The Good, the Ugly, the Bad of DA

sam0t

Join Date 01/2006

The Good, the Ugly, the Bad of DA

I should begin by saying this is a personal review of DA and in no mean should it be taken as anything else

The Good

By far the best two aspects of the expansion in my opinion are the hazardous enviroment planets and asteroid fields. These add a nice new twist on the gameplay and make it feel fresh.

The new ship designs are very nice and I find myself using template ships most of the time. They are cool looking and I cannot make any better designs myself, so I use templates.

New ship combat system feels better than the old one and it actually makes more sense now that every gun is handled independently.

I find Mega Events neat and they are just what they are very Mega and shake up the game like an earthquake.

The tech tree boxes have made the tech tree easier to navigate.

New galaxy creation menus are very easy to navigate and good overall.

Some gameplay tweaks are very nice IMO, like like limiting ship speeds via bigger engines and being able to use diplomacy less frequently.

AI seems bit wiser and provides real challenge even on tough difficulty level! And its getting better with patches, enough said?

The Bad

UI. I find UI the most dissapointing aspect of the DA. I admit being a bit of a UI zeatlot and find myself constantly irritated by even the slightest short comings of UI. Overall DA UI does its job and I have seen many games with far worse UI but there are many places where the UI just seems unfinished, you only have to open the rallypoint pop up menu to see what I mean.

Espionage system. This subject was discussed to the death on many topics during beta but developers shooted down the communitys ideas. Instead of implementing a deep/rich espionage system we got this over simplistic shallow espionage system which I would rather have as an option than hard coded feature in the game. Disable buildings or remove enemy agents, thats the espionage in nut shell.

Diplomacy. If my memory serves me correctly, improved diplomacy was on top 3# when the most wanted expansion pack wishes were asked in a poll. So whats new? Two threaties that make it easier to gain alliance with an AI opponent. Where is the more meaningful United Planets? The ability ask opponents to remove their SB from your influence zone and so on? I also must mention that the whole diplomacy trading lacks real logic, you must guess what makes the deals work since there is no indication what the AI values and how much.

Land combat. Ship combat has gotten lots of love with patches and now even more with the expansion pack, but how goes it on land combat side? Billions of citizens are given laser guns and send off to commit genozide on another planets. There can be all sort of explanations why this is so, but the end result is the same, Land Combat is over simplistic and boring. Where are the army forces that I remember were talked during development?

Game Mechanics. There are many just plain bad gameplay mechanism quirks that have carried over to DA from GC2. Here is a list of some game mechanic flaws that come to my mind:

1. The most obvious is ofcourse the absolute micromanagement hell of starbase constuction. There are people who say "why not use rallypoints" etc, but its a lame excuse in my opinion, since even if you use rally points it does not become much clearer. This because when the constuctor hits the SB and ask you "what would you like to build" you have no idea which SB is in question. Clearly the developers took another route with mining bases, why not implement same sytem on SB construction? Automaticly and neatly, no need to bother the player with trivial things like moving every single constructor to the right SB.

2. I find it akward as h*** that there is no hotkey for moving autopilot moves. This is something GC1 had but GC2 is missing, very weird.

3. Lack of borders. Yeah Yeah I know space is infinite and there are no borders in space, but this is a game. We humans define everything with borders like our countries, our houses, personal areas and the list goes on. I fail to see the logic why SD has to try and make GC2 unique this way. I think its a bad move as it goes against our very nature as territorial animals

The Ugly

DA is a pretty game except the utter ugliness of land combat!

If it was my game, I´d be ashamed of the land combat graphics, but thats just me.

Ship Combat videos. They are better in DA than in GC2 but I find the automatic camera quite bad overall. Either it jumps all over the place(cinematic) or zooms way too far away from the battle (top down). Ofcourse free camera solves this but consider the lazy folks

Formation choosing for fleets would have been nice add too.

