Gamespy Review is up

You just beat me to it by 2 minutes. (:(

It's a good review with great score, but the author is mentionning a lot of things that have discussed here many times and that MOO fanboys have been bashing for months. (No ship design, no tactical combats...)

In a sense, I prefer no ship design, it such a pain in the *** to create designs then have to produce more ships with this design, update the old ones, etc... It takes forever and doesn't make much of a difference in combat. And tactical ship combat??? Where is that in MOO3, there no combat fun at all. Combats can take days and are generally boring. So I love the combat design here. It's more on the strategy side than tactical.

I like ship design. MOO2 and MOO3 ****** it up, but it was a blast in MOO1. I think GalCiv does fine without it, though.

And multiplayer? A neat idea, but afaic more trouble than it's worth.

With such an AI I don't need multiplayer. Why would I sit for hours waiting for the others to do their moves?

It's a nice review, but I wish the game weren't reviewed as if it were supposed to be like Master of Orion.

Not having ship design isn't a "negative" unless you're a MOO player.

Similarly, while I fully expect Gamespy to push for multiplayer, let's be real, the # of people who play TBS multiplayer is nil.

For instance, as a MOO 3 player, I went onto Gamespy yesterday to play MOO 3 which has an integrated Gamespy client. There was ONE game and it was in progress already.

Saying that lack of multplayer in a turn based strategy game is a negative would be like saying lack of a diplomacy option in a first person shooter is a negative.

Well, there might have only been one MOO3 game up because everyone else was off playing GalCiv.

Frogboy: "Saying that lack of multplayer in a turn based strategy game is a negative would be like saying lack of a diplomacy option in a first person shooter is a negative."

LOL

Nice one! Kornalius is also correct. No multiplayer is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. I suppose it'd be nice to have the option, but quite honestly, I doubt if I'd ever use it.

I cant really understand why people who bash galciv always go on about the lack of multiplayer and no ship design.

Firstly, for multiplayer, turn based strategy games just dont suit multiplay very well. Individual turns can take ages, and waiting 10 minutes for your turn is not my idea of intense multiplayer action. FPS can be awesome on multiplayer, and I have played god knows how many hours on counter strike, and enjoyed every minute of it, but TBS just isnt well suited to it.

Secondly, regarding ship design, it can be a fun feature, and I certainly enjoyed messing about with designs in Moo2 (although moo3 was a disaster with a cumbersome ship design interface, and ships going obsolete before they were finished construction). However I found I just used the same ship designs in moo2 over and over, once I had found out the optimal ones to use.

Ship design in all the games I have seen it implemented seems to be just an easy way of getting an advantage as a player over the enemy AI. Every game that I have seen it used, the AI invariably dumps a load of useless garbage in their design reducing its effectiveness.

What I actually specifically like in GalCiv, is that if the AI is using a dreadnought, its essentially identical to yours except for any tech advantages you can research. I find this makes the AI more challenging and thus more fun to play.

I'll just point out that if you consider MOO2 the epitome of TBS ship design, then I'll just have to point you to MOO1. MOO2 dropped half of what made MOO1 ship design interesting, only allowing you to realistically customize weapons and ships. In MOO1, things like engine size were important concerns, strategically and tactically, but in MOO2 you just used the latest one all the time.

I would've enjoyed MOO1-esque ship design in GalCiv, but it seems to be doing fine without it. It would probably conflict with the chess motif anyway, and make things difficult on the AI. But it's still a valid complaint (unlike the lack of multiplayer). It's a source of personality that many players are used to expressing.

Also, I think MOO3's ship design is better than MOO2. If the tech were slowed down a little bit, it would be nice. But not too much; part of ship design strategy is timing it to certain key tech levels.

The reviewer also fails to take into account the full potential of the Metaverse's ability to take successful human strategies and incorporate them into the AI, thus providing a greater chance for "rich layers of strategy I can imagine if only there were other humans behind the alien faces on the screen."

I too would like ship design, especially since the rest of galciv is so well made. But, with so many other options to win, it's not a show stopper.

Besides, when modding comes in.....

As to multiplayer. I like playing multiplayers not on the internet, but with my wife, especially since she likes these types of games a lot. But again, it's no biggie. I think Gamespy is just stating that because the industry is so into multiplayer right now; it's the same when 3D games came out: everything had to be 3D or you were obsolete and the game sucked.

I agree its a very good review.

I also agree that I wish they wouldnt punish it for no multiplayer. A turn based game just doesnt usually work well with mulitplayer. Its too slow.

Civilization tried it with Play the World and all they did was tear it apart for sucking. Well ofcourse it sucks its a TURN BASED GAME. Its not designed to be mulitplayer. Oh Well.

Also on the Ship customization I didnt ever really car for it in Imperiam Galatica 2. Just didnt have the time and didnt care for that aspect. So while Im lost in GalCiv its got what Im looking for and I cant wait to learn how to play.

I think I was the first player review and I gave it a damn fine review.

Admiral Rom (#7) said:
"However I found I just used the same ship designs in moo2 over and over, once I had found out the optimal ones to use."

In MOO3, the tech you get is different every time, so there's no memorized perfect ship designs. It's very dynamic, especially when you add in tech trading. However, I will agree that the MOO3 ship design as it stands is incredibly tedious, though I think this was just poor implementation of the ship design upgrade UI. I don't think ship design by nature is bad, and I have to disagree with Frogboy that ship design is only relevant to MOO players. If it's a good feature, it's a good feature, and I don't see how it would invalidate the game design of GalCiv.

I can't stand most multiplayer games. Annoying, rude, childish, immature players.. slow games, lag, cheating and loopholes, huge egos.. you name it. There are few I like gaming online with. The ONLY game I really enjoy playing online is IL-2, since it is such an awesome game (and now FB), and because the players are typically more mature.

And ship design? Nice if implemented correctly. But when ships are obsolete as soon as they are released, it gets VERY annoying. That isn't fun. It is a chore akin to doing taxes.

I was very dissapointed that Gamespy listed those two things as 'cons'. How is a feature that is not included in a game a con?! *boggles*

I think that NOT having the ability to build your guns in Unreal Tournament 2k3 is a huge con, and thus the game should have been docked for the lack of this clearly needed and excellent feature! Heathens.. can't even review a game correctly.


fleabitfox

i would like to see diplomacy in an fps...