Gamers Review (Long Post)

1) That's not a long post
2) You're clearly basing the story value on a sandbox game... 'nough said
3) If you want maps that have planets more "spaced out", maybe you should try playing around with the flexible galaxy settings and stop having everything at "Abundant"
4)Your comments on speed and range are asinine. Try proposing a "better" or alternative solution instead of ranting like an idiot
5) Your comments on technology have been addressed in other threads, but in a constructive manner.
6) If you want tactical fighting, go play an RTS not a TBS
7) Just because this isn't MOO2 doesn't mean that that game mechanics are bad. You're clearly still whining because this isn't "the real MOO3"
8) You're a douchebag

Im surprised moderators don't slam plebians like you into ban land.

1. To ward of simpletons, obviouslt that didn't work.
2. Umm...
3. I have, the map system stills sucks, planets on the main map "parsecs" from the start is stupid, try learning your basic astro physics.
4. How about a reduction of range and increase in speed... this was IMPLIED in the post for those who have trouble understand what I meant.
5. It was constructive. It is lame to develop one tech at a time. Sorry for not being clearer.
6. Tactical fighting is like TBS. This method is more "action" like or RTS like...perhaps you need a better understanding of game terms.
7. The mechanis are bad, MoO2's mechanics were bad as well. These are simular. I could care less who or what the title is if it is a good game. This is not.
8. Wow, the game designers got it right...your comment is a clear example of the 12 year olds they were marketing too.


Enjoy your game, sorry you can't take the heat. Pathetic is pathetic and not only the game but your comments show the community may be as well.

What n0v4k4n3 said, but more:

1. Yes, not a long post.
2. It's a sandbox game, who cares what the "story" is and besides, there IS a ton of story, it's just not obvious unless you play the campaign and read the manual (gasp).
3. Umm...yea. Game. Abstractions. Playability. 'Nuff said.
4. Right, because the technology system in MOO2 was so different -- oh wait, it was EXACTLY THE SAME. (And since you said you didn't like MOO3, I'll assume the fact that MOO3's system was boring and pointless and largely automated bugged you as well.)
5. Once again, scope of game. This is about managing your empire, not taking part in pointless tactical battles where the AI is so bad you can beat it without trying.
6. Try actually PLAYING the game and you'll see how cool the Diplomacy system is.

SEV is an overcomplicated, unplayable mess. And I really *wanted* to like it. Good luck with that.

Since you replied before I was finished with my reply, I shall reply to your reply (got that?).

Basically, there was a lot of discussion about the appearance of the map. Nobody said it was realistic. It's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be a GAME. Have you ever played a board game before? It's just like that. Abstractions are designed to make the game board visually interesting and playable. The fact that planets are shown on the map is cool because different races can then own planets in the same system. Plus, it's just the way things are done in this game. If you don't like it, fine, not everyone has to appreciate it. But the point is, it can't be "stupid" because it was never intended to accurately model astrophysics.

And also, I don't know how you can possibly reconcile being pissed about the range and speed and measurements of GalCiv2 when you've claimed you like both MOO1/2 and the Civilization series. Civilization HAS NO MEASUREMENTS and the amount of time that passes with a turn is variable. It sure is realistic that my Scout takes 150+ years to move one TOTALLY ABSTRACT square. And in MOO2, time is measured in tenths of a year...months, weeks, it really doesn't matter. It's all abstract, like every other TBS ever designed. What matters is that a turn is a turn is a turn. Who cares how much "real time" has passed. The only games that makes a difference in are the carefully designed wargames simulating known historical events.

Finally, "tactical fighting" is NOT "like TBS." Where is your vaunted tactical combat in the Civ series? And show me a battle in MOO2 where the "tactical" nature of combat made a larger difference than the design of the ships? I can beat MOO2 on Impossible without any trouble and I usually just press the "z" key for super-fast automatic resolution. The "tactical combat" in games like Total War is completely unsatisfying--the largest complaints about that game universally involve the abyssmal nature of the AI. And finally, the battle viewer is not "action-like or RTS-like" at all. It's strategic combat designed to allow the player to concentrate on running his empire, not bashing a crappy AI into oblivion.

