Matrix Games Forums

Agreed on GalCiv2 ship "design". It's ludicrous too. The size mod? Yikes! The *same* laser taking up much more space in a large hull than in a tiny hull?! Jeezz, that's some twisted game designing...  and using tiny (military!) hulls for constructors and colony ships, and cargo (!) hulls for military ships?! Life Support being all but useless?
 
And the starmap? It's not really a *star*map is it? Planets closer to another star than their own star?! Asteroids mining to planets in another star system?! WTF?!
 
Farms? Political system? Colony management AI? "Resources" floating around space? Starbases? The Death Star? The economy? Etc etc etc
 
Worst space strategy design I've ever seen.
The designers also got confused with one of the Xs, eXploit. They took it to mean the player should exploit the rules (or lack of...) and the AI, instead of resources.  [;)]

Why would anyone play GC2 when it is basically Civ in space, but not as good.I also hated the lack of realism,cheesy backstory and races,terrible humour in GC2

SOTS with all expansions stands miles above all the other 4x games in ship design,tactics,research,realism,race lore,space monsters,etc in my view, but has no building stuff on planets.

Bah, eventually SotS ends up in an usual, clickfest RTS with tactics evaluated by twitch speed, not my cup of tea [:'(] ! A2526 has a much simpler combat system, I'd like a bit more formations/tactics choice but like the fact that you don't spend hours on it, but rather in the strategic layer.
The 3D engine is a bit disappointing, looks like a 5 years-old engine and has very limited camera movement, models are sketchy and textures aren't very detailed. I usually zoom out so the low detail level is less noticeable... It doesn't detract much from gameplay, but it's low on eyecandy. I would even have preferred a nice 2d system to the cheap 3d we got.

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Bah, eventually SotS ends up in an usual, clickfest RTS with tactics evaluated by twitch speed,

You can always pause combat in sots just like in arma. Also unlike in armada it also has combat speed that can be adjusted. You have to do som controlling in sots but not really that much. Mostly its just sit and watch especially as a defender (just guess the direction the enemy is coming).

But the main problem with sots is that the battles take so damn long. Ships move slower and the combat area is bigger. Even combat itself can be a long slugfest depending on weapons.

SOTS has a lot of virtues, but not as a 4x game. I think of it more as a midsize starfleet combat game. (It completely fails as a large scale fleet action game however, due to the absurd command limits.)
 
It is severely lacking in the big picture stuff. Diplomacy, economics, planetary management, are all afterthoughts. And the 3d map is wildly annoying. The entire focus of the game revolves around the starship design and combat tactics. It's a game for aspiring space admirals. Me? I want to play Galactic Emperor, space admirals are just my flunkies.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

SOTS has a lot of virtues, but not as a 4x game. I think of it more as a midsize starfleet combat game. (It completely fails as a large scale fleet action game however, due to the absurd command limits.)

You can still get lots of ships into action once you have proper command. Also theres lots of other stuff in combat than just ships floating around.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It is severely lacking in the big picture stuff. Diplomacy, economics, planetary management, are all afterthoughts.

Still better than say in sins. I thinks its more or less on the level of first moo. That game had pretty simple management too.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
And the 3d map is wildly annoying. The entire focus of the game revolves around the starship design and combat tactics. It's a game for aspiring space admirals. Me? I want to play Galactic Emperor, space admirals are just my flunkies.

The 3d map requires som adjustment but you can create simpler 3d maps with the editor if you like. You can even create a flat 2d map if you want.

But I agree if you dont like detailed tactical RTS style combat in 4x you propably wont like it. Im more interested of simwar in 4x than simplanets allthough I think the latter as important too.

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Why would anyone play GC2 when it is basically Civ in space, but not as good.I also hated the lack of realism,cheesy backstory and races,terrible humour in GC2

SOTS with all expansions stands miles above all the other 4x games in ship design,tactics,research,realism,race lore,space monsters,etc in my view, but has no building stuff on planets.

