Is it fun?

Should we be having fun yet?

from GalCiv2 Forums
At the moment I'm rather bored with galciv 2. Admitedly GC 1 held my attention for almost 9 to 10 months of good weekly play. but GC 2 on the other hand just feels like GC 1 with a brand new coat of paint and a couple of new features.

I'll admit the diplomacy area isnt really working yet but I do have a quick suggestion (unless im blind and completely missed it) could we get a way to tell what OTHER races think of each other? In CIV 4 this was done by opening the foregin advisor and left clicking on the picture of the AI empire and you could see how they felt about the other groups out there. I liked this and would like to see an approximation done in GC2 (if its there ignore this entire paragraph)

Something else thats been driveing me up the wall is the tech tree layout. It's like looking at a map of all the techs you can research (thats beacuse it is) you can see all the ones youve already researched all the ones you can research and all the ones you CANT research. in truth could we get filter options? basicly "Filter researched tech's" "Filter Current techs" (This would only show thigns you can research) "Filter future research". basicly that would help to clean up all the useless information the tech tree gives me. (if its there i've missed this feature too)

no hot key'd ship groups. it was in GC 1 but I'd like to see it in 2. Basicly allow me to assign a group of ships OR planets to a key (f1 or something) that way I can easily call up specific ships. Also can we get a "select all ships in orbit" button?

and lastly: Are we having fun with GC 2 yet?
13,532 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
Therein lies the precise reason for why we are in beta 4. Go check out the threads outlining the various beta stages and what the dev team was looking to get accomplished in each phase and also what they were expecting from the beta testers.

Not all the game features are implemented.

Not all the features that are implemented are working 100%.

Is this close to being a finished project? Not in the slightest. But if you look at the progression from beta 2, through beta 4, you can clearly see the strides they have taken at each stage of development to get closer and closer to the final product.

They still need -YOUR- help!

Player suggestions, comments, bug reports, rants and raves are what will drive this game to the finish line... so keep em coming!
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Hmm...Alot of the issues you listed are techicially UI design issues, which I can't see making the game much more fun, just easier to play/control.

Do you have any suggestions for the game itself?  Basic, fundamental tweaks that you'd like to see that you feel will up the fun factor (I'm personally having a blast with what's there, but I'm slightly biased  )

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
BoogieBac, dont you think that playing a game in which you were frustrated by the control system would decrease the fun factor? (just a general question)
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

To answer your questions:

1) If the game was done, we'd be shipping.  Judging the game when most of the play balancing and usability features are left to be put in is not a good idea. 

Incidentally, it's stuff like this that makes most games have closed betas. If you're wondering why Civ IV had a closed beta, this is precisely why -- because games, by their nature, are not very fun.  GalCiv I was definitely not fun at this stage in its development.

2) I'll try to put aside the assertion that GalCiv II is "GalCiv I" with a new coat of paint given that the entire planetary, colony, and military system is totally new and different.

3) On the Foreign Policy screen in the Treaties tab in the Treaty summary you will eventually be able to see the relations a player has with the other players (right now it's blank <see #1>).

4) The number keys have not been assigned yet.  Eventually you'll be able to hit Ctrl-# to group something and then hit that number to bring it up whether it be a planet or a ship or a fleet.

5) We'll see what we can do about filtering techs further.  Though bear in mind, GalCiv I didn't have a visible tech tree option at all, just the list.

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't think some people understand what a Beta test is. Not the right time to start nitpicking about "fun" of game elements.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Actually, I do think GC2 is fun already, but I've been focusing on those parts of the game that are different from GC1. It does need work, but it's getting it. What most game companies call an open beta is really a preview with most of the functionality in place, the real beta was closed. This isn't the case with Stardock, as others have mentioned. Stardock wants our feedback on how to improve the game. Keep in mind, starbases (a critical part of GC1) started off as a suggestion from a player during the GC1 beta.

Now, none of my suggestions have provoked a "That sounds interesting" response from the devs, but I have seen other suggestions get that response during this beta. I don't know if something as essential to GC2 as starbases were to GC1 is going to come up, but I do know that the game I play now is not the same game that I'll be playing when GC2 is released.

Now, on a side topic: Frogboy, you mention that the number key groupings will be in GC2. That's not what's shown in the HotKeys thread. Are the keys currently bound to the numbers going to be moved elsewhere? I like the idea of being able to key the numeric keys to ships/fleets/planets, I just want to make sure that my ship design screen is still only one key away.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
I'd like an option to sentry fleets, it's dam annoying pressing the find button and keep scanning through various fleets that you have strategically placed on resources,etc.

Oh and i think Galgiv2 is great fun already and destined to be the number1 4x game out there..

You aint gonno please everybody.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I did not start this thread to turn into this. I was not saying the game was complete or feature finished and never ment for it to spiral into this. I wanted to know what people found amusing in the game and what people didnt like (thus the question "are we having fun with gc 2 yet")

Secondly: There are UI issues that I wanted to see fixed it sounds like 2 of them are coming and the filter system should be in, honestly, whats the point of seeing techs that I have already researched and seeing techs I cant research when im just trying to research the next tech in the tech tree. (Otherwise I spend a full minute scrolling to find the tech I need to research) thats a UI issue which according to youre own beta 4 outline SHOULD be commented on (Direct quote " Usability features that make the game more approachable.") right now theres way too much information in the tech screen. (And while nice makes it a real pain to find the tech you want)

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
I'm not trying to fan the flames for that matter. Your requests sounded perfectly reasonable, both things I've thought about myself, and I'm glad to hear that they're already planned.

However, I think you should go back and read that first paragraph of your message. Ignore the fact that you know what you were trying to say or how you saw it leading into the rest of the message. It doesn't come across as "I think I've got a few ideas about how to improve the game, here they are." It came across as you had already decided that the game wasn't going to meet your expectations. You didn't say you found it boring because the user interface needed improvement. In fact, your only reasoning seemed to be that it was just a prettier version of GC1, not enough new stuff to really interest you.

No matter how valid the rest of your points are, you've just put the reader on the defensive, and the rest of the message will be filtered from that point of view. I think that's a major part of why you saw the reaction you did.

As I said, I'm not trying to fan the flames. Heck, it's not like I've never miscommunicated in even bigger ways. I haven't come up with any ideas that would greatly improve the fun factor of the game for that matter.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Anyway, getting back to the topic, Yes, I'm definitely having fun. I'm still getting my mind around the concept of not just being able to specialize colonies far more than GC1 could, but HAVING to. I really feel sorry for the programmer that has to do the AI (forgot his handle), because the new starship design system lets you create some really interesting special-use craft. I'm far from knowing the best way through the tech tree. And I'm working on adapting my starbase strategy to deal with the fact that they're really quite different in GC2.
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
I am having fun too, I think the game at this stage already have surpassed GC-I and I think that future add ons is going to increase the quality of the game. I also agree with you about the tech tree I think that still need some filters added unto it so you can filtered out the techs already developed and also needs to allow you a easier way to see the tree, I don't know if this is possible or not.
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
Also I think that as soon as the Metaverse is in full force and you can create your empire, the game level of interest will increase tremendously!!!
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
I played through an entire game for the first time this week. I enjoyed it. It looks like I may be spending many hours trying to understand the significant changes and the subtle issues that can change how to play successfully. I've been lurking around reading the posts and enjoying the exchanges, over this time it’s transformed from being just a game to being a community. I really appreciate the way that the dev team has been so willing to put up with us. They allow both positive and negative feedback and take the time to address the issues that we bring. I just wanted to let both frogboy and the stardock team know that they're doing a great job and to hang in there.