 |
| |
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
Well I have no hard info about it, but here's a couple of things that you might want to consider.
The first and most important thing to consider is that as far as I know, EA owns the rights to SMAC. So if firaxis was going to do SMAC2 it would have to negociate for those rights with EA. You may want to check into this and make sure that EA does indeed own SMAC and just didn't publish it, but I'm fairly certain that's the case.
Secondly SMAC has Brian Reynolds handiwork all over it. I think it is more than a coincidence that many of SMAC's themes and storyline have philosophic overtones, especially since Brian Reynolds has a philosophy degree. In some ways I think that SMAC is the thinking man's civ. I think it would probably lose much of its personality if anyone besides BR created a sequal for it.
Another thing to consider with BR and Firaxis is the way he left in the middle of developing Civ3 to start BHG. Certainly even under the best imaginable scenario, in which BR wanted to do something new and he was burnt out on TBS games and he had the opportunity of a lifetime with BHG getting a publishing deal with Microsoft, that there would have to be some hard feelings over his departure. Since most of SMAC's hands on development team went to BHG I'm sure that few people working at firaxis feel attached to SMAC. They may even feel that hey it's BR baby and even if we could get the rights to it we wouldn't want to do it for any number of reasons...payback, mutual respect, etc.
Then as franchises go I'm sure that civ is much larger, much more recognizable, and much more profitable than SMAC. My brother always called it Alpha Civ, and I'm sure that most people just think of it as Civ in space. If I could do a Civ5 which would come out between a year and a half to three years after Civ4, or a SMAC 2 to come out somewhere between seven to nine years after SMAC came out, I think I would go for the more recent and better established franchise.
I woukd say that the best hope for a SMAC 2 would be somewhere down the line Brian Reynolds wants to make another TBS game and BHG negociates and gets the rights to it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
I took a look at civ4 preparation and ideas that people contribute, and some little feedback from the civ4 designers - i am almost certain that civ4 will not be for players who love SMACX.
Asking Brian Reynolds if he might consider making a sequel to SMAC in some future with BHG would be some way to go. Nothing like asking him to actually do it, but just simple question - any chance BHG would see fun in making it, and possible profits when it comes to selling it. It may be viewed by us, hardcore players, as extremely interesting game, though they have to live from something...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
Maybe write a short letter to him from Apolyton community about how much we still love this game? Or maybe he already gets such letters in tones every month...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaboth
|
 |
Wollongong
Dec 2003
time: 05:22
|
|
SMAC never got the appreciation and commercial success it deserved. I think perhaps because it may have been released a little early for its time.
I love the Civ franchise but I really do not feel to excited about Civ4; not because of the possibility of even more dumbed down gameplay or anything I'm just rather tired of the whole play through history idea. I've done it numerous times in Civ2 and 3 and the idea has been flogged to death in numerous RTS, TBS Civ clones.
SMAC came out hot on the heals of Civ2 which is beloved by almost everyone unlike Civ3 and I think people were still keen on playing a Civ Sequel back then. Had SMAC been released now or even after Civ4 I think it could be more successful as gamers looked for a change in environment, playstyle.
Civ's gameplay can never be as fresh and unique as SMAC's because it must be Constrained to the passage of history to remain plausible
quote:
Hey! Who wants to play Diablo XXXVII? I think we are approaching a dark age of computer games. Even big deal titles like Halflife 2 and Sims 2 really haven't energized the industry the way their predecessors did. |
I totally agree with you there hasn't been a pc game that really rocked my word for innovation and fun since Warcraft 3. There have been some excellant games like UT2004 but they have done nothing to advance the genre. The ammount of History based Strategy games and WW2 based shooters is discraceful. I think the PC games market really went through a golden age in the late 90's but now there is very little variety. I've actually bought a Gamecube to supplement my gaming because I find good PC games in short supply and with huge reqs. It was a good decision to I loved playing through Metroid Prime and Prime 2 very much different to your typical shooter. How about the ID FPS titles I don't think their gameplay has advanced since Quake 2; a venerable 8 years old now.
