Which Game is Best?

[DarkCloud]

Which game is better- Civ II or Alpha Centauri
or if you like list these 'very' popular games in order of your preference:
1. Civ II
2. Alpha Centauri
3. Civ: Call to Power
4. Age of Empires II
5. Rollercoaster Tycoon
6. Railroad Tycoon
7. Sim City 3000
8. The Sims
9. Diablo II
10. Baldurs Gate
11. Command and Conquer II

[Provost Harrison]

Has to be SMAC, of course. I always used to play CivII, and before that Civ. I suppose one has just really succeeded the other in turn, brought a new breath of life to the genre. But I have considered the advancements and ideas added in SMAC to make it a superior game. Although in retrospect, I would have to rank Civ/CivII along with those. Some things that people have described put me off CtP...diplomats/spies/probe teams should be about the limits of alternative warfare, I didn't care for my population been enslaved and lawyers suing my city, to be honest with you.

I also enjoy some of the RTS as well, I enjoy AoK now and again, and I have played C&C2, and enjoyed it, although I have never played the original.

I also enjoy SC3K, a nice, enjoyable, relaxing, game. But all of these come below the civ-genre game in my eyes. As for the others, I haven't played them so I couldn't comment!

[Neptunus]

Nothing could match the feeling I had when I played Civ II for the first time (my first encounter with the Civ type games). It is something not easily described in words and I'm sure many of you understand pretty well what I mean.

After many many games however, winning in Civ II at deity level was far too easy (with 255 cities plus one enemy city with a population of over half a billion even the gamed crashed giving a negative score), I was visiting APOLYTON every day at work reading the news about CtP. I noticed something about SMAC but I didn't pay any attention. I was only anticipating CtP. When CtP reached the Greek Market I must have been one of the first to buy it. But when I bought it I noticed Alpha Centauri's attractive cover box and I bought it (a) because of the name "Sid Meyer" and (b) as I thought it would be a "natural" scenario following Civ II.

After installation I eagerly loaded CtP... God! THE dissapointment !!! (Since its launch I've played only three games up to 2100 AD approximately)

After 50 or so turns I quit CtP and loaded SMAC... The colours, the "atmosphere", the sound, the plot, the characters, the quotations, the sci-fi technologies and the texts following each one and dozens of other factors were enough for me to realize that Sid's signature is more than enough to ensure endless hours of purely exhilarating gameplay.

Now, my directory in which I store the last turns of all games I've played (usually just before transcendence) contains 238 SMAC and SMAX games...

Age of Empires and Age of Kings is just cute little games. I enjoy playing with these but they make me feel anxiety...

C&C... too macho (and I must say a bit of childish...)

So ...
1. Long live SMAC (SMAX is a close second)
2. Thanks Civ II, I'll never forget you (its like one's first love)
3. All the rest (although I've never tried Simcity, or RT and I may not be fair towards them)

Well, that's enough... back to SMAC...

[Misotu]

SMAC, no question. I haven't played any Civ game since I got into SMAC. For many reasons, but principally the social engineering, the diplomacy and the design workshop, which I didn't really like at first but which I appreciate more and more as time goes on. Wonderful game.

[hexagonian]

I started with CTP as it came out shortly after I got my first computer. If you had asked me this question two months ago, I would of said CTP (not the default game that Activision created, but the MedMod version created by Wes)

Now I'm not so sure...

SMAC took a lot to get used to and I do prefer some of the features in CTP (PW, information interface, stacked combat are the main features), but the overall atmosphere in SMAC is more enjoyable. The fact that I can counterpropose with the AI is a great feature. SMAC is definitely more complex in terms of the choices you can make (social and military). And the fact that there are different factions to play makes replayability more enjoyable.

Both the AIs in SMAC and CTP are not too bright - though SMAC's AI seems to be more aggressive.

Now if the graphics were better defined in SMAC, it would get my vote - I still get a headache sometimes when plodding through factions that practically build their cities on top of each other...

[Eurhetemec]

I'd divide it up like this:

I'll add some games to the list, too.

