sam0t sam0t

The Good, the Ugly, the Bad of DA

▼

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

69,192 views 160 replies
Reply #51 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
someone loses because a nearby wormhole popped out a zillion Drengin battle cruisers without warning.


Hmm, and logistics? And don't the Drengin SA do something similar? And some mega events? This kind of argument is weak. You already have the stargates in the background story, use them. They're power hogs, that's their weakness. Use that to control them. See the lack of creativity?

The new features in DA, when I said they should be in the base game, that was because GC's direct competition already features those, and lots more. This game seems unfinished, a starting point to keep adding new features, at the expense of consecutive "expansion packs". That's not good.


Iceman, either you are very young or you haven't thought much about the economic realities of game development. One thing that surprises me is that games cost the same now as they did in the early '90's when I started PC gaming. Game revenue per unit has gone down due to inflation consequently, while graphic quality has increased. GCII is a much nicer game than Master of Magic for example, and costs far less in inflation adjusted dollars.

I don't tend to take a superlative view of anything. I don't consider DA to be the best or worst expansion of all time. I think it is a solid expansion to an aready terribly addictive game. A lot of the changes don't really reach out and demand attention however, like custom opponents. If I had one nit to pick, it would be that we could use more leader heads and portraits to use with our custom opponents. I don't think it qualifies as 'almost a sequel' as the advertising claims, but it does have a lot for an expansion.

As for what it should have but doesn't, that list is endless for most games. Many of the features that aren't included would be seldom used and only become obsessions with people who spend too much time on Internet message boards and think that they should be appointed lead developer. I don't understand the obsession with carriers on these boards. What, pray tell, would that add to the game? Multiplayer? Tons of development time for a very small minority of players. This has been proven time and again, even with some games that were designed for multiplayer and little else. 4x games are possibly among the poorest candidates for mulitplayer of any game genre. Like any good business, the devs are designing their product for the people who actually buy it. As for vast emptiness between stars, does anybody really believe that would make for entertaining game play? Seeing things like that, is it any wonder the devs take what they read here with a grain of salt?
Reply #52 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
.e. you don't have a notion of a perfect expansion pack beyond some vague b.s. about being bug free and gameplay perfect.


Ok, let's see. First, pick up a dictionary, and look up the word perfect. It's under P.
Now, as for comparing expansions for rating purposes, that's idiotic. How do you do that? By the number of features added? By the quality of those features - and if so, according to whose standards? For features that work in a given genre but not in another?
A perfect xp for a given game is measured by the impact on that game, not on what has been done for other games. As for being vague, should I link each and every thread refering to DA bugs and exploits in these forums? That's a monumental job, and should you be an alert person, you'd know that.

In that case, any review metric becomes meaningless, because all expansion packs which are actually on the market and ever will be (which will never fit your notion of perfection), will be squeezed into a narrow range of scores that become difficult to differentiate.


Reviews are supposed to give you an idea of what the game is, some games have demos so players can judge by themselves. A narrow margin? Those are your words, which AFAICT is not law.

And nothing in the expansion was *needed* to get you to buy the game, which you have clearly been playing for a while now.


Now this is an excellent argument. You got me there... Jeez.
FYI, what got my attention in this game was the colony management screen, it looked great.

Some morons in this thread seem to have that oh so sexy sense of fanboy entitlement where they judge their games not against other games that actually exist (i.e. the world by its own terms), but based on their own mastubatory ideals. Which makes your views practically worthless.


And this makes you the major moron here. You haven't been reading, have you?

Think harder....


For someone that clearly hasn't been thinking, at all, that's a curious thing to say...
Siege of Centauri
Reply #53 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Iceman, either you are very young or you haven't thought much about the economic realities of game development.


Actually, you're out of luck on both guesses. I am a veteran 4X player, and I've been involved in the game making process, though not a very deep level. I do know the constraints though.

GCII is a much nicer game than Master of Magic for example, and costs far less in inflation adjusted dollars.


Do you really think you can make this comparison? Either you're very young or you haven't thought much about the economic realities of game development.   

I don't think it qualifies as 'almost a sequel' as the advertising claims, but it does have a lot for an expansion.


I'm assuming this is for other posters, not me.

As for what it should have but doesn't, that list is endless for most games.


And this can't be about my post either...
I couldn't care less about MP, but carriers would be one of those things a space game should have. That's the whole point, what *should* be in a space game, from base. Not all of a sudden the dev team remembering "this should be included, as in other games, so let's make an expansion pack".
Reply #54 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
though I am a newb, I think my perspective might be unique. This is my first turn-based game. I chanced upon it when searching for ALL games of 2006/7 that had high ratings. Galactic Civ II was at the very top.
i have a very nice computer and can play the video at the highest settings. Though I am in no way an authority on the game play dynamics, I feel like one thing stands out: the graphics are really mediocre. I say this as someone used to the eye candy of Oblivion or Empire at War. Didn't EAW and Galactiv Civ II come out at nearly the same time? In fact, when I see the battles, both space and planet, I am reminded of graphics quality on par with the 2-D game Rebellion. In fleet combat, everything seems so basic (and sometimes there is nothing there??). In land, the people look like little legos people and it appears to be the same footage.

