Alpha Centauri is NOT a good game, it WAS a good game

[Der Dutchman]

People on this forum seem to have some seriously rose colored glasses about the classic SMAC. I admit wholeheartedly it was a great game for its time, but I implore you to really go back and play it start to finish on a high difficulty. Inifinte city spam, insane micro management, massive OP holes, crazy combat randomness, and the grand daddy of them all "Oh and now we're at planet buster war" end game... where it would literally rain missiles that destroyed everything turning the whole planet into a watery nightmare.

At its time it was a great 4x game. Compared to Civ 5 with all expansions? Not so much. I'd like to see people slow down when suggesting that SMAC was some kind of pedestal that can't be topped. The fact that it holds up at ALL today speaks volumes for its quality, but anyone who didn't grow up playing it would be unlikely to compare it favorably to Civ 5 or even BE.

That isn't to say there weren't parts of SMAC that are simply superior to BE. The governemnt system and leader differences were clearly better and more meaningful. The random research tech tree was better. Some people who love micromanagement would even argue the custom unit builder was better (I don't think so, but at least I can see why someone would think so).

All in all though, the game just falls apart on a lot of systems that have become obsolete, so lets worry about what updates would make BE better rather than wha updates would make it more like SMAC.

[screamingpalm]

I only played it for the first time around a year ago, thought it was really good. ICS spam sure, but that's back again in BE anyway. Like you said, the random tech tree was much better, and I like lots of micromanagement as a personal preference. Customization was actually better than the simplistic model in BE, and that was a weak spot for AC which could have been done better. Not sure what systems you consider fall apart and are obsolete, mechanics seemed much more interesting and functional than most of the newer stuff. No nostalgia here. :)

[squatdog_nz]

It still is a great game even with the 1999 graphics, antiquated controls and the occasion gameplay 'issue' (zones of control, ugh).

I had more fun playing Alpha Centauri after downloading it from Gog.com than I did with this new Civ5 reskin that I only persevered with out of sheer bloody-mindedness.

[Der Dutchman]

Thought the AI is plenty random in Civ 5/BE, SMAC was even worse. It was mostly the infinite city spam that did it. It wasn't uncommon in SMAC to attempt to manage 30+ cities and HUNDREDS of units by end game. That isn't fun for me, it is tedious. Unit stacking is severely inferior. Having no real penalty for city count (only city distance) and the ability to settly oceans made the optimal build strategy to have an ever-expanding spiral and to churn cities out as fast as possible.

And at the end of the day the planet was always plenty pissed off and fighting its infinite supply of annoyances wasn't difficult, it was just massively time consuming... that is until the world goes on its inevitable ICBM war, after which the majority of what will be left to the world will be so badly wrecked that even the aliens don't want it anymore.

I believe the early-mid game of SMAC is still great. It's the late - end game where it completely falls apart by modern standards. I don't want to spend an hour on a turn managing a literal army of units as they fend off an endless horde of insects while creating build queues that never vary (still a problem in all civ games) in dozens of cities at a time.

As for BE's simplistic model for unit development. Basically they lifted the veil that all units in Civ 5, from start to finish, are really just 5 units total. You may have enjoyed outfitting a small batallion of troopers armed for killing aliens while another small batallion of troopers was outfitted for fighting planes and another for fighting ground units and another for commit attrocities that were sure to launch the world into its ICBM crazed ending.... but managing all those guys multipled my already clearly visible hatred for micromanagement... so in the end I usually just kept everyone "default" and could beat the game just fine on most difficulty settings (I don't think I ever beat it on whatever the diety level one was). As if I wanted to spend an hour sifting through my giant list of army guys so I could maxmize my bonuses. Bleh.

Lastly, for Squadog_NZ - Are you saying that SMAC is a good game by today's standard, or simply that it's better than BE. These are two different concepts :D I'm not saying BE is a great game, especially if you compare it to SMAC in 1999. I'm saying that SMAC isn't a great game when you compare it to other games in 2014... and that we shouldn't aspire to make BE more like it, but rather to make BE better, period.

[FLU]

No, it's a great game, you're just a shill. BE is a politically correct, lifeless husk, with less content and quality than a game from 1999. Deal with it.

[ezwip]

Originally posted by Der Dutchman:

and the grand daddy of them all "Oh and now we're at planet buster war" end game... where it would literally rain missiles that destroyed everything turning the whole planet into a watery nightmare.

"Pumping my fists into the air and screaming @#$% yeah!!!"

[Kitten Food]

Its a troll thread. You cannot debate with the OP. you know those types.

