posted 03-01-99 11:44 PM ET        

The most demanding part of SMAC is its exceedingly poor design. What most people here refer to as "working through a few games" before they began to enjoy it is the hallmark of a flawed game, not a flawed player. While it might be more accurate to say that an impatient player will not survive long under the cumbersome and counter-intuitive game mechanics, to claim that it's a person's intellectual ability that impedes some quasi "true" understanding of the game is pure, ignorant elitism.

I could make you a flow chart for baking a cake that would make your head spin. Does that mean I have somehow created "Cake Baking For The Genius"? To the contrary, I will have taken a rather simple concept and pretended it was somehow more important and complicated than it is, and I would have done so in a self-important, psedo intellectual farce of introducing something new. The true idiot, in my opinion, is the person who says "Hey, that's really challenging, the way I have to work three levels down a menu to find a topic that doesn't exist in the manual. Wow, only a really smart person like me could do such a thing. Also, those obscure references to future technology--that's great the way it alienates the average player. I'm really glad it makes little or no sense to me because now I'm really challenged."

The repeated divide Firaxis makes itself (both on the Net and in the game) between the "Advanced" player and the beginner, even to the point of making "simple" menus for the less mentally adept (I guess), shows the sickening degree to which Firaxis and several people here think SMAC is a testament to higher intellect. Any well-designed game would make its menus simple from the beginning, since, at least in SMAC's case, there is simply nothing complicated enough to warrant a difficult menu system in the first place. What Firaxis unwittingly calls "advanced" is actually just sloppy execution.

Firaxis is free, of course, to design as many bad games as it wants--but doing so in such a way that makes people's confusion seem somehow a indicator of intellectual inability rather than flawed game design is particularly odious.

posted 03-02-99 01:29 AM ET            

My issue is not with smart people. It's the extremists who try to cover obvious flaws in the game by saying "Well, you just haven't tried hard enough." Or, "You just need to study Physics and then the game will become fun." Sure, it takes time to learn chess--more to the point, it takes time to learn to play chess well. The game mechanics of chess are not the problem. They ARE a problem in SMAC.

My point is that it would be a lot easier and a lot more fun to actually become good at SMAC without constantly wondering "What is that unit? What exactly does it do again? Where was that other menu? What should I focus research on to get that other weapon, what the hell was it? Why can't I see the name of the base I want Miriam to cede to me?"

posted 03-02-99 01:30 AM ET            

You hate the game because it makes you think.

You are actually *offended* that a game designer would put out a game that challenges the lowest common denominator and calls upon people to actually use their heads.

You are not the only person who has had that opinion and it will never cease to truly amaze me that people actually get *offended* by things that make them think...

Amazing

Let's go through a few of the techs for you that are directly grounded in current scientific theory or elements of (in the case of SMAC) mostly Western philosophy:

Ethical Calculus: The quote is at Sephanus page 1107a (about 4-6) in Aristotle's work, "Nicomachean Ethics". The particular quote that Brian Reynolds uses from Nicomachean Ethics is at the central point in Aristotle's ethical argument. Aristotle argues that all virtues are the mean between two extremes, such as bravery being the mean between rashness and cowardess. Another example would be how he argues that modesty is the mean between shyness and shamelessness.

This type of state doesn't separate the game designers from the gamer, it induces the gamer to *perhaps*, *maybe* think about something they've never even considered before. Whether they adopt the same conclusion as Aristotle is totally irrelevant, that there's actually a game out there, unlike all those stupid 3d shooters, that encourages the player to THINK is wonderful.

MOVING ON, intellectual grounding for other advances:

Secrets of the Human Brain: Imagine if we finally understood the the chemical processes that take place in the brain to such an extent that we could really start to understand how the entire thing actually works (MUCH better than our current very low level of understanding).

Optical Computers: Computers that use light, the most efficient use of energy, to process information.

Synthetic Fossil Fuels: You make fossil fuels rather than waiting for geology to for you.

Neural Grafting: Now that you understand how the brain works (Secrets of the Human Brain), they move forward with integrating man and machine. This, as the quote by Lal indicates, is a very unsettling development.

