SMAC s****

[GenghisK]

Well, I think I'll be banned from this forum for saying that, or at least I'll be flooded by insulting replies

but I don't like (yet?) SMAC. I've tried it for the 1st time yesterday and I had a strange feeling that it wasn't a game designed by Sid Meier. The ergonomy was not as excellent as Civ2 or Civ1. And for once I didn't sense this typically "Sid's games" fun, that I've always felt when I first played a new Sid's masterpiece (Civ1, Civ2, Master of Orion...)
Well, I think I'll try it again. After all, perhaps the user interface was a bit more complex than Civ2 and that explains my first feelings? Anyway, I'll have another try later. Not immediatly for I think it'll be the same

But that's true it was a strange feeling when I saw the game for the 1st time! I even blamed Sid. Sorry

------------------
Genghis K.
<IMG SRC="http://wsphotofews.excite.com/003/LZ/ic/CX/Kx78690.jpg" border=0>

 

[EdBigHead]

Gotta disagree.

I can understand, i didnt like it a first. it was a HUGE leap from civ2.
I suppose civ2 is a little more superficial, and SMAC is deeper in gameplay. If ou dont like that in a game then I suppose one would hate it.
Give it anotehr try. Keep in mind it isnt supposed to be as pretty as civ2, but it is way more complex and if you give it a good chance i think you could really like it.
what dont you like about it? im curious.

 

[GenghisK]

No, it's the general feeling, I can't sense this so particular fun in a Sid's game. But you're probably right, I'll give it another try.

------------------
Genghis K.

 

[Zeus]

The "general feeling" is VERY different from the Civ games but I agree with BigHead that it is much better than Civ II. I can't think of one part of the game that isn't better or the same as Civ II.

 

[shadowdale]

Well the mood of the game is darker, and it's got a more sinister feel to it when you play, but as a whole I can't agree with you GenghisK - I really love SMAC almost as much as Civ2, and I think that it is much better than Civ in some areas.
But there might be something about what you are saying - how much he actually helped make the game, is questionable - Reynolds probably made the most, it's just that Sid's name sells much better....

------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.

Coolbook:
Håkan Eriksson, Stormerne, vladmir_illych_lenin, Cunobelin Of Hippo, Bluemonday.

 

[RR_Aquilae]

Some days ago I got SMAC, but haven't played it yet (haven't had time). However, I have a feeling that I'll love this game. Perhaps Genghis has just been impatient...

 

[Zeus]

You're right, Sid probobly didn't have as much to do with SMAC as with Civ II. I know it has a "darker feel", but that is perfect for a space game in the 22nd century, you are exploring a new world full of the horrors of mindworms and fungus. Civ III should have the "sunny happy" feel because this is not a time for fear, this is a time to expand and explore, this is a time for CIVILIZATION. (I didn't really make that up, someone else said it but I thought it would go good here

)

 

[Crazy_Vasey]

I finished it inside 30 minutes and never went back to it. It seems to lack some of the compulsive replayability of Civ 2, the attempts at creating a backing story are fairly poor as well IMO. Should have just stook to making the game not adding lame stories.

 

[Zeus]

I heartily disagree completely with you, and if you played it in 30 minutes then you obiously missed the finer points of the game which come in later. I would strongly encourage you to go back and try it again.

 

[EdBigHead]

I dont think the "story" added much time to creating the game. Its just a page of text every so often, and all it does is add richness to the environment.
I agree with zeus with that 30 min comment. The gameplay really opens up in late game.
As far as replayability, i dont get it. Why are people saying it dosent have it? there are 7 VERY distinct factions, which is more than can be said for the identical races in civ 2. Thats 7 different games that you can play without even repeating gameplay.

peace all.

 

[GenghisK]

Ok. To sum up all this discussion there are two distinct sides:
_ those who don't like SMAC because of it's special atmosphere, its lack of fun...
_ those who like it.

Personnaly, I'll take a similar comparison. I'm a fan of both Warcraft 2 and Starcraft. I admit technically, SC is far beyond its illustrous predecessor (ai enhanced, better graphics, etc.) but I still prefer play War2 in networks with my friends. Because there's more fun in War2 than in SC. In french, we would call SC or SMAC a "cold" game. It's a good game but it lacks something "special" (I cannot describe, it's a feeling!) that Civ2 has and that can stick you on the chair.
Anyway, the major drawback I've noticed in all your threads is the general feeling.
But maybe I'm now too demanding?
SMAC is only an evolution, whereas Civ1 and 2 were a Revolution...

