Why this game bores me silly, yet I can't stop playing.

Or why compulsory behavior isn't always fun.

I've developed a problem with this game since I bought it; I can't stop playing it. The problem is I always find myself thinking around hour 5, "What am I still playing this game for? I've been bored silly for hours now"

While this game, like may 4X games, creates a sense of "one more turn", but I feel it lacking in that I'm not having any fun taking those extra turns. I feel like a crack addict who has gotten to the point where the game just returns me to normalcy, which isn't a very good situation to be in.

The source of the problem -- i.e. the lack of fun factor -- is caused by multiple problems which I detail below. If you think I'm in fact on crack, you can just abort now.

1) Improvements are linear and predictable. Each additional technology doesn't really get you much and what it gets you is just like 45 other technologies in the tech tree. Since technology doesn't change how you play as the game progresses, once all the planets are colonized, each turn pretty much feels like every other.

"Oh look, Lasers V; better redesign all my ships; hmm, didn't really change anything"

2) Too much abstraction. The ultimate abstraction for a game using current UI concepts is a button called "I Win" with no other features other than perhaps a titlebar. This is a reason why I state that usability principles should be applied carefully to games -- but that's for a later discussion. Unfortunately, too much abstraction leads to too little interaction and decision making on the part of the player. If the player ever gets to the point that he or she can simply play in their head, then the game is over.

"They'll take this world, I'll take it back, steal their technology and sell it to my allies/team. That'll pretty much be it for the next two to three hundred turns."

3) No soul. This often happens to "engine" games. Total Annahilation, Dungeon Siege and this game all fall into the category of excellent engine writers, no game designers. Mind you I've played all of these games extensively and bragged about their extensibility and mod support, but in the end they just don't that "Je ne sais quoi" -- they have no soul. Part of creating a soul for a game is making twofold. One making a connection between the player and the characters they are controlling. This is done through characters in the story. Enjoyable multiplayer experiences often expand from enjoyable single player experiences. Starcraft, one of the most famous sci-fi games, had an excellent story that connected the player to the game. There are additional touches like unique music (e.g. Civ IV's Baba Yetu), a good and detailed mythology (e.g. the Warcraft franchise), and communication between things commanded and the player (e.g. "Yub Yub", "Yes, my liege").

"Hmm, I just lost 60 ships. Better build 60 more."

4) Too much symmetry. This is really a combination of 1 and 3, but it bears elaborating. Chess is the example for this. Knights aren't countered with other knights; rooks with other rooks; kings with other kings. The beauty of chess and the reason I feel it's survived this long and has so many devotees is that it lacks symmetry. King side plays differently than queen side. This leads to an inability to abstract and aids in a personal connection with styles of play.

Currently there isn't any reason to pick lasers over mass drivers of missiles since they play exactly the same way. That was a lost opportunity. So I can just choose one at random at the beginning of the game and be done with it and the only reason to pick a different one is because you've adjusted to my first one; though you'll adjust to the second one just as easily.

Good games are incredibly hard to balance and that's why you see Blizzard and other very successful game manufacturers rebalancing constantly. But it's a critical need. No two units in Starcraft are the same and the races play very differently. This has constantly been complimented by the people who play the game.

Orion Adrian
40,447 views 64 replies
Reply #1 Top
If its no fun why are you playing?

IMHO, you can tell this game was made by a very loyal group of programmers who really loved it.

Not sure what you want when you talk about "Soul". It sounds like you want a game with a story. GalCiv is an X4 game, they dont tend to have stories. Comparing this game to Starcraft or warcraft is like comparing SUVs with Sport Cars. They are on completely different levels.
Reply #2 Top
I was under the impression there were differences between weapons: the missiles do more damage but are larger etc. Clearly I was misinformed!

I'd like to put my vote in for 'please, please, no self-indulgent Warcraft backstory'.
Reply #3 Top
The only thing that makes me yorn (and rather dreary eyed) is the music.