There are literally tens maybe hundreds of new premade ships at your disposal with DA, but zero new portraits and civilization logos to be found. Somebody at graphics deparment had brain shortcut

Planet textures are blurry and ugly.

Verdict = 7.8p

I admit that I had too high hopes for an expansion pack and that is the reason for such a long "The Bad" section. Hopefully this can be taken as constructive critism and developers consider these things when GC3 is on the drawing table.

Also it should be considered that this rather harsh verdict comes from a fellow who has probably played too much of GC2 alrdy. So its only natural that the most intense WOW just isnt there anymore. All in all I would say that the expansion pack is a must buy for a relatively new players of GC2. If you have beated GC2 to the death over and over again, DA probably wont bring back those sleepless nights like GC2 did.

Hope people can discuss their own views of DA and take my review as it is. Which is just my personal view of the expansion pack and nothing more

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Personally I think DA is worth about 7/10. This equates to a good product."

Agree. But since I haven't played it yet, my review is worthless.

Yeah, I'd agree. Your opinion is pretty worthless if you haven't played it yet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

ToS_Iceman's most vocal supporter and yes man has never even played DA?

How embarrassing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have played it and I can give it a 7.5-8.0 with no loss of sleep. You're right there is some world view that anything below 80% means complete and utter failure. Not at all.

I think he was agreeing that 7/10 equates to a good product, not the score itself.

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.

GC2 doesn't average 9.5. http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp
(Change category to turnbased to remove the RTS games)

It seems we can just drop GC2 and take on the superior Civ4 and SMAC, eh?

But really, this is all shying away from the topic. Scores have no relevance in what we find good, bad and/or ugly about Dark Avatar.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm using Gamestats. Gamerankings.com indicates that GCII gets 87%, DA gets 94%, and SEV gets 66%.

Same difference, but thanks for an additional source confirming my assertion.

Since CIV and SMAC aren't 4X games, their relevance to this discussion is questionable.

Regardless, this is totally on topic. This thread was a game review, and I'm discussing game reviews. ToS Iceman asserts that SEV is superior, so it's only natural to point out that every game review ever written disagrees with him.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And 10 is relative... a 10 score is not an indication of perfection in a game... it simply means there is nothing better.

Speaking of ripping to shreds, and nails in the coffin. Name your ZERO expansion. Yes, there must be one. If there's a ten, then there must definitely be a zero. Do you agree? It might not even be that bad, it's just that it's the worse around. Now, will someone seeing that rating think that the expansion features *absolutely* nothing? Only if they're stupid, right? But have you ever seen a rating of zero for any game or expansion? Now it's me who dares you to name one. I mean, the only one

Yes I have, that's easy. "Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing" got an average review of 4%, and although not many game rank scores start at 0, it managed to earn a few.

Your point is irrelevant anyway, as most rating scales start at 1, with 1 being the absolute worst score.

Why don't you go play SEV since it's so good? What's wrong? Can't get it to run? Keep your fingers crossed, maybe the fifteenth patch will work.

Successfully updated karma reason!

eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate: I would say they are very much so 4X. (Let's be real, Civ was probably our first true 4X game)

I wouldn't really use the averages of DA just yet, there aren't enough reviews out for it. Only two.(On gamestates, 5 on GR) And really, the 100% is from Gamespy, the very same Gamespy that gave Halo 100% and then put it in their top 20 overrated games of all time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'll respond to your post completely later,

I hope you don't forget to do so...

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.

Looking for support, eh? Even if this were true, which is not, 7 against seems pretty heavy odds.
We must have different numeric systems over here though, because going back I counted 11 people that expected more and 9 that find it perfect (even though some have not stated so clearly, rather agreed with someone). I haven't counted the "borderline" posts, people that say this or that is not good but "take no side" (to go with your style). So maybe you should read things again. Or right out name names.
BTW, the point here was if it's a 10 or not (your point, not mine). I guess you forgot that.

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.

Where does it say it's a 10? I'm curious.

