Poll: like civ2 or like SMAC ?

[kolpo]

If you had to choose or civ3 should look more like civ2 or more like smac(I mean the game mech here not the time area the game plays in) ?

My vote goes to civ2 because teh following things where better in civ2 then in SMAC:

-scenarios: civ2 has the best scenario's of all turn based games ever
-unit balance: in SMAC was there no sense in building other offensive units then choppers.
-variarity of strategies: in civ where there lot's and lot's of strategies who worked good. In SMAC looked or every faction was forced in some predefined strategies
-SMAC is a scenario, civ2 is game with as many scenario's as you can download.
-Feeling: In civ2 have you really the feeling you are commanding an empire more then in SMAC.
-Graphics: SMAC is to dark, all units looked the same and there where not enough happy colors. Civ2 had relative good graphics.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-30-2001 04:27 PM -scenarios: civ2 has the best scenario's of all turn based games ever

Civ II had more scenarios because more people played it and continue to. If SMAC had the same following my guess is there would be about the same amount of scenarios.

quote: -variarity of strategies: in civ where there lot's and lot's of strategies who worked good. In SMAC looked or every faction was forced in some predefined strategies

I disagree. There were still a lot of ways to win and work your nation in SMAC.

quote: -Feeling: In civ2 have you really the feeling you are commanding an empire more then in SMAC.

I am not sure exactly what you mean. In SMAC I had empires to control and maintain.

quote: -Graphics: SMAC is to dark, all units looked the same and there where not enough happy colors. Civ2 had relative good graphics.

Neither game's graphics are acceptable for this century gaming. New graphics like the ones that they are beginning to make are what need to be in the game.


I vote for a game that incorporates the successes of Civ I, Civ II, SMAC, other Sid games, other Civ games, and any other successes that fit in the Civ mold. And do all of this in a new and unique way. I know Firaxis is up to the challenge.

EDITED: Because I screw up occassionally.
[This message has been edited by tniem (edited January 30, 2001).]

[Fiera]

I for one would be very disappointed if Civ3 looked more like SMAC than like Civ2...

Civilization and Civilization II were the games we all loved... SMAC was just another thing, some people liked it, but I'm sure it didn't caught everybody who loves playing civ games...

And I'm not just talking about the general look, I didn't like things such as the unit workshop either...

[JosefGiven]

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-30-2001 04:27 PM -scenarios: civ2 has the best scenario's of all turn based games ever

I think this is because it was so easily customised. In Civ 2, all the relevant game files were in formats most home scenario builders were comfortable with (ie: .WAV .TXT .GIF). This meant almost anyone with the most basic skills could tinker radically with Civ's inner workings and produce a totally different game...Well, that's what I say, so there

quote: -Feeling: In civ2 have you really the feeling you are commanding an empire more then in SMAC. -Graphics: SMAC is too dark, all units looked the same and there where not enough happy colors. Civ2 had relative good graphics.

As for the vague sense of the feeling Civ gave the player over SMAC, of controlling an empire, I know exactly what Kolpo means. tniem, don't you think that no other game since Civ 2 has given you the real feeling of imperial control, and grand-scale social planning, that SMAC, and CtP with it, have somehow missed? And that these two offshoots feel like little more than the computer games that they are??
I also agree with Kolpo that SMAC's graphics are somehow dull and lifeless...I would also say that CtP's graphics are too 'cartoony' for my liking, too. Picky, maybe...But, then, I don't think I'm alone, on this one...
Civ 2, which by most games' standards should have been pensioned off years ago, still retains a bright, accessable, serious air it's offspring have yet to capture.

EDITED: Because two's company

------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by JosefGiven (edited January 30, 2001).]

[Bereta_Eder]

Like civ 2.

I think in SMAC the level of involvement was much lower than in civ 2 and the sales figures prove it all too well.

Futuristic technology? Red-fuxia-blue all mixed up nothing to understand squares? Units that needed a microscope to tell them apart?

Like Civ 2 unquestionably. But incorporate some cool stuff from SMAC like frontiers etc
(Civ is THE game of the world meaning you have a feeling of history and of re-writing its course too)

I have both games, obviously, but I have played CIV 2 like 2 bazzilion times, SMAC 3.

[Adm.Naismith]

I'm more aligned to the "revolution CIV concept" than "evolve a bit CIV concept", so I don't think the poll has a real meaning: we need a game different enough to make any "SMAC or CIV II" argument not really important

Of course Civ II had a greater "sense of empire", because it embraced a longer timeline, with more involvement of the player because of its historical "realism".
SMAC tried some new technical concept: Social engineer, Unit workshop, Faction unique points, more "3D like" terrain, borders...

Apparently lot of players would like a mix of the two, merging the game into a "Civ Engine" concept, really open to different MOD and scenario for every taste.

I'm not sure it will happen, because it's a bit unrealistic that Firaxis will left to the customer the ability to pay once and play forever, IMHO

May be Firaxis is trying to make money pushing Civ into larger fields: a new, feasible, multiplayer (monthly fee), or a new CIV engine and set of tools (scenario editor, AI editor), improved every three/six months, where we'll pay the upgrade to improve our "gaming experience" as every P.R. people will sell us

The best compromise probably should be an "open" CIV backbone where to fit different module: a research module, a battle module, a building/production module, a diplomatic module, a trade module and so on.

