GC II changed my life. This game is a low-quality mess.

from GalCiv3 Forums

First: I played an endless amount of GCII in high school and it distracted me from many problems and helped create interest in different fields for me. I took that interest and have worked to translate it into a career. Stardock is one of my favorite developers and I am proud to support and continue to support them. Accordingly, I bought a founder pack the day it was announced.

And I am so disappointed in this game. The core gameplay is strong, but it's strong because it is iterative. But that isn't enough, because if you are going to produce a sequel to a great game and only iterate on it, you need to include core features from the prior game.

Let's talk about things from GCII that GCIII does not have:

  • Espionage (even basic espionage as it appeared in Dread Lords)
  • Super Abilities (an expansion feature)
  • Heavily differentiated tech trees (also an expansion feature)
  • Outstanding AI (perhaps this is an opinion but I am terribly disappointed that the game has not lived up to the standards and promises set early in its development)

So three and a half out of four of these were features added by Dark Avatar and Twilight of the Arnor that built on Dread Lords' foundation. And GCIII doesn't have them. And that is not okay. I talked early about iteration, and what I'm observing is that GCIII iterates on Dread Lords: not DA or ToA. We're playing a new game that lacks major features that its predecessor (ToA is GCIII's predecessor, not Dread Lords). Why play it? What does it bring that's new?

Adjacency on the planet screen? Starbases that are marginally easier to manage? More complex combat that is still not interactive at all (something that was on the drawing table when the game was announced but never came to pass). An easier early game? Very marginal graphical improvements? None of these things are significant changes and none of them are worth the loss of the features I mentioned earlier.

Bigger maps? More opponents? Too bad this game's a dog, performance-wise.

We do have multiplayer but...there are 1500 people in-game and one lobby up in the multiplayer browser, so that's a big success.

We have a few new features, too.

An poorly designed UI that manages to obscure information and make the player work harder to manage their empire. I'll quote what I said in this thread (with some additions).

The UI is slow and lags when doing things like clearing notifications. Meanwhile, I have to click all of my ships to know where they are going. In GC II I could see their paths on the minimap and had highlighted spots on the main view to identify spots ships were heading, while telling me how long they would take to get there. Also worth mentioning is that there are still spots where text doesn't physically fit and the game continues to be filled with glaring spelling and grammar issues (just like GC II -- I guess some things never change). And let's say I want to move from shipyard to shipyard to change rally points. Nothing tells me, unless I move into the govern screen, which rallypoint a shipyard is set to. Indeed, if I move to select a rallypoint, the existing one isn't highlighted. 

If you look at your fleets, you'll see that the fleet management options have been incredibly limited. Some examples: there's no auto-retreat, and there's no upgrade-all command. The details window doesn't provide any additional information. Well...that's not entirely true. It tells me the crew size and the combined mass of the fleet. Very useful. This screen is a lost opportunity considering that the game has added a lot of additional functional customization options for ships.

Ships also auto-join fleets they share a hex with (this can't be turned off) and when ships arrive at a fleet, the fleet's prior commanders are overriden and you end up with more "idle ship buttons." If a basic fighter arrives to join a major fleet, the fleet should not to ask for new orders. A "go-to ship/fleet" command would be nice, too.

I try to tell my friends that Stardock is one of the best companies in gaming, but I'm really not seeing it. C'mon guys, do better. There's almost zero reason to play this over GCII with expansions.

58,016 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I find your post well thought out and articulated.  I as well have been a fan for quite some time.  Although I would not go so far as to say it is a mess your post does clearly show how much of a step back galciv3 is compared to galciv2 twilight, something I guess I overlooked or did not want to see. 

Having said that, I still have much hope, but in the last month it seems the focus has been on sorcerer king since it is at release time.  I can only hope that focus returns to making gc3 what it can and should be.

Oh, I am curious on your opinion if you felt the AI on GC2 twilight was as good, better or less than the AI in the GC2 Dread Lords?