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.

You're ridiculous, you know? I said it's a more complete game, as opposed to GC which feels incomplete. Want a quote? You're twisting everything because you know you've gone down.

ToS_Iceman's most vocal supporter and yes man has never even played DA?

How embarrassing.

Not really. Just by reading the forums you can have a very good idea of the shortcomings (to be polite) of DA. And I don't need supporters, as you're trying to make it look like, because I'm not defending any cause. Some people replied to the OP's review with their opinions, you're pissed and trying to make an issue out of it. You're being pathetic, and dragging an issue that could have ended long ago. Ultimately it hurts the forums and the game, so I don't understand this attempt at being a paladin of some sort. A misguided one.

Why don't you go play SEV since it's so good? What's wrong? Can't get it to run? Keep your fingers crossed, maybe the fifteenth patch will work

I do. And it's great. And just to answer you in kind, how many patches (major *and* minor) did GC have and still is buggy? (still play it too) Fifteen is an estimate of yours BTW? Since you're so good with numbers...

Successfully updated karma reason!

For the record, on that poll. I voted 'I love it', as did most. It hasn't swayed me away from picking out what I feel is bad and could be improved upon.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Since CIV and SMAC aren't 4X games, their relevance to this discussion is questionable.

Civilization is probably the quintessential 4X game. Alpha Centauri is also very much an iconic 4X game. I think you are thinking of the narrower 'space 4X' genre with Reach for the Stars and Master of Orion. I definitely consider the 'Civ-like' 4x's relevant to a discussion of GC2.

From the wikipedia entry on 4X games:

"Most fans regard Sid Meier's Civilization in 1990 as the first true 4X game, with the level of detail that has become a staple of the genre. The original Master of Orion from 1993 is also an early landmark in the genre. Both had more developed technology trees and diplomatic AI."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sorry about that 4X hiddenranbir, I had a mental block. I always think of 4X as being MoO and Stars!, my mistake.

ToS Iceman-

Looking for support, eh? Even if this were true, which is not, 7 against seems pretty heavy odds.
We must have different numeric systems over here though, because going back I counted 11 people that expected more and 9 that find it perfect (even though some have not stated so clearly, rather agreed with someone). I haven't counted the "borderline" posts, people that say this or that is not good but "take no side" (to go with your style). So maybe you should read things again. Or right out name names. BTW, the point here was if it's a 10 or not (your point, not mine). I guess you forgot that.

That's not the point, and you know it. I think DA is a 10 expansion. You said that was an "absurd opinion." I then asked you what your opinion of a 10 game was. You never responded to that directly, but you did say that Space Empires V was your idea of a "real space strategy game." Is this all coming back to you now?

As to the posters in this thread and what their opinion is, I never claimed that the majority think that DA is a 10 expansion. If you recall, you said on page one of this very thread that... "The *real* reviewers, the players, say different in these forums. It's not bad, but it's not great either." I disagreed, as do the majority of the posters on this thread, that DA is better than "not bad, but not great." That's the point. I guess you forgot that.

Again, the poll indicates that the game is liked much, much better than "not bad, but not great either," by the "real reviewers, the players," who YOU claim say different in this forum.

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.

------

You're ridiculous, you know? I said it's a more complete game, as opposed to GC which feels incomplete. Want a quote? You're twisting everything because you know you've gone down.

ToS_Iceman's most vocal supporter and yes man has never even played DA?

How embarrassing.

------

Not really. Just by reading the forums you can have a very good idea of the shortcomings (to be polite) of DA. And I don't need supporters, as you're trying to make it look like, because I'm not defending any cause. Some people replied to the OP's review with their opinions, you're pissed and trying to make an issue out of it. You're being pathetic, and dragging an issue that could have ended long ago. Ultimately it hurts the forums and the game, so I don't understand this attempt at being a paladin of some sort. A misguided one.

