Iceman, either you are very young or you haven't thought much about the economic realities of game development. One thing that surprises me is that games cost the same now as they did in the early '90's when I started PC gaming. Game revenue per unit has gone down due to inflation consequently, while graphic quality has increased. GCII is a much nicer game than Master of Magic for example, and costs far less in inflation adjusted dollars.

I don't tend to take a superlative view of anything. I don't consider DA to be the best or worst expansion of all time. I think it is a solid expansion to an aready terribly addictive game. A lot of the changes don't really reach out and demand attention however, like custom opponents. If I had one nit to pick, it would be that we could use more leader heads and portraits to use with our custom opponents. I don't think it qualifies as 'almost a sequel' as the advertising claims, but it does have a lot for an expansion.

As for what it should have but doesn't, that list is endless for most games. Many of the features that aren't included would be seldom used and only become obsessions with people who spend too much time on Internet message boards and think that they should be appointed lead developer. I don't understand the obsession with carriers on these boards. What, pray tell, would that add to the game? Multiplayer? Tons of development time for a very small minority of players. This has been proven time and again, even with some games that were designed for multiplayer and little else. 4x games are possibly among the poorest candidates for mulitplayer of any game genre. Like any good business, the devs are designing their product for the people who actually buy it. As for vast emptiness between stars, does anybody really believe that would make for entertaining game play? Seeing things like that, is it any wonder the devs take what they read here with a grain of salt?

Actually, you're out of luck on both guesses. I am a veteran 4X player, and I've been involved in the game making process, though not a very deep level. I do know the constraints though.



Do you really think you can make this comparison? Either you're very young or you haven't thought much about the economic realities of game development.   



I'm assuming this is for other posters, not me.



And this can't be about my post either...
I couldn't care less about MP, but carriers would be one of those things a space game should have. That's the whole point, what *should* be in a space game, from base. Not all of a sudden the dev team remembering "this should be included, as in other games, so let's make an expansion pack".

Its not about DA being perfect, and its not about making suggestions to improve it, its about not filling the messageboards with dishonest drama about the extent to which those imperfections matter. A review score is presumably suppossed to direct readers, most of whom are already gamers, in their choices over which games to purchase. Comparing a game to some strawman of perfection does not help them do that and simply dumb.

p.s. I just recently bought Company of Heroes too, so I am thinking of that too.

I do not regret the purchase of this game by SD.

This thread is made specifically made for us players to give our own opinions on what we did like, didn't like and what we would like to have seen. If you have a problem with what I don't like about DA, then too bad. It shouldn't really concern you either.

As to review scores, whatever review we're apparently talking about. (I never was, I just posted my thoughts on the game) DA got rated high, that's good enough. It deserves that. A perfect game implies nothing wrong with the game. It's quite possible to direct the reader without giving him/her that expectation. <-which itself can be a possibility for some readers. Regardless, whatever the talk was, I'm not interested in whatever reviews there have been. I pre-ordered this game as soon as it was possible.

I'd like to take the time to comment on a few points which have been raised, referring to no one in particular.

1. Carriers are a dead issue. They add very little to game play other than complexity. If you want, you can use Kryo's Hull System Mod, create a graphic of a carrier with a few fighters and then use that. It works. It does everything you want, other than add complexity.

2. United Planets. Even the United Nations only occasionally acts on things which their component nations bring up. Most of the time, it's absolutely worthless other than an ambassador forum, or an engine by which the most powerful can impose their will on the weak (and you can do that in the game directly, anyway).

The stuff that gets talked about in UP are subtle subjects that are potentially crippling. Having only 1 trade route is a huge disadvantage. Not being able to use Transports or Constructors because you can't meet minimum standards is likewise a major limitation. I feel that giving the UP more influence than it already has makes the game revolve around it. That's fine for Alpha Centauri - planetary politics are SUPPOSED to be like that, but for Gal Civ2, I like where the UP is at.

3.