I just assumed that if the game was to not be so graphically demanding during general game play that when called for I would see some real eye candy. Since in the end, my comment doesn't make the game worse for these reasons (assuming most die-hard turn based game fans just care about anything BUT graphics), I feel a bit remiss.

This is a CPU intensive game. I plan to upgrade in the next few months to a quad core, but even my CPU can keep up. During general game play you are just seeing a bunch of blips move across the screen. I mean, some Solitaire games show more eye candy.

Thusly, if a game in 2006/7 is going to be at the graphics level below my expectations, I would expect that everything is made up for in the gameplay which everyone seems to have some gripes or no gripes with reguards to this game.

But hey, a dev in the forums . . . gotta love that.
Reply #55 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think it's a very bad thing to call anything perfect. Firstly, nothing is perfect and to give it that sort of pedestal implies that nothing in DA could be improved: Which is a very bad mindset to have.

I'm sure the developers pay more attention to what people didn't like and their opinions of improvement rather than being showered with compliments which could make them complacent.

And insults really don't help anything.


Its not about DA being perfect, and its not about making suggestions to improve it, its about not filling the messageboards with dishonest drama about the extent to which those imperfections matter. A review score is presumably suppossed to direct readers, most of whom are already gamers, in their choices over which games to purchase. Comparing a game to some strawman of perfection does not help them do that and simply dumb.

Reply #56 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
.e. you don't have a notion of a perfect expansion pack beyond some vague b.s. about being bug free and gameplay perfect.


Ok, let's see. First, pick up a dictionary, and look up the word perfect. It's under P.
Now, as for comparing expansions for rating purposes, that's idiotic. How do you do that? By the number of features added? By the quality of those features - and if so, according to whose standards? For features that work in a given genre but not in another?
A perfect xp for a given game is measured by the impact on that game, not on what has been done for other games. As for being vague, should I link each and every thread refering to DA bugs and exploits in these forums? That's a monumental job, and should you be an alert person, you'd know that.


In that case, any review metric becomes meaningless, because all expansion packs which are actually on the market and ever will be (which will never fit your notion of perfection), will be squeezed into a narrow range of scores that become difficult to differentiate.


Reviews are supposed to give you an idea of what the game is, some games have demos so players can judge by themselves. A narrow margin? Those are your words, which AFAICT is not law.


And nothing in the expansion was *needed* to get you to buy the game, which you have clearly been playing for a while now.


Now this is an excellent argument. You got me there... Jeez.
FYI, what got my attention in this game was the colony management screen, it looked great.


Some morons in this thread seem to have that oh so sexy sense of fanboy entitlement where they judge their games not against other games that actually exist (i.e. the world by its own terms), but based on their own mastubatory ideals. Which makes your views practically worthless.


And this makes you the major moron here. You haven't been reading, have you?


Think harder....


For someone that clearly hasn't been thinking, at all, that's a curious thing to say...


Point by point:

1)Again, think harder. Yes, reviews are inherently subjective, and the worth of an expansion should be measured by the value it gives to the base game. Nothing I have said contradicts that. But by the latter standerd, name an expansion that gives greater value to the base game than DA. See, you can compare expansions, its not that hard. Even relative to the price, I dare you.

2)As to bugs and exploits, those are inevitable. Now name an expansion that didn't introduce many of the same problems. Again, on REALISTIC, relevant criteria, i.e. worthwhile criteria, lay out an alternative to DA. Again, to dock any game based on the absolute number of bugs in release will not serve the reader well. See point 3.

3)The text of the review is suppossed to give the reader some notion of what a game is, the SCORE is suppossed to give some notion of the comparative value, i.e. quality of the expansion. If that is your definition of a review, a score shouldn't be included.
Reply #57 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
p.s. I just recently bought Company of Heroes too, so I am thinking of that too.

I do not regret the purchase of this game by SD.
Reply #58 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
wow . . . here I am saying what I am saying . . .took a break to play the game . . . the game crashed. first time so far.

wow.

fyi, system specs:

ASUS K8N4-E
Athlon 64bit 3700
2 X 1024 OCZ DDR400 (1T)
2 X WD 74 Gig Raptors RAID 0
X1800XT (Pro: 689 Mhz - Mem: 792 Mhz)
Creative Labs X-fi Platinum
NEC LCD Monitor 1760NX
PC Power & Cooling 510 SLI-PFC 510W
Windows XP
Reply #59 from Stardock Forums Top

Its not about DA being perfect, and its not about making suggestions to improve it, its about not filling the messageboards with dishonest drama about the extent to which those imperfections matter. A review score is presumably suppossed to direct readers, most of whom are already gamers, in their choices over which games to purchase. Comparing a game to some strawman of perfection does not help them do that and simply dumb.



This thread is made specifically made for us players to give our own opinions on what we did like, didn't like and what we would like to have seen. If you have a problem with what I don't like about DA, then too bad. It shouldn't really concern you either.