Well let's see I think this is why:

Galactic Civilization II Dread Lords 93.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/938346-/index.html

Sword of the Stars 68.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/930738-s ... index.html

The max command limits are much too low for my taste. When I build a 100 starship fleet, by God, I want the whole fleet to get into the action. I don't think it's possible to ever have more than about 30ish ships in a single fight even with a Flagship and all destroyers. The rest of the fleet is just out there somewhere as reinforcements, and mysteriously warps into place next to the command ship when needed. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
 
 

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Why would anyone play GC2 when it is basically Civ in space, but not as good.I also hated the lack of realism,cheesy backstory and races,terrible humour in GC2

SOTS with all expansions stands miles above all the other 4x games in ship design,tactics,research,realism,race lore,space monsters,etc in my view, but has no building stuff on planets.

Well let's see I think this is why:

Galactic Civilization II Dread Lords 93.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/938346-/index.html

Sword of the Stars 68.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/930738-s ... index.html

[/quote]

I think he was wrong to say that "Why would anyone.." of course there are people who prefer galciv over sots. Its so pointless to argue about things like that. People simply have different tastes.

Galciv is propably more tasty to general public than sots allthough it has received lots of good praise too during its later expansions.

Yeah, it's even better than MoO2! [;)]

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/197873-m ... index.html

ORIGINAL: Iceman

Yeah, it's even better than MoO2! [;)]

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/197873-m ... index.html

Pure critic reviews are often inaccurate. I always take account the public opinnion (and in some cases single user reviews). Heres some stats from gamspot:

Galciv2
#Critic Score 87% 48 reviews
#User Score 87% 4275 votes

First galciv2 expansion:
#Critic Score 92% 23 reviews
#User Score 84% 1178 votes

Second galciv2 expansion:
#Critic Score 92% 17 reviews
#User Score 82% 554 votes

Sword of the Stars
#Critic Score 69% 22 reviews
#User Score 77% 420 votes

Sword of the Stars: Collector's Edition
#Critic Score 70% 1 review
#User Score 86% 25 votes

Sword of the Stars: A Murder of Crows
#Critic Score 80% 5 reviews
#User Score 91% 33 votes

Argos Naval Yard
#Critic Score 95% 1 review
#User Score 88% 25 votes

From the scores you can see that Galciv2 started good but the expansions were poorer.
Sots had the opposite thing aka it started bad but got much better with expansions.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The max command limits are much too low for my taste. When I build a 100 starship fleet, by God, I want the whole fleet to get into the action. I don't think it's possible to ever have more than about 30ish ships in a single fight even with a Flagship and all destroyers. The rest of the fleet is just out there somewhere as reinforcements, and mysteriously warps into place next to the command ship when needed. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I thought it weird first too but I got used to it. The real limit might the 3d engine. With all the things flying around the physics might be too heavy for it. I remember som people were havign performance problems with even the existing limits.

Othervice I dont think there is any purposeful reason to limit it. Its simply the toll you have pay for the detailed combat.

Zakhal, I was being sarcastic [;)]

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Why would anyone play GC2 when it is basically Civ in space, but not as good.I also hated the lack of realism,cheesy backstory and races,terrible humour in GC2

SOTS with all expansions stands miles above all the other 4x games in ship design,tactics,research,realism,race lore,space monsters,etc in my view, but has no building stuff on planets.

Well let's see I think this is why:

Galactic Civilization II Dread Lords 93.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/938346-/index.html

Sword of the Stars 68.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/930738-s ... index.html

Did you actually look how many reviews were counted for GC2 on that lemming?

