PC GAMER REVIEW!!!

nice job.

i dont understand why all the reviews are so crazy about the a.i.
i mean dont get me wrong...i really like the game and all but i dont think the a.i. is so very good

This was a pretty good review. Glad to see there's a reviewer who finally doesn't go "blah blah blah, no multiplayer, blah blah blah". Maybe with Oblivion out now Microsoft is paying off the reviewers to tone down the 'no multiplayer = bad game' jive.

Well, seeing that there is no multiplayer, which isnt so bad; would you like to play against an ai that thinks making 100000000000 scouts could possibly overcome a fighter? you know what i mean...

The A.I. in this game is the first A.I. I have ever seen in any strategy game that redily gives gifts to me to appease my powerful empire. I think thats awesome, I've always wanted tribute.

Oh and he's definitely right about the manual. I learned more about playing this game from the Gameplay examples than I did from that manual.

In fact I learned quite a lot about playing the game from the examples now that I think about it.

I don't know. Only an 83% score? I feel vaguely angry about that. I feel GalCiv 2 is worth at least a 90%-92% score. This is literally the most engaging game I've played this year. (Civ IV doesn't really count as it came out last year, but I'd still put Stardock's fine creation against it any day.) I know this for sure. GalCiv 2 and Stardock have my vote as best overall user experience.

If developer input and responsiveness were part of their score, it should've gotten a 98% or better! Even Civ IV and Firaxis are ankle-chained by Take 2's bureaucracy. (Take a look at some of the forum posts there.)

83% is too low of a score for this game. Considering the constantly updates that will make the game better it seems more unjust. But at least they didn't pointed at the lack of multiplayer as a fault, that's getting boring.

Why every reviewer go crazy for the AI? Because compared to other AI it's the most intelligent and complete AI ever made, but there's a thing in every turn-based games the computer is better then the average AI, because turn-based games are a kind of advanced chest game.
And computers are very strong in chest games if they're not programmed to do stupid moves.

i dont understand why all the reviews are so crazy about the a.i. i mean dont get me wrong...i really like the game and all but i dont think the a.i. is so very good

It's a case of comparisons. AI is always the weak point in any game but it is of special interest to "strategy" games. Galciv AI might not be able to make the tea while debating the nature of the universe, but it can do a good job of the things it's programmed to do. Add to that it will only get better with further patches and I think it's pretty clear why reviewers keep rating the AI so highly. It's very difficult to name a game where the player wasn't totally overpowered in comparison to the AI and the AI didnt need a slew of production and economic bonuses (read: Cheats) to achieve even a modicum of challenge.

PC Gamer proves why they get called PC Lamer.

83%? What a joke. These guys gave Empire Earth 2 a 94%.

The review is patronizing as all hell. It actually says at one point "This game has light years to go to compete with the big boys of this genre." Why? Because it's complicated. Who are these big boys? Civ IV? Okay. That's one. Who else?

The PC Gamer people seem to have a beef with games that require you to think.

i dont understand why all the reviews are so crazy about the a.i. i mean dont get me wrong...i really like the game and all but i dont think the a.i. is so very good

OK. I'll bite. What game has good AI then?

CIV 4 AI is quite solid, especially when its on the attack, as is Rome Total War:Barbarian invasion which has a merciless AI (but it piles on the numbers so it doesnt quite count as much as a superior strategic AI, which it does an adequate job of)

I do think 83% is a bit in the shallow end of the pool as review scores go, but generaly PC Gamer UK have reviews in or around the target area 95% of the time.

No way did Empire Earth 2 deserve anything like that score, terrible game. Anything but revolutionary. Apart from the developer replacing the staff with robot replicates to give that high score, they mustve been bribed or held at gun point, i just dont see how they could have suffered such a lack of judgement on their part. P.S Their final score of NFS Most Wanted was far too low, it is by all intensive purposes a very fun and entertaining game.

I used to think reviews wernt biast (atleast of all PC Gamer) but now i have come to realise how untrue this is. They are, more often than not in bed with the big boys. Prove me wrong, prove me wrong.

an ai that thinks making 100000 scouts could possibly overcome a fighter?

Well if you had multi-player you could be playing against humans that think building 10,000 farms will win the game

PC Gamer and Starforce are in league whith each other, thats why it only got an 83%... my theory anyway

GC2 has by far the best AI I've encountered in a strategy game, with only Civ 4 running it anywhere close (and even that has to cheat on the higher levels).

PC Gamer and Starforce are in league whith each other, thats why it only got an 83%... my theory anyway


I am assuming your being ironic or sarcastic.

PC-Gamer just did a huge write out talking about the evils of DRM and over zealus copy protection schemes.

83% is right on. Don't get hung up that its not 90%+
90% or above means instant classic IE Rail Road Tycoon or Sim City level.

80%+ means that its one of the best games in the 4X world.
Fair to say PI:II does some stuff better then GCII and Moo (1) does some things better then GCII.

Thats not to say that GCII is not a great game!

well PC gamer generally gives scores of 80's to amazing games, the only games that really get the top 90 scores are something like half life 2. really, for pc gamer, 83 is a great score and if i had an online version i would have linked to the review, but i didnt want to retype the whole thing. it does mention that there is no multiplayer but that you can at least show off in the metaverse. they did mention a few thigns that pulled the score down a little but generally praised the game. anybody who actually reads pc gamer (me for example) would know by reading the review and seeing an 83 that the game is great and worth buying. they were the people who introduced me to galciv1and tempted me forever with ads for galciv2 way before it was released and i was dying because of it. but yeah they did kinda just assume that since its little old stardock and only galciv 2 that it cant compete with civ 4 oh well, prove them wrong stardock.

I am assuming your being ironic or sarcastic. PC-Gamer just did a huge write out talking about the evils of DRM and over zealus copy protection schemes.

After years of recommending games that had the Starforce trojan. That just doesn't buy them any credibilty. PC Gamer is just a shill for the industry. They only now spoke out because of all the outrage that has finally built up over Starforce, and they don't want to be on the losing side. I stopped reading their drivel long ago.

The reason Gal CiV 2 didn't get a better rating is becuase they are an indie publisher, and didn't buy enough add space from PC gamer.

i beg to differ, nearly every issue i've seen for at least 6 months has had at LEAST one full page big add for galciv 2.