As to review scores, whatever review we're apparently talking about. (I never was, I just posted my thoughts on the game) DA got rated high, that's good enough. It deserves that. A perfect game implies nothing wrong with the game. It's quite possible to direct the reader without giving him/her that expectation. <-which itself can be a possibility for some readers. Regardless, whatever the talk was, I'm not interested in whatever reviews there have been. I pre-ordered this game as soon as it was possible.
Reply #60 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Its not about DA being perfect, and its not about making suggestions to improve it, its about not filling the messageboards with dishonest drama about the extent to which those imperfections matter. A review score is presumably suppossed to direct readers, most of whom are already gamers, in their choices over which games to purchase. Comparing a game to some strawman of perfection does not help them do that and simply dumb.



This thread is made specifically made for us players to give our own opinions on what we did like, didn't like and what we would like to have seen. If you have a problem with what I don't like about DA, then too bad. It shouldn't really concern you either.

As to review scores, whatever review we're apparently talking about. (I never was, I just posted my thoughts on the game) DA got rated high, that's good enough. It deserves that. A perfect game implies nothing wrong with the game. It's quite possible to direct the reader without giving him/her that expectation. <-which itself can be a possibility for some readers. Regardless, whatever the talk was, I'm not interested in whatever reviews there have been. I pre-ordered this game as soon as it was possible.


There will never be a perfect game, and a review score implies a means of comparing games, and on that measure DA is very good. Some are expressing dissappointment compared to something that has never and will never exist; I don't consider this relevant or useful for readers who are taking this as a review, i.e. a measure of the added value of the expansion. Labeling DA as 'mediocre' or 'marginal' (as implied in some of these posts) based on that comes off as more mastubatory, than helpful. Its not the mindset a reviewer should be in. And, this is not aimed at you or the OP, but when this type of loose headed review is backed by strong emotion, it implies an attitude of entitlement.



Reply #61 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'd like to take the time to comment on a few points which have been raised, referring to no one in particular.

1. Carriers are a dead issue. They add very little to game play other than complexity. If you want, you can use Kryo's Hull System Mod, create a graphic of a carrier with a few fighters and then use that. It works. It does everything you want, other than add complexity.

2. United Planets. Even the United Nations only occasionally acts on things which their component nations bring up. Most of the time, it's absolutely worthless other than an ambassador forum, or an engine by which the most powerful can impose their will on the weak (and you can do that in the game directly, anyway).

The stuff that gets talked about in UP are subtle subjects that are potentially crippling. Having only 1 trade route is a huge disadvantage. Not being able to use Transports or Constructors because you can't meet minimum standards is likewise a major limitation. I feel that giving the UP more influence than it already has makes the game revolve around it. That's fine for Alpha Centauri - planetary politics are SUPPOSED to be like that, but for Gal Civ2, I like where the UP is at.

3.


To be perfectly honest, asteroids, planet environments, custom player creation, they should all have been introduced in the base game, not in an expansion pack. They're more or less basic for this type of game.


The previous standard for galactic 4x games is MOO2. It did not have asteroids, you could not design enemy opponents, you can't customize your ship graphics, and planetary environments are not as big a deal as they are in Gal Civ2 - DA. The mark of how well DA upgrades the game in EXACTLY the right ways is that you feel that this should have been the game to begin with. That is how it is with all great expansions.

Even in the not-so-old Civ3, the AI is significantly weaker and the you can't customize your enemy civs. This is a huge deal for a 4x game, since most 4x games are played sandbox mode.

4.


I'm amazed at how asteroid belts are being a bit put up as some big feature. I was hoping space would be a bit less empty than that.


Asteroids ARE a big deal. They can boost your manufacturing some two to three fold at twice the build speed. In many cases, colonizing your secondary planet or a small planet with lots of asteroids around is a better deal than colonizing a theoretically bigger planet. The huge increase in manufacturing can build your fleet up something fierce.

And yes, space is much, much, much emptier than is portrayed in the game.

5.


Persistant nebulae? (not anomalies that vanish once you've gone through them!)If you fought in them they could maybe make your shields not work...or limit your sensors so it's a great, but dangerous, route to take to sneak attack your enemies!

The endpoints of a stable wormhole would become key strategic locations. Maybe stars at the end of their lifecycle and going supernova, collapsing into blackholes!


More galactic terrain would be good. Wormholes would be bad. Horrendously bad. It would be a major terrain feature that utterly changes galactic dynamic in a throughly unpredictable manner. Instantaneous Star Gates were available as a late game tech in MOO2 and it's a doozy. In fact, Airlifting and Helicopters do somewhat similar things in Civ3. ACQUIRABLE tech of this magnitude of power is acceptable. Early game gifting of what amounts to such tech randomly is not.

