Alpha Centauri (AC) is one of the most well-made video games ever. It is the best of the civ series and the zenith of strategy games. When any game, elemental especially (EWOM), attempts to compete in the same field, video games and strategy video games, it is important to ask yourself what makes players gush about a 10 year old game in my beta forums? I hope to answer that in this post and I hope that some of this will be new or prove insightful for the developers.
AC has very few "features" that make it such a phenomenal game. Instead, the genius of AC is the entire feelings of the game. For example, the brilliance of their naming convention would be pointless without the robust unit creation. Because of this I will break the game into broad strokes.
Craftsmenship
AC is still so fondly remembered and still extremely playable to this day because of the amazing attention to detail. All the little things add up to create a living game world. What I mean by this is that the "stitching" of the game is so expertly hidden that you don't notice it during the transitional times. Very simple things like having your information text integrated into the game universes' HUD goes a long way to tricking the player into thinking he isn't playing a game, contrived by some guy in a basement, but that he is experiencing the narrative from the perspective of a faction leader.
A more salient example would be the secret project cut-scenes and flavor texts. AC is most famous or most remembered for these cut-scenes. There are two things I would like to point out: 1) 98% of cut-scenes are complete cheese dick, on the nose, heavy handed garbage. Whether this is unintentional or by design (an attempt to appeal to the player base) I can't say, I would guess a mix of both, but in both cases it is wholly wrong. You may get the "cool" factor in someones head for a few minutes but that is all you will get. 10 years from now will you go back and watch cut-scenes from mass effect 1/2, no, you won't. Why? Because they are horrible, they are trite, deterministic, poorly directed and they don't even advance the narrative.
Oh look, you, the hero, running from a hail of bullets shot by faceless evil-doers incapable of aiming only to make a slo-mo leap onto your escape craft and get away before the giant explosion. I've never seen that before. No one will remember it because it's so generic and so poorly done.
Let's do a side by side to illustrate the point.
Mass Effect 2
Alpha Centauri
The AC video occurs after you develop a secret project called "The Cyborg Factory"
The brilliant AC video does a couple things right. It's not boring, like the ME2 video, the sound makes sense, no horrendous attempts at an epic composition (see blizzard for the worst abusers in the business) No spaceships making "WHOOOOSH" sounds in out space, no terrible melodramatic voice acting and on top of all that, the AC video does something of supreme importance, it advances the narrative. You see, not only did one of our bases just create a secret project named "the cyborg factory" the game narrative subtly changed. You experience the effects of cyborg's have on a living breathing population by hearing an humorous poem as if your friend was telling you a casual anecdote. You begin to feel -something- about the effects of the secret project that are entirely unrelated to any game mechanic. You are pulled into the narrative as a leader who is making decisions at a level that highlights the dichotomy between you and your subjects; you care about the production bonus; your subjects care about the day-to-day of dating. This also makes it possible to relate to your cities and population as more than just numbers. Finally, despite being humans in the future and on another planet with exotic technology, you begin to realize that these people are the same, petty, smart, courageous, spiteful, mean, nice... humans that you interact with on a daily basis. This pulls you into the world and advances the narrative.
2) The AC cut-scene required significantly less man hours than the mass effect 2 cut-scene. Proving the point that one talented game designer is worth more than an office full of mediocre ones. What it also means is that resources should not be directed towards fluff. I think many game developers are compelled to do things because gamers expect. Did you just kill the end boss dragon in mass effect 2... time for your cut-scene reward. What they don't understand is that good games that used these conventions in the past used them to an effect. They are never an end unto themselves. You don't just put a bunch of crap in your game because people expect it, your objective as a game designer is make the best game not make a game that has the best aspects of all games.
Another brilliant move was integrating the game menu with the game universe menu. You exited the game in the same way you changed the social policy of your faction or diverted resources from research to culture. This blending is really what is meant by craftsmanship in a game. Even the quit game menu in AC encompassed this philosophy.
well this is longer then I intended, I'll touch on some other points later
Hear hear, AC is a classic... the benchmark for all games of this ilk.
Well said.
Because Mass Effect 2 is the best TURN BASED STRATEGY GAME ever. Really.
It was what they didn't have to do but did anyway thet gave it such a charming 'personality'. I loved the M:TG-esqe snippets when you researched things.
'I don't know but I've been told, Dierdra's got a network node!'
'Likes to press the on-off switch, Dig that crazy Gaian witch!'
BEST. SF. CADENCE. EVER.
"A suspicious mind is a healthy mind."
"WHOOOOOOOSH" isn't just a sound made by spaceships in Mass Effect, it's also the sound of points going right over your head.