Superstring Theory: This is actually a real theory RIGHT NOW in physics. The mathematics are INCREDIBLY COMPLEX, as the theory requires (as the quote by Zakharov indicates) many more than 4 dimensions. To build the theoretical framework for the theory, theoretical physicists have to do math in 10 dimensions and perform numerous experiments on elementary particles. The idea in SMAC is that humanity finally has the capablity with computers and equipment to discover whether this theory (which is rather popular these days, but totally without much proof) is true or not.

Monopole Magnets: OK, universal law of nature: there is no such thing as a monopole magnet. ALL MAGNETS must have a north and south pole to them. The very fact that you have a magnet creates a magnetic field, that by necessity has both north and south poles. The idea for this advance is that the discovery of Superstring Theory (which theorizes an elementary 1-dimensional string) can allow us to manipulate multiple dimensions to create what *should* be impossible.

United Field Theory: The Holy Grail of Physics, uniting all the forces and particles into one integrated system. Of course, that's what Superstring Theory is *supposed* to do if it is correct. However, it may in fact be that what ever element of Superstring Theory is actually correct is insufficient to unite all the forces and particles into one system of energy and matter.

Fusion Power: The sun uses nuclear fusion as its power source. "nuclear" bombs and "nuclear" power plants use fission. However, fusion, once we are capable of utilizing it (as we do not yet have fusion power), would be much less dangerous than nuclear fission and produce truly boundless amounts of energy (by today's standards anyhow).

The Will to Power: This is actually a concept that comes from the German philosopher Nietsche. It has to do with man having the will to achieve what man can.

Quantum Power: quantum theory has to do with the how electrons traveling in the atom do not travel from one place to another in the conventional sense. They expend a certain amount of energy, always the same for the same amount of space they move, and simple *become* at the destination, without having been at any of the points in between. The idea with this tech has to do with harnessing power from the quantum mechanics of the atom.

Singularity Mechanics: A Singularity is a "black hole", otherwise known as a "quantum singularity".

Controlled Singularity: Image the amount of power you could reap by being able to controlt he power of a black hole...

Eudaimonia: This is a greek word that is roughly translated into English as "happiness". However, this translation hardly does the word justice. "Eu" means "well", "daimon" is "soul" or "spirit" or "the self", and "ia" is somewhat equivalent to the English suffix "ness"

Thus "Eudaimonia" means, roughly, "Wellness of Soul". The attempt to atain eudaimonia (pronounced EU-DIE-MOAN-EE-UH, with the accent on the 'dai' sylable, at least the way my professors pronounced it) was the central aspect of the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, all of which argued that it is achieved through a life of justice and rationality (although they had wildly different views of the particulars of that argument). The greeks considered the attainment of eudaimonia, if it was even possible, to be the absolute highest good for human beings, the ultimate achievement of one's life, a sort of complete contentment with life (even regardless of adversity according to Socrates).

So the point of this advance is that what if we could some day finally create the perfect society, "utopia"? Such a society would have all citizens achieve eudaimonia, the highest good.

The game seems to give adequate quotes so that, whether or not the player truly understands the exact nature of all the philosophies and theories behind an advance, the attainment of the advance will challenge the gamer to contemplate things that perhaps he or she has never done before. That is a truly admirable quality in a game.

posted 03-02-99 02:11 AM ET            

Before we misunderstand each other any further:

I agree with you that this game, at its best moments, makes a person think. AND THAT IS GOOD. But it also makes me search needlessly at times to accomplish or understand X, Y, Z.

In my case, the problem is not hating to think, but I have very little time (an hour or two, if I'm lucky) to play the game each day. The way the game is designed, I waste a few days or more learning things that should have been more intuitive or explained better or put in the non-existent manual index.

Thinking v. being forced to learn a game through trial-and-error are two very different things. The manual even advises the player to let the govenor make decisions for you in your first game(s) in order to avoid this "trial and error" problem. Of course, the govenors in this game are essentially idiots who, when left alone, will ruin your faction (if not ruin, at least make FAR less efficient).

