posted 02-15-99 01:12 PM ET        

1) not enough politics. Why have a council if you can do little more than elect a leader? Issues should come up far more frequently -- giving this government real bite.

2) enough with the Civ II model. It helps gameplay to have the game modeled on Civ II, but I'm absolutely sick of the techno-ideology of that game. There's a lot more to human history than climbing the technology tree. I wish SMAC could have found a way to distance itself from the tech tree.

3) More transcendance, please. Couldn't Sid and the gang have found a way for our colonies to truly interract with this alien planet? The stories are nice, but some kind of on-the-fly communications with the moss would have been great.

In the end, I think this game makes too many compromises. The designers had a brilliant concept, but in the end, they were unwilling to break away from the Civ mold.

posted 02-15-99 01:33 PM ET         

1)
You can do alot in the council. Repealing the U.N. Charter, manipulating the Planet, Governership and so on. If you want the system to have "real bite" I think you need to define exactly what "real bite" is by giving some suggestions.

2)
Actually, people who follow technology only in Civ games are fools. There is alot more to Civ games than technology. And if you think only climbing the tech tree will win you the game in SMAC or Civ II you're in for a nasty suprise.

3)
You can already "communicate" with Planet to all the extent that is nessecary by adjusting your eco activity. If you're nice to Planet, Planet is nice back. If you're a polluter, Planet will kick your butt. There's really little more that Planet itself could do anyway. I can't really imagine something along the lines of :

"Hello, Planet, I am Chariman Yang of The Hive. I was wondering, I have some valuable data on Centauri Ecology and I would like to know if you would be willing to trade for your data on Superconductor."

As for the other comments:

Well, actually, you can win in five ways. All but one are non-military. Econo, Diplomatic, Transcend and Cooperative can all be non-violent paths to victory. Might be a good idea to get all the information before complaining.

Military might has its limits? If anything, our history has proven to us that humans have been unable to resolve any of our ultimate problems in anyway save violence. We are no more 'civilized' than we were a hundred years ago. While technology has advanced, humanity has not.

One world builder game where you couldn't conquer the planet? What fun would THAT be? The whole point of strategy, if not ALL games is to have CONFLICT. Without conflict you have no action, nothing happens, nothing changes.

posted 02-15-99 02:22 PM ET            

Let me address your arguments one by one:

1) the Council. You can do a lot with it? Like what? Repeal the council, pass a trade treaty, elect a world leader ... you call that a lot? Get creative here. How about economic sanctions on a belligerent tribe? How about a 20-year requirement that all tribes use green government? How about true "peace keeping" action against an aggressive tribe? Or sanctions against countries that are too authoritarian at home? There are endless possibilities here -- the game barely taps them.

2) My point about the tech tree was that the game relies on it too much, not that it is the path to victory. I know these games pretty well, you don't have to give me strategy advice. I think it would be much more interesting if discoveries sometimes happened out of place -- where a great leap forward happened almost by accident.

3) you mock my idea about communicating with the earth, but why couldn't the moss send you cryptic messages? I'm not talking about dialogue -- that would be ridiculous. But I think they should give the game some Myst-like qualities, where you have to think and decypher, not just plan and react.

As for my point on conquering, I was only referring to military solutions. And I'd like you to name one human tribe that succeeded in world conquest, militarily. You can't. They have all failed. So why is it that every game has to have that as a goal? I simply believe that it would be refreshing to have a game where military conquest was not possible, that random event would always stop you.

You could still win by other means -- but you could never use brute force as the only means to victory.

Finally, I think it's sad that computer games have fallen back on the Hollywood model of genres. It's ridiculous how many sequels are being produced these days. Ten years ago, games like Railroad Tycoon, Balance of Power, SimCity and Civilization were not just franchises, they were new forms of entertainment.

posted 02-15-99 03:51 PM ET         

Now, I myself misinterpeted some of your ideas a bit (the one about the fungus being a good example) but now that I have a better jist of things...

1)
Sanctions are already upheld for atrocities. Which can be, essentially, a sign of authoritarian control.

