Dark Avatar Design Opinions?

What's your view?

https://www.galciv2.com/darkavatar
from GalCiv2 Forums

S1Genocide feels that Dark Avatar is more like a mod than an expansion:

Dark Avatar is looking more like a Mod then an expansion pack.

No Multiplayer
No Tactical Combat
No Planetary Bombardment
No New Governments
No New political Partys
No Terror Stars
Only one new race and your removing (Killing them off) 1 or 2?

Why should we get this expansion again?
The only things good in it are Planetary Enviroments & Spying.

You guys really need to get on the ball and add some better things to the expansion. I told you guys I wanted a Civ3 PTW type Expansion. This is a Mod not an expansion.

And as it is right now I'm not buying it.

What the Expansion should have been:
Multiplayer
Tactical Combat
4 New Evil Governments
4 New Evil political Partys
(At Least) 4 New Races while keeping all of the originals.
Terror Stars
Planetary Enviroments
New Spy System
New Civ3 type diplomacy options. (what would you trade for....)

We all have our opinions of what an expansion is but I think Dark Avatar is pretty far from a mod.  A mod is something a third party could create. 

Let me give my own biased two cents on how this:

Most expansion packs simply add more content.  Civ IV's expansion added new maps, scenarios, units, and races.

Our expansion does the same thing -- new races, maps, scenarios, and units (ship pieces).

But we are also changing the game play in a pretty radical way that I think will make the game a LOT more fun.  For example -- Planet environments.  This changes the game in pretty significant ways.  First off, the entire colonization phase never truly ends because you can't colonize half the worlds right away. You have to research expensive techs that are unrelated to get to them.

Secondly, the asteroid fields create terrain and opportunities for exploitation that simply aren't in the game presently.

Thirdly, the custom opponents is something that I think users will really like. Now you can put together your own races to play against, decide what they're like and play them. From a longevity point of view, this is a big deal.

Fourth, the Espionage units are a BIIIG deal. These units add an entirely new option for players to try to win the game. The ability to spend money to cripple your opponents gives players a new tool.  Right now, you basically can conquer them with ships or buy their love or try to influence them. In Dark Avatar, your agents can nulify infrastructure, cripple economies, destroy morale. You can bring someone down from within.

The new diplomatic treaties give players more options to build relations with particular players and try to create more alliances within the game.

The AARs (after action reports) people seem to love and now anyone can partiicipate to a degree with the Epic generator creating unique stories of their games.

So I can't see how anyone could argue this is like a "mod".  I'd argue that Dark Avatar is an expansion + half-sequel rolled into one.

40,051 views 81 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Frogboy, that guy seems to mainly want multiplayer and tactical battles since he lists those two every time.

I would definetly like a more interactive diplomacy and the Civ3 and Civ4 diplomacy us a good reference point, but I know it would be somewhat simpler in GC2: DA since we don't have tradeable resources in the way that the Civ series has. However, the part about having more options and flexibility in diplomacy such as a declare war option (on the race you are talking to), a way of asking a race to form or break an alliance with someone, etc.

IMO there will always be a few voices of dissent like the guy you quoted.

Another thing I'd like to see is perhaps greater modability (unless GC2 is as moddable as it can get right now), such as creating new jewlery pieces, not neccesarily create entirely new models, but perhaps the texture or 'skin' of the jewlery could be modded.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Dark Avatar expansion sounds great to me, with large amounts of content and new features.

I would compare it directly with Civ IV:Warlords, it is very clear from journals reports Dark Avatar will have considerably more content than Warlords. I visit the civfanatics forum plus others and warlords like a lot of civ expansions has had a fairly lukewarm reception. It does not add enough gameplay to justify buying it, so I did'nt, will get it at a reduced price later on, even players mad on Civ IV (it is a good game) seem underwhelmed.

There is no way u can please everyone, just cater for the majority. Everyone's got there own wish list. In the poll on, which features would u like to see in a expansion, I had real difficulty choosing, because I liked alot of them. I wanted heros to lead yr fleets/planets. I did not get them, but I have not moaned about it.

Really excited by:-

The AARs (after action reports) people seem to love and now anyone can partiicipate to a degree with the Epic generator creating unique stories of their games.


Hope it is as good as it sounds.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well, personally, I like what I've heard so far about DA. It should spice things up quite a bit (and I'm confident the AI will be up to the task of using all the new goodies).

It sounds like there's a good chance multiplayer will show up in the second expansion. As for tactical combat, while I'd like it, I can't think of a single game that completely replaced the existing combat system with a new one in an expansion. That's sequel material, not expansion material.

