer's review was right on the money, if one looks at their previous reviews. Civ2 received a 97% and SMAC is an evolution (read: improvement) on that design. Therefore, at least for me, it deserved the rating it received. Actually, I don't think any game should ever crack 95% but considering PC Gamer's review policy, it makes perfect sense. And I bought the game because the demo hooked me, not because I blindly purchase any title with Sid's name on it. So there . Pax
TheClockKing	posted 03-17-99 10:50 PM ET While I own every Sid game except Gettysberg I do not by them because they have Sid's name on them I buy them because they are great games. I bought this game after playing the demo and I happen to think the A.I. is improved. I also do not get Quaker's point about if this was the first game in the genre that that would make SMAC a better game.
Freddz	posted 03-17-99 10:53 PM ET Dammit Pax, what do you think they shall give to SMAC 7. 387%? I do think a game should be able to crack 95% if it is near perfect. We must agree to disagree. Pax vobiscum
Pax	posted 03-17-99 11:01 PM ET On the Pax-o-meter review scale, I give SMAC a hearty 95 howler monkeys out of 100 . I agree - a game should be able to crack 95%, just not as often as PC Gamer has games doing it. And, I guess if I have to, I can agree to disagree. But only if I really have to . Pax who thinks simians are damn cool
Shining1	posted 03-17-99 11:31 PM ET Sid Meier's name is a good thing to have in a game title. But it's not enough to sell many games by itself. On the other hand, I'm at a lost to explain that PC Gamer score, except that they didn't have enough time to get into the endgame properly. I bought the game because I found I wasn't really enjoying CivII much anymore. The Nuclear cheats on Deity irritated me, as well as the same old graphics and such, and I'd mastered the tech tree enough so that I could post complaints about the glaring holes in it on the Old Forums. Happily, this problem has been solved. ALMOST - and hopefully it will be fully solved by the time version 3.0 is released.
Quaker	posted 03-19-99 10:30 PM ET explanation: "But after Civ 2 i expected something much better." After the 99.999999% perfection that was civ 2, SMAC deosn't look that good. Its hard to improve on a such a near case of perfection, but you could, say, throw in better AI and add another nine to that percent. SMAC is a ok game, but not better that civ 2. That's my point.
micje	posted 03-20-99 03:25 AM ET You call a TBS game without build queues perfect? CivII was fun for a while, and I've kept it on my HD for a long time, but I don't think I'm ever going to play it again. SMAC is much better. OK it stand on the shoulders of giants, but still... The main thing that was wrong with CivII, was that when you were 1/3 of the game, you knew if you were going to win. But actually winning took forever. In SMAC, the AI surrenders, and you've got the economic and diplomatic victories.
Zardoz	posted 03-20-99 11:40 AM ET Sid's name on the box probably sells some copies of the games. If a game has Sid's name on it I will at least get the demo to see if I am going to like the game or not. Why? I know from past experience that it is probably going the be a good, if not great, game. I bought SMG and TA at the same time, played SMG first and didn't get around to TA for a month. Does SMAC deserve a 98% rating? Maybe, maybe not. IMHO SMAC is a deeper, better game than CivII, so then if CivII was a 97% then SMAC is a 98% of above. The state of the art has changed quite a bit since then however, SMAC is still a very good game mid to upper 90's would be reasonable score.
4Horses	posted 03-20-99 12:41 PM ET How many times are we going to discuss this topic?.......and in how many different threads?
Kudro70	posted 03-20-99 04:49 PM ET We will discuss this topic 37 times in 15 different threads. So far, we're only at 12 discussions in 5 different threads, so, as you can see, we've still got a ways to go. BG Sorry, I know I don't post here often, but I just couldn't resist. Oh, and as far as the topic goes: One! of the reasons I checked out the demo was because Sid's name was on the game and since I have become totally obsessed with every Sid game I've bought in the past I decided to check out the demo. I bought the game ONLY for the gameplay which I would have done with or without the Sid Meier name on it. So, in my case Sid's name probably encouraged me to try the demo on the day it was first released rather than waiting a few days before trying it. Either was, I bought the retail version on the day it was released and I'm glad I did. Not because SMAC has Sid's name at the top of the box but because SMAC is one of the best games ever made! Kudro70
Imran Siddiqui	posted 03-20-99 05:33 PM ET Aga1 has railed against SMAC, ever BEFORE it came out. He's been advocating CTP since the get-go. I think he works for Activision. Imran Siddiqui
Victor Galis	posted 03-20-99 08:52 PM ET SMAC desrves it! If CivII got 97% and SMAc is better, then it should be 98%. SMAC has: -build qeues -borders -better allied AI -Planetary council -Better explaination for barabarians (/Planet) -Better unit design -AI Surrender -Better Social Engineering -Stacking with allied units -Sea Colonies -Orbital Buildings -and more This is what makes SMAC better than CivII, CTP is a wannabe.
