Galactic civilisations

**English assassin** · 08-07-2006, 16:16

OK, I remember a lot of people thinking this game was brilliant.

I don't get it.

Surely you spend all your time first grabbing a few planets, researching endless interchangable and characterless tech, fiddling with ship design a bit (woot, I can replace laser 3 with laser 4, how exciting) and, err, when does the fun start?

Obviously I am missing something here because the great and good of the Org are rarely wrong, so, what is it Please? Does it do anything that SMAC didn't do, better, years ago?

**The_Doctor** · 08-07-2006, 16:19

At first it was fun, then it got boring very quickly.

**professorspatula** · 08-07-2006, 16:29

I never could really get into this either. I got GCII thinking I'd love it and it's 'amazing AI' but never found myself enjoying it. I far prefer Master of Orion 2. I think you really need to invest tons of time in the game, but I find the few attempts I've had at playing the game, that I can spend 5-6 hours in a campaign without there being a single battle involving anyone. And the battles when they come are crap as well.

They do patch the game a lot, which is good, but at the same time off-putting. They change things so often I'm just going to wait until the get bored of the patching before playing it again. To be honest, I'm sure if you really get into the game you can love it and waste countless hours playing it. Personally I got loads of other more immediately entertaining games to play first - oh and beer to drink down the pub too!

**Navaros** · 08-07-2006, 18:12

I was thinking of checking out GCII after reading almost unanimous praise for it on the Internet.

Then I concluded that:

1. No Multiplayer
2. No Tactical Ship Battles

...would leave me wondering "when does the fun start".

As such, I never bought the game.

I suppose for some people the fun is in doing the stuff listed by English Assassin. I think you are "supposed" to have fun doing that stuff.

**Bob the Insane** · 08-07-2006, 22:09

If you are into this kind of game it is one of the best...

If not then it is marginly less boring than the rest...

It is that simple...

If you dislike FPS's then the best shooter in the world is not likely to change your opinion...

Personally I think the one of the reasons it is so popular is because MOO3 was such a huge dissapointment.

And if you get a decently long game going the AI is actually challenging, though you have to be good at the start or it will brutaly destroy you in short order...

**Kekvit Irae** · 08-08-2006, 01:30

Personally, if it came to space empire games, I'd prefer Imperium Galactica II

**GoreBag** · 08-08-2006, 04:24

Is this about GalCiv, the original, or GalCiv II?

**English assassin** · 08-08-2006, 10:49

Sorry, Galciv II, ie the recent game.

The funny thing is I do like these games, well, Civ, anyway. I think it was when I was in the ship editor that I had a road to Damascus like revelation that spending half an hour fiddling about with very marginally different weapons and engines which had no real effect on the outcome of the game was just tedious.

And the graphics and the interface are and look horrible.

I don't quite know why I still like civ and don't like this, hence the qu. Oh well, I guess its horses for courses.

**Crandaeolon** · 08-08-2006, 12:35

It's probably the lack of tactical battles. Too much management, not enough butt-kicking.

A Civ in space is still a Civ.

We'll see if SotS manages to deliver the "fun" that its rabid developers keep frothing about.

**Spino** · 08-08-2006, 22:02

I can see why some people may dislike GCII but the fact that it is so challenging and polished is simply astounding in light of the limited budget Stardock had to work with. GCII may not have all the bells and whistles of its bigger budgeted counterparts but as far as I'm concerned it has it where counts.

One thing for sure is given the success of GCII the sequel is guaranteed to be bigger and better. And the unofficial word is that tactical battles will be included in GCIII...

**Martok** · 08-11-2006, 04:48

Originally Posted by Spino

I can see why some people may dislike GCII but the fact that it is so challenging and polished is simply astounding in light of the limited budget Stardock had to work with. GCII may not have all the bells and whistles of its bigger budgeted counterparts but as far as I'm concerned it has it where counts.

Well put; I couldn't have said it better myself. I do understand why it doesn't appeal to everyone, however. Lack of multiplayer and tactical battles is going to turn off a lot of gamers, and GC2 admittedly does feel a bit "flat" to me at times. That said, it's still the most fun I've had with a strategy game in years--MTW and BotF are the only other strategy games that have gotten me this addicted!

Originally Posted by Spino

One thing for sure is given the success of GCII the sequel is guaranteed to be bigger and better. And the unofficial word is that tactical battles will be included in GCIII...

Actually, Brad has stated outright that tactical battles will be included in GalCiv 3. The question, though, is whether he'll be programming the AI for that as well, or if he'll hire someone else for that part of the job. Hiring a second AI programmer for the battles would allow him to focus on the empire AI (planetary/fleet management, diplomacy, research, etc.), but I have a feeling he's not the type to trust others to write AI for his own game.

**Slyspy** · 08-11-2006, 16:33

I couldn't get into GalCiv either. I put it down to playing this kind of game to death (from Civ2 and Colonisation onwards). I look at Civ4, for example, and see absolutely nothing new to the genre at all so despite all the positive reviews I shall not buy.