What I would like to see is a bit more fleshing out of the UP. A couple ideas (which I'm sure others have brought up) would be (1) announce the subject of the vote in advance, and add items to the diplomacy window such as "Vote yes/no on the upcoming resolution" which could become part of negotiations, and (2) allow for periodic votes for president of the UP, with the president then able to propose resolutions. Of course there would be consequences to diplomatic relations if you voted for/against someone.

But pipedreams aside, DA sounds good so far. Should be some interesting additions.


-Cauldyth
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm also especially enjoyed that you guys are implementing my suggestion about making recordings (really brief ones) of battles and stuff. I know that there would be issues with coding it even though the game already records battles at the end of each one and records each one for the scores at the end of the game, so I'd understand if you end up with a watered down or otherwise modified version of the idea
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
For me, I'm totally excited for Dark Avatar, especially since I know it will include the all-important AI updates (which seriously, seriously mean a lot to me, especially since they make a noticeable difference in the game. I started with Stardock with GalCiv (the recent one) and you have a customer-for-life). Having said that, Dark Avatar is definitely more than a mod, but does it rise to the level of a $20 expansion pack?

Well, I think others have hinted that traditional expansion packs may not be all that content-rich, especially with new stuff. Brood War must be considered a true expansion pack--it added several units and some maps. Ok, well, DA has that and a lot lot more. Would I like to see planetary bombardment? Yes, I would, but frankly that's not a major concern for me. Tactical Combat and MP however are NOT expansion pack fare. There is nobody on this planet (well, except for the disgruntled gentlemen quoted by Frogboy) who would expect an Xpack to include such massive, major gameplay changes like TacCombat and MP. That would be like adding "tactical combat" to Civ4 in an expansion pack. That's material for CivV, not a mere expansion pack.

DA already is adding tons of new content--Frogboy listed the major ones and these are already more than you can expect in a typical Expansion Pack. Quite frankly, I can't see what the dude is complaining about. I mean, could you "mod in" spies and planetary environments and new diplomacy options? No, you couldn't as far as I know.

On the diplomacy--GalCiv2 definitely lags behind Civ4 in terms of interesting diplomatic options. I'm hoping to see a lot more in this regard from DA, but at least it's better (and excuse the fanboyishness) than the "War/Non-Agression/Peace" model of certain other recently release "4X" (and I use the term lightly) games.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
For me, I'm totally excited for Dark Avatar, especially since I know it will include the all-important AI updates (which seriously, seriously mean a lot to me, especially since they make a noticeable difference in the game.


Oops, how could I forget to mention that? To be honest, I'd happily pay $20 (on top of what I paid for the original game) for an expansion which had all the resources that would've been poured into new features instead poured into AI. AI is critical to strategy games (even those with multiplayer), so as far as I'm concerned, good AI is priceless.

But maybe I should be quiet... or Stardock might start charging me for future AI updates!



-Cauldyth
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yes, more UP stuff would be cool as well. Oh, and carriers...
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

What I would like to see is a bit more fleshing out of the UP. A couple ideas (which I'm sure others have brought up) would be (1) announce the subject of the vote in advance, and add items to the diplomacy window such as "Vote yes/no on the upcoming resolution" which could become part of negotiations, and (2) allow for periodic votes for president of the UP, with the president then able to propose resolutions. Of course there would be consequences to diplomatic relations if you voted for/against someone.


Seeing these sorts of changes to the UP would really get me psyched for the expansion. I'd also like to see a few new government types added, like some non-democratic ones (like feudal or totalitarian) that would give some cool bonuses and be appropriate for evil civilizations. Maybe they could tie into the new espionage system?

I'm still quite interested in Dark Avatar (it's preordered ), but I certainly wouldn't mind waiting another few weeks if some of the above could be added in.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
What S1Genocide really seems to say is not that you aren't adding plenty of new stuff, but that you aren't adding the precise things that he happens to be asking for. Dark Avatar is miles above just a mod, or even just a normal expansion. As you say, most expansions I've ever bought just add more units, which really would be nothing more than a mod, just an official one.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well, I think others have hinted that traditional expansion packs may not be all that content-rich, especially with new stuff. Brood War must be considered a true expansion pack--it added several units and some maps. Ok, well, DA has that and a lot lot more. Would I like to see planetary bombardment? Yes, I would, but frankly that's not a major concern for me. Tactical Combat and MP however are NOT expansion pack fare. There is nobody on this planet (well, except for the disgruntled gentlemen quoted by Frogboy) who would expect an Xpack to include such massive, major gameplay changes like TacCombat and MP. That would be like adding "tactical combat" to Civ4 in an expansion pack. That's material for CivV, not a mere expansion pack.