Now, you say, "Well, a beginner has to learn to be efficient." I agree, but from the governors, as the manual says? No. In the end, you have to tinker on your own for quite a while to get it all down. Is that bad? It is if the tinkering causes a lot of wasted time. Shouldn't a person at least have a fighting chance of playing a good game after paying close attention to the manual?

Firaxis' idea seemed to be: Let them play. They'll figure it all out eventually.

That style of play used to be an option. I just resent having it forced on me.

For the record, I find the game a wonderful departure from all the eye and mind candy out there. I just think too many things were done without much thought to the end user, and too many pseudo intellects around here quote a science book anytime they want to prove how good the game is. Just because a game has the look of intelligence, doesn't mean it's an intelligently designed game. At times, SMAC is more like an interactive future encyclopedia than a game. Is that bad?

posted 03-02-99 02:13 AM ET            

Megnetic Monopoles: The "universal law of nature" doesn't prevent their existence. In fact, based on the original big bang theory, some calculations showed we should have more magnetic monopoles than protons today. However, any large amount of monopoles would "short-out" the magnetic fields of galaxies, which would contradicts the observation. "The Megnetic Monopole Problem" is the driving force behind the Inflation theory, a modified version of big bang. Alan Guth's Inflationary Universe gives a nice account of the story. One day we may be able to produce magnetic monopoles in the lab, but how that's related to formers building mag tubes is beyond me. Seems plain old superconductor would do just that.

Fusion Power: the original a-bomb, the ones dropped in Japan, is fission bomb. However, later we did develop bombs using fusion power, the so-called h-bombs. The problem is with CONTROLLED fusion power. That's still beyond out reach for now.

Singularity Mechanics: black hole is a result of general relativity, which is a classical theory. Referring black hole as "quantum singularity" seems odd.

posted 03-02-99 05:05 AM ET            

Since the highest physics class I ever took was introductory, my knowledge there is understandably shady. The farthest I've been is relativity, and then only really special relativity. I've had professors *explain* the concepts beyond that, but it would take years of undergraduate and then years of graduate and post-doc work to get to a point where you really *understand* most of this stuff.

When it comes to my social science however, that's where I am. I actually recognized those Aristotle, Kant, Plato, and Nietsche quotes and can tell you where in their books the quotes are (although I'll admit my memory is quite shady on Nietsche)

yin26,

appologies for the misunderstanding. I see more clearly where you're coming from.

As an adendum to what you're getting at, I also have a specific game pet peeve:

The computer uses your social engineering settings as the basis for diplomacy with you. HOWEVER, the human players are not permitted to know the social engineering of the other players. This is information that obviously SHOULD be allowed to the human players as well as the AI players, as it would be obvious if a society you were in contact with or even trading with was free-market or planned, or democratic, or a police state, etc.

posted 03-02-99 05:34 AM ET            

The way I see it Fraxis are up against a common problem for all game designers which is: Customisablity/Variety Vs Ease of Use.

Ever since the original Civ players have been crying out to be able to DO more. The problem is that as the game becomes more complex & diverse it becomes more and more difficult to "pick up and play". The more you allow the player to do the more options, buttons and menus you have to give him to do them. Also the more "user awareness" their has to be to use these options effectively.

I would have enjoyed having Governers as personalities (i.e. dishonest, sechming, heroic, loyal etc.) and that they could make descisions such as maybe defecting to another faction if left too undefended or particularly disgruntled. Also being able to ransom governers or other heros (units which have developed in combat to personalites, cowardly, brave, intellectual etc. themselves). However this would have increased the management and time and effort to play the game considerably.

I don't think that having the "Simple Menus" option is intellectual eliteism they are simply giving people the option of cutting down the options because they know there are lots of people out their who don't want all the detail.

If you look at the FPS market one of the reasons it is so successful is that anyone can learn to play one extremely quickly. They are very easy to use and adjust to. However Half-Life was one of the first FPS games I truly enjoyed mainly because it added another level of complexity and much more enviromental interaction than had been seen before.

I don't think that the Fraxis interface for SMAC is the best, basically they followed the Win 9X Gui for most of it. However I'm not sure how else they could have done it, maybe you could shed some light on this...?

I think Fraxis wanted to give the "Give us more!" crowd as much possible (adding a workshop which you can use only if you want, I think that's good ) while still making the game playable for first time users.

