New Reviews, last week of March

A quick round-up

from GalCiv2 Forums

Some new reviews of Galactic Civilizations II have come out this week. The first one comes from Gaming Horizon.

Their verdict:

Galactic Civilizations II is the first sleeper hit of 2006. The AI is the best seen thus far in any strategy title and the complexity and depth of the game will keep gamers coming back for just one more turn. With a random galaxy generated every game, coupled with AI that is unpredictable and incredibly intelligent, the game is sure to never play out the same way twice. Gamers looking for a good turn based strategy title will find a lot to like in Galactic Civilizations and the reduced MSRP of $39.99 also makes this game one of the best PC buys of the year.

You can read the full-review here.

The second new review comes from GameShark.com. As the AI developer on GalCiv II, I particularly liked their comments on the computer AI:

Getting back to the AI – this is really what makes GalCiv II stand out from the crowd. This game has some of the best enemy AI around. It's clever, doesn't cheat, makes mistakes, anticipates, and is generally wonderful. Each of the game's ten races behaves as separate entities and will treat you differently depending on the race you are playing. Still, what makes the AI so brilliant isn't that it's hard to beat, but rather that it acts more like a human than any other turn based strategy game around. It's programmed to guess what a human may do – and it'll flat out tell you that it knows what you're up to. It's borderline creepy. On the harder levels of difficulty if you leave the AI an opening it rushes through it, make a blunder and it jumps all over you, try to make a crazy tech trade and it'll laugh at you and tell you why, but it's also prone to making "human" mistakes. It's not perfect nor should it be. It's simply a brilliant AI game model and it ensures that no two games of GalCiv II will ever play the same.

I'll mention this part again but it's very cool when reviewers spend enough time on a game to play it at different levels and see that the computer AI actually plays differently. You can imagine the tedium in writing computer AI that is intentionally "Stupid" at lower levels to represent on-line play.

Much of the AI design came from the Warcraft 3 beta incidentally.  On Battle.net, players are automatically put up against players of a similar skill ranking.  Our goal with the AI was that as players bumped up the intelligence level on opponents, it would feel the same as going up the ladder on a multiplayer game (except where the other guy doesn't drop as soon as things go against him or her <g>).

You can read the GameShark.com review here.

The next one is from GamingTrend.com.  They really liked the game but took some points off for no multiplayer and that the graphics are a bit "static" in some places (which is true as making sure the game ran on lower end hardware took priority and so the budget for more on-screen "stuff" was put into other areas).

Their conclusion:

Stardock has made Galactic Civilizations II a great game, and they have made an even bolder move by not including any type of copy protection with the game.  Their sense of humor shows not only within the manual but in the game as well.  It has personality throughout.  It looks and sounds very good.  The thorough manual explains to you the building improvements, super projects, and differences in difficulty levels.  Tables showing the Star Base enhancements are also included.  Stardock has gone a long way to make this look like a professional effort, even with a development team that is small compared to the ones used by the big publishers, and it shows throughout.

Gamers looking for a strategy game that has the depth of Civilization IV but want a more futuristic setting should definitely look at Galactic Civilizations II.  It’s perfect for laptops since it doesn’t require a CD to be in the drive.  The replayability of the game is almost infinite.  The response to the game has been overwhelming, with the first printing flying off the store shelves.  If you have any interest in turn-based strategy games, be sure to pick up a copy or download it from Stardock’s web site.

You can read their full review here.

Those are some of the reviews that came out this week. If there's a review I missed or that you'd like me to post about (good or bad) please feel free to command in this thread and I'll check it out.

8,336 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As soon as I saw that they had marked it down for not being multi-player, I put gamingtrend.com on the list of review sites to 'miss'...