 

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Some of the big things that are killing the game for me include linear population growth, poor balance across all player choices, caps on construction/research AKA 1 per turn, lack of utilization of mining resources, and the UI. As others have said, the UI is really bad. I have to search the map every turn for my ships. I lose track of them. If they have remaining moves I will lose them without notice. I haven't made it past mid game because the micromanagement becomes a chore, which is odd because I'm pretty deep into micromanagement, but this micromanagement isn't the tough decisions and strategy I'm use to, its just building constructors and remembering where to send them. I'm also a little dissappointed with ship combat, but still consider it an improvement over GC2, so that's acceptable.

Though, in defense of GC3, civ 4 & 5 were the exact same way at release. It seems to be the nature of these games. Hopefully mentioning what needs to be fixed will help them direct their work to the right places.

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting My, reply 1

I find your post well thought out and articulated.  I as well have been a fan for quite some time.  Although I would not go so far as to say it is a mess your post does clearly show how much of a step back galciv3 is compared to galciv2 twilight, something I guess I overlooked or did not want to see. 

Having said that, I still have much hope, but in the last month it seems the focus has been on sorcerer king since it is at release time.  I can only hope that focus returns to making gc3 what it can and should be.

Oh, I am curious on your opinion if you felt the AI on GC2 twilight was as good, better or less than the AI in the GC2 Dread Lords?

 
End of My's quote


It's been so long since I played Dread Lords that it's hard to say. I recall Twilight having issues with improvement placement and some other weird AI quirks, but it was still strong. From what I can see it's decent in GCIII but a lot of the expectations that were set have not yet been met.

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Misaniovent: Everything you stated in your post [and then some] are the same things that have kept me from purchasing this game.

For me to dish out that kind of money. there's got to be some kind of improvement over its predecessor. As of yet, I haven't seen it.

Perhaps in a year, after a number of patches and DLC, I'll revisit.

 

OK, Fanboys, here's your invite... pounce!

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I think its a great game. Lets talk games. Skyrim best game of 2011 was not as good as morrowind.

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I'm a bit of fanboy but I do understand your concerns and frustrations.  There are things that are missing and things that I wish were in GalCiv3 that GalCiv2 had.

 

That said, I don't dwell long on the short-term because what we are playing today will be much different, and more stable, years from now.  They have said many times this is a multi-year process.  I'm in it for the long haul.  There will be bumps along the way.  There will be setbacks.  But...this is Stardock.  This isn't some money-grab, re-release Call of Duty EA bullshit company model.  EA could learn something from studios like Stardock.

 

I remember GalCiv2 when it came out and it too was lacking in certain areas but it also improved on others.  But after many patches and two fine expansions they delivered a very fun, solid, and enduring product.  That will happen again but it will take time.  Bigger game, brand new engine, bigger concepts, bigger lots of things.

 

Game crashes? Had 'em.  Turn locks? Still get 'em.  Wacko display thing-a-majigs?  Still there sometimes.  Do I curse when the game freezes? Sometimes.  But the more you play, the more information Stardock receives to fix things.  I still think it's a damn fine game as-is...sure keeps me hitting the turn button because the Human Hive in my custom Alpha Centauri factions breed like rabbits so I have to...keep...pumping out ships...to fight them back...almost...every...freakin'...game!

 

And don't even get me started on the Spartans...

 

So, if you want to bail, that is your choice to do so.  Personally, I will stay, keep playing, and contribute in some small way to help Stardock craft a better game that you will come back to in the future.

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I've been saying this since the first 2 weeks, but they consider GCIII a remarkable success. I'm sure sales were great. But in terms of depth and features, it just is not where GCII was at all. Can it get there and be better sure, but one of the things you mentioned in you review making combat intractable would keep it interesting while they continued to improve the rest. 

They just don't want to hear it. They want to develop on the near side of the curve, Build something that is just 1% better than the competition and guaranteed to sell. 

