THEY DISSED US!

someone on that forum were whinning about the intelligence of the AI for SE V, and this was one of their customers. Another customer told that person to basically unless he knows how to code, he should bascially be quite. The person who made the correction stated that AI in SE V is not a strong suit of the developer, even though the game in itself is fun. Anyways, SE 5 is so different from Galciv 2 in a sense, the two really can't be compared. Both have strengths and weakness and both games are fun to play.

Hey, hey, hey. Calm down.

No need to get into a fight with those who don't any better. Becoming a troll isn't going to solve any problems. If anything, making a flame post on their site is going to convince them that not only does galciv 2 AI sucks, but that its also played by immature kids, and that the AI was made to entertain such kids.

(Opinion begins here)

SEV is great if you like playing with a spreadsheets. But, hey, there are some guys out there who like that. I think they are a bit of a niche, though. So GalCiv simply may not be their cup of tea. No game will ever be all things to all people.

I find GalCiv2 to be a perfect balance...not too complex but never a cakewalk either. It oozes with that "just one more turn" factor...the mark of the best 4X games.

Crap, I must suck at SE:V. I play it on GameTap occasionally.

Personally, I find GalCiv's demo to be easier and more entertaining than SE:V. Though, I did play Space Fury, the SE:V action-RPG equivalent, and it's pretty good.

someone on there said that playing galciv2 is like masturbating, but then afterwards, you feel ashamed that you played it. That is just rude and offensive. because we would never make such comments about SE 5, regardless if it is on par or not with galciv 2.

Here is the quote: "ive said this before but ill add it again.

my opinion of this "awsome" AI is this. it looks so awsome because its as the expence of depth of game play for humans. you dont really have any choices on how to build an empire since the game is built around making things as simple as possable for the AI that means you have one basic template that if you dont follow yourself the AI wins.

my point being, if you could drop that AI into a game like SE V, it would be drooling as much as the stock AI drools now. the GS AI looks good because of limited choices. they did a good job hiding it behind things like the ship designer, an inch deep and a mile wide. you can spend literaly hours getting the look of your ship just right, but the meat of the design just inst there, the silly rocks, scissors, paper, combat is about as exciting as watching paper yellow."

i will say though that GS II is like masturbating, its fun while you do it but your ashamed after words. "

the links is http://www.spaceempires5.com/en-US/node/2681

Nah, common misconception. Actually, you don't need spreadsheets to play SE5. Since SE5 AI rivals MoO3 AI in stupidity and inactivity, you can't possibly lose if you make at least a few basic things (like expanding fast, making a lot of a trade agreements etc.). After that, you just slowly conquer AIs and win. In reality, SE5 is much easier than GalCiv 2 because there is no opposition in SE5.


Well, i looked at SE5 AI code and it totally blows. Like, at the very start of the game it has a 50 chance to make a colony ship or, say, a mine - that's with a huge mineral sulprus. That also means that AI doesn't try to manage economy at all, even MoO3 AI was better in that regard. Of course AI sucks. It wasn't designed to play good at all.

However, he is right that GalCiv was designed to be simple so AI can play it better.

Meh.

SEV won't run on my computer, or rather, only with severe graphical glitches that I can fix by switching to SW mode. That of course slows that game to a ludicrous 3 FPS.

Sent in several bug reports, one after each patch. Didn't receive any response and the forums tips for dealing with the problem were basically 'tough luck'.

I actually liked SEIV and with proper mods SEV could be interesting as well. In multiplayer, mind you. However, to everyone who complains about Dominions GUI, please, have a go at Space Empires V. Dominions looks like a masterpiece in UI design in comparison.

PC Gamer did a nice section called "History Repeats Itself" (Apr 2008, p. 8) where someone wrote in about how "bad" Crysis is and that Half-Life 2 is so much better. They mentioned the game had a bland storyline, lack of originality, etc, etc... Of course, the next part of the article flashes back to 2005 and displays another letter written by another reader about how "bad" Half-Life 2 is. That reader wrote pretty much the same thing.

Moral of the story:

No matter how good your favorite game is, there is always someone out there who hates your game with a passion. (And for no apparent reason.) They will say whatever they can to get a rise out of you and probably use the word "sucks" a lot. The best thing to do is read it and get over it. The only thing that is important is that you like the game and other people that are playing it. If a game truly does "suck" I want some good proof as to why the game is bad.

My opinion:

Galciv II

Pros:
-More polished product
-Better Gfx
-Much Better AI

Cons:
No multiplayer(mp means much for me)
-Not so complex as it seems at first glance.
-No tactical combat,or even a single tactical decision in combat(for example: target priority,fleet fire distribution etc.)
-The ship customization it's just minimal except for an eye-candy point of view.

