From technology to politics to video games; these are the random thoughts of a geek with too much time on his hands
Published on February 20, 2007 By Zoomba In GalCiv II News

Giving us our second perfect score are the wonderful folks over at SciFi.com.  Matt Peckham penned the review, giving us an "A+" and essentially saying Dark Avatar further cements Galactic Civilizations II as the top-dog in the turn-based strategy market, the name to beat now that Master of Orion has been soundly beaten.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the review comes in an aside at the very end from the author on the subject of multiplayer gaming in turn-based strategy games:

The gaming press thinks it's doing you a service by giving demerits to any game without multiplayer. It's like gaming's equivalent of "political correctness." Games like Dark Avatar put the lie to that creed. I wouldn't play this game online for money, frankly. It's simply too time-consuming coordinating dozen-hour matches with one human opponent, much less three or four. And one successful marathon multiplayer session against dozens of as-compelling AI skirmishes simply isn't enough to warrant knocking Dark Avatar for knowing its strengths and playing to them. —Matt

The review is well-written and to-the-point, covering the major improvements in the expansion.  Be sure to check it out when you have a chance.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 20, 2007
May the gaming nerds reign supreme I mean well; the whole multi-player crazed thing is afterall from what i've observed in my city is by far supported by social folk who can't even go to sleep without talking themselves to sleep on their cell-phones. Nothing wrong with that either; everyone has their prejudices though.

GC2-DA although is a definately an extra support beam to GC2 as a whole
on Feb 20, 2007
While multiplayer would be a cool feature it isn't necessary. This game is a great product and holds up just fine without multiplayer.

I'd NEVER play this game with people I didn't know in real life simply because I feel they'd disconnect or abandon the game when the tide turned against them. This game requires too much of a time investment to put up with that sort of nonsense.
on Feb 20, 2007
I know I've added fuel to this fire in the past, but I really do wish this game had MP. Last year I convinced a friend of mine, who likes the Meier Civ games, to buy it, but he's never gotten into it. I can't help but think that if I could play co-op MP with him over the 'net (he lives a couple of hours away), he'd get into it. How could you not have fun ganging up on the other races with a real-life buddy?

-HM
on Feb 21, 2007
It´s interesting that you Stardock-guys only mention and links to the most positive reviews on your website! I don´t doubt that Dark Avatar is great, but please, be honest! Game Zone has given it 8.5/10, and Strategy Informer 8/10, still very impressive scores, but you fail to mention it here. Maybe you don´t think they are as "wonderful folks" as those that give you raving reviews?   

on Feb 21, 2007
Multiplayer equivalent of "political correctness"? What a bunch of bullshit. Multiplayer is neccessary for a very simple reason and that is that a human player can reach levels of skill that a AI player simply.... can.... not.
on Feb 21, 2007
It´s interesting that you Stardock-guys only mention and links to the most positive reviews on your website! I don´t doubt that Dark Avatar is great, but please, be honest! Game Zone has given it 8.5/10, and Strategy Informer 8/10, still very impressive scores, but you fail to mention it here. Maybe you don´t think they are as "wonderful folks" as those that give you raving reviews?



Perhaps those "Stardock-guys" you speak of are not neggative flame-rompers that thrive on anger and opressing people who are making an obvious effort to revolutionize gaming from a different perspective than your attention demanding ego-mania complex; where examples such as your entire post and this portion of my own is your only source of sattisfaction.

Go home and rethink your life

Multiplayer equivalent of "political correctness"? What a bunch of bullshit. Multiplayer is neccessary for a very simple reason and that is that a human player can reach levels of skill that a AI player simply.... can.... not.


Hey at least Stardock is pioneering Ai and developing them. MP is by no means neccasary to enjoy yourself.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy a multiplayer game to; but if there's no multiplayer on one game is it REALLY the END OF THE entire WORLD? Or is it like possible at all to enjoy yourself on more than one game/focus.

Stardock/GC2/DA may very well have faults but what I love about Stardock is that they're trying. Everybodies human and I know every game has their admirers like myself for obvios examples; and demons like the first person I quoted.

I've been on both sides of the fence in many games and what I pretty much have to say about all this summerized in a nutshell is that...

Life is short to complain whine and be unsatisfied... +
Eat,Drink,Be merry for tomorrow we may die in hell
I think it was.

