SMAC/AC is better then civ3

[Clutch-3]

Originally posted by Galen Dietenger
I concur,SMAC is vastly superior conceptually to Civ3 in all but a few select areas. Anyone that says otherwise is either a SMAK(Sid Meir Ass Kisser) or simply doesnt speak from experince.

Wow, I've never seen someone so blatantly not respect the opinions of others, especially when it comes to computer games. I guess it's not okay for some people to like some games, and other people to like others, eh? Let's all like Britney Spears for the sake of conformity!

clutch

 

[GeniX]

Me, a SMAK?

If I were, I would think every project he touched was an awesome game and worth every penny.

I do not think that of his other projects. Just Civ I & Civ III.
--

On a different tack, its interesting to read how many people disregard the ENOURMOUS EFFORT put into creating and designing a game of the like of CivIII, whose sheer amount of complexity is above other strategy games on the market.

Sure, maybe you dont like some features. Maybe you are frustrated that the game runs slow, and maybe you cannot play the game because it crashes. But certainly it is not true that Firaxis churned out the project, grabbed the cash and passed the buck onto the publisher.

I am a programmer for a living. Believe you me that I would be a little hacked off if I spent 2 years on a project to be told Im a money-grabber.

Whether you think the project turned out well or not, the time and people invested in this game speaks that the team were dedicated.

As mentioned by someone before, if they had grabbed our money and run, we would not even have a single patch.

 

[calle-76]

Interesting posts everyone!
I am not looking for a totally integrated storyline, just some neat vids when you acomplish something great, this is ofcource not the most important things in a strategy game but it adds to the feel of the game.

The things i liked about smac:
Unit design
Social enginering
Un charter
Planet busters =)
Nervgas
Faction distinctivnes
Air superiority
Graphics
combat system

My biggest gripe about smac is it was far to easy ones you figure it out.
Dont get me wrong here i do like civ3 and its fun to play, but i dont find it complex enough. Thers really not that much to do between turns.
When it comes to units i find that the modern armour is the only unit i need to crush the enemy.

 

[cutiestar]

I agree, I actually always wondered what all the moaning about the air superiority bug was about, because I never use planes at all, modern armour and some transports and the game is over, so yes CIV III is simple on that count, admittedly i play only Monarch , not Diety, but that is simply because i am playing the GOTM right now.

I do think CIV III is a great game though, and I owned SMAC for about 1 week, played it non stop and hated it, then promptly gave the game away to a friend, went straight back to CIV II.

 

[Eliezar]

Cutie I think a lot of people hated alpha centauri right away. I know that I did as did most of my friends that play, but strangely I was drawn into it later. I think that conceptually it is so much better than civ 2 it isn't funny, but there was just something about the weirdness of the futuristic game I think that just made the game odd.

Eliezar

 

[Nodens]

SMAC was good, but for me the AC expansion had two things that made it the best turn-based game I ever played:

1) Playable pirates!!
2) Alien killin' copters with nerve gas!!


I'm really enjoying Civ III as well. I think the resource & diplomacy systems are great, but still, it just doesn't have the same "Ohmygodthatwasfriggingawesome" factor that SMAC/AC had.

 

[Binomag]

SMAC imo was a good solid game, i liked it less than civ 2 cause it gave me a sense of slowness, SMAC never really catched my interest, so i sadly left it parked on the shelf...
Perhaps if i played SMAC without ever played civs before i could have loved it.

 

[Soufie77]

Just my humble opinion but...

For me SMAC just feels too claustrophobic and depressing. The graphics were dreary and red, the unit graphics awful. The victory by transcendence just seemed ridiculous in comparison to the "build an empire to stand the test of time" premise of the civilisation series, where anything you build has a chance of lasting. It just seems disagreeable to me that something you spend some much time and effort building has to inevitably fall apart in SMAC. The planet flora and fauna rebels against you and goes nuts, sea levels rise and the emphasis towards the end is that of escape towards a transcendental reality, rather than gazing proudly over your skyscrapers and vast armored battlegroups poised to overrun or police the remaining 1/3rd of the world.

 

[Rhandom]

Ummm... and having the dominant culture and technology and power on the planet then losing to a stupid UN vote out of nowhere the turn that it is made makes you feel like you are "building an empire to stand the test of time!"?

The rising sea levels was awesome and added a huge sense of fear and paranoia to the game. Much better than the stupid 1 tile changes of Civ 3.