Why don't you go play SEV since it's so good? What's wrong? Can't get it to run? Keep your fingers crossed, maybe the fifteenth patch will work.

------

I do. And it's great. And just to answer you in kind, how many patches (major *and* minor) did GC have and still is buggy? (still play it too) Fifteen is an estimate of yours BTW? Since you're so good with numbers...

The number of SEV patches was from memory (I also own SEV), and it's actually many more patches, as of now 25. Here's the patch history. If you want to know how many patches GCII has had look it up yourself.

(http://spaceempires5.com/files/se5patch_v125.txt)

I think DA is a 10/10 expansion. You don't. Fine. But you should realize that if you think SEV is a superior game, your tastes are different than 90% of the people on this forum. Because, unlike you, most people hang out at forums of games that they enjoy.

If we were like you, we'd all be hanging out at the SEV forum telling them how their game sucks and bragging about GCII.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sorry about that 4X hiddenranbir, I had a mental block. I always think of 4X as being MoO and Stars!, my mistake.

Mental block, sure. Heh.

Let me quote it for you then:

As for the best expansion being the "10" to which all other expansions should compare to, that's about the most absurd opinion I've heard on the subject.

Notice how I don't say *your* opinion is absurd, but how the *best* expansion should be the benchmark? I guess you read what you find useful to keep your head above water.

Ok, how about a bug free, cheese free, thoroughly tested gameplay and campaign module?

Didn't read this either, did you? Not in your best interest I guess...

As for other games, I just have to fire up SEV to see a *real* space strat game. Regardless of all its problems, which can be fixed with *patches*, it feels pretty advanced.

Yes, SEV is a real ssg, GC is an empire management or civilization building game, with a sci-fi varnish. It's not really a space game, not at its core. I've said this before, it's no secret. SEV focuses more on what a space game should, combat and diplomacy. GC has a broader scope, but consequently every aspect of the game is much shallower. That's why the devs have to release these "expansion packs", to add content to a game that desperately needs it if it wants to be convincing as a *space* strat game.

As to the posters in this thread and what their opinion is, I never claimed that the majority think that DA is a 10 expansion.

So what exactly does this mean?

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.

Of course this was your idea of propaganda, since no one here was attacking GC, so there were no supporters. You know, your argumentation skills are those of a 15 year old. To match your math skills I guess...
You're still thinking about your reply to the rest of the post, right?

Let me spell it out for you since you have some difficulty understanding what is written there. It's not *this* thread that sums up the game or the forums. It's not "I love it" that classifies it as great. Only you seem to think that way. But then again, only you need to see it that way.

Again, the poll indicates that the game is liked much, much better than "not bad, but not great either," by the "real reviewers, the players," who YOU claim say different in this forum.

See above. Liked much and perfect, dif-fe-rent. Got it?

Do you read other threads other than this one? Or is this your life? There's nothing else there for you, huh? Tell you what, search for my nick, and read my posts (maybe you should have done that already?). You'll find it. I think. If you need help, give me a shout.
"Mommy, he never said that, he is a liar!". Pathetic...

Slowly so you don't miss the boat. SEV is way way ahead of GC in the military side, and not only. It's a more complex game, and one that depicts a space environment pretty well (as opposed to GC). This is not only me saying it. I don't dismiss GC as being buggy, I'm merely stating the obvious. I've also said that SEV is very buggy, check other threads on the subject. It's *you* who doesn't want to see that because it's not convenient.

Call me pathetic all you want, I'm not the one hanging around the forum of a game I don't like to argue with people who do like it. How sad is that?

Care to quote me on that, me not liking the game? You can't can you? That's why you're pathetic. Had you really done your homework, you'd see I've said this game has a lot of potential, but some design decisions were *IMO* wrong. It also feels incomplete *for a space strat game*.

I think DA is a 10/10 expansion. You don't. Fine. But you should realize that if you think SEV is a superior game, your tastes are different than 90% of the people on this forum.