When people talk about 'soul' what they really mean is that they want a bit more backstory a bit more in depth text to put thing in context. And they dont just want this stuff out of game they want it ingame. I for one only recenlty noticed that the Yor homeworld is called Iconia (having read about how the iconians created the Yor Collective and then lost their planet to them thousands of years ago). Seeing that kind of thing ingame is great, now what would be better is a bit of elaboration, some missions, some content that uses this infomation.
Reply #4 Top
I'm enjoying the game, but I also think that a lot of these criticisms are spot-on. That said, having played GalCiv1, I knew what to expect. I think that there are several types of 4X games: those with more abstraction, such as GalCiv and Reach for the Stars; and those with a higher 'quotient' of detail for grognard-like players, such as in Space Empires. They fill, I think, slightly different needs.
Reply #5 Top
And here I thought this game had a campaign mode. Silly me.
Reply #6 Top
And here I thought this game had a campaign mode. Silly me.


Playing the campaign is quite different to the sandbox skirmish mode available, youve missed the point. And yet even the campaign does not forfill this criteria.
Reply #7 Top
If you study what the enemy ships have in the way of weapons and defences, you can tailor your ships to counter it.

The AI will do the same, so you have to keep watch on changes in new ships.

Reply #8 Top
-- they have no soul. Part of creating a soul for a game is making twofold. One making a connection between the player and the characters they are controlling. This is done through characters in the story.


I agree with this. I don't think this game is bad at all - I love it and it's very addictive as you said.

A common flaw in many many strategy games is a lack of emotional content & connection.

A feeling of elation or real loss over winning , losing battles or achieving a great success of some kind is absent.

In strategy games, we are dealing with numbers and statistics. For truly epic experiences, those things should be tied to consequences which give a game emotional connections.

This is not a criticism, but an observation.


Reply #9 Top
I know what you mean about this sort of thing - World of Warcraft was similar for me - except that burnt out it's stay a lot sooner than this has... Of course - the one thing going for this game is that it's possible for you to change (mod) it if there's stuff in it you don't like...

Having said that - it could do with a proper program for editing/modding it - similar to the one for GC1 at least... (My friend wishes for a full SDK - but then he would... ). (So long as the editor would allow us to 'roll-our-own' tech trees', etc. I would be sooo there - (though to get the most out of it, it would be great if you could have a different tech tree for each race/group like has been talked/thought about)).

hmm - and talking about music - here's some that I wrote for it:

http://thegalacticcore.com/forum/pafiledb/index.php?act=category&id=12
Reply #10 Top
Not sure what you want when you talk about "Soul". It sounds like you want a game with a story. GalCiv is an X4 game, they dont tend to have stories. Comparing this game to Starcraft or warcraft is like comparing SUVs with Sport Cars. They are on completely different levels.


Humans are humans though. Stories are part of the human condition; at least anyone who writes them will tell you. Games can only survive the long haul if they let you connect with another personality. Good stories do that to us; playing multiplayer does that as well. Social networking is a force of human nature. That's why I don't think it's wrong to ask for it.

Soul also has to do with a sense of total package. A finely crafted piece of furniture or a quality musical instrument feels like it has a soul. It has to do with people and how they react to flow (if that's artsy abstract enough for you). When something is done right where all the little parts work together to produce a truly unique experience, people know.

Listen to musicians talk about things like their Stradavarius. To them it has personality and therefore soul. Now don't think I'm talking about some religious thing; I'm not. It's just a hard thing to describe.

And here I thought this game had a campaign mode. Silly me.


There is a difference between a story and a good story (like the difference between a movie and a good movie). Good stories tend to draw the audience in to the characters in the story making a bond between them.
Reply #11 Top
'Soul' is of course a vague term which covers a multitude of different concepts (whether in people or video games).
For me at any rate a large part of this is how 'sucked into' the world portrayed you become - not in terms of gameplay mechanics, which I think Galciv2 does very well, but in terms of emotional involvement.

