 |
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
I always thought Alpha Centauri was the TBS die-hard game par excellence; the casual gamer could stick with Civ2, but any serious fan would have tried SMAC at some point (and probably enjoyed it).
Hearing that Sid thought that SMAC was a failure because it was too complex is really depressing and funny at the same time. It means that he now thinks of "good games" as "games that sell". This is a really bad way to think about things. A game could be incredibly complex, and still be a good game; people who wanted to enjoy it would have to put up with a steeper learning curve, but they would only benefit in the end. Personally, I was never a pro at first-person games (what can I say?... my reflexes aren't all that great), but the advent of great games like Counter-Strike has "forced" me to learn how to swing the mouse around like any other Quake pro (nah, I'm really not all that good).
Yes, a hard game may turn some players away, but this can be remedied by a good tutorial and campaign scenarios. Homeworld is a perfect example of a very difficult game that is nonetheless a joy from beginning to end. Making the game fun for experts and beginners is smart game design.
Back to the topic of the thread: I think that (at least in Civ), all players should play by the same set of rules. What is really needed is not hack solution to problems of bad gameplay (stupid AI), but a well-designed, smart AI. I'm quite certain this is possible. Whether Firaxis wanted to expend the resources to create such an AI for Civ3 is a another story altogether.
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|