The Good, the Ugly, the Bad of DA

from GalCiv2 Forums
I should begin by saying this is a personal review of DA and in no mean should it be taken as anything else

The Good

By far the best two aspects of the expansion in my opinion are the hazardous enviroment planets and asteroid fields. These add a nice new twist on the gameplay and make it feel fresh.

The new ship designs are very nice and I find myself using template ships most of the time. They are cool looking and I cannot make any better designs myself, so I use templates.

New ship combat system feels better than the old one and it actually makes more sense now that every gun is handled independently.

I find Mega Events neat and they are just what they are very Mega and shake up the game like an earthquake.

The tech tree boxes have made the tech tree easier to navigate.

New galaxy creation menus are very easy to navigate and good overall.

Some gameplay tweaks are very nice IMO, like like limiting ship speeds via bigger engines and being able to use diplomacy less frequently.

AI seems bit wiser and provides real challenge even on tough difficulty level! And its getting better with patches, enough said?


The Bad

UI. I find UI the most dissapointing aspect of the DA. I admit being a bit of a UI zeatlot and find myself constantly irritated by even the slightest short comings of UI. Overall DA UI does its job and I have seen many games with far worse UI but there are many places where the UI just seems unfinished, you only have to open the rallypoint pop up menu to see what I mean.

Espionage system. This subject was discussed to the death on many topics during beta but developers shooted down the communitys ideas. Instead of implementing a deep/rich espionage system we got this over simplistic shallow espionage system which I would rather have as an option than hard coded feature in the game. Disable buildings or remove enemy agents, thats the espionage in nut shell.

Diplomacy. If my memory serves me correctly, improved diplomacy was on top 3# when the most wanted expansion pack wishes were asked in a poll. So whats new? Two threaties that make it easier to gain alliance with an AI opponent. Where is the more meaningful United Planets? The ability ask opponents to remove their SB from your influence zone and so on? I also must mention that the whole diplomacy trading lacks real logic, you must guess what makes the deals work since there is no indication what the AI values and how much.

Land combat. Ship combat has gotten lots of love with patches and now even more with the expansion pack, but how goes it on land combat side? Billions of citizens are given laser guns and send off to commit genozide on another planets. There can be all sort of explanations why this is so, but the end result is the same, Land Combat is over simplistic and boring. Where are the army forces that I remember were talked during development?

Game Mechanics. There are many just plain bad gameplay mechanism quirks that have carried over to DA from GC2. Here is a list of some game mechanic flaws that come to my mind:

1. The most obvious is ofcourse the absolute micromanagement hell of starbase constuction. There are people who say "why not use rallypoints" etc, but its a lame excuse in my opinion, since even if you use rally points it does not become much clearer. This because when the constuctor hits the SB and ask you "what would you like to build" you have no idea which SB is in question. Clearly the developers took another route with mining bases, why not implement same sytem on SB construction? Automaticly and neatly, no need to bother the player with trivial things like moving every single constructor to the right SB.

2. I find it akward as h*** that there is no hotkey for moving autopilot moves. This is something GC1 had but GC2 is missing, very weird.

3. Lack of borders. Yeah Yeah I know space is infinite and there are no borders in space, but this is a game. We humans define everything with borders like our countries, our houses, personal areas and the list goes on. I fail to see the logic why SD has to try and make GC2 unique this way. I think its a bad move as it goes against our very nature as territorial animals


The Ugly

DA is a pretty game except the utter ugliness of land combat! If it was my game, I´d be ashamed of the land combat graphics, but thats just me.

Ship Combat videos. They are better in DA than in GC2 but I find the automatic camera quite bad overall. Either it jumps all over the place(cinematic) or zooms way too far away from the battle (top down). Ofcourse free camera solves this but consider the lazy folks Formation choosing for fleets would have been nice add too.

There are literally tens maybe hundreds of new premade ships at your disposal with DA, but zero new portraits and civilization logos to be found. Somebody at graphics deparment had brain shortcut

Planet textures are blurry and ugly.