Enjoy yourself and errr don't get down with the sickness ?
on Feb 21, 2007
Someone finaly agree's with the general comunity for there not being any great NEED for multiplayer, let alone it being a fesible concept! As kingmob said, the game simply is too time consuming for it to work if the other person will just rage when they start to lose, bot's dont do that!
on Feb 21, 2007
"Perhaps those "Stardock-guys" you speak of are not neggative flame-rompers that thrive on anger and opressing people who are making an obvious effort to revolutionize gaming from a different perspective than your attention demanding ego-mania complex; where examples such as your entire post and this portion of my own is your only source of sattisfaction.

Go home and rethink your life."

I like Galactic Civilizations, and I DO think it deserves praise. What I dislike is uncritical fanboy-attitude, where everyone seems to pat each other on the back. I don´t thrive on negativism and anger. Im just a skeptical person, that is suspicious by nature. If Stardock is getting too cosy and flirty with the reviewers that they like (those that give their games good reviews) and fail to mention those they don´t approve of, I think it´s a dangerous development...

ego-mania complex sounds fun, though! It´s good to have when you play games like Galactic Civilizations...   



on Feb 21, 2007
Don't get me wrong I enjoy a multiplayer game to; but if there's no multiplayer on one game is it REALLY the END OF THE entire WORLD? Or is it like possible at all to enjoy yourself on more than one game/focus.

Stardock/GC2/DA may very well have faults but what I love about Stardock is that they're trying. Everybodies human and I know every game has their admirers like myself for obvios examples; and demons like the first person I quoted.


Im not trying to take anything away from Stardock, I bought both DL and DA and Im still playing. Stardock did a good job with the AI but it is still no match for a reasonably intelligent and experienced player (without bonuses).

What I meant was that it has nothing to do with "political correctness" that people want multiplayer. People want it because it is more challenging and more fun to play against a real human being, specially if you do it regularly with people you know.

But I dont need to have multiplayer, apparently since Im still playing the game, but it would take the game to a whole new dimension. As it did with MOO2, for me.

It is like great gfx, I dont need it but a game with great gfx makes it automatically a better game (observe that better doesnt neccessarily mean it makes the game good). Same with multiplayer which is implemented well.



on Feb 21, 2007
Look, I can't really blame Stardock for not putting links to the lower rated reviews on their GalCiv2 home page. Why would they if they have quite a few glowing reviews to point to instead? Point me to some developer who links to reviews on their home page by saying, "Whelp, here's a review that's not so good; hope it doesn't steer any of you new folks visiting us from buying the game!"

I don't think the multiplayer is a necessity for this game, and I don't think reviews should penalize them for it (after all, what review penalized Oblivion for its lack of multiplayer?). But I think it should be pointed out that there are more than a tiny number of people who would enjoy it. You'll just have to extend beyond these forums to find them. After all, the ones who were interested left long ago, when Brad put his foot down and pretty much stated it wasn't going to happen for GalCiv2.

-HM
on Feb 21, 2007
Well, I see your point and understand it from a pure business perspective. But it feels cynical and dishonest. Either you don´t mention reviews at all, or you take ALL reviews into account, good and bad. Why don´t they (Stardock) instead just link to the Game Rankings site for GalCiv2 DA so gamers can check out for themselves without being manipulated? By the way, the expansion has an impressive 92,6% ranking at that site, making it nr 23rd highest ranking PC game of all time.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/934081.asp
on Feb 21, 2007
I don't think the multiplayer is a necessity for this game, and I don't think reviews should penalize them for it (after all, what review penalized Oblivion for its lack of multiplayer?).


Neither is good gfx or good sound but games are penalized if they dont have those so why not multiplayer? Multiplayer has become an integrated part of gaming even if some people are still denying it and games without it should suffer the same penalties as game with poor gfx and sound.

Sure multiplayer games in turn based strategy games are harder to organise and finish than RTS, FPS or MMORPGs but there is a time where playing against an AI player that cant do basic stuff like defending his planets gets boring and repetetive and then instead of quitting the game entirely you can instead find people on the net who knows how to do those things, maybe even better than yourself.
on Feb 21, 2007
I like Galactic Civilizations, and I DO think it deserves praise


Then explain to me

interesting that you Stardock-guys only mention and links to the most positive reviews on your website


With


I don´t doubt that Dark Avatar is great, but please, be honest! Game Zone has given it 8.5/10, and Strategy Informer 8/10, still very impressive scores, but you fail to mention it here. Maybe you don´t think they are as "wonderful folks" as those that give you raving reviews?


