Announcement

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · April 29, 2002, 10:17

I think perhaps they may be trotting out the same arguement that a complex game is incredibly if not nearly impossible to design a competent AI around. CIV3 boasts an agressive AI but has cut down on game complexity(nuances, tactics, units, facilities, immerisibility and so on...) in order to allow an AI that is reasonably codable.

Funny, in the various polls I've done the results suggest that players prefer feature laden games vs. a competent AI given a choice of one over the other.

Finally the feature laden game appears to have a greater following with theose players favoring MP as it allows more replayability and different avenues for underhanded tricks etc.

**SirVincealot** · May 1, 2002, 17:37

>>It also had the problem that it was science-fiction, so you have to learn every new idea you didn’t already know.<<

Now, that is plain nuts!

One player may prefer "history" over sci-fi but that is no cause to say SMAC is inherently "inferior" for being set in the context of space exploration. We are not morons: many of us LIKE to learn about new things - what a surprise!

For anyone weaned on STAR TREK, Brin, Asimov, Niven, ect. the idea of playing a "near-future" adventure that extrapolates (and extrapolates VERY well) on currently acknowledged concepts and "hard" sci-fi is a godsend. As I've also said in another thread, CIV3 managed to make humanity-altering discoveries like electricity and computing into MUNDANE accomplishments. There is no excuse for that!

I have always had a feeling that SMAC was created in a sort of "mad genius" synergy between Sid Meier and Brian Reynolds. Comments like the one above, and the fact that Reynolds is now -of all things!- working on a clone of EMPIRE EARTH, itself a clone of AGE OF EMPIRES (down to the bloody interface!), itself heavily inspired by CIV2 (Bruce Shelley worked on that game); well that just goes to prove my hypothesis was correct. These two are much lessened by being separated: they achieve their best when they are together, working off one another...

Regards,
SirVincealot

**Capt Dizle** · May 1, 2002, 23:14

What you are hearing from Sid is that we will never see a game of SMAC's quality from Firaxis again. That is a shame.

I know in my heart that they will do a SMAC 2 and it will be awful.

Complexity and gameplay are not exclusive. What Sid has learned from Civ2 and SMAC is that if you make a quality game people will play it for years. That does not fit their marketing goals. The trend now is toward beer and pretzel games that people will play for a month or two and then be ready to buy more.

They want us to buy 6-12 mediocre games a year, not 1 great game every 2 years.

The marketing strategy can be justified both by the bottom line and by the fact that the majority of game players are going to be quite satisfied by the dumbed down games (like Civ3 for example).

I predict we won't see a TBS game that is the equal of SMAC for a period of 3-10 years and when we do, it will come from a small new shop.

**Mongoose** · May 1, 2002, 23:26

D'accord.

**Dcole78** · May 2, 2002, 00:10

I agree that the comment is ridiculous, alpha centauri is not at all any more complex than civilization and the sci-fi elements are what made it great! The best way to describe alpha centauri is civilization with a plot. This is also the reason it was so much better even that civ 2.

**Alex** · May 2, 2002, 11:06

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Complexity and gameplay are not exclusive. What Sid has learned from Civ2 and SMAC is that if you make a quality game people will play it for years. That does not fit their marketing goals. The trend now is toward beer and pretzel games that people will play for a month or two and then be ready to buy more.

They want us to buy 6-12 mediocre games a year, not 1 great game every 2 years.

Yes, the "planned obsolescence" rule applies to PC games as well. That is exactly how I feel about it. Games are more and more shallow and graphic-intensive, leaving us with just some months of play and then we have to buy another one.

But I'm not into nostalgia. Not yet.

**Maniac** · May 2, 2002, 13:13

Originally posted by SirVincealot
I have always had a feeling that SMAC was created in a sort of "mad genius" synergy between Sid Meier and Brian Reynolds.

Actually, just as was the case with Civ2, Sid hardly helped in the creation of SMAC. He was too busy with his Civil War series. In other words: SMAC=BRAC.

**thinkingamer** · May 5, 2002, 00:54

Personally, i hate Sci-fi stuff generally. But SMAC is a very interesting possibilty of our world in the future: And after finishing Civ2 5-10 times in deity, who would not want to start a civ game in AC?!

Besides, all the factions represented (somewhat) the ideals of our present society. (One of the reason that i did not buy Alien Crossfire is its weird overpowered Sci-fi factions)

Anyway, back to the learning curve: when i started to play Civ 2, i was SOOOOOOOO confused: it took about 3 months to understand this game fully. (but no one [EXCEPT the programmer of civ2] will understand civ2 100%, such as "what is the the exact % of corruption in a Republican gov't? we have to live off by estimating)

It took me about 1.5 months to understand SMAC. The main reasons r:
1. Weird Tech tree
2. Weird Units, Base improvements, and Secrets
3. New concepts overall (how do i turn off the governors???)
4. Terraforming!!! (still have some trouble, but i just build forest mostly

)

The point here is SMAC can be very hard to please a newbe IMHO.

by the way english is my 3rd language so u can correct me

**Kataphraktoi** · May 11, 2002, 12:17

your english is fine.

**Comstr** · May 14, 2002, 04:11

If SMAC=BRG, where is he and is he working on SMACsquarded?

**Adalbertus** · May 14, 2002, 14:02

I enjoy SMAC because of its complexity. Despite of the SciFi part. If I have too much time, perhaps I'll create a historic SMAC scenario (probably never

). In "the other" series of games I like to play, Might and Magic (6-8), a medieval adventure series, I observed similar things. The quality of graphics improved (slightly), but by far the best plot was in MM6. Best music for my taste also.

I think I learned the technical things about playing Civ1 in a week, Civ2 in a few days, and SMAC in two or three weeks. Of course not to be a good player but knowing the rules and the technical part of the possibilities. OK, I needed Vel's guide to learn the importance of shell units and so on. But if you want to have much fun, you have to work a lot, if you don't want to work and don't mind to have less fun, use the governors. That's why they exist IMO.

About the planned obsolescence: A very sad thing, and often even harder to detect than for most other things. Encouraged by the free market, but in the end it will ruin products. I, and I hope many others, do not want to buy a game for a few months. I will be much more careful about buying games after the disappointment of Ctp2 and (partly) Civ3. Probably buying less altogether.

**gwillybj** · May 15, 2002, 15:09

Re: Gameplex interview on SMAC

After this quote from the gameplex interview...

Some critics we heard about Alpha Centauri were that it offered way too much complexity at the cost of gameplay.

Sid: I can agree a little bit with that. It also had the problem that it was science-fiction, so you have to learn every new idea you didn’t already know. I think it’s one great thing Civilization has that you already know the railroads and gunpower, so that really shows how Civilization put together some pieces to make a good game. So we learned something from Alpha Centauri.

... The diplomat posed the question:

Agree/disagree?

In the words of Colonel Sherman Potter of the 4077th M*A*S*H:
Horse Puckey!

**Mongoose** · May 15, 2002, 15:15

Sherm always did mince words!