Beyond Earth, the spiritual successor to Alpha Centarui... not really.

[gamle kriger]

we need an Alpha Mod for this game. It's so obviously inferior. It's a complete waste of time to play at a lover level than the hardest. There are SO many concepts from Alpha missing, and perhaps worst of all. The units are more limited than in Civ 5. WTF? In the future you can't figure out building artillery until you're ½-way into the game? The concept of helicopters lost? And don't even get me started on the missing sci-fi units like hover tanks. Also the closest thing you can come to a nuke is a dirty bomb? Who is leading the factions science departments Heisenberg? We need an Alpha Centauri mod to make this game great ... and I've been waiting since the early 0's for this ... PS why are the IAs so peaceful? This game is flawed, imbalanced, ilogical, and a huge dissapointment. Having said that I'm now playing at the hardest level and is hoping it will get better with additions

 

[Dalerian2]

This might be a issue of expectations and what not, but I still think it's worth addressing. I came into BE thinking it would be something like a squeal to Alpha Centauri. Now I knew it would PLAY like Civ V, that's not what I'm talking about. What Civ:BE is missing is the personality, depth, atmosphere, the "life" that Alpha Centauri had. Game play issues aside, Civ:BE really dropped the ball with it's narration and story... <snip>

Awesome post that hits so much of what I'd love to see improved in this game. Bravo.

SMAC wasn't perfect - as noted, the end game could get dull (I remember putting units on massive automarches around the world just to get them out my turn queue). The colour palette got in the way.
No matter how awesome the opponents were as multidimensional characters, with only 7, they wore out a bit.

But putting all that aside, there's so much depth in that game that I'd hope a spiritual successor to come closer in spirit.

There's potential in BE. I'm hoping between balance patches, modders, and some kind of mechanic change that brings personality to the faction leaders, hopefully it can be realised.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

I played AC after Civ 5 and i really enjoyed it. I enjoyed it so much that i even moded it's horrible horrible tech tree.

Most of the OP's complaints about CivBE are valid and i agree with them. AC had a menacing atmosphere as well as a very depressing ambient sound (which was very very fitting). From this point of view AC is superior hands down.

Gameplay wise AC felt unique, but it wasn't necessarily a better experience. It's difficult to explain and to pinpoint it's individual failures, but there are a lot of them. Here is my personal short list of things i don't like in AC: Squares, ICS, tech tree, doom stacks, "clean" minerals, water cities.

Personally i think that both games should be played as neither is perfect.

The atmosphere was beyond menacing. I could never tell if its the color palette or the sounds or even if its intentional but I was majorly disappointed they chose a cartoony style for Civ BE.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

If you want to increase the atmosphere in CIV:BE there is one thing you can do: turn of the music, turn off or reduce the effect sounds, set Ambience sound to max and zoom in abit.

I am not kidding - the sweeping wind does evoke that feeling of loneliness, while the chirping birds of the Terrascapes give you a feeling about the lush paradise you have created.

 

[BSPollux]

And it shouldn't be spared criticism just because its a Firaxis game.

This seems like a strawman argument. Or maybe I missed the point where someone said it should be 'spared' because of it being developed? Seems to me like you just attacked a point noone ever tried to make here.

what's sad is how little money it would have taken to get a better writer and a handful of voice actors. That'd solve half the flavor problem. So easy.

Paying someone more money doesnt increase his talent. And we don't know if your preference matches mainstream preference. So we don't know if spending more money would have help you and we dont know if it might have even made things worse for others.

The thing is, the game isn't as good as even Civ 5. Civ 5 with all expansions has far more depth and interesting game mechanics, as well as better presentation thant Beyond earth does. Even more so if you use mods.

I played Beyond earth for like a few hours, got bored, and then simply started a new game of Civ 5 with mods instead, and I found it much more fun.

Could you please tell me/us where you see the big diffrence in depth? Specificaly that, 'depth'? I read that word quite regularly here but I am unsure about the actual definition in terms of civ.

The trick is to do it with the least amount of money you can get away with.

And they got away with it too... this time. Metacritic score is sitting at around 8/10 (lol), user score at the more realistic 6/10.

Sounds as if you unhappy with the idea to show both of these values? Do you think that a random inet poll is more precise?
And: I know being cynical is totally cool right now, but maybe you could at least concider the possibility that some guys at Firaxis tried to make a good game?

Writing budgets being far down on the list of priorities is, sadly, also an extremely common feature of modern game companies. Most of that is our fault, the fault of those of us who buy games. Unfortunately, a majority of us don't care about that stuff, we'll happily buy something with writing that looks like it was banged out by a chimp with a typewriter as long as the graphics are pretty enough or the hype machine strong enough.

Are you capable to back up even a single one of these claims?

The thing is it's not like Firaxis lacks the ability to hire good writers or create a good sci-fi atmosphere. I think they did an excellent job with X-com. It's the sheer lack of effort that bothers me as much as anything else. If they hired a few good voice actors and made some relevant quotes, it would be significantly better than what we have now.

How can you be sure about that 'sheer lack of effort'? Couldnt it be they tried and failed (in your opinion'?

 

[kingsbury]

Paying someone more money doesnt increase his talent.

No, but paying people more does allow you to attract higher level of talent or retain high level talent.

 

[BSPollux]

No, but paying people more does allow you to attract higher level of talent or retain high level talent.

I'm quite sure you can't back that statement up. People get payed more because of theire past. You can not meassure someones talent by his paycheck.