[Der Dutchman]

Please, you can debate with me all you want. I'm not praising BE at all nor knocking that SMAC was one of the greatest games of its time. I'm suggesting that just because something was once the best doesn't make it still the best.

The majority of posts I've seen insist on comparing BE to SMAC. I want to be clear that I don't want BE to be like SMAC, I want it to be significantly better. Better than it is, better than SMAC is. The formula to do that is not going to be copying SMAC.

So far nobody's actually "debated" what I am saying. Scream disagrees and feels SMACs components hold up, I try to point out where they didn't. FLU thinks I work for Firaxis (Or doesn't know the meaning of the word Shill)... and EZwip likes to blow stuff up. Can't blame him there.

So go ahead, talk away, convince whomever is bored enough to read this forum that I am wrong or that I am right. That's what converstion is all about. You don't have to change MY mind, you just have to change the random stranger reading this.

[Eratosthenes]

The fact that people still play the game, and enjoy it (as do I), speaks volumes as to whether or not it was a good game. They do, ergo, it is/was.

Yes, games have advanced since then, but the game did more things right (lore, quotes, flavor, gameplay) than it did wrong.

Your opinion is obviously that you dislike the game. Fine. Many others don't.

[screamingpalm]

Well, I most certainly wouldn't mind if BE became a better game, and one on its own etc. Totally fine if you don't like the game, but I still feel it holds up really well. Sure late game could get incredibly chaotic, but personally, I find that much more interesting than what we're generally left with these days.

And making it rain nukes is certainly more entertaining than coup spam FTW.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=537360

Of course, just imo.

[Gorith]

OP I would disagree. I feel it's still a great game. Some of us prefer unit stacking of the old games and as weird or insane as it may seem some people like myself enjoy logistics so the "insane" ammount of micromanagment is actually a plus for us.

If you compare it using "modern standards" you run into the problem of who sets modern standards. That would be the industry and the masses. What may be a good game by the "standards" may be absolute crap in an individual's eyes. Myself for example. I find modern game design panders to much to the casual player so by extension of that feel most modern games are dissapointing.

[Tarithel]

I actually re-bought it after Beyond Earth game out as I missed it. The graphics took a little readjusting, but its still all there a real masterpiece...

[76561188078797539]

Heh, I'm easy to bait, so why not:

I still play SMAC from time to time. It's always installed on my computer (both with and without the community patches).

I have no interest in BE at all - even Civ5 didn't hold my attention the way previous Civ games did.

So, no, OP. Alpha Centauri certainly still remains a fantastic game - in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a similarly well designed 4X title, old graphics notwithstanding. And its ambience is still something that few games achieved - the voiceover quotes for various techs are as immersive as they were back when it released. The cutscenes do show their age, though.

As for the "AI" routines, that game is still better than most, if not all, titles since it came out.

And, finally this gem:

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

It outright scares me how fitting our "modern" times this passage is...

[Katamariguy]

I'm pretty sure that what people held up high was the game's lore.

[Secret]

I dont see why anyone would be so short sighted as to not realize that was over a decade ago.. pong wasnt that great of a game either.. nor pac man. Alot of the time creativity comes into play when people talk about great games, and you dont get to play the creative card more than once (borderlands 2+ for example will NEVER get the style points the first game did because they didnt do it first).

SMAC was never a good game, it was a great game and still is. It holds historical significance that the vast majority of other games that age dont. Sure theres rose colored glasses and you can never go home, but when you look at things from a wider viewpoint than gameX vs. gameY things like style, efficiency, and how a product forces the industry to evolve you start to see why some games will ALWAYS be great.

[JamieLinux]

I dono playing smacx @ 2860x1600 still seems to hold up....(just modified text scaleing so i can actually read the bloody screen... those 1999 graphics do hold up and wait when did we start careing about 4x graphics? Seriously ? There is some java games that have ♥♥♥♥ 8 bit graphics that smoke some AAA games.... This isnt madden son...

Alot of what is missing from BE is the total emersion that SMAC AND SMACX had.. Unique races diplomacy that actually mattered. Wonders that felt like wonders and provided some oh ♥♥♥♥ moments. Ability to taraform properly. TOtal unit customization. DIffrent level of unit building.. EG you coud go back and build diffrent units or cheeper units.. FOr all its faults it still holds up.. Be feels very shallow while it has great potential its just not there yet. Hope they get on the stick and fix it. Heck even Pandora first contact for all its faults and indy studio still managed to recreate more of What made alpha centarui and what was supposed to be Be unique better then they did....