They don't want to deliver an interactive combat system because it won't sell them more copies of the game than paying off gaming mags for positive reviews. 

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Stop playing the game for 6 months and come back.  

Reply #9 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting My, reply 1

I find your post well thought out and articulated.  I as well have been a fan for quite some time.  Although I would not go so far as to say it is a mess your post does clearly show how much of a step back galciv3 is compared to galciv2 twilight, something I guess I overlooked or did not want to see. 

Having said that, I still have much hope, but in the last month it seems the focus has been on sorcerer king since it is at release time.  I can only hope that focus returns to making gc3 what it can and should be.

End of My's quote

My concern is how much more we need to pay over these years to get the features that we're mentioned would be in the fi al version (it's already begun with the map editor dlc) 

 

I'm not opposed to paid dlc, but I'll be annoyed if stuff that's in GC2 is paid for dlc. New ideas like a UP leader victory condition and such then fine, but I am concerned that this will be an iterative bI sinesd model a la EA. 

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

To make GalCiv 3 future proof they had to invest a whole lot of money into the 64bit engine.

And with everthing on a budget they had the choice to make:

a ) cut features (and implement later)

b ) increase the price

 

You paid more for GalCiv2 + Expansion than for GalCiv3, so you get more features with GalCiv2.

Reply #11 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Heh well...

I was kinda disappointed in stardock for once. I'm used to getting great games from them, and let's be honest this game will probably be great in a few months. But as it is, I finished one game, made another and got fed up with micromanaging and UI issues. Less than a week of gameplay before getting bored, when I played months of sins of a solar empire non stop. To be honest I bought Sins last year so it was with multiple addons so it's not really comparable.

I kinda feel cheated, but I'll pick it up again in a few months and I hope (and I'm almost certain) it'll be better.

I'll go play galcv 2, luckily i didn't play it yet and I probably can get it cheap now. Besides, 4X stay good years after their releases.

Reply #12 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting P-DEX, reply 6

So, if you want to bail, that is your choice to do so.  Personally, I will stay, keep playing, and contribute in some small way to help Stardock craft a better game that you will come back to in the future.
End of P-DEX's quote

I'm not bailing but I'm not happy. A lot of people are commenting "come back later" but it is disheartening to hear that mentality here; that advice should never be given because the game should be better than it is.

Reply #13 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I also had some ugly things to say about the game after i bought it, and realised i had paid way too much money (I bought the hype lol).

Anyway, I WANT to like this game. There are some things that GC3 will probably never have that i so much wanted (3d galaxy map, tactical control of combat, etc) but I can live without those things in this game (guess i will be playing a lot more SotS and Sins). There is a LOT that GC3 is missing, but there certainly has been improvements to the interface, AI and stability going into 1.1.10. 

I noticed that the AI is MUCH better at building its planets for example, and even specializing its planets and it seems better at shipbuilding too, thought it still makes poor use of carriers.

At the moment, the game is hard work due to having to micro-manage the wrong things, and wade through multiple screens to accomplish simple stuff, and this detracts from the good parts. Still here though, and still playing.

Reply #14 from GalCiv3 Forums Top
Quoting Misaniovent, reply 12
Quoting P-DEX,
reply 6

So, if you want to bail, that is your choice to do so.  Personally, I will stay, keep playing, and contribute in some small way to help Stardock craft a better game that you will come back to in the future.



I'm not bailing but I'm not happy. A lot of people are commenting "come back later" but it is disheartening to hear that mentality here; that advice should never be given because the game should be better than it is.

End of Misaniovent's quote

 

That is what I was told by Frogboy too. I felt the same way you do. Like how is that the right attitude. Pay now but come back and play in 6 months. I don't think GCIII is a complete waste but I did and do take issue with the reviews as they are all pretty much B.S. and no question lack of depth is a major part of the frustration. The Micromanagement is one thing and I'd be totally willing to deal with that, it is a simulation of a galaxy after all, however the whole "simulation" is only an inch deep and it isn't exactly a mile wide either.