Games I love:

1. SMACX
2. MOO2 (Master of Orion 2)
2. CIV2
3. MOM (Master of Magic)

Note the draw is intentional. I loved CIV2, and it's too close to call, but I've spent insane amounts of time playing both. SMAC, especially X, has better gameplay, though.

Games that are okay:

4. Diablo II
5. Railroad Tycoon
6. Command and Conquer II
7. The Sims
7. Sim City 3000
9. Civ: Call to Power (bleh...)

Games I utterly loathe:

10. Age of Empires II
11. Rollercoaster Tycoon
12. Baldurs Gate (and I normally *like* RPGs!)

[Chowlett]

Sorry, going to have to be a renegade. Top of my list is:

1. Diablo II

This may just be a newness thing, since I only acquired DII recently. However, I still haul out Diablo for a quick slash, and DII is much better. Then comes

2. SMAC (no AX as yet)
3. CivII

Great games. As testimony to their long lasting qualities, I even still play CivII occassionally. Fine games, as is the whole Meier stable.

Haven't really played the rest, and RTS isn't my bag generally, but AoE2 is quite groovy, and what I've seen of RRT and RRT2 is good.

Just one question, what happened to MoO2?

[MariOne]

Strictly TBS

1. Stars!
2. Master of Magic
3. Master of Orion 2
4. Civ II
5. Age of Wonders
6. SMAC (X)
7. Space Empires

[Chowlett]

How did MoM go anyways? - it's always mentioned on these forums, but I can never find a copy. What was the basic idea?

[Eurhetemec]

Master of Magic - Was like this.

Basically, it was, to basic appearances, a CIV clone. It was *very* different in practice, however.

First off, you were a Mage, and chose what "schools" of magic you were good at. You could choose to have a mix of spells, and be balanced but weak, or you could focus exclusively on one area. Further, you could sacrifice some spell casting capability for things like "Warlord", making your units better trained and easier to support, and other minor but useful advantages.

You also chose a race to be your "main" race, which dictated what sort of city you started with. There were quite a few to choose from, including Elves, Dark Elves, High Men, Barbarians, Klackons (insect men), Halflings, Dragon-men (forget real name), and so on. This cost a certain number of points, and the Dark Elves and Dragon-men started in the "Mirror World", or "Dark World", where there were nastier monsters, and harsher terrain, but less competition, generally.

There were quite a few schools of magic, from things like Fire to Chaos, to "Holy" and "Unholy" (forget exact names), and thus you could be a Dark Elf Mage specialising in Chaos magic, or a Human warlord with limited magic in a few areas, but powerful troops, or whatever.

Basically you never had to play the same guy twice.

Then you went into the game. The world was randomly generated, with large numbers of pre-existing cities and villages owned by no specific person (as opposed to CIV/SMAC's "empty" world), often of different races to your own (which gave access to different troop types and buildings, as did your type of magic).

There was, as I said, the light world and the dark world, which, IIRC, could only be moved from one to another by certain portals. They were as their names suggested, and the light world was much more densely populated and easy to live in.

You managed cities much like CIV/CIV2, built buildings and so on, with one MASSIVE difference, NO TECH! You either built buildings that allowed other buildings or had to get to a certain city size or had to know a certain spell (yes, you had actual limited spells, and could get more by research, and trading with other wizards, just like tech, in some ways), or be of a certain race.

The buildings allowed various units (there were VAST numbers of different ones) to be built, dependant on race, and so on.

You then used these to defend, to conquer, to fight other monsters and so on.

In particular, there were various guarded "mana" sites, which had monsters you had to defeat before you could start gaining energy from them, so there were sort of quests, and IIRC, there were other monsters to fight to find magic items and so on.

Speaking of which, there was a GREAT magic item creation system allowing you to create "custom" magic items, again, dependant on what spells you could cast and how powerful you were. This took time and mana.

Mana was also used in combat, as you could, and had to (unless you had highly trained troops) cast spells in combat, zap people, summon monsters, and so on.

