Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

The Good
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC) is one title that had not failed to disappoint. It is just as enjoyable as the "official" Civ series, and more. The interface, although not much changed from the Civ games, has been touched up to perfection. Game play is intuitive. That fact is highly impressive. The early levels provide in-depth explanations on almost every aspect of the game, which makes flattens the learning curve. Help is even more comprehensive than Civ II. Battles are also well balanced. The units in SMAC can be customized extensively, because each unit is a combination of components. This makes the creation of good defensive units or special offensive units a new possibility. It always feels good to create a customized AA unit just as the needlejets come in and get crushed by anti-aircraft defense. The game plotline is amazingly superb. When a character that contolled one of my units was killed by a unit of a foreign base, the game renamed the base in her honour when I captured it (yeah, characters, although in reality one never notices them). The Secret Project (Wonder) movies are great, ranging from the hilarious (Network Backbone is a great joke on Microsoft) to the beautiful (Telepathic Matrix is a great one to watch) to the macabre (Neural Amplifer and Dream Twister freaky guy). Although some of these items seem to be extraneous, they do not take away from the great play. This is definitely one of those stay-up-all-night games!

The Bad
SMAC is great, but it isn't perfect. The graphics are much more drabby and dark than Civ II. As one review put it, one seems to be fighting over a blob of "plum pudding". Units are hard to distinguish, although this is not totally the fault of Firaxis, as extensive unit customization means that it is inevitable that some units look similar in order for components to fit a wide range of units. Nevertheless, sending an infantry unit to take out a base just to find that it's an artillery unit and won't kill anyone really sucks! Finally, if you're looking for innovations, there really aren't that much in this game. Almost everything has a counterpart in Civ II.

The Bottom Line
This is a great game to have. It's definitely addicting because it's such an in-depth game to play, and if you get bored, there are plenty of online mulitplayer resources out there. I find the all-night SMAC sessions better than the Civ II session, if only for the plot. =)

The Good
This is actually my third review of this game, and every time I play it I tend to feel a bit differently about it. My first review was thoroughly negative, the second thoroughly positive and with this one I hope to finally describe the game to the best of my abilities.

So lets begin. What makes Alpha Centauri one of the best games I've ever played?

• First thing to catch your eye about Alpha Centauri is its interface. Quite possibly the best interface ever created for a game, the huge amount of time spent perfecting the implementation is obvious in first glance. While the interface isn't overly simplistic, it is very simple to understand and control and makes a lot of sense for the beginner. On the other hand, an advanced player will find adequate control over the functions of the game, as well as automation features galore. While the original Civilization's interface isn't bad, Alpha Centauri's is almost perfect.
  Equally important is the visual aspect of the interface - slick design featuring small but very effective enhancements, effects such as pictures rotating about in the lower part of the screen and various other enhancements. These additions to the interface add a lot of realism and atmosphere to the game, and without them it would have probably been a lot more dull.
• Good graphics. While not mind-boggling, the visual aspect of the game will please any viewer. The landscapes are, unlike most isometric viewpoints, easy to figure out and make a lot of sense as well. Unit displays look reasonably good as well, and the interface is generally very well designed.
• Alpha Centauri features some of the best movies seen to date, and even if some aren't very interesting it does feature a few masterpieces (the Dream Twister movie comes to mind). The animations add quite a bit to the game. I also find the various historical quotes, as well as the ones from the faction leaders in Alpha Centauri, to be interesting and compelling as they add a lot to the general atmosphere of the game. There are also several in-jokes in the game which add a lot of flavor (the Network Backbone movie is a blunt joke on Microsoft, for example).
• Alpha Centauri features a decent plot -- yes, an actual plot in a Civilization-style game, and a good one to boot. While not a literary masterpiece, Alpha Centauri's storyline would have made a decent science fiction book I would have enjoyed reading. The way the designers made the threat of the Mind Worms, combined with the several "Interludes from the Book of Planet" and other plot elements meld seamlessly with the game is astonishing, and one possible conclusion of the game (The Song of Planet) is the best I could ask for. What makes Alpha Centauri an amazingly interesting game to play is the endless little hints and pieces that abound throughout the game.

With all these features, Alpha Centauri is without a doubt of one the best games I have ever played (although I still consider Master of Magic to be the best game in this style.

