Well the extension to the release date was so they could have a lot of time to get feedback and really create a game that was well made. Although since there is 6~ months left, I'm really wondering how much of an impact our feedback can really have. Especially since I believe this was the one of the reasons to delay it in the first place. (As well as all that new partnership with SD)
I too can understand the frustation. I feel like I've paid for a car and am still waiting for the test drive. Not that I want to, but would there be a way to cancel the pre-order?
For the record, on that poll. I voted 'I love it', as did most. It hasn't swayed me away from picking out what I feel is bad and could be improved upon.
Want to make me a specific matlab script of lagrange interpolation for me?
eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate: I would say they are very much so 4X. (Let's be real, Civ was probably our first true 4X game) I wouldn't really use the averages of DA just yet, there aren't enough reviews out for it. Only two.(On gamestates, 5 on GR) And really, the 100% is from Gamespy, the very same Gamespy that gave Halo 100% and then put it in their top 20 overrated games of all time.
I like that for starbases. It will really get rid of a tedious micromanagment that is not needed. We can have the initial constructor costing a bit more to make up for the fact that it is going to have everything needed to set up a starbase that can sustain itself. I also like borders. We see it in the scifi all the time. "You are violating our space, this is an act of war! RAAR!" An extension of borders: probably a bit too much but neutral zones and diplomatically agreed buffers. One t
I have played it and I can give it a 7.5-8.0 with no loss of sleep. You're right there is some world view that anything below 80% means complete and utter failure. Not at all. I think he was agreeing that 7/10 equates to a good product, not the score itself. SEV is your idea of a superior game to GCII? That's just hilarious, and says it all. SEV got an average score of 6.6/10, while GCII got 9.5/10. You're oblivious. GC2 doesn't averag
And also, minor events would be nice after choosing your alignment, but of course you would have to always choose your alignment. That way you aren't cut off from bonuses. The choices for these events after your alignment is chosen doesn't have to be split in the categories of 'good, neutral and evil'. Infact, these events can disregard seperating your choices based on this three influences. They can simply offer you a variety of options to ch
There are many games that are far superior in creating a believable game-world. GalCiv2 fails to convince me that I'm looking at a galaxy with planets, empires and fleets....That's what makes GalCiv2 look unfinished and not-thought-out to me. This is the feeling I get. When I see GC2, I see a great base for a gaming experience. Don't get me wrong, the 'base' is great as a game itself. I don't regret buying DL or DA.
Are we ever able to get that precursor artifact and have all the AI fighting to stop us?
1) Galactic Terrain that can have various effects on your ships. From slowing them down to speeding them up to incapitating shields or sensors. Let's have some strategy in how I want to and how the AI will explore/move fleets/ships. 2) More minor races. Not specifically space faring but I'd rather have planets with existing sentient life rather than getting it in a event which disregards them as never having existed anyway. 3) Events to still happen after I choose my alignment
No we don't. I also wonder, since gc is touted to be really moddable, is there even a chance to have this in? Can the way combat works be modded?
I have a few questions. Since defending against a weapon is calculated collectively and since the defences are weak anyway, is there still some strategic value of even having three branches of defence? Or even attack, given how either one ends up effective because of the nerfed defences?
I don't get the whole pirate things...are there actually ships of these? I've never ever seen a pirate ship...even with the events happening. :\
Usually they'll come a bit later on. They'll happen on planets that have just been liberated from the dominators. Unless of course you say "I don't want to do any missions of these kind" then they won't offer you those missions.
I don't mind the beta being out 'when it's ready'. I just think you should ever give a rough date when you want to take that sort of philosophy. As soon as you said winter 2006, it's caused this hysteria.
And yes, space is much, much, much emptier than is portrayed in the game. I don't believe so. The game is representing a galaxy . Our galaxy, hell, I doubt any galaxy is just stars and asteroid belts. Spacious yes, empty, far from it. Hence more galactic terrain, which we've both agreed on anyway. As for the asteroids. Yes they provide a big bonus to i
I sometimes turn off all the victory conditions I can and generally just play the game as if it was a sandbox.
I think one of the starbase modules implies a small fleet of fighters too. Or fighter drones...something like that.
Sorry, but if I'm not playing I'm thinking and if I'm thinking I come up with lots of scenarios.
ok, I think our impatience is warranted right about now. two months ago it was "early January" last month it was "late january, early february" now its "sometime late February" does anyone besides me see a pattern... I apreciate quality, but the point of the beta is that WE participate in the quality-refinement process. It would suck if there was a sudden announcement that the game got canned.
I like a bit of that... I think it should be possible for them to be UP members but obviously would not have as much influence as the major players. Just like the UN we have today! Afterall, the UP is about 'galactic law' right?
Its not about DA being perfect, and its not about making suggestions to improve it, its about not filling the messageboards with dishonest drama about the extent to which those imperfections matter. A review score is presumably suppossed to direct readers, most of whom are already gamers, in their choices over which games to purchase. Comparing a game to some strawman of perfection does not help them do that and simply dumb. This thread is
I think it's a very bad thing to call anything perfect. Firstly, nothing is perfect and to give it that sort of pedestal implies that nothing in DA could be improved: Which is a very bad mindset to have. I'm sure the developers pay more attention to what people didn't like and their opinions of improvement rather than being showered with compliments which could make them complacent. And insults really don't help anything.
In some connection to the rigid tech tree (which supposedly makes it harder for the AI) was this the same reasoning for the Starbases? If I recall, and correct me if I recalled it wrongly, GC1 had one starting starbase and then from there you decided on the modules. I'm not a fan of the three starting starbase. I don't think any starbase anywhere would ever be as such. A starbase is generally a major hub of politics, trade, and military keypoints. It's strange for me to have one
Stardock Forums