I finally wikipediaed this and see you are talking about a Sid Meier video game. I played Civilization once for about an hour (where I was amazed when my 10 year old consultant on the game told me I was an idiot for going democratic, that I would have had a much better military if I’d gone communist and then built a statue of liberty, or something like that). I have spent countless hours on Railroad Tycoon back before Steve Jobs got fired.
Do I want to get SMAC and risk ruining my life? Perhaps have myself lashed to a mast before I try it?
SMAC is my favorite of the Civilization series for two reasons:
The first is that it’s just a very well-made game- it has lots of features and internal mechanics which took Civilization over a decade to catch up to (and still doesn’t do as well).
The second is that it starts at slightly-future tech, and proceeds to singularity. I find that way more satisfying than starting at agriculture and proceeding to slightly-future tech, partly because I like sci-fi more than I like history, and partly because it lets you consider more interesting questions.
For example, the seven factions in the game aren’t split on racial lines, but on ideological lines: there are seven competing views for how society should be organized and what the future should look like, and each of them has benefits and penalties that are the reasonable consequences of their focuses.
SMAC is deeply flawed for three reasons:
The AI is over a decade old, and so it’s difficult to be challenged once you know how the game works. (This was also before they had figured out a good way to hamstring ICS, and so ICS is the dominant yet unfun strategy.)
The multiplayer code is over a decade old, and so not only are the AI difficult to play against in a fun manner, other people are difficult to play against for frustrating technical reasons.
The factions are tremendously unbalanced. While this is a neat statement about social organization- no, fundamentalism is a worse idea than an open society, unless you want to rule over a world of ash- it makes it a somewhat worse game, because single or multiplayer games are tainted by the tier rankings. Similarly, in single-player games you are always playing with the same seven factions, unlike in Civ games where you’re able to play with a varied host (and as many or as few opponents as you want).
It is worthwhile to see the whole tech tree a few times; it is worthwhile to learn how the game works; it is possible to nod contentedly and walk away from SMAC, saying “I am done and this was a good experience.”
It’s also possible to play it for hundreds of hours (I certainly did), and it’s the sort of game that I dust off every few years to play a game of. I would recommend playing it, but I would also recommend lashing yourself to a mast if there’s something else you need to get done.
The multiplayer code is over a decade old, and so not only are the AI difficult to play against in a fun manner, other people are difficult to play against for frustrating technical reasons
This is making me feel old. Me and a few college mates had a SMAC multiplayer game running for the better part of a year. If someone told me now that I could have a multiplayer game experience by taking my turn, zipping up the game file and emailing it to the next person in the cycle, I would laugh in their face.
Right- I tended to play SMAC instead of SMACX because of the balance issues (or, at least, play it with just the original 7 because it did add new buildings and secret projects) and the new 7 had weird divisions. The Corporation and the University seem like natural divides- but, say, the Angels were just odd (“We’re super hackers!” “Wouldn’t that make sense for a gang inside another civilization, rather than a full civilization?”).
It’s also worth noting that the game allows for creating custom factions… the faction definitions are just parameters in a text file. So one can self-medicate the balance issues if desired.
Yeah, I tend to agree. My favorite mix is playing as University, with the Gaians, Peacekeepers, Cybernetic, Planet Cult, and Believers, with one of the progenitor factions to make things interesting.
SMAC is the crown jewel of the series, if you ask me. The expansion, Alien Crossfire is almost impossible to find legally though, and adds a lot to the game.
Is it addictive? I don’t know, largely because it’s difficult to specify what is “addictive” and what isn’t. The best answer I can give you is yes, in bursts. I’ll play it for eight hours in a row one day and then not touch it for a month.
I don’t know about “addictive”, but I can tell you that playing SMAC with 5 to 7 human players, and no AIs, will definitely have a… transformative… effect on your life. You will be amazed at how quickly things go from
We’re all coworkers, let’s have some strategy game fun !
to
Psst, hey, I saw Joe and Bob talking in the corridor the other day. Couldn’t hear what they were saying, but it Bob mimed an airplane with his hands at one point. Yeah. I know they’re supposed to be enemies, and so are we, but if they beat us to Air Power, we’re both in trouble… When was the last time you talked to your allies, anyway ? Just think about it...
Alpha Centauri is much more conducive to abject paranoia than Diplomacy, though—at least, the way we played it. We would start a game by taking turns on the same machine, for the first 10 turns or so, during lunch. Then, we would go back to work, and take our turn on that machine when it came up (we’d VNC into it). This way, the game doesn’t disturb our actual work too much, and each player can take as long to micromanage his cities as he wants.
Thus, all the player-to-player interaction takes place on back channels—through email, or clandestine meetings. This fact, combined with the knowledge that one tech advance, or one airstrike at the right time, could shift the entire balance of power, results in truly Cold War-grade levels of paranoia. It is an exhilarating experience, in a way.
I should probably mention that no relationships were ruined by our games, either, as far as I can tell. A game is still only a game, after all.
My experience of the single-player game was that it was fun, but the AI was sufficiently stupid that (a) it was trivial to beat unless I was extremely unlucky in the first twenty years or so, and (b) it rewarded tedious amounts of micromanaging. There are various “play with one hand tied behind your back” style variants that can extend the fun for a little while, but that sort of thing only goes so far.
So, no, it wasn’t especially addictive… I played it a lot for a little while, played it a little for a longer while, and haven’t looked at it in years.
I never got into the multiplayer version, but can see where it might be a lot more addictive.
I recently rediscovered it and realized how many quotes fit into LW memes. And apparently there was an expansion too. I never knew that until about a month ago.