I think Fraxis did a pretty good job they were going to fall short whichever way the went as people will always say "This could be better". I think most of the intellectual elitism comes from the players and not from the game.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

posted 03-02-99 08:20 AM ET            

Well, I agree with what you are saying. Firaxis did design the game badly. I think that they forgot what is truely fun. They through out what was fun about CIV II (which was the feeling that you were truely governing an empire) for new features. Don't get me wrong, the new features are great, but I'm convinced that some of these new great features actually caused more problems that they solved. For instance, the ever present problem of distinguishing between units really is a byproduct of the unit creation feature. Chris Pine of Firaxis argued that this feature made it difficult for the artists to create the unit graphics so that they can fit on many different unit designs.

Frankly, there is absolutely no excuse for not making graphical representations from some of the special abilities like artillery, subs, etc, ...not to mention the SFX that go with them.

There are many other problems with this game, and it just kills me when I read that this game got a 98% rating in PC Gamer magazine. That is as close to a perfect score as you're going to get, and this game is light years from being perfect.

posted 03-02-99 09:35 AM ET         

Personally, I like them.

Yes, it is hard to distinguish one unit from another, but if you were to drive a modern tank into WWII, do you think the generals could, right off the bat, describe every intracy of the said tank? Of course not.

While this may be annoying to some, it makes things more challenging when you're not sure if those rovers are equipped with anti-air countermeasures, or are just lowly land-based attackers.

Besides, I think this is why we have names for units. If you're confused if you have a Plasma Garrison or a Plasma Police unit, just click on the thing to find its name. Proper naming of your units can only be placed on the shoulders of the gamer.

posted 03-02-99 04:50 PM ET            

Hmmmm, I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding this thread. This is a game. Whether it's rooted in fundamentally sound physics is completely irrelevant to me, and to most gamers I would hypothesize. It's a game, for fun. Fun, ya, that's it.

I also do not believe the simple/advanced menus represent intillectual elitism... that's a joke on par with Jerry Falwell calling Teletubbies gay... really a joke. I saw an 8 year old boy sit down to play, and I set the menu's to simple, and he learned it for a bit with my help, and then he played for awhile, then wanted more, so we turned on the full menus the next day, and he loves it. He could never have grasped it all at once. I CONGRATULATE FIRAXIS FOR THIS DESIGN! I don't believe his 8 year old mind could have kept interest at first among the miriad of options that I LOVE TO HAVE AT MY DISPOSAL. I think that is a stroke of design intelligence and flexibility that provides the maximum possible market exposure for the game. It was smart design by Firaxis.

As for the unit stuff... I'm not understanding that complaint either. They show the active unit in the lower left, and with it's capabilities clearly defined. Even if you misname it, the actual capabilities of the unit are in that window too. They also allow you to rename units with fairly descriptive names... I am not following why this is so hard to deal with?

Yin26, if you only have 2 hours to play, there are other games to play. I for one love the added complexity of this game. So I'm an idiot? So what, let this idiot have fun... is that a bad thing? Just because I'm an idiot I shouldn't have fun? Leave the rest of us who like 16 hour developement games to enjoy this great title. There is a market for this game, just because you are not in it necessarily does not make it a bad game, in my humble opinion.

It's just a game dude. It does not influence the future of the human race in any way. It's a game. For fun.

I'm donning my flame suit now...

posted 03-02-99 08:53 PM ET            

It is the SIMPLICITY OF THE GAME (menus in this case) that lets you truly ENJOY THE DEPTH of the game. I am tired of having to make units obsolete and not having any GOOD and intuitive auto-upgrade commands. I think that the prototypes, a realistic idea, is the big villain in some of this. Otherwise it would have been easy just to have the comp ask if you want to keep the obsolete 1-2 units when you have discovered plasma armor OR IF YOU WANT THEM REPLACED.

For example if you want the defensive units you have designed(say you have designed 1-2 ECM and police units) upgraded to the better armor(1-2 ECM--> 1-3 ECM, 1-2 police to 1-3 police and of course not ask for an armor upgrade when the unit is a clear attack unit like the 4-1 speeder), and whooops I didn't have to go back and forth through the menus. And great the comp only replaced units with police and ecm and didn't make up any other variants! Or maybe Firaxis had no thought of this? The prototype complicates this as you have to make a prototype first bla bla bla.