The previous standard for galactic 4x games is MOO2. It did not have asteroids, you could not design enemy opponents, you can't customize your ship graphics, and planetary environments are not as big a deal as they are in Gal Civ2 - DA. The mark of how well DA upgrades the game in EXACTLY the right ways is that you feel that this should have been the game to begin with. That is how it is with all great expansions.

Even in the not-so-old Civ3, the AI is significantly weaker and the you can't customize your enemy civs. This is a huge deal for a 4x game, since most 4x games are played sandbox mode.

4.



Asteroids ARE a big deal. They can boost your manufacturing some two to three fold at twice the build speed. In many cases, colonizing your secondary planet or a small planet with lots of asteroids around is a better deal than colonizing a theoretically bigger planet. The huge increase in manufacturing can build your fleet up something fierce.

And yes, space is much, much, much emptier than is portrayed in the game.

5.



More galactic terrain would be good. Wormholes would be bad. Horrendously bad. It would be a major terrain feature that utterly changes galactic dynamic in a throughly unpredictable manner. Instantaneous Star Gates were available as a late game tech in MOO2 and it's a doozy. In fact, Airlifting and Helicopters do somewhat similar things in Civ3. ACQUIRABLE tech of this magnitude of power is acceptable. Early game gifting of what amounts to such tech randomly is not.

6. The tech tree

The tech tree is, IMO, better than in other games of the same genre. I like better than the Civ tech tree. As Frogboy intimates, this kind of organzition is so customizable that it's easy for the AI to make mistakes. With seperate lines you don't HAVE to have monarchy to have Knights. You can skip it altogether and get Knights immediately, if you think it's beneficial. That means that you're more unique as a civ in your game, and that your development in each game is likewise more unique.

While a certain kind of infrastructure is necessary to support an advanced fleet, it's not a hard coded thing. I have played games in which I deliberately ignored industrial tech because I was gearing for invasion and weapon techs just happened to be more valuable, even though it cost me an arm and a leg to refit my ships with the latest weaponry.

7.



I don't agree that this adds a whole lot of variety to the game. You can already make a lot of bombardment decisions when invading a planet, and that's a handful of decisions right there. It's not supposed to zoom to Civ when you're planetside. It's a Galactic game. There is no choice to be urban or rural, or bliztkrieg or not. Even in reality, the range of decisions is often one or two or one of several, not nearly as much as the game already offers now.

The main thing that players notice is the bad graphics. I honestly think that if the graphics were better, then there wouldn't be nearly so many complaints. The sound is "it's not complex enough," but what I think is the matter is that people aren't getting the eye candy they need.

8.



Such a thing does not exist, and is part of a bygone paradgim. Games are never released bug free because there's no way to get all the bugs out of a system without extensive beta-testing. The most expensive, extensive bug-testing being done today is with Blizzard and their multimillion dollar game development budgets, but even their oft-delayed hyperexpensive development projects aren't bug-free. Many Blizzard patches are often simply packets of debugging solutions.

Firaxis itself recently suffered a major hit because they released a game that had a bug that caused it to be unplayable. Not "unplayable" as in "not fun." "Unplayable" as in you can't play the game because it crashed every time you started it. That's a pretty huge issue.

Game development these days is about one thing and one thing only: post product support. Blizzard revolutionized this approach with their popular Starcraft and Warcraft games. These are widely held to be THE standard for game quality bar NONE. There is no game more polished than Starcraft was in its heyday - it's still being played competitively today.

Asking for a bug-free, cheese-free game out of the box is like asking for solid rubber tires - it's a sign of being stuck in the past when product support was minimal to none.

Instead, ask for continual patching to solve bug issue and balance issues when they come to light - and Stardock is one of the most attentive developers on the market today.

DA is as perfect as it is possible to get for a game - a continually evolving game that's alright right out of the box. It's theoretically possible for a competitive driver to take every corner like a computer - perfect in every way - documented by high speed camera, but it's absurd to expect it every single time. So you rate him a 10 as long as he's the best and continues to get better, even if he's not computer-perfect every time.

9.