I find it troubling how much I want to upvote you just beause you’re quoting SMAC.
I finally wikipediaed this and see you are talking about a Sid Meier video game. I played Civilization once for about an hour (where I was amazed when my 10 year old consultant on the game told me I was an idiot for going democratic, that I would have had a much better military if I’d gone communist and then built a statue of liberty, or something like that). I have spent countless hours on Railroad Tycoon back before Steve Jobs got fired.
Do I want to get SMAC and risk ruining my life? Perhaps have myself lashed to a mast before I try it?
Is SMAC addictive?
SMAC is my favorite of the Civilization series for two reasons:
The first is that it’s just a very well-made game- it has lots of features and internal mechanics which took Civilization over a decade to catch up to (and still doesn’t do as well).
The second is that it starts at slightly-future tech, and proceeds to singularity. I find that way more satisfying than starting at agriculture and proceeding to slightly-future tech, partly because I like sci-fi more than I like history, and partly because it lets you consider more interesting questions.
For example, the seven factions in the game aren’t split on racial lines, but on ideological lines: there are seven competing views for how society should be organized and what the future should look like, and each of them has benefits and penalties that are the reasonable consequences of their focuses.
SMAC is deeply flawed for three reasons:
The AI is over a decade old, and so it’s difficult to be challenged once you know how the game works. (This was also before they had figured out a good way to hamstring ICS, and so ICS is the dominant yet unfun strategy.)
The multiplayer code is over a decade old, and so not only are the AI difficult to play against in a fun manner, other people are difficult to play against for frustrating technical reasons.
The factions are tremendously unbalanced. While this is a neat statement about social organization- no, fundamentalism is a worse idea than an open society, unless you want to rule over a world of ash- it makes it a somewhat worse game, because single or multiplayer games are tainted by the tier rankings. Similarly, in single-player games you are always playing with the same seven factions, unlike in Civ games where you’re able to play with a varied host (and as many or as few opponents as you want).
It is worthwhile to see the whole tech tree a few times; it is worthwhile to learn how the game works; it is possible to nod contentedly and walk away from SMAC, saying “I am done and this was a good experience.”
It’s also possible to play it for hundreds of hours (I certainly did), and it’s the sort of game that I dust off every few years to play a game of. I would recommend playing it, but I would also recommend lashing yourself to a mast if there’s something else you need to get done.
This is making me feel old. Me and a few college mates had a SMAC multiplayer game running for the better part of a year. If someone told me now that I could have a multiplayer game experience by taking my turn, zipping up the game file and emailing it to the next person in the cycle, I would laugh in their face.
Alien crossfire added 7 more civilizations, two of which are even more imbalanced than University. Which I wasn’t sure was possible.
Right- I tended to play SMAC instead of SMACX because of the balance issues (or, at least, play it with just the original 7 because it did add new buildings and secret projects) and the new 7 had weird divisions. The Corporation and the University seem like natural divides- but, say, the Angels were just odd (“We’re super hackers!” “Wouldn’t that make sense for a gang inside another civilization, rather than a full civilization?”).
It’s also worth noting that the game allows for creating custom factions… the faction definitions are just parameters in a text file. So one can self-medicate the balance issues if desired.
Yeah, I tend to agree. My favorite mix is playing as University, with the Gaians, Peacekeepers, Cybernetic, Planet Cult, and Believers, with one of the progenitor factions to make things interesting.
SMAC is the crown jewel of the series, if you ask me. The expansion, Alien Crossfire is almost impossible to find legally though, and adds a lot to the game.
Is it addictive? I don’t know, largely because it’s difficult to specify what is “addictive” and what isn’t. The best answer I can give you is yes, in bursts. I’ll play it for eight hours in a row one day and then not touch it for a month.
I got the original SMAC and SMAX in one set on Amazon a few years ago.
A quick google reveals it’s still available. Less than $5.
That’s good. I heard somewhere it was really rare. Guess it’s not.
I don’t know about “addictive”, but I can tell you that playing SMAC with 5 to 7 human players, and no AIs, will definitely have a… transformative… effect on your life. You will be amazed at how quickly things go from
to
Trust no one.
I’ve successfully played diplomacy games with friends without it ruining any friendships.
Alpha Centauri is much more conducive to abject paranoia than Diplomacy, though—at least, the way we played it. We would start a game by taking turns on the same machine, for the first 10 turns or so, during lunch. Then, we would go back to work, and take our turn on that machine when it came up (we’d VNC into it). This way, the game doesn’t disturb our actual work too much, and each player can take as long to micromanage his cities as he wants.
Thus, all the player-to-player interaction takes place on back channels—through email, or clandestine meetings. This fact, combined with the knowledge that one tech advance, or one airstrike at the right time, could shift the entire balance of power, results in truly Cold War-grade levels of paranoia. It is an exhilarating experience, in a way.
I should probably mention that no relationships were ruined by our games, either, as far as I can tell. A game is still only a game, after all.
The diplomacy games I’m referring to were also played one move a day.
Yes.
Yes to all of those questions.
My experience of the single-player game was that it was fun, but the AI was sufficiently stupid that (a) it was trivial to beat unless I was extremely unlucky in the first twenty years or so, and (b) it rewarded tedious amounts of micromanaging. There are various “play with one hand tied behind your back” style variants that can extend the fun for a little while, but that sort of thing only goes so far.
So, no, it wasn’t especially addictive… I played it a lot for a little while, played it a little for a longer while, and haven’t looked at it in years.
I never got into the multiplayer version, but can see where it might be a lot more addictive.
I recently rediscovered it and realized how many quotes fit into LW memes. And apparently there was an expansion too. I never knew that until about a month ago.