ORIGINAL: Iceman
Zakhal, I was being sarcastic [;)]

I know but I like to discuss about reviews. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Zakhal

ORIGINAL: Iceman

Yeah, it's even better than MoO2! [;)]

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/197873-m ... index.html

Pure critic reviews are often inaccurate. I always take account the public opinnion (and in some cases single user reviews). Heres some stats from gamspot:

Galciv2
#Critic Score 87% 48 reviews
#User Score 87% 4275 votes

First galciv2 expansion:
#Critic Score 92% 23 reviews
#User Score 84% 1178 votes

Second galciv2 expansion:
#Critic Score 92% 17 reviews
#User Score 82% 554 votes

Sword of the Stars
#Critic Score 69% 22 reviews
#User Score 77% 420 votes

Sword of the Stars: Collector's Edition
#Critic Score 70% 1 review
#User Score 86% 25 votes

Sword of the Stars: A Murder of Crows
#Critic Score 80% 5 reviews
#User Score 91% 33 votes

Argos Naval Yard
#Critic Score 95% 1 review
#User Score 88% 25 votes

From the scores you can see that Galciv2 started good but the expansions were poorer.
Sots had the opposite thing aka it started bad but got much better with expansions.

Only thing is the user scores can be scewed but the critic scores cannot at Gamespot. One can make 100 user login to Gamespot and post 100 votes in favor of their game of choice. This also happened during the Gamespy Best Game of All time voting and they discovered users were using bots to cast votes over and over for the game of their choice. So, with that in the air over voting it has to come from critics how good a game actually is, especially at Gamespot.

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Why would anyone play GC2 when it is basically Civ in space, but not as good.I also hated the lack of realism,cheesy backstory and races,terrible humour in GC2

SOTS with all expansions stands miles above all the other 4x games in ship design,tactics,research,realism,race lore,space monsters,etc in my view, but has no building stuff on planets.

Well let's see I think this is why:

Galactic Civilization II Dread Lords 93.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/938346-/index.html

Sword of the Stars 68.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/930738-s ... index.html

Did you actually look how many reviews were counted for GC2 on that lemming?

That was just one example there are many more but I'm not going to list everyone just to show you that you are wrong.

ORIGINAL: Iceman

Yeah, it's even better than MoO2! [;)]

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/197873-m ... index.html

Well the question was "Why would anyone" blah blah blah. Not which is the best game of all time. Even that I would say is Master of Orion II.

It was just to show him why people do play GalCiv2 over SotS or Sins or any of the other 4x space games. Because it's popular that's why and highly popular by the numbers is another reason why.

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

Only thing is the user scores can be scewed but the critic scores cannot at Gamespot. One can make 100 user login to Gamespot and post 100 votes in favor of their game of choice. This also happened during the Gamespy Best Game of All time voting and they discovered users were using bots to cast votes over and over for the game of their choice. So, with that in the air over voting it has to come from critics how good a game actually is, especially at Gamespot.

There are also many ways that critic opinnion can be changed i.e money from adds. Also critic review is only an opinnion of one person. The fact that he calls himself "critic" doesnt make his opinnion anymore true than that of one player. Nowadays many "internet critics" have less experience of playing games than the players themselves.

I dont think many people bother to make 100 user logins to "falsefy" scores. The fact that its possible (atleast once in past) doesnt mean that people actually do it except on special occasion like in the competition you mentioned.

I have followed gamespot reviews averages for years and more than often its the user average that is more accurate with my own image of the game. It hardly ever seems to "lie to me" like the critic reviews somtimes do.

However gamespot is not the only source I use its just one of my favorites. Point is I always use multiple sources. I dont really trust anyone specifically and prefer to make my own judgement.

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

ORIGINAL: killroyishere




Well let's see I think this is why:

Galactic Civilization II Dread Lords 93.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/938346-/index.html

Sword of the Stars 68.67%
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/930738-s ... index.html

Did you actually look how many reviews were counted for GC2 on that lemming?

That was just one example there are many more but I'm not going to list everyone just to show you that you are wrong.

Wrong? I would not take mainstream review sites as gospel on what is a good strategy game.EmpireTotalwar had huge scores on metcritic by these people and the release version was a broken mess.