Reply #15 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Out of your 4 points I'm not sure I find any compelling.  How can you take 4 items, ignore all the other core items that did translate over, and declare the game as bad based on their ommission.

 

Espionage was never core game play and will be added shortly.

 

Super abilities have translated into the new game as race abilities.  You could argue that most aren't powerful and they don't affect game play as much.  Sure, quite true.  But they aren't ommitted.

 

Tech tree differentiation is 100% subjective and I'd argue that there is substantial differentiation in some of the tech trees.  I'd also argue that the mechanic of tech specializations adds a new layer.  Is it perfectly balanced?  No not really.  But it is present and definitely not ommitted.


The AI is a valid comment though difficult to "prove".  I think the fundamental approach is different and requires a lot more tweaking.   At this point though a lot of AI mod progress is being made and looks very hopeful.


I get the overall feeling of this being less polished then the previous version (in its final form mind you) but this game is well on its way to having far more capabilities than its predecessor.   I don't believe it lacks any core game play that GC2 did in any way.  What it lacks is polish and balance.  I don't see this as a reason to dispair.

Reply #16 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Goatmeal, reply 15

Out of your 4 points I'm not sure I find any compelling.  How can you take 4 items, ignore all the other core items that did translate over, and declare the game as bad based on their ommission.

 

Espionage was never core game play and will be added shortly.

 

Super abilities have translated into the new game as race abilities.  You could argue that most aren't powerful and they don't affect game play as much.  Sure, quite true.  But they aren't ommitted.

 

Tech tree differentiation is 100% subjective and I'd argue that there is substantial differentiation in some of the tech trees.  I'd also argue that the mechanic of tech specializations adds a new layer.  Is it perfectly balanced?  No not really.  But it is present and definitely not ommitted.




The AI is a valid comment though difficult to "prove".  I think the fundamental approach is different and requires a lot more tweaking.   At this point though a lot of AI mod progress is being made and looks very hopeful.




I get the overall feeling of this being less polished then the previous version (in its final form mind you) but this game is well on its way to having far more capabilities than its predecessor.   I don't believe it lacks any core game play that GC2 did in any way.  What it lacks is polish and balance.  I don't see this as a reason to dispair.
End of Goatmeal's quote

 

I agree with this excluding espionage. That was quite a key feature within GC2 (TotA anyway) as it let you keep a more personal eye on other races and allowed you to weigh up whether they were actually conquerable, rather than relying on an arbitrary 'Faction Power' number. 

 

Also, I'm not dissatisfied with the game as it stands. It's entertaining and I've already logged several hours in. My only concern with the wait and see approach is that I'm hoping core mechanics such as espionage don't become pay-walled by dlc. Dlc is fine as additional race packs or campaigns, and I can accpet that brand new mechanics such as more UP features or gameplay mechanics be included in expansions, but there are alot of features that I sorely miss from GC2 that I hope won't cost me £20 a pop

Reply #17 from GalCiv3 Forums Top


First: I played an endless amount of GCII in high school and it distracted me from many problems and helped create interest in different fields for me. I took that interest and have worked to translate it into a career. Stardock is one of my favorite developers and I am proud to support and continue to support them. Accordingly, I bought a founder pack the day it was announced.

And I am so disappointed in this game. The core gameplay is strong, but it's strong because it is iterative. But that isn't enough, because if you are going to produce a sequel to a great game and only iterate on it, you need to include core features from the prior game.

