Ok, I wasn't too excited about GalCiv

Sarxis · March 21, 2003, 04:42

I have to admit that until recently, I really had no intentions to buy it. No MP really was kinda disturbing, but, now that I've been thinking and reading more up on the game, its looking good.

I mean, Morrowind was SP only, and I loved it! (sorry about the cross genre referencing)

Plus, I thought MoO3 was going to be my 'choice' for this round of Space Empire building games... but..

Malleus · March 21, 2003, 11:05

I think it is safe to say a large measure of the success of GalCiv will be a market backlash of the release of MOO3. I can think of seven or eight people I dissuaded from purchasing MOO and convinced to look at GalCiv.

M

Boris Godunov · March 21, 2003, 11:11

Further evidence, Malleus, that perhaps the folks at Stardock are marketing geniuses.

Alex · March 21, 2003, 12:49

I wasn't too excited about GalCiv either, but after the MOO3 case I dug up some more information about the game and it really looks interesting.

Boris Godunov · March 21, 2003, 13:08

Actually, the MOO3 talk is starting to worry me. A lot of people disappointed with MOO3 may think they've found its replacement in GalCiv, but GalCiv is going to be different from MOO3 in many ways. Those expecting it to satisfy for what they felt was missing/badly done in MOO3 may be disappointed yet again.

Eric S · March 21, 2003, 15:17

I agree that GalCiv isn't the MoO 2.5 that a lot of people have been wanting. There's no tactical combat at all, no ship design, and (currently) a depressing lack of variety of ships. There's a few other areas where GalCiv is simpler than MoO3, such as different races having a different idea of a habitable planet. Simpler isn't better or worse than complex, just different, and different people will have different preference.

For example, GalCiv allows new ship designs to be added, but I'm not sure that it's flexible enough to pull off what I'd like to see, where ship X is better than ship Y at attacking ship A, but Y is better than X at attacking ship B. Just about every major SF setting has some type of missle (even Trek has photon torpedoes), and in some, missiles are the major type of weapon. One ship might have stronger shields (better defensive rating all around), but another might have strong point defense (doubles it's defensive rating against missile-attack ships). From my reading, GalCiv doesn't have this kind of depth, but that's understandable since it isn't a combat simulator. Or maybe an escort ship that doubles the defensive rating of any ship in the same fleet when attacked by a missle attack ship. Maybe a different type of escort designed to defend against fighters. Nothing that throws out the current combat system, just makes fleet composition more interesting.

However, I'll be judging it according to how I like it, rather than how much it fits my preconceived ideas of what it should be. For the record, except for the PD bug and passive AI, I like MoO3, though I do think it could be better.

Sarxis · March 22, 2003, 08:46

I'm probably going to be careful before buying GalCiv. I've got other games to think about as well.

swordsman1612 · March 22, 2003, 13:17

I must admit that the fact that GalCiv doesn't have multiplayer is what caught my eye. I'm really tired of games that push multiplayer so much that they leave a lackluster single player experience for those of us that don't have the time or patience to deal with multiplayer. NWN, Mechwarrior 4, MOO3 were like this... too simple, too short, too boring... soulless in a word.

No tactical combat doesn't bother me that much: CIV2 and SMAC didn't have tactical combat like MOO2 and it didn't hurt the gameplay experience.

But I'll wait for gamer's reviews from the game... I don't think anyone else wants another MOO3.

PriestOfDiscord · March 22, 2003, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by swordsman1612
I must admit that the fact that GalCiv doesn't have multiplayer is what caught my eye. I'm really tired of games that push multiplayer so much that they leave a lackluster single player experience for those of us that don't have the time or patience to deal with multiplayer. NWN, Mechwarrior 4, MOO3 were like this... too simple, too short, too boring... soulless in a word.

This is a big plus for me too. As a person on dialup, I don't have much I can MP with. And even if I do, I'm sick of being told that having a crap AI out of the box is ok, because "you can always MP."

Ray K · March 22, 2003, 23:55

The lack of multiplayer is a plus. The primary reason for the MP push in the industry for TBS games is because the AIs have historically been so lame.

With a very good AI, MP is unnecessary. Here's to hoping that GalCiv pulls it off.

GhengisFarb™ · March 25, 2003, 18:07

I never even heard of GalCiv until the MoO3 fiasco, here's hoping for a real MoO style game!

DRoseDARs · March 25, 2003, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I never even heard of GalCiv until the MoO3 fiasco, here's hoping for a real MoO style game!

You've been here HOW long and you've NEVER heard of GalCiv? Sheesh, come up for air once-in-a-while, will ya'?

Changmai Beagle · March 29, 2003, 20:33

I hadn't really noticed it before either.

. But then I never bought MOO1 or 2 or 3 either.
As soon as I get tired of Hearts of Iron, I'll be taking a look at it.

Imran Siddiqui · March 30, 2003, 02:30

Quote:

You've been here HOW long and you've NEVER heard of GalCiv? Sheesh, come up for air once-in-a-while, will ya'?

Well I hadn'y heard of GalCiv until a few weeks ago, and I've been here close to 4.5 years. It isn't very well hyped

.

notyoueither · March 30, 2003, 05:49

GalCiv is not a marketing phenomenon.

The original did have quite a few people wanting to learn about OS2, though. Positive word of mouth in action. From what I've heard, the sequel is not disappointing.

Too bad I don't have enough time, yet.

vmxa1 · March 30, 2003, 14:54

GalCiv was mentioned all over the Moo3 threads here.
I am not a big cruise the WWW person, but I had a sticky to the site at least a year ago. Avault and other gaming news sites have mentioned it.