On a scale of 100, how would you rate SMAC?

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  On a scale of 100, how would you rate SMAC?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   On a scale of 100, how would you rate SMAC?

Christ posted 02-13-99 02:25 PM ET
I'm about to buy the game and would like some sort of idea about the score you guys would give to the game.
DHE_X2 posted 02-13-99 02:33 PM ET
First off, I'm pretty sure you aren't the Messiah, second, based on the demo, I'd give it 99.
do not buy it if you value sleep
SupaCow posted 02-13-99 02:46 PM ET
i would give it a 80, cool graphics, nice plot, nifty science and research things.
Only thing bad about it is that it takes a whole freegin year for a unit to move 1 space
Thue posted 02-13-99 02:56 PM ET
The patch should correct the slow movement to some extent. Check out the news section for BR's (the designer) post:
http://sidgames.com/ac/
SupaCow posted 02-13-99 02:59 PM ET
Thanx
SupaCow posted 02-13-99 03:02 PM ET
Doh! not slow like that. i mean a unit can only move 1 space per turn(1 year)
Gergi posted 02-13-99 07:54 PM ET
I don't understand the problem with units moving only once a year. Sure it isn't exactly realistic but I don't the game is trying to be realistic. I think it's going for an abstract model to maintain playability and play balance. Would you really want to move your units (365 * num_years_to_build_next_building * num_units)? I think that would be a very long and tedious game. What if you lost your rover on day 1 and had to wait thousands of turns to get the next one?
Gergi posted 02-13-99 07:56 PM ET
BTW, I would give it about a 97%, losing 3 pts for steep system requirements playing with the high res units.
Magnus posted 02-13-99 08:03 PM ET
50!
It is good, but the game is not suited for me, i like to buil great super power empires! With a couple of 100 million ppl, and a gouple of 100 cities... But i can�t do that in smac, bcs there r no ppl counter!! , and i only have got 500 turns... And i miss the top 5 cities, and the demographics screen...
Civ II is better!
Prerogative posted 02-13-99 08:56 PM ET
Magnus, I don't understand you one bit.
Who CARES what number it reads above your cities? If each growth in a city meant ONE citizen, I wouldn't care. It's a ludicrously ridiculous detail, that I myself couldn't give a flip about any less.
Who cares if you get an update on how big your empire is? I don't really care. Again, a ridiculous little detail that has absolutely no real impact on the game.
Demographics and Top 5 cities? Same deal. They were nice, but they were also pointless. And I thought of them as just being frivolous little tack-ons. I looked at those screens maybe ten times in all of my Civ Two/One carreer.
While SMAC may not have pointless little details like Civ II did, it has what's important, good core gameplay. And it certinely outpreforms Civ II on that level, no doubt.
As for 500 turns, who cares? That's 500 turns for getting a score. I always played beyond the limits in Civ II, becuase quite frankly, being in the Hall of Fame or having a high precent means absolutely nothing to me.
As far as rating goes, I'd give 'er a 98. I share the minor contempt of a previous poster that the High Res does require a rather high bar for a mere TBS game. But the rest is great, I'm glad Firaxis broke away from Microprose. Since in nearly the same amount of time SMAC has been in development MP finished Civ II Gold. Oh wow...
Spig posted 02-14-99 10:12 AM ET
99. It drops the one mark for making me almost fail in an exam due to sleep loss!
Forsaken posted 02-14-99 10:32 AM ET
AC is great, and is (IMHO) the best civilization building game currently out there. It has its flaws, but what game doesn't? If you like CIV, MOM, and/or MOO2, you will love AC.
TheHelperMonkey posted 02-14-99 11:06 AM ET
It really gets me angry that alot of people are naive about TBS games. So what if it takes a year to move one space, I couldn't care less if it took a million years. The fact is that the gameplay is all that counts (graphics too). All TBS games are like, Civ, Civ, Col, etc...
I give it a 95, it kicks ass, but after a year or so, it will get boring.
agoraphobe posted 02-14-99 11:52 AM ET
It'll take a little more playing the full game, but the computer AI looks to be the most significant advance implemented in SMAC. It's clear that some honest work was done to have the computer factions put up a decent fight. It still remains to be seen if this carries over to naval and aerospace combat, but this alone puts it head and shoulders above previous TBS games. There is also the greater flexibility in political regimes, anothere key weak point in most TBS games.