There is often an assumption that video games cannot provide this, which of course is false - I have just finished Shadow of the Colossus on PS2 which had bucketfulls of soul and was really rather profound. The 4x genre is not precluded by definition from having this also, although strategy as a genre does start from a drier premise.
Alpha Centauri for instance, would qualify as a 4x game with 'soul' due to the numerous ways in which the world and characters were incorporated into the gameplay experience: Quotes from leaders, believable factions with credible well-thought out ideologies, an imaginative tech tree mixing 'hard science' and philosophy etc.

Galciv2 seems to have taken a different approach - more tongue in cheek. While this does have it's advantages (it is not often one raises a smile while playing a strategy game!) it also serves to distance the player emotionally from the universe - there is no pretence that this is a profound vision of universal galactic conflict and diplomacy - the aliens, planets, and technologies are vehicles for a strategic experience; thus the non-essential parts of the game feel somewhat underdeveloped.

I should stress that strategy is of course paramount in a strategy game. The reason I am playing Galciv2 and not Alpha Centauri at the moment is because Galciv2 has a pretty mean AI, and a multitude of interesting strategic choices to be made. Nevertheless, a little more world-building would have helped to sustain the illusion that I was not cruching numbers, but exploring a living breathing universe.
Reply #12 Top
The thing is, the original poster compared a 4x game to RTS games and an MMORPG. It's like comparing apples and oranges. I can go on and say how Starcraft has no diplomacy, it has weapon/ship customization, you cannot choose your alignment, you only have control over tactical battles and have no grand strategy options, you cannot colonize different planets.. The list goes on. They are two very different types of games with two very different types of features.

How is the losing 60 ships and building 60 more any different than "My 60 Zerglings just got blown up, I'll just hatch 50 more?" where is the soul there? At least in in GC2 you can name your ships, upgrade them as technology increases and watch their stats go up. It's an apples and oranges comparison that isn't really quite fair to any genre of game.
Reply #13 Top
Well, I don't want to sound biased... but I really can't tell what you're saying... you say the words but the message doesn't come through (sorry if I sound rude but that's how it sounds to me)

What do you mean when techs are linear and predictable, would you like a tech that will change your game drastically... they have it and its called Technological Victory . Also you're not forced to upgrade components as soon as you get them, tech doesn't get "obsolete" and your ships will stay the same regardeless. I've had parts of games where I mass clicked the turn button just waiting for it to finish researching tech, it adds to the suspense for me, also old tech could have some value for the AI, maybe get some money out of them or even other tech.

Also what do you mean if you can play the game in your head then the game is over, I believe that is a fallacy. Unless you see absolutley everything or have precognitive powers then you can fail in your vision, I've had a game where I sent transport to a planet where I thought was unoccupied with fighters and when it got close a 4 fleet ship hiding in the shadows offed my transport. Also playing the game in your head is part of being a good stratergist, it helps when coordinating stratergies and even backup plans.

Also while they don't serve us the story on a silver platter, why don't you go on and make your own storyline? This game doesn't have a weak storyline, you just didn't create it. Really, a good game can also make your imagination rile up to make all sorts of scenarios, you just have to play along... also tweaking the options a bit helps

Also this game isn't meant to be very complicated, no super equations where you needed a coder and someone with a phD in math to dechiper it (at least the ship parts )
, also if you think switching between weapons is easy then I hope you have good neighbors or have godly research stats because unless you spread out (which is inefficient IMO since it leaves you with lackluster weapons that you won't even use and by the time you could get all this you'd be late game anyway.)

I think you should definetly elaborate more on your point, I find all this to be more of taste and not of the game itself, sure there's room for improvement butI can't really see how would you improve from your point of view.

Also they are balancing and fixing this game constantly... and this is a company where the DEVELOPERS come out and talk to the general public and hear their opinion (I think)... how many companies can you honestly say they have such strong consumer interaction with the public, we'd be lucky if we could get a canned message.

