Delusion II - an upgrade

Long post

Now that GC2 has reached the "1.10 Beta 4" version, it seems possible to make an assessment. For sure there will be other tweaks and changes, but it is not realistic to expect any substantial modification of the game’s mechanics and concept.
I don’t know if GC2 was ever intended by the developers to be a 4X game: I am not been able to find such an explicit declaration from them in the material of the game’s site. Anyway, for the pupose of this (long) post, it matters little (besides, I’ve ever had no passion for that "eXterminate" – the fourth X – after the thread "eXplore, eXpand, eXploit", as if you can’t play at living in peace with your neighbour); so, let’s focus on the other 3 Xs, which certainly pertain to GC2.
Explore.
As you explore the galaxy, you eventually stumble across:
1) anomalies
2) resources
3) planets
4) other races and their related achievements (colonized planets, starbases and starships).
So far, so good. Those are the things you can realistically expect to find in the universe if space travels were possible. But this is a strategy game, not a simulation (like Simearth), and a sci-fi one, so the player is entitled to expect also all the oddities which science-fiction films and serials have long accustomed us to. And here starts the complain.
Anomalies turn out to be either nothing, wormholes or bonuses of sort.
As for the wormholes, I frankly admit I do not understand their purpose. They were useful, especially in the larger galaxies, if they would stay in place after the discovering: it would be a way to travel to distant place in a blink; but they disappear once explored.
They were still useful, even if non-permanent, if your survey ship was able to explore other anomalies found on the journey home: it would be a way to acquire bonuses otherwise unreachable early in the game; but, in my experience, those anomalies were simply ignored, for the survey ship limited its activity to head toward the ones located in the space comprised in its original range (i.e.: before the "jump").
Finally, on a more realistic side, the wormholes were at least justyfied if they acted as a real black hole (I know that the wormhole is not properly a black hole, but the "main" that relocates in another time-space the matter sucked in the black hole, as Ludwig Flamm realised, but this would be too difficult to implement in a game, I imagine, so let it pass), destroying the ship; but not even that happens.
All in all, then, the wormholes, as implemented in the game, seem to me pretty senseless.
Bonuses from the anomalies and resources are, in my humble opinion, far too easy to obtain. In a strategy game it seems reasonable that the player must undertake a challenge in order to earn at least the greater bonuses. In GC2 you get every bonuses by the mere fact you move your survey ship onto the anomaly (or your constructor onto the resource, commanding it to construct a starbase): in the end, the only challenge I see is the races’ race (pardon the cacophony) to build increasingly fast ships. On that point I won’t be misunderstood: the type of resources and bonuses crowding the galaxy are all appropriate for a strategic sci-fi game (aside from the mysterious bonus related to the tech tree growth, which seems to have no effects). What is disappointing is the total lack of pathos, so that this part of the exploring aspect becomes quickly a boring routine.
Lastly, minor races don’t add to the fun: they act generally all in the same manner (by the way, how can you direct your espionage towards them?).
Expand.
Someone will for certain call me a nostalgic, but there have been older game in which your colonizing possibilities were limited by factors such as the atmosphere and the environment of the planet, so that what was an hell for a race might be a paradise for another: this seems to me more realistic and, above all, would add complexity to your strategic choices.
Exploit.
In a game which allows the player to choose enormous galaxies with a lot of planet micromanagement is a factor that can turn into a nightmere. But implement only two options for the governors (automatic upgrade of buildings and terraforming/soil improvement) is an oversimplification.
Besides, why you can’t set the focus of each planet (research, military or social production) directly from the Civilization Manager screen? When you have over 50 colonized planets it is a tremendous waste of time having to browse every planet screen to reset the focus.
I shall end here, even if there are far more bad implemented things (for instance, the management of ships and fleets), and shall not mention the still numerous bugs, because my purpose was to remark how, in my humble opinion, despite the efforts of the developers to achieve a real intelligent AI (which is only one aspect, albeit a very important one, of 3X or 4X games), GC2 may be the best strategic sci-fi game at this moment on the market, but it is neither the best ever produced, nor can I call it a successful one, to be honest.
Let’s hope in future upgrades; but I fear that only GC3 (if it will ever see the light) will have a chance to stand as the real successor of MOO2 and Pax Imperia.

A last thing: my humble apologies for every orthography or grammar error you may find. I’m Italian, after all.
11,217 views 11 replies
Reply #1 Top
And a special apology for all the GC2 convinced fans
Reply #2 Top
apology accepted though i think ur still were a little to harsh on stardock i mean MoO2 is over 10 or so yr old go back and play it im postitive that after comparing that with galciv2s ai like i have u will definently c which one is the better one (and it is definently not MoO2)
Reply #3 Top
The only important point i see here are the governors. They better be working to improve them. The anomolies are just a nice touch on the game that would be nice if they were more complex/ diverse. (the worm hole is more of an inconvience as it is)
Reply #4 Top
I agree on most things you said except that wormhole thingy. It could be more usefull but it's just a counter imo to the good stuff you can get. Sometimes you get little extra's and sometimes you get bugged by a ship being sent away. They can do something with it but it's ok.