That's where you are wrong. Just check out the # of threads about tactical combat, new unit types, ship design, diplomacy options, etc. There are posts that are outright copies of the SEV system. You should know that, you play it and you are an attentive reader of all these forums...

Because, unlike you, most people hang out at forums of games that they enjoy.

I'm still hoping this game will be made a solid, logic, mind challenging space game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wow, some much needed 'heated debate' going on in here... I like it!

Successfully updated karma reason!

This isn't an expansion, in my eyes. Too much has been rebuilt, and the game itself is infinitely deeper. This is GalCiv 3. The old regime of strategies has been taken out back and shot, and a new and improved regime given power. The old colony rush in the opening game has been pretty much eliminated, I see the AI making a lot more use of scouts to map their expansion. Colonization is now something you need to keep an eye on as each new technology opens, and in the games I've played, I've simply abandoned that line of tech and worked up the Cultural Domination line. Aside from a few easily attainable worlds, the majority of my empire prior to the first wars is attained by Influence conquest. There's no one means by which you conquer the galaxy, at some point, you'll need to use them all.

There are some flaws, I've hit onto a major game crashing bug when it comes to the megaevent that takes worlds away from Good civilizations, after beating on the Daggers, I tried to negotiate an end to the war at my advantage, while reclaiming some of the planets they'd taken from me in the process. No matter how many I took, they never said no, and after a half dozen, the game crashed.

The AIs are also very susceptible to Influence conquest. They don't ever seem to use it themselves, and it very rarely seems to impress them when I'm carving massive swaths out of their empire with starbase spam. Plus a nice added feature would be the ability to influence resource starbases like you can asteroid bases.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I can live without carriers, afterall the US is even now saying that the F-22 is likely to be the last manned fighter. Add on sophiscated sensors and fire control computers and a single seat fighter a la a Viper or X-Wing would be skeet at an Olypic skeet shooting competion. At best you would have unmanned attack drones, with missles being the more likely replacement for fighters.

What I can't live with is how planitary assault works. I would love to see a Moo 2 or SE IV style of planitary assault. Where you had a real marine corps that wasn't a Chinese-style militia giving 200 million people a space Kalashnikov and dump them on the enemy world where they proceed to slaughter the entire enemy populance who was also armed with their space Kalashnikovs.

I like the idea of occupying an enemy world and slowly winning them over al la Moo 2 and having to maintain a sizable garrison to prevent revolt.

The assault part can be abstract like MOO 2, just as long as I get to build a real marine corps and not have to depopulate my planets to invade.
And for defense, one can abstract an army just like MOO 2 without being depopulated in the process.

If I had that I would be a very happy camper...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Them recruits gotta come from somewhere. What could be done is some kind of population percentage that can work as soldiers based on military spending. When you go to war, the number of troops that defend a planet is based on this number, and its ONLY that number that is depopulated when you go on the offensive. This would prevent the need for conquest via genocide, too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Something else that has come up while playing. Every one of my people are faceless. Yes yes, we have 'culture' but it means absolutely squat bar the numbers.

I have the Torian and Iconians eventually surrendering to me. These people, these races are now part of my empire. But from that turn, it's as if everyone is the same race...there is no variety. These dudes numbered in the billions but the game assumes they assimilated completely. Despite the graphic on the diplomacy viewscreen, we may as well all come from the same planet and be the same species...it doesn't feel like a galactic empire, it doesn't feel galactically populated...get me?

This game is a great game, but just like space, it's very cold in feeling. I don't feel anything in this game. Immersion!

Successfully updated karma reason!

would be nice to have starbase construction automized. the AI automatically do it without effort, so should we. sure i havent played DA yet, but from what I gather, building these is still the spam countless of constructors and build thing, which is a chore, and chore that isn't fun after doing it more than a dozen times (or some other number of times you feel comfortable with)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sorry about that 4X hiddenranbir, I had a mental block. I always think of 4X as being MoO and Stars!, my mistake.