In any case, I don't think I can play SMAC as long as Civ or Civ2...

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ifrance.com/genghisk/gk_sig275.gif" border=0>

 

[Anthony Coulter]

What are you talking about, cheesy story? If you assume that those little pages that pop up make the only storyline in the game, you are gravely mistaken. Read the little quotes that appear with colony improvements, secret projects, and tech advances. Read the titles of the books they come from! It starts off with heavy Earth culture ("Declaration of Human Rights," Pravin Lal). As time passes, the books adapt more and more to Planet ("Comparative Biology of Planet" reflects the change to their new physical environment, and the two books "Essays on Mind and Matter" and "We Must Dissent" describe the ethical conflicts of the future.) Starting near the middle and enduring through the the rest of the game, there are some quotes about the annoyance we all have: Mindworms. (Pravin Lal wrote "Mind Worm, Mind Worm" and Provost Zharkov had the "Lab Three Aftermath" monologue.")

You guys need to take a serious look at the culture of the game before evaluating the storyline. I usually dislike storylines in strategy games, too, but Alpha Centauri is the only exception because they did such a good job at it. It fits to however you play, which is a rather impressive show.

Anthony Coulter

 

[TrailblazingScot]

this game is amazing...replayed it for the nth time last night (it was bane of 1st year, now 2nd year geology at Durham).

The story is wonderful...I read the whole 30-40000 word one released on the fraxis site in one sitting and enjoyed it greatly!

The vast number of options, the advanced diplomacy and combat...plus the beauty of random maps as you are discovering a new world.

This game is deeper and more advanced than civ2 BUT is less accessable due to its increased complexity and in many way difficulty -that biatch Yang.

 

[dreadhead7]

Actually, I enjoy SMAC (and SMAC/x) as much as Civ2--perhaps even more. I must admit that I had a hard time with it at first, but now, I've come to love it so much that it's about the only game I play these days.

 

[kundor]

I know what genghisk and the rest are talking about...when I first played SMAC I didn't really like it, and went back to civII. But I just tried it again recently and I suddenly love it! The automation is much more intelligent than civII's, but you can still control Governer cities with the queues, and the many victory options mean that you can play however you want...Another example is nerve stapling. You can deal with drone riots like disorder in civII with buildings or police units, or if you want you can stop it with a button and commit an atrocity. These kind of options are what's great about SMAC.

 

[Father Time]

I've just played the game a little while ago.

I love it. I have too agree with the others: keep playing, it will grow on you. I didn't like it at first, either.

As for Sid Meier not working much on it, it is true of sorts. Brian Reynolds did work on most of it, though Sid helped some.

 

[RedWolf]

I can't be bothered to learn/play SMAC. The first time I loaded it up I thought "What's the point? It's just like Civ only DIFFERENT. I have to learn what all of this crap does".

I know what every improvement and technology advance in Civ does like the back of my hand. In order to play SMAC I'd have to learn these things all over again.. and I just don't have the ambition.

This is an absolute HORRIBLE attitude... considering that the first time I loaded the original Civilization up I said "these graphics are crap.. this game looks dumb". Then I didn't touch it for another 2-3 months. When i finally DID decide to play/learn it I decided it was the greatest computer game ever. (it got bumped down the list when Civ II came out)

So you see... I KNOW my attitude towards SMAC is pig-headed and really stupid.... I just can't force myself to get by it however.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Whenever I think I'm lazy, I will remember you RedWolf

 

[bvd]

I am one of the few who purchased SMAC two years ago before... um ... "procuring" Civ II (out of curiosity, from a friend). Anyhow, I had briefly played the original Civilization years before and having forgotten the concept, I was forced to remaster it in my first game and consult the poorly-bound manual (all of the pages were severed). It took months of intense play for me to even fathom the game's intricate tapestry. I then contrived a few strategies for some of the factions, and ultimately unearthed the game's challenging fun.

Conversely, to me, Civ II lacked an atmosphere, storyline, etc. However, the well-done scenarios acquired via internet were a good diversion from SMAC, and offered hours of fun.

 

[GenghisK]

I tried SMAC again last night... Mmmm, I think I'll try it a third time, later

still not convinced by this game. Oh I finally found a bit fun playing it (funny?) but I don't like it as much as Civ yet. Ok, next time, guys, next time I think.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ifrance.com/genghisk/GKultima.gif" border=0>