Verdict = 7.8p

I admit that I had too high hopes for an expansion pack and that is the reason for such a long "The Bad" section. Hopefully this can be taken as constructive critism and developers consider these things when GC3 is on the drawing table.

Also it should be considered that this rather harsh verdict comes from a fellow who has probably played too much of GC2 alrdy. So its only natural that the most intense WOW just isnt there anymore. All in all I would say that the expansion pack is a must buy for a relatively new players of GC2. If you have beated GC2 to the death over and over again, DA probably wont bring back those sleepless nights like GC2 did.

Hope people can discuss their own views of DA and take my review as it is. Which is just my personal view of the expansion pack and nothing more

69,191 views 160 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Honest review, there are a few good things in game that I think will help namely the espionage and you touch on some really annoying issues such as unit selection and fleet grouping for starbase constructors. I agree with those points.

You are further right that it seems the devs are shooting down ideas, but not necessarily because they are bad ideas but because they are believed to be unfeasible by their staff.

I'm sure the product will sell well, can't be the price at $29.95 I'm not sure all the new features really justify the price, one of course lacking is MP, but again alas, it cannot be done and there aren't enough people interested in it. From the features I've seen you probably aren't going to buy this unless you were hardcore into GC1 or DL and really like the espionage concept. Other then asteroids, which is really just another economic feature among many, and better mutiple CPU support for the AI, which could help immersion, that is of course until they do something totally AI...

The difference between a good company and a great company is that good companies make good stable products and support them and great companies make great products and support them and they continue to expand on their previous sales by the process of innovation. Stardock is a good company, no knocking that. The Galciv franchise isn't the core of Stardock business and because of that, in my opinion it is all the more reason to experiment and expand rather then cater entirely to the group who's already purchased the program.

The story generator feature would have been major had that panned out, and so would multiplayer options. A few mutiplayer option would have been almost certainly able to be successfully developed. But they don't see it that way on MP. Which is ok.

It is my opinion that they haven't really innovated all that much since DL to DA, but I haven't played DA in all fairness. I do tire of the AI in DL doing dumb things, like declaring war after they just made peace, or declaring war when they have no chance of winning, and of piling my constructors together for an all in one starbase contruction effort. DA does nothing in my eyes to change these things. The AI yeah maybe its more vicious, maybe it's smarter, maybe it plays less like AI, but the same type of quirks AI of any level of development is at, show up time and time again. It's just not a solvable problem right now.

I've read the tutorials and seen videos of game play but haven't experienced it myself. Tweaking is one thing, and usually devs don't just pass that off as expansion material but resources in the biz niz world are not unlimited.

If you haven't gotten Galciv 2 Dread Lords yet definetly don't go get Dark Avatar, but definetly also don't look for multiplayer there. At $29.95 it would be worth it over a majority of the other crap out there.

I just can't justify it though. Supreme Commander comes out next week I'll be spending
plenty of game time there rather then wondering about what might have been in DA.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Supreme Commander will probably be a great game for multiplayer - and, there are already tons of great games for multiplayer. Turn-based games are generally not suited for multi-player, and since there's already a ton of multiplayer games out there, it's nice, especially if you're someone who NEVER plays multiplayer, to see at least one game designed well specifically for single player, as many games that do have multiplayer have super weak singleplayer with the excuse that you're supposed to get the most out of the game IN multiplayer. Weak!

Supreme Command looks amazing in videos...but I doubt I'll buy it based on recent reading about it. It looks like something that's more fun to watch than to play! I'm not a huge RTS fan and I don't ever play multiplayer. Early hands-on are saying it's a serious system hog and the scope of the game is so vast that you can't really even watch the battles or experience the cool graphics because you have to zoom out so far and continually manage things (one reason I prefer turn-based is that I don't want to twitch, memorize 100 shortcuts, and prefer to leisurely inspect my empire, check report screens, check info screens, etc - things that usually aren't even IN rts games because there's no time for that kind of depth.)

Anyways, good honest review by the OP. Some things I'd agree with, others I would not, but that's why it's a "personal" review, eh?