------------

Mental block, sure. Heh.

At least I can address when I make a mistake, unlike you... the submental who didn't understand why star bases are in space, and not in orbit. Genius.

That's not the point, and you know it. I think DA is a 10 expansion. You said that was an "absurd opinion." I then asked you what your opinion of a 10 game was. You never responded to that directly, but you did say that Space Empires V was your idea of a "real space strategy game." Is this all coming back to you now?

------------

Let me quote it for you then:

As for the best expansion being the "10" to which all other expansions should compare to, that's about the most absurd opinion I've heard on the subject.

------------

Notice how I don't say *your* opinion is absurd, but how the *best* expansion should be the benchmark? I guess you read what you find useful to keep your head above water.

Actually, brainless, you did say that my opinion is absurd, because that was my opinion that you were referring to when you said that the opinion was absurd. What the hell is wrong with you? It's right there in the quote, which was a response to MY opinion on page one. That's what started this whole argument. I was just throwing out my opinion, and you decide to call it "absurd." I don't care which part you think is absurd, the fact that you would call it that and then claim that SEV is superior, well, that's what's absurd.

Ok, how about a bug free, cheese free, thoroughly tested gameplay and campaign module?

------------

Didn't read this either, did you? Not in your best interest I guess...

Yeah, I read it. What's your point? I've never seen a game that's bug free or cheese free, and Space Empires V is most certainly not one of them. Why you would expect DA to be bug free or cheese free is beyond me, that would be a first. And it was thoroughly tested, for months.

As for other games, I just have to fire up SEV to see a *real* space strat game. Regardless of all its problems, which can be fixed with *patches*, it feels pretty advanced.

------------

Yes, SEV is a real ssg, GC is an empire management or civilization building game, with a sci-fi varnish. It's not really a space game, not at its core. I've said this before, it's no secret. SEV focuses more on what a space game should, combat and diplomacy. GC has a broader scope, but consequently every aspect of the game is much shallower. That's why the devs have to release these "expansion packs", to add content to a game that desperately needs it if it wants to be convincing as a *space* strat game.

I disagree, and so do the reviewers.

As to the posters in this thread and what their opinion is, I never claimed that the majority think that DA is a 10 expansion.

------------

So what exactly does this mean?

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.

------------

Of course this was your idea of propaganda, since no one here was attacking GC, so there were no supporters. You know, your argumentation skills are those of a 15 year old. To match your math skills I guess...
You're still thinking about your reply to the rest of the post, right?

You're not even making sense. And I did respond to your post, but apparently your brain can't process very much information at once. It must be the hydrocephalus.

Do you remember? I guess not... but you dared me to come up with a zero rating game, since no game was rated zero, and I did, and then you ignored it because you looked like a pinhead. That's what I wanted to respond to, and I did. If you expect me to address EVERY point you make in EVERY post, you should do the same. Since you don't, neither will I. Your “teacher in the class” analogy was too half-witted to bother with, it just gets tiring stooping to a level that you can understand. Maybe you could get someone in special services to help you?

If you recall, you said on page one of this very thread that... "The *real* reviewers, the players, say different in these forums. It's not bad, but it's not great either." I disagreed, as do the majority of the posters on this thread, that DA is better than "not bad, but not great." That's the point. I guess you forgot that.

------------

Let me spell it out for you since you have some difficulty understanding what is written there. It's not *this* thread that sums up the game or the forums. It's not "I love it" that classifies it as great. Only you seem to think that way. But then again, only you need to see it that way.

Trust me, you'll never need to explain anything to me, because you're a moron. If you think you comprehend something, realize that in all likelihood you're wrong, because if you're dumb enough to think SEV is a better game than GCII many other things in life will confuse and fluster you.

You may think that your 250-pound hairy hermaphrodite half cousin is the prettiest girl at the prom, but that doesn't make it so.

Again, the poll indicates that the game is liked much, much better than "not bad, but not great either," by the "real reviewers, the players," who YOU claim say different in this forum.