Anyway... yeah.... my 2 billion credits
Reply #14 Top
To me this a one of those games that you keep coming back to. I do it all the time to Civ4, and i will be coming back to this too. Change things up a bit, play some FPS or real time strats then come back, change is good once in awhile.
Reply #15 Top
I just finished the campaign and all I can say is 'bleh'

I didn't feel at all involved in it. Accomplish the goal, read the next, accomplish the goal, read the next. Where was the flavor? Instead of telling me that Earth is threatened, SHOW ME!

Give me a cut scene with a battle raging over Earth, some alien admirals swearing at me over the comms. ANYTHING!


I felt nothing at all the whole time. Which is sad because I think this game has good mechanics.



This is a single player game, so don't tell me the campaign isn't supposed to be a big part of the experience. The AI has to engage me, the story has to engage me, the universe has to engage me. They have to, because no humans are there to do it for them.
Reply #16 Top
The thing is, the original poster compared a 4x game to RTS games and an MMORPG. It's like comparing apples and oranges. I can go on and say how Starcraft has no diplomacy, it has weapon/ship customization, you cannot choose your alignment, you only have control over tactical battles and have no grand strategy options, you cannot colonize different planets.. The list goes on. They are two very different types of games with two very different types of features.


While it's true that some aspects offer no true comparison, like SUVs and sport cars, you want both to run, both to have all the same basic components. One could say that story is like the wheels of a car, all cars should have them, but they'll be different based on the needs.

How is the losing 60 ships and building 60 more any different than "My 60 Zerglings just got blown up, I'll just hatch 50 more?" where is the soul there? At least in in GC2 you can name your ships, upgrade them as technology increases and watch their stats go up. It's an apples and oranges comparison that isn't really quite fair to any genre of game.


You can upgrade units in StarCraft too. But StarCraft had heroes and the units talk to you during critical parts of the mission. "We're in real trouble here Sarge." "I don't think we're going to make it darlin'." Heroes make all the difference.

I've played this game about 12 hours and I couldn't even tell you who all the sides are. None of them have left enough of an impression on me for me to even bother remembering their name. Soulless I say, soulless.
Reply #17 Top
Weird post.... very weird, but it is nonetheless interesting.

First of all, you are wrong about your observation, for it seems to me that you have rather developed a problem with yourself than with this game, if you are engaging in obsessive compulsive behaviour. It is not at all fair to blame the game for that!

The linearity and abstract remarks are right on, need not elaborate. Again however you are blaming the game too much for having no soul. A game, just like a movie or a book, only have as much soul as the reader is able to connect and relate to its content and exposition.
For a game, a story helps. So does custom music, etc... but ultimately, its up to you, the player, to get involved. If you don't feel it, fine, but don't jump to conclusions the same applies to everyone.

I must admit, however, that I agree partially with you, and I strongly hope the devs will add extra content to keep the game vital. The obvious way to do so is to improve upon the diplomacy and AI aspact. Diplomacy is just copied over from the predecessor, and is relatively unimaginative, and there is a lot more room for socialization and personalisation there.

The lauded and much praised AI is also open to some serious redesign and tweaks. After I got the hang of the game and learned the essentials, I find the AI unsatisfying (I'm talking about the one with all algorithms in place), except for the most difficult one with its killer economy and starting boosts, and it acts and feels very much like an AI.

The devs boasted about incorporating 'every known human tactic'. Contrary, I and many others found numerous ways to outmanouver the AI, and it also does very silly and stupid things, but I needn't elaborate on all that here and now.
The point is, if they would fix the AI coupled with a more intricate diplomacy, it would make for some real and unprecedented involvement!


Reply #18 Top
You can purchase small non-cosmetic upgrades that let a tank go into siege mode to fire its one cannon. Can you put more cannons on the tank? Can you add machine guns to the tank? Can you add lasers to the tank? What sort of defenses can you give the tank? Can you change what the tank looks like?