6. The tech tree

The tech tree is, IMO, better than in other games of the same genre. I like better than the Civ tech tree. As Frogboy intimates, this kind of organzition is so customizable that it's easy for the AI to make mistakes. With seperate lines you don't HAVE to have monarchy to have Knights. You can skip it altogether and get Knights immediately, if you think it's beneficial. That means that you're more unique as a civ in your game, and that your development in each game is likewise more unique.

While a certain kind of infrastructure is necessary to support an advanced fleet, it's not a hard coded thing. I have played games in which I deliberately ignored industrial tech because I was gearing for invasion and weapon techs just happened to be more valuable, even though it cost me an arm and a leg to refit my ships with the latest weaponry.

7.


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.


I don't agree that this adds a whole lot of variety to the game. You can already make a lot of bombardment decisions when invading a planet, and that's a handful of decisions right there. It's not supposed to zoom to Civ when you're planetside. It's a Galactic game. There is no choice to be urban or rural, or bliztkrieg or not. Even in reality, the range of decisions is often one or two or one of several, not nearly as much as the game already offers now.

The main thing that players notice is the bad graphics. I honestly think that if the graphics were better, then there wouldn't be nearly so many complaints. The sound is "it's not complex enough," but what I think is the matter is that people aren't getting the eye candy they need.

8.


As for the best expansion being the "10" to which all other expansions should compare to, that's about the most absurd opinion I've heard on the subject."

Ok, how about a bug free, cheese free, thoroughly tested gameplay and campaign module?


Such a thing does not exist, and is part of a bygone paradgim. Games are never released bug free because there's no way to get all the bugs out of a system without extensive beta-testing. The most expensive, extensive bug-testing being done today is with Blizzard and their multimillion dollar game development budgets, but even their oft-delayed hyperexpensive development projects aren't bug-free. Many Blizzard patches are often simply packets of debugging solutions.

Firaxis itself recently suffered a major hit because they released a game that had a bug that caused it to be unplayable. Not "unplayable" as in "not fun." "Unplayable" as in you can't play the game because it crashed every time you started it. That's a pretty huge issue.

Game development these days is about one thing and one thing only: post product support. Blizzard revolutionized this approach with their popular Starcraft and Warcraft games. These are widely held to be THE standard for game quality bar NONE. There is no game more polished than Starcraft was in its heyday - it's still being played competitively today.

Asking for a bug-free, cheese-free game out of the box is like asking for solid rubber tires - it's a sign of being stuck in the past when product support was minimal to none.

Instead, ask for continual patching to solve bug issue and balance issues when they come to light - and Stardock is one of the most attentive developers on the market today.

DA is as perfect as it is possible to get for a game - a continually evolving game that's alright right out of the box. It's theoretically possible for a competitive driver to take every corner like a computer - perfect in every way - documented by high speed camera, but it's absurd to expect it every single time. So you rate him a 10 as long as he's the best and continues to get better, even if he's not computer-perfect every time.

9.


Starbases are another of those implementations that I can't understand. They're there only for you to spam a sector or planet with as many as permited, to give you an accumulated effect. They're exploit/cheese material - I mean, look at the tiny hull exploit. Even their effects *sound* cheesy, trade route spamming?
SBs should be built in orbit of your own planets, not in the middle of nowhere.


I'll be letting my inner geek out here, but technically, a module that's orbiting a planet is an orbital platform, not a Starbase. Both could conceiveably called a SPACE STATION, but a platform that's limited to orbiting planets can't correctly be called a Star Base.

As far as I can tell, StarBases are platforms that are built deep in space where there's nothing, precisely BECAUSE there's nothing. If there were a planet where you need it, you'd build your installation there, not in deep space.

Many strong effects can be called "cheesy," but I don't know whether I'd lump Star Bases into those. Military Starbases make planetbound and generally slow Fighters extremely effective. Misison Accomplished, right? You spam Economic Centers right where the trade traffic is most concentrated. Again, that's exactly the conceptual and design intent, so what's wrong with it? If the bonuses are too high, then that's the problem, not with Starbases per se, IMO.

About the only thing I can say is that I think that planets should rightly be able to support the kind of functions you put on a Military Starbase, particularly if they have Orbital Fleet Managers. This'll mean that posting armed sentries orbiting over planets make much more sense - exactly how I picture things to be, and exactly how the AI manages its fleets.


10.

Nothing is perfect. There's ALWAYS something somewhere that can be improved upon. I can think of many ways in which DA can be better. For that matter, many of the things DA already has were features which I thought MOO2 should have had way back when. This is why DA is such a dream for me. It's like I developed MOO2 in exactly the ways I wanted to. All my boxes have been ticked off nearly, and if I have any suggestions for improvement, they're new ones.

I agree with doing away with carriers.
I like the custom opponents.
I like the graphics.
I like the "no-genocidal runs" attitude.
I like the asteroids.
I love the ship editor.

PS.

11. If Carriers have to be in the game, I would say that they should probably be like a mini mobile Military StarBase, to differentiate them from high-attack, long fire range battleships, which is essentially what real-life aircraft carriers are. This means that you never build them and send them out alone, which would add something to the game - a ship that supports other ships.
