Last edited by Kaboth on 27-02-2005 at 16:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sntml
|
 |
Moscow
Feb 2003
time: 08:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mart7x5
I took a look at civ4 preparation and ideas that people contribute, and some little feedback from the civ4 designers - i am almost certain that civ4 will not be for players who love SMACX. |
No doubts.
quote:
Asking Brian Reynolds if he might consider making a sequel to SMAC in some future with BHG would be some way to go. Nothing like asking him to actually do it, but just simple question - any chance BHG would see fun in making it, and possible profits when it comes to selling it. It may be viewed by us, hardcore players, as extremely interesting game, though they have to live from something... |
From another point of view a question can be asked: why to do the seqel? Is the original game so bad(except bugs)?  Grafics is too old and simple? Again, as we understand, TBS with 3D grafics as main feature is not for us.
Mmm.. and we already got almost the seqel - SMAX. IMHO. Nothing, but increase in quantity, nor quality (even decrase in it). And, at last, the experience, that says: thing, that already done well,.. it will not be done second time. How can we create Zakharov again? It will be just Aki-Zeta five. The prime-function . We cannot just take sand from the beach to produce new SMAC.. at least if humanity will not make nuclear war on Planet in AC system...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sntml
No doubts.
From another point of view a question can be asked: why to do the seqel? Is the original game so bad(except bugs)? Grafics is too old and simple? Again, as we understand, TBS with 3D grafics as main feature is not for us.
Mmm.. and we already got almost the seqel - SMAX. IMHO. Nothing, but increase in quantity, nor quality (even decrase in it). And, at last, the experience, that says: thing, that already done well,.. it will not be done second time. How can we create Zakharov again? It will be just Aki-Zeta five. The prime-function . We cannot just take sand from the beach to produce new SMAC.. at least if humanity will not make nuclear war on Planet in AC system... |
improvements in graphics and sound of course.
But the big one would be improvements in the AI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
the problem is SMAC didn't sell that well considering all the great reviews it had. I'm sure they made a profit, but it wasn't a blockbuster title. |
I remember seeing a few years ago a number of copies of SMAC sold. It was around 250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousands)
I payed for my game $35 just after release (price for Costco members) in stores it was like $40 i guess. Later game went cheaper. And it does not include recent releases by EA. So let us say it was like 250,000 times $20 more or less. We get 5 million dolars. It has to be split among developers, producers sellers, etc.
If we consider that the game took for development some months or years - that may be not much. It all depends how many people had to work on it and how long. Considering though there are a lot of movies, which make less than 5 million dollars, that is quite a number.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
fender
|
 |
Welland
Apr 2004
time: 00:22
|
|
This SMAC situation reminds me of another game that needed updating. I used to love to play a racing sim called Sports Car GT. I played it for years, and learned how to make cars for it, and the community for it is still huge to this day.
We were also talking, hoping and praying that ISI would put out SCGT 2, but they never did. Instead, they teamed up with EA Sports and did F1 2002 and F1 Challenge '99-'02. Both amazing F1 sims, but not GT racing.
As you may have guessed, the "community" modded the living crap out of the later game F1C, as it is easy to mod, and somewhat of F1 2002. The result is well over 70 different mods, each one is far better than any dream I every had of what SCGT 2 might be and some are just amazing, like the GTR mod.
My point is. I think this is the best chance for SMAC 2. A modded Civ game. I don't know which one, or even if there is one good enough to mod, as I don't play the Civ series. I really do think this is the answer though. There is hope.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
|
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by fender
This SMAC situation reminds me of another game that needed updating. I used to love to play a racing sim called Sports Car GT. I played it for years, and learned how to make cars for it, and the community for it is still huge to this day.
We were also talking, hoping and praying that ISI would put out SCGT 2, but they never did. Instead, they teamed up with EA Sports and did F1 2002 and F1 Challenge '99-'02. Both amazing F1 sims, but not GT racing.
As you may have guessed, the "community" modded the living crap out of the later game F1C, as it is easy to mod, and somewhat of F1 2002. The result is well over 70 different mods, each one is far better than any dream I every had of what SCGT 2 might be and some are just amazing, like the GTR mod.