But seriously, go try out SEV. I'm sure you'll love it. After all, the FTL is instantaneous and it takes weeks to move around in your own system. And you're still limited by the supplies on the ship. Of course, you'll have to micromanage every ship in the game to make sure it doesn't run out, but I think you may be well-suited to such mindless detailed nitpicking. Enjoy and good day sir.

Funny how people get all bent out of shape when you are honest about your opinion.

I think the game is basic, and poorly designed, and lacks Epic feel to it.

Im not sorry if that pisses everyone off, it is my opinion.

Well, it wasn't so much that you don't like the game. It's the fact that your complaints are mostly about things that shouldn't bother you as a supposed fan of the TBS genre. The game is far more complicated than any of the MOOs and as is just as good as the Civ games. The only thing about Civ4 that I like more than GalCiv2 is the more robust trading system within diplomacy. But with the DA expansion pack, you get asteroid fields, agents, different planet types (similar to the old MOO1 mechanic), and a host of AI improvements and new features.

If you want an Epic game, make a Gigantic galaxy and populate it with the maximum number of AI opponents. The great thing about GalCiv2, which I'm afraid you will miss out on, is the incredible quality of the computer opponents. Play a game with all the AIs on Bright. That will be far more exciting than any game of MOO ever was.

But to come on here and spout complete garbage like "the game is basic, and poorly designed", you're just asking for people to react like n0v4k4n3 did.

Apoc527 from the MoO3 FORUMS?

Your posts and attitude are simular from those there.

Yes, except I like GalCiv2 and think it's a good, fun game. MOO3 was the biggest disappointment in computer gaming history as far as I'm concerned, and I knew it right away as one of the initial beta testers. Still, there was nothing to be done about it as Quicksilver had already made the huge mistake of trying to be all "revolutionary, not evolutionary." Oh well.

At any rate, you are entitled to your opinion, and if you don't like the game, it doesn't hurt anyone here at all. The game has already sold well beyond the wildest dreams of the developers and has a very large following. Your first post seemed poorly reasoned to me so I responded like novakane. Then I read your second post, which was more rational, so I tried to respond to you in a more appropriate way. My only concern here is that you are missing out on a great, great TBS, and as a fan of the genre, that would be a shame for you. If you want the honest truth, it took me a while to warm up to the GalCiv series coming off of MOO. I bought GalCiv1 after it was apparent that MOO3 was terrible, and I really liked it. It's a different game than MOO, and it reminds me of board games like Twilight Imperium. It's also, not surprisingly, very Civ-like. One of the main Civ4 designers was a playtester on GalCiv2 and is responsible for some of the things you see in the game that may remind you of Civ4.

And I'm sorry, even though I was a moderator (technically) on the official MOO3 forums, I don't recognise your name.

Im surprised moderators don't slam plebians like you into ban land.

Too bad he won't be around long enough to play with huh n0v4k4n3?  

Story: Humans gave hyperdrive to everyone and yet they all start out on home world, with nearly 20th century tech? Umm... okaay. Lame.

Given that the focus of the game lies in the sandbox mode, the story is generally irrelevant; many players make their own, or just ignore it altogether. Regardless of the story behind it, the starting situation is the same as with any game in the genre: each civ begins with one planet/city and roughly the same level of technology, expanding into the galaxy/sector/world from there.

And it most cases...PARSECS away from the home star. In some cases with my hyperdrive it takes more time to go intrasolar than to go to another star system.

The tiles in the game are 'warp-adjusted' parsecs based upon the speed of a first-generation drive. Gravity wells have a severe negative effect on hyperdrive's effectiveness, such that while in a system ships are effectively travelling under the power of their thrusters alone. Thus it can still take a couple of weeks to travel in-system, while not taking much more to travel to an adjacent star (since hyperdrive is only truly effective in deep space).

Range of ships and speeds/time. Being able to travel 30 parsecs from home in 16 weeks, but cant go any farher?

Supplies and fuel are bulky. Want to go further? Build ships with more support modules so they can travel further from potential resupply depots (your planets and starbases).

That is stupid. The weeks system is absolutely lame. Space travel even at faster than light speeds takes YEARS. YEARS! Now years would restrict range...but weeks?

