I ended up getting Sword of the Stars. Big mistake. The interface is a nightmare but worse, even if they fixed the interace, there's almost nothing to the game. It's like playing an action game as strategy.
Maybe in another 6 months the game will be done. (where it should have been when they sold it to us.) Oh please. What an asanine thing to say. Of course the gamew was done. You're penalizing them for providing outstanding support? Name a game in the same genre as GalCiv 2 that came out anywhere near as solid as this. It's guys like you t
Most companies don't provide anything like this type of community. Stardock obviously likes this system. If you don't like it, go to Apolyton or CivFanatics. Civ 4 doesn't even have forums they send users directly there.
tactical combat in an expansion would be interesting but man that woudl be a lot of work. They would really need to change the way ships are designed. Tactdical combat right now would be so boring.
With all my respect for those who think GC2 is more "open ended" than Civ4, i have to say I fail to see where. I think Civ4 gives the player more possibilities. Let me count the ways... 1. You can only build one improvement per city. 2. There is nothing like the starbase unit in civ. There is no way to expand your sphere o
You missed his key point I think. There aren't that many people even trying to play it multiplayer.
If you've followed AlFonse's career on the GalCiv 2 forums it is that of complaint complaint complaint. He has his right to his opinion but I found most of his complaints petty and irrelevant. This post is no exception. Is GalCiv a "puzzle" to be solved? Only if the game is about finding an exploit. To me, games are supposed to be fun. GalCiv 2 is VERY fun. The fun is in the playing. Alfonse's style of play is to win. He gets his fun from winning. Therefore, his strategy i
Ignus, #54's comments help make the case that game developers should never put in free features beyond the trivial because even when they do significant enhancements, as Stardock has already done, they won't get any credit or good will because people like ignuss will treat them as entitlements. Getting a great game for $40 instead of the usual $50 isn't enough. Getting hundreds of new features, some fo which were pretty big already isn't enough. Getting months more of free updates and
If I had to rate the quality of different game AIs I've played I would rate them as follows: On a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 being perfection and 1 being a joke. Galactic Civilizations II: 8 Civilization IV: 7 Civilization III: 5 Space Empires IV: 2 HOMM IV: 2 HOMM III: 5 Warlords IV:
Um, no one is claiming that the game is the pinnacle of perfection. They are just saying that classifying user interface requests as "bug reports" is inappropriate. Similarly, saying the game "isn't finished" is also kind of insulting too.
What difficulty level?
Alfb, I couldn't have said it better, in both quotes. I have praised Stardock's patch efforts in several posts, but it is obvious that they still have work to do on this game. And I see no reason that I should be "grateful" that they haven't charged us for an update or patch. In fact, if they had tried that, I problably would be trying to get a refund by now. I am pleased
I find the AI builds fast ships but it has a hard time getting the initiative it seems. I'd like to see something where defenders get at least 1 shot off.
Neat
Different people look for different things in games. The Space Empires games always seemed to have features for the sake of features. They rarely added fun to the game, just arbitary complexity. You have a list of UI things that bother you. You care a lot about it and that is fine for you. The SE games never had any decent computer players to play against and the graphics were terrible. Those are things that matter to me. I don't have a problem with GalCiv's UI
Which ones did you see? I haven't played that game in a long time.
I still can't believe that someone would have the gall to come on and tell someone how to write a computer AI without having bothered to see if their "great idea" had been used for decades by the same developre. Simple google search for GalCiv and multithreaded AI and you get a lot of talk about it. here's another: http://pc.ign.com/articles/096/096013p1.html <TD cl
The AI in GalCiv IS multithreaded. It's one of the things that the game is famous for. Just do a google search. While the player is moving, the AI is calculating. That's one of the reasons why there's little time between turns. I found this right away on Google: http://www.strategy-gaming.com/reviews/gal_civ/ One character
Why is this a bug? Having newer improvements that cost less and do more is a staple of strategy games. People have got to quit labeling every design choice SD makes that they don't agree with as a "bug".
Go to any forum for any game and you will have a population of people screaming that the game in question is buggy or crappy or whatever. The difference is that Stardock's developers activley interact with us and try to quickly address what people are saying. Some people will never be satisfied. The facts are pretty simple. This is a game whose 1.0 version has won more editor's choice awards than nearly any turn based strategy game in history. Despite that, they went out
Wow, so rarely do you see such a textbook case of "if someone implements something differently than me then it is a bug." Sorry Strategist but I wish you'd just go back to Civ 4 (which you keep saying you're going to) and leave us alone. Your constant bashing of the game is getting old.
Any site that would give Age of Empires 3 a good score, which they did, has no business complaining about GalCiv's UI. Age 3's UI was so bad that it made the game incredibly difficult to play. It wasn't unintuitive, it was just a huge obstacle to actually getting to the game stuff. Under "drive by reviews" they should link to this review.
GC2 may be the best strategic sci-fi game at this moment on the market, but it is neither the best ever produced, nor can I call it a successful one, to be honest. How do you define that? People love the game. It's gotten great reviews. And it's selling like hot cakes. You make some interesting points
Must EVERY user suggestion be wrapped as a "bug report". You don't agree with their economic system. That's your right. But it's not a bug. I don't like how in Civ I'm trapped between building a tank or building a library. But that's not a bug in that game either.
Oh please. If 1.1 is "Easy" then you're probably using some specific tactic that the AI just isn't familiar with countering. It is an AI so it's not ever going to be as clever as a human. On Civilization 4, their equivalent to "tough" in GalCiv is way down the line. Its AI starts cheating very early in order to provide even the most remote challenge. GalCiv II's AI is much smarter than any other AI i've ever used.
GalCiv2 Forums