Plasmoid	posted 03-20-99 09:08 PM ET Well does have one advantage, it's being ported to Linux Now if only SMAC would be portedhinthint then I'd be on happy SMAC(dreams of Format C: float through his head)
Aga1	posted 03-20-99 10:14 PM ET Heres a IDEA on why Pcgamers review is false.PCGAMER reviews are usally delayed by 3-4 months. Some how they got the smac review too quick its as if they reviewed a beta or the demo its self. On Civ2 and smac in reply to Victor Galis and other ones like it.Civ2 was released in 1994 or 95 in those times civ2 was a revelutionary game in both game play and it had cool graphics.In 1999 where voodo and tnt rule and where you have graphics like unreal and gameplay like west front.In this age SMAC sucks it is nothing like civ2 was back in 94
Kudro70	posted 03-20-99 10:55 PM ET Aga1: Civ2 was released in 1996. You are right, Civ2 gameplay WAS revolutionary when it was released, in fact, until earlier this year NO OTHER game has come close to matching it, IMO. I can't say about West Front, I only played the demo, which is all it took to tell me that it wasn't much different from East Front, (no real surprise there) which I did buy and was bored with in 2 weeks. To tell the truth, I don't care if there is NEVER a TBS with 3D acceleration, if it doesn't improve gameplay or immersion, why bother? Unreal? No comment, different genre. Oh, the game that "came close" to Civ2? Well, it has deeper gameplay, more automation, build queues, social engineering, etc,etc,etc. In short, it has EVERYTHING that Civ2 has, AND much, much, more. Not only did SMAC come close, IMO it has surpassed it by quite a distance. No, not a revolutionary game, if it were it would be the first of a brand new genre, by definition. But there have been some other games that weren't revolutionary and still quite good, like maybe Unreal? Baldurs Gate? Quake? That was pretty popular wasn't it? Kudro70
MadMordigan	posted 03-21-99 04:02 AM ET The great thing about TBS games is they do not need graphics. The ultimate TBS gameis Chess...any mechanic will tall ya about chess games played with socket sets. As for myself, I'd play a good game if it was only ASCII graphics. What makes SMAC cool for me is the way I think when i play, not the way the cathode ray oscillates.
Q Cubed	posted 03-21-99 08:56 AM ET To the people who desire voodoo-style graphics on this game: Tell, me, how would multiple-polygon rendering, 3d-acceleration, and advanced lighting effects benefit a game like this? For games like this, that's nothing more than eye candy. And like all candy, it makes things rot - and in this case, it'll be your brain. Twitch games like Unreal and Half-Life have a knack for doing that. That's not to say they can't be enjoyed - hardly. It's to say that those games have nothing in the way of mental stimulation like games like SMAC.
Victor Galis	posted 03-21-99 11:22 AM ET Ahh, yes chess, the original TBS game... Perhaps, now you will tell me chess should have holographic pieces with super detailed animatation, and etc.. Sure, SMAC isn't revolutionary, but what is today. It's all been done, all you can do is make it better. "CTP is a wannabe."
Nylan	posted 03-21-99 12:28 PM ET Aga1 Don't try to compare West Front to SMAC. One is a battlefield simulation, the other is a TBS. I have West Front, and I like it, as I have liked all the Battleground series. But its a different genre. Besides, if you think it is graphics that makes a good game, you should have known that SMAC would let you down. Nylan -I have faith in skepticism
Quaker	posted 03-21-99 05:26 PM ET The reason i said Civ II is better than SMAC except for the AI is just my personal prefrence, i still like Civ II better. But i have to disagree as for the PCG score. OK, SMAC has improved certain aspects of the game (building qeues). But the PCG score is not how good the game is when compared to its ancestor, its a score of how good the game is when compared to the rest of today's games. And maybe you would still enjoy SMAC with ASCII graphics, but a game with better graphics would have been a better product, and therefore more deserving of a high rating. Who cares if in Civ II you couldn't scroll the screen with a mouse - you had to click on squares, and in SMAC you can. In every modern game that has a map in it this is possible, so it doesn't mean SMAC should get 98%. All the minor improvments from Civ II make it a better game (for some ppl, not me). But it doesn't make it the best game in the industry, which is what the PCG score is supposed to reflect. BTW i've read things about CTP, and i'm not gonna say its a wanna be untill i play it. CTP might be a very good game as matter of fact. Is the demo out yet?