The type of upgrading/customization in Starcraft doesn't even come close to comparing what you can do to your ships in GC2. Considering that you can have the same race with two radically different fleets of ships with a completely different flavor for each I'd say that the more customizable/upgradable game is definately GC2

GC2 does speak to you as well albiet with text not words. You click that same unit over and over and that marine will always "frag this commander". Nothing changes. The same words like a script from a movie. It's not the same in GC where if you put transports filled with soldiers near an alien planet they will say, (and this is in short) "If this was a higher difficulty level we would be attacking you, so don't complain about no multiplayer). How is that the game not speaking to you?

As far as critical parts in the mission, you mean the scripted parts of a single player game? What about in the sandbox mode (skirmish), all you are hearing is the same acknowledgements over and over.

Seriously, play at a higher difficulty level on a large map. Go all out. You'll see the races act very differently and you'll be wondering, "Okay, who's going to get up to the plate and actually stand up to the Dregins, because they're starting to get a nice Empire, despite it being on the other side of the galaxy"
Reply #19 Top
You can purchase small non-cosmetic upgrades that let a tank go into siege mode to fire its one cannon. Can you put more cannons on the tank? Can you add machine guns to the tank? Can you add lasers to the tank? What sort of defenses can you give the tank? Can you change what the tank looks like?


First, siege mode dramatically changes how the game is played. Ask any Starcraft player about siege mode and they'll tell you it's something you have to plan for. And yes you can increase its attack and defense 3 times each and the prerequisites for those improvements are more than simply having the previous one. I'm looking for more of the siege mode kind of changes; upgrades that change the dynamic at different periods of play.

The type of upgrading/customization in Starcraft doesn't even come close to comparing what you can do to your ships in GC2. Considering that you can have the same race with two radically different fleets of ships with a completely different flavor for each I'd say that the more customizable/upgradable game is definately GC2


It doesn't have to because most of the customization in GC2 is fluff; it doesn't mean anything in terms of real game play. Having a ship that does 8 instead of 7 does have an effect, but I didn't have to adjust my play style nor did my opponent because the difference in marginal at best. This is why everything past colinization feels the same; at least in my perspective. Civ IV at least has things like nukes and bombers and naval craft. These things change the dynamic a bit. Changes in dynamic help make the game work at later stages.

GC2 does speak to you as well albiet with text not words. You click that same unit over and over and that marine will always "frag this commander". Nothing changes. The same words like a script from a movie. It's not the same in GC where if you put transports filled with soldiers near an alien planet they will say, (and this is in short) "If this was a higher difficulty level we would be attacking you, so don't complain about no multiplayer). How is that the game not speaking to you?


The fact that these communications are auditory and all the time matters. When they're not, it doesn't serve as the needed effect. It would be like if your mother only talked to you once in a great while and the rest of the time left you notes. Trying not to offend deaf people too much, but part of the human experience is voice, sound. This is something that comes out when it's too quiet or a movie stops the music to build suspense. Music and background sounds in general build mood and mood is important to any story-telling experience be it completely in the control of the author or the player.

As far as critical parts in the mission, you mean the scripted parts of a single player game? What about in the sandbox mode (skirmish), all you are hearing is the same acknowledgements over and over.


Remember, I stated that good multiplayer experiences come from good single player experiences. That's because you connect in the single player story mode. Same goes for Diablo and other games. Now this is only really a requirement in games that last awhile. Say more than 30 minutes, though that number is fuzy. Less than that and it's more of a card game; a simple mental exercise.


Reply #20 Top
You can upgrade units in StarCraft too. But StarCraft had heroes and the units talk to you during critical parts of the mission. "We're in real trouble here Sarge." "I don't think we're going to make it darlin'." Heroes make all the difference.