Reply #62 from Stardock Forums Top
And yes, space is much, much, much emptier than is portrayed in the game.


I don't believe so. The game is representing a galaxy. Our galaxy, hell, I doubt any galaxy is just stars and asteroid belts. Spacious yes, empty, far from it. Hence more galactic terrain, which we've both agreed on anyway.

As for the asteroids. Yes they provide a big bonus to industry. Still not a big feature. We're talking components to the game here. The bonuses that asteroids provide could have easily been offset in a new planetary building. Would we still consider that a 'big feature'? Maybe in a new tech...is that still a 'big feature'? Asteroids are a nice addition, not a 'big feature'.

that utterly changes galactic dynamic in a throughly unpredictable manner.


Don't we have a few mega events that do that? Nothing wrong with unpredictability. I think that's a cornerstone of what makes this game exciting to play, over and over and over again.

I think we could have dump some research techs involved into the study of said wormhole before it is safe for travel. Hell, it could just be a one point wormhole so your ship sent through is lost forever.
Reply #63 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Why don't you post YOUR idea of a 10/10 expansion so that I can rip it to shreds?

---

Ok, how about a bug free, cheese free, thoroughly tested gameplay and campaign module? Rip me to shreds please.
Sure DA has some new stuff (even though...), some fixes and improvements. The fact is, some of them were *needed*, like the combat system (even though it now presents other problems). Is DA perfect? Nope. Not a 10 then.


Nice dodge, of course you couldn't name a better expansion. Maybe the question confused you? And 10 is relative... a 10 score is not an indication of perfection in a game... it simply means there is nothing better. There has never been a "perfect" game, and there never will be, no such thing as a "bug free" game, and the gameplay has been thoroughly tested. I didn't have to rip you to shreds, you did it all by yourself.

Have you ever thought that it might be *your* views that are aberrant? The reviews are worth what they're worth. We all know how some reviewers do their thing. The *real* reviewers, the players, say different in these forums. It's not bad, but it's not great either.


Your opinion is in the tiny minority (go to gamestats for a review average, press score average of all reviews 9.5, gamer score 9.0... much better than "not bad"), which means your opinion is aberrant. That's a fact. That's what the word means. See? You just learned something.

Also, many of the *real* reviewers, the players, disagree with you. I know that because I am one, as are the majority of posters on this very thread. Again you've done all my work for me and destroyed your own argument.

I could go on, but the coffin lid of your argument has already been nailed shut.

---

Heh, aren't we full of ourselves?


You're the one that insists that the many very positive reviews from reviewers and gamers are wrong. It's not that I'm all that, it's just that your argument is so very pathetic. You should pick your fights more carefully.

Hmm, and logistics? And don't the Drengin SA do something similar? And some mega events? This kind of argument is weak. You already have the stargates in the background story, use them. They're power hogs, that's their weakness. Use that to control them. See the lack of creativity?

The new features in DA, when I said they should be in the base game, that was because GC's direct competition already features those, and lots more. This game seems unfinished, a starting point to keep adding new features, at the expense of consecutive "expansion packs". That's not good.


Name the direct competition that has all of the features of GC and lots more. Let's hear it.

The game seems unfinished? What title are you comparing this game to? If you've been playing a 4x game that makes DA seem unfinished, please let me know, I'd love to play it.

Starbases are another of those implementations that I can't understand. They're there only for you to spam a sector or planet with as many as permited, to give you an accumulated effect. They're exploit/cheese material - I mean, look at the tiny hull exploit. Even their effects *sound* cheesy, trade route spamming?
SBs should be built in orbit of your own planets, not in the middle of nowhere.


No they shouldn't. Name that game that you play that has "lots more content," makes GCII/DA seem "unfinished," and that doesn't have any exploits.
Reply #64 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Nice dodge, of course you couldn't name a better expansion. Maybe the question confused you? And 10 is relative... a 10 score is not an indication of perfection in a game... it simply means there is nothing better. There has never been a "perfect" game, and there never will be, no such thing as a "bug free" game, and the gameplay has been thoroughly tested. I didn't have to rip you to shreds, you did it all by yourself.


No dodge there. None was ever needed. YOU have clung to the name an expansion argument, because you have nothing else to go on.
If I'd rate my students according to the best one in class, that'd be nice... imagine the # of different scales I'd have to use, and the usefulness and truth in the results I'd get... I'm sure you'll say the two things have nothing to do with each other though, so why bother.
As for perfect bug-free games, if you don't accomodate them in the scale, then you'll have to permanently change the scale according to the market. Pretty stupid notion. And because GC has a decent # of bugs, you can't say there aren't games out there that are "almost" bug-free. At least with a couple of patches. And GC2 has *4* (5 if you count the DA compatibility) major patches and still has some very basic bugs.
You're not very good at this, are you?


Your opinion is in the tiny minority (go to gamestats for a review average, press score average of all reviews 9.5, gamer score 9.0... much better than "not bad"), which means your opinion is aberrant. That's a fact. That's what the word means. See? You just learned something.


Yeah, how to stay away from aberrant people.

