a little disappointed by the demo

from GalCiv2 Forums
i am new, observing GalCiv II all the time, ive played GalCiv I.

to be honest, i am quite disappointed, its almost the same way to play like GalCiv one, only with new graphic and maybe some new techs and yes, the ship building, 3D battle, all races playable etc., but only improvements on the surface.

improvements to the depth are rare, the game is very simple and its really close to Civilization and the problem ist, Civilization was great 10 years ago, but compared to other empire building games like e.g. victoria of paradox , its a simple kiddy game.

yes, i am a hardcore gamer, GalCiv II is great for the masses, but i expected the game to be more complex. originally i was waiting for the expansion, but also dark avatar seems to bring only expansion on the surface, so i guess i wont buy Gal Civ II at all and hope Gal Civ III will be really interesting in another 5-10 years.
3,073 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Edit:

compared to Space Empires V or even IV , Gal Civ is much too simple, but the advantage is the great AI, but the main reason for Gal Civs great AI ist, that the game is simple, and so easy for the AI to handle, on the other hand, SEV is very complex, there fore very hard to create a smooth AI, but then there is at least multi player, which can make a great, epic, complex 4x game with intelligent opponents.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Multiplayer and intelligent opponents rarely go hand in hand, imo.

Also, the demo is completely outdated, since then a large amount of new features have been added in the free patches and more coming in via DA.

I also disagree with you on ship building. GC1 had specific ships. If you honestly thing that multiple weapon types and the ability to manually configure a ship for speed, all out offence, or to be a tanking behemoth is something that is a "surface" improvement, then perhaps you're looking at the wrong game. To say that it's the same game is totally ridiculous imo.

Again, your saying DA is "expansion on the surface" is just false. What exactly would you be looking for to add "depth"? A new worth system for solar systems that before had little strategic value? More individual races? Varying planet variety to change the way of the colony rush?

Oh... wait...

By the sound of it, it's not worth you sticking around here. What you're saying bears little resemblance to what the game actually is. It's not even remotely the same and once again, if you think everything so far is a "surface improvement", then leave. You're wasting your time.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Playing the easy levels will produce that kind of simplistic - to use your phrase - kiddy deduction. Play the full game at the higher difficulty levels and you get a whole new ball park. Your deduction that there are no improvements in depth is way way off the mark. It sounds like your wanting the game to "fail", if so there is little point in trying it.

All games have their strengths and characteristics, its always pointless extracting one aspect of one game and slaying another game with that aspect. Its obvious you are not a DA Beta Tester, let alone a so called hard core gamer or you would not make such a silly comment about DA.

Hard Core gamer ? I dont think so, hard core gamers dont make such simplistic deductions, nor make surface judgements on thin information, nor try and wear the phrase like some silly badge - they are too aware of what makes up a game, and what is needed to make a Great one. Time served playing games does not make a hard core gamer, niether do genuine ones actually claim to be one, they have more maturity than that. Ability, experience and maturity does make one.

Come back when the quality of comment matches the latter.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
It looks like the topic starter is one of those that likes to micromanage....
SEIV and SEV are all about micromanagement. All about getting the mines to the right spot, hoping to hit the AI at the right time and place, building enough ships and doing battles that can go on for a long, long time.

GalCiv (and GalCiv2 more so) are more about tactical decisions. Researching the right technology and trading with the other races. Diplomacy is very important (not so in the SE games) and trying to limit opponents' attack opportunities. It's about ship design but only in a "rock-paper-scissors" way when weapons are concerned, more in a tactical way (speed versus weapons versus defense).

As has been said so often; it is impossible to compare SE, GalCiv, Civ, etc. with each other as each has their own focus. If you like SE more then GalCiv then by all means go ahead and play SE. I, personally, will play all those games but have a pretty high focus on GalCiv because it focusses on those things that I like to do and needs a lot less of the things I do not enjoy doing.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Not come across the SE games - by the way you explained it - it sounds like a 'Series?' of games in the same genre. What is it ?

Regards
Zy
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
OP: Thanks for coming to the forum to share your opinions. New posters are always welcome to come and constructively comment on the game. I don't think your thread will do much good though, as Stardock aren't going to drastically change a game that has already been released for a year. I think they'll also be relucant to mess with the formula too much, as you can't please everyone, and they probably want the next game to appeal to the large number of people who bought GC2. Drastic changes can be risky (look at MOO3).