Smacx 2?

[fluffy]

Originally posted by MariOne
fluffy, in which world do you live?

SMAX-world of course!

Ah, sorry, your comment is evidently SARCASTIC!

I wish it was sarcastic, but what I was replying to was 'Brian the bug master? Creater of the world's worst AI.' which I felt was unfair.

I have played many games that were more buggy and had worse AI than SMAX, but not many that were better (perhaps listing those that are better would be an interesting topic?).

I can't say for CivIII, as I barely played it, but all the Civ3 fans in this same site's forum endlessly claim that their beloved game is almost bugless and can't stop praising Firaxis for the unsolicited patching support...

My reply was only comparing SMAX to CIV3, so if you haven't played CIV3, you can't really criticise what I am saying.

Just because people say the game is almost bugless doesn't make it true. All the talk of 'innovative AI techniques' does not seem to have made a more playable game - indeed I returned quickly to SMAX as I found CIV3 games dull and uncompelling.

OK, I would agree that SMAX does have many bugs, and yes, the AI is pretty lame. But for all that it has a quality that I haven't yet been able to find in other, newer games.

[Alinestra Covelia]

SMAX may have bugs. Civ3 may not. (Although personally if you believe that I would ask for proof.)

Either way, I'd prefer a buggy masterpiece than a bugfree childrens' game. I have just finished reading "The Jesus Incident" by Frank Herbert and my faith in SMAC is stronger than ever. This game draws on so many political, social, and religious questions that it really leaves me in awe of the developers.

Civilization III however, draws on... erm... CivII and CivI. And if you ask me, it doesn't bring any particular further depth to the table, while sacrificing quite a bit from previous incarnations of SMAC and CivII.

So if it ever comes down to a desert island pick between SMAC and Civ3, give me the work of flawed genius any time.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia

So if it ever comes down to a desert island pick between SMAC and Civ3, give me the work of flawed genius any time.

I want to kiss you!

[spartak]

Sorry I see no reason for CivIII when I have CIV2 but SMAC/X IS bug ridden and the AI sucks big time so I stand by my commernts.

[MattyBoy]

"The bugmaster", creator of my favourite game of all time. Note that few games pack in so much complexity and that none of the bugs were showstoppers by any means.

I would love to see patches that improve AI terraforming and crawling in simple ways, but otherwise the AI only sucks because the game is too complex/flexible to write an watertight AI.

[MariOne]

Originally posted by fluffy
OK, I would agree that SMAX does have many bugs, and yes, the AI is pretty lame. But for all that it has a quality that I haven't yet been able to find in other, newer games.

that is the same thing I'm repeatedly posting in all the recent threads, see JeffBriggs announcement link for instance.

Same thing also Alinestra posts, so we all agree.

I HAVE played Civ3 for about 3 months IIRC (that's about 3 months too much...).
And either we self-righteously think that all Civ3 players are dumber than us, or a conclusion must be drawn from the fact that in the same site the community playing game A is endlessly complaining about the bugs while the community playing game B is happy about the patching and bug-free playability.

Thus, while we all agree, we must no indulge in Civ3-like-thinking, that is, one-way and shallow thinking.
SMAC is probably an apex in game DESIGN (although not perfect).
But the game is NOT the example to follow in coding & implementation, even in comparison with Civ3, and regarding the AI, it IS evidently inadequate (although this might be not because the AI was badly designed, but because the game's complexity required too a hig-level AI compared to the gaming world state-of-the-art).

I assume Taz loves the game too, anyway.
But all who praise SMAC, must not throw away "Taz's lenses" in looking at it, if they want to be objective.

What conclusion may we draw from this, about BR handling an eventual SMAC2?
Well, of course BR won't produce a game alone, and we now that a name is not enough to ensure success (see what's happened with SM himnself).
Despite "SMAC" was "a BRD" (do you remember this pun from 4 years ago? ), this does not mean that all BR's Ds will be good Designs, nor that his future AIs will be as inadequate as SMAC's one.
Besides, rather from SMAC, we should take indication from more recent BR's project, RoN, that is a RealTime game...
and the way he named his new company:
Big
Uge
Games

[spartak]

Sometimes months go by when all I play is SMAX.I do love the game but I also recognise the AI is too stupid and I would love to take some of the micromanagement out of the game so I could concentrate on the strategy. I ofvten don't get enough out simply because I can't be bother to control a 100 formers a turn of whatever I end up with after a while.

TAZ lenses - I like that!