I'll be letting my inner geek out here, but technically, a module that's orbiting a planet is an orbital platform, not a Starbase. Both could conceiveably called a SPACE STATION, but a platform that's limited to orbiting planets can't correctly be called a Star Base.

As far as I can tell, StarBases are platforms that are built deep in space where there's nothing, precisely BECAUSE there's nothing. If there were a planet where you need it, you'd build your installation there, not in deep space.

Many strong effects can be called "cheesy," but I don't know whether I'd lump Star Bases into those. Military Starbases make planetbound and generally slow Fighters extremely effective. Misison Accomplished, right? You spam Economic Centers right where the trade traffic is most concentrated. Again, that's exactly the conceptual and design intent, so what's wrong with it? If the bonuses are too high, then that's the problem, not with Starbases per se, IMO.

About the only thing I can say is that I think that planets should rightly be able to support the kind of functions you put on a Military Starbase, particularly if they have Orbital Fleet Managers. This'll mean that posting armed sentries orbiting over planets make much more sense - exactly how I picture things to be, and exactly how the AI manages its fleets.


10.

Nothing is perfect. There's ALWAYS something somewhere that can be improved upon. I can think of many ways in which DA can be better. For that matter, many of the things DA already has were features which I thought MOO2 should have had way back when. This is why DA is such a dream for me. It's like I developed MOO2 in exactly the ways I wanted to. All my boxes have been ticked off nearly, and if I have any suggestions for improvement, they're new ones.

I agree with doing away with carriers.
I like the custom opponents.
I like the graphics.
I like the "no-genocidal runs" attitude.
I like the asteroids.
I love the ship editor.

PS.

11. If Carriers have to be in the game, I would say that they should probably be like a mini mobile Military StarBase, to differentiate them from high-attack, long fire range battleships, which is essentially what real-life aircraft carriers are. This means that you never build them and send them out alone, which would add something to the game - a ship that supports other ships.

Nice dodge, of course you couldn't name a better expansion. Maybe the question confused you? And 10 is relative... a 10 score is not an indication of perfection in a game... it simply means there is nothing better. There has never been a "perfect" game, and there never will be, no such thing as a "bug free" game, and the gameplay has been thoroughly tested. I didn't have to rip you to shreds, you did it all by yourself.



Your opinion is in the tiny minority (go to gamestats for a review average, press score average of all reviews 9.5, gamer score 9.0... much better than "not bad"), which means your opinion is aberrant. That's a fact. That's what the word means. See? You just learned something.

Also, many of the *real* reviewers, the players, disagree with you. I know that because I am one, as are the majority of posters on this very thread. Again you've done all my work for me and destroyed your own argument.



You're the one that insists that the many very positive reviews from reviewers and gamers are wrong. It's not that I'm all that, it's just that your argument is so very pathetic. You should pick your fights more carefully.



Name the direct competition that has all of the features of GC and lots more. Let's hear it.

The game seems unfinished? What title are you comparing this game to? If you've been playing a 4x game that makes DA seem unfinished, please let me know, I'd love to play it.



No they shouldn't. Name that game that you play that has "lots more content," makes GCII/DA seem "unfinished," and that doesn't have any exploits.

Sorry for disturbing your mud-throwing, but I'd like to pick that line up.
There are many games that are far superior in creating a believable game-world. GalCiv2 fails to convince me that I'm looking at a galaxy with planets, empires and fleets. I'm looking at a PC-game, like a random flipper, Minesweeper or Super Mario Bros.

Freelancer is a game that really shows how to create a proper, believable space-world. I don't like the genre, but I keep playing it because the world and game mechanics are just very believable and create a great athmosphere.

That's what makes GalCiv2 look unfinished and not-thought-out to me.

"This game seems unfinished, a starting point to keep adding new features, at the expense of consecutive "expansion packs". That's not good."

I disagree, I think it's great, I just want those expansion paks coming out ever 2 or 3 months instead of once a year/every 8 or 9 months. Oh well.