Then... Go play an RTS where everything is scripted. Galciv and games like it are different. there is no story, You create it. And if you don't like the gameplay, which can be repetitive sometimes. Well, that's just a differnce in taste.
Reply #21 Top
First, siege mode dramatically changes how the game is played. Ask any Starcraft player about siege mode and they'll tell you it's something you have to plan for. And yes you can increase its attack and defense 3 times each and the prerequisites for those improvements are more than simply having the previous one. I'm looking for more of the siege mode kind of changes; upgrades that change the dynamic at different periods of play.


Comparing the upgrade from laser II to laser III is a bit unfair when talking about a siege tank with siege mode against one without it. I'll give you that siege mode is a very significant upgrade, but in GC2, logistics is a major upgrade. See what happens when you have a fleet that is very well armed, but has terrible logistics going against an opponent with excellent logistics at the expense of a few offensive/defensive upgrades. You'll see just how major some upgrades are.

It doesn't have to because most of the customization in GC2 is fluff; it doesn't mean anything in terms of real game play. Having a ship that does 8 instead of 7 does have an effect, but I didn't have to adjust my play style nor did my opponent because the difference in marginal at best. This is why everything past colinization feels the same; at least in my perspective. Civ IV at least has things like nukes and bombers and naval craft. These things change the dynamic a bit. Changes in dynamic help make the game work at later stages.


Right, Civ has the nukes, the bombers, and the naval aircraft. Now, Gal Civ has soldiering upgrades, upgradable buildings (and only limited room on each planet for buildings.. unlike Civ where you have everything you want), logistics, the size of your hulls, alignment (which will drastically change the flavor of your game and your strategy), and star bases. Once again, it really sounds like you havn't gone into the more difficult levels of the game where you need to explore all these options to win. I can go into a lower level difficulty now and be bored silly too, the computer just doesn't use what is available to it at those level.. and guess what? It was designed not to do that either.

The fact that these communications are auditory and all the time matters. When they're not, it doesn't serve as the needed effect. It would be like if your mother only talked to you once in a great while and the rest of the time left you notes. Trying not to offend deaf people too much, but part of the human experience is voice, sound. This is something that comes out when it's too quiet or a movie stops the music to build suspense. Music and background sounds in general build mood and mood is important to any story-telling experience be it completely in the control of the author or the player.


I agree. The auditory part is very important. I think more emphasis could have been placed on the music in game (though admitantly I havn't given it a fair enough chance due to my love of custom races), but actually voice acknowledgement in these types of games really do get annoying. When could it have used voice overs? Simple, when you get the cutscenes. Narration would have been excellent when you colonize your first planet, when you launch your first capital ship, when you conquer your first system. It would have added a lot of flavor. Even when new tech is discovered a voice over with a non-tongue in cheek description would have been great.


Remember, I stated that good multiplayer experiences come from good single player experiences. That's because you connect in the single player story mode. Same goes for Diablo and other games. Now this is only really a requirement in games that last awhile. Say more than 30 minutes, though that number is fuzy. Less than that and it's more of a card game; a simple mental exercise.



Correct, but the single player experience must be more due to the mechanics and balance of the game for it to be good in multiplayer. Despite the lack of a story, GCII would be an excellent multiplayer game due to the awesome mechanics, the challenging AI, and the fact that the game changes each time you play. Disagree? Well, take a look at the Warhammer RTS. The single player campaign was short, kind of boring, predictable, and you could only play as one side. The skirmish matches on the other hand were a blast.

I see where you are coming from, but it seems you like a more visercal experience from your games, and GCII is just not that. It's more of a game of thought, planning, and management.
Reply #22 Top
Then... Go play an RTS where everything is scripted. Galciv and games like it are different. there is no story, You create it. And if you don't like the gameplay, which can be repetitive sometimes. Well, that's just a differnce in taste.


Admittedly that may be a difference in taste, but even Civilization IV takes time to attempt to correct some of the things that were simply repetative tedium; e.g. pollution.