The Bad
Unfortunately, Alpha Centauri is - while being an excellent game - not perfect. It does have some annoying flaws:

• Diplomacy. Unfortunately, diplomacy has always been the bane of Civilization-style games. I can't remember even a single game of this genre in which the diplomacy was actually worth mentioning. The diplmacy in Alpha Centauri is no exception and is as weak as ever. Other leaders will be your best friends until they become bored, then attack you. So what else is new?
• Drone Riots will drive you mad. Every few games, towards the end of the game several of your citires which - until the point - were perfectly contect, will "grow" drones all of a sudden and cease to function. There's not much you can do about this really - either change government (which isn't always a good choice), or move more units into the base (which isn't always feasible). This can become really annoying after a while.
• Terrible music. Admittedly the menu music is actually quite good, but all other pieces are genuinely bad.

I most emphasize, however, that despite these flaws, Alpha Centauri is still a bliss for any Sid Meier fan.

The Bottom Line
The best game in this style since Master of Magic, and definitely another classic in the long line of Sid Meier games.

The Good
The additional complexity of the diplomatic aspect of the game, the addition of psi combat, the customization of military units from a workshop all add to the game. In addition, the AI is much improved over Civ2, although not perfect.

The Bad
The menu system is much too complex, you will learn the keystroke commands for the most frequently used actions. There isn't a Mac version -- many of my friends use Macs.

The Bottom Line
I would call it Civ3 in space. If you didn't like Civ, you won't like Alpha Centauri. If you did like Civ or Civ2 and a science fiction theme doesn't bother you, you will love AC.

The Good
Pretty much everything. Specifically, the AI and the ability to customize units are a big plus when compared to other games like Civ/Civ II. Also there are some new unit management features which help prevent the end game from being a huge micro management nightmare. The combat system and Diplomacy options have been refined since Civ.

The Bad
While I liked the new 3D graphics, it's sometimes hard to tell where your pieces are located. The game is great, but it's basically Civ II with some added features and refinements (I haven't tried out the multi-player support).

The Bottom Line
A fun game that has the same adictive qaulities as most Sid Meier / Brian Reynolds games. You start out on an empty planet with six other factions. World domination is your goal. You build your empire city by city, and advance your technologies discovery by discovery. As you improve, you will be able to create bigger and better city improvements and more powerfull combat units. If you do the right things, you will be victorious.

The Good
Civilization is my favorite game for PC, so I love this game. The borders are just a great idea. Diplomacy works great! The atmosphere is great! Multiplayer gaming is great, atleast in a LAN.

The Bad
The game has bugs and other "features". And the end game can be very boring.

The Bottom Line
Command your men in a Civilization like manner in the near future!

The Good
The most important thing for a game is that it should be enjoyable to play, and SMAC manages this perfectly. Completing that monolithic project that took 100 turns to complete feels satisfying, as does negotiating with the other seven factions... or crushing them. The brilliant thing about SMAC is that - unlike most other games - you can tailor any unit to suit your needs and coffers. This game has every charm of the Civilisation games, only executed with much more effort.

The Bad
This is not a game for those who have not played TBSs (Turn Based Strategies) before. The interface at first looks daunting, so sitting through the five-minute guide to the various screen is recommended. After this, though, it's a breeze. The graphics are acceptable, but by todays standards they are not brilliant, but then, that's not what TBSs are about. The music can get repetetive after a while, but this is only a minor problem.

The Bottom Line
If you're a diehard TBS fan looking for something new and challenging to try, this is the game for you. Sid Meier has cracked his brilliant formula again, and this results in one of the best TBSs around. Enjoy, and don't hang around in Xenofungus for long...

The Good
SMAC heirs the features that made Civilization a classic, being the most important replayability: a random map makes up for that, and so does adding different factions with unique abilities; personally, mission-based titles aren't in my preferences. Diplomacy, although limited, has very well configured messages to give the feel of talking to a leader with his/her own personality; add to that agendas and aversions, and the Council, too. The gameplay in general is also a strong point: like in Civilization, found cities (bases), terraform, expand at will in a terrain with infinite variations and landscapes. The finest addition to politics is the Social Engineering, with great Role-Playing stile statistics.

Some say the technology tree is confusing due to strange descriptions: I think those add a unique sci-fi flavor: personally, I get more immersed in the futuristic atmosphere when reading "Our scientists discovered Photon-Wave Mechanics" or "Pre-Sentient Algorithms" than reading "Our scientists discovered the Photon Wall armor" or "can now build the Hunter-Seeker project".

The game is also very configurable, and multiple paths to victory enrich the gaming experience. Now, instead of having pre-made units, you can design your own, but shortly becomes evident which are the best combinations for each situation; the possibility is nice, though.

