Civ IV is a great game, but the engine was poorly optimized. I'm hoping GalCiv2 runs a bit better on my machine.

don't want to put salt in the wound, but what is it that doesn't work for you ? I have an nvidia card.. I had problems, movies, black screens, terrain going black the whole shmeer. I can't tell you how many settings I turned up, down (all around ). Downloaded the latest drivers (again) plus some bootleg where people thought they wrote their own better... 2 patches later it works like a champ. I mean none of that stuff has happend since v 1.52 patch. I'm a pretty forgiving sort, I don't hold it against them now that I'm playing the game and several mods.

I like Stardock a lot and would give them some room if Murphy's Ultimate Law comes into play. Ultimate, meaning the worst possible thing that could go wrong does. If by some chance it does go virtually flawless with GC2 - then yeah Stardock should get extra accolades for this.

I just don't get why i can play: Nexus, Lord of the rings: battle for Middleearth, Star Wars: Empire at War, Imperial Glory (all RTS with high requirements) but CIV IV which is supposed to be there for every average people do not run on my computer!!! This is a serious marketing failure imho.

Will buy the Gold Version of CIV IV once it comes out while GalCiv II will be bougth ASAP! That explains all

in my opinion the greatest difference between galciv2 and civ4 is the deepness of gameplay.
civ4 is a very good ggame and truly deserve the award of game of the year, but in terms of gameplay it is a lot dumbed down just to make the game more commercial:
-intelligence is a joke
-diplomacy is a bit rigid
-combat system is totally irrealistic but very well balanced
-civilizations aren't so much distinguished
in terms of deepness the game lacks of atmosphere, wonder videos aren't so good and there aren't casual events.
while there are these problems the game rocks in all other aspects.
i haven't galciv2 but played galciv 1 and i'm sure that the game will be a lot complex and deep than civ4, but probably will lack some strong points of firaxis game.
summarizing if you are a mature player or you are looking for a depth gaming experience go for galciv2 if you are looking for a very good TBS game but more simple and commercial go for civ4. i will have both and i will surely take civ4 on the shelf as soon as galciv2 arrive at my home because i'm looking for a more depth gaming experience.
anyway don't expect that galciv2 will have a better review than civ4, in my opinion reviewers weren't so honest because u can't do 9.4 to a game that is incomplete and was unstable on a lot of computers (no review said it). after 1.52 patch civ4 deserved a 9.0 or 9.1 but only after that patch. probably galciv2 will receive a 8.8 or 8.9 because reviewers will say that there isn't multiplayer or other minor problems. so don't trust totally in reviews

Dumbed down compared to what? Certainly not Civilization III, which had even worse AI, stiffer diplomacy, and even less distinguished civilizations. The combat system is a bit less obvious, but I happen to think Civ3's was worse because it was both unrealistic and unbalanced. Of course, I'm pretty sure GC2 will blow any Civ game away. But I prefer to see them as complimentary -- play Civ IV, launch a spaceship, then begin a new game and head out into the galaxy.

yes compared to civ3 it's a great step beyond but if u compare it to the old Alpha Centauri in my opinion AC is better under all point of view.what i want to underline about civ4 is that this game is not the must buy for people which are looking for an indepth game experience. All aspects of the game are very well implemented but they are introduced in a simplicistic way and you never have the feeling that you are really a ruler.let's see united nations u can only submit the vote to questions but you have no chance to leave united nations or really influence resolutions, and there is no screen on the UN at work like in AC or GC2. i repeat the game is really worth all the 60$ that i paid but i have ever the feeling that it is created for teenager(no offence meant) not for mature people.I think i will like gc2 most because it is more fit to people like me which don't like to see for example intelligence reduced to a spy which destroy improvements and destroy production.

There is no way that you can compare both games in a reallistic way. Civ4 is a game about one planet many races, Galciv 2 is a galactic game where there are many planets, many races, ship design and so on and so forth, so it is kind of hard to compare two games that are very much different.

I'll throw my 2 cents ...

* * *
Civilization 4 works great here. Never had a problem. It never crashes for me. If you get enough people you will have horror reports for any games. I read somewhere here that GalCiv 2 doesn't work out of the box on Windows 2000 in non English. Probably only 10 people here have that problem. But if you sell a zillion copies like Civ does,that's probably a lot of people.

* * *
If GalCiv 2 gets popular enough you WILL have people that claim it's a bugfest. I was in the gamma and at the end was starting to think Stardock was having empty nest syndrome becaue the game was clearly ready to ship and yet they kept tweaking it for weeks after it was probably ready. But dollars to donuts, some guy is going to say it's a buggy game.

* * *
Civilization 4 is a different game than GalCiv 2. Civ 4 is a lot simpler. It has to be a lot simpler because of the multplay. They made that decision and their sales seem to suggest they made a good decision.

Stardock decided to stick with maximizing the single player world. A decision I support. The strategic depth in GalCiv 2 vs. Civ 4 is pretty significant. But that doesn't make it a better game. Space Empires 4 has lots of so-called depth and I think it's a terrible game. But others love it. So saying one is better than another is not really practical.

I'll throw my 2 cents ... * * * Civilization 4 works great here. Never had a problem. It never crashes for me. If you get enough people you will have horror reports for any games. I read somewhere here that GalCiv 2 doesn't work out of the box on Windows 2000 in non English. Probably only 10 people here have that problem. But if you sell a zillion copies like Civ does,that's probably a lot of people. * * * If GalCiv 2 gets popular enough you WILL have people that claim it's a bugfest. I was in the gamma and at the end was starting to think Stardock was having empty nest syndrome becaue the game was clearly ready to ship and yet they kept tweaking it for weeks after it was probably ready. But dollars to donuts, some guy is going to say it's a buggy game. * * * Civilization 4 is a different game than GalCiv 2. Civ 4 is a lot simpler. It has to be a lot simpler because of the multplay. They made that decision and their sales seem to suggest they made a good decision. Stardock decided to stick with maximizing the single player world. A decision I support. The strategic depth in GalCiv 2 vs. Civ 4 is pretty significant. But that doesn't make it a better game. Space Empires 4 has lots of so-called depth and I think it's a terrible game. But others love it. So saying one is better than another is not really practical.

i didn't say tha civ 4 was worst than gc2 but i think that without any doubt if u are looking for a complex game gc2 it is surely a lot better. about civ4 u forget that the game was launched buggy and incomplete and if you see on forums of civfanatics there were thousands of posts about leak of memory and so on

I agree with marioflag. Civ4 is okay and probably good as a multiplayer game (I don't indulge) but it is nowhere near as captivating as Civ2 or 3 and is not as good for single player as Alpha Centauri.

A game can be humorous without being silly.