I would say that I don't care much for the new espionage system, but a lot of players asked for something exactly like this - where they could control agents. Personally I think in a game that's on the planetary scale this is asking for the ridiculous, and the previous generic/nebulous system was more in-tune with the game's scope, design, and intent. Much like multiplayer, a deep and complicated espionage system is something GalCiv doesn't need and that only a minority of players want (not that the new system is deep or complicated).
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Personally, I can't stand the mega events. Call me crazy - but I don't enjoy playing a game, and then having my largest built planet for research just taken over. Nothing I could do about it; it's just gone. I quit the game and turned off those "events" as soon as that happened.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It is my opinion that they haven't really innovated all that much since DL to DA, but I haven't played DA in all fairness.


having played DA a bit, i agree. there aren't innovations per se, but there are a lot of improvements nonetheless. i think overall the game's been given a new balance. it feels much more like you're dealing with the vasteness of space, even on smaller games. part of it is the tighter economy, and a big part of it is the new cost of engines.

the espionage system is also a bit of a let-down, but i think part of it comes down to a new intention with the game balance. the idea now is that you can't do everything. i found with DL in a number of games that if i got far enough ahead, i could go ahead and research everything, fortify everything, etc.

i think DA forces you to focus your resources on a comparatively more limited game. you must focus your resources, save them, and use them wisely. gone are the days of fending off 6 rival empires. gone are the days of a grand fleet at every starbase. the pace has been intentionally slowed down in many ways, and the effect is to make many of the turns the game might take carry more impact.

this, anyway, is just my opinion. i think it's a turn for the better. i'm looking forward to a nice 3-day weekend of DA
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
An honest review but not one I can say I agree with.

Here are the problems with this review:

- The espionage system UI in dark avatar is fantastic. not having the espionage work the way you want it to has nothing to do with UI. it's easy, intuitive, and convenient to manage spies in dark avatar.

- the us in dark avatar is better than any strategy game of similar complexity that i know of. I'd like to know of a similar game that has better UI. Civ 4? Sword of the stars? SE 5? MOO 3? MOO 2? the ui in dark avatar has always seemed very straight forward, clean, and functional.

- most of your negatives in the review can be summarized as "it's not a sequel". it's an expansion pack. did you play civ iv warlords? you get a couple new races and a tributary states. that's about it. most of your "bad" are just completely unreasonable to expect in an expansion.

- stardock could have just done the special planets, asteroids, a few new techs and a new campaign and that would have made it better than most expansion packs.

- your final verdict is unreasonable imo. 7.8? if it's a 7.8 then what expansion pack shouold dark avatar be held up to for comparison? I would really like to know of a better expansion pack that has been released for a strategy game in the history of pc gaming. I mean it. Name a single strategy game expansion pack that has ever been released that is better than dark avatar. And if you can't name it, then how can you say it's a 7.8?

Having played the final all last weekend, the custom player creation, which you don't even mention, is by far the feature I think is going to make the most lasting difference. I've already created my own half-dozen civs with their own ships and styles and been playing them out and it's a blast.

Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would have to agree with John Hamp, imo there is no comperable expansion pack. The closet would be (in my opinion) Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, but it an RTS and I hesitate to really call those strategy games, but even that doesn't come close to the quality and quantity of Dark Avatar.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yea, I have to chime in and agree with John Hamp. You fail to mention several important features, but more importantly, what in God's name are you comparing this to? A new game? Some kind of mythical super-expansion? I echo Mr. Hamp's challenge -- find me a better expansion pack, and maybe I'll consider eating my words.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
While I agree that DA is a good expansion pack, the original poster might well point to the fact that this is as much to do with the rather wretched quality of most expansion packs as the qualities which the expansion undoubtedly has. As such, while 7.8 (why not 78?) might be a touch on the low side I don't think it can be rejected just because other expansion packs suck more.

