First Game Completed - Relatively Disappointed

from GalCiv2 Forums
I have completed my first game, played a standard sized map on normal level. Won by cultural conquest after 3-4 hours of playing.

Have to say I was quite disappointed. The game was pretty much the same as the first GC. The tech tree, is also pretty much the same as GC1 appart from the three types of attack and defence. It has the same trade goods and galatic wonders for example.

Fundamentally the game has not changed, I have paid $45 for an ok update to the graphics and a minor gameplay change to the combat damge system. Both of which I could live without.

This 'sequal' in my opinion is nothing compared to the CIV4, which feels like a new game and is definately worth the money. Does anyone else feel they have been duped as well? Or am I missing something?
11,548 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Personally, I think you're missing something. But maybe that's just me.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Must not feed the troll. Careful it might breed.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Try your luck on the tough dificulty (AI all on intelligent). The 'fun' in the game is usually when you get challeged and over come it. Playing it at normal is just playing a disabled AI with a barely functioning economy. It is intended to help you learn the game. Since you obviously already know how to play it, I suggest you take it up a few notches. Granted, there are still some things that needs working out (Culture domination is just way too easy), I feel that GC2 is by far, a much superior product than GC1 (don't get me wrong, I like that game too) as long as you prevent yourself from exploiting its weaknesses.

If you get bored, you can also mod and tweak the game anyway you like. This, for me at least, is one of the best new features, because the game doesn't get old.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The AI is quite impressive, but my point is really relating to game content. What appart from the minor changes to combat and the few relating techs has changed in this game? Do these minor changes really justify charging $45 and releasing it as a whole new game?
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have not played GalCiv1, only MoO2 and MoO3 and GalCiv2 is a lot better than MoO3 and equal as good as MoO2 (if not a tiny bit better). Im waiting for a completly random patch that makes everything really random. I wouldn't mind to stay weak and being treated by the other civs like shit lol. I love randomness and, let's say, unfair random events and make the best out of it.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This forum is becoming quite tiresome because of people like you, to be honest. Just play on Intelligent or above and then post your dissapointing feedback, alright?

Also, Civ4 doesn't re-invent the wheel. It's just quality improvement and building upon the same concept used for years and years.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
as justas5 just said, civ4 is exactly what you called galciv2 "Fundamentally the game has not changed, I have paid $45 for an ok update to the graphics" civ 4 is just civ 3 with a new look but still the same game. come to think of it, civ3 is just civ 2 with a new look too... and oh wait, they are all the same. you're disappointed.... congratulations. try playing a few more games and up the dificulty and map size.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hmmm sounds a bit like people arent titled to an opinion on this forum.

Hes not talking about dificulty
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Despite all the replies in this post defending the game, no one has answered the simple question im asking. What has changed in this 'sequel'?

As for CIV4, it changed some of the very fundamental strategic concepts of the game (religion, great people, city specialization, civics), which make it new and interesting.

I was rather hoping for a new game rather than an update of a game that’s fun but I had exhausted years ago.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I guess if the original poster elaborated on exactly what he thought made civIV radically different from civIII then it might be clearer what he thought was missing in Galciv2. CivIV offers certain features not found in civIII - religion, social engineering, great people etc. but is by and large the same game with the same game dynamics and prettier graphics. Galciv2 has certain new features, ship building springs to mind, but is closer to the original in terms of content. Where it shines over it's prequel is in *how* the game is played.

Personally I like civIV, and the new systems make you feel you're getting more of an original experience than the 'under the hood' changes Galciv2 tends towards. In less obvious ways such as the AI though, Galciv2 offers a radical overhaul, hardly 'minor' really.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The reason I like GalCiv2 over GC or even is because the developers. They keep adding new features and tweaking the game to make it more enjoyable. Also, they made the game so I can tweak it myself, without any knowledge except game play experience. A lot of game play mechanics are different from GCI, SHIP DESIGNER!!! Sorry, had to shout, but this is a really cool feature. Not only can you graphically create unique designs, but you can build and adjust your fleets as needed.

I was pissed after playing CIV IV for a week. It shipped with some extremely bad memory leaks, among other bugs, and others which were not quickly fixed. The graphics were upgraded sure, but for the graphical power they use, I don't like them. Combat is still incredibly bad in Civ. For 4 games and many expansions, they refused to fix spearmen beating tanks. They only claim to reduce the chances, but how can you not get combat right after more than a decade!? The tech tree is still the same, the units are the same, the civilizations are the same, the game play has been simplified somewhat. That does not warrant 50 dollars. Sorry, it's clear I have issues with CIV IV, but when you lose a tank with full health to spearmen with full health in a one on one battle....your frustration and anger may blind you. Its happened to me in Civ II, III, and IV. Thats like a decade of spearmen destroying tanks.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
While Civ 4 was a change in some core concepts (borders, religions, unit upgrades), Civ 1-3 really was the same game with better graphics and some exploits removed. But basically, Civ 4 is the same game as its predecessors - same wonders, same units, same buildings, same worker actions (a few more and a few less), same (not all) leaders and civs. A more streamlined tech tree with very similar techs in it.

