SW: Empire At War vs. GalCiv 2

Interesting post... especially from someone who, from your profile, has only been here since September 3rd.

An odd comparison to make, in any case; the games don't really have a lot in common, IMHO.

How odd, one would think that one could make this statement only without reading a single word.

Btw, is this the right forum to discuss this, nobody seems to be interested in the future of GC series?

1)This is a holiday weekend in the USA, plus you allowed only 37 Mins since your first post. It isn't surprising that there has been little activity.

2)For me at least, putting RTS elements into a future version of GalCiv is the surest way to ensure that the company doesn't see another dime of my money. That 'feature' is exactly why I won't even look at SW:EaW. In case you haven't guessed by now, I find the whole RTS genre to be unbearable garbage.

I bought EaW awhile back, played it for a week, and sold it. The game, for me, was much too shallow and repetitive. I enjoy a strategic layer on an RTS (Rise of Nations and Dawn of War Dark Crusade are my favorites of the genre for this reason) but the lack of unit diversity (partly a result of being straight-jacketed by the Star Wars universe) almost rendered it moot. The economic model, unit flexibility, AI, diversity of enemies, galaxy size, research model, and just about everything else in EaW is incredibly basic. That'd be ok, since it's primarily an RTS, if the ground and space battles were interesting enough to carry the thing. In my opinion, they're not.

So, in short, I don't really understand comparing EaW's strategic layer to GC2 (it's like comparing Velveeta to Swiss Gruyere, though I suppose there's always someone that prefers Velveeta) and I can't see the argument that the RTS elements compensate for the lack of strategic layer features. I'm interested to see if Petroglyph is just being held back by the shallowness of the Star Wars universe and can create a really interesting game in Universe at War now that they're developing their own world. Here's hoping.

I don't understand, if you don't want to play "RTS feature" you can just select auto-resolve. Problem solved and the majority of people will want "RTS feature", you are very bizarre minority.

I agree that all of this elements need upgrading and improving but for a first try it wasn't bad. Since there is currently no other game like it SW:EaW is still a good role model.

If you haven't noticed strategic overview and non-linearity in RTS genre is becoming mainstream:Earth Assault:Universe At war, Empire Earth 3, Starcraft 2, Tiberium Wars expansion...all of them will break apart from idiotic linear sequence of missions.

So one is to expect the merging of economy, strategy and governing with classic RTS genre.

You'll be disappointed if you are waiting for a future version of GalCiv to have an RTS mode.  There certainly won't be any RTS elements in a future GalCiv 3. Turn-based means turn based IMO.

We have a space RTS -- Sins of a Solar Empire. 

Hentaur the game Galactic Civilizations is turn based combat so when you come to the forum to post the people here will most likely prefer or like turn based combat. And addressing your statement about the RTS feature, if you didn't know RTS stands for "real time strategy" (no sarcasm or insult intended) which means that you are playing in a game world that is constantly moving and you must make game decisions quickly, in turn based combat you give all the commands under no time limit and press the turn over button, thus giving you more time to strategize. I for one love both RTS and TBS but i tend to think that RTS appeals more to gamers with a less active imagination or who crave action while TBS takes a lot of thinking and thought to it.

You are making no sense, in EaW you could pause at any time, and still give orders for building and such. There is no problem in making it work both ways at the same time-turn based or real time.

Oh, i guess we are on the same page here. I also think that turn based and real time are both great ways to make a strategy game. Sorry about the mistake I made, i have the game myself + the expansion and the information is appreicated, it will be sure to help me play better.

I would have to agree with most of the other posters. You cant really compare the two games as they are very different. Gal Civ has the customization and strategic depth that empire at war lacks while EAW has the rts elements that gal civ lacks. Otherwise your statement regarding how the units in EAW are the best animated Rts units ever shows your obvious lack of having played enough games in that genre to even being to make that distinction. Like most of the other posters have stated games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes have models that are animated to a level that is far superior to EAW and believe me I know having owned EAW for about a week before I exchanged it for a game that was actually worth my time. Simply stated most Lucasarts games really suck hard with the exception of the x-wing series of space combat sims.

