Good reviews, bad reviews..

It's here
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/reviews/

You need to click the link, the paste the extra bit into the address at the end.

I don't believe it. They think you're ripping off civ4. By the sound of it, they aren't very good at the game, and gave it no time (they couldn't even select a starbase). They didn't mention things as unimportant as, say, the AI. They also say the race doesn't really make a difference (shows how little they bothered to play)

If they had done a full, in depth review and given it 60, that would have been fair. It's obvious they looked at it, said "civ4 rip, crap", couldn't win, so gave it a bad review.

Never mind, it got edited.

You can check out the review from PC Zone UK on the web at pczone.co.uk - though I don't know if the paper-version goes into any more depth. The criticisms aren't without some justification, but imo are mostly quite shallow and a little perserverance would have let them see the gameplay beneath that makes the game what it is. I do so wish though that the tech tree would let you see what the new buildings/weapons/starbase modules actually give you!

[Edited - don't repost entire text please]

Full review found here:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/reviews/reviews_story.php?id=137845

 

Sounds like the AI beat him really bad to me.

That's pretty lame - criticising the game for both 'ripping off' Civ4 (Sid Meier clearly 'owns' TBS) then complaining that there's no tactical combat... like in Civ4. It's bad to rip off Civ4, but you should have ripped MoO2 off MORE!

Hey, you can't have unique structures without ripping off Civ4! The map is better than Civ4s... but we don't like it waaah!

It is a sad story, but the big paper magazines in Germany (e.g. www.gamestar.de) all rated GalCiv2 very low too.
That beeing said, on the other hand Germany has a strong fan culture for complex strategy games and while the magazines tend to push the EA "blockbusters", the fans know all is not gold that glitters.

I was happy to tryout the demo version and after that I ordered GalCiv2 last tuesday and cannot wait to start a game, espacially with 1.1 so close. The only shame is taht GalCiv will hold me back from playing Doomsday (HoI2 AddOn) ...

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with not liking a game. Even if most peope do likeit, some people just don't, and that's ok.

But, the way he described things in the article makes me wonder how much time and attention was really put into this. I don't get how he couldn't figure out how to select the space station, even with stacked ships. The whole "grandma's buttons" thing makes me also wonder if he realized he can zoom and rotate the map.

I suppose he wanted tactical battles, that's fine. But, I think the game should be viewed more on what it's trying to accomplish, not what he wanted. There is a differance between low budget opting out, and focusing on other aspects.

Well, I commented on their site. I suggested they play more than half a game before they decide to review it.

I REALLY write this one off as a reviewer who either didn't like strategy games or he really didnt play it for more then 10 minutes, switched sides, played another 10 minutes and quit... That'd be my guess anyway.

With reviews having to only be a few hundred words it's really easy to do that in 10 minutes of play. This is why most sights require a great length in words otherwise its tempting to play a game you dont care for for 30 minutes and just write your review.

And I gave my comments.

By the sound of it, you didn't put any time into playing the game. If you bothered to look, it says what research will give you. IE, Miniballs 2 is labled with "New ship components", and the component. I'd have thought that a fairly obvious statement of what it gives you.

Basically, he didn't look at the game, didn't have a damn clue how to play it, and sulked about it. It's just a magazine version of "ZOMG!!! TEH GAME SUXX0Z!!!!!!1!!eleventyone!!"

~A long low blast from an enormous horn echos throughout the forum~

The rallying cry has gone up! Trolls assemble! Spam attack and boycott! CHARGE!!!!

Since it won't let me edit, I'll add this. They don't bother reviewing the game, but in the magazine forum heading?

PC Zone Magazine Britain's best PC games mag loves you

Laughing...so...hard

And teancum, I didn't troll. Trolling makes them look right. Instead, make them look like a whiny idiot

Obscure the fact your bedroom is a pigsty and you've surrendered the kitchen to the cockroaches with the distractions of terraforming class IV ice worlds.

This is one of the most insulting things in the article - he is not just insulting the game - but he is insulting all who play TBS games. I know he is trying to be funny - but it ain't working. Psuedo-hip twit.

He needs to stick to reviewing mindless twtchy fingered FPS games - he obviously has no clue about artificial intelligence - heck, he has no intelligence.