General craftsmanship of a game has absolutely nothing to do with the genre. Now, if I was to complain that the gameplay in mass effect 2 was lacking because it didn't have city/resource management you might have a point.
That video was bad.....and the embarrassing humour made it even worse.....and you WANT something like that in games??
Some people have said that Alpha Centauri is an example of Lore over Art. I would dare to say that the "Flavor Art" while few and far between, are actually the segments that give the Centauri lore its flair.
I mean ... how much of Alpha Centauri did you read, how much did you listen too (audio as art), and how much did you see (cinematics, also as art). The "world map" might have not been too special, although I think the extra bits of "well made" art really shined through.
Now, Im not saying that Cyborg Factory is my favorite ... personally I like Neural Amplifier and Dream Twister!!! Oh, and the leader heads, the leader-heads rocked.
Lore is, of course, awesome ... especially when done with interesting stories. I've spent hours reading FFH civpedia ... so when I say ART over LORE I don't mean Graphics over Lore ... I mean Conveyance of Expression over Background information.
Loved AC.
What was the one about... what goes up, better darn well stay up!
nevermind... google is my friend:
Applied Gravitonics:"What goes up . . . better doggone well stay up!" -- Morgan Gravitonics, Company Slogan
Seconded. A game from which every strategy game developer can and should learn
I agree with the spirit of your post -- Stardock shouldn't try to compete with other developers that farm out their cutscenes because the expense wouldn't justify the benefit -- but I don't think it's really a fair comparison. The cutscenes serve different purposes and have different requirements. And it's not as though the AC endgame cutscenes were any less trite, just less well funded. To be honest, I found the AC cutscenes more frustrating than anything.
Lol i dont know what you think is wrong with the cutscene in AC, it certainly had the best ones i have ever seen in a game. Not that the artwork was that great, but i simply loved the humorous to philosophical comments in them and everything fitted so well together.
Ill post up the rest this weekend but I should clarify something now.
The post isn't about the cut-scenes, the post has nothing to do with cut-scenes. (ok maybe a little) The point is that designing a video game is like designing machine, not an ice cream sunday. More is not always more. In the end whats important is the feel of the game not the features within the game. This is what I mean by the sheer craftsmanship.
Cut-scenes are just lumped in to look cool, even though some of them do, they are there to advance the narrative - to create a world that feels familiar to you despite being alien, factious and in the future - as many of you have pointed out, the little flavor text also does an amazing job of this.
Also, this isn't a debate on the merits of ME2 I just used it as an example because of the salient dichotomy in design. Really I could have done the same thing using civ 4 instead of AC but I thought it would make the point harder to follow.
gameplay
AC's gameplay has not been duplicated to this day. The noticeable exception being civ 2. The more recent iterations of the civ series have taken a step backwards in some respects. Anyways, since EWOM is not a duplicate of AC it won't do us any good to talk about the specific features of the game, rather one should focus on what the effect those features has on AC.
factions
What did AC do so right about it's factions? The factions were completely static. That is to say, the benefits and drawbacks of each faction was completely immutable. You picked your faction and that was what you were stuck with.
This worked well with AC because it was done so well. Each faction played differently. There were builders, rushers, hybrids, momentum, peace-loving, war-loving, opportunistic etc. Playing Morgan faction and playing Lord's believers was basically like playing two different games. In fact, you don't learn how to play AC as much as you learn how to play a faction in AC. This is good. This fundamental level of difference gives life to the game. Sometimes I don't feel like playing Yang's AC so I play Morgan's AC. This level of difference is what keeps people playing. The most appropriate example for this is DOTA and HON. You have styles, carry, support, push and beneath that you have heroes - a sandwraith plays entirely differently than a swiftblade, despite both of them sharing the same archtype. This sort of layering is what made AC factions so great.
A brief intermission from AC gushing:
The absolutely best system in a game like this has to be fall from heaven a civ4 mod. You have your preset factions but you have leaders that you can change it slightly. I don't think FoH implemented this nearly as well as it should have been but the concept allows for that layering balanced approach of preset factions with a bit of customization on the part of the player.
Unit design
I saw a thread awhile back about how the unit designer should function. Copy AC, seriously.
The amazing thing about unit design is that it allows the player to tailor units to overcome a specific challenge in that game. For example, you are Morgan, happy to make your energy and live peacefully until you discover your neighbor happens to be a bloodlusted eco-feminist named Gaia. You change your gameplay and pick different techs but most importantly, you change your units. You replace all your stock units with ones most resistant to Gaia's strategy.
A system like this allows the player to come up with creative solutions to problems.
