I would have to seriosuly dispute that. Civ 4 is different from galciv 2. They are both awesome and fun games. Galciv 2 has a lot more customization options with ship design and all. However, I think the economy is much more "efficient and smooth" and "makes a hell of alot more sense" than Civ4. Also, the resource system in Civ 4 is better than the starbase system on resources in galciv 2. The environment is funner to look at because you have variety in terreign in Civ 4. I mean, space, awesome that it is, is really the same damn thing : a black vaccumme.

However, ship combat is awesome compared to the unit combat animations in Civ 4. The tech tree is much less confusing in galciv 2. As I say, the two games are different, but to me it is impossible to tell which one is better.

This is a feature that the Civ team has experience with, and purposely left out. First, the units are supposed to be historical so completely custom units makes no sense whatsoever. Second, many people (not including myself) didn't like the necessity of designing custom units in Alpha Centauri. You'd never know this by reading forums, but the forum grognards are what, 0.05% of the customer base? Volume of complaints doesn't equal volume of sales

Multiplayer doesn't always mean logging on to some mmorpg, or playing with random people from the internet. I think most multiplayer is done between friends. Me an my buddies play games together. Some big matching service isn't needed. Most of our games are lan, or direct hosting over the internet. We don't use matching services. We often use mods. But, since its private it doesn't matter.

Some games may not lend themselves as well to multiplayer as others. Bioshock I can't say is one of them. A co-op mode on any shooter action adventure games always makes them better. Who wants to have some friends over so they can take turns playing Bioshock?

TBS games are about competition. Playing a computer just isn't nearly as satisfying as playing a living human being.

Maybe the people who are the single player flag carriers don't have friends. Maybe you prefer masterbation to sex. I'm not trying to slam you here, but I just don't understand why you don't think having multiplayer would add significant value. Maybe you should just play galciv with no enemy civilizations. Cause in a way you can look at it like they are other players, just AI ones. Would that make it so much more fun, to be totally by yourself?

And to the guy who responded to my bargin bin comment. I'm sorry, but galciv is a bargin bin game. Distributed by a no-name distrubutor (stardock, or os that the dev company). I didn't pay full game price for it. The collectors edition only cost me $30. Usually collectors editions go for more than base game prices. It get's no high profile attention. And yes, bargin bin games have expansions, look at the Battlecruiser series. Battlecruiser I view in much the same way I view GavCiv. AWESOME concept. But, it just doesn't back it up with full features that make it a long lasting interest. Also lead by a short sighted developer who uses lots of excuses to explain why his game is so buggy and lacks multiplayer.

To me, this is all very simple. I play games to relax, to have fun, and to enjoy time with friends. This means games have to fill these needs. They have to be fun, and I have to be able to share them with friends. I am not alone. All consoles have more than one controller port. Games like WoW have 8 million subscribers. When games are reviewed, they are deducted points if they don't have multiplayer. Even my daughter's Nintendo DS has wireless capability that allows multiplayer. This isn't a new concept. This isn't a fad. This is fact. Anything that is fun, is more fun with friends.

So if you don't like the game, why don't you just shut ya mouth and leave? Cut your losses and get lost? Don't like it, don't have to play it. Why sit here complaining about something when it's not going to happen? Last time i checked, you weren't god's gift to game designers, and you're word was no where in any bible... Soooo... What ARE you doing here?

In my opinion GC2 works just fine as a single-player game. My experience of multiplayer gaming is that there are a lot of twits out there and that it isn't a worthwhile feature for all games because there are always those players who aren't really interested in good gaming, just winning. Until someone comes up with a bright idea for a game where winning can also mean losing without it being utterly frustrating, multiplayer will continue to be a merely average experience.

The funny thing about the bargain bin is that sometimes you really do get a bargain, you know

I would like someone here to tell me how they think mp would work in any satisfying way for this game. Please! The only mp that would be cool(and i think it would work great) is hotseat and probably lan too other than that i dont belive anyone would play mp at all not even all the people who want it so bad. It just would not work for this game. Why is that so hard to see?





P.S - What would the drawbacks of hotseat be?

I couldn't care less about multiplayer, in fact the only game I've ever consistently played online was WOW. I love all types of games, I buy pretty much every big FPS and I'd rather play with bots. I really agree with Frogboy and others when they say it's a vocal minority that pines for multiplayer in GCII(and many games). Frogboy's example of Oblivion and Bioshock were spot on, those are two very successful games that I really enjoy as do many others. Go check out Oblivion's modding community, that game is going very strong a year and a half since release.

To say a game needs multiplayer for YOU to enjoy it, is a fair statement. However, it's inane to make blanket statements that a game NEEDS multiplayer period. I am a hardcore gamer, I buy every big game, I build a supercomputer every couple of years, etc. I do not need multiplayer to enjoy my hobby. We are all entitled to our opinions, no one more right than the other.

Finally, as far as GCII goes, I think the team has done a superb job of explaining why it's a singleplayer experience thus far. I look forward to the expansion and I hope that gameplay is never sacrificed for multiplayer.

HOMM 3 was a sick game.

Can you name a turn-based strategy game other than Civ IV that has outsold GalCiv II at retail in the past several years?

MOO3 and SE V both have multiplayer and neither have come close to selling what GalCiv II has sold.  How about HOMM V? It's got multiplayer too and it hasn't come close to GalCiv III's sales (based on comparing NPD stats).

GalCiv II Gold is the current retail edition of the game, it's $39.95 which has been the retail price we set for our games for years. 

Anyway, it's clear you really aren't that familiar with this topic or the game. 

If you are so convinced that multiplayer is the way to go for this type of game, it sounds to me that there's a business opportunity -- develop or finance a space based PC turn-based strategy game that has multiplayer.  Then you can show us how wrong we really are.

He's a witch I tells ya! BURN HIM! BURN HIM!   

On another comment Leper23. While you're PLAYING with your friends on multiplayer, I'm playing with women on Singleplayer. Space Nerds get more.  

Actually, thats mostly because that Sid Meier has a reputation for kick-ass games. And the Civilization series has drawn much attention over the years. Everyone who played the previous Civilization titles were expecting Civ4 to be all that and "a bag o' chips" and it was!

The concept of GCII is quite young compared to the Civ series(not sure concept is the right word since the Galciv II concept still has similarities to GCI).
I'm diffinatly sure that when GCIII comes out you guys will sell double(maybe triple or even quadruple) of what you sold with GCII. Another point to note is that GCII was never really advertised(at least none ever reached me).

I watch game review programs like Gamer.tv, Hardcore, etc and read articles on new games in magazines and even go to some game sites(extremely occasionally) but I've never seen GCII in any. Although alot of the games they show in those are classified as disappointments. GCII deserves that kind of attention(not disappointment kind of attention). In fact, if I were to make a truthful choice between which is better, GCII or Civ IV, I couldn't tell. They are both really good and both deserve to be seen as the best (not just turn-based)strategy games of all time(although I recently started playing FPS games and don't buy strategy games anymore and don't know much about the newest that arrived).

Who knows? Maybe Sid Meier has played GCII maybe a few times too. Just to check out the potential future competition for Civ V: GalCiv III!