Why is this game so damn good? And when will we stop playing?

[Dis]

I posted this in the other games forums, but I like this idea, so I'm posting it here. Now all I have to do is get their phone numbers. All I have is Paris Hilton's useless phone number, why can't hackers release phone numbers of game designers.

I've been playing too much KOTOR2 and SMAC recently.

Last night I dreamt I was playing a game that was a combination of both of these games. Which I think is a great idea. I'm going to call up Brian Reynolds and Chris Avellone. Sure Brian isn't doing those types of games anymore, but I'm sure I can convince him.

They could create the ultimate sci-fi strategy rpg game. Wouldn't that be cool?

[Dis]

I didn't realize you could play with ever faction the same (without messing with the txt files). I'm playing a game with everyone as the gaians. That could be intersting. Does it cause any problems?

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by Dissident
I didn't realize you could play with ever faction the same (without messing with the txt files). I'm playing a game with everyone as the gaians. That could be intersting. Does it cause any problems?

I recently CMN'd a game where all humans were Cultist, and all AI's were Gaian (Hobbes "Cult of Worms and Fungus" game). There is no problem in setting up a game thus, other than the confusion of having several clones of the same Faction participating in the same game. The "solution" in this game was to use original names for each city, accompanied by an identifying letter as to which Faction a city belonged to.


D

[Kaboth]

You can get SMAC overload but you can never forget SMAC; its such an incredibly immersive game and is one of the best examples of video games as an art form. 30 years, 100 hundred years nothing will stop "those wise enough to recognise this deep thrumming of our common pulse."

[CEO Aaron]

Why is this game so damn good?

Brian Reynolds.

And when will we stop playing?

Never.

[BlackCat]

Four years of playing and still not bored - I guess I'll stop when my last HW/OS capabable of running it breaks down (luckily I have three machines that can, so if I'm nice to them ....

[molly bloom]

Other than games based on history, I've never found a game that gives so much, in terms of background, analysis, depth, mysteries, variation, subtle shading, and of course at times, teeth grinding frustration.


Usually when you end up one neighbour away from Yang who completely crushes your next door neighbour who has just discovered Doctrine: Air Power before you have adequate air defences in place.

Those blue planes just keep comin' over and going pop pop boom on your crawlers and formers....

[korn469]

Well it's been years since I've played SMAC, and I don't know if I will ever play it again. The game has one major shortcoming and that is a completely inferior AI. I guess I could reinstall if and try to play multiplayer, but I don't have the time for PBEM. So I guess it's possible to try and find an IP game or something, but I'm not going to do that.

Having said that I do think that SMAC is a great game. I spent hundreds maybe thousands of hours playing it and it entertained me quite a bit, possibly more than any other game I have ever played. I think part of the reason I won't go back to the game is that I've mined out all of the enjoyment I could possibly get from the game, and any further play would simply result in disappointment because the shortcomings of the game would still crop up. Maybe in a few years I will change my mind and play it again, I can't say for sure.

Anyways out of all of the civ games (Civ, Colonization, Civ2, SMAC, Civ3) I think that SMAC is probably my favorite. It has the best imersion factor by far, and that's what makes it so great. The back story, although purposely incomplete, certainly seemed to follow a path. From the data files in the original SMAC it seems like the Gaians won by a transcendence victory after wiping out the Spartans or seizing the last of their cities after worms had wiped them out. The tech blurbs, the wonder movies, all of the little touches is what made this game so great.

As far as gameplay goes, I think that Civ3 surpassed it in many ways. If you examine the data files closely it seems like Civ3's culture system might have been in either in protypical stage and not ready for primetime yet, or a passing though that SMAC never realized. It seems like their is a resource called psi that cities could have generated at one point. Yet they never implemented it in the game. So culture, along with leaders, real air missions, armies, drafting, mobilization, different city levels, small wonders, global unit support, and those are the ones I can think of just off the top of my head, make's SMAC game play obsolete. Yet SMAC certainly has the best diplomatic model, and social engineering far surpasses governments. Both of those two things not only make the game more enjoyable than Civ3, but add just as much to the game's imersive quality as the back story. When I'm rampaging through Zack's territory and he begs me for mercy, by signing up as a submissive pact brother, that's classic. Just as fighting Yang to the death after a PB exchange. Then trade income, sanctions, Talents/workers/drones (SMAC has a much better implementation than Civ3), etc, certainly means that Civ3 either took a few steps sideways or back. Then as far as game balance goes SMAC has better balance in some ways. I never felt limited by SMAC. SMAC never constrained the player, and it always seemed like there was something interesting to do. Civ3 felt like it had a straight jacket around players so that they wouldn't blow out the AI by too much. That resulted in running out of things to build in the later stages of the game, units that didn't seem balanced at all (while unlikely or almost impossible spearmen could beat tanks in Civ3, so high tech units usually couldn't dominate...all of that research and shields spent on those units for nothing while tech was almost TOO dominating in SMAC), and while many of Civ3's design decision helped the AI it left me with an empty feeling after playing the game. I felt channeled into one single way of playing the game, because every strategy seemed to require the same playstyle, and the game had no personality or polish. SMAc had tons of personality, intellectual polish, and let the player decide on how they felt like laying. It was far easier to roleplay in SMAC. However, the AI certainly didn't understand all of the implications of the rules, and couldn't really use any of the units besides land units, and Planet busters. If SMAC had of had Civ3's no collateral damage rule then the AI would have been far more competitive. As it was I could set up a choke up and have like three elite rovers with slightly better tech than the AI that could take out stack after huge stack. Then if you consider how humans could use crawlers or choppers compare
to the AI this usually meant the death of the computer.