Also, many of the *real* reviewers, the players, disagree with you. I know that because I am one, as are the majority of posters on this very thread. Again you've done all my work for me and destroyed your own argument.


You can count, right? Apparently not. Maybe you should start there. You run the risk of sounding pathetic.


You're the one that insists that the many very positive reviews from reviewers and gamers are wrong. It's not that I'm all that, it's just that your argument is so very pathetic. You should pick your fights more carefully.


Now I'm ROFLMAO.

As for other games, I just have to fire up SEV to see a *real* space strat game. Regardless of all its problems, which can be fixed with *patches*, it feels pretty advanced.
Reply #65 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Name that game that you play that has "lots more content," makes GCII/DA seem "unfinished," and that doesn't have any exploits.
Sorry for disturbing your mud-throwing, but I'd like to pick that line up.
There are many games that are far superior in creating a believable game-world. GalCiv2 fails to convince me that I'm looking at a galaxy with planets, empires and fleets. I'm looking at a PC-game, like a random flipper, Minesweeper or Super Mario Bros.

Freelancer is a game that really shows how to create a proper, believable space-world. I don't like the genre, but I keep playing it because the world and game mechanics are just very believable and create a great athmosphere.

That's what makes GalCiv2 look unfinished and not-thought-out to me.
Reply #66 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The previous standard for galactic 4x games is MOO2. It did not have asteroids, you could not design enemy opponents, you can't customize your ship graphics, and planetary environments are not as big a deal as they are in Gal Civ2 - DA. The mark of how well DA upgrades the game in EXACTLY the right ways is that you feel that this should have been the game to begin with. That is how it is with all great expansions.


When was MoO2 released again? We're talking 2006/07. And nope, it's not a matter of the right upgrades. The right upgrades would be to make the simplistic base stuff more complex. This model of releasing a simplistic game and then adding features with expansion packs is designed to extend the lifespan of a game, and that's alright, but it also makes you feel unsatisfied in the most interesting stage of playing a game, when it is new.

The tech tree is, IMO, better than in other games of the same genre.


It's easier mostly, not necessarily better. A few straightforward branches. Depends on how you like your games.

The main thing that players notice is the bad graphics. I honestly think that if the graphics were better, then there wouldn't be nearly so many complaints. The sound is "it's not complex enough," but what I think is the matter is that people aren't getting the eye candy they need.


Nah, gfx get old really quick, gameplay mechanics not that much.

Such a thing does not exist, and is part of a bygone paradgim.


That's what everyone in the industry wants you to think. Release the game unfinished, it'll be patched later. Just because *everyone* does it nowadays, doesn't mean it's correct.

Games are never released bug free because there's no way to get all the bugs out of a system without extensive beta-testing.


At least most, and surely the frequently documented ones. And maybe this beta testing system is not effective?

Asking for a bug-free, cheese-free game out of the box is like asking for solid rubber tires - it's a sign of being stuck in the past when product support was minimal to none.


That's your opinion. I've beta tested for a game that was released almost bug free. Sure there were some minor bugs, but none that you'd bump into during normal gameplay, and none that would spoil the game for you. There were 2 free major patches, that added content, improved gameplay and fixed a few bugs. This is just an example, mind you. A somewhat recent one.

As far as I can tell, StarBases are platforms that are built deep in space where there's nothing, precisely BECAUSE there's nothing. If there were a planet where you need it, you'd build your installation there, not in deep space.


Some installations just cannot be built planetside, I guess you know that. As for starbases being built in deep space, well, I wonder what the logistics and support for that would be.

Many strong effects can be called "cheesy," but I don't know whether I'd lump Star Bases into those. Military Starbases make planetbound and generally slow Fighters extremely effective. Misison Accomplished, right?


Not if you could have carriers, and planetary fighter (not as in GC's "fighters") support - eithr ground based, or space station based if you will.

You spam Economic Centers right where the trade traffic is most concentrated. Again, that's exactly the conceptual and design intent, so what's wrong with it?


That's what I was refering to as "cheese". You find that realistic? The game relies on this kind of thing, my point.
Reply #67 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"This game seems unfinished, a starting point to keep adding new features, at the expense of consecutive "expansion packs". That's not good."

I disagree, I think it's great, I just want those expansion paks coming out ever 2 or 3 months instead of once a year/every 8 or 9 months. Oh well.

"Name a single expansion that threw in a massive number of features, i.e. was creative, without screwing up balance, A.I., introduced a massive number of bugs, etc. And don't hit me with the moronic strawman that DA had its downsides, because relative to stuff that is already on the market, its a work of art."

I'll name three.

Starcraft Broodwar, New units, 1.08 patch, allowed recording of games, better multiplayer interaction because of the units.

Diablo II Lord Of Destruction,(does it technically qualify?) An entirely new realm, and contained new pieces of armor, better balancing then the original.

Age of Empires II, Age of Kings More civillizations, larger and better maps, better AI although rather basic for RTS stuff.