Trombone1	posted 03-21-99 05:58 PM ET To say the least i was extremely surprised when my friend informed me that the game had recieved a 98%. I thought it was very good, but not quite thAT good. I'd probably give it a 93-95% Many things contribute to me saying that it is not quite as good as civ 2. but a few things stand out. ITs simply not earth. One of the major merits of civ was that you felt at home. You were on earth, playing the russians, or romans, not the morganites, or the hive?? It feels more like home, it feels kewl beating down those affiliated with the UN. SMAC just isn't the same feeling. it feel far flung, but not quite as kewl as civ and the other major concern would be the fact that i have to rediscover everything. I fail to understand why i must rediscover flight, the internet, and lasers. for gawds sake you landed on the planet in a bloody space ship near the year 2500, darn it. I played the game expecteing to be researching teleportation devices, building killer satilites, and defending with mechnized infantry at least in the first turn. Why is it you start so low? its too much like civ, it needed to be more radical. The gamereally just isn't different enough. I mean . . really . . .i thought we were in the future now?? The game feels low tech . . . anyways thats enough for now, i hope i'm not the only one who thinks this.
Nylan	posted 03-21-99 08:27 PM ET Trombone1 I know what you mean about the tech, but if you think about it it makes sense. The techs are not so much discovering how to fly, but working out how to use the materials at hand. The quote for Orbital Spaceflight says this quite well. I would just say that the 'simply not earth' thing is something which I find to be no problem, though I can see where you are coming from. Nylan -I have faith in skepticism
SnowFire	posted 03-21-99 11:38 PM ET Trombone1: You should be glad that they didn't follow our suggestions back in the summer. We were thinking that since you literally have to build everything from the ground up, you'd be fighting with repeating rifles when you first landed simply due to lack of production capacity. To be honest, from a realistic standpoint, SMAC probably accelerates too fast the tech curve at the beginning simpoly because the facilities don't exist yet to build them. How do you build a computer with nothing but sand? Remeber Yang's quote about sand to a dataprobe- there's a million steps inbetween before you can even hope to build a new computer, much less turn it on.
Trombone1	posted 03-22-99 09:09 PM ET The problem is my friends. i wouldn't have minded the repeater rifles i expected some more though. Perhaps some more sophisticated things would make it much more believable, remember good old earth 2? but the difference is this is like the year 3000, right now we have the ability and the knowledge to store on a singe harddrive the sive of a check book box. Apporximately 20.0giga bytes of information. This is hundred of thousands of books, each pictures, skematics, and the like. With that kinda knowledge and 500-10,000 people you'd expect a little more. Also what kind of colonist are these? as i recall they should have a very large supply of technology from unity, i'd expect a necessary supply of materials, computers, and manufacring materials to start up the hi tech quite fast. Hmmm som how i don't believe they'd be that badly off, and if tyhey were they could at least change the story line to represent it . . i guess i'll head off to a new thread since this one is at the bottom of the list now.
Victor Galis	posted 03-22-99 09:40 PM ET Well, remember the Unity suffered heavy damage, one of the pods is missing presumed destroyed (possibly seized by the 8th faction).
Redfive	posted 03-23-99 05:13 PM ET Does SMAC improve on CivII? Undoubtedly. Does it deserve a rating of 98% from PC Gamer? Not likely. The problem: most of us agree that SMAC is an improvement which should _logically_ give it a higher rating than CivII, but by using today's standards, _regardless of genre_, 98% is excessive. This demonstrates a weakness in PC Gamer's rating system (which until now I had not noticed). When you leave room to grade a product in such small increments as percentiles, you open up a can of worms when you reach the high end of the spectrum. I happen to like PC Gamer and their rating system. It would, however, save us a lot (but I'm sure by no means all) of the controversy we are experiencing if they just used a 0-5 star rating system (which of course they couldn't as other mags have already made use of it). CivII could have gotten five stars and so could SMAC. Both are superlative games and it would be a simple matter to explain in the post-review blurb that SMAC made many improvements over CivII.