If you truely didn't doubt that DA is great; then why insist that Stardock/GC2.com waste their time on neggative advertisements? Do you truely believe the majority of people out there are going to buy anything where there's a whole pile of neggative "CONS" ? Would it be too much for you to understand that Companies such as Stardock like to think positive? Do you really think they created a multi-million dollar bussiness from posting positive reviews ONLY and believing that they didn't need to improve? Why of course not; so this is why I can't even understand why you believe it absolutely neccasary for stardock to find/waste time to search the web for a sour review.

I mean; I didn't post

Perhaps those "Stardock-guys" you speak of are not neggative flame-rompers that thrive on anger and opressing people who are making an obvious effort to revolutionize gaming from a different perspective than your attention demanding ego-mania complex; where examples such as your entire post and this portion of my own is your only source of sattisfaction.

Go home and rethink your life



for nothing. I thought about what I posted before I posted it; I can't think of any logical explanation to support your hunger for neggative/critical reviews. Obviously the existing community posts bugs, and things they'd like to see and GC1/GC2 have been known for decent constant updates whenever Stardock Staff can spare the time.

I mean perhaps geniuses like you,you and me should be writing up our resumes to show these experienced professionals how it's done right? I mean would you spend all your time reading posts like yours/mine questioning your motives were you in their shoes?

It's true I'm a fan and I've been critical myself of certain things in the past. Truely however there must be a small harmony in this community where the Game developers listen best they can right?

In my insignificant oppinion; everything boils down to "time".


Im not trying to take anything away from Stardock, I bought both DL and DA and Im still playing. Stardock did a good job with the AI but it is still no match for a reasonably intelligent and experienced player (without bonuses).

Aggreed. One thing I think is awesome about Stardock though; and do excuse this "fanboy's" perspective... is that they have been constantly improving it.

I've been arround to see how the AI behave from GC1,Altarian Prophesy , GC2,DA... and I must say from my memory the AI has significantly improved allong the road.




What I meant was that it has nothing to do with "political correctness" that people want multiplayer. People want it because it is more challenging and more fun to play against a real human being, specially if you do it regularly with people you know.

But I dont need to have multiplayer, apparently since Im still playing the game, but it would take the game to a whole new dimension. As it did with MOO2, for me.


I agree we don't -need- multiplayer but I also agree with you strange as it sounds, that MP would be a nice feature for those who want it or wish to use it at any given time.

What would need to be done though from my point of view is that there would have to be a "real time mode" and a sort of calibrated timer for research/construction. It would involve a little work but it would definately eliminate the obstacle of having to wait for the other player to press the turn button.


It is like great gfx, I dont need it but a game with great gfx makes it automatically a better game (observe that better doesnt neccessarily mean it makes the game good). Same with multiplayer which is implemented well.


Wholeheartedly with you on that one. I'd like to thank you Yamota for being so kind as to further explain your post and not taking my little rant that honestly carried on from my reply to the other poster.

The entire point to my reply that entire time posting on two fronts was to express my strong feelings for the need of a positive outgoing attitude one which I see Stardock's CEO and Company seem to have. Holding on to a positive attitude and trying to explain that the world as a whole needs to as well to spread the positive spirit is important in my oppinion. Through all my querks and 'fan-boy' appearance this is my goal.

The internet is a difficult place to communicate I'll admit though. Thanks for the replies; both of you
on Feb 21, 2007
lol....a little site with ugly layout that I've never seen before....

I thought the review was too small. Not enough pics to show what he meant and overall too little info. Not good enough.

And I don't think I've ever seen a company link to a bad review on their site.
on Feb 22, 2007
And frankly who has the time to find every review out there and post a link to them?! Maybe Stardock peeps are taking a well deserved holiday

I think these days we're all grown up enough to go out and scroogle our own reviews.

I can't blame Stardock for getting enthused and posting positive reviews, they are proud of Dark Avatar and why shouldn't they toot their own horn?
2 Pages1 2