IGN reviews Galciv: 8.2 / 10

from Stardock Forums
IGN has their review of Galactic Civilizations, giving it an overall 8.2 / 10, up now at:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/392/392858p1.html

Overall, it's a positive one. Quoting the Gameplay summary section at the end:

"Gameplay:
First-rate AI, offering an intensive strategic workout. Skewed game balance, due to random events. Abstract feel to gameplay. Repetitive space anomalies. Research tree is excellent.
8.5 / 10"

/unic
377 views 9 replies
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
I think they had 'exclusive first publishing rights' for MOO3, that explains ;)
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
The same author wrote both reviews. I guess it's just personal taste - considering how the things he felt were "missing" from GalCiv are in MOO3 - shipbuilding, tactical combat.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
But he would have been very ignorant if he missed out on the woeful MOO3 AI?
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
I've noticed that all of the pre-release reviews of MOO3 are glowing, and most of the post-release reviews are bad.

It is possible that the pre-release MOO3 reviewers did a "rush job" in order to get out an early review, thus missing some of the big problems. A more cynical person might suggest that the pre-release reviewers were selected because they were drooling fanboys ;)

I don't see how anyone who plays GalCiv for any length of time can insist on comparing it to MOO when it is clearly cut from the Civ cloth.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
It used to be fairly standard practice for gaming mags to use "Exclusive Review" instead of "we saw the game for five minutes over the P.R. guys shoulder, after he paid for our all inclusive trip to the US".

Exclusive reviews aren't worth anything.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
I beleive he reviewed the beta of M003, which apparently had an AI that was able to win.

~SDC~
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
I have NO respect for at least THAT reviewer. How in the world he could give the hapless MOO3 a 9.2 boggled my mind. I love this ludicrous line:

"and computer opponents so well-balanced that literally any of them could win"

Yea.. right.

MOO3 is a joke.. a bad one. I returned it before my 2 week grace period. I'm waiting for a myriad of patches and mods to make that thing playable. I feel the AI is terrible, diplomacy is broken (I get tired of hearing excuses of why the AI will declare war and peace on you.. turn after turn, with no apparenty provocation, nor anything to resolve the issue), the graphics are awful (800x600? you gotta be kidding me.. can't even alt-tab out of the program), and horrible customer support.

GalCiv may have issues, but they are addressed. The AI can put up a very nice fight. It is actually more fun to do than my taxes, unlike MOO3.

So while I appreciate a decent review from IGN, it has little credibility in my book, considering the source. If that reviewer gave MOO3 a 9.2, GalCiv should have gotten a 12.8 from him. :p

I would say I am being biased.. but I've not seen another positive review for MOO3. It averages 65%, and the users rate it even worse (2 star average on amazon, gamespot, pcgamereview, etc.. 40-some odd percent at gamespot actually from the users). A 9.2? A SIX page review? feh..

fleabitfox