As to the general points raised, I agree with a lot of what the OP says yet despite this I think the good outweighs the bad in DA
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thanks for your inputs. For the reacent posters, you did read my closing statement? It pretty much covers what your considering bad in my "review". I did state that I most likely had unreasonable expectations about the expansion pack and hope these things can be improved on a sequal. In my mind I did not compare DA to any other game expansion pack out there, I was just writing my personal opinion about DA, nothing else.

I did forget to mention about the custom opponents feature, my bad there. Iam sure its a nice feature and for modders it must be god send. In my review it definetly should be under the "good", even if I personally dont use the feature.

Also about the UI, I did mention that GC2/DA UI does it job nicely but it has a bit unpolished feel to it and some stuff are not easily accessible. You can check out my UI improvement thread and give your input there. I did not have real "problem" with GC2 timeline, but after beating that game to death, even the little UI issues became big to me.

Must add as I did realize that my "review" has a bit negative sound to it. Actually my opinion about the GC2/DA and StarDock is completely the opposite. I think very highly about them both! If only all developers/publishers had the same attitude towards their games, there would be plenty of Killer games out there. Sadly thats not the case.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The Good-New Weapon System seems a lot better than before

-Super Ability give finally every race more personality

-Spore Ships are a lot of fun!

-Better Graphics for ships!

-Better customization of races

-Unique Hull for every race.This add a lot of uniqueness to every race.

-Tons of options before making a new game

-New diplomacy treaties

-Mega Events and new events added

The Bad

- Tech tree is a bit streamlined but at least for me it has no flavour

-Espionage system is plain there are no special missions or something else, just a plain disable improvement + what was already available in GC2

- Government systems have no flavour, a system like the Civics in Civ4 would be a feature which would be enough for me to buy a new xp

-We need more Planet textures!

-United Planets doesn't seem well implemented

The Ugly

-This is for me the worst feture of all GC games: Tech trading also in DA you can get a lot more techs by trade than by researching them...if you are human with Super Diplomat.....

-No documentation, you have really no clue of what are some features, how to calculate this, what are the effects of some actions and so on

-Tech description is humorous which is not fit for this game, a sci-fi approach would be a lot better when describing techs

-Minor Races not able to colonize are just cannon fodder

-No new portraits for minors, IMO Stardock underestimate how portraits could add flavour to a game.It was better if they introduced as much minor races as the number of portraits



Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
@col80

The 7.8 must be some finnish thing. I think in junior high our grades were given in that format

The DA expansion pack is without a doubt more extensive than most of the expansion packs out there. About my bit harsh score I agree that it might be bit on the low side. And as I stated before, Iam pretty sure its because I have played GC2 too much. If DA was a totally new game for me the score would have been tremendously higher.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The DA expansion pack is without a doubt more extensive than most of the expansion packs out there.


than most? can you name one that is more extensive? or even close?

even dawn of war, which was a great expansion, is light weight compared to dark avatar.

Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

While I agree that DA is a good expansion pack, the original poster might well point to the fact that this is as much to do with the rather wretched quality of most expansion packs as the qualities which the expansion undoubtedly has. As such, while 7.8 (why not 78?) might be a touch on the low side I don't think it can be rejected just because other expansion packs suck more.


Why not? An expansion should be compared to other expansions to give a proper review, you can't compare it with some imaginary "perfect expansion" that has yet to be released.

As there is nothing comparable (please feel free to disagree and provide the name of another title), DA is the new baseline for a "10" expansion pack.

Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I wish more developers would publish crappy expansions like this
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
DA is ruining my life. When I should be spending quality time with my wife and kids, I find myself planning the decimation of customized races I'm playing against. When I'm not doing that, I'm deep into a HTML editor modding my game. My friends feel abandoned and my fish are starving to death. Gotta go cause I think I can get one more turn in before I pass out from sleep deprevation. I wish I never bought this game.
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
I two gripes

1. The tech tree. I just don't like how it's amazingly rigid. I can understand it being as such so it's easier on the AI given their different goals. Drengin can just go down the military line...

Although, I thought the AI was so good it wouldn't need to have a set up which makes it easier to make decisions with.

Perhaps I've grown up on Civ way too much[Did start it when I was 5 years old]but I like technologies to intertwine. Have some logical connection to each other.