Actually, I think even the Council votes should be stated more clearly somewhere too, EVEN if they are easily calculated. You shouldn't have to spend time calculating things that so easily should be displayed to your convenience. Your votes AND the other factions votes should be stated clearly when you press the Council button(it's even realistic that you have good knowledge of the exact number of votes out there). A percentage of what how much the votes represent of the councils total would make bribary attempts even easier.

That the social enigeering choices of the rival factions are not stated are also awful.

To me, what you have brought up, is the core of what is bad with the game. If those things were good I would have very few bad things to say about the game(except that the factions could have been made even more original of course)

posted 03-02-99 09:58 PM ET            

Yeah, a couple of things slipped through the cracks, such as the stacking of units, which I find to be very unintuitive. Overall though, I think they did a reasonable job.

Freddz, if you play on a level with no need for prototypes, play as the spartans who need no prototypes, or turn the option off (in the ini file from memory - a helpful inclusion from Firaxis), upgrading is simple. Yes, it is a bit of work to do if you need to build a prototype, but personally, I wouldn't call it unintuitive. And it makes sense to not be able to auto-upgrade without building a prototype.

posted 03-02-99 10:02 PM ET            

(1) The build queue. Why, when we Change the current build item, doesn't the Production screen stay while letting us access the queue as well? It is aconstant waste of time to exit the Production window, wait while the city window reappears, then have to press on the queue to get the Production window all over again.

(2) Obscuring of information. yin26 is so right about those cases when you want to do something, such as negotiate, but this very act hides the information you need in order to make an intelligent choice.

(3) Interrupts - the lack thereof. When your pieces are running around automatically you often wish to intercede, but there's no way to make SMAC pause to listen to you - short of drastically shutting the computer down.
A check for keypressed() in some loop would probably go a long way to correcting this.

(4) Yes, obviously subs should look submersible. When a ship that looks like a tanker sinks, it stays sunk. Submersibles are always a different shape altogether; frankly they should have a different chassis. A further advantage of that is that it would free up one Special slot, allowing subs an extra capability.

(5) Waypoints. Left-click SPACE? This is so ergonomically unsound. Brian and fellow esteemed designers, think about it: SPACE ends a unit's turn. Waypoints will be used frequently, so the probability is that many times the LMB will be accidentally released, meaning that the unit will stop dead, to the player's repeated chagrin. Why not provide an alternative key to press, so that the risk of this frustration can be greatly reduced?

(6) Needless dependencies. For example, some units and some actions aren't permitted by the game, but are perfectly reasonable. (I hope that drops from an air transport are not among these.) It must have taken an additional coding effort to prevent these. Take that code out!

(7) Rough edges. The scenario editor has echoes of extinct coding. Just rest the mouse over some of the paintbrush icons, and the `balloon help' has nothing to do with them; indeed there's one about Planet's orbital distance, which isn't even a game feature any more.

Another example of a loose thread is that the manual states, and experience with a certain other games suggests, that Drops should be once per turn only. Yet I can repeatedly drop a troop from one place to another to another; it takes damage if it lands in the open, but I can still send the drop troop hoppity-hop halfway round Planet before I need to rest it.

Also the manual is wrong in stating that troops can't drop into cities: they can always do this if the city is undefended, as `everyone' knows is a standard tactic from that earlier game.

posted 03-02-99 10:33 PM ET            

A reasonable job??? This is the greatest turn-based game ever according to you.

More, your solutions about turning that option off doesn't solve anything of what I said. And anyways that is just avoiding the problem, denying it's there. When there are better solutions why not have them. Even with prototypes they could have implemented this one. As I mentioned, and you obviously must have missed it, it is maybe realistic, but most of us want playability.

If you want to talk logic in the game we could go on for half a year, beginning with the fact that some units move 1 square during a whole year. Imagine that..... Brother Greg...a whole year - is that logical too? The point is, most gamers don't care that much about that kind of logic, they want an easily played game.