------------

See above. Liked much and perfect, dif-fe-rent. Got it?

I never said it was perfect, you slack-jawed bumpkin. A 10/10 review means it's the best strategy game, not that it is perfect. Do you get it yet? Of course not. If you did, you wouldn't still be claiming that a 10/10 review means that it is a "perfect game," since it's been explained to you that is not what it means. A 10/10 review means it's the best game. Understand? 10/10 means best, not perfect. No such thing as perfect. 10/10 means best. How many times do you have to be told that before you understand? Are you retarded?

Yeah, I want a quote from you that says that SEV is a "more complete game." Because you never said that. You said it was the "real space strat game." I see no indication of the stage of completion in that sentence. Do you? Why don’t you point it out to me? Oh, I know why. Because you’re a bald-faced liar.

------------

Do you read other threads other than this one? Or is this your life? There's nothing else there for you, huh? Tell you what, search for my nick, and read my posts (maybe you should have done that already?). You'll find it. I think. If you need help, give me a shout.
"Mommy, he never said that, he is a liar!". Pathetic...

Now THAT is funny. I'm supposed to do a search on all of your posts to see if you said something that you called me out me on? We've only argued in this thread, the last thing I want to do is read more crap opinions from a buffoon who thinks SEV is a better game than GCII.

And why are you calling for your mommy? Did you shart in your Depends again? Please, dummy, she can’t hear you, the typing part is for computer.

So everybody can see what a liar you are...

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.

------------

You're ridiculous, you know? I said it's a more complete game, as opposed to GC which feels incomplete. Want a quote? You're twisting everything because you know you've gone down.

This is the post. You're claiming that I'm twisting your argument, and that you said it was a more complete game. Now how could I be twisting your argument, if the very argument you are referring to (that it is a more complete game) is in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THREAD? I'm supposed to know what you've said in other threads?

You are a very sad person. The saddest part is that you're too dumb to be embarrassed by your own stupidity.

Why don't you go to the SEV forum to get a "very good idea of the shortcomings" of your "real space strat game?" It's a ludicrous claim to dismiss GCII as "buggy" when SEV is much more so. It's also bizarre to complain that GCII has had 5 patches when your favorite game SEV has had many, many more patches. Why you would decide to defend such a flawed argument is beyond me.

------------

Slowly so you don't miss the boat. SEV is way way ahead of GC in the military side, and not only. It's a more complex game, and one that depicts a space environment pretty well (as opposed to GC). This is not only me saying it. I don't dismiss GC as being buggy, I'm merely stating the obvious. I've also said that SEV is very buggy, check other threads on the subject. It's *you* who doesn't want to see that because it's not convenient.

I don't want to read all of your threads, you twit. I don't even want to read this one. But since you decided to call my opinion "absurd" and treat me with contempt, I'm forced to publicly shame you until you get tired of it, which will probably take a long time because you're too oblivious to know when you've been beat.

Call me pathetic all you want, I'm not the one hanging around the forum of a game I don't like to argue with people who do like it. How sad is that?

---------

Care to quote me on that, me not liking the game? You can't can you? That's why you're pathetic. Had you really done your homework, you'd see I've said this game has a lot of potential, but some design decisions were *IMO* wrong. It also feels incomplete *for a space strat game*.

Look you retard, I'm not going to read all of your moronic posts to see what you've blathered, I could care less what you say in other posts. You decided that my opinion was “absurd” in this thread, so I’m going to deal with that in this thread only.

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, I know, you say it often. It must be a word you’re very familiar with.

I think DA is a 10/10 expansion. You don't. Fine. But you should realize that if you think SEV is a superior game, your tastes are different than 90% of the people on this forum.

----------

That's where you are wrong. Just check out the # of threads about tactical combat, new unit types, ship design, diplomacy options, etc. There are posts that are outright copies of the SEV system. You should know that, you play it and you are an attentive reader of all these forums...