Gal Civ's core game remains unchanged.... the basic idea remains unchanged (the same as in the civ series). What has happened is they made it pretty. The 1st was ugly as hell. They made it more user friendly with better UI's and the like. They changed the concept of planetary development. They put in the most fantastic thing ever released for a game - the Shipbuilder. The AI is more complex. It is more appealing to cross-genre gamers. The scope of the game is bigger....... No, they didn't change every last detail but show me a game that does.

On the one hand adding new content, scrapping everything and going back to the drawing board to create a totally new product seems like a good idea.

On the other hand you have the chance of alienating your fan base. You can lose the successful something of the first game. You can cut yourself off from your roots and produce something that people dont relate to.

Any series of games you expect them to play basically the same and have basically the same things in them, no different than you would with films. Films have core characters, concepts and stories which they build off of in sequals. Games follow the same idea. It's a successful recipe.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Some pretty explanatory replies here, col80 hit's the nail on the head especially.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
yes, certainly some good points made. As the AI is the most important element of any strategy game its good to know a lot of work has been done on it (Not that the GC1 AI was poor).
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I never played GalCiv 1, so I can't comment on the changes.

However I did play Civ 1-4, and when I bought Civ4 I played it once, got bored quickly because it was basically the same game I have burned myself out on over the years, and uninstalled it.

I'm sure Civ4 is the best Civ yet, but for right now I'm bored to tears with it's gameplay and historic setting.

Someday though I'll install it again and love it.

Maybe this is your problem with Galciv2:

You are just burned out on the TBS: Space genre from playing a lot of GalCiv 1. ( and possibly even the Moo series)

Play some other games, hang on to it, and some day in the future you might pick it up and really enjoy it, like I'm sure I will someday enjoy Civ4.

-Chris-
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Personally speaking I respect GalCiv2's AI much more than I respect Civ4's, and the capability to create ship designs on demand is exactly what I've been looking for in 4X games after Alpha Centauri
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I've played most of the strategy games that have been developed over the years. Civ's 1-3, MOO 1-2, Master of Magic, Birth of the Fed, Imperium Galatica 1-2, plus most of te tactical games C&C, Star Wars, StarCraft, WarCraft ,etc.
What CMDRBlitz has developed is a good case of what I'll call soso [same old same old]. I know this because I have it to. Not that I have given up on empire building strategy games shoot them ups and even rts's just don't get it for me. However I've reached a point that it seems the games are built on the same gameplay that it all comes down the same means to the end.

I would like to see a game that incorporates gameplay from all the different platforms out with turn base strategy as its core. In other words a tbs with tactical battle with elements of a rts, a role playing platform for the goverment platform that developes over the game, and a seek and find storyline that IG2 and MOO2 had [only more developed].
A game that would start out like a standard strategy game but as you get into around 300 turns would throw you into a problem that would have to be dealt with such as a rts battle [no resourse gathering but a military infrastructure building such as the build up for the Gulf conflicts,political role playing problems as the result of courses taken [nothing heavy here I never really got into role playing games] and being thrown into seek and find situations to slowly solve the mystery of why we are here or where we came from [ again nothing too heavy here ].

I guess what I'm rambling about here is a game that would take a long time to play like a year or so and that would add mystery and chance to keep you on your toes. A game that would come at you from all angles and would throw you into a aspect that would break from the planet by planet conquest that alot of strategy games lead into in long late gameplay.

But thats just my thoughts, thanks for listening to my ramblings. Now it's off to the store to buy a video card that will do CG2 justice. I've been holding off playing the game until I got one so I can enjoy all the aspect to it. I also look forward to developments and patches coming from stardock since they seem to be taking responseability for the game instead of what happened to MOO2.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have played both galciv1 and galciv2 and teh core gameplay changed a lot, it might not be evident on your first game but it has changed at lot.

In galciv1 was planet management about building building is a certain order and in the end had each planet the same builds and was it basically the same(planet class was teh only real difference). Galciv2 on teh otehr hand allows you to specilaize and focus worlds. You can fill a world with factories and one starport giving you a world to can mass produce the best ships while sucking in all other things and costing a ton of money(you have to pay for that production after all). You can make cash cows world with ton of farms/entertainment/economy buildings who give your empire a tons of cash, those cash cow worlds cna then fund your manufactering and research worlds. You can also create balanced worlds. You can really focus them and specialize them.

