What is a better game? GalCiv2 or SE5

Well obviously you're on the GalCiv2 forums so we're all biased...

However - GalCiv2 got some very good awards when it was released,and is generally recognized as a VERY fine game.

From what I've read about SE5 - it appears that has a poor AI - which is one of the strengths of the GalCiv series. Also, I must say the graphics in GalCiv are much better and have a much more modern feel to them. SE5 looks like something out of the 1990s to me.

GC2 8.7 out of 10
DA 9.0 out of 10

and finally ...

SE5 6.6 out of 10

pretty much sums it up ...

SE5 is loaded with options. GC2 is a very polished product, everything has a purpose.
SE5 has poor AI. GC2 is praised for it's great AI.

SE5 does offer multiplayer and tactical combat, but at what price?

My 2 credits...

It depends entirely on what you want to do. SEV is basically useless as a single player game. The AI's weak to begin with, and the tactical combat just makes the situation worse. If you want a game to play exclusively multiplayer, on the other hand, it's basically the best/only choice.

GC2 on the other hand is the best single player 4x game ever IMO, because it's focussed on the the SP experience. The AI is very, very good and getting better all the time because it's the primary focus of development. Unfortunately, you do lose tactical combat, but that's really a small price to pay for the superior gaming experience IMO.

Obvioulsy the mere fact that I'm on this board makes me somewhat biased, but in my opinion GC2: Dark Avatar is the best 4x turn based game I've ever played, period. It (and Dread Lords, the game before the expansion) has eaten more of my time than any other game of this genre I've played in my 18 years of gaming.

SE 5 is a game with incredible depth and complexity. However the game seems unfinished as for example the AI is broken and the gfx seem to vary from very good to very poor.

GC II is more even with alot better AI and more solid gameplay but many times I feel that this game is a dumbed down version of Moo 2 with no tactical combat, less options to customize your race and alot less variety of ship technologies. Basically its just engines that go faster, shields that absorb more damage or weapons which inflicts more. None of the complexity which was seen in Moo 2.

But that seems to be the trend these days of which World of Warcraft is a prime example. Dumbed down games seems to be what attracts the masses.

However I dont think you should write of SE 5 yet. I heard the devs are working hard to fix the many issues of that game so it can only get better.

GC II on the other hand I dont think will get much better as tactical combat and multiplayer will most likely not ever be implemented and the AI I think has reached a level where it really doesnt get much better. In any game, not just GC II. Thats why most devs have started to implement multiplayer, which SE also has.

Come on dont exaggerate. It took me maybe 3-4 games to beat AI on tough, which is the highest level before it starts getting bonuses.

It's relative very good compared to AI in other games which is something else entirely.

I'm not. I've played about 24 games of GC2 at this point and still get a good challenge out of "tough" with the aggression tweaked up, so long as I don't take advantage of exploits. I've never seen another strategy game where, once i understood how to play, a n unaugmented AI opponent was still interesting.

You clearly have some issues with the game, and that's fine. You're welcome to your opinion. Mine, however, is that I've never seen a better 4x TBS game.

Not to threadjack, but this is an ignorant statement. There is nothing dumbed down about WoW. Removing unnecessary tedium and jacking up the fun in MMORPGs isn't dumbing down. Tedium != difficulty. Letting people solo forever isn't dumbing down - it's just different. The difficulty level of WoW is no different than any other good MMORPG. The big difference with WoW compared to some other MMORPGs is that you have a lot more choice. If you want to coast, solo, and never be truly challenged - you can. If you want to group, do instances, do raids, do hard and long quest chains - you can. But you're never forced into anything. It's not dumbing down - it's incredible game design - and the choices and flexibility increase the fun factor manyfold. WoW has 8 mil subs because it's fun, not because it's dumbed down. Gamers aren't morons looking for dumb games to play.

I have found if you want a tougher game ... turn the tech rate to very slow. I have never beaten the AI on intelligent with this tech rate and usually get soundly thwacked.

Dano

That's an example of a general truism in this game, really. The setup is so customizable that you can always manage to create a challenge if that's your sole goal. It's part of the reason it's as replayable as it is.

Space Empires V has overwhelming amount of options, far superior technology tree and much more feeling of power once you advance on it. There is so much fun stuff that you can do, that you cant do in GCII -- like dropping cloaked spy satellites into your enemy's system, deploying minefields, capturing ships with boarding parties (and analyzing them), building dyson spheres and ringworlds, blowing up planets and entire star systems, and collapsing stars into black holes. Ship damage is also modelled much better.
I also like it how you can buy additional technology trees while customizing your race, that allow you to have things like temporal weapons, organic and crystal hulls etc. that you wouldnt otherwise get.

Unfortunatly it has lots of frustrating micromanagement, numerous bugs, weak AI and subpar diplomacy, not to forget very steep learning curve.
So it is a great but flawed game, but GCII:DA is far from perfect too. I'm not sure which game I prefer more, but there is no reason to make such choice when you can have them both.

