**********My review************

We are blessed to have two such exquisite entries to the turn based strategy game genre in such a short amount of time.

**Background**
I thought the original Galactic Civilizations was okay. After the huge disappointment of MOO 3, I found GalCiv and was reasonably happy with it. It didn't hold my interest long term because I felt I was too limited. Too many games ended the same way. I still liked it but would have given it a 4 out of 5. Good try but not perfect.

**Getting the game**
I've used Stardock Central before to get Object Desktop which I own. So i was familiar with it already. The download went very smoothly. Click. Click. Click. Click. Went and had dinner, came back and it was ready to play.

**First game**
My first game was 10 hours. Started out as a quick game and suddenly it was 4 in the morning. That is the sign of a great game and that never happened with the first one.

**The Good**
The polish level between the two is about the same. In some places, it's notably better than Civ IV. In other places it's less.

Civ IV gives a better first impression but as you play Civ IV, it feels less and less polished and looks like they ran out of time. GalCiv II's polish is more consistent. It doesn't blow you away with the spectacular opening menu but the user interface, videos, and late game love is far superior to Civ IV.

Lets face it this game is going to be compared to Civ iV because many of us are going to love both. Saying it is better than Civ IV doesn't make me like Civ IV any less or make me want to play it. Stepping back from the game you can just see that the overall game is a more gratifying and fulfilling experience. It's not a GalCiv or Civ debate because any serious strategy gamer will pick up both. Even a casual strategy gamer would want both.

The design for Cv IV makes more info readily available on demand. You can get to any info in Civ IV you want at a click. GalCiv II gives you the info as part of the game play. Which method matters to you the most will probably have a lot to do with which you prefer. In my case neither matters that much. Once I play a game a few times, I know the stuff. So knowing that Iron working gives me a special unit is nice to have in a civpedia but only the first time.

Civ has Leonard Nimoy and an awkward in game tutorial with Sid's tips. GalCiv has a non interactive but superb tutorial series that other games should take a look at.

Civ 4 has pre set units that help let players build a very set strategy. GalCiv 2 is about creating your own ships where each game is different. Civ is about mastering a particular set of strategies. GalCiv is about adapting your strategy to a new game each time. I think that gives GalCiv a big edge in the long run. Civ 4's answer to the replayability is multiplayer.

I read a person saying the game should have an in-game civpedia. I don't fully agree with that. The Civpedia stuff was put in as a consolation prize for Civ IV catering to the MP crowd. There's no richness to Civ IV's techs or any sort of feeling of accomplishment, you don't even get to build a palace in Civ IV. So they at least tossed us a bone and gave us the rather nice CivPedia.

GalCiv 2 seems to take a different approach, they spoil you with detail as you get it. But that means you can't just go to some sort of hypercard like UI and look up a weapon ro tech or building and find out info. It's all integrated as part of the game. Is it better than a Civpedia? I can only speak for myself. I prefer having the game's depth in data feel like part of the game play than be a cut off set apart chunk of the game. I think it would be nice if they added it but I think it reaching to argue that the game is somehow flawed without it.

In GalCiv 2 you really feel like your civilization is your civilization. The ship design is freakin crazy good. The graphics make the screenshots look like crud. You have to see th egame to believe them.

The campaign, which I have only started, looks interesting and seems to be a lot more polished than one would expect of this type of game.

As a matter of fact, the entire game has a polished, professional feel to it that shows tender loving care.

** The bad **

I wish there was more sound. Ambient sound. The sound track, as others have noted, it fantastic. But I wish I could hear more sound. In Civ 4 I can zoom to a city and hear activity. It's a nice touch. No such thing with GalCiv II. OTOH GalCiv units show damage with animation and everything, a nice touch that Civ doesn't really compete with.

Loading saved games on very large maps takes too long. 10 seconds on my computer which is a long time to sit there. It doesn't come up often but still. 10 seconds is 10 seconds.

** Summary **

I would give the game a 9.7 out of 10. It's just about perfect but the sound effects are above average but not the end all be all.

I predict the reviews of the game will be roughly equal with Civ IVs. The pure strategiests will probably prefer GalCiv II to Civ IV because GalCiv II has undeniably more replayability to it. The giant tech tree alone assures that. There are just plain more ways to play this game than Civ IV.

But Civ IV is CIV for crying out loud. It also exists in the real world. People understand what the wheel is or what masonry is. What is Xeno Industrial Theory?

GalCiv II isn't Civ in space. It's Alpha Centauri in space but a bit more approachable. And like Alpha Centauri, the reviews will be much more subjective than most.

Any review that gives it less than 90% is probably full of it or just not interested in this kind of game in the first place. It's hard to really find fault with the game. There are wrinkles but in a universe where a POS like Age of Empries 3 averages an 82% GalCiv is 90% easy.

In my book, where Civ IV is a 9.5 out of 10. GalCiv II is a 9.7 out of 10.

YMMV.