Some recovered alpha.owo threads online

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Xuenay
Okay, apparently the thread stored as 11/000152.html (in the "Non-SMAC Related" forum, called "A Good Laugh -- Testing") contains a virus ( http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/joke...JOKE_150ALERTS ). If you downloaded the archive, don't open that thread.

NOD32 didn't find any virus in that archive. Either it's a false alarm or NOD32 can't find it. My personal guess is a false alarm, if it was scanned first with Trend Micro's scanner, because they're not the most reputable antivirus program vendor. Actually their performance in independent audits has been quite bad.

Nonetheless, I've now replaced that file with the new one. However this one is a ZIP archive.

http://www.stellapolaris.info/alpha.owo/Alphaowo.zip

[Solver]

Originally posted by yin26
On another topic, has anybody noticed how poorly reviewed Rise of Lengends was? I tried the demo myself and was horribly underimpressed. In my view, ROL might well be the biggest faulter of Brian Reynolds' career. Does anybody have evidence to the contrary?

From what I've seen, RoL appears to be merely RoN rehashed in a slightly different setting. In that case, it's hard for RoL to gain critical acclaim, if it's seen merely as a rehash.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Solver
Most gamers, while they have heard of Civ for sure, have hardly played Civ games, or SMAC, or CtP. That's no indication. But among strategy gamers, SMAC is a known classic.

You said the game was acclaimed outside the strategy community, which is ridiculous and untrue. Virtually noone outside the strategy community has even heard of the game. That is certainly a very important indication when you're talking about acclaim.

There's a good reason why it has an all-time highscore in the PC Gamer magazine.

Magazine/online reviews are absolute ****e and meaningless. I still have a clipping on my wall of a review that praised vanilla CtP2 for it's great AI and absence of bugs. And scores, what little they are worth, represent 1 persons opinion. If you check gamerankings.com, SMAC is the 75th best game according to the reviewers (which is fair I suppose, but not brilliant), but only the 1555th best one according to players (which is not very good at all). Of course, gamerankings.com isn't the end-all and be-all of game rankings, but it's a hell of a lot more representative than a single review.

And within the strategy community SMAC isn't thought that highly off either, I even know plenty of people who haven't heard of it (or for whom it perhaps sounds vaguely familiar but who certainly haven't played it). TBS is a very small niche of the strategy community and within that niche it might be considered good by some but outside it it's a pretty obscure game. Here on Apolyton it might be big, but DUH! This is AFAIK the only active SMAC fan community on the web, what do you expect? Apolyton is however only a very, very, very small subsection of the strategy community world-wide. Most non-civvers and even many civvers don't think too much of the game (assuming they know it), myself included.

It's amazing, Locutus, how you managed to be unfairly harsh towards all games except CtP and Civ4 .

Again, SMAC and CtP, and Civ4 for that matter, are different games. Me saying SMAC is not a widely acclaimed game is something completely different from me saying it is utter crap and CtP and Civ4 are the only games worth playing. You and DrSpike are putting words in my mouth.

[DrSpike]

Hehe, not really. The bit that made me respond was the "mediocre at best" part of your post rather than the point about wide acclaim, which you are probably correct on.

Also, since the "medicore at best" part followed directly on ("And with good reason") from your view that 99% of gamers had never heard of SMAC, I was forced to point out that the percentage of gamers that had heard of CTP (a game you consider better than mediocre at best) would probably be lower. Just to redress the balance, you understand.

I agree with you that Solver's original post you responded to overstated the case, but his later restatement is fair. SMAC is an acclaimed strategy game, and, to the extent comparisons can be made, more so than CTP. But that last bit is just to stir.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Locutus
Most non-civvers and even many civvers don't think too much of the game (assuming they know it), myself included.

Have you even played it?

Anyway, Civ4 is basically a SMAC remake (some parts better, some parts worse), so if you think Civ4 is a good strategy game, then SMAC is one too.

[DrSpike]

I think it's a lost cause.

[spartak]

Cor - blast from the past. Amazing how many OWO posters are still around in some incarnation or other.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Maniac
Have you even played it?

Obviously, or I wouldn't be commenting on it.

Anyway, Civ4 is basically a SMAC remake (some parts better, some parts worse), so if you think Civ4 is a good strategy game, then SMAC is one too.

Hardly. SMAC = Civ2 + Unit Workshop but with even crappier AI (Worst. AI. Ever. Makes even unmodded CtP2 look good), UI, graphics, etc. Civ4 is SOOO much more than that (it probably borrows more from the CtP games than from SMAC, but the funny thing is that most people haven't played the CtP games enough to realise it). SMAC isn't terrible, but anyone who thinks it's more than a mediocre game is delusional (but of course I can't blame anyone for that, looking at those abominable graphics for too long is bound to have an effect on one's sanity).

[DrSpike]

Dodged replying to me I see.

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by Maniac

Anyway, Civ4 is basically a SMAC remake (some parts better, some parts worse), ...

Good try but your message clearly needs a modification - instead define:
some = wrong;

[Solver]

(Worst. AI. Ever. Makes even unmodded CtP2 look good)

The SMAC AI is crap, but not crappier than unmodded CtP2. I daresay I know a thing or two about AIs, and I certainly don't need to tell you what sorts of flaws the unmodded CtP2 AI had. I've played games of unmodded CtP2 where I took two units, declared war on an AI, and was able to wipe out 80%-90% of their civ by taking empty cities, without getting counterattacked. Not to mention that the AI would leave captured cities undefended on the next turn.

I can't be surprised about you calling me delusional , however.

And yeah, people, Civ4 really borrows quite a bit from CtP. It's sad, though, that the majority on this board can't recognize it. Undeniably, Civ4 also takes some elements from SMAC, but CtP is a very significant influence, no less significant than SMAC there.

Of course, I'll never entirely understand why most people regarded CtP as an utter mess.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Solver

(Worst. AI. Ever. Makes even unmodded CtP2 look good)

Of course, I'll never entirely understand why most people regarded CtP as an utter mess.

Solver, you can but lead them to the well, but they have to drink from it themselves

[Nikolai]

I've never tried CTP, but I did try CTP2, and even with that unofficial expansion it was far from my cup of tea.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Imran is in that thread, jimmytrick too... Also, it seems people took more effort to write posts back then.

naw, I'd say my posts now are better. Scary thought isn't it?

I was Krushala back in those boards btw. If anyone cares.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Any Off Topic threads?

I mostly hung out there as the wars of the SMAC forum kept getting nastier and nastier (until the utterly toxic end). Would be nice to see Brother Greg and the boys one more time .

Anyway, Solver is right. Strategy gamers KNOW SMAC.

off topic is always the place to be. . That's mostly where I was. that and the strategy sections.