One more RANT. Stop Comparing C2P with SMAC. SMAC is nothing more than CiV2 expansion

[Davor]

I like Sid Myers Alpha Centauri. I am tired of people saying C2P is not as great as the other games like Civ2 and SMAC.

Why am I tired of this? 'Cause people just say Civ2 or SMAC is better and dont say why. They say that C2P didnt make and new innovations and is just to different than Civ2.

Well now that I think of it SMAC is nothing more than an Expansion Pack for Civ2. SMAC might have different units but they are just the same. HIT DEFENCE MOVE are all ONE at the begining just as in Civ2 but with different names. They only improved SMAC a bit but its the same game as Civ2. Only difference is the tech system and trade system. I like that you can custimize units also. But all in all it the same as Civ2.

So for the people who complain about C2P2 with SMAC you cant. You put C2P2 down you put SMAC down as well cause all it is a glorifed Expansion Pack as well.

Give real reasons to nock of C2P2. like the bugs or what not. SMAC had bugs as well untill fixed.

I love Call to Power 2 now and it can use improvments but its still a great game. Give real reasons to put it down.

Davor

PS I am tired of complaing about the bugs in this game and did wish Activison kept their word and really did QA TEST this game. I am all through with ranting and raving now and enjoying the game immensly now.

[skorpion59]

If you are through ranting and raving, I would like to borrow your thread to rant myself.

I am tired of every new post proclaiming they have found another 'Bug' in CtP2 which Activision should immediately fix. Most of the problems people are reporting are not 'Bugs'. They are hardware/software compatability issues and there is a big difference. If you don't know enough to know the difference, then post your problem but leave out the 'Bug' comments. You'd think you were getting paid for every new 'Bug' you report.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.....

[jkadabomb]

SMAC basically changed the setting of Civ2 and added some more personality. The other only major change was being able to customize your units. Thats about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Very shallow way of looking at the best game in history .

Did you forget about borders? What about the AMAZING diplomacy? How about Social Engineering? Customization of Units (oh you mentioned this, guess you paid attention to SOMETHING, at least)? The beautiful 3d map?

The diplomacy and various factions and how they played off on each other (coupled with the story - Great stuff), made it worth the $50!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Very shallow way of looking at the best game in history .

Did you forget about borders? What about the AMAZING diplomacy? How about Social Engineering? Customization of Units (oh you mentioned this, guess you paid attention to SOMETHING, at least)? The beautiful 3d map?

The diplomacy and various factions and how they played off on each other (coupled with the story - Great stuff), made it worth the $50!

[Dale]

Pity it sold over here for $90!!! I'd buy any mediocre game at $50.

All in all, I say stop complaining and comparing. Civ2 may be the best Civ-type game ever (which I do heartily agree with ) but CTP1 & 2 are different games. I'm sure if YOU came up with a civ-type game it'd be different to Civ, SMAC and CTP, and we'd all end up moanin' and groanin' over how crap YOUR game was. I say credit where it's due: Civ was the first of it's kind, and unbelievable when I first played it on my ol' C64 (which I still have). Civ2 to me was basically a port of Civ to other platforms and enhanced to modernise it. But it was different to Civ in MANY ways and therefore a different game. SMAC due to story and factions etc, was also a different game. Personally I didn't like SMAC. All it was, was a build and destroy game. I'll play Red Alert over SMAC any day. CTP was Activision's vision of Civ, and I must say I enjoyed the game. Well done Activision for your attempt. In CTP2 I'm happy that a lot of annoying things in CTP seem to be different. This with the enhancements of borders, city radii and whatnot make it a different game to CTP1. Civ3 when it comes out will be a totally different game as well. Why is that? Because as more versions are coming out, different things are being catered for. In Civ2 we demanded better graphics and ease. We got it. In SMAC we wanted Civ in space, and we got it. In CTP2 we demanded borders and more diplomacy. We got it. Not everyone is pleased with any game. Personally, I like all 5 games because of the different things they offer and cater for. I feel if you want to complain about stupid things like I see in these forums, then come up with your own Civ-type game and let us rip it to shreds so you see what it's like.

------------------
Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."

[jkadabomb]

Borders are something I dont consider that major considering they are not that hard to implement. Diplomacy in my opinion wasnt that much of a difference other then the fact that I thought they had alot more personality. Also designing my own units seemed more of a nuisance to me and I always used the premade units. And social engineering is more like an expansion on selecting governments.

[MrFun]

SMAC's terrain was too BORING and PLAIN. It was all red, green and blue. I stopped playing it simply because the bland terrain got sickening! (ok that's exaggerating, but still . . .)

[Davor]

The game play in SMAC is the same style of play as in Civ2. move a settler here to found city. then use a unit. (i forget what its called in SMAC) or settler to make roads and land improvements. Same style with different interface.

Davor

[jkadabomb]

Oh ya I actually hated the SMAC graphics. Especially the terrain. That was an eyesore. I also hate SMACs sound.

[jkadabomb]

Oh ya one good thing that I can give SMAC is the fact that you dont need the cd to play it so I got it for free.

[ACOLKitty]

But SMAC's AnotI could attack.

[BUSHIDO]

ok you are right about all the complaining about c2p but a must disagree with you on the fact that smac is a expansion this is a totallt new game with some problems but is good and it is fun. why? because you can design your own units and believe me if i say that you can build very powerfull units. civ2 was and is still the best civ game. but c2p I and II are great. But smac is just as great as c2p I and II.

------------------
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
-Sun Tzu- 'the art of war'

[Spiker22]

quote: Originally posted by Davor on 01-01-2001 10:02 PM The game play in SMAC is the same style of play as in Civ2. move a settler here to found city. then use a unit. (i forget what its called in SMAC) or settler to make roads and land improvements. Same style with different interface. Davor

It's called terraformer. In SMAC, you could end up with dozens of lingering terraformers all over the map. Also, I don't think you need to worry about trade at all in SMAC. It's been automatically taken care of after you've signed a treaty with or became the Pactbrother of some other faction.

[JC Denton]

I kinda didn't like SMAC cuz the futuristic setting wasn't as immersive as it could have gotten. I think the future techs and units in CtP2 are way cooler...


PS i also didn't like the terrain graphics in SMAC (and graphics overall). CtP2 is perfect for me