And when you mention Spartans, well, what can I say? Oh yes this - we're not discussing anything useful anymore. Your arguments have become even more defensive, and most of them are cracking up.

posted 03-02-99 10:48 PM ET            

Yeah, I agree, playability wins over realism every time.

Reasonable Job: Yeah, just that. I don't think the game is perfect, remember? Plus, I have yet to hear a better design for the menus put forward...

Auto-upgrade commands: here, I really don't see why they are unintuitive. You build a prototype. You select the old unit (which is nor probably obsolete). You click on the Upgrade button. The computer lists all of the possible upgrades for that chassis type that you ahve built proto's for. You select one, confirm that you want to pay the price, and voila: done.

You seem to want one button, that when pressed, will qutomatically upgrade all of your AAA to the best AAA you have, all of your Attack Rovers to the best type of attack rover you have, and so on for every type of unit you have? Did I get that right, cos I am not 100% sure I understand you?

If so, I can see potential problems. What if since you last upgraded, you have discovered (and prototyped) ECM, AAA and Psi. Now you click on the auto-update button. What does it auto-upgrade all your defensive units to? How does it choose whether to give all of those upgrades (well, three would be impossible), none, or one only? And if you also had discovered a new Reactor, armour and weapons as well. That would be a confusing mess, IMHO.

As is, if you design certain units, and upgrade the old ones, you get to choose which units to upgrade them to. Personally, I don't find that a pain, but feel free to explain it to me (I always love a good discussion, in case you hadn't guessed )...

posted 03-02-99 11:33 PM ET            

I see I have explained this idea badly... What I really am talking about is having the option of "upgrading"(=replacing) the Unit Type in the City Build menu (the comp actually have this for new reactors) immediately without having to go to unit design. So when you for example discover a new armor...

...the units the Comp determine are purely attack units(4-1/6-1 units, the ones with 1 in armor) will not be asked for if I want to replace them in the City Build Menu but the other units will. That means if I have only designed a 4-2 ECM unit the comp will ask me if I want to replace it with a 4-3 ECM unit(since I wanted the unit armored in the first place) immediately when I have discovered Plasma armor, but would not ask if I want to replace a 4-1 attack unit. And it would not make up new suggestions say a 4-3 police unit, since I only had designed an ECM before.

The same, but opposite logic, would go for when I have discovered a new weapon, the comp would determine which units are purely for defence(all the ones with 1 in attack) and would not ask for a replacement in the City Menu in those cases.

You would preferably have the option of getting both designs (especially since there are prototype costs) 4-2, 4-3(as in my example) in the City Menu.

This logic would never go for discovered special abilities...

Did I explain it better...? This all sounds complex when I explain it, but I think it would simplify for one who plays the game and save time.

posted 03-02-99 11:53 PM ET            

Anyway, are you talking about units in the build queue (currently under production), the unit designs that you can choose to build when selecting the next item to build, or something else entirely? Cos you lost poor lil ol' me there...

posted 03-02-99 11:59 PM ET            

But hang on, what does that have to do with the build queue?

posted 03-03-99 08:29 AM ET            

The comp will ask for this(even though the prototype, of course, has not been made), so that way I don't have to go back and forth.

No, I didn't talk about existing units, or units in the build queues; that was part of my Nonlinear Explanations.

posted 03-04-99 07:58 AM ET            

It would never ask to replace any designs when I discover abilities for the units.

I don't think this one would be too hard to have done as they already HAVE a similar one when I discover a new Reactor.

posted 03-04-99 06:40 PM ET            

Unfortunately, I have not explained this well enough (I was tired when I wrote the first 2 posts and wrongly used the word upgrade)

The upgrade command can only be used with unit designs already made. That is NOT what I was talking about. Sure, the Unit design screen works okay (but still takes some unnessary time now and then).

My proposal is just a time saver when you have discovered a new armor (or weapon) and instantly want to replace the old unit designs(NOT units) with exactly the same designs but better armor(that's the general idea). A pop-up question by the comp will come up once a new weapon/armor is discovered.

I think the proposal will do a lot in Multiplayer though, where time is a factor.