Anyway there is too much symbolism in GC2, even the animations/cinematics for different types of planetary invasions are exactly the same. It's just pure laziness.

which is working on be a grand game.


i'll take my 500 game tokens

No, he's not.

drrider

From what I could see from the gameplay video the textures are very poor, along with animations, particle effects, explosions and everything else, have you ever watched Battlestar Galactica?
With DX10, 64bit dual core processors I don't understand why it still looks like old Homeworld, if not worse.

It's pretty clear hentaur's more interested in eye candy and fast clicking than deep gameplay and thought. I suspect that DOES put him in the gamer majority these days, though, sad as that is.

That is a very dumb thing to say when I already stated I liked GC2, I spent weeks just playing GC2 all the time.
What you don't understand is that in this age of fast 64bit multicore CPUs and DX10 graphics there is no reason why we can't have both. And like I said before, with many examples, there is a trend in that direction.

Just remember that auto-resolve option solves all your "problems".

I guess it's not considered laziness to you then if a game requires a specific license to use concepts from Mr. Lucas, instead of designing its own universe from the ground up. I'm not certain if your agenda is to simply put down GC2, promote Star Wars products and Real Time Strategy, hype the latest technological marvels, or simply insult the members of the forum.

Real Time Strategy may be something relatively new for you, but many of the people here started playing turn based computer strategy games 20 or more years ago, and have heard the hype about how RTS is supposedly better since at least 1983. It's all a matter of personal preference. Your repeated bashing of GC2 and questioning other players' intelligence simply because they don't agree with you isn't helping much either.

"What you don't understand is that in this age of fast 64bit multicore CPUs and DX10 graphics there is no reason why we can't have both. And like I said before, with many examples, there is a trend in that direction."

Its not that we dont understand, its just that most of us are perfectly fine with graphics that are less than state of the art as long as gameplay makes up for it.

Visuals and animations are key part of any gameplay.

That is the foundation from which you start building.

I'd go one more and say that, in a TBS game, I'd prefer that the resources of the developers were put towards depth of gameplay and quality of AI in lieu of wasting the game budget on eye candy. Time, resources, and money are not infinite, the resources expended to make the game pretty (and in so doing force you to buy a higher end system to run it, incidentally) are coming out of far more important components of the game.

I pity people that can't appreciate simple graphics, they're missing an amazing back-catalogue of gaming titles. I'd imagine a game like X-Com, Star Control 2, or even something mroe recent like Europa Universalis 2 (not, for the love of god, 3) would make hentaur's head explode.

I'd say game mechanics are the foundation of a good game.

Visual and animation are (literally) the eye candy used to help describe those game mechanics.

A game with bad game mechanics can't be saved by good visuals.

Sins of a Solar Empire has excellent game mechanics, strong visuals (see the IGN preview), and is real-time.

Galactic Civilizations is designed to be turn-based in every aspect of the concept. I don't like mixing and matching RTS and turn.  If I'm playing a turn-based game, I want to have a level of detail and sophistication that I can't get when playing an RTS.  And when I'm playing an RTS, I want a stream-lined level of gameplay that I can't get when playing a turn-based game.

 

Money spent on adding RTS is money not spent on what I do want, and not a tiny amount. The development costs would almost certainly be substantial. It would inevitably lead to one of two things :
1)Higher price.
2)Fewer features that I do find desirable.

Neither of which is acceptable to me.

As for me being in the minority, that really depends on what the overall population you are looking at is.
I am an old-school TBS gamer (I still have my original Civilization floppies somewhere). Among that population, you can be quite certain that I am in the majority.



That is the foundation for a 20-hours-to-completion pretty turd of a movie tie-in game.
Good underlying mechanics are the foundation of games that you come back to over and over for years.

I definately have to disagree with you here. There are a TON of games out there that have crap graphics, yet still rock hard like they did in their first day out (Super Mario Bros. 3 anyone? ).

As for EAW itself... well, I'm definately of the opinion that GCII is better. For one thing, the Real-Time galactic map is really annoying, since the only way you can efficiently manage it (especially in the expansion FOC) is by CONSTANTLY using the pause feature so as to make sure the you got everything in order. Furthermore, space combat can get pretty spammy, especially once everyone's economy starts allowing you to mass produce the capital ships and corvettes with ease. which also unfortuneatly makes it impractical to use the bombers or basic fighters like the ties or X-Wings.

And don't get me started on the horror that is the ZC Defiler on the Galactic Map...