Graphics and sound aren't outstanding, but make their work, and that's enough for a strategy TBS game; it doesn't need more. In general, SMAC is an empire-building game, and that's the feel it gives the player: of being building (or falling with) an empire through time.

The Bad
However, SMAC also heirs bad and annoying features from Civilization. And that's the matter: Civilization is a classic, with no doubt. But it was released in 1991, eight years before SMAC; and that's too much time. Many fans, I included, were disappointed by this game because hardly can be referred to as "evolutive".

First, diplomacy is still limited: instead of constructing your own proposals and counterproposals, the game forces you to take pre-defined options (what can I do when I want to demand or give 457 credits and the computer only allows me the fixed number of 300 or 150?). And diplomacy problems brings treaties and alliances problems: there's no way for a treaty to stand for long: if you're weak, the strong empires crush you; if you're strong, all other factions declare war on you even if they have no chance (apart of slave factions, of course).

Nothing to say about trade: the model is simple to death. "Tired of designing, guys?" is the question.

Developing of cities, also from Civilization, quickly becomes boring and repetitive: except on early stages of the game, it's a matter of "all buildings you can build". I think a model close to MOO1 or perhaps Ascendancy is much better. The "Talent/Drone" model, also, is too simplistic: does not include, for example, the effects of a sudden change of government (apart from varying Police indexes). What if a long-standing Democracy turns to a Fundamentalism in a turn? Will citizens remain so conformist? And so will they if the base is starving to death? And what if an obscure technocratic secret society is turning a base against its Eudaimonic government, or communists/ecologists incite uprising in a Free Market society? How can citizens stand quiet when unit after unit is destroyed in an endless war? Are soldiers mindless androids? Balancing Talents with Drones is enough to maintain peace?

But the worst of all is combat. Perhaps seems combat is not very important in an empire-building game, but is impossible to play a game without messing in several unprovoked wars (even with long-term allies; perhaps they don't know allied victory is possible). The "collateral damage" feature is annoying to say the least: I don't understand why 7 units sit while the 8th. is fighting against 1 attacker, who inflicts damage to all when winning; also, "automatic retreating" of tanks is a bad fix. Why not using a system like MoM? But even worse are the Attack/Defense stats: a battle consists of the attacker firing at the defender while the latter stays hoping its armor deflects all shots. A 12-1-1 Unit attacking a 16-4-1 Unit has all the chances of winning! Ridiculous! To make things even worse, armor values increase more slowly that weapons, making wars a matter of sending 13-1-1s. against 1-6-1s. in a base equipped with Perimeter Defense: outdoor battlefields belong to the one who attacks first. Air combat is still bad: although it's resolved comparing weapon forces, armor doesn't count. Why a land/sea unit cannot enter a square occupied by air unit?

Finally, although the AI is decent (decent, but not excellent), difficulty means more drones and ultra-cheating. The computer seems to know exactly where your units are, even without entering your datalinks or without having the Empath Guild. Do I really have the chances of success presented in the probe team operations window? No, I think. How can the computer discover Unified Field Theory and on the next turn send me a horde of marines equipped with weapon 12? He had only 150 credits to buy!

The Bottom Line
SMAC has almost all good features from Civ, and good new ones, but also has bad features from Civ (I say again: 8 years is enough time to get new and good ideas), and lacks some from Civ that were good.

Finally, even with the weak points, the game is worth a try, specially at reduced price. But i'ts far from being a true masterpiece.

The Good
I own a lot to this game and its creators. I learned how to value lesser or different life, the importance of ecology, economy, diplomacy, how to see into future and what the future might bring us. The game designer vision and especially execution is flawless and after years of playing there are still elements and strategies that I've missed, never to be used. The game offers you unlimited possibilities but doesn't burden you with them. You can do whatever you chose to do do play and win the game. INFINITE POSSIBILITIES, A TRUE MASTERPIECE

The Bad
I love everything, even the dated isometric graphics

The Bottom Line
The most complex and rewarding game ever. Dated graphics and extremely high complexity can be a problem now for some gamers.

The Good
It is a game in Civilization-style. The diplomacy is better than in most other games, especially the council is a great idea. The automatic governeurs help a lot in the later game.

The Bad
Well... everything I expected it to have. The changes since Civilization are not big enough. Most of the "new" features are already known from other games (e.g. the unit designer from Master of Orion). Why aren't there treaties between more than two factions? Many alliances do not work because they are in contrast to another treaty. There could have been done more with the council. The AI's behaviour towards the player because of different or similar ideologies are only hinted at.

