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
The OP is well constructed, and I agree with it whole-heartedly. But Alpha Centauri had more than just good lore, it had deep philosophical meaning and perspective. It was almost lyrical in the way that it fused philosophical snippets into the game universe. It illustrated the effect that technology had on each interpretation of the Utopian dream.
AC had a lasting effect on my life outlook in the same way that Planescape Torment did in addition to being highly enjoyable. Back in high school when AC hit the market, my father and I placed all of the audio files from AC on a CD that we'd listen to on long car trips to spir philosophical conversations.
Now, I love Mass Effect and games like them, but they are a lot like popcorn. You shovel them into your mouth, and while they are enjoyable, they all taste the same and are ultimately forgettable.
You know, I've had AC for years, with Alien Crossfire, and I never even put it on my dang pc. The civ series is my fav, currently I'm playing FFH2 (just got the damn mod to work, never could before). Maybe I'll finally give AC a go...
SMAC is too story driven. Feels like being herded down a single path. Not good for a strategy game.
I also feel the same about Rhye's Civ4 mod. That mod scripted history way too much. Left no choices as there was only one right choice. And no choices is a BAD thing for a strategy game. I prefer the open-ended choices of Civ personally.
But I will say the story and how Planet related to the story were brilliant!
I personally loved Rhye's Civ 4 mod.
Its not that there was only one choice ... its more like there was a general flow to how every game was played.
As it was SUPPOSED to be some-what of an Earth simulator.
Can we get a mod to shut this thread down? Things are getting kinda tense in here....
Hmm, is it really that tense?
I understand what you mean by story driven but I disagree with AC doing any "herding"
The tight story/scripting focuses the game in a direction but how you run your faction is up to you. I think that is the key balance that isn't very well understood. People find it fun to run things the way they want. As a unashamed capitalist, I absolutely love playing Morgen having no standing army and buying out any communist aggressors. To me, this is much more open than going down a plot tree and having superficial game play choices. Another example being deus ex. There is only one story, yet players feel like they are playing an extremely open game. Do you kill the UNATCO grunts after you discover some more of the plot or do you feel sorry for them being hapless grunts and spare a few? One story doesn't always mean herding the player.
The point for EWOM being, gameplay choices matter more than superfluous plot choices.
Let me just interrupt the gushing a bit - I love SMAC/X, it's my favourite all-time game. A lot of the concepts are highly original and fun, and the narrative and way in which it builds the setting's verisimilitude is amazing considering it's a 4X TBS and not an RPG.
The AI in that game was pretty bad. Don't put anything like probe teams in Elemental unless the AI will use them to their full effect. Don't make unit designer components in unless the AI understands how to use them properly [e.g. the AI made waste-of-resources armoured rovers, e.g. the AI never understood to make foil probe teams].
Key point is this: Don't let the player have an advantage over the AI because the player understands something the AI doesn't. If it's too complex to program into the AI, leave it out entirely. I'll just list some more things in SMAC/X which the AI was too stupid for:
[E: reading around the forums elsewhere I'm glad to hear that Frogboy shares a similar attitude]
Terraforming and all the awesome things it could do:- Energy farms using terrain elevation [higher tiles gather more solar energy]- Bridges/moats using terrain elevation- Artificial islands/expanding own island using terrain elevation- Sinking/bringing onto land of bases/ships using terrain elevation- Changing rainfall patterns/moisture levels using terrain elevation- Echelon mirrors- Boreholes- Condensors- Using bonus resources with improvements before the 3+ resources on one tile tech - Fungus when it's good [Gaians/Cult]More:- Former stacking- How to efficiently design units [rovers aren't for defending]- How heavy stacking is dangerous- How to use probe teams effectively- How to evaluate a colony for trade- How to use choppers- How to use drop pods- How to use satellites- Supply crawlers completely left out- Secret project competition- ICS [certain factions can really spam cities]
AI is stupid and will be stupid in video games for a long time.
This fact is obfuscated by throwing more challenging scenarios at the player. Which is what AC did. However, it does not follow that a player should not be able to do things the AI cannot. Not only does that limit the player to a level of depth that is unacceptable for a strategy game that completely ignores the multiplayer community.
It's true that AC has bad AI but every game ever made has AI that even the thickest of tongues amongst us would crush. Making AI the common denominator for gameplay would be disastrous.
Personally I don't mind having a few things in the game which the AI does not know how to employ.
Such things include things which might not add *alot* to gameplay, but can quickly turn into massively awesome when given the right circumstance.
For instance SHADOWS. If the AI had learned how to appropriately use hawks, Shadows would have been massively worthless/useless.
As-is, Shadows (while limited) can be incredibly awesome and fun for specialized assassinations. Of course, rinse and rewash a few times and the Shadow will eventually be able to assassinate an entire City's garrison*.
*My most powerful units in FFH ever, not counting Chalid/Superweapons, has been the Shadow. Simply because the Shadow, with the extra two moves and blitz, and AERONS CHOSEN can simply bleed through a giant stack of weak minions faster than anything else humanly possible.
Meaning that, while a Shadow isn't good for attacking something stronger ... it is amazingly awesome for slicing through a legion of minions. (only vs the AI though)
Huh?
Just to use your example as an example:
AI can always be patched as the game/meta game evolves. So if a unit like a shadow or probe team is posing a problem for single player balance, it is a simple matter to tell the AI to use hawks or build counter probe teams. Castrating the game from the get go because you anticipate your AI being too dumb, leaves you with no choices for the future.
I feel like EWOM, of all games, will benefit massively from units like probe teams because of the scope of the game. Also because AI being dumb becomes less and less of a problem as the ability to mod the game goes up. Besides, I always looked at Chairman Yang's disastrous tereforming programs as sid's nod to the great leap forward.
Did we get any word on the inclusion of AC type cut-scenes/quotes in Elemental? Or was that just wishful thinking on our part?
My point is the AI doesn't have to be stupid. It doesn't have to be perfectly coded with a genetic algorithm to make it play perfectly compared to a human, but it just pains me when there's things which gain the player a massive advantage in the game which the AI don't understand.
Supply crawlers in SMAC/X were amazingly useful, but the AI didn't know how to use them. I'd rather they not be in the single player if the AI won't use them, and in fact mod them out or refrain from building them.
Another example is buffs in Age of Wonders. It's painful that the AI doesn't know how to use them properly in that game, as they're critical to success.
I'm happy to see these things in the game, but I don't want to be allowed to gain an advantage over the AI in single player *just* because the programmers were too lazy to have the AI make use of them.
I completely agree with you, and the AoW example was a good one. Yet another example from AoW2-SM: The AI has no idea what to do on the strategic map at all. It is moving the units all around. Sometimes it begins to move a unit to point B, 2 turns later it decided to send back the unit to point A, and in the next turn?...it moves it towards point B again etc. It was hillarious sometimes. The tactical combat AI in AoW2-SM wasn't that "pathetic" bad, it was ok. It was far from being perfect, but ah well.
Remember how old AOW is.... the AI was "adequate" for its time. If Elemental did stuff like that there would be a problem.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account