posted 03-01-99 06:13 PM ET        

There are lots of places Civ/CivII excelled in, but I always thought the single most important reason why they grabbed so much attentaion and imagination of so many people is, simply put, they captured the most grandeur subject ever known to man: the rise and fall of civilizations. (Ok, maybe you'd say Big Bang or the Origin of Life, but those would make dull games. ) Without this sense of grandeur, Civ/CivII may still be great games, but I doubt if people would remember them as "the greatest games ever written". On the other hand, the biggest complaint people have on this forum, asides from implementation details, is that they cannot identify with SMAC. Alas, there lies the answer to our question. At best SMAC can be a great game (I think it is), but lacking the essential element of Civ/CivII makes it a step apart from the greatest.

Let me break it down in details.

* History vs. Future

Civ/CivII are based mostly on history. Granted they are not detailed simulations, but they provide a fine abstract model, depicting pretty accurately what happened to the human society since the dawn of time up to present day. History people are easy to relate to. You may have not visited Pyramids or the Great Wall, but you are pretty sure they are there, built by our ancestors thousands years ago. History is quite accurate too. There may be a few versions of the same event, but the margin for error is small. And history is not intimidating, in the sense you've already known the outcome. Now you've got to be the "guiding spirit" of your people, lead them through thousands of years of struggle to prosperity. There is simply no substitute for this deep emotional journey.

Now look at SMAC. It starts from 100 years in to the future. Barring any medical miracle, we'd all be dead by then. It's hard to relate to something when you are dead. There is no certainty in future, that's why it is so intimidating. The whole human race may become distinct tomorrow. Overall, it is a lot harder to have fun when you have an uneasy queasy feeling in your guts, which is what you get playing SMAC.

* Nationality/Race vs. Ideology

Civ/CivII are based on the conflicts between nations/races. That makes it a lot easier to choose. I usually play chinese. Not to start a flame war here, but it is especially fun to watch my army march into the mongol camps, for the mongol hordes had been a constant thread to the chinese civilization in history. I am sure people identify more with their own nation/race.

On the other hand, SMAC is the conflicts between ideologies. There are lots of gray areas here, it's not always black and white. I found myself mostly Gaian, but I also respect the survivalists and the scientists, while I'd be hard pressed to play the hive or the believers. That's probably why even when I play Gaian, I hardly get the feeling I am with "my people".

* Earth vs. Unknow Alien Planet

Civ/CivII is set in the all so familiar environment of Earth. People tend to feel more comfortable with something familiar. On the other hand, that mindworm-infested Chiron is giving me nightmares (I mean it literally ). Maybe our present-day earthlings are not ready to take the giant step to space yet.

* Conquest vs. Cooperation

Looking back at our history, the 5000 years ain't pretty. It's full of blood and conquest, which sets the perfect stage for a fun game of Civ/CivII (sorry for sounds so insensitive). On the other hand, once we leave earth, we are all earthlings, it seems a bit silly to repeat the cycle all over again. In my opinion, we should be seeing more cooperation than conquest in the space age. The splinter of SMAC factions seem to be a giant step backwards in history, especially if they are the only humans left. Then again, if there is no conflict, there wouldn't be a game.

If you have read thus far, you'll see I am trying to critisize the game. I am just trying to find out a thing or two why people feel disappoint about this game. If you agree with me, great! Set your expections a little lower you'll still have plenty of fun. If not, fire away. I may not agree with you but I'll defend to death your right to say it.

posted 03-01-99 07:42 PM ET            

The way I see it, there are several different types of players, I am going to talk about two, and they will seem very stereotyped, as they are, because addressing the individualities of an entire SMAC population would make me go insane...

All of your points can be based upon one word, whether or not I spell it right is what's gonna kill me: Nostalgia.

Personally, I like future more than history, since history is already the "known." I prefer to venture into the realms of the unknown, even though History is one of my favourite subjects, I'd much rather be in a "S.F." class (Hey, a guy can dream can't he? )

Society -vs- Ideology: Hmm, in the end, wouldn't ideology be all that is left? Political parties are a very good example of this, excluding nationalist/ethnic parties of course... From where I live, what you are isn�t nearly as important as how you think or where you�ve been to learn to think. These are social and intellectual, not to mention philosophical, factionalisation. (By the way, I live in Canada.) I guess it depends on your preference, which is a dirty word on many game boards, you defend a given game, much like yourself, you pretty much get your butt flamed� I have played Civ and Civ II, about a year ago, but only for a while, it was fun, but not exactly the greatest� Again, this is preference. Now, after I�ve played SMAC, I find it much more witty, a bit more grown-up/evolved, and I�ve played a lot of games in my time, which probly isn�t as much as some of you, as I�m only 17�

The whole conflict thing is very true, although, conflict is ingrained in our mentality since we learned how to hold a stick� Given time, humanity will probably be fighting over which way to crack an egg (okay, bad literary joke..). The future WILL NOT be like Star Trek, more like Babylon 5, if interstellar travel is at all possible. Lemme put it this way, Napoleon did not learn from Alexander the Great�s mistakes, Hitler did not learn from Napoleon�s mistakes (this is all about the East and Russia), what makes you think we�ll learn from the 5000 years of history. Only now are we trying to right ageless wrongs, and I doubt it�ll be done in my lifetime, let alone the boomers� By the way, you have to remember that the whole thing was sparked by the occurrences with Santiago and Yang, not to mention the strife between Miriam and Zakharov�

I think, and I don�t think much on such philosophical concerns, as I am not quite that experiences, that the people who are "disappointed" with SMAC were expecting too much from one thing or another� Be it the theme, and literary divices, or the plot and "scientific inconsistancies" that turns them off.. IMO, the only things that can be warranted is the game engine, the interface and maybe the display� But that is only if you are Really bugged by such things, I find each of those at least satisfactory, and at most spectacular�

Well, I�m not sure if this holds water, but as of yet, it seems like it does to me.