I love how you mention all thes expansions Except the one that matters Civ3 PTW.

The entire purpose of Civ3 PTW was to add multiplayer. But they didn't just stop there. The inclusion of Fascism? BTW are we going to have Evil governments & Political partys to go with the new Evil races? Or are we going to be forced. To have Democratic Evil races. The people at Firaxis even made 8 new races not 2 not what I'm asking for GalCiv2 (4) But 8!

What was in Civ3 PTW?

Multiplayer Modes: Includes Turn-Based and Simultaneous game types and appearing for the first time in a Civilization game, a Turn-less mode. Provides full TCP-IP/LAN, Hotseat and Play be Email support.
Multiplayer games: Face off against the best Civilization players worldwide with fast-paced multiplayer games like Elimination, Domination, Regicide and Capture the Flag.
Eight new Civilizations featuring new Leaders including: Genghis Khan Temujin, King Hannibal, Queen Isabella and King Brennus, and all new units will challenge your diplomatic and combat skills.
Enhanced Scenario Editor, including new unit and tile sets lets players construct a Scenario from any time period.
Players can strengthen their empire with:
* new map features like outposts, airfields and radar towers
* new guerilla and medieval infantry units
* new wonders and city improvements like the stock market or the Internet
Updated interface improvements like auto bombard, rally points, stacked movement and a streamlined espionage interface allow for more efficient management.
New Governments
*Fascism
*Communism
*Democratic Socialism
*Constitional Monarchy
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The only thing I've heard about Dark Avatar that I do not like is that We are not going to be able to choose wether we want to play original GC2 games or DA games.

Hope I'm wromg about this.

Usually in my experience with expansions, the player has the option of what type of game they want to play.

Also, think I've heard that there won't be any more updates to the original GC2 after update 1.3.

DA is definitely an expansion and very much looking forward to it and probably won't even want to play the original GC2 after it is out( so guess my comments are inconsiquential)

Carriers would have be nice, especially along the lines of the latest suggestion post I've seen -- but I'm sure you guys at Stardock will put em in the game when and if it makes sense.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
apparently i'm the only one who would like to see cloaking techs...i mean come on.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
s1genocide... who are you?? what makes you so important that a slightest whim of yours warrants a response for frogboy/draginol....????


I have posted plenty and never get a responce. I paid for my game just like you. I ask for things and get ignored on a regular basis. What makes you so special, and what qualifies your opinion as anything more then a god damned whine???


dood.. go play something else... space empires 5 or something..


jesus.. this is lame.


Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
s1genocide... who are you?? what makes you so important that a slightest whim of yours warrants a response for frogboy/draginol....????


I have posted plenty and never get a responce. I paid for my game just like you. I ask for things and get ignored on a regular basis. What makes you so special, and what qualifies your opinion as anything more then a god damned whine???


dood.. go play something else... space empires 5 or something..


Oh no, do I have to leave too, because frogboy responded to one of my posts?

And heaven forbid -- someone posted that SM noticed 1 of my posts.

Don't worry, pretty sure Frogboy reads an awful lot of these forum posts and sure he has taken notice of you before.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
kblore... you missed my point. WHo is s1genocide... that frogboy makes a unique post addressing his concerns?? do you get it? how is he different then any of us.... we paid same as him, but only negative posts get addressed??? I am confused here.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Everyone relax.

I love how you mention all thes expansions Except the one that matters Civ3 PTW.


Perhaps Civ3: PTW was a huge expansion (I never played much Civ3). The point is that, in the context of the average expansion out there, DA fits in just fine. Perhaps there was an expansion (Civ3: PTW) that went above and beyond what a typical expansion adds, but that doesn't mean anything that falls short of that one example isn't worthy of being called an expansion.

Measured up against the vast majority of expansions that are released, DA looks to be about right.

Also, keep in mind that 2 new races in GalCiv2 is more significant than adding new civilizations to Civ3. Each race in GalCiv2 uses it's own unique AI code (some being derived from others, but they're still different). I'm betting a new civilization in Civ amounts to a new portrait, a new unique unit, and otherwise just a few data entry changes. New leaders in Civ are even less significant. THOSE are the stuff of mods.

It has already been mentioned on the front page that the second expansion pack may have multiplayer. This expansion focuses on other stuff.


-Cauldyth
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Timing is often half the thing.  I thought s1genocide brought up an interesting point that was a topic for discussion and wanted to see if other people felt the same way.

While I think his points are interesting, I don't think they're valid. An expansion pack in my view should both add content and add features. The features they add should be the features that appeal to the largest # of users per cost to add. 

In the months I've been on the forums, I don't think I've ever seen a request for more types of government in GalCiv II and tactical battles are far beyond the scope of an expansion pack. 