Go with neither game, MOO3 FTW!

Now there's something we can all agree on.

That's a whole nother story ... I felt like I could just click next turn and the game played for me ...

I've never actually played it, but I've heard nothing but awfulness (except for a few people who said a user mod fixes some of the problems and makes the game better).

SEV has great customisation and choice. It's your 'dream' scifi game because you can essentially mould it to play out in several ways.

I like the ship design in V better, it's less on 'looks' and more about what you actually want in the ship.

GC however, is finely polished, but a far more rigid game in comparison, imo.

Frankly I think we'd all want the choices of SEV, with the polish and look of GC2. Whether it happens isn't in our hands..unless a few of us are hobbyists and want to start working on it in their free time, eventually sharing their progress on the internet.

iMod helps a lot but, honestly, there's just no reason to bother with it if you've got DA.

hiddenranbir:

We'd all love the choices of SEV with the polish, look, and AI of GC2. The problem with having all kinds of neat stuff you can do in a game is programming an AI that can do it as well as a human. As it stands I prefer the GC2 model, which is to keep it to a relatively simple but deep game model that an AI can play well. That's not to say I wouldn't like all the whizzbang stuff from SEV if there was a way to put it into a worthwhile SP game, though.

I have only played SEIII, but it was way fun, however, the AI was not all that spectacular, and everything I have read about SE V says the same thing. it has AMAZING customization, but the game has gone through 5 iterations and i think over a decade of development... I think when GC III comes out, we'll see even more simplified complexity as we currently do in DA... I mean think about it, DA expanded the tech tree significantly with the implementation of different planet types and mines. What if the next expansion (or GC III) gives us only 5 more techs, each say with an average of 3 sub-techs to further research. the complexity is going to increase exponetionally, and with the solid base AI it currently has, i think the Gal Civ series is going to live for a very long time, and it is going to get way better.

I picked up MOO3 for two dollars on Amazon, and I still feel like I paid to much... They tried to eliminate micromanaging and tried to stream line the politics. The did their job toi well, basically the game played its self, and was not friendly at all if you tried to over ride you AI governors!

The only good thing in MOO3 for me was the little ad for GalCiv1. The rest is history

I picked it up from Amazon as well for 17.99, only there was a 19.99 rebate. So, Amazon paid me 2 bucks to take it.

Concerning SEV, it looks too complex and time consuming for me at this time; however, I noticed it dropped to 20 bucks in store, so I may wait for it to drop a bit more and pick it up just to see what it is like.

Sounds like my kind of game! Don't wait too long - games will drop in price a couple of times and then suddenly dissapear! (i hate that).

Laufer - if you'd like to enjoy a game right now... get Dark Avatar. Dark Avatar is complete, polished, has excellent AI, graphics, and Meteverse is great (love having it keep track of your games).

Space Empires V needs a lot of work yet... a lot. If you've never played a 4x game, Space Empires V will overhwelm and frustrate you to no end. If SE V gets the same mod support SE IV got - it could be great... but that will take a lot of time and effort from others. I know you posted on the SEV forum as well - and its' good to get perspective... but you have to decide what kind of game it is you're looking for. They are very different kinds of games.

For myself, the added gameplay elements in Dark Avatar (tech tree, new races, new race customization options, and new planet types) make Dark Avatar games much more fun than the original Dread lords. For me, it's the difference between night and day. So keep in mind most of the statements you're seeing on the SE V forum are those that never played the expansion... and that makes a big difference. Unlike some posters (especially at SE-V)- it doesn't have to be a polarized view of "one or the other". I love 4x space and will generally pick up any 4x space game and try to like it. Well except MOO 3. Even with user mods and enhancements, that was a bad experience - plus sad end for the MOO franchise.

If you must have multiplayer, Space Empires V.

If not, no question GCII is better, and DA even more so.

Yea multiplayer can be seriously important, especially if you have a girlfreind/wife - so they can play it with you instead of getting pissed off in the background because your playing galciv!

Ignorant? I played almost every MMORPG worth playing since Meridian. Which included Ultima Online, Asherons Call 1 & 2, Everquest 1&2, Earth and Beyond, Lineage 1&2, Eve, Mourning, FF XII, City of Heroies/Villains just to name few. And the reason I say WoW is dumbed down is because the game is easy. Reaching high levels is just a matter of running the level treadmill. Go from zone a for levels XX-XX, zone b for level YY-YY, do instance A when you are level B and so on.

The magic system is simplistic, so is the fighting system in general. The quests are a chore without any real need to use your brain. The PvP is artifical and boring, etc etc.

And thats the reason the game is such a success. The masses of gamers want it easy and dumbed down simplistic systems. They dont want to use their brains when they play, which is understandable in a way since it is entertainment after all. However the first MMORPGs were definetely not like that and I personally think it's sad that the current MMORPGs are so simplistic and easy.