Let's talk about things from GCII that GCIII does not have:

 

    • Espionage (even basic espionage as it appeared in Dread Lords)

 

    • Super Abilities (an expansion feature)

 

    • Heavily differentiated tech trees (also an expansion feature)

 

    • Outstanding AI (perhaps this is an opinion but I am terribly disappointed that the game has not lived up to the standards and promises set early in its development)

 


So three and a half out of four of these were features added by Dark Avatar and Twilight of the Arnor that built on Dread Lords' foundation. And GCIII doesn't have them. And that is not okay. I talked early about iteration, and what I'm observing is that GCIII iterates on Dread Lords: not DA or ToA. We're playing a new game that lacks major features that its predecessor (ToA is GCIII's predecessor, not Dread Lords). Why play it? What does it bring that's new?

Adjacency on the planet screen? Starbases that are marginally easier to manage? More complex combat that is still not interactive at all (something that was on the drawing table when the game was announced but never came to pass). An easier early game? Very marginal graphical improvements? None of these things are significant changes and none of them are worth the loss of the features I mentioned earlier.

Bigger maps? More opponents? Too bad this game's a dog, performance-wise.

We do have multiplayer but...there are 1500 people in-game and one lobby up in the multiplayer browser, so that's a big success.

We have a few new features, too.

An poorly designed UI that manages to obscure information and make the player work harder to manage their empire. I'll quote what I said in this thread (with some additions).

The UI is slow and lags when doing things like clearing notifications. Meanwhile, I have to click all of my ships to know where they are going. In GC II I could see their paths on the minimap and had highlighted spots on the main view to identify spots ships were heading, while telling me how long they would take to get there. Also worth mentioning is that there are still spots where text doesn't physically fit and the game continues to be filled with glaring spelling and grammar issues (just like GC II -- I guess some things never change). And let's say I want to move from shipyard to shipyard to change rally points. Nothing tells me, unless I move into the govern screen, which rallypoint a shipyard is set to. Indeed, if I move to select a rallypoint, the existing one isn't highlighted. 

If you look at your fleets, you'll see that the fleet management options have been incredibly limited. Some examples: there's no auto-retreat, and there's no upgrade-all command. The details window doesn't provide any additional information. Well...that's not entirely true. It tells me the crew size and the combined mass of the fleet. Very useful. This screen is a lost opportunity considering that the game has added a lot of additional functional customization options for ships.

Ships also auto-join fleets they share a hex with (this can't be turned off) and when ships arrive at a fleet, the fleet's prior commanders are overriden and you end up with more "idle ship buttons." If a basic fighter arrives to join a major fleet, the fleet should not to ask for new orders. A "go-to ship/fleet" command would be nice, too.

I try to tell my friends that Stardock is one of the best companies in gaming, but I'm really not seeing it. C'mon guys, do better. There's almost zero reason to play this over GCII with expansions.

End of quote

 

All of what you say is very true and personally i could take that on chin as the game will get better with time.

What has me livid though is that the game is an unstable piece of crap. I must of played at least a couple of dozen games now and every sodding one gets to a certain point and then no more, the game keeps crashing. Effectively killing the game off and all the hours i put in are gone up in smoke and i have to start again.

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #18 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

And I am so disappointed in this game. The core gameplay is strong, but it's strong because it is iterative. But that isn't enough, because if you are going to produce a sequel to a great game and only iterate on it, you need to include core features from the prior game.

End of quote

This is the problem with having a small team. They can't just "grow" the games bigger with a sequel. From what it looks they've done a good job getting the sandbox done, and all the content you could ever want will come out in DLC's and expansions, if you don't try modding it yourself. I get that you are disappointed when comparing it to GC2, but that took years and two expansions no? This game has been out what? Half a year with open access. 

I think you are expecting something different, that you probably would be getting from the big gaming studios, they "frontload" tons of content and reap quick rewards. SD seems to create a game and develop it with the community more, until it's a great product, but not necessarily a good one right away, which makes sense given their small team. Take a break, let modders and the SD employees work a bit, and this game should be much better when you get back.

What has me livid though is that the game is an unstable piece of crap. I must of played at least a couple of dozen games now and every sodding one gets to a certain point and then no more, the game keeps crashing. Effectively killing the game off and all the hours i put in are gone up in smoke and i have to start again.