SE:V

Pros:

-Multiplayer!
-Extremely more modable than Galciv(very important)
-Much much more complex combat,tactical decisions,components,component functions,units,custom starbases,units,weapon platforms and overwhelming number of options for them!
-Tactical Ground battles.
-Better tech tree(a technology can have many different type of requirements and as many of them you want in modding).
-Many more diplomacy options.


Cons:

-AI it's a joke.
-UI can puzzle unexperienced players.
-No spaceship looks customization.
-Games,especially multiplayer ones, tend to last months,years,milleniums(good and bad)

The worst thing about SE 5 is the turn times. With only 5 empires, after about 100 turns, you can be looking at several minute turn times.

all i have to say to sethpenguin is.....GROW UP!!!!

-Dave

to say that the the AI in galciv 2 is better than SE 5 due to the fact that in Galciv 2, the AI only makes limiting choice where as the AI in SE 5 can not be as good as Galciv 2 because SE 5's AI have to make more in choices per turn is just a silly comparison and argument all together. Take a look at computer chess, an AI in computer chess has very limiting choice because that is the rule of the game, but it took a long time before the computer chess AI evolving to its current state. It took many iterations of various chess engines in order for us to have Deep Blue.

In SE 5, they can make a better AI, if Aaron has better resources and the company size is bigger. Hence people should be playing it for reasons other than AI. And to say that SE 5's AI can't be compare to Galciv 2 AI due to complexity of choices, well...they don't have to look far to look else where for another comparison. Civ 4 has extremely robust AI, and the choices are equally numerours compare to SE 5. So i don't know what people over there are whinning about.

And as far as moddability goes, well...Galciv 2 is going to be as moddable as SE 5 in less than 2 weeks.

With enough micro-management on your hands, you can have a turn time in GCII upto about 3 hours. I know I once spent that much on a single turn(spread out over 4 days though).



Ooook, that was uncalled for. :NOTSURE:



That too, actually.

silly comparison?,my opinion(as a computer programmer)

first of all you haven't considered that there is breadth in processing a situation and trying to get an optimal answer,that means in chess you may have a limited breadth of thinking,but an ENORMOUS depth of it.You have to anticipate opponent moves and compute the consequences of your moves for many turns to be a succesful player.On the other hand breadth of thinking can be also important,imagine playing GO that is even more complex than chess(much more) there you have many more options(plus the depth),so many that there is no success into AI even winning casual club players,and if you design one then you get 1.000.000$(for real),so breadth can be equally important to depth,and SEV surely has much more options compared to GC2.That is no to say that SEV has a good AI though .

I concur. It's the simple complexity of the game that is so fun.

m3nt0ras, if your argument is true, then i have a question for SE 5 developer Aaron, why make SE 5 so complex if the AI can't be make robust. He will probably admit that he wishes the player to have more options, even though the AI is weak compare to Galciv 2. Then that is a design choice. It is not a fault of Galciv 2's developer for having a lack of depth or Aaron's choice for having more depth but end up with a weak AI. There is one thing that Galciv 2 does right in terms of simplicity, it has a right balance of abstraction and simplification. Look at MoO 3, everyone was whinnng about the extreme hands off approach. Galciv 2 is not a complete hands off approach, but it really alleviates micro management nightmares.

Also, i dont' think you can judge Galciv 2's AI being good or bad solely on the length and depth of choices. It should be look at on the whole, given all the options available per turn for Galciv 2's AI, does it do a good job with them. Does it make choices that challenges the players way of thinking and playing style. Judge a game on its own terms.

I once had a conversation with someone who loves both Poker and Chess equally, I ask is chess more or less complex than poker, my friend said, you can't make such comparison, in chess, everything is fair, in poker, there are deception involved. Given that, it doesn't mean one game is more enjoyable or less compare to the other. They are just different.

For SE 5, if the AI don't do well with complexity of choices, people can resort to multiplayer.

Your arguments about the games are right,my intentions was only to highlight the importance of complexity in space in comparison to complexity in time.GC2 it's a great game and i love it,so it's SEV5 in it's own terms

have a good time.

Sethpenguin, it would accomplish nothing to "diss them". You'd get nothing much out of it, make some people angry, and would also be wasting time you could be playing or talking about GalCiv, or doing something else fun. As for SE-V itself, I have no knowledge of the game, but I am one of the strange people that likes fiddling with spreadsheets.

Sentient species taste better...