The Bottom Line
It seems like Sid Meier's and Brian Reynolds' creative days are over. Their last innovative game was Civilization. Since then they only repeat themselves. Alpha Centauri is the latest evidence for that. Sure, it is a great game, playing it is fun, but I am not as enthusiastic about it as I was about Pirates or Civilization.

The Good
There are strategy games and there are strategy games. Alpha Centauri is the best thing that ever hit the strategy gaming world in a long time. How so? Well, I'm betting (of which I usually lose...) if your reading this review, you'd probably be well known to ol'Sid and his products, such as the acclaimed Civilization. Well, if you've played Civilization, you know the routine, build this build that until you have too many cities and they become to big and begin to die, etc.

Well, whoever made Civilization sure hell wasn't on the Alpha Centauri team. And thank the gods for that! Alpha Centauri is probably what you call "the PERFECT CIVILIZATION" (subjective opinion of course). I'll tell you why in a moment, but first I'd like to give you a description about what Alpha Centauri is all about (for those who have never played this game before).

Alpha Centauri started when Civilization ended (presumably), when you finish Civilization, well one of the endings anyway, you send a ship to outer space to conquer new worlds. Well, the blokes on Civilization (also presumably) landed on Alpha Centauri. They arrived safe and sound. Almost. Mankind always proved that they have the common sense of a warthog, and Alpha Centauri pointed that out by introducing the "Civilizations" in the game. Only, it not due to race. It based on ideology, each with multiple weaknesses and strengths. It maybe science fiction, but it sure hell was better than the real thing.

Now you have environmentalists, communists, industrialists and other ideologies of which I forgot, each have a unique way of handling problems. This can be seen from the technology tree, in a way it's similar to Master of Orion 1 & 2, except your only on one planet. Oh, you also notice that your not alone in this forsaken world. There are aliens...and they don't look friendly.

Enough said, back to the issue. What's so good about the game? Where to start... (In no particular order). The best way to compare this game is to compare it to Civilization, whom everyone adores so much (I got bored after Civ 3, same old same old...no Civ 4 please...)

Civilization had (and still I think) the worst diplomacy screen in the history of strategy games (Civ 3 got a little better). I recall in Civ 1 & 2, negotiation was not very interactive. In Alpha Centauri, the diplomacy is ALIVE! I felt as if I was playing AI with actual Intelligence! And the artificial intelligence of the computer players are really commendable. When they go to war, they really go to war! Civilization computer player always had an edge in expansion, but were mostly boring when it comes to battle. In Alpha Centauri, those guys (and girl) really know how move the muscle.

Like Civilization, every time you play a new random game, it's a totally different geographical map. But unlike Civilization, you probably wouldn't restart a couple of hundred times trying to find that "perfect" geographic location (not a desert again!). Alpha Centauri succeeded were Civilization was irritating. Geography doesn't matter. Even if when your surrounded by water, you can be as big as a city on land! What's the secret? Technology! Finally, the technology that actually makes a difference. You can even make cities on the ocean...there's no such thing as a "perfect" location in Alpha Centauri. Every place is a perfect location to build your city. There are also random events that may change the geography of the planet. One time a big volcano erupted and it was smack daddy in the middle of the map. Kinda cool actually, building cities around that hunk of molten rock.

What I like most in this game, is probably also what I liked most in Master of Orion. You can design your units. Weapons, armor, you name it, you can change it. You can make any kind of unit to fit long term or short term needs...this game was way ahead of its time...even way ahead of Civilization 3...how is that possible? Beats me.

The Bad
Well, geographical bonuses are random. Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't. There are a lot of unique geographical terrain that don't necessary show up in each game...it's useful at the beginning of the game.

The Bottom Line
This game will never be a classic. It's still way ahead of it's time to be old...

The Good
Science fiction turn based strategy. Wow!

The entire package (UI, game events, sound effects) is superbly integrated resulting in a game that is so immersive you lose all track of time.

The user interface is intuitive (at least to those used to these type of games), there are multiple ways to accomplish the same action so that as you become more familiar with the game you learn shortcuts and move more quickly.

The Bad
Learning curve for technology tree.

The Bottom Line
The best single player strategy game available today. Not for beginners.

