Civ III or SMAC: Which do you like better?

[Windwalker]

I am asking the question because I keep hearing people talk about how such and such a feature was in SMAC but not in Civ III... It seems as if the gameplay in Alpha Centauri is more developed, from what y'all are saying... So, purely in terms of gameplay, fun, balance, and challenge (no historical or realism considerations), is Alpha Centauri better than Civ
III? Professional reviews have given the edge to Civ III, but I think a lot of reviewers would feel pressured to give Civ III a great score, no matter what they think of it...

So what do you think and why?

- Windwalker

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Hooray! 100% of people agree with me. Oh, wait.... I'm the only one who's voted

Here's some similar polls from February 2002:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16938

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14253

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15711

Personally, I like Civ III better because of exactly what you said: blue water and green land. Of course culture and resources and expanding borders, etc.. also kick butt, IMHO. My only regret is that some things that could have improved Civ III were in SMAC and not carried over.

 

[Padma]

Err, what Sparrowhawk said.

Blue water, green land, resources, culture, etc.

Yes, I miss some things from SMAC, but I like Civ3 Better!

 

[seghillian]

I prefer SMAC as the better game. It's got a very innovative story line, customised units, more strategic options, borders, interesting choices for government, more options on start up and interesting and distinctive factions. The terraforming is good (although I wouldn't expect that in CIV III) and the interaction with the flora and fauna of the planet is intriguing, a feature you can battle against or use to your own advantage.

The colour scheme COULD have been better but hey, it's an alien world and needed to look different from Earth. CIV III is good but has a number of irritations which prevent it being a masterpiece like its predecessors CIV and CIVII. IMHO.

 

[Mr Spice]

Yawn.

Civ 3 could use some of that fine diplomacy in SMAC but is overall a better game.

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
Personally, I like Civ III better because of exactly what you said: blue water and green land.

Don't you mean blue water and greenish-yellow land?

Once again I vote for SMAC as the superior game but with the provisio that I still enjoy Civ3 a great deal.

Getting rather tired of all these polls on the same subject though...

 

[Selous]

civ 3 has much better graphics .... got the culture and trade stuff ... air combat is much much better than it ever has been in anyother 4x game to date ..... but then all these improvements were on civ2 ... not AC ... and civ3 had that half arsed editor ... i dont think AC had one ... but then i never felt the need to use one in AC as i can build any unit i can conceive anyways

AC has much MUCH better units for flexability and ACTUAL differences between the different factions based on available teck rather than blanket such and such a civ will build there UU .... rather than just a token unique unit ... diplomacy is FAR superiour to civ3 ... and civ3 was supposed to be so diplomaticly orientated ... AC has landmarks, AC has 3D terrain, AC has the option of blind research, AC was included with multiplayer and was implemented quite well (the server wasnt ... but that is another issue) ... AC has a council that u could make world desisions ... and the big one IMHO ... AC had a living earth ... forrest grew, climate and rainfall could be altered by various methods, the oceans could be raised and lowered

i think AC had vision and added much to the genere and the gaming world, and civ3 is a rehash with a few bells and wistles added so no one would notice that it is the same game that has been made twice before ..... the trade in civ3 is a progressive step in the genere but too few improvments with FAR to many features missing that have been included in previous games in the genere

 

[Citizen_K]

I agree.

 

[Mr Spice]

I liked the ability to design your own units in SMAC too. Unfortunately the AI could not use it. IMHO Firaxis was right in removing it and concentrating on a few well defined units whom they could learn the AI to use effectively.

Terraforming was a great concept in SMAC, but I can not imagine how it would fit in Civ 3. Condensators to increase the amount of rainy terrain, and so on. Where is that present on our planet today? When did we ever deliberately change the climate of our planet in a controled way? (Greenhouse effect is not a valid answer in this context...)

And so forth. I would have liked to see more of SMAC diplomacy present in Civ 3 though.

Civ 3 beats SMAC in one very important aspect. It has far superior AI. As mentioned, trade and culture are also a great step forward.

Speaking about the SMAC (and Civ 2) editor, well I miss it. But Firaxis will most surely create a better one in the near future.

 

[Windwalker]

Originally posted by Jimcat


Don't you mean blue water and greenish-yellow land?

Once again I vote for SMAC as the superior game but with the provisio that I still enjoy Civ3 a great deal.

Getting rather tired of all these polls on the same subject though...

Hey I haven't been on the forums that long (about 2-3 weeks), so I haven't seen any other Civ III vs. SMAC polls... Sorry if it's redundant, to me it's new

- Windwalker

 

[Jimcat]

I liked the "living planet" aspect of SMAC with the expanding forests and fungus and the two competing ecologies. What I didn't like was the "raise and lower terrain" aspect of terraforming. You start out with a colony that can't even make it back to orbit without many years of technology and infrastructure building, and they have the ability to raise and lower MOUNTAINS? I'm sorry, I know it's science fiction, but that was the one aspect of the SF technology that I couldn't get behind. Even with the exotic power sources you discover towards the end of the game, altering the planetary landscape seems to me to require too much energy and sheer logistical complexity (how many MILLION dump trucks of rocks does it take to raise a 1000 meter mountain?). Condensers, boreholes, and echelon mirrors would have been enough in the ecological engineering department.

But oh well, I didn't write the game... just learned to play by its rules.

 

[rockhpi]

Both are fine games, but in SMAC I always missed the feeling of the grand sweep of history. I like going from a little tribe to spacefarers. In SMAC I didn't get that from upgrading from one type of laser to another. I didn't mind the red and toward the end if you were planting forests you added a lot of green anyway I do feel that Civ3 desperately needs the "add a civ" function that SMAC had rather than replacing old civs when you make a new one. SMAC just added the new faction to the list of ones to pick from.

RockHPI