Some of the ideas, however, could limit. I too have been playing TBS games for a long, long time, and, IMO, one of the biggest draws is the freedom of strategy. Forcing players into Green Markets for X amount of years and similar things can push some players into uncomfortable situations.

Deirde herself already can maintain this sort of ideal, since often she can be a very intimidating power in the game and keeping on her good side can be a good idea.

I would also have to say that the Council in and of itself is a new idea (while MOO had a council, it was for supreme leaders only.) And that Firaxis included it at all is a massive improvement over Civ II diplomacy.

There are, of course, alot of ideas to be tapped in the Council idea. But I can wait for a patch/MOD/sequel where the Council really gets taken to a new level.

2)
Sometimes? Possibly. But Civ/TBS games tend to give a player plenty of control. While, of course, research naturally happens out of place, in SMAC and in reality it is possible to design socities to neglect or enforce knowledge. In SMAC you take a seat of power, and in a seat of power I demand what I want. Thus, players push scientists towards certain goals. I'd have to say this is why the tech tree is in place at all.

If research was generally controlled but occasional discoveries just sort of appeared, I think TBS could handle it. And I can say that's a good idea.

3)
Well, my point was, that there is only so much Planet can really talk about, because Planet can only do so much. Right now, Planet either attacks or leaves a player alone. Maybe in some upcoming patch/mod Planet could be coaxed into "alliance," so to speak, with other players. But other than that, what could the fungus cryptically mumble about? If you have some ideas to new Planet functions, please, let's hear 'em.

As for conquest:

What I meant was not that war is a solution, but war is constant in humanity. We, as people, have always come to bloodshed at one point or another. When you conquer AC, or, conquered the world in Civ it was never stated that you were dominant ruler forever, or that it would even immedietly last. But you had stormed every city, and for ten minutes or ten centuries your empire was in the big seat.

Khan ruled most of the known world himself, his empire did not maintain itself, but he conquered the world. The victory condition IS called "conquer" not "control."

Another reason for conquest over reality is that "reality" does not always translate into "fun." If I could not conquer the world in SMAC, what good would waging most wars be worth? There would be conflict, but ultimatly no one would ever go into disasterous World (or would that be "Chiron"?) Wars that have been my trademark for instigating. Peace can be interesting, but if killing everyone does not equal victory alot of the incentive to conquer is lost.

Creativity? Well, Chicago, creativity doesn't always "work." Old models are used, just like they are in movies, because old models work. Creativity can be implemented into old models, and you can have a creative game. SMAC is a prime example. It has improved on every single aspect of Civ. So while it may bare resemblence to Civ, it is not a "Civ Clone."

posted 02-15-99 04:13 PM ET            

Let me just say this much:

1) I have a general bias against genre titles and sequels, and that applies to both movies and games. The Civ games (including SMAC) are to computer game sequels what the Star Wars series is to movie sequels -- the exceptions that prove the rule.

2) If Hollywood produced nothing but genre pictures, I'd rarely go to the movies. Thank God they have some room for innovation and creativity (even if it's only good for five to ten good non-genre movies a year.) The computer game industry is now virtually 100 percent genre based, which is a real shame.

Of course, the problem is that computer games are largely written by nerds who spent too much time solving math problems and not enough time reading novels, but that's another issue.

3) All of my criticisms of SMAC are the result of high expectations, not only from pre-release hype, but from playing the game. I had hoped SMAC would be more than another successful genre game -- that it would be a genre breaker like the original Civ or SimCity.

posted 02-15-99 09:14 PM ET            

2) The problem with "accidental giant leaps forward" is game balance... If suddenly gaining a 5th level tech after a bunch of second level ones, without a tree with prerequisites, etc., were possible, the faction that happened upon this mega-increase would suddenly find itself vastly superior to the rest of the factions...

Ideas not only have to be good, they have to work, and keep the game balanced... Describe a system by which technologies could be balanced *besides* a tree, and I'll try a critique...

3) A "think and decypher" aspect to the game would make it impossible to replay... The very problem with adventure/puzzle Myst sorts of games is once you've done them, you never go back... Even the story SMAC has is repetitive enough most people turn the interludes off after a few games...