Probe teams
This is an absolutely crucial unit that should be carried over. The probe team allows the player to come up with truly creative solutions that most game designers think is impossible. This singular unit allows you to shift how you play the game. Take Morgan for example, you can choose to play a more conservative way with conventional units or you can choose to sacrifice your entire military and play only with probe teams as a sort of bribe everyone free market army.
What is the probe team though? The probe team is a unit with a set of scripted abilities. I'm sure everyone is familiar so I won't list the skill set but you should reflect upon the different roles the probe team can play. Without a doubt, EWOM is a game made for probe teams.
Naming convention
I talked about this briefly in my first post (I think) but what makes the AC naming convention so great is the utility and ease.
You have a default name for your customized unit that follows a formula. The unit's actual properties determine the flavor name. So for example, picking X weapon for your unit might result in the prefix "Shock" while picking Y armor would result in "Probability" as the base and abilities A and B "AAA garrison" the suffix. So in the end your unit name would be something like Shock probability AAA garrison. -I don't think that is a possible combo-
The main point here is that while the player can customize the name if they want. A system is in place that adds life to the game world and has a gameplay purpose.
depth
With balanced factions comes depth. You can employ actual different strategies to win. A big problem is that game developers mistake the choice between right clicking someones city with axemen or swordsmen as some sort of depth. Players tacitly see through this.
The hard part here is balance. Without balance there is no depth. Everyone on multiplayer will tend towards the strategy they can win with. Even if they personally dislike the type of game that makes them play.
So how do you let builders build and rushers rush in the same game? Hard work. Balance is a numbers game that requires testing and refinement.
What actually transpires beneath the veil of an event horizon? Decent people shouldn't think too much about that."
I think that this feature could only improve E:WoM.
I loved AC and AC:AC was one of the best games I have ever played, and I like the points you are trying to make about the importance of faction uniqueness, yet however when you compare Mass Effect 2 and AC I just feel like we are talking about apples and oranges here.
Mass Effect is an enjoyable game to a great deal of people, just the same as how AC is an enjoyable game to a lot of people. They each have something that people are looking for in their games and I think you end up losing a lot of the point you were trying to make when you are having to go so far out of your way to compare things so different.
Lets try and keep things in perspective, Mass Effect 2 is a FPS/RPG hybrid and AC is a TBS. That alone should clue people into the fact that they are going for different objectives here. The purpose of the two different cut scenes are vastly different, the AC cut scene isn't trying to progress the plot, convey any character development, or reward you for winning a boss battle. Similarly, the ME2 cut scene isn't trying to break up an otherwise constant environment, it isn't there to reward you for many turns spent not making formers, and it certainly isn't meant to be funny in a cheeky way. ( You should have picked Cloning Vats to make example if anything) I know you have claimed your post isn't about the cut scenes, then you claimed they were just lumped in to look cool, then you went behind your back and told us they actually advance the narrative in some way. It really can't be both. However the argument you make, while it might be a valid point is a weak argument because it hangs upon comparing these two things that serve such a different purpose that it is really almost misleading.
So please please lets not compare apples and oranges.
I had several close encounters with a brain aneurysm while trying to read your special brand of English. However, your worst offense is your abysmal reading comprehension. I know English isn't your first language, which is fine as long as you don't publicize your opinions on what you fail to comprehend.
You completely missed the point of what he was saying and don't seem to handle constructive criticism and so revert to insulting him.
Comparing ME2 cutscenes to AC cutscenes is idiotic and hurts your point. If you didn't include that then the post would be much more coherent and useful.
I greatly enjoyed ME2's cutscenes and thought they were very well done. I also greatly enjoyed AC's cutscenes and thought they were also very well done. They have completely different goals and motivations so comparing them is useless. Comparing cutscenes from Civ4 potentially could have been useful since they have similiar motivations and goals of the cutscenes.
When it comes down to it, I'd take ME2 over AC if I had to choose between one. There's been lots of other great turn based strategy games, but ME2 has been the most enjoyable game of its genre for me.... so trying to show that it is poorly made/designed/cheesy/etc just seems silly and shows that you enjoy TBS but not roleplaying shooters and don't understand them/like them and are just trying to bash them.
Frankly, the comparison of ME2 to AC is less painful than your responses and insults to people who point out that they shouldn't be compared and act like you're the only one who knows what they are talking about and everyone else should be quiet and not "publicize your opinions on what you fail to comprehend."