I hate it when reviewer's do that - be it in games/music/film or otherwise... It's like reviewing a Jazz trio and complaining there's no drums, lol - (which would make it a quartet). Yes, ok - it might be nice - it might even make them sound better - but there might be a very good reason they don't have a drummer, lol. Either way - it's about people trying to turn something they've experienced into something it was never meant/planned or even promised to be. It's NOT a fault that it wasn't what THEY wanted - but it MAY be an opportunity....!! And if it's not - then so be it... Deal with it, lol.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yeah, there was a short review in the April 2006 issue of GameInformer (page 131) that I posted about a week ago that nobody saw apparently. They gave the game an 8 and a 7.75 second opinion.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As soon as I saw that they had marked it down for not being multi-player, I put gamingtrend.com on the list of review sites to 'miss'...


They did say...
However, with all the configuration options, you won't miss the multiplayer.

Seems fair enough to me. Not having multiplay is an important issue to many gamers, and they seemed very fair about it.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The reviews get better and better, good job!

I should however say to Keill that if the review says something bad about the game, it's a better review than doesn't say anything bad. I have learned by buying games with good reviews that omited one critical flaw in the game that drove me bonkers. That is nto a review, it's marketing. I am an avid anti-marketeer. Any review that doesn't show the bad of the game is not honest and objective and those site psotign that garbage should not be read by anyone.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Sorry, I created a seperate thread on this elsewhere before seeing your item on new reviews. But I just received the new (May) Computer Games Mag with its GalCi2 review.

"King of the Cosmos" is the title. 4.5 stars out of 5, and an Editor's Choice designation. Congrats, Brad and Stardock

One quote: "Galactic Civilizations II is like a skilled karaoke singer. The tune is not original, but Stardock has a way of making it its own."

The review takes up two full pages of the mag -- one page of (so-so) screens, and a full page review.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Keill,

I'm the reviewer at GamingTrend that wrote that review. If you would take a look at the review, I gave GCII a 94% for Value/Replay Value. I rarely give a game over 90% in any area unless it is truly spectacular. I did mention that there was a large number of options in the game that it wasn't a big deal that the game was missing multiplayer, but gamers looking at purchasing the game need to know details like that. I was more harsh on the graphics and sound than I was in the other areas. GCII got an 87% overall, which I feel is a fair assessment.

When a reviewer reviews a game, even if they like the game, they need to be more critical of the game than regular gamers might be. Maybe reviewers become jaded more quickly.

In any case, I do hope you would check out the site. We are a bunch of gamers, but we put up a very professional looking site, with a game database that rivals what you can find at the "huge" gaming sites. We also have an active forum base that is largely civil and free from drama and trolls.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
New review up at GameOver; http://www.game-over.net/reviews.php?id=1046 (81%)

I know a review doesn't need to be reviewed, but here's a few comments:

He doesn't appear to have done his homework in terms of GC1, or at least only references the 2003 release.

Doesn't appear to be a fan of the 4X genre, and the writing is fairly muddled. He gives it an 81%, but makes statements like; "Their decisions were sound, because as a result Galactic Civilizations II is a nice but not great game."

He does touch upon the flexibility to play how you want, but never touches on actual gameplay experience, or the AI. He mentions the lack of multiplayer, voiced dialogue, and isn't a fan of the graphics and sound.

Anyway, as a mainstream review it's not terrible, but certainly not much depth there.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"Much of the AI design came from the Warcraft 3 beta incidentally."

WC3 Reign of Chaos beta? The AI of that game was atrocious. And while it didnt cheat with resources, it did not behave realistically, and had no difficulty scaling.

If you are reffering to TFT beta, it was vastly improved after everyone was screaming bloody murder at the impossible games they were playing in customs. However, on Computer (Insane) difficulty did cheat by recieving an inordinate amount of gold and lumber. Overall the AI was more humanlike... kinda.

I know that it being a TBS makes it a completly different monster, not having to deal with anything that might have to mimic human reflex, but the variance in descision making really suprises me at times. Leagues beyond what is WC3s AI IMO.

Curious how anything was derived from Warcraft at all.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
An interesting review in th context of a comparison between GC2 and Alpha Centauri is up at the Inquirer.
Link
Mostly retreading old review-ground (as really all reviews do), but some interesting comments on the minimap that bear taking a look at.