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: On a scale of 100, how would you rate SMAC?
Christ	posted 02-13-99 02:25 PM ET I'm about to buy the game and would like some sort of idea about the score you guys would give to the game.
DHE_X2	posted 02-13-99 02:33 PM ET First off, I'm pretty sure you aren't the Messiah, second, based on the demo, I'd give it 99. do not buy it if you value sleep
SupaCow	posted 02-13-99 02:46 PM ET i would give it a 80, cool graphics, nice plot, nifty science and research things. Only thing bad about it is that it takes a whole freegin year for a unit to move 1 space
Thue	posted 02-13-99 02:56 PM ET The patch should correct the slow movement to some extent. Check out the news section for BR's (the designer) post: http://sidgames.com/ac/
SupaCow	posted 02-13-99 02:59 PM ET Thanx
SupaCow	posted 02-13-99 03:02 PM ET Doh! not slow like that. i mean a unit can only move 1 space per turn(1 year)
Gergi	posted 02-13-99 07:54 PM ET I don't understand the problem with units moving only once a year. Sure it isn't exactly realistic but I don't the game is trying to be realistic. I think it's going for an abstract model to maintain playability and play balance. Would you really want to move your units (365 * num_years_to_build_next_building * num_units)? I think that would be a very long and tedious game. What if you lost your rover on day 1 and had to wait thousands of turns to get the next one?
Gergi	posted 02-13-99 07:56 PM ET BTW, I would give it about a 97%, losing 3 pts for steep system requirements playing with the high res units.
Magnus	posted 02-13-99 08:03 PM ET 50! It is good, but the game is not suited for me, i like to buil great super power empires! With a couple of 100 million ppl, and a gouple of 100 cities... But i can�t do that in smac, bcs there r no ppl counter!! , and i only have got 500 turns... And i miss the top 5 cities, and the demographics screen... Civ II is better!
Prerogative	posted 02-13-99 08:56 PM ET Magnus, I don't understand you one bit. Who CARES what number it reads above your cities? If each growth in a city meant ONE citizen, I wouldn't care. It's a ludicrously ridiculous detail, that I myself couldn't give a flip about any less. Who cares if you get an update on how big your empire is? I don't really care. Again, a ridiculous little detail that has absolutely no real impact on the game. Demographics and Top 5 cities? Same deal. They were nice, but they were also pointless. And I thought of them as just being frivolous little tack-ons. I looked at those screens maybe ten times in all of my Civ Two/One carreer. While SMAC may not have pointless little details like Civ II did, it has what's important, good core gameplay. And it certinely outpreforms Civ II on that level, no doubt. As for 500 turns, who cares? That's 500 turns for getting a score. I always played beyond the limits in Civ II, becuase quite frankly, being in the Hall of Fame or having a high precent means absolutely nothing to me. As far as rating goes, I'd give 'er a 98. I share the minor contempt of a previous poster that the High Res does require a rather high bar for a mere TBS game. But the rest is great, I'm glad Firaxis broke away from Microprose. Since in nearly the same amount of time SMAC has been in development MP finished Civ II Gold. Oh wow...
Spig	posted 02-14-99 10:12 AM ET 99. It drops the one mark for making me almost fail in an exam due to sleep loss!
Forsaken	posted 02-14-99 10:32 AM ET AC is great, and is (IMHO) the best civilization building game currently out there. It has its flaws, but what game doesn't? If you like CIV, MOM, and/or MOO2, you will love AC.
TheHelperMonkey	posted 02-14-99 11:06 AM ET It really gets me angry that alot of people are naive about TBS games. So what if it takes a year to move one space, I couldn't care less if it took a million years. The fact is that the gameplay is all that counts (graphics too). All TBS games are like, Civ, Civ, Col, etc... I give it a 95, it kicks ass, but after a year or so, it will get boring.
agoraphobe	posted 02-14-99 11:52 AM ET It'll take a little more playing the full game, but the computer AI looks to be the most significant advance implemented in SMAC. It's clear that some honest work was done to have the computer factions put up a decent fight. It still remains to be seen if this carries over to naval and aerospace combat, but this alone puts it head and shoulders above previous TBS games. There is also the greater flexibility in political regimes, anothere key weak point in most TBS games.