Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Levi]

From what little I've played so far today with my roommate, it seems pretty fun.    Aliens keep eating my dudes though, haha.

[Rakonas]

One major quitessential "Civ" thing I'm not seeing so far are natural wonders. I did see one fairly unique feature, looked like a large crater (very similar to the Barringer crater in AC) but it appeared to be purely visual and without any bonuses: mousing over the central hex (the mouth of the crater) and surrounding hexes (the rim) just returned "mountain" (ironic, actually), grassland, grassland/hill, etc. The pedia only refers to wonders you can construct so I guess natural wonders don't exist (probably slated for an expansion, greedy bastards). Also missing great people. I guess AC didn't have them either but... yeah.

Odd.  Are natural wonders/landmarks actually a Civ thing?  Other than Civ5 and Alpha Centauri, I don't recall any natural wonders of the sort you describe.  The only ones I can think of were certain scenarios and mods in Civ4, where they were refluffed resources.

Yeah I'm quite certain they're just an AC and Civ 5 thing. But since BE is Civ 5 + AC you might expect it to be included.

[MaximumZero]

Having played a full game, I give SM'sC:BE an 8.5/10. It's almost the alpha centauri successor that we all need. The planets need to be more varied (only 3 non-challenge types?) and the civs themselves all feel very samey. Also, I'd like to see major terraforming, not just remove miasma, plant green things.

[10ebbor10]

Okay, now I'm very sad that it doesn't run on Directx 9, as opposed to just sad.

[Graknorke]

Having played a full game, I give SM'sC:BE an 8.5/10. It's almost the alpha centauri successor that we all need. The planets need to be more varied (only 3 non-challenge types?) and the civs themselves all feel very samey. Also, I'd like to see major terraforming, not just remove miasma, plant green things.

Is that a legit 8.5/10 or a gaming 8.5/10?

[Sergarr]

no score screen

0/10 jesus christ Firaxis how hard is it to include a score screen in 1.0 version jeez

[IronyOwl]

Having played a full game, I give SM'sC:BE an 8.5/10. It's almost the alpha centauri successor that we all need. The planets need to be more varied (only 3 non-challenge types?) and the civs themselves all feel very samey. Also, I'd like to see major terraforming, not just remove miasma, plant green things.

Is that a legit 8.5/10 or a gaming 8.5/10?

"Pretty good" or "only molested two of my children?"

no score screen

0/10 jesus christ Firaxis how hard is it to include a score screen in 1.0 version jeez

While I agree in general, to be fair: Who "wins" a game of Civ anyway?

[Tarran]

Having played a full game, I give SM'sC:BE an 8.5/10. It's almost the alpha centauri successor that we all need. The planets need to be more varied (only 3 non-challenge types?) and the civs themselves all feel very samey. Also, I'd like to see major terraforming, not just remove miasma, plant green things.

If you go into advanced options and have the exoplanet preorder DLC, there are different map types than the normal 3 and the challenge ones, though I haven't tried them yet. And, of course, it's not yet available to those that did not have the foresight to preorder the game 1 day from release.

Also, yes, the 8.5 is also my impression. The game isn't revolutionary or utterly addicting, and indeed its engine is extremely similar to Civ5's engine, but it's a solid game even on release. It has a notable amount of minor problems, but I have seen nothing that stops a game in it's tracks so far.

[Niveras]

One major quitessential "Civ" thing I'm not seeing so far are natural wonders. I did see one fairly unique feature, looked like a large crater (very similar to the Barringer crater in AC) but it appeared to be purely visual and without any bonuses: mousing over the central hex (the mouth of the crater) and surrounding hexes (the rim) just returned "mountain" (ironic, actually), grassland, grassland/hill, etc. The pedia only refers to wonders you can construct so I guess natural wonders don't exist (probably slated for an expansion, greedy bastards). Also missing great people. I guess AC didn't have them either but... yeah.

Odd.  Are natural wonders/landmarks actually a Civ thing?  Other than Civ5 and Alpha Centauri, I don't recall any natural wonders of the sort you describe.  The only ones I can think of were certain scenarios and mods in Civ4, where they were refluffed resources.

Maybe you're right, I guess they weren't in Civ4 either but instead only in mods. I didn't play Civ3 much to remember and Civ2 was too old to really count as setting a trend.

[Sartain]

Pretty sure the Natural Wonders concept started in Alpha Centauri with the Landmarks (Manifold Nexus, Borehole Cluster, Sunny Mesa, Sargasso Sea and such) which were mostly basic terrain with either pre-built improvements or additional resources to work.
It didn't (as far as I know) re-appear until Civ 5 with the specific natural wonders.
It's a shame Beyond Earth doesn't have it but I suppose made-up wonders  would lack the distinctive nature of the Natural Wonders of our Earth that Civ 5 feature.
Still, I remembered 4 of the Landmarks of AC off the top of my head so made-up doesn't necessarily mean uncharacterstic

[MaximumZero]

Is that a legit 8.5/10 or a gaming 8.5/10?

I only do legit. I work on a full 10 point scale. For instance, Two Worlds gets a 0/10, because that game sucked beyond sucking.

[SharpKris]

i feel like the wildlife is a bit lacking.. turn 80 and i can mow down just about anything

[Retropunch]

i feel like the wildlife is a bit lacking.. turn 80 and i can mow down just about anything

I imagine this kinda thing will get easily worked out in a mod - I wouldn't be surprised if there are tweaking/'realism' mods within a week or two.

[Niveras]

I think I encountered my first AI bug. I was denounced for attacking a station that a civ was trading with, and next turned asked to stop attacking it entirely, but I hadn't attacked a station in over 100 turns (as part of a quest) and I had destroyed that one 3 turns later. I'm actually trading with all the remaining stations so it's not like I'm at war with them... Would also be nice if the diplomacy dialogue actually specified who it is I'm supposed to be attacking, but I guess that should otherwise be obvious.

Maybe some kind of spy shenanigans? But I don't see that you could assign a spy to a station let alone whether any covert actions exist that would reduce the health on a station and assign blame elsewhere...

There is one station being attacked but I'm not sure how since there's no units adjacent to it. There might be a ranged unit in a hex I haven't explored yet but we'll know in a turn or two.

[Chiefwaffles]

I've had that bug throughout an entire game.

After destroying a station for a quest, the civ that was trading with it complained to me about fighting it routinely for the rest for the game. It seems that when you destroy a station, the game still registers you at war with that now nonexistent station. I think.