4) If you don't like the conquer the world possibility, you can always turn off the rule to win by that method... One of SMAC's great strengths is its nearly infinite customizability, quite a bit of which is built right into the game without even having to *touch* the text files...

Actually, Chicagodan, you should check out Imperialism II when it comes out. If it's anything like the original Imperialism, you'll find it a very fresh and creative design, with no real placement in any given genre... You can fight, but it's nearly impossible to take over the *entire* world (making it realistic to history as you've complained SMAC isn't), there is a huge emphasis on diplomacy and trade, and it's turn-based, but isn't really like any other TBS I've played...

I disagree that SMAC is no classic.. I think the differences between it and Civ break into new ground... It not only improves upon Civ, it adds completely different changes that make it an entirely new game...

posted 02-15-99 11:42 PM ET         

First of all, I think it's downright naive to expect the good old days to return. Yes, the good old days were very good, but that was then. Now that good molds for games have been found, innovation falls back. Trying to be creative is a risk in the economic world, risks can or cannot be profitable. Would you rather reinvent Civ or just make Civ II? It tends to be more efective to just used the tried and true.

I'm not a cynic, and I think good games still appear nowadays. But even in the good old days there were serial-games, all following one suit. Not every game was brilliant, Civ, which happens to be the predecessor to SMAC, was one of those innovative games. But building upon innovation is NOT a bad thing.

Do I think SMAC is groundbreaking? Not really. Do I think SMAC is great? Yes.

I, personally, expect Civ-Games to act like Civ. Just like how I expect CTP to be similar to Civ. And I think the new ideas are great, perhaps in SMAC II, or even in an expansion, they will really be tapped. But I consider SMAC to be an experiment of sorts, to see just how much the Civ engine can be changed and still maintain the feeling. And even this experiment of sorts will keep me occupied for a long, long time.

But all that aside.

posted 02-16-99 12:23 AM ET            

Genre concept: yes it's good when new genres are developed but its not that common once a medium is past its infancy (generally the infancy is when all the possible genres are tried)

Diplomacy: I agree the diplomacy isn't as good as I thought possible but it is very good.

World Conquest: 1) The reason that world conquest is a victory conditions in "Civ" games is BECAUSE no one has ever done it. I personally think that it should be very difficult, but that wouldn't be the conquest it would be the control while conquering. (if the mongols had hadn't split up the empire every generation they probably could have taken over the whole world.)
I think the biggest problem is that sim-citizens just aren't rebellious enough, I mean if China went to war with the US and took California they would probably have extreme problems with the citizenry. Also if ancient Rome took over all of Eurasia, there would always be the problem of one of the local governors getting conceited and wanting to break off (even if his people were perfectly happy)

Fortunately, In SMAC they made people abit more unhappy at being captured, and I assume you know that a city that riots too long can join another faction (at least on the higher levels, and assuming you have few troops there: it said they overpowered your troops)
In all conquest is easier than I'd like, but politics still functions.

Tecnology: personally my ideal technology model would be
1-resources are put into science/wisemen/philoophers, etc.
2-you may be able to partially specify what you want, natural/social philosophy early on
biology/chem/physics/psych/econ, etc. later
3-discoveries would be random with prerequisites and helper techs i.e. knowing phlogiston might help some techs and hinder others.

4- finally one would have a technology phase where discovered technologies could be developed, i.e. President, after putting all this money in to physics research our scientists believe it may be possible to build a very big bomb, would you like to invest in researching the atomic bomb tech, again progress would be random (although more deterministic for developing a technology than discovering it.)

posted 02-16-99 08:14 AM ET            

As for the game vs movie discussion, if you try hard enough you can classify every movie or game that is made. Why do games feel more like sequels these days, because as more games are made, less games will feel original, they'll always borrow something from somewhere.