[FNBrown]

Pardon the interruption... I'm a Civ3/PTW regular that was just browsing through...

I recall playing SMAC a looooong time ago, when it first came out. I know I still have the CD lying about someplace, and I'm kind of surprised that such an old game still has such a fervent following. I just might have to find the latest patch and try it out again.

I do think Firaxis might have a SMAC2 in mind, only because the "Spaceship" victory condition in Civ3 alludes to it (this may be Sid's homage to the old game - but, still, it wouldn't surprise me).

I will say this about Firaxis - they really screwed the poodle (can I say that here?) with the initial release of PTW. Multiplayer STILL bites, and for $30, I want a little more than a few new Civs to add to the game.

The AI is good, and has improved with each patch. I don't think that's anything to worry about. The diplomacy model could use a little more depth (I encourage you all to read the PTW forum for some good discussion on this, if you're at all interested).

As for the rest of it, well, you all know more about what makes the game great than I do... I just hope Firaxis is watching the fan boards if they are indeed planning a new version of the game.

I highly doubt we'll see BHG aquire the rights to the franchise, and it would be legally precarious for Brian Reynolds to even produce anything remotely like it.

[Master Marcus]

It's been months ( almost a year ) since I ceased to play SMACx, now playing CivIIIPtW and awaiting MoO3. Just want to say how I miss AC's socio-political compounds, and I heartedly agree with all of you in awe of its magical gameplay - and I must say the VOICEOVERS....still the best integrated within story AND gameplay I ever experienced to date . But I DON'T MISS its AI....that's where Civ III's strenght relies, and what the latter have, AC doesn't, vice-versa for voiceovers,story integration, diplomacy engine ( quite embarassing to say AC's diplo, with 3 years of age, still overdo and by far the simplified Civ III ).

So I tend to appreciate both games as..."flawed masterpieces", for theseopposite reasons. A perfect TBS masterpiece should have in my mind: AC's socio-political engine & voiceovers & revised diplo + Civ III's AI expansionism & enhanced military prowess + MoO3 RTS combat & epic scale. Doesn't exist.

I would very much like to see SMAC 2 ONLY as the perfect masterpiece I want, because it deserves no less . Otherwise I don't hope they should risk to spoil it by today's marketing standards. I agree with many of you that Firaxis can't honestly do it right now; but Mr Reynolds CAN'T EITHER unless Sid and him talk seriously...and this is not serious for I'm sure he and his team have some original projects after RoN. At least for now, it seems the rumors for SMAC 2 are quite "premature"...

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by MariOne
Besides, rather from SMAC, we should take indication from more recent BR's project, RoN, that is a RealTime game...
and the way he named his new company:
Big
Uge
Games

Don't judge a game before it even comes out......

[Alinestra Covelia]

Given the futuristic setting of SMAC, I can see why they might simplify the trade aspects (after all, what sort of futuristic trade goods can you invent without sounding corny, a la CtP?). But I think the Civ3 idea of resources is a good one even if the map distribution is somewhat unpolished. I'd be interested in playing some sort of multiplayer game that had military strategy and trade strategy involved... kinda like a Diplomacy Meets Monopoly sort of thing.

This came up in a recent discussion I had about China/Taiwan, wherein I and the Taiwanese person both came to the agreement that Taiwan could not survive a war against China, but China would not be able to survive the subsequent economic bankruptcy - hence the ongoing state of neutrality.

Now if you translated this across to Diplomacy (which has no trade) or the TBSes, you would lose a lot from the situation. (I think the Raging Dragon Civ2 scenario had a Chinese conquest of Taipei as an objective but in order to redress the massive China/Taiwan military imbalance, they gave Taiwan about a zillion military units - the dimension of trade agreements would probably have worked better.)

[FNBrown]

I wouldn't mind seeing SMAC2 on an entirely different planet, with all new factions and such.

... or do I blaspheme?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by FNBrown
I wouldn't mind seeing SMAC2 on an entirely different planet, with all new factions and such.

... or do I blaspheme?

Not as long as you want it to be TBS. Just don't use the term RTS anywhere in your message or you will be in big trouble!

[FNBrown]

TBS is the only way to go for me. I can't spend enough uninterrupted time staring at the computer for RTS.

[cinattra]

Originally posted by FNBrown
I wouldn't mind seeing SMAC2 on an entirely different planet, with all new factions and such.

... or do I blaspheme?

You do blaspheme!

I love Civ3/PTW, but SMAC/X is very close to perfection!