Good old Games

[Malcador]

Space Empires IV now available.  Pretty fun 4X game, only played SE3, 4 and 5 and I liked this one the best.  Would have expected it to be cheaper than $9.99. Edited April 25, 2013 by Malcador

[greylord]

SE IV is pretty awesome.  That's the one I initially started on though, never tried III, I do have V however.

[Hassat Hunter]

http://www.gog.com/promo/ea_weekend_promo_030513?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=game_subject&utm_campaign=ea_weekend_promo_030513

 

Got Dungeon Keeper 2 and Theme Hospital. Not sure if anything else suits me. But definitely a lot of good games there for cheap...

[Humanoid]

Odd that about 90% of the EA catalogue is on sale but a few stragglers. Unfortunately the only one I particularly want, Strike Commander, isn't included. Only a half dozen sale titles aren't already in my library.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri for 2.5$ was too good to pass up.

[Rosbjerg]

Yeah I bought AC too back when it was at a similar price.. It's one of my favorite games of all times, the quotes alone (as you so amply demostrated in another thread) a worth the price..

 

while I haven't played them, I've heard good things about Jagged Alliance 2: Unfinished Business and Lionheart

 

 

Well Lionheart is both really good and bad at the same time.. It's a very interesting setting (one I would love to see a game explore better), but gameplay is horribly repetitive and badly executed. I've had a lot of fun fun in coop though.

[Drowsy Emperor]

SMAC is easily the most thought provoking computer game ever made. Although PST has some claim in that department as well.

 

I always considered Civ a weaker work, not nearly as seamless as SMAC and much more of a game. Going from SMAC's serious atmosphere to the happy Ghandi and Hammurabi in the silly land of Civ 4 was a shock to me.

 

I stopped playing SM games at that point.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[melkathi]

Love the new avatar Col. Corazone Drowsy

[Drowsy Emperor]

Why thank you private.

[Enoch]

SMAC is easily the most thought provoking computer game ever made. Although PST has some claim in that department as well.

 

I always considered Civ a weaker work, not nearly as seamless as SMAC and much more of a game. Going from SMAC's serious atmosphere to the happy Ghandi and Hammurabi in the silly land of Civ 4 was a shock to me.

 

I stopped playing SM games at that point.

 

I think of SMAC as the 4X/TBS game for RPG fans.  It is unrivaled in atmosphere, narrative, exploration of interesting themes, and character development.  It even has a crafting element in the custom-designing of unit prototypes.  But it is also generally true that RPG fans are more tolerant than most of weak gameplay design, and SMAC has more than its fair share of that.  The factions are not particularly well balanced, and there are some rather transparently exploitable strategies. 

 

The Civ games (well, at least the post-SMAC Civ games) work better as 4X/TBS games, IMO, but don't have that unique RPG-crossover appeal that SMAC does. 

[alanschu]

I agree that the gameplay of Civ4 is much, much stronger than Alpha Centauri.  I haven't played Alpha Centauri in soooooooooooo long that I should give it an assessment again.  Though admittedly there is some level of being afraid of nostalgia.

[Malcador]

Helps to be free of the shackles of history I suppose, if I recall Reynolds mentioned something of that in the manual (well written manual too), will check when I find it. The ability to design units, modify your civics was great fun coming from Civ 2.

[alanschu]

That is true.  I think that that is the strongest aspect of Alpha Centauri.

 

The Civics was phenomenal as well (although I typically didn't deviate from my favourites, mostly because I was dumb).

 

Civ has the problem of not really having any "surprises" when it comes to the tech tree, whereas it's a fresh new journey for Alpha Centauri.

[Enoch]

That is true.  I think that that is the strongest aspect of Alpha Centauri.

 

The Civics was phenomenal as well (although I typically didn't deviate from my favourites, mostly because I was dumb).

 

Civ has the problem of not really having any "surprises" when it comes to the tech tree, whereas it's a fresh new journey for Alpha Centauri.

 

Yeah, I loved the "blind research" option.  Which is another very role-playing-ish option that strategy-gaming folks would likely disdain as inefficient play. 

[Rosbjerg]

I only once tried playing without blind research.. hated it.

 

 

I always considered Civ a weaker work, not nearly as seamless as SMAC and much more of a game. Going from SMAC's serious atmosphere to the happy Ghandi and Hammurabi in the silly land of Civ 4 was a shock to me.

 

I stopped playing SM games at that point.

 

Yeah basically the same for me.. I've logged around 50 hours in total between Civ 4 and 5 and most of that is multiplayer with a friend (who paid for them, so I felt obliged). I still play Civ3, but the only game I always come back to is SMAC.. It feels so damn immersive.

[alanschu]

I find that interesting, because I don't even recall a "blind research" option.  I was more just discussing the fact that it's researching new things.  No level of "If I research Iron, I know I'll get swordsmen."

 

I wonder if there's a level of "RPG gamer" vs "Strategy gamer" element at work here, and that Alpha Centauri has a stronger appeal to RPG/Narrative type experience compared to Civ (which is more through and through just "strategy")

[Enoch]

I find that interesting, because I don't even recall a "blind research" option.