Your second point is the one I concur most with. It would be cool if planets had different habitat-possibilities for different species like Pax. I don't know about programming but this can't be too hard is it? It would give the game more "realism" and more strategic options.
Reply #5 Top
Wow, nice essay!

So what is it you want improved upon exactly. I've read your post twice now and i think i'm with you now.

The resources are simplified version of governors/admirals from moo2, but in GC2 you can make them better in time.

I have to agree with you on the wormhole issue, sort of, i tend to avoid those ones and pick up others instead, if poss.
(are you a startrek voyager fan or something???)

I think you mean the race to build faster and stronger ships?? Its been done on earth for centuries so why not in space??

the terraforming side of things is a bit simple, what would you suggest as an alternative / addition?

50 planets, dude if you have 50 planets then you've won who cares what theyre focused on???

yes it is the best at the moment and no there is nothing really wrong with your spelling

aren't 'lists' great

By the way i'm a fan of gc2, but there is always room for imp.
Reply #6 Top
I agree on the habilability point. I'm not a fan of all non-homeworlds having the same growth rate and base population. the old MoO environment research meant that throughout the game, new planets were constantly becoming 'available', and the best planets for resources were often barely-inhabitable shitholes that needed serious work and millions of workers flown in.

UI points are always welcome, in my opinion. The civilisation manager should indeed allow you to set focus and such - ideally you'd be able to manage planets without leaving that screen except for tiles-placement.

However, I don't see the point in comparing different games. The OP even realises it: GC2 isn't a 4X game. It's not a MoO2-esque wargame, with everything else merely window dressing. It's different in concept and execution. If I read another 'lolz every space strategy game should be just like MoO2' post, I'm going to make a farcical 'MoO2 needs these GC2 features' post. Since GC2 has entire metagames that MoO2 lacks, that won't be hard... because... watch out... they're totally different games. Bar the spaceships.
Reply #7 Top
I don't see that as harsh at all, except for this game not being successful. Considering the budget and market for this game, it came out very, very well. I played the other classic space 4xs, but its been so long ago I can't really hold a solid opinion on it anymore. Bitter memories or nostalgia tend to get amplified over time.

I really agree with the planet habitation thing, that would make it very intresting, but at the same time very complexe and some people don't like that. Its simpilier to implement a unified standard and easier to play by. You know whats important and can have a very generalized strategy that is effective instead of having to remember what every race has a tendency to go for and come up with race specific strategies. Simple, less hard on the old gray matter. Also, honestly, if the life forms are at all like us (carbon based, need water, and a breathable atmosphere) the planetary requirements wouldn't be too terribly different, or at least it wouldn't be very hard to change things via terriforming.

Yes, I really want to see a better production govenors, though a generalized one would be a tad unwieldy. Something like a selection menu next the the planet on the colony menu would work nicely. Cycling through all the planets does get more than a little tedious when you have more than 20 or so planets.

I'm always for more interaction with minor races, exspecially when they come off there planets and decide to become a major player. I like the suggestion that they can join the UP after colonizing another planet. Really.... Need.... ESPINOGE ON THOSE BUGGERS!!!!

I've no problem with the fleet or ship managment, I mean if your upset at not being able to make "super stacks" of ships I can understand, but please elaborate on your displeasure. On a similar note, all games have bugs, exspecially when your dealing with BETA patches.... Still bugs me how many people don't realize what a beta is, but I digress. Some great games have nasty bugs, take Final Fantasy III for example, I had over 100 hrs of saved gameplay erased due to a bug. And really, the bugs I've encountered have not taken away from the game play at all and now that I finally got my drivers updated, I'm no longer having any graphical hiccups. If you have any serious problems, post the debug thingy in the support forum, elaborate on the problem and in one or maybe two patches the annoyance will go away. Please, and think about this really, really hard and try to come up with a game that didn't have bugs. Seriously, even on the much vaunted classic games, if you can find the old support forums I'm sure you'll find post complaining about bugs along the same lines as some here complain about them. Only real difference is, they didn't have anyhting to compare it to back then and nostalgia wasn't really an issue.

Edit: Evil grammar errors.

Reply #8 Top
Don't bring up bugs. He's a Pax fan - Pax was loaded with bugs. It's just the 'take all the good points from heaps of different games and demand to know why one game doesn't have them all' thing. His laughable 'if they make a GC3' thing, and his 'apology' mark him as a strange guy. Does he think we'll cry or get angry? Does he think GC2 is a financial failure?

I'm convinced Stardock is prepared to implement changes and support the game - things like adding options to the civ screen would be trivial to add, and they've shown a willingness and ability to get things done.
Reply #9 Top
totally agree on the point that you should be able to set focus in the planet overview
for the rest .... i think there are more important things to worry about - like that focus button
Reply #10 Top
GC2 may be the best strategic sci-fi game at this moment on the market, but it is neither the best ever produced, nor can I call it a successful one, to be honest.


How do you define that? People love the game. It's gotten great reviews. And it's selling like hot cakes. You make some interesting points but ruin your argument with that statement.


Reply #11 Top
Actually the random variations in growth rate and other factors would be a nice tough, and something I'd like to see included in an expansion. There are some good points in this post, though they aren't major ones to me.