How to stop comparing SMAC and Civ (and CtP)

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  How to stop comparing SMAC and Civ (and CtP)

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   How to stop comparing SMAC and Civ (and CtP)

Maheno posted 03-21-99 08:04 PM ET
First off, I want to admit that many pieces and bits of what I am about to say have been better expressed or analyzed elsewhere in this forum. Most notably, I want to refer to a small thread started out by OliverK (great post OliverK! You took the words out my mouth). That being said, here is my 2 cents of not-so-groundbreaking intellectualization.
IMO, a game can be measured, or compared with others, using 3 basic criteria: immersion, stimulation and stability. All three are self-explanatory, but let me expand on them a bit. I�d say immersion is achieved via 3 key elements: storyline, graphics and sounds, and game interface. Stimulation could be broken down into 3 elements as well: game mechanics and rules (TBS, RTS, FPS, etc., plus enhancement or combination), depth (variants and parameters to victory path), and player�s challenge (AI�s opposition). As for stability, it stands for itself but, in this case, it�s a �negative� factor. You dislike a game that has too many bugs, you don�t necessarily like one that has few.
Now, on to the inevitable comparison.
Storyline: To judge SMAC against Civ is really a matter of taste. Firaxis obviously put a lot of effort in Alpha Centauri�s setting and I guess the trailer stories that they ran on their site were an attempt to make us feel and care. But to me, and I suspect to the regular Joe gamer, it is alas too abstract and not as engrossing as Civ.
Graphics and Sounds: have to be judged against the standards at the time of release. My view is that SMAC is inferior to Civ2 in this respect.
Game interface: SMAC improves this. But, as someone pointed somewhere, it does not catch up with the added complexity. So I�d say it is a tie.
Overall: big advantage to Civ2 when it comes to Immersion.
Game mechanics and Rules: because SMAC and Civ are both TBS with actually the same designers, the question is whether SMAC enhances significantly the TBS model of Civ or not. I think not. I would have liked, say, a built-in real-time combat system, or more emphasis on space wars, or something else. But that�s me, and of course there�s social engineering and such, so I guess it�s very much debatable.
Depth: without question SMAC has more.
Player�s challenge (AI): I am not that good of a TBS gamer so I�ll rely on what I saw in this forum: Civ2 is better or equal to SMAC.
Overall: tie between SMAC and Civ2 when it comes to Stimulation.
Game stability: maybe SMAC has few bugs compared to current industry standards, but compared to Civ2, I can�t say. My own experience with both is pretty OK. So I guess it is a tie again.
All this to say what (and if you stuck around this far, thanks!)? Well, not surprisingly, I think the final verdict basically depends on everyone�s biases: how much do you weigh Immersion against Stimulation?
If you are a die-hard TBS fan (which is OK), and I suspect there�s a lot in this forum, then Immersion doesn�t matter that much (that�s when someone says graphics are not important, for example). The discussion then goes on and on upon the game mechanics or the AI�s performance, or upon some obscure bugs.
If you�re Joe gamer (I am), then Immersion and Stimulation are at least weighed equally, and Civ2 is simply unsurpassed so far.
Which brings me to CtP. In my opinion, and based on all the above, all Activision has to do to better Civ is to put improved graphics, sounds and interface, and to leave all the rest as is, with minor tweaks here and there. Will they? I can hardly wait. Meanwhile, I�ll play SMAC because yes, it�s an excellent game, simply not as good as Civ2.
IkshahI posted 03-24-99 06:25 PM ET
MAN! you are TOTALLY RIGHT ON!!! I was going to post something like this as well!
Mostly newbies who think they'll get people to like them with sh*t like that post it, they are completly different games, and the next person who post something to the sort will be flamed to the ends of the earth..
Victor Galis posted 03-24-99 06:42 PM ET
Immersion? Immersion does not require graphics and sounds! You are probably some RTS gamer in disguise. only RTS need graphics and sound! Chess has NO graphics and NO sound, yet it is an excellent TBS. Your comparisons tend to go away from what SMAC is really about. SMAC is better than Civ2. Maybe if you allow for the time elapsed not, but if you look at the other games, it is by far superior. CTP is not the least bit original. At least SMAC has a storyline.
There are many factors you leave out of your comparison, and to think that this will end all debate on the matter is pure arrogance. I don't know what dark underground hole you foolish newbies come out of, but it needs to be plugged.
Freddz posted 03-24-99 07:05 PM ET
Hey, calm down, Vic. Just thought I'd try and say it for once These guys are just posting their views.