 

[L4ntis]

and personally, after couple of CivBE games, I found CiV BNW suddenly became much more enjoyable than before I played BE, Just my opinion.

I feel the same! After a couple of BE games, i played CIV BNW again and found it a lot more enjoyable, even the map felt so amazing

Btw i agree with the OP. I didin't expect a SMAC 2, but BE didin't get even close...

 

[cinattra]

BE is the game many of you having been crying for. A game where each leader/faction/civ started neutral.

It was a given the game would not be fully immersible. That typically takes a couple of expansions to achieve. Heck, many of us want another expansion for Civ5 and how many updates, tweaks and expansions has it had already???

Let BE be it is not SMAC! Many of us would take a graphically updated SMAC and be ecstatic. BE will develop a mood and drama. Let's patch up gameplay and then work on the theater of it all.

 

[kingsbury]

I'm quite sure you can't back that statement up. People get payed more because of theire past. You can not meassure someones talent by his paycheck.

Professional sports are a great example of this. The more skilled and productive a player is, the higher the amount of money they will command on the open market. In addition, players that you have seen develop and improve their skills often will command more money when their contracts are up.

The analogy works perfectly well for the business world, where companies with more money are able to attract people with higher talent as well as prevent people from leaving their company by offering competitive offers.

And you very well can measure someone's talent by their paycheck. A 19 year old construction worker doesn't get paid 200K+ a year to do brain surgery because they don't know how. This however is measuring talent, not of course worth as an individual or other intangible qualities.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Could you please tell me/us where you see the big diffrence in depth? Specificaly that, 'depth'? I read that word quite regularly here but I am unsure about the actual definition in terms of civ.

Religion and ideology are both gone. The UN is gone also. Culture now doesn't matter very much. You don't have to care about public opinion anymore. The fact that you can customize each faction gives you some more customization choices, but most of those choices are variations of "do you want 1+ production or 1+science?" which isn't very interesting. Not to mention that it also means the different factions are all basically the same since no one faction really has any special abilities other than the sponsor bonus, resulting in boring and uninteresting civs.

There appears to be only one effective strategy to winning the game in BE: Kill everybody. You can't really dominate the world in any other way. The game reminds me a lot of the way Civ 5 use to be before any of the expansions were released. The only thing about Beyond earth I would say has more depth is the spy system. The tech tree probably has more depth in that it gives you more choices, but it's also very hard to understand and I don't like it at all.

 

[kingsbury]

There appears to be only one effective strategy to winning the game in BE: Kill everybody.

I second this.

 

[Chaos Blade]

I second this.

I'd say Kill Everything works too. that way the aliens won't feel lonely, but I agree too.

Worse the other victories are very do your own thing and bongo, there is no real conflict towards endgame, even with different affinities sitting one by another.a And the AI is rubbish at war.

 

[kingsbury]

And the AI is rubbish at war.

Meh, I don't think the AI is at bad at war as some people like to pretend. It obviously could use some work, but I think it presents at least a reasonable challenge.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Sounds as if you unhappy with the idea to show both of these values? Do you think that a random inet poll is more precise?
And: I know being cynical is totally cool right now, but maybe you could at least concider the possibility that some guys at Firaxis tried to make a good game?

On the contrary, the user reviews value is much more appropriate. The game reviewers 8/10 score is a marketing fabrication - because its bad from a sales point of view to have your game dip below 8, so companies will go to great lengths to have 8 and above.
Its a fabrication because 8/10 should mean "very good" game, and Civ BE is not a very good game overall.

Intentions aren't really important at this point. The facts are that they released a game that could be described as incomplete/lacking in content and that they ignored known Civ V problems entirely.

That is my opinion after playing many games for many years. I detest the "it'll be fixed with patches, DLC and expansions" logic and find it absurd.

 

[Chaos Blade]

On the contrary, the user reviews value is much more appropriate. The game reviewers 8/10 score is a marketing fabrication - because its bad from a sales point of view to have your game dip below 8, so companies will go to great lengths to have 8 and above.
Its a fabrication because 8/10 should mean "very good" game, and Civ BE is not a very good game overall.

Intentions aren't really important at this point. The facts are that they released a game that could be described as incomplete/lacking in content and that they ignored known Civ V problems entirely.

That is my opinion after playing many games for many years. I detest the "it'll be fixed with patches, DLC and expansions" logic and find it absurd.

I agree with the above.

But, man, This forum needs a like button.

 

[Drakarska]

Meh, I don't think the AI is at bad at war as some people like to pretend. It obviously could use some work, but I think it presents at least a reasonable challenge.

Hmnn, just out of curiosity, what is your classification of "presenting a reasonable challenge"? and in comparison to what games? I'm not being snarky here, I honestly would like to know what you consider a baseline as.

 

[kingsbury]

Hmnn, just out of curiosity, what is your classification of "presenting a reasonable challenge"? and in comparison to what games? I'm not being snarky here, I honestly would like to know what you consider a baseline as.

Depression Quest had a pretty robust AI.

 

[Bitwise]

That is my opinion after playing many games for many years. I detest the "it'll be fixed with patches, DLC and expansions" logic and find it absurd.

I don't see how that logic ever held water. How can you review what a product might someday become? You have to assess the game as it is today. It fine to hope that DLC, patches and expansions improve things, but you can't count on that happening.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Are you capable to back up even a single one of these claims?

Yeah, I'm sure I could. But it seems obvious to me that you're firmly in the camp that thinks Firaxis can do wrong and that the game is above criticism, no matter how valid, so I find I have no desire whatsoever to engage you on that level.