 |
|
Protra3211
|
|
Patcon - what I meat was that the creative genius of Sid is in his games he makes. Its more than money it takes talent and creative focus . Without that he never would make any money at this in the first place
Also why not have pride in what you do. I work as a machinst and try to respect what I do .Without it your just a slob.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Senethro
|
|
Keep the OT out of here pls.
Theres a very good reason why SMAC AI isn't as comparatively good as Civ3 AI. As Civ3 is a simpler game its easier to tell the AI players how to evaluate a situation and what moves they should make. In SMAC I'm lucky if I can make my AIs build a few colony pods.
This may be the reason why many active SMACers at 'poly are also PBEMers. As a long time player of strongly competitive games I am quite distressed by the casual Civ players' hermetic single-player-only behaviour.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
thinkingamer
|
|
Btw, I love History to death and I do not care nothing about star trek, star wars, etc.
Yet I thought Alpha Centauri was way better than Civ3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
thinkingamer
|
|
One must know that one thing that SMAC really suffers is the learning curve. Back then even after i beat Civ2 few times in dety level, learning SMAC was at least as hard as relearning Civ game from scratch.
If u get past that, the game is superb. Better diplomacy, lots of faction "personality" (which makes Civ3 civilization look like a Age or Emp. 2 rip-off), more options, etc. etc.
Civ3 had better AI.
I hope firaxis would not make the same mistake; I did learn from my mistake (after buying civ 3) that I should never buy a pc game before I read any of the fan reviews.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:37
|
|
I think another reason for making Civ4 may be an attempt to restore reputation. They blew Civ3 and they know it, Sorens broadly published presentation proves it, IIRC it was even named "Don't blow it" or at least similar. Civ3 was made under very bad circumstances, this may be a reason for it. Many enjoyed it, myself included, but overall it was a disappointment, in many ways short of what it could have been.
Making a Civ4, which is as enjoyable as Civ2, as complex as SMAC, as moddable as CTP1/2 and at the same time simple to handle and immersive - with other words squaring the circle - is a great challenge and if it is coming out as well as it looks now, deserves our high tribute.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LarryLard
|
|
London
Sep 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pandaemonium
Civ 3 wasn't as good as Alpha Centauri, and Civ 4 won't be, either. I'd pay 50 bucks for a copy of Alpha Centauri before I ever spent a dime on Civ 3, because it's a much much better game, and I don't think Civ 4 will be any better.
Alpha Centauri has more depth, personality, and mystique than a Civ game can possibly have. I just don't see the point. |
What you have written here is an answer to you asking yourself the question "Why should I buy Civ4?". But that is not the question of the thread. It seems to me that as the thread started, the least you could do is actually give an answer to the question you yourself posed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Senethro
|
|
Brian Reynolds ftw
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Protra3211
|
|
The passion of the Civ fans is great Patcon. I would bet that your good multi player.
I think Sid wants to bother because he has many hooked to his games for life.
Also sites like Apolyton must have been key in helping the creation of Civ4 as many of us would bother the Sid team on what we wanted out of Civ4
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
He didn't provide evidence for high complexity in Civ than SMAC, either. I respond in kind. |
That's common knowledge. One doesn't have to prove everytime that an elephant is larger than a mouse. One has a look at both and will know. Not that the proportions would be the same as in SMAC vs Civ3, though.
Much larger and more complexly woven tech tree. Better balanced government types. Social engineering. Unit workshop. I am not an expert in SMAC, played it not nearly enough and too far ago to list it all, but I am sure others can. It is not very hard to beat Civ3 in complexity. Even the often scolded CtP2 does it.
What concerns the AI, here I disagree a bit with the originator of this thesis. Yes, the SMAC AI has it harder due to complexity differences. But that's not enough to justify its lacking performance. Even if taking this in account, the Civ3 AI is still better.
With this I don't want to say, that it is perfect. I have seen too many outright stupid moves, it is easy to exploit it, you can lure units and it bites, everytime. It builds wonders in one shield cities. It switches to governments just because they are available, even if it is a poor choice. It still tends to engage into bloody stupid world wars under communism in the industrial age and let the human surpass. Only a few examples. And other than the SMAC AI I can say, that I know the Civ3 AI very well.
As I heard, the Civ4 AI will be improved a lot. I hope this will come true and am anxious to see it in action.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
That's common knowledge. One doesn't have to prove everytime that an elephant is larger than a mouse. One has a look at both and will know. Not that the proportions would be the same as in SMAC vs Civ3, though.
Much larger and more complexly woven tech tree. Better balanced government types. Social engineering. Unit workshop. I am not an expert in SMAC, played it not nearly enough and too far ago to list it all, but I am sure others can. It is not very hard to beat Civ3 in complexity. Even the often scolded CtP2 does it.
What concerns the AI, here I disagree a bit with the originator of this thesis. Yes, the SMAC AI has it harder due to complexity differences. But that's not enough to justify its lacking performance. Even if taking this in account, the Civ3 AI is still better.
With this I don't want to say, that it is perfect. I have seen too many outright stupid moves, it is easy to exploit it, you can lure units and it bites, everytime. It builds wonders in one shield cities. It switches to governments just because they are available, even if it is a poor choice. It still tends to engage into bloody stupid world wars under communism in the industrial age and let the human surpass. Only a few examples. And other than the SMAC AI I can say, that I know the Civ3 AI very well.