I have never said that Dark Avatar wasn't a good piece of software, nor agreed with the rating. I've agreed with the statements. Did you forget to quote where I said "'m sure the product will sell well, can't be the price at $29.95" How's that for a selling point?

"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."

Where I said "don't go get Dark Avatar, that was supposed to read "go get Dark Avatar, and you can clearly read that implication or inference in the next sentence, if editing of posts was allowed by this post starter or by the forums, i.e. property of Stardock, then I would be at LIBERTY to change it.

There are some ugly parts of Dark Avatar, and Galciv 2. I.e. the ground combat of which watching is pointless and repetitive and boring after the second time. Suggestions for improving that were largely overlooked in the expansion.

"Planet textures are blurry and ugly." Not a major detractor but certainly not a bonus aye?

"Two threaties that make it easier to gain alliance with an AI opponent."

Wow that is a feature that couldn't possibly make it into the original game via a patch. Right.

"-United Planets doesn't seem well implemented"

It didn't in the original game and unless I'm mistaken nothing has changed here in the expansion. The UP could really be soooooo much more then it is. Especially if manipulation via politics is your strategy. Instead its forces voting on topics of which you have no input whatsoever. You cannot even lobby for an agenda. Suks.

My biggest detractor is and continues to be multiplayer, and yes I know should just shut up but you wanna see some five star general labeling or 10/10 slap a multiplayer expansion pak together that is implemented well and allows for all different playing styles to find a game online. From the quickie type players who wanna game for an hour for fun to try out an opening strategy to the epic players who'll meet for 2 hours each week and play out an epic struggle in a gigantic map until a winner is declared. Hell make it so you can re-buy into the game somehow lol, become a governor inside somebody's empire, When you get the strength make it so that player can start a rebellion with a few planets or make it so you can split off peacefully as allies.

Plenty of opportunities for innovation in multiplayer gameplay, plenty of ways to make it so there is fun and introduce a new way of playing. With this type of game bandwidth isn't really an issue, only protocol so you could literally have more then 8 players in the same galaxy, maybe a dozen or two dozen, you could make a mini-map .jpeg screenshot that shows the size/status of different galaxies, i.e. games for playing. So players could jump into a galaxy and run an empire midstream, for the fun of it. If you have to go, have it so the AI takes over. If this AI is so good, they should be able to do all the stuff they do when given the chance with half an empire already built, from what I hear the AI is improving and having the AI able to use not just the CPU power you have, but hell have the AI be able to use the combined CPU power of everybody playing, I bet you won't see the AI making too many mistakes if this AI is really that advanced. Save empires they really like to disk, maybe host them online again,at a later date... whatever. I'm just throwing out ideas, not all are possible but damn it's not that hard to just come up with wild stuff.

The hard part is putting it into the game I get that.

I am just of the opinion that the expansion on the whole doesn't innovate enough for me to drop $30 to take a peek. That is my personal and gaming opinion. It's no more valuable to you or anyone then yours is. I'm just stating it. There were annoyances and tweaks that could have been fixed/made aside from lack of multi-player and there also were some things that are good in DA. The espionage certainly will make games more interesting, mining resources in your systems will also add strategy to both the economy and logistical military strategy.

Additional skins, though nice, are cream puffs for features. There is this great 3-D state of the art ship combat viewer, but you can only look, not touch. Lame. I know the game isn't real time tactical or even tactical in nature, but you do spend plenty of time building an empire with an economy to build a military to protect the empire, and it just seems like it would be kick ass to be a able to be the space admiral when the really big, critical battle, i.e. battle of the bulge type stuff occurs. Instead of just watching. Even simply choosing the order of attacking enemy ships, or whatever. Not impossible to code, but just not given the "ranked value" something like that could have to the player.

That's why we don't see carriers, the death star ray type ship, anything that pulls a player away from the strategy element is outside the scope. I agree with those decisions in part, but if the game is to be kept strictly single player for the foreseeable future I see nothing wrong with shoring up the depth of the gameplay experience in favor of adding depth in areas that are very shallow.

Same with the tech tree. Very generic and dare I say repetitive. One thing Master of Orion got perfect in the original game was making it so that the same exact tech opportunities were never available to the player. I.e. although the tech tree was limited, though not as limited as GALCIV 2 feels dammit, it felt like each game was different because you had some things which helped shape your strategy and some things that didn't. It wouldn't be a huge detractor in Galciv 2 DL/DA either if you were given the option in the setup screen to make that selectable. That way you'd have to spend more time trading with your racial counterparts for tech you really needed.

That's a change I would make today in the master plan for Gal Civ development. I feel that they have such a great hull of a game but are weary of filling it with crap, but detail, implementation, character, and flavor are what make games cool. Not always slick design and sparely visual stuff.

Maybe what players want is ultimately unachievable. I don't know.
Reply #68 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And 10 is relative... a 10 score is not an indication of perfection in a game... it simply means there is nothing better.