As for the diplomacy, I haven't gotten to this point yet, but the manual indicates that you can affect things in the game with the council, like melting the caps etc. This is more than you can do in most

The more interaction with the planet sounds like a design descision, I could see it improving the game if done correctly, but I can also see it taking something away from the game. I don't think its a flaw that it doesn't exist.

posted 02-16-99 03:15 PM ET            

And why shouldn't SMAC be like Civ2. How many games have the Civ style? Civ, Civ2, SMAC, CTP (soon), ToT (soon). 5 GAMES! That is it. You think it is a glutton of games! How come no one complains and says Half-Life is like Doom, or C&C 2 is like C&C: Red Alert? Why can't you give us Empire-Building TBSers some good games! They crank out clones of every other genre, but a sequal to a TBS game, and everyone yells!

posted 02-16-99 03:32 PM ET         

First off, I truly love playing SMAC right now. I've played both Civ and Civ2 and love this series of games. And I think SMAC has made a wonderful series of improvements on the previous games. The ability to design units, the new system of terrain definition just to name a couple make major improvements on previous games.

The model of the game right now seems to imply that there are seven seperate factions that really don't get along. Each has its own ideas on what sort of society it wants to create. So they really don't seem like they want to put up with a Planetary Government that is going to intrude on their societies and tell them what to do. If you put more options in for the Council, you'd also have to have more options for factions which have removed themselves from the Council. Could be done though....

When we get some 7 player multi-player games going, some of the suggestions for "The Council" will come forward from the interaction of the human players. For instance, a group of players could put "Sanctions" on another player or group of players by not signing treaties or pact with them.

My personal feeling is that I always love to see suggestions for upgrades to this game, or that can be implemented in a later game in the series. That to mean is the plus side of later games in a series (when they are done right). And Sid and Brian seem to have a long track record of listening to ideas and incorporating them further down the line. If I remember the release notes right, a lot of that happened between Civ and Civ2.

posted 02-16-99 05:27 PM ET         

4. Once a technology is discovered it can be built on (atomic theory has a warlike application - bombs - and a peacetime application - powerplants). This development would be far more closely directed.

Thanks Krikkit

posted 02-16-99 06:43 PM ET         

1) The PC game industry isn't worth sticking up for. It cranks out a lot of waste just to stay in business. Paradoxically, that makes me grateful when games like SMAC come out. Nobody bothers spending 2 years in design/development, they can't afford it.

2) Someone touched on one of my biggest beefs with the current PC TBS genre: POLITICS. There just ain't much of a concept of it. I mean, how much real life political experience can an American computer programmer have? About next to zilch, no doubt.

The result is the monolithic, egocentric 'point of origin' player position. Why not INTERNAL political factions that must be negotiated with in order to form governments/regimes? Why not actively play another players' internal faction as a potential fifth column? At the root of this, as someone mentioned, is the passive populace. Ever hear of REVOLUTION? You know, the thing that makes history, that breaks up even the mightest of states (i.e.,player positions)? I imagine a far more fluid, ever-shifting player position, including a Revolutionay player who'd play the 'popular' faction within every other 'Ruler' faction. A natural evolution of the Barbarian/Mindworm game structure, except it acts from the inside as well as outside.

posted 02-16-99 07:49 PM ET         

Very well reasoned critics. However, one must realized that to model these effects (and maintain a playable balanced game) would require a lot of coding. Given the minimum game requirements (Windows 95/98,Pentium 133,16megs RAM), I not sure that Joe Average Gamer would be satisfied with a beefier version of SMAC (or other 4x game) that runs very ssslllooooowwwww. SMAC is fairly complex as it is. Would it be 'more' fun to have to worry about currency rates, inflation, cults, internal religions conflicts, political ambitions of your underlings, strikes, etc and yet be able to finish the game under six hours on a minimum system?

I agree that research trees are pass� and a more realistic (and playable) model is needed. SMAC partially addresses this with the "blind research" option, but is still tied to a fairly linear research tree. One research system I really like, and that I think meets the bill for being more "realistic", is found in the shareware game Space Empires III. In SEIII, research points are generated by the quantity of research facilities & scientists (modified, IIRC, by a budget distribution between military, research, espionage and happiness). These points are then directed by the player toward areas of basic and applied sciences which THEN yields (with a bit of random time added in) technological units/buildings improvements.