Graphically SMAC is a mixed bag. I think that SMAC's main map is ugly and doesn't have enough differences, and the unit design wasn't good at all. Wonder screens, wonder movies, and other little touches were quite nice. The main problem with the main map in SMAC is that it only had three different variables: altitude, moisture, and rockiness. Also altitude was fairly stilted so that it always resembled rolling hills. If SMAC could of had more extreme differences in altitude (not higher, just the ability for more abrupt altitude changes), and factored in temperature (yes Alpha Centauri needs snow!) then the map might have been better. As it is, without forrest or the monsoon jungle, it always looked like rooling hills in a desert. Although graphics don't really matter that much, they do make some difference, and I don't think it has aged that well. I think that SMAC could have used a Civ2/Civ3 approach to the map to have achieved a better presentation in the long run.

I guess I'll finish this since it's became far longer than what I expected. SMAC is the best of the Civ series because it has rules designed with players and not the AI in mind. It also has a wonder back story, and tons of nice little touches that imerses the player in the game. I will never forget my first few games of SMAC. They filled me with a sense of wonderment, exceitement, awe, and I felt like I was genuinely exploring a different word. I hadsn't felt that since my first game of the original Civ, and I didn't feel it as intensely as I did playing SMAC. All of the little things added up to make the sum of the parts more than any little feature. Seriously tiny things like the screen that recorded the dates of important events had a large impact on the overall intellectual presentation of the game. SMAC had fairly ugly graphics, but that didn't deter me from the game. It had horrible AI, which ultimately killed my fun. It's one thing if the AI couldn't have ever beat me, but it seriously couldn't handle some parts of the game (like air units). This made me feel like I was shooting fish in a barrel everytime I played, and If I didn't have a completely easy game it was because I was slipping at some point. I mean I had a transcendence victory once in 70 some turns, hell it might have been in the high sixties, (though zso-zso beat my record with an amazing game as the gaians if I remember correctly, I knew I couldn't beat him, because I remember thinking "this is my best game ever, I'm playing at the limit of my ability). I like that SMAC respected the player. I fear that Civ4 will dumb down the civ series far more than civ3 did, instead of elevate it like SMAC. Maybe good AI can only come from such restraint, but I hope not. Social engineering, the planetary counsel, and diplomatic interactions certainly have no equal in the civ series. I would say that SMAC's social engineering even beats Paradox's slider system, though more in interesting strategic consequences and imersion rather than total ability to customize your civ. SMAC certainly gave the player strategic choices, whereas Civ3 didn't. Now if only they could combine all of Civ3's gameplay improvements into SMAC's frame work. That would be the ultimate game to me.

[Dis]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Four years of playing and still not bored - I guess I'll stop when my last HW/OS capabable of running it breaks down (luckily I have three machines that can, so if I'm nice to them ....

interesting though. I was thinking of recycling my old computers (I just don't know anyplace that takes old computers), but I may keep them just to play this game.

[Dis]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Other than games based on history, I've never found a game that gives so much, in terms of background, analysis, depth, mysteries, variation, subtle shading, and of course at times, teeth grinding frustration.


Usually when you end up one neighbour away from Yang who completely crushes your next door neighbour who has just discovered Doctrine: Air Power before you have adequate air defences in place.

Those blue planes just keep comin' over and going pop pop boom on your crawlers and formers....

Variation is the key I think. In civ3 I actually enjoyed the game, but too oftem my empires look the same, and I have to play the same exact way to win.

There's many more ways to win in SMAC (I'm not talking victory conditions, but tactics).

[Net Warrior]

Regarding the weak AI, I think of the AI as training wheels when you are 1st learning to ride a bike. The AI was very tough to beat initially and gradually you learn the game and then it's no contest. That's when the fun really starts; once you graduate to PBEM's. Now, to me, that's what makes this game so great. It's the community that has evolved around this noteworthy game, both here and at CGN.

[Kaboth]

Wow Korn469 you obviously understand the merits and problems of both games very well. I couldn't have explained it so well

[#endgame]

It's the techquotes for me.

[Ka Plewy]

Originally posted by korn469
Well it's been years since I've played SMAC, and I don't know if I will ever play it again. The game has one major shortcoming and that is a completely inferior AI. I guess I could reinstall if and try to play multiplayer, but I don't have the time for PBEM. So I guess it's possible to try and find an IP game or something, but I'm not going to do that.

PBEM's take virtually no time, a friend and I play a couple of games a year this way. When we get large, maybe 1/2 to hour per turn. We play long drawn out builder style games.
IP games take a lot of time all at one sitting, PBEM spread that time out. I honestly can't see how you don't have time for a PBEM, if you think you might have time for an IP game.

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by korn469
Well it's been years since I've played SMAC, and I don't know if I will ever play it again. The game has one major shortcoming and that is a completely inferior AI. I guess I could reinstall if and try to play multiplayer, but I don't have the time for PBEM.

Actually several of us CMN have been building SP Challenges for you all to play. Many new discoveries have been made by CMN to enhance the AI's in games, as well as broaden the gameplay in general. Some of the hilights are as follows:

- finding a beached Unity Wreckage and discovering a Unity Submersible (instead of a Unity Mining Laser). There are now many examples of different units replacing traditional "popped" units.

- AI's initially given satelites to make up for their lack of crawler usage. This has been proven to mimic a human's crawler usage quite closely!

- CMN's giving AI's "Ghost Secret Projects", which amounts to the CMN giving an AI the effects of a Secret Project in a game, without actually having to give the actual SP to the AI. This strengthens an AI's hand, while not arousing a human's desire to conquer them (because its a "Ghost SP" why there's nothing the human can conquer to posess...), as well as still allowing human players to still compete for the real SP.
So try some of our SP Challenges, and see if they arouse your interest in the game once more!


D