We should be able to chose a basic, easy module for every area of the game we don't care much, or a deep, complex module for our loved area (e.g. warfare, diplomacy or research). Of course every module need a dedicated "AI code" tailored to cope with that part of the game, while the "backbone AI" must act as a supervisor to "glue" all the pieces. Pay per module model, and everyone will be able to tailor the game on him/herself

Sorry, I'm draggin a bit the topic, but I'm trying to change a bit the point of view on the often debated Civ/CTP/SMAC/Colonization/put-your-favourite-game-here argument

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by JosefGiven on 01-30-2001 05:35 PMtniem, don't you think that no other game since Civ 2 has given you the real feeling of imperial control, and grand-scale social planning, that SMAC, and CtP with it, have somehow missed? And that these two offshoots feel like little more than the computer games that they are??

Yes, but...

SMAC really was not long enough in terms of ages to have the same kind of grand scale planning that Civ II had. CtP had some problems that frustrated me and so I am not one to talk about the imperial control of it.

However, I liked the imperial feeling of Shogun. Not exactly the same, but I still liked how it was done.

[- Groucho -]

If you're talking about "feel" then CivII wins over SMAC. CivII had grandeur - SMAC had an OK storyline.

But if you're talking game mechanics - SMAC has it all over CivII. Do a blow by blow analysis:

Diplomacy - SMAC's is slightly better (not great, but better) - more options, more varied AI responses

Internal Politics - social engineering is light years ahead of "hmmm, do I want to be a king or a president?"

City management - Governors are a great improvement (they may screw up sometimes, but if you've got eighty cities, a few mess ups are better than hour long turns)

Combat - the addition of multi-tiered morale levels was a huge plus in SMAC - as was the unit workshop - finally i could give my settlers/formers some armour

The Map - they both sucked (the world is not a tube!)

Sure, there are lots of great things about CivII that need to be incorporated into CivIII - but they are almost all about feel, not game-mechanics. Don't get me wrong, I love the feel of CivII (heck, I still watch the wonder movies) - i just think that SMAC has the better underlying game-mechanics.

------------------
Echinda
"That which does not kill you ... will likely try harder the next time."

[kolpo]

current results:

CIV2:4
SMAC:1

Only vote's for civ2 or SMAC are legal so posts who didn't express there preference clearly(tniem and Adm.Naismith posts) aren't included(otherwise would everyone vote both and won't we be able to see which one is loved most)
But they can still vote for one of both if they want.

[Grumbold]

I'm going to "spoil my ballot paper" too. If Civ-3 is sufficiently close to either Civ 2 or SMAC in all its key concepts I would be very disappointed. Any hack programming house can produce a clone. I'm expecting FIRAXIS to produce a new game with potentially the same appeal and longevity as Civ 2 - which means they will have to introduce some new features that have no relation to any predecessor.

[wittlich]

My vote goes for CIV2 - after all this is CIV3 not SMAC2

[Imran Siddiqui]

Totally disagree with the feeling thing. Civ2 drew you in because of the history and game, yes, but SMAC sucked you in because of great story and the amazing atmosphere.

I'd like a combination of both, but I'd MUCH more like it to be like SMAC, without the unique factions.

So, another vote for SMAC.

[Transcend]

SMAC is clearly the better game of 2. It's unfortunate that many people don't like its atmosphere. I admit that it also took me some time to get used to it, but after I got immersed in its story and gameplay, I found it far more superior to Civ2. If you guys check out the Velociryx's guide for SMAC, you will realize that this game offers far more variations and details than Civ2. The goal of Civ3 is really to combine the great atmosphere of Civ2 and great gameplay of SMAC, and I'm very confident in Firaxis's ability to do so.

[Biddles]

Half these argument points are stupid.

Civ2 had a greater imperial feel - Well of course it did, that was the point of Civ, it wasn't the point of SMAC.

SMAC forced strategies on factions - Bull****. What about civ, it had the same strategy for ALL it's civs.

SMAC didn't have scenarios, it was a scenario - Well Civ3 won't be that scenario anyway.

Graphics - Civ3's graphics are going to be way better we know that.

I'm not going to vote either way. I wan't civ3, not a rehash of either of these games.

[don Don]

The real question on graphics isn't Civ2 vs SMAC, it's TOT vs SMAC, since those are the most recent products from the companies collaborating here. TOT's graphics are even darker than SMAC, and the "3D" units seem to float over the tile (I occasionally find myself moving a unit the wrong way because it looks like it is in the tile above its true location).

Comparing Civ2 to TOT/SMAC is the light and airy feel of springtime to the cloudy, gloomy feel of a Great Lakes winter.

The second problem with SMAC is the uniformity of the units, especially the infantry.

I agree that SMAC felt more like commanding a corporation than a mighty Empire. SMAC didn't have much variety in strategy (attack, attack, attack) due to the 2:1 disparity between attack and defense strengths.