And remember, to win a debate about which game is the best, one have to come out cool and smug and at least pretend to not be partial (and hopefully actually be unpartial).
Maheno posted 03-25-99 09:47 PM ET
Hmm, Chess?!
Immersion: Chess is an excellent TBS which doesn�t need graphics nor sound. I won�t dispute that. I love Chess myself. But how about Monopoly? It�s also an excellent TBS, right? Both are hailed as great games. Still, and again from Joe Gamer�s perspective, immersion is immediate with Monopoly, not with Chess. If Civ was Monopoly. SMAC would offer Punishment Spheres instead of Jails, Hab Complex and Domes for House and Hotels, and so on. Oh, and also, SMAC would use 20-sided dices and maybe a 3-D board. A bit extreme (and blasphemous), but my point.
Stimulation: Again, the �Chess argument� is interesting. Chess is at the height of mental abstraction. SMAC is not even close. Nor Civ for that matter. But maybe, �Mister TBS� succumbs to a nirvana-like state fiddling with Pre-sentient Algorithms and battling against SMAC�s AI (which judging from this forum doesn�t seem significantly superior to Civ�s). But please, spare the elitist attitude if Joe Gamer doesn�t feel the same. He buys games too.
In the end: Civ is in the hall of fame of gaming because lots and lots of non-TBS die-hards loved it. It was a popular success. SMAC, on the other hand, is great but the abstraction curve is steep, hence the immersion failure. What tickles me is the ridiculous mass-market ratings (e.g. PCG�s 98%, New York Times Review, etc) which will draw in hordes of na�ve newcomers enticed by old �JOMT� tales of Civ.
What if CtP and SMAC had been released simultaneously? Would we see the same passionate attempt to love SMAC and to submit others to Smacophileness?
Shining1 posted 03-25-99 11:46 PM ET
There is no way you can compare the single player strategic aspects of SMAC to CivII. SMAC is far superior in this respect. Better options, better A.I, better game.
Otherwise, I would have liked to have seen a better TBS combat model used, with appropriately better graphics, as well (attack/defense made sense in CivII, but weapon/armour doesn't cut it as a boost). And the faction menus (F2-F8) aren't quite as good as those in CivII.
And, importantly, the Graphics are way superior to CivII. Some of like graphics.
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: How to stop comparing SMAC and Civ (and CtP)
Maheno	posted 03-21-99 08:04 PM ET First off, I want to admit that many pieces and bits of what I am about to say have been better expressed or analyzed elsewhere in this forum. Most notably, I want to refer to a small thread started out by OliverK (great post OliverK! You took the words out my mouth). That being said, here is my 2 cents of not-so-groundbreaking intellectualization. IMO, a game can be measured, or compared with others, using 3 basic criteria: immersion, stimulation and stability. All three are self-explanatory, but let me expand on them a bit. I�d say immersion is achieved via 3 key elements: storyline, graphics and sounds, and game interface. Stimulation could be broken down into 3 elements as well: game mechanics and rules (TBS, RTS, FPS, etc., plus enhancement or combination), depth (variants and parameters to victory path), and player�s challenge (AI�s opposition). As for stability, it stands for itself but, in this case, it�s a �negative� factor. You dislike a game that has too many bugs, you don�t necessarily like one that has few. Now, on to the inevitable comparison. Storyline: To judge SMAC against Civ is really a matter of taste. Firaxis obviously put a lot of effort in Alpha Centauri�s setting and I guess the trailer stories that they ran on their site were an attempt to make us feel and care. But to me, and I suspect to the regular Joe gamer, it is alas too abstract and not as engrossing as Civ. Graphics and Sounds: have to be judged against the standards at the time of release. My view is that SMAC is inferior to Civ2 in this respect. Game interface: SMAC improves this. But, as someone pointed somewhere, it does not catch up with the added complexity. So I�d say it is a tie. Overall: big advantage to Civ2 when it comes to Immersion. Game mechanics and Rules: because SMAC and Civ are both TBS with actually the same designers, the question is whether SMAC enhances significantly the TBS model of Civ or not. I think not. I would have liked, say, a built-in real-time combat system, or more emphasis on space wars, or something else. But that�s me, and of course there�s social engineering and such, so I guess it�s very much debatable. Depth: without question SMAC has more. Player�s challenge (AI): I am not that good of a TBS gamer so I�ll rely on what I saw in this forum: Civ2 is better or equal to SMAC. Overall: tie between SMAC and Civ2 when it comes to Stimulation. Game stability: maybe SMAC has few bugs compared to current industry standards, but compared to Civ2, I can�t say. My own experience with both is pretty OK. So I guess it is a tie again. All this to say what (and if you stuck around this far, thanks!)? Well, not surprisingly, I think the final verdict basically depends on everyone�s biases: how much do you weigh Immersion against Stimulation? If you are a die-hard TBS fan (which is OK), and I suspect there�s a lot in this forum, then Immersion doesn�t matter that much (that�s when someone says graphics are not important, for example). The discussion then goes on and on upon the game mechanics or the AI�s performance, or upon some obscure bugs. If you�re Joe gamer (I am), then Immersion and Stimulation are at least weighed equally, and Civ2 is simply unsurpassed so far. Which brings me to CtP. In my opinion, and based on all the above, all Activision has to do to better Civ is to put improved graphics, sounds and interface, and to leave all the rest as is, with minor tweaks here and there. Will they? I can hardly wait. Meanwhile, I�ll play SMAC because yes, it�s an excellent game, simply not as good as Civ2.