As I heard, the Civ4 AI will be improved a lot. I hope this will come true and am anxious to see it in action. |
all good points. I agree.
Civ3 ai isn't as bad as everyone says. Everyone expects perfection. I feel the Civ3 ai is pretty good at using defensive terrain. Sure it slows them down. but it often puts it's units up in the mountains and hills. And I have a hard time rooting them out. But they aren't perfect, as sometimes they do these things at the detriment of their city defenses.
And they are better at ship landings (amphibious assaults). they still aren't anywhere near the level of a human. But I have seen the English drop off 8 powerful units next to a city of mine in the Napolean scenario. And yes they did take my city. I took it back easy enough. But it shows they can at least prove to be more of than just a minor annoyance. In SMAC you're lucky if they drop off more than 1 or 2. Part of the problem is early transport units don't hold much (especially the slow unity transports), and the AI doesn't get rid of them. And the example I used isn't the best since it's a scenario which the AI was given ample resources and the navy to start the game with. But even in the epic game, the ai can do a better job at keeping it's units up to date (assuming you are at a high enough difficulty level that the AI isn't hopelessly behind in tech)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
 |
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
I think the Civ3 AI is better then SMAC's. However, Civ3 is also a game of preset unit designs, simple tech charts, and well known strategic values for evaluating its situations. That gives its AI creator an edge.
SMAC's AI also uses preset unit designs. It was just easier to code. However, people beating on SMAC should remember it's AI came first, and many of the advances of its AI was then carried back over to Civ3! Civ3's AI *should* be better.
Now, SMAC's main AI problem is this: It isn't tuned for SMAC. It is a *fantastic* Civ2 AI. But it is a really poor SMAC AI. Why? Air Power. Rover Roll Over (the old chariot rush). Crusader Crush. SMAC gave back the old AI challenge and problems from Civ1, if you look at the game's balance. But it added in a lot of behavior that all of Firaxis's later AIs use. Building up for an invasion. Marine assaults (it will actually dropping off enough resources to take its target, occasionally.) Better ICS (yeah, I said it, what of it?).
If they did a SMAC 2, frankly, I'd expect it would have a better AI then Civ4. Why? Because it is a later game. All the Civ4 tricks should be in the SMAC 2 AI. Of course, if the AI isn't tuned for SMAC, that will leave it an easier target to beat.
Some people don't like SMAC's easier do it yourself gameplay. Some people don't like SMAC's SF setting with techs that have nothing to really get a handle on to understand what it is supposed to get you. Some people don't like it's ugly colors. If you reskinned SMAC with Civ2 look and palette, people would really like it. Rename the techs a bit, and Civ fans would think it's one of the greatest Civ games ever. That's just how it goes.
I look forward to trying out Civ4, with the distant hope it will be as fun to play as I find its older ancestors. But I really look forward to SMAC 2, because that is more likely to be a better game. Why? Because Firaxis will be able to change more things in the game, trying to make a better, more enjoyable game that they will want to play. Let's face it... Civ cannot make huge jumps forward. Civ has to take baby steps. Firaxes cannot try out something too radical or too different in Civ without the danger of alienating the Civ core. But SMAC? It's a wild, out there concept. They can try out all the radical ideas that they want to play in a game. And then, once tried and proven, take the good ideas back to Civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
thinkingamer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dis
why is that?
The learning curve was easy. Shields became minerals. trade arrows became energy. food became nutrients. What's to know? |
Well, if you put it that way yes, the changes are close to nothing. It has been more than 3 years since i stopped playing Civ2,3 and SMAC, so now, I cannot how to really explain the differences in detail.
Trying to learn SMAC after beating Civ2 few times in deity level is like trying to learn how to play Victoria or Heart of Iron after mastering Europa Universalis II (paradox games)
Trying to learn Civ3 after beating few times in deity level in Civ 2 is like trying to learn Age of Empires 2 after mastering the first Age of Empires.
I know it is not the best comparison (specially for those who never played those age series or padadox historical games), but for those who have played these games knows for sure that its fairly decent analogy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darkstar
If they did a SMAC 2, frankly, I'd expect it would have a better AI then Civ4. Why? Because it is a later game. All the Civ4 tricks should be in the SMAC 2 AI. Of course, if the AI isn't tuned for SMAC, that will leave it an easier target to beat.
(SNIP)
I look forward to trying out Civ4, with the distant hope it will be as fun to play as I find its older ancestors. But I really look forward to SMAC 2, because that is more likely to be a better game. Why? Because Firaxis will be able to change more things in the game, trying to make a better, more enjoyable game that they will want to play. Let's face it... Civ cannot make huge jumps forward. Civ has to take baby steps. Firaxes cannot try out something too radical or too different in Civ without the danger of alienating the Civ core. But SMAC? It's a wild, out there concept. They can try out all the radical ideas that they want to play in a game. And then, once tried and proven, take the good ideas back to Civ. |
Yes, SMAC 2 should be an opportunity to be a test lab for more radical ideas.
I'm afraid I'm not sure if Firaxis is ready to try a concept different from the 1/3 new, 1/3 improved, 1/3 old, for anything is a sequel, to be frank.
I'm all for a more mature, dark and tense script on the line of the SMAC escape from the collapsing Earth. Future is not bright anymore.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2005 04:08
|