The Good
The game starts where Civilization II stopped, a spaceship speeding to Alpha Centuri. In the game it is a UN mission not the winning nation. There is a rebellion on board and the ship splits into 7 factions: Green, UN, Capitalist, Militaristic, Religious, Collective … Each one can found a colonies, build military units, research technology, make money, trade technology with others, and explore the map (and find pods seeded by the mother ship with goodies inside).

I liked the boarders which stop allies building near you and enemies crossing your borders with out making war. Also the fact that one power becomes strong making the game more difficult, and the fact you can ask an ally to concentrate an attack on a specific colony. In this game colonies actually fall unlike Civilization II. Weak nations seek alliance instead of being hostile. The food box reduces if you build child care, hospital etc… This is good, Civ II really missed out on Medical advances speeding population growth. All these features would have made Civilization II much better.

Others features include nerve stapling, alien monoliths and psychic attacks by native live forms. There are many government types and you can pick or choose features of each.

The Bad
The future technology, wonders and units don’t do much for me, they are difficult to understand and put me off the game. The terrain is also strange and off putting.

The Bottom Line
Some good points but no match to Civilization II.

The Good
Extremely addictive, epic multiplayer options. Decent AI, Decent sound/music. Really strong interface makes the game fairly intuitive to learn.

The Bad
Once you get into it, there are several large glaring bugs that adversely affect the enjoyment. Due to an exodus of programming talent from Firaxis games, these bugs are likely never to be fixed.

The Bottom Line
An expanded Civilization II with multiplayer and the ability to custom build units piece by piece.

The Good
Built on the excellent Civ franchise. Had an interesting diplomacy model.

The Bad
I hated the look of this game. It was too dark, and brooding. Dark and brooding made sense in Dark Reign, but this just didn't go over for me in this game. I wasn't to fond of the technology either. It didn't have the flair of the tech from Civ or Master of Orion. It was the only Sid Meier's game that I didn't like.

The Bottom Line
Get the updated version of Civ II instead.

The Good
"Alpha Centauri" is pretty much Civilization On Another Planet, and has most of the associated strengths; solid, deep gameplay, addictive and immersive atmosphere, and a great balance between combat, research and construction elements. AC also has a backstory that's actually not bad as computer games go, and unlike Civ it has fairly extensive "Race" modifiers to give each civilization a different approach..

The Bad
I'm utterly baffled as to how this game as a higher rating than Civ, since it's basically the same game except with some weaknesses:

1. My God, this game is ugly, one of the ugliest successful games ever written for the PC. The color palette is just awful; units all look the same and are about as attractive as Joan Rivers's latest facelift.

2. The technology tree is cryptic at best and confusing at worst.

3. There's just not much here that didn't already exist. The game is graphically no better than the six-years-older Civ II, and it doesn't really add anything gamewise, so why not save a few bucks and play Civ?

4. The unit design system is the pits. There's really no unit design in the game at all; when you get more technology your units' attack and defense numbers improve.
   
   The Bottom Line
   More Civilization! Worth having if you can get it for a decent price, but don't expect anything better than Civ.

The Good
Ok, before I go on, please know that I own and love Civilization 2 and Civilization 3. Thank you.

When I first got this, i was excited. I had heard almost nothing bad about it, it had received PC Gamer's highest rating ever, and everyone said this was awesome. At first, I thought they were right. The graphics are improved from the original Civilization 2, and the interface seemed pretty much the same. Also, the Wonder Movies, like Civilization 2, were awesome.

The Bad
Then I began playing and realized how "un-fun" this was. I had no idea what any of the improvements or techs were. Should I research Polyphormic Encryption or Synthetic Phase Theory? Gee, the answer is obvious, isn't it? Polyphormic Encryption leads to Quantum flux which lets me modulate my phase variance, whereas Synthetic Phase Theory only allows me too create droids with upgraded logic data processors. Got all that? I didn't. You either know the techs and understand what they are, or you just bumble along, having no clue or clear direction about what you are researching except that "this tech is in the war field, and this other one is in the social field." The ability to create your own units sounds terrific, but proves to be a waste of effort. All the units that are worth any effort are already automatically made by the computer. Speaking of units, unlike in civ 2 where old, useless, antiquated units are replaced by more advanced units in the build menu, in this game, they aren't. So you either have too constantly clear out the old units, or leave them there and scroll through them all.

The Bottom Line
Basically, what you have here is Civilization 2 with poorer controls and much less accessibility. It's just too hard to get into. Civilization II on the other hand, is easy to sit down and play. You'll have to look at the manual every so often, but you can understand the basic concepts of the game such as what "archery" does.