 

It's one of the game options you can select at launch.  Instead of picking a particular tech each time, you have 4 general research areas, and can choose to emphasize any or all of them.  I think they were shorthanded into "Explore," "Build," "Conquer," and one other that meant pure blue-sky science, like the theoretical physics techs.  The game would then choose for you which tech was up next, in line with your general guidance.  As I see it, that makes what would be a pure strategic-thinking decision into one that is tinted by roleplaying-- Morgan would be all about Building, while Deirdre probably would emphasize the "Explore" techs, as they help to understand the nature of Planet. 

[alanschu]

 

 

It's one of the game options you can select at launch.  Instead of picking a particular tech each time, you have 4 general research areas, and can choose to emphasize any or all of them.  I think they were shorthanded into "Explore," "Build," "Conquer," and one other that meant pure blue-sky science, like the theoretical physics techs.  The game would then choose for you which tech was up next, in line with your general guidance.  As I see it, that makes what would be a pure strategic-thinking decision into one that is tinted by roleplaying-- Morgan would be all about Building, while Deirdre probably would emphasize the "Explore" techs, as they help to understand the nature of Planet.

 

Oh I understand, it's just something that I never recall using.  I wonder if the game succeeded (at least critically) in part because it could appeal to both roleplayers and strategy gamers.

[Rosbjerg]

Yeah I think it did, the interludes are actually very rpg'ish in nature now that you mention it.. That and it feels more adaptable, for lack of better words, with costumizable units and government types. Something I never felt with the Civ games (even civ5), where it's all just a complex simulator rather than a unique story.

[melkathi]

Thing is, Alpha Centauri managed to unobtrusively tell a story where noone seemed to think a story could be told, and noone since has tried to tell a story. You could follow it, embrace it, ignore it - it as your choice. You could see the factions as just colours on the map (the way I see others in civ games) or you could see them as the characters that were far more fleshed out than Civ ever will be able to do with historic leaders. And all the while you could enjoy a depth through unit design and social engineering and even terraforming, that the Civ searies has barely touched upon.

So were the pirates in the expansion completly overpowered? Sure. Was green rush pre-expansion (and the nerf that came with it) overpowered? Again, sure. For me it was simple: I didn't play as pirates and I avoided the cheese tactics when I didn't want a cheesed game experience: problem solved

[alanschu]

Admittedly I saw the factions mostly as "colours."  I didn't care much for the story at the time, as I picked it up for strategy gaming.  I am guessing I'll be picking up the game again via GOG soon...

 

I'm curious if it was seen as "not worth the effort" because of people like me?  Or just in general.  I typically saw Alpha Centauri as a "Sequel" to Civilization with the space victory, but despite absurd critical success (well deserved), I wonder if maybe it underperformed sales wise.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The expansion is very unbalanced, (and the new factions went a bit over the top for my tastes) but the original game is more or less balanced.

The more combative factions are pressed into offensive strategies at the expense of choice. Like how its very hard to play Sister Miriam any other way than as cheap unit spam and hoping for early victory.

There are cheap ways to break the game, sure, but that's something to be expected in a game that's so complex.

 

But overall SMAC had flavor which is actually supported by the gameplay: the capitalist makes money fast, the fascist has the best troops, the totalitarian is very hard to assault, the ecologist is faster at working the planet than anyone else etc.

In most games gameplay blatantly disregards flavor for the sake of balance, or the benefits and drawbacks that flavor brings to factions/classes/ whatever are so slight as to be non existent.

In SMAC the faction traits coupled with the amazing social engineering made for radically different societies, which really played differently. 

 

And it doesn't have Civ's random mixing of historical periods and personalities that grates on my nerves. 

Edited May 8, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[alanschu]

The Escapist does mention it's the worst selling of all the Civ games.  Speculates that that, as well as possibly Reynolds not being involved, are primary contributors.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Or it could just be the hard sci fi theme.

 

Or the simple fact that Civ is one of the best selling games of all time, so all comparisons are going to be a tad unfair.

 

Its like saying its the worst selling bottle of Coca Cola of all the bottles they ever released.

[Humanoid]

I wonder if the sales figures include Civ:CTP and it's technically non-Civ sequel. The games mag I was subscribed to at the time had a "shootout" between SMAC and CTP1 and called it for the latter. Ugh, that was a terrible, terrible call.

 

And yeah, I have it installed without Alien Crossfire, and have done so for years, despite spending entirely too much on a copy of the Planetary Pack on eBay to get the expansion.

 

 

On the roleplaying though - I tend to roleplay in my strategy games regardless of how much it's supported. Usually as a vindictive bastard of a leader. The loss of personality in Civ compared to SMAC isn't entirely down to the setting either, since Civ2 had oodles of it. The wonderful wonder videos, the er, charming advisors, the construction of your throne room (I always upgrade my rock to a chair first)... those all were relatively unobtrusive additions that added to the charm - I find the complete removal of those aspects with no attempt at replacement rather baffling.