Got an example of real FTL space travel you'd like to compare with? Travel times in GC are not inconsistent with those in other major sci-fi universes, where all but the most basic forms of FTL travel are significantly faster than light speed (going by star trek standards, warp 5 would be fast enough to reach more than 120 nearby stars in less than a month).

My spacefaring race, with hyperdrive...doesn't know how to focus on more than one thing at a time? Researching one tech at a time is LAME, unrealistic and boring.

That may be your opinion, but it's a game mechanic common to many notable games in the genre (one exception being MoO3, which you've already implied you disliked).

Insulting a sci-fi game for being not realistic enough seems like a cheap shot to me, since such games inherently include things which are not currently and may never be realistic. And for those things which do have present-day analogues, game developers most generally (and rightly, IMO) opt to place gameplay concerns at a higher priority than pure realism. It's a game, not a simulation, after all.

(going by star trek standards, warp 5 would be fast enough to reach more than 120 nearby stars in less than a month).

And about 60 of them would be inhabited..

Qonos being about 2 weeks away at warp 4...

(god, Enterprise got it all wrong...)

I agree with the point that there is far too much cheese in GC.There needs to be more explanation about the GC universe.I mean why does in take longer to travel in Yor space? Many things take away my immersion in the game.The unfunny tech jokes needs removing,and so does the silly diplomatic messages.

Im surprised moderators don't slam plebians like you into ban land.

*gasp* why? Did I say something offensive? I'm sorry, I was only giving you my opinion of you. I think your critique is poorly designed. I'm not sorry that it pisses you off, notwithstanding that you're still a d005|-|b4g.

I'm gonna take a stab and think even kryo thinks so, but him saying such things would result in far worse than having to create another account.

try learning your basic astro physics

*Looks at own resume* LOLLERSKATES

plebians

simpletons,

stupid

It was constructive

Cute.

Wow, the game designers got it right...your comment is a clear example of the 12 year olds they were marketing too.

Now, I either got you really heated, or you have the grammar of a 12 year old . This is not the only mistake either... apparently I shouldn't try to market hypocrisies, because people like you give them away for free on a daily basis.

KTHNX
|\||_|7'5 on face
BAI BAI

...Umm... okaay. Lame...PARSECS... This is just plain idiotic. I hate this to the point I can't play for longer than an hour at a time because this is so stupid to me...That is stupid. The weeks system is absolutely lame...YEARS. YEARS! ...LAME...

...your comment is a clear example of the 12 year olds they were marketing too.

Judging from the selected parts of your original post, in the first set of quotes, with your constant berating of the game and your overuse of capital letters for emphasis, one might conclude you're a 12 year old yourself. And if you ever hope to become a critic whose opinion is respected, you need to learn to respond to criticism of your reviews without insulting those who reply.

There needs to be more explanation about the GC universe.I mean why does in take longer to travel in Yor space? Many things take away my immersion in the game.The unfunny tech jokes needs removing,and so does the silly diplomatic messages.

It's a GAME!! Not a space exploration simulator. It is supposed to be amusing. If I want grim reality, I'll go to work!

mean why does in take longer to travel in Yor space?

Geeze, you could wait for them to get out of BETA to pick on this

Many things take away my immersion in the game.The unfunny tech jokes needs removing,and so does the silly diplomatic messages.

Yipes, is it that hard to edit an XML file?

This YouTube video makes me wonder if it's the orginal poster.

YouTube Link

There is fun for the sake of game...

and then there is cheese... this is way too cheesy, even for pizza.



I don't want to detract from the positive notes I expressed... the ship design is very dynamic...and fun, no cheese.

Race builder and game start, fun...again without the cheese.

The parts of the game I do like are the ones that arn't goofy.


To place things on par I would say MoO = 9, MoO2 = 9.5, MoO3 = 4, CIV4 = 9.9, Rome Total War = 9.9

and GalCiv2? somewhere around a 7. Not great, not horrible...but just "ok".

and then there is cheese... this is way too cheesy, even for pizza.

Talking about your girlfriend's feminine parts?

*zing*

Talking about your girlfriend's feminine parts?