That review is so unfair as to be meaningless. Brad needs to rebut it in the comments.

Marcathonas , lol, I wasnt accusing you or anyone... I just had this hilarious mental image of all the GC fans mobilizing and attacking. Sorry, looking back I guess it did look alittle accusing didnt it?

I just had this hilarious mental image of all the GC fans mobilizing and attacking. Sorry, looking back I guess it did look alittle accusing didnt it?

Hehe, the ZERG army. As they march harmlessly along, their fingers too damaged by RSI's to do anything, their boots make hideous noises crushing against the ground. "L-O-L. Z-O-MG. ST-F-U"

*plays imperial march*

He needs to stick to reviewing mindless twtchy fingered FPS games - he obviously has no clue about artificial intelligence - heck, he has no intelligence.

What can you expect from someone who, in all likelyhood, spends a good deal of time saying (In all seriousness) "lol rofflcopter stfu n00b I pwned j00"

It definitely reads as if the reviewer spent very little time with the game.

The game mechanics are actually significantly different than Civ IVs. Obviously there's similarities but there are significant differences.

Consider this:

Civ IV doesn't have an "army" concept (Civ III did let you build army type things with special units).  Instead, Civ IV has stacked units (which GalCiv 1 had too).  Civ IV stacks don't fight together though.  He complains that unit grouped battles are no big deal and should be a given even as he lavishes praise in Civ IV which doesn't have them at all.

GalCiv has had the concept of cultural borders since the original OS/2 version in 1993. Is credit for innovation to be decided by the bigger name title rather than who actually did it first?

GalCiv's planet management is completely different than Civ IVs concept.

On the good side though, the review on G4 was fantastic. 5 out of 5 is a very big deal.   A lot f pepole will see that. 

Don't take it too personally. It is not easy writing reviews and keeping your own personal biases out of the content. The reviewer assigned to write this may not be a fan of TBS, and their only previous experience is a tiny map rush strategy on Civ4 - you are not going to get a very objective review from that person.

I regularly write reviews of CDs, DVDs and live concerts and it is really difficult if I'm sent a promo copy of an album by a band that I don't particularly like and asked to review it (the record companies don't know my exact personal tastes - I'm just a name on a list). I try to be wholly objective, but if a particular singer, for example, has a voice that just downright irritates the hell out of me, then it doesn't matter how good the song writing or production is, I am never going to be able to give it a glowing review.

I suspect that something similar has happened here and the CD just ended up in the hands of the wrong person.

P.S. I'm in the UK, an avid gamer, and can honestly say I've never even looked inside a copy of PC Zone - I think they're geared up to appeal more to the FPS or TOCA / GTA type fraternity, rather than the in depth strategy / RPG gamer.

lol while i disagree with the 60% rating, he does have a point or two. the gc2 interface isn't its strength (yet?).. hah and i loved that one: "Space battles consist of clicking 'attack' and then watching a dreary 3D replay of the action, where the opposing ships float around poking each other with glowing red and green lines."
sorry guys, it just had to be said.. after reading so many enthusiastic comments about the oh-so-awesome combat viewer, a plain description of what it actually is just made my day.

PC Zone/CVG have a predictable habit of dissing anything that isn't the latest flashy FPS while attempting to portray themselves as experienced, multi-genre gamers. It comes off as overbearingly lame except to their target market of...drumroll please...people just like themselves.

I know these threads are supposed to be fanboy only affairs, but In all fairness, I'd say they got the UI comments right. And to be honest, I think 5/5 or 90%+ ratings are extremely generous.

I'd give the game about 80%, with a potential of about 95% if they work out some issues (UI and AI).

On one hand, the game rocks. It has depth, replay value, and varied paths to success. It offers nearly everything I hope for in a TBS game. I love the game. I've lost a great deal of sleep playing it.

On the other hand, the UI needs a bunch of help, and the AI is not very good at some important things.

