Apparently not enough to give GalCiv2 a bad score, though. Every good review is extra press for the game and for Stardock, regardless.

Actually this is the worst review yet, they do give half stars too it seems, so they gave it a 80 out of 100 which is lower then most other reviews who rate it at 90 or higher...

Actually this is the worst review yet, they do give half stars too it seems, so they gave it a 80 out of 100 which is lower then most other reviews who rate it at 90 or higher...

Uggh. The rating system that most sites use is idiotic. That 70%, out of a scale from 0-100, should be considered mediocre is insane. Since Yahoo! is working off a smaller scale, they'd have less room to rank games against one another if they followed this trend, hence they gave a 4/5 to a good game, would give 3/5 to a fun but average game, and would give 1 and 2 as their bad grades. That's typical of sites that work with the star system. I hate all the ratings, but you get the idea here.

on game rankings, it treated yahoo's 4 star as 80%

Now the avg rating has gone below 90%

I played Darwinia too, and I don't understand that comparison either. The only thing cool about the Darwinia graphics, was that the game context allowed ultra-minimalist, abstract 3D creatures and terrain, and it still worked.

The graphics in GalCiv are a big step up from that. Maybe the reviewer played the game without ever zooming in on the galaxy map, and never fooled around with the ship designer? The high point of graphics in this game (IMO) is what you can do with custom ship designs.

....This thread is two years old.

I didn't do it