Open letter to Firaxis

[DemonDeLuxe]

That's indeed a shame, and I'll indeed be looking out for that game (I collect "oldies but goodies" as a hobby =)).

Ah, just to top it off: Download it here: http://dc.warzone2100.de/dle/index.php?subcat=33 . The site is german, but you might find it understandable anyhow - the link I just posted is the direct link to the download page. It's absolutely legal, because the game has actually been given to the public doman in 2004, including source code!

Sometimes it's the choice of the game itself. The RTS market is unfortunately a bit saturated and filled with clutter, so it's somewhat hard to shine in that arena.

So true, especially since there seems to be a tendency to steadily improve the graphics and effects, but to neglect gameplay ideas. You might find that Warzone actually differs quite a lot from many RTS games out there: Just one resource type, but (with the latest patch) roughly 500 techs - and you CAN'T simply research them all, so you have to decide what way to go. You design each and every unit yourself but combining chassis, armor and weapon (or special function), rsulting in i-don't-know-how-many million different unit types, you have indirect fire, hovercrafts, flying units... the only really bad aspect is that pathfinding is quite bad, especially on badly designed maps.
But, okay, enough about Warzone

(And yes, most game websites and magazines are paid to write only good things about a game. These mediums rely on advertising money to stay afloat, and the games they are reviewing are the ones paying for those ads).

That's right. Luckily, in Germany we have at least ONE computer magazine (c't) that is quite famous for not doing this. Games are just a minor point in their repertoire, however.

As for the qualities of SMAC, I like to compare it to a fine wine or brandy - SMAC doesn't strike you as great until you've played the game for a while. Once you've got a few games under your belt however, you begin to realize just how deep the game is compared to Civilization.

Exactly my feelings. And I remember how I outright HATED that one "Sister Miriam Godwinson" for those snobbish pseudo-religious comments, while I LOVED Mwabudike Morgan and Professor Zakharov. Imagine that someone could feel the same towards a CIV4 leader? Hardly so.

I personally loved the game so much that I would have been happy to see Civ III be an almost carbon-copy of SMAC, with the setting being the only change (I felt that the setting, though great, was nonetheless inaccessible to most gamers, hence the need for the broader appeal of a "Civ" setting).

May I have your baby, please? Pretty please?

Civ IV, at least, seems to be a step back towards the depth and immersion of SMAC.

Hmmm... I don't really see any much increased depth, unfortunately. Granted, religion is a new element that could add to the overall complexity, but in the way it's implemented, it really doesn't. This is a built-in design glitch IMHO because you know even early on that at some point it will be irrelevant what religion your cities have. This totally eliminates all possibilities of pursuing the spread of certain religions as a strategic element. Basically, all that counts is having as many religions as possible, which is connected with quite a bit of tedious micromanagement. Then again,when I refer to CIV3, I actually mean C3C with the "Rise and Rule" mod. In the comparison, CIV4 really doesn't look too good.

And just to add irony to this all, I'm a marketing guy myself! =)

Ah, there must be the odd marketing guy who is not a total idiot - otherwise your whole branch would have persecuted and burnt long ago, considering all the evil you spread