In galciv1 was the tech tree an gigantic web that didn't made any sense(you needed weapon tech for certain diplomatic techs if I remember right), it was hard to specialize because you needed to take unwanted techs to get the wanted ones. In galciv2 can you really focus and specialize in your research, you cna take all economy techs without getting and weapon techs. Or you can go all for one type of offensive weapon, giving you a small number of very powerfull ships(you can't pay for more without economy research) a risky but sometimes rewarding strategy(and sometime also a suicidal startegy if the enemy adapts his defenses fast). You can really focus in it specialize in it.

In galciv1 had you a small number of aviabele ships and was it simply a mather of getting the biggest ships. In galciv2 do you have different weapons, defenses, fleets, minutarization and ship sizes. You can go for big fleets of small ships when you go for logistists(and possible minutarization) or you can for big very well defended battle ships or a lot of other combinations. Big ships no longer automaticly win against smaller ones because smaller ships can have many in there fleet giving them very lethal firepower. Thought you can counter small ships by designing a big ship with a ton of defense, thought while taht big defnsive ships is good against small ships can big offensive ships easily kill those big defensive ships. You can really focus them specialize in them.

You can also play all major races in galciv2 and galciv2 is much more addictive and fun then galciv1 ever was(thought this is a subjective opinion).
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Kolpo listed all my favorite improvements GC2 made over GC1. The new planetary development, ship design, fleet battles, and tech tree all allow new, deep strategy. The problem is, some of the things I didn't like about GC1 are completely unchanged. Civ 3 had many of the same problems as GC1, but Civ 4 made changes that make it a much better game than Civ 3.

I don't like the beginning colony rush in GalCiv. There's one best strategy here: colonize as many planets as possible. Research, military, development, and diplomacy are all totally uneeded until all the planets are taken. The difficulty of a game of GalCiv depends almost entirely on how many planets you can colonize. And there's an enforced "no rush" period because it takes a while to get planetary invasion and build transports. Civ 4 fixed this by making settlers very expensive and applying increasing maintenance to cities. If you build lots of cities, your technology greatly slows down, and you need some expensive techs to build your economy. In GalCiv, all you need to fix your economy is population growth and the market centers you start the game with.

Rampant tech trading is another problem in GC1 and 2. When you "sell" a tech, you get paid, and lose nothing. So it's pretty much free money. You can base your entire economy and research around buying tech from one AI, and selling it to the rest. No research or taxes needed. Civ 4 fixed this by applying diplomatic consequences to tech trading. A civ won't sell you a tech if they don't like you. And if you sell a tech to a civ, enemies of that civ get angry at you for trading with their enemies. In Civ 4, rampant tech trading is the reward you get for developing a network of friends (which is not easy), rather than something you can always do for an easy win.

Those are the two big things I would have liked to see improved from GC1 to GC2 that weren't. They make the gameplay simple because there's a best strategy that you can always use. There's no alternative that's better in some situations. Other things I didn't like in GC1 that weren't changed are the snowball effect where a planet you acquire from another civ is immediately fully effective, and the devastating surprise attacks that the AI cannot counter or perform itself, and the advantage of attack over defense. I think each of these tings are done better in Civ 4. So I rather agree with with CMDRBlitz. GC2 added some nice features, but didn't really change the strategy game at its core. Civ 4 did.
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Nullspace, even if a race loves you on the easiest difficulty setting they will rarely sell you military tech.

You will get a message that says something like (This is a wonderful trade but my military advisors won't allow it)

And a race that hates you won't sell you any tech at all unless you hand over planets for it.

So I don't quite understand your tech trading argument with GalCiv.

I play on Tough difficulty and eventually most races won't even trade with me without robbing me blind for the exchange.

-Chris-
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i agree with nullspace. i'd also like to add that in galciv2 being big has a snowball effect. the biggest civ gets the most tourism money, can dictate united planets voting and get the money and production bonuses. and getting big in galciv2 is almost entirely dependent on where you start, because the only game opening is to pump out as many colony ships as you can. whereas in civ4 getting too big early on without adequate infrastructure will spell your doom.

combat in galciv2 is basically countering enemy weapon type with the corresponding defense type, then juicing up your own weapon type in research. the relationship between the 3 types do not change throughout the entire game. in civ4 the paper scissor rock effect is changed periodically as you go through history, and you need to build new unit types and adapt to new counters. all the later weapons in galciv2 simply have bigger attack numbers without any change in characteristic. an attack 20 beam is basically 20 lasers stuffed into a smaller package, with no change in range, penetration and counters. in this respect moo2 at least had varying characteristics to weapons (plasma topedoes had massive damage but lost power over long ranges, so could be countered with a fast ship or a teleporting ship, for example), which made ship design and combat more interesting.

galciv2 has lots of potential but could use more strategic depth to gameplay, something that will probably happen with galciv3 i hope