A clarification: Comparison of depth in SMAC compared to Civ3

[DrFell]

Civ2 was a pretty deep game and I think that was aimed at the mass market too... though maybe not as much as civ3. But it just shows you can have a long lasting, complex, and yet popular game. Civ3 was just designed around the AI and it's limitations.

[NorthSwordsman]

One thing that has always spoken volumes to me about SMAC/X is the social engineering settings. I have yet to find a game that can match that.

Oh yeah, you have governments, you can switch them... But for pity's sake, no two governments are the same! You can compare communism in two different countries, like the Old Soviet Union and China... and their systems are widely different.

In the Civ-based game genre, with the exception of Smac/x, when two or more countries are running the same type of government, they function the same. No variances whatsoever, outside of allocation rates. Not so in SMAC/X. I mean, you can run Police State/Free Market/Wealth... and be successful after a fashion. Whoever heard of a communist-based government with a wild economy and rampant capitalism? In the Civ series, such a thing would be next to impossible, unless it was custom made. In Smac/x... anything is possible.

Yes, each game has it's strong and weak points... but to me, Smac/x just has more strong points and endless replayability. Endless strategies. Endless just about everything. It's a thinking man's game... and the majority of gamers are unable to think for themselves, so no wonder they like the mindless pablum of Civ3.

Folks say that the diplomacy in Civ3 is advanced. To be honest, I find it a bit irritating at times. It's not as advanced as it could be. FurXs said that you can put anything on the table. Untrue! I could ask them for a year's supply of chocolate... and I don't get it! Sheeze.

I give up on Civ3. It's unplayable as it is. Even the some of the modmakers, like Plutarck have given up on it. It's vapid, shallow and more. I have to agree with JimmyTrick, Buster and Mark13 entirely. Civ3 is basically RTS set to TBS. Stupid.

[Locus]

North Swordsman says it well and succinctly. I couldn't agree more. Whatever happened to the strategy in strategy games? I hope the TBS game isn't dead. Do we really need anymore RTS games? It seems like there's one coming out every week. If anyone has any suggestions on thinking games, please post them.

[NorthSwordsman]

hmmm... how about setting RTS to TBS?

I think alot of that RTS stuff has to do with the general lack of patience on folk's parts these days. Everyone wants everything action, action, action, now, now, now! Hay, us old folks like to take things slow. Right, Mark13?

[mark13]

Oi! Speak for yourself

[Alex]

Civ2 was released almost six years ago. Six years! What happened since then? PC games experienced a boom, sure, but console games experienced a greater boom. TBS games are encroached on a niche. They tend to be slower, deeper and have a steeper learning curve when compared to console games.

Now we have a whole generation of gamers who don't have a clue about what was Civ2. Strategy games, for them, are anything that resembles Age of Empires. But they really like to play Grand Theft Auto 3 and State of Emergency. As NorthSwordsman said: "action, action, action, now, now, now!".

How can you introduce these new gamers to the wonderful TBS world? Dumbing it down. You could play Civ3 for 20 hours and never see your city screen, except when founding a new city. You could even automate your city production. You could do this on all of your cities. Come on, faster, move this unit, faster, oh here is your wonder of the world, faster, histographic victory, replay... ahh, it was good, was not?

Hardcore gamers will complain, Firaxis will make some money, the sun will come up tomorrow and I'll have to wash my car. Oh life.

[Trifna]

Like I already said, CivIII's problem is all about representing reality. And it is not very close. Less coherent than it should have been. And of course, depth is a very important factor.