The advancement of better hulls/armour has to come in conjunction with improved industrial technology, etc.

2. The Galactic Council
The issues we join to vote on seem completely random and make no sense to the situation at the time the council is convening. Why vote on transports when no-one has transports?

This is one of the elements that doesn't seem to keep up to tabs with the changing dynamics of the galaxy.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
There are, of course, the classic RTS expansions - The Frozen Throne for Warcraft III and Brood Wars for Starcraft. I still think that Brood Wars takes the cake for most imfluential and best expansion pack. It practically singlehandedly remakes Starcraft into another game. In fact, both sandbox and MP Starcraft play differently depending on whether or not you use BW.

Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
1. The tech tree. I just don't like how it's amazingly rigid. I can understand it being as such so it's easier on the AI given their different goals. Drengin can just go down the military line...


Gotta say this is one of my favourite aspects of GC2s approach to technology. While the civ approach may make more sense it does mean that until you are familiar with all the techs you have to spend a hell of a lot of time plotting out research courses through a very convoluted tech tree. I also like how GC2 forces you to specialise so the civ4 uber tech player is less common.

2. The Galactic Council
The issues we join to vote on seem completely random and make no sense to the situation at the time the council is convening. Why vote on transports when no-one has transports?


Have to agree with this. The council could be one of the most innovative and fun aspects of the game but seems to exist in its own little bubble - the anomalies motion which occurs when there are no more anomalies being a good example. I think they could have been more radical in the proposals also - everyone decalres war on the most powerful player, ban all trade, give everyone the most powerful weapons techs, you know stuff to really make the council important and finally make voting influence worth acquiring!
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
I also don't understand how the higher the population the more votes you get works. I dont' see why the population would vote in the Galactic Council. We don't vote in the UN.

I think it would be better if each council member had one vote. That way, we'd have true majority votes between the leaders themselves. Could require political manouvering moreso ala Alpha Centauri. Influence leaders to vote a certain way you want them too.

Gotta say this is one of my favourite aspects of GC2s approach to technology. While the civ approach may make more sense it does mean that until you are familiar with all the techs you have to spend a hell of a lot of time plotting out research courses through a very convoluted tech tree. I also like how GC2 forces you to specialise so the civ4 uber tech player is less common.


Civ 4 made it much easier where there are multiple ways to get to a certain tech. To get Tech D you don't have to necessarily get A, B and C. It can be A, B or C. Where A, B and C can both be distinct enough for the varied types of civs in choices they would make. While Tech D can be a basic prequisite which just opens another branch. So essentially, civs can still progress with their different ideologies.

I've always tried to specialise but I find that unless I go down the research path going down any other path will be slow and painful. Then of course I also have to go down another specific path, and then another. Even specialisation requires you to go down more than one branch, hence my niggly discontent at how rigid it is. Perhaps I just need advice on specialisation. The kind it seems I have to do, just doesn't feel to me is right for a human player.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If the alignment of a civ carried more weight, you could have a whole good/neutral/evil tech tree. You could have a certain branch, but one alignment might view it in another way.

EX: Altarians are looking at researching genetics, they see the hope of improving their citizens health and livelyhood. But when the Drengin look at it, they see the ability to create super soldiers and just the sheer fun of making your own abomination of nature!  

If something around those lines was put into DA, whole civs would be drastically different in moral and advantages. You could always be a good civ and turn bad...ofcourse the altarians wouldn't do that..would they? But anywho, IMO the tech tree is bland and repetitive.

The UP is a just a shell of what it could be. In the beginning, there could be no UP. But as the galaxy turns brutal and barbaric, it would be formed. Slowly adding civs that want protection and order to its roster. The barbarian civs wouldn't want to join and would create tension. OR the barbarian civs form their own UP. Making two different UPs. Which could cause UP feuds. It would some what be like a guild war.