But perhaps what I'm talking about is again why games like this seem to have trouble holding people's attention in the late game. Sid Mier, someone I think we can all call an expert, mentioned how late game the game can drag on and they've been making attempts to correct it.

While it's important for niche products to exist, I think every company would like to have the success that the bigger companies have and that includes working consistently towards a better product by constantly re-examining what is fun and by listening to their customers. Think of me as a single voice voting for my preference.
Reply #23 Top
Now, Gal Civ has soldiering upgrades, upgradable buildings (and only limited room on each planet for buildings.. unlike Civ where you have everything you want), logistics, the size of your hulls, alignment (which will drastically change the flavor of your game and your strategy), and star bases. Once again, it really sounds like you havn't gone into the more difficult levels of the game where you need to explore all these options to win. I can go into a lower level difficulty now and be bored silly too, the computer just doesn't use what is available to it at those level.. and guess what? It was designed not to do that either.


Upgradable buildings follow along the same sort of path as upgraded weapons or defense. Why just have a building that's simply production/research/money +1? If that's the case then just have the building ramp up on it's own. The game essentially forces you to grab certain technologies and then forces you to ramp up your colonies in a mixed fashion. I can't put down too many production centers or else I won't have enough money to pay for it, though that's a pretty common thing among 4X games, though this game seems to be fairly severe in that respect from my experience.

But lastly you bring up the point about not having enough experience. I've played the game now about 12-20 hours (lost track). At what point should I have experienced the whole game or even enough of the game to see what you're talking about? Perhaps the developers should examine that as well.
Reply #24 Top
Masn, I completely agree with you, Citizen Orion Adrian. I think the reason we still continue to play GalCiv2 is that it's the only decent strategy sci-fi empire building game made in the last 5 years or so.

For one I think the AI personality is very disappointing. And yes I play on Crippling and above so don't tell me to turn up the difficulty. In Civ4, the leaders acted differently, Montezuma will attack you like a madman while others will play peacefully, Isabella will go pyscho on you if you have a different religion than her and Alexander will stab you in the back after thousands of years of pure friendship. With GC2 you could randomize their bonuses and rename the races Race_A, Race_B and I couldn't tell the difference.


Now, Gal Civ has soldiering upgrades, upgradable buildings (and only limited room on each planet for buildings.. unlike Civ where you have everything you want), logistics, the size of your hulls, alignment (which will drastically change the flavor of your game and your strategy), and star bases


That's flavor? I reserach soldiering and get a +10 bonus, but I do nothing, just keep researching. Ditto with upgradeable buildings. Logistics hardly changes any dynamics, neither does hull sizes you get a little more hp, that's about it, don't exactly groundbreaking, I hardly notice the difference between small and medium ships anymore. I've gone both Good and Neutral and Evil and haven't changed my play drastically at all. With Good aned Evil I use my special armor and weapons and take over the galaxy. With Neutral I build on the new tiles and build a few more freighters, that's about it. Only difference really is being friends with the Humans instead of friends with the Drengin and that's superficial. Starbases though, starbases are fun I like starbases and think they give a lot to the flavor of the game. I'll give you that, starbases rule and add a lot to GC2.

Saying the game has no soul is pretty harsh, but I've just completed my second technology victory and man is that soulless. I didn't think anything could be worse than the boring Civ spacerace, but I am wrong. I mean researching a few techs in a perfectly straight line with no tech requirements and all I get is 1 sentence (2 or 3 sentences if I am lucky) descriptions of the tech is just bad.
Reply #25 Top
I disagree galciv does have a soul, it's just not fully developed yet. Each of the races has a distinct behaviour, especially on the harder difficulty levels. The choice of weapons is very important and there are subtle differences between each of them, much more so than the shitty units from civ4. The thing that is most promising is that the developement team seam to be very aware of the problem issues with the game and is taking very direct steps to correct them.
Having said that, the game is a little dull on the lower difficulty levels, where it is simply a matter of time before you inevitably defeat the AI.