"Name a single expansion that threw in a massive number of features, i.e. was creative, without screwing up balance, A.I., introduced a massive number of bugs, etc. And don't hit me with the moronic strawman that DA had its downsides, because relative to stuff that is already on the market, its a work of art."

I'll name three.

Starcraft Broodwar, New units, 1.08 patch, allowed recording of games, better multiplayer interaction because of the units.

Diablo II Lord Of Destruction,(does it technically qualify?) An entirely new realm, and contained new pieces of armor, better balancing then the original.

Age of Empires II, Age of Kings More civillizations, larger and better maps, better AI although rather basic for RTS stuff.

I have never said that Dark Avatar wasn't a good piece of software, nor agreed with the rating. I've agreed with the statements. Did you forget to quote where I said "'m sure the product will sell well, can't be the price at $29.95" How's that for a selling point?

"If you haven't gotten Galciv 2 Dread Lords yet definetly don't go get Dark Avatar, but definetly also don't look for multiplayer there. At $29.95 it would be worth it over a majority of the other crap out there."

Where I said "don't go get Dark Avatar, that was supposed to read "go get Dark Avatar, and you can clearly read that implication or inference in the next sentence, if editing of posts was allowed by this post starter or by the forums, i.e. property of Stardock, then I would be at LIBERTY to change it.

There are some ugly parts of Dark Avatar, and Galciv 2. I.e. the ground combat of which watching is pointless and repetitive and boring after the second time. Suggestions for improving that were largely overlooked in the expansion.

"Planet textures are blurry and ugly." Not a major detractor but certainly not a bonus aye?

"Two threaties that make it easier to gain alliance with an AI opponent."

Wow that is a feature that couldn't possibly make it into the original game via a patch. Right.

"-United Planets doesn't seem well implemented"

It didn't in the original game and unless I'm mistaken nothing has changed here in the expansion. The UP could really be soooooo much more then it is. Especially if manipulation via politics is your strategy. Instead its forces voting on topics of which you have no input whatsoever. You cannot even lobby for an agenda. Suks.

My biggest detractor is and continues to be multiplayer, and yes I know should just shut up but you wanna see some five star general labeling or 10/10 slap a multiplayer expansion pak together that is implemented well and allows for all different playing styles to find a game online. From the quickie type players who wanna game for an hour for fun to try out an opening strategy to the epic players who'll meet for 2 hours each week and play out an epic struggle in a gigantic map until a winner is declared. Hell make it so you can re-buy into the game somehow lol, become a governor inside somebody's empire, When you get the strength make it so that player can start a rebellion with a few planets or make it so you can split off peacefully as allies.

Plenty of opportunities for innovation in multiplayer gameplay, plenty of ways to make it so there is fun and introduce a new way of playing. With this type of game bandwidth isn't really an issue, only protocol so you could literally have more then 8 players in the same galaxy, maybe a dozen or two dozen, you could make a mini-map .jpeg screenshot that shows the size/status of different galaxies, i.e. games for playing. So players could jump into a galaxy and run an empire midstream, for the fun of it. If you have to go, have it so the AI takes over. If this AI is so good, they should be able to do all the stuff they do when given the chance with half an empire already built, from what I hear the AI is improving and having the AI able to use not just the CPU power you have, but hell have the AI be able to use the combined CPU power of everybody playing, I bet you won't see the AI making too many mistakes if this AI is really that advanced. Save empires they really like to disk, maybe host them online again,at a later date... whatever. I'm just throwing out ideas, not all are possible but damn it's not that hard to just come up with wild stuff.

The hard part is putting it into the game I get that.

I am just of the opinion that the expansion on the whole doesn't innovate enough for me to drop $30 to take a peek. That is my personal and gaming opinion. It's no more valuable to you or anyone then yours is. I'm just stating it. There were annoyances and tweaks that could have been fixed/made aside from lack of multi-player and there also were some things that are good in DA. The espionage certainly will make games more interesting, mining resources in your systems will also add strategy to both the economy and logistical military strategy.