Something that is missing is disease. There should be different diseases that would evolve and kill your civ if you do nothing. You should be able to make your own diseases and release them on a rival civ. So it would be like a underhanded game of espionage.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
EX: Altarians are looking at researching genetics, they see the hope of improving their citizens health and livelyhood. But when the Drengin look at it, they see the ability to create super soldiers and just the sheer fun of making your own abomination of nature!


You can already add alignment requirements on modded improvements, in addition to the tech requirement. So you could very easily add a 'genetics center' that improves say, morale and pop growth for good players, and a 'clone soldier plant' for the evil ones. Same concept as the existing good/neutral/evil improvements, but you could put them anywhere in the tech tree, not just behind xeno ethics.
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"The UP is a just a shell of what it could be."

I'd have to agree that this is definetly one of the areas that needed/could have seriously used some work. If they'd spent the time and resources on making the politics of the UP a mini-game of sorts, to influence other ares, instead of on the scrapped story generator, then that would have been great innovation. Fixing something that barely adds anything and stands out as a detractor in my mind would have been a good idea.

Maybe in the next expansion.

"I find Mega Events neat and they are just what they are very Mega and shake up the game like an earthquake."

Very similar to what the UP does, only you don't have control of them and they effect things to a greater degree. That was innovation, but given the choice of being able to have some or a great deal of control over things via politics or no control via random Mega Events, I would have chosen an upgrade to the UP. As it stands according to the documentation, the only control u have on Mega Events is off or on.

"The 7.8 must be some finnish thing. I think in junior high our grades were given in that format"

"There can be all sort of explanations why this is so, but the end result is the same, Land Combat is over simplistic and boring."

Agree. Absolutely nothing innovated here at all, only a few new options with the previous interface/code. I kinda like the idea of having the ability to choose urban or rural, gorilla or formation, blitzkrieg or siege invasion methods, giving the player the ability to make choices on how efficient to make attacks vs how long they take in game weeks. The option to just leave that to a general or presets would be all the expansion needed to jazz up the ground combat which is flat, as simplistic as multiplying force skill and size and then subtracting from the enemy's same values, and finding out who wins by who has the most value left, boooooooooooooring.

Not to say that you have to complicate the hell out of it, but adding depth there, just like with the new espionage features would have added value to the product.

When I went to school a 7.8 was a C+, sound better?

I think DA at least deserves a B-, but I haven't played it yet. I'm gonna wait until a MP expansion pak comes out, or the price drops under $20. I'm sure it'll hit the bargain bin in a few months probably about the same time, the major patch that fixes the worst of the bugs has dropped as well.

Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

than most? can you name one that is more extensive? or even close?

even dawn of war, which was a great expansion, is light weight compared to dark avatar.


Your right about this, I should have wrote "I don´t personally remember any other expansion pack that is as good as DA", my bad on this one. Somebody mentioned Brood Wars, I never owned that expansion pack but I believe when the poster says it was very good. I must add that Iam not trying to bash DA as a product Iam simply trying to improve it and the next generation of games coming from SD! It is my belief that through consturctive critism we as a community have a way to communicate our thoughts to the developers, after all they are making the games for us and themselfs ofcourse. It was not my intent on making DA look bad or anything, I just tried to bring up stuff that I think could be better in it.

Iam glad that my post has stirred up so much good conversation. I especially agree about the UP and ethical alligment stuff. I would not mind if the whole game worked around the UP, I find it a fascinating aspect of the game, too bad its just a empty shell as someone said.

And about the ethical alligments, I think this could be truely a way to make the games races unique. The Super Abilities did bring a little new spice to the game but I must say that all the races still feel very generic and uninspiring. By meeting Drengi in a game is no more different experience than meeting Torians. Cant really blaim SD for it, I dont remember any game that had AI opponents who truely felt unique and original in some way.

JubJub15 idea of each ethical aligment having its own tech tree would be totally awesome in my mind. During GC2 I also tried to provoce discussion on somewhat similiar issue, which is could make races feel more unique. My idea was about making different races having different political parties and social systems from each other. I always find it hilarious and quite sad that a Evil Monkey race from outer space has Political party named Federalists and their social system is named Democracy.