BTW, Civilization 3: Play the world had a 63% Gamerankings average (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/561213.asp).  It got 1 out of 5 stars on CGW. Gamespot gave it a 5! I don't think it would be a good idea to use Civ 3:ptw as a template.

Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
[Deleted, because my point suddenly became invalid while typing]

As to the expansion: I'm looking forward to it. Although I'm not looking forward to more "d00d where's teh MP/??!?!?! omg lame" posts. I like the addition of the asteroid fields, and the epic generator will save me from actually having to write anything (not that I ever do, but that's sheer lazyness).

The thing I'm most looking forward to is the Espionage, as I'm hoping that will help me play the subversive, behind-the-scenes power even further. As it is, I'm just throwing money at people until they die.

Also, KBlore: where are you getting that? From what I've heard, it's going to be treated like a normal expansion.

I'd also like to ask S1 how the hell he thinks all the stuff he's asking for could be done in a $20 expansion? Because I seriously could use some of what he's smoking. Whenever I want to tranquilise an elephant.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i prebought for a reason.

This company rocks

I believe in what you guys are making and I extremely like, i cant not express this enough, how much i like how you guys read/respond on this forum and update what we ask for.

        
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I will be very honest here. With each update, my lists get reduced. I have never felt the need to make outright complaints. If I felt really passionately about something, I would express it. I am just fascinated by the mechanism that let's one frustrated user completely invalidate less game changing concerns from other users. A spammer/hater/whatever 'causes such a stir.


Frogboy/Draginol, you've got my cash. No, the game is not perfect, and I am not somehow fooling myself into thinking it is. But it is by far better then anything that has come out in a very long time. So keep it up.


Thanks for listening.


/drops mic
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Also, KBlore: where are you getting that? From what I've heard, it's going to be treated like a normal expansion


From other posts by what I believe are Stardock employees. A post by a Stardock employee saying that we'll have 2 icons on our desktop -- 1 for original GC2 and 1 for DA expansion -- and both are playable without having to do anything, would be nice.

But I believe I've read that there will be folder/file conflicts as it is currently planned.

Make me happy -- tell me I'm wrong!!!

Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
[edit]

Ooops, maybe not. I swear, SOMEONE said they would be seperate. A hunting I do go.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
/raises hand. Ummm...I'd like to see additional government types. I think it would be cool if the government types were not "1 2 3 4" where 4 is better than 1. Instead, you would have to pick your government based off the current game situation. Of course, honestly, it should be very hard on you to switch government types in the middle of the game. GalCiv2 is a week/turn -- you can rebel and form a new government in a few weeks? I don't think so.

Anyway, it's an interesting thought. And to the sm1 guy -- 8 new civs is nothing when a Civ is just a unique unit and a picture.
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I bought galciv 1 and HATED it .
So to get number 2 was a gamble for me.. I bought this game at the same time as Elder Scrolls Oblivion, and it's Galciv 2 that's still installed, along with Civ 4 and dawn of war.

I am a genuine convert to the game and stardock, and as a result will get DA... also, to not have it, while seeing you guys talk of how good it is, will make me feel left out

As said above, with every patch, the problem lists we build up get shorter, and the devs take time to keep us in the loop.

The only problem with the game for me, is that I should be writing my dissertation for my degree, but I keep getting new ideas on how to give the Torians a good smack
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
To SM1, how many of those games of Civ3 multiplayer did you play? How many of them did you finish and how long did they take?

I personally don't think a game like this can effectively be done in multiplayer. Especially on huge maps late game I find myself spending 15 minutes on a turn, even when not at war. How do you expect anyone to last through a game with that?

I really agree with Brad. Multi-player would be fun......if you had a couple weeks to devote to playing a single game. I don't, and also most of my friends aren't into this type of game. So now I'm expected to play this with a random joiner? Yeah....right. I'll take the bitchin awesome AI, okthanksbuhbai!

You keep talking as if Play the World was an instant classic. Hell, you make it sound like it was even a good game. As Brad pointed out, it was a disappointment, to say the least. Don't hold a game up that can't get even close to consistent reviews as a model that should be followed. Well, let me rephrase that. Consistently GOOD reviews. Here's a couple of quotes from the Gamespot review.


"The game has some single-player additions as well, but there's no denying that the most important addition to the game is multiplayer support. Unfortunately, the multiplayer is also an unmitigated disaster."

And

"Play the World's multiplayer is almost unplayable."

Hmm...seems to mean that someone just wasted $20+ bucks on this. Oh wait, whats that? It was $40?!?!

http://msn.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php?masterid=588352&lot_id=2557527

You got hosed friend.