Additional skins, though nice, are cream puffs for features. There is this great 3-D state of the art ship combat viewer, but you can only look, not touch. Lame. I know the game isn't real time tactical or even tactical in nature, but you do spend plenty of time building an empire with an economy to build a military to protect the empire, and it just seems like it would be kick ass to be a able to be the space admiral when the really big, critical battle, i.e. battle of the bulge type stuff occurs. Instead of just watching. Even simply choosing the order of attacking enemy ships, or whatever. Not impossible to code, but just not given the "ranked value" something like that could have to the player.

That's why we don't see carriers, the death star ray type ship, anything that pulls a player away from the strategy element is outside the scope. I agree with those decisions in part, but if the game is to be kept strictly single player for the foreseeable future I see nothing wrong with shoring up the depth of the gameplay experience in favor of adding depth in areas that are very shallow.

Same with the tech tree. Very generic and dare I say repetitive. One thing Master of Orion got perfect in the original game was making it so that the same exact tech opportunities were never available to the player. I.e. although the tech tree was limited, though not as limited as GALCIV 2 feels dammit, it felt like each game was different because you had some things which helped shape your strategy and some things that didn't. It wouldn't be a huge detractor in Galciv 2 DL/DA either if you were given the option in the setup screen to make that selectable. That way you'd have to spend more time trading with your racial counterparts for tech you really needed.

That's a change I would make today in the master plan for Gal Civ development. I feel that they have such a great hull of a game but are weary of filling it with crap, but detail, implementation, character, and flavor are what make games cool. Not always slick design and sparely visual stuff.

Maybe what players want is ultimately unachievable. I don't know.

This is the feeling I get. When I see GC2, I see a great base for a gaming experience. Don't get me wrong, the 'base' is great as a game itself. I don't regret buying DL or DA.

I'll second the plea for a debate free from bitching and name-calling.

As someone who thinks DA is a good expansion pack (not brilliant but well above average) here are my two cents:

Firstly, just because gamespot etc. give a good review does not of itself stand as an indicator of quality. The large online review sites represent a certain approach to gaming and to scoring - for instance all gave Grand Theft Auto 9/10 or 10/10, I would have given it 5/10 if I was feeling generous. This is not to discount their opinion or take away from DAs achievement in getting excellent reviews, merely to point out that in any artistic medium large review sites can rave about something quite out of proportion to its actual value. Didn't Titantic sweep the oscars board not so long ago? Not that DA is the videogame equivalent of Titanic, but it seems a little hasty to dismiss peoples views for not being in synch with the large review sites.

Secondly a 10/10 expansion pack is a mythical ideal, and rightly so. If you start giving out 10/10s where do you go from there? What if a better expansion comes along, do you give 11/10? Without wishing to go all 'Plato' we all have an idealised picture of the perfect expansion and the review numbers given should represent how close the actuality is to this perfect ideal. If one assumes, quite feasibly, that most expansion packs are pretty cruddy, should review scores be more generous just to make sure there is a decent spread of scores? Or be more honest and call a spade a spade even if it means a relatively narrow range of scores. I think the latter.

Personally I think DA is worth about 7/10. This equates to a good product. Part of the problem is that we re so used to 9/10 awards in reviews that anything beneath an 8 seems like a condemnation.

"That's what everyone in the industry wants you to think. Release the game unfinished, it'll be patched later. Just because *everyone* does it nowadays, doesn't mean it's correct."

ABSOFRICKENLUTELY!

Not like some of these "improvements" couldn't have been patched into the original game, but hey can't make a buck doing that.

I'll respond to your post completely later, I just wanted to encourage everyone here to count the the posters in this thread that are supporting GCII versus the critics and take a minute to laugh at ToS Iceman's moronic math skills. 10 pro, 7 against, the rest on the fence. You must have forgot page one, Einstein.

I'd also like to encourage readers to go to the main page and check out the DA poll results. Unfortunately for ToS Iceman, this poll does not support his argument, and in fact directly contradicts it.

SEV is your idea of a superior game to GCII? That's just hilarious, and says it all. SEV got an average score of 6.6/10, while GCII got 9.5/10. You're oblivious.