Ahhh yes, this was what was missing! Finally! A proper response to a lame observation/opinion. Very nice n0v4c4n3, very nice indeed.  

Somewhere in the distance a TRS-80 whirs to life and zeros and ones rejoice!

With GalCiv in particular, part of the series that makes it different from MoO, or Imperium Galactica, or any other major sci-fi game franchise is that it takes a break at times and just tries to have fun.  This is a strategy game about fictional beings, fictional technology where distance and size is merely used as an abstraction to represent what is happening. 

GalCiv isn't a simulation, it's a strategic abstraction of galactic empire management and warfare.  It is no more in-depth and sim-like than a game of Civ 4 is.  Issues you have with distance and time in GC2 are present in Civ games with the flexible time passing per turn spent.  Civ is also filled with silliness if you know where to look for it. 

If you're looking for a space strategy game with a heavier emphasis on realism, I would have to point you towards Sins of a Solar Empire which is slated to come out later next year.  It does an excellent job of giving you a sense of proper scale, distance and time.  I've been playing the latest dev build the past few weeks and it may give you the space strategy bits you really want.

To place things on par I would say MoO = 9, MoO2 = 9.5, MoO3 = 4, CIV4 = 9.9, Rome Total War = 9.9 and GalCiv2? somewhere around a 7. Not great, not horrible...but just "ok".

Can't speak for MoOs or Civ4, but RTW's AI, at least at the level of tactical combat, really sucks. I love the game except for that issue, so how you can give it a 9.9 is beyond me. I can easily wipe out vast forces while losing hardly one man. Realistic? If you wanted it to be more realistic, you'd let the computer auto-play the battles, but then you're missing the potentially best part of the game. Oh well, you can't have it all!

At least the GalCiv developers know what they can do well and stick to that. The game is damn near perfect for what it sets out to do, and the devs are always looking for ways it can be improved.

Maybe you should get to know the game, get to know what others have said about it, and reflect for a minute or two before spouting nonsence.

DONFIELD THAT WAS HILARIOUS!!!

At first I was disturbed, but by the end I was lauging my ass off!! I can totally see Orionsol slapping his desk with his keyboard screaming "I WANT A DYNAMIC TECH TREE!"

It sounds to me, orionsol (interesting screen name huh?), like you are upset because GC2 is not MoO4. GC2 is not a sequel, replacement, or otherwise for the MoO series. They are whole and separate beings. GC2 has its own distinct and independent style, sometimes similar and sometimes very different from MoO. It's not the same game, it's not made by the same people (thank god).

Is it perfect? No, of course not, but when you can design a perfect video game with no flaws and appeals to everyone, addresses everyone's concerns, and is completely dynamic in regards to every aspect of the game, I’m sure Stardock will hire you to work for them (), but I wouldn't hold my breath.

You have to get over the fact that GC2 is not MoO. Yes, yes I know, everyone liked MoO and MoO3 was a disappointment and everyone wanted it not to be and now everyone wants the "true MoO3". But that's not going to exist. For now, MoO is dead, and you have to accept that and move on. Stop looking for MoO in GC2 and you will be pleasantly surprised with what you find. .

I find Orionsol's critique of the Galaxy map humourous at best.

The display is not the galaxy! I personally view the display as the "commander's plot" of the Galaxy. It is quite useful on this plot to show multiple scales in order to provide maximum information to the user. You have the strategic map of the Galaxy with appropriate overlays (influence for example). Then you have a larger scale view (simultaneously!) that shows individual solar systems.

I think it is a pretty innovative display that helps out gameplay. Who would want to have to shift from the galaxy display to the solar system display during gameplay to move ships intra-system?

Good responses on why ships have to be slower intra-stellar than for inter-stellar travel. I see this as a ship on the high seas--in open ocean the ship can go really fast because the seas are pretty empty of traffic. Once in harbor though, you need to slow down due to congestion (another analogy is highways vs. inner city traffic). Makes sense to me.

Orionsol--thanks for your critical comments, although by the tone and delivery of your comments you have turned most people off to the message you were trying to say. However you have said your piece, as have I. Time to let this thread die. If you like the game, continue to play it. If not, find a better game and play it. The horse is dead!