ROFLMAO I am SO sorry but I have to agree with OP. I absolutely love mass effect and mass effect 2 i bought both them for both xbox and pc so that me and by brother could do sidebyside playthroughs sense it is only a single player game n e ways my point is that i like the gameplay but the cutscenes were B A D IMHO. the acting was jersey shore quality (think the situation!!!) and the action is so xtreme like twilight movie and animation was pretty bad i did something better in maya in my computer lab no joke!
dont get me wrong i watched some of the XXX rated ones on youtube on loop LOL but that is it
At a certain point, basic communication comes before your sense of internet outrage.
You hold this idea that ME2 cannot be compared to any game. You haven't explained why any of the points I made are wrong.
ME2 has the goal of advancing it's narrative, especially the cut-scene I link where everything is 'wrapped up' You might not recognize this because the scene is so weighed down by platitudes on top of platitudes.
AC uses its cut-scenes in a smarter way to advance its narrative.
RPGs and Action are both my favorite genres. Deus Ex happens to be my favorite PC game.
This shouldn't have to be said but I think you need this spelled out: A critical view on something you think is the cat's meow should not be taken as a personal insult. You don't need to get defensive and start accusing me of being too dumb to understand your tastes. I also thought transformers was a terrible movie, I also think I "get it"
I never once compared ME2 to AC. I only pointed out a very specific instance of how narrative is advanced. You only think I compared them because you are so infatuated with this perceived attack on 'your game' that your ability to properly read shuts down.
I couldn't care less about comparing ME2 cutscenes and AC. I don't think it was valid but it didn't bother me at all.
I responded because the quote below should never have been posted. It was unbelievably rude for absolutely no reason and I agreed with his basic point. If you don't think what you said is out of line on a messageboard, then I'll stick with my argument that you can't handle criticism and get defensive and lash out showing your own insecurity. Because that's how it reads. Telling someone not to "publicize opinons on what they fail to comprehend" shows an inability to handle basic criticism.
Comparing the cutscenes took away from you're overall (otherwise good) discussion of AC since they have completely different purposes/goals/motivations/styles/etc. But whatever, you're original post was the epitomy of intellect and anyone who thinks otherwise fails at reading comprehension and doesn't get it and should never post their opinions because they are obviously wrong.....
One of the most wonderful things about Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri (SMAC) was how the factions interacted. The static nature of the seven factions, seen primarily in their social engineering agendas, meant you would nearly always be at war with two factions, aligned with two other factions, with the final two being up in the air. This was a fantastic way to color the game and bring the player into the game world; from turn one the player knew who were his enemies and who would likely be his allies.
Another excellent element was the attention to detail. For example, squares east of a tall mountain had more rainfall than those on the west side of the summit. Bang, right there, without being told, you knew which direction the jet stream of Chiron blew, and it was consistent throughout the world.
Chiron itself (aka Planet) was incredible. Over the course of the game, it went from a weird, alien environment to a character in and of itself. Chiron was like the Gaia hypothesis on crack, and we loved it for that. How could forget the first time you built Voice of the Planet and the mind worms went freaking crazy, tearing through previously placid areas with a vengeance?
Which brings me to my final point, the narrative. Unlike most 4X games, SMAC had a clear story and narrative that was expanded upon through the game. Through the secret project cutscences, the little quotes from getting a tech or constructing a building, and from the weird “Conversations with Planet” interludes, you learned how the Unity crew lived on Chiron. These were told mainly through anecdotes that made the player imagine the context, and they never talked down to the player with endless exposition. What’s more, there was an ending to the narrative, Transcendence, but you didn’t have to end that way. Consequently the player received the benefit of a good story, but also was able to freely choose the destiny for his little electronic avatars. That was fantastic.
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled.But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at anyparticular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain ina tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the eventsof this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or losemeaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?-- Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Construction voice-over for the Bioenhancement Center in SMAC
Mass Effect is essentially an interactive movie, and that movie happens to be a cheesy action flick. I happen to like cheesy action flicks from time to time. The reaon the comaprision doesn't work is your comparing war and peace to a chessy romance novel. Also sometimes your in the mood for romance or action and ME2 fills that entertainment desire quite nicely. And the reason that particular cutscene is pretty cool over just watching a regular action flick is that the outcome can change depending on how you play the game, Shepard can even miss the jump and die.
Anyways I love SMAC too but your coming off a bit like a snob.
Honestly, if we really want to get into Mass Effect, I felt it had some really very well done scenes. The main dialog scenes show an incredible level of polish with very human motions. You'll be watching someone talk about something meaningless, and then his hands move in just the right way, it's uncanny. It's not just technical superiority, but the care and attention to detail that could come with any reasonable level of video quality that struck me the most.
AC videos I could take or leave, though they're a lot better than the Civ IV ones. But I guess I'm just not responding the way the OP is to them. Brain aneuryism? Rather uncalled for.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