IkshahI	posted 03-24-99 06:25 PM ET MAN! you are TOTALLY RIGHT ON!!! I was going to post something like this as well! Mostly newbies who think they'll get people to like them with sh*t like that post it, they are completly different games, and the next person who post something to the sort will be flamed to the ends of the earth..
Victor Galis	posted 03-24-99 06:42 PM ET Immersion? Immersion does not require graphics and sounds! You are probably some RTS gamer in disguise. only RTS need graphics and sound! Chess has NO graphics and NO sound, yet it is an excellent TBS. Your comparisons tend to go away from what SMAC is really about. SMAC is better than Civ2. Maybe if you allow for the time elapsed not, but if you look at the other games, it is by far superior. CTP is not the least bit original. At least SMAC has a storyline. There are many factors you leave out of your comparison, and to think that this will end all debate on the matter is pure arrogance. I don't know what dark underground hole you foolish newbies come out of, but it needs to be plugged.
Freddz	posted 03-24-99 07:05 PM ET Hey, calm down, Vic. Just thought I'd try and say it for once These guys are just posting their views. And remember, to win a debate about which game is the best, one have to come out cool and smug and at least pretend to not be partial (and hopefully actually be unpartial).
Maheno	posted 03-25-99 09:47 PM ET Hmm, Chess?! Immersion: Chess is an excellent TBS which doesn�t need graphics nor sound. I won�t dispute that. I love Chess myself. But how about Monopoly? It�s also an excellent TBS, right? Both are hailed as great games. Still, and again from Joe Gamer�s perspective, immersion is immediate with Monopoly, not with Chess. If Civ was Monopoly. SMAC would offer Punishment Spheres instead of Jails, Hab Complex and Domes for House and Hotels, and so on. Oh, and also, SMAC would use 20-sided dices and maybe a 3-D board. A bit extreme (and blasphemous), but my point. Stimulation: Again, the �Chess argument� is interesting. Chess is at the height of mental abstraction. SMAC is not even close. Nor Civ for that matter. But maybe, �Mister TBS� succumbs to a nirvana-like state fiddling with Pre-sentient Algorithms and battling against SMAC�s AI (which judging from this forum doesn�t seem significantly superior to Civ�s). But please, spare the elitist attitude if Joe Gamer doesn�t feel the same. He buys games too. In the end: Civ is in the hall of fame of gaming because lots and lots of non-TBS die-hards loved it. It was a popular success. SMAC, on the other hand, is great but the abstraction curve is steep, hence the immersion failure. What tickles me is the ridiculous mass-market ratings (e.g. PCG�s 98%, New York Times Review, etc) which will draw in hordes of na�ve newcomers enticed by old �JOMT� tales of Civ. What if CtP and SMAC had been released simultaneously? Would we see the same passionate attempt to love SMAC and to submit others to Smacophileness?
Shining1	posted 03-25-99 11:46 PM ET There is no way you can compare the single player strategic aspects of SMAC to CivII. SMAC is far superior in this respect. Better options, better A.I, better game. Otherwise, I would have liked to have seen a better TBS combat model used, with appropriately better graphics, as well (attack/defense made sense in CivII, but weapon/armour doesn't cut it as a boost). And the faction menus (F2-F8) aren't quite as good as those in CivII. And, importantly, the Graphics are way superior to CivII. Some of like graphics.