Combat was a turn-based, "isometric grid" affair, ala Warhammer, and various units could do various things. You could get heroes (who could gain levels and extra abilities, and use those magic items) as well as your normal troops, and they often bolstered your armies, as did the big, scary, monsters you summoned.

Then you went round and defeated the other wizards. I think conflict was the only way to win, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, it was a GREAT game, tonnes of replay value, really totally underrated at the time, far superior to CIV, but close to when CIV2 came out (still before), and suffered only from being a bit to easy, perhaps, even on the hardest setting (ala all the "Master of..." games). Unfortunately, my CD hates my computer.

It was most similar to thet PSX game "Brigandine", which I also greatly enjoyed, but Brigandine had alot less depth (though it was really FUN)...

I believe it's "abandonware", now, and can be downloaded, quite legally, here: "http://underdogs.gamingdepot.com/letter.php?id=M" if that tweaks your interest. Poor MoM. So good, yet so forgotten.

------------------
"You're standing on my neck."

[Helium Pond]

I've gotten MOM from the underdogs site (a fantastic site, by the way) and have played it a little bit; it seems enjoyable, but I guess I haven't hit on the thing that makes everyone rave about it so much.

On the underdogs site, it says that the major reason MoM didn't get good sales was that it was released with a horrible, data-erasing bug in it, so it quickly got a reputation as poison. The version available on the site is the patched version.

[Chowlett]

I see. Sort of a cross between:

Civ/Civ2/Diablo/MoO2/Warhammer/AoE-stylee/pretty much every TB- and RT-S game ever made. It sounds good - downloading.

While I'm at it, what about Magic: the Gathering? That crops up here from time to time.
[This message has been edited by Chowlett (edited September 18, 2000).]

[XWaste]

Wow...I just have to say thanks for informing about the underdogs site, it really is great.
Discussing which games are best is in the end, very subjective and depends on the individuals tastes. The only thing I want to add, is that those games that which are best for me are those I remember playing when I was young on the old c64 and amiga. I get a lot of enjoyment from games today, but I wonder if, in ten years time I will get the same euphoric rush when dusting off the old smac disc that I just did from seeing I can get neuromancer, megalomania, megatravellar and bloodwych from the underdogs site.

...oh for those days of innocent gaming

[Eurhetemec]

You get the rush seeing them, but do you still get it playing them? I was an ST boy, and LOTS of old ST games are available on the 'net (unlike the Amiga, where you usually get PC versions of Amiga games, as lots of maniacs claims the Amiga isn't dead. Talk about deluded!), and some good emulators, and really, those games are NOT as good as I remember them (for the most part). Some simple arcade games, like Buggy whatsit (never remember it's proper name) are still fun, but most games: goodbye! Really, alot of those games sucked, much more than we remember.

As for the magic of MoM, well, it is an obscure thing, probably. I was really into fantasy RPGs at the time, which probably helped, and it was SOOOO great to be able to simply define your own wizard after CIV's meaningless civilisations. Some people like "Master of..." games, some "Civilisation" ones. I'm probably the former, though I love SMACX dearly, I thought SMAC was too limited. I'm looking foward to MOO3 more than CIV3, I'm afraid to say (this site NEEDS to cover the MO... games, IMO), given that I know quite a bit about MOO3 (sounds unbelievable), and NOTHING about CIV3, because the tell us nothing.

------------------
"You're standing on my neck."

[Helium Pond]

I think MOO3 has the best conceptual approach ever to preventing burn-out from micromanagement while still having a vast empire. If they do it correctly, I expect it to set the new standard for 4x games. I hope the Civ team are watching, because the main problem with the game is how much it bogs down in minutiae at the end.

Oh, by the way: I have found a great many old games I never knew about, and have enjoyed immensely, from the underdogs site. I get a lot out of old games, if they're good the graphics don't matter. Sometimes the cheap graphics add to the charm (but not always). And I do still enjoy some of the games I used to play on my old Apple ][e; I still get a kick out of Aztec, but I don't think I'll ever need to play Drol again.
[This message has been edited by Helium Pond (edited September 21, 2000).]