Tab or clicking on a ship in another part of the map really needs to unselect all the ships you had selected (so I don't have to click a planet after moving a stack of ships to avoid giving all but the top ship orders). There needs to be a way to give build orders to multiple planets (not governers... what if I have 50 planets building constructors and I want 25 to start building warships). Having to hunt for a ship to click manually because it has 1 space of automove left is unacceptable. Little quirks; like error messages that pop under the current window so when you go back to the main map you see a bunch of error messages, or being pulled to the next culture-flipped planet before you could set the ship to build on the first one, or the much-debated "lost turn" after reload; all add to a feeling that the game could be so much better.

The AI needs to be taught how to build on bonus squares, and in general not gimp its planets by not building a factory (I've taken over planets with very few improvements late in the game). The tactical combat needs improvement. A few large fleets of fast ships with good weapons can gobble up entire stacks of ships (especially when they sit there not in fleets) with little retaliation. AI needs to take defending resources more seriously, and be more aggressive about grabbing "liberated" resources. AI doesn't do a good job of upgrading it's starbases to full potential. AI programing is not easy, but someone like me should not be able to win on Suicidal as easily as I do.

I put up with these things because I love the game (although if the AI difficulty doesn't increase, I will be bored soon). Many of these issues are supposed to be addressed in the current beta. But reviewers generally see what's out of the box, and even if they upgrade to the latest "release" patch, they will see all the things I mention. And there is no way a game with all those flaws can be 90% or higher.

I look forward to the next patch.

(Don't get me wrong, Frogboy/Brad, I think you do great work, and recommend your games to everyone I know. I just think your work on this one isn't quite finished. )

One thing I have learned and seen first hand. If a game advertises on a site of magazine theny will get a decent to great review. If they don't then most will trash it especially the paper mags.

Some of the things he called GC2 out on were true (interface. Every screen needs significant improvement. The 3D view is ultimately meaningless, but then again, this is true for almost every entry in the genre that goes 3D). Other things were true only to a cursory examination (if you don't have a strong handle on the finer subtlties of the game, all races do look and play alike). And if the game didn't captivate him to begin with (ie, he's not a strategy gamer by heart comping at the bit for anything that looks even remotely TBS), you can't expect a reviewer to put in the time it takes to uncover that which lies beneath GC2's surface.

If you bothered to look, it says what research will give you. IE, Miniballs 2 is labled with "New ship components", and the component.

Um, I'm pretty sure the reviewer was wanting something more than a component name that it ultimately meaningless. Sure, it says that you get the ship component "Mass Drivers", but if you have no idea what it does (which you don't without some extra-game aid or having researched it before), saying that you get this item is meaningless.

It's a legitimate complaint; for those unfamiliar with the game, figuring out what a tech provides is a big deal. And the game doesn't let you. It's the kind of thing that turns a player off of the game before they get anywhere with it.

Like maybe this reviewer.

There needs to be a way to give build orders to multiple planets (not governers... what if I have 50 planets building constructors and I want 25 to start building warships).

There's a reason that's not possible: because managing a 50 planet empire is not what the game is about. Sure, you can play one, but that's not what the game is optimized to handle best. Civilization, even in its 4th (5th if you include Alpha Centauri) incarnation, doesn't give you the ability to manage production in such a fashion.

In short, if you need to efficiently manage 50 planets, you've got too many planets in the galaxy.

Having to hunt for a ship to click manually because it has 1 space of automove left is unacceptable.

You can always hit the tab key or use the Find button.....

As far as changing production of only 25 of 50 ships - well, even the Civ series doesn't do that. The best way to do that is to use the right click feature in the Civilization manager screen. - right click on the shipyards in the far right column - you can change the build there from one place for all planets.

I find the UI to be ok - not perfect but pretty darn good - there are a lot of features that are undocumenteted (that is an issue, I'll agree) - but if you experiment with the various screens you can really find some really useful shortcut ways of doing things. Most of the complaints I see are from people not realizing that the Civ Manager or the Planets/Ships screen even exist . They are unaware of how to get to the Planatary Governors to turn off auto upgrading of buildings. They don't attempt to use Rally points. They have never looked at the Game Option screens. This is not the designers fault - it is that the users just don't poke around amd play with the UI enough. And to be fair, the documentation included with the game does not cover some of this. But they don't even read the Features sticky here, or check out the Wiki before complaining.