My point is. I think this is the best chance for SMAC 2. A modded Civ game. I don't know which one, or even if there is one good enough to mod, as I don't play the Civ series. I really do think this is the answer though. There is hope. |
then get to the civ4 suggestions thread and demand they make the game more moddable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dacole
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by livid imp
Pray to the Great Cosmic Muffin that Civ4 will include many of SMACs better features.
Maybe we should all spam Brian Renyolds with adoring, flattering requests to make SMAC2 for years on end |
You got an email address for him so we can? I would be up for a campain to send him emails!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zoetrope
|
 |
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Sep 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Unit design like that in SMAC would be good, if they make the unit list quicker to navigate. (Perhaps i should reduce the number of designs i keep current, but the principle of planned convenience remains.)
All lists, e.g. the list of bases, should remember the last visited position, so i don't have to scroll through many pages every time to modify the next base. (Of course it would also be good if more could be done while in the base list.)
Stack-movement: the slowest unit in a stack should determine the rate of movement. Stack commands: as many of a stack of units as it makes sense for, should respond to a command. An obvious example is a stack of formers.
Graphics: units move fast when off-screen. They should also move quickly while visible, so the players don't have to wait for ages while a hundred units take the same journey (or different journeys). The only occasion when we want to dwell on an individual unit is when something significant and new occurs in its vicinity, such as spotting an enemy unit for the first time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Quezacotl06
|
|
but consider the deeper philosophical question of whether there's another SMAC coming out:
How can you make another Alpha Centauri?
That game's one in a million and we'll probably never see something like it ever again. I'd rather play Galactic Civilizations instead of ruining the name of Alpha Centauri with disappointment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zoetrope
|
|
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Sep 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Petek: yes, that's getting close to what i have in mind. There is so much potential in the stack/grouping concept, intelligently implemented.
livid imp: with the J commands we can move 32 formers, but I don't want to see all 32 formers move. It's worse when each 1 pauses for any reason, waiting for me to give it advice on how to progress. I want to see 1 movement of 1 stack.
1 stack should be 1 unit. A compound unit, to be sure, and that's the aim: to be able to combine any number and variety of units into 1 object, an army as it were. An army that has a single graphical representation (a glyph), and that can be issued orders exactly as if it were 1 unit.
That's one way to remove many of the chores of micromanaging large numbers of units that, in the human mind, serve a common purpose. What is a chore? To give exactly the same instructions to a large number of units because the game doesn't provide a way to tell them all to act in unison.
I already think of each unit as a collective, as a conceptual shorthand for all the staff and machines that must really be involved. Why not enable us to create our own larger collective units?
Even if we only allow homogeneous stacks, it would be a great improvement. Then any number of former units can be instructed to merge into one "larger" former unit, and we can give it all the same commands as we now do a "single" former unit. Likewise, a fleet of needlejets could be sent on a single bombing mission, which would not involve sending each jet over in turn. Sure, this is just doing the same as giving each one the same command, but with _much less effort_. So it ceases to be micro-management, and begins to become a humanly controlled macro-management.
When the tedium is taken away, we see _more easily_ beyond the tactics to the strategy, as strategy becomes more worthwhile. It also makes the computer players stronger, because large scale combos automatically create a concept of concentration of force, which as we know is largely absent from the existing SMAC AI. Why? Because once the game designers provide the right tools, they will know how to design the AI to use them.
Heterogeneous stacks of a small size were implemented in Call To Power, so it can be done, though it would have to be done very well indeed to work cleverly for large numbers of diverse units. Imagine the AI that could handle a stack comprising spies, formers, infantry _and_ hovertanks, especially when one such stack comes under attack by another. Quite a programming task, but worth it if exceptionally well designed. The stack's behavior would have to be brilliantly (re)programmable by the player! I'd love to see that! And i do think it very possible, if sincerely planned for from the beginning of the game's design.
That's what I visualise. May it come to pass.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-02-2005 15:45
|