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

Never mind, it got edited.

Sounds like the AI beat him really bad to me.

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) ...

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

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!!"

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

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?

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. 

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.

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. )

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.