Speaking of ripping to shreds, and nails in the coffin. Name your ZERO expansion. Yes, there must be one. If there's a ten, then there must definitely be a zero. Do you agree? It might not even be that bad, it's just that it's the worse around. Now, will someone seeing that rating think that the expansion features *absolutely* nothing? Only if they're stupid, right? But have you ever seen a rating of zero for any game or expansion? Now it's me who dares you to name one. I mean, the only one   
Reply #69 from Stardock Forums Top
There are many games that are far superior in creating a believable game-world. GalCiv2 fails to convince me that I'm looking at a galaxy with planets, empires and fleets....That's what makes GalCiv2 look unfinished and not-thought-out to me.


This is the feeling I get. When I see GC2, I see a great base for a gaming experience. Don't get me wrong, the 'base' is great as a game itself. I don't regret buying DL or DA.
Reply #70 from GalCiv2 Forums Top


- 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?


Please bare in mind that I haven't get Dark Avatar yet, gonna order and download it this evening though.

I just want to place my input: Warhammer40K: Dark Crusade is a super good expansion pack that came with a nice price tag. It has so many thing that I wouldn't have a problem calling it a sequence.
Reply #71 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'll second the plea for a debate free from bitching and name-calling.

As someone who thinks DA is a good expansion pack (not brilliant but well above average) here are my two cents:

Firstly, just because gamespot etc. give a good review does not of itself stand as an indicator of quality. The large online review sites represent a certain approach to gaming and to scoring - for instance all gave Grand Theft Auto 9/10 or 10/10, I would have given it 5/10 if I was feeling generous. This is not to discount their opinion or take away from DAs achievement in getting excellent reviews, merely to point out that in any artistic medium large review sites can rave about something quite out of proportion to its actual value. Didn't Titantic sweep the oscars board not so long ago? Not that DA is the videogame equivalent of Titanic, but it seems a little hasty to dismiss peoples views for not being in synch with the large review sites.

Secondly a 10/10 expansion pack is a mythical ideal, and rightly so. If you start giving out 10/10s where do you go from there? What if a better expansion comes along, do you give 11/10? Without wishing to go all 'Plato' we all have an idealised picture of the perfect expansion and the review numbers given should represent how close the actuality is to this perfect ideal. If one assumes, quite feasibly, that most expansion packs are pretty cruddy, should review scores be more generous just to make sure there is a decent spread of scores? Or be more honest and call a spade a spade even if it means a relatively narrow range of scores. I think the latter.

Personally I think DA is worth about 7/10. This equates to a good product. Part of the problem is that we re so used to 9/10 awards in reviews that anything beneath an 8 seems like a condemnation.
Reply #72 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"I don't agree that this adds a whole lot of variety to the game. You can already make a lot of bombardment decisions when invading a planet, and that's a handful of decisions right there. It's not supposed to zoom to Civ when you're planetside. It's a Galactic game. There is no choice to be urban or rural, or bliztkrieg or not. Even in reality, the range of decisions is often one or two or one of several, not nearly as much as the game already offers now.

The main thing that players notice is the bad graphics. I honestly think that if the graphics were better, then there wouldn't be nearly so many complaints. The sound is "it's not complex enough," but what I think is the matter is that people aren't getting the eye candy they need."

Dude, the ground combat would be any less entertaining if there was a video of the windows calculator doing the math while you watched. All that is happening, is you are inputting numbers and spitting out numbers. All I was looking for were a few more variables to spend 2-5 seconds tweaking for effect and some interaction rather then watching a lame exposition of computer graphics 20 years into the industry of said operation.

Remember OREGON TRAIL circa 1985-88, the hunting module, what did that take to program like maybe an eight hour shift? It's got more interaction in it then the entirety of the ground war for Galciv hmmmmmm k? It's not about the graphics, it's about the fricken gameplay depth, in this case, lack there of.
Reply #73 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"That's what everyone in the industry wants you to think. Release the game unfinished, it'll be patched later. Just because *everyone* does it nowadays, doesn't mean it's correct."

ABSOFRICKENLUTELY!

Not like some of these "improvements" couldn't have been patched into the original game, but hey can't make a buck doing that.

Reply #74 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"Personally I think DA is worth about 7/10. This equates to a good product."

Agree. But since I haven't played it yet, my review is worthless.
Reply #75 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Also, many of the *real* reviewers, the players, disagree with you. I know that because I am one, as are the majority of posters on this very thread. Again you've done all my work for me and destroyed your own argument.


---------

You can count, right? Apparently not. Maybe you should start there. You run the risk of sounding pathetic.


I'll respond to your post completely later, I just wanted to encourage everyone here to count the the posters in this thread that are supporting GCII versus the critics and take a minute to laugh at ToS Iceman's moronic math skills. 10 pro, 7 against, the rest on the fence. You must have forgot page one, Einstein.

I'd also like to encourage readers to go to the main page and check out the DA poll results. Unfortunately for ToS Iceman, this poll does not support his argument, and in fact directly contradicts it.

SEV is your idea of a superior game to GCII? That's just hilarious, and says it all. SEV got an average score of 6.6/10, while GCII got 9.5/10. You're oblivious.