No, I'm not wrong... but of course you would think so, being vapid and all. Just because some people want some features that SEV has doesn't mean they think it is a superior game. How would I know that? Hmmm... oh, I know, player reviews! The PLAYERS voted, they voted on reviews (which were better than SEV) and they voted with their money (GCII sold many more copies).

Because, unlike you, most people hang out at forums of games that they enjoy.

------------

I'm still hoping this game will be made a solid, logic, mind challenging space game.

It already is a "solid, logic, mind challenging space game," as you say in your charming Downs-syndrome syntax. You're just too slow to realize it.

You'll catch up with the rest of humanity eventually, and like Computer Gaming World, IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy, SciFi, Firing Squad, IC-Games, UGO, Gamezone, 90% of the player community, etc., you'll eventually realize that DA is far superior to SEV.

And maybe someday you’ll even realize that a perfect score of 10 does not literally mean a perfect game, just like a non-score of 0 does not literally mean that the game offers zero play.

Until then, I'll continue to attempt to instruct and guide you. After all, you are only playing with the cards you've been dealt, and I'm afraid it was a very poor hand to begin with. Poor little guy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Folks, its just a game...

Seriously, I had something different here, but I think its totally unnecisary to post anything even remotely coherent. You people need CHILL PILLS!

Successfully updated karma reason!

why star bases are in space, and not in orbit.

Last time I checked, orbits are in space...

Anyways, since you're so limited in what you can say, judging by this poor excuse for a post, I'll let the subject rest because quite frankly your verbal diarrhea doesn't really impress me. I think you've made enough of a fool out of yourself, I'm satisifed

Oh, the *game* (not expansion) you mentioned, average was 4% by your own words, not zero. GC's average is not 10, is it? Just like 4 is not zero. I didn't reply to that before checking the reviews, because that's how I work. Guess not everyone can be thorough, right?
As to my analogy, so now it's not worth a reply... that's a nice argument, just like every other you presented.

Now how could I be twisting your argument, if the very argument you are referring to (that it is a more complete game) is in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THREAD? I'm supposed to know what you've said in other threads?

And I guess this is the nail in your coffin. That's sad. Weren't you the guy who said I should choose my fights carefully?

Successfully updated karma reason!

That's all you could come up with?

No wonder you're so familiar with the word "pathetic."

Try again any time, squirt.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The e-peen is strong with this one...and that one, too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It seems the debate here is whether DA is a perfect expansion, or not quite perfect. If the Iceman thinks it's well below perfect, then he's certainly out of the norm. Of course problems have been found, and that's why this forum is so great: how else can you see what everyone else has seen and take account of it, and also let the devs know what needs the most attention?

To TOS: What in this world would you call perfect? No such thing. But things can be at the top of the heap, and that's where the vast majority of those who've played DL and DA would rank this expansion.

Anyway, just my 2BC. I don't mean to get in the middle of a full-on flame fest.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I certainly don't think it's perfect... but I do think it's the best expansion I've ever played, and I give it a 10/10.

And if you think that opinion is "absurd," be prepared to back it up with something better than that buggy turd SEV, please. Brood War? You'll get no argument from me, that was a great expansion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I attempted to read this whole post and gave up some where at the top of page one, so forgive me if I leave something out.

It is true that nothing is perfect and even if it’s perfect to me it’s not going to be to you. But the major question is "what are you expecting from this game?” I would personal love to see a lot of deferent features put in DL, such as more control over each planet (what it’s researching, its government, and better automatic controls) or more intense Galactic government and so on. But hey, if they added every feature we all wanted it would still be in the development stage. I have to agree with the original 7.8 score that sam0T gave it. The only thing I think kept it from the 9.0 or 10.0 is the fact that I spend a lot of time hitting ctrl N because I was put next to 3 players on a gigantic map, a problem I hoped would have been resolved with DA.

Successfully updated karma reason!