End of quote

Isn't that the memory issue? Too much stuff to handle, then bam. You really need to sort that out with tech support, nothing ruins a game experience like crashes. I had some at the early patches, but some tweaking with my comps memory settings and patch updates have fixed them.

Reply #19 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting sjaminei, reply 18

Isn't that the memory issue? Too much stuff to handle, then bam. You really need to sort that out with tech support, nothing ruins a game experience like crashes. I had some at the early patches, but some tweaking with my comps memory settings and patch updates have fixed them.
End of sjaminei's quote

 

I have 24gigs of ddr3 PC3-12800 with the page file set to 40 gig in windows 7 ultimate which is installed on separate SSD.

Reply #20 from GalCiv3 Forums Top
Quoting 18Zulukiller, reply 17
Quoting ,
quoting post

First: I played an endless amount of GCII in high school and it distracted me from many problems and helped create interest in different fields for me. I took that interest and have worked to translate it into a career. Stardock is one of my favorite developers and I am proud to support and continue to support them. Accordingly, I bought a founder pack the day it was announced.

And I am so disappointed in this game. The core gameplay is strong, but it's strong because it is iterative. But that isn't enough, because if you are going to produce a sequel to a great game and only iterate on it, you need to include core features from the prior game.

Let's talk about things from GCII that GCIII does not have:



 



      • Espionage (even basic espionage as it appeared in Dread Lords)



 



      • Super Abilities (an expansion feature)



 



      • Heavily differentiated tech trees (also an expansion feature)



 



      • Outstanding AI (perhaps this is an opinion but I am terribly disappointed that the game has not lived up to the standards and promises set early in its development)



 


So three and a half out of four of these were features added by Dark Avatar and Twilight of the Arnor that built on Dread Lords' foundation. And GCIII doesn't have them. And that is not okay. I talked early about iteration, and what I'm observing is that GCIII iterates on Dread Lords: not DA or ToA. We're playing a new game that lacks major features that its predecessor (ToA is GCIII's predecessor, not Dread Lords). Why play it? What does it bring that's new?

Adjacency on the planet screen? Starbases that are marginally easier to manage? More complex combat that is still not interactive at all (something that was on the drawing table when the game was announced but never came to pass). An easier early game? Very marginal graphical improvements? None of these things are significant changes and none of them are worth the loss of the features I mentioned earlier.

Bigger maps? More opponents? Too bad this game's a dog, performance-wise.

We do have multiplayer but...there are 1500 people in-game and one lobby up in the multiplayer browser, so that's a big success.

We have a few new features, too.

An poorly designed UI that manages to obscure information and make the player work harder to manage their empire. I'll quote what I said in this thread (with some additions).

The UI is slow and lags when doing things like clearing notifications. Meanwhile, I have to click all of my ships to know where they are going. In GC II I could see their paths on the minimap and had highlighted spots on the main view to identify spots ships were heading, while telling me how long they would take to get there. Also worth mentioning is that there are still spots where text doesn't physically fit and the game continues to be filled with glaring spelling and grammar issues (just like GC II -- I guess some things never change). And let's say I want to move from shipyard to shipyard to change rally points. Nothing tells me, unless I move into the govern screen, which rallypoint a shipyard is set to. Indeed, if I move to select a rallypoint, the existing one isn't highlighted. 

If you look at your fleets, you'll see that the fleet management options have been incredibly limited. Some examples: there's no auto-retreat, and there's no upgrade-all command. The details window doesn't provide any additional information. Well...that's not entirely true. It tells me the crew size and the combined mass of the fleet. Very useful. This screen is a lost opportunity considering that the game has added a lot of additional functional customization options for ships.

Ships also auto-join fleets they share a hex with (this can't be turned off) and when ships arrive at a fleet, the fleet's prior commanders are overriden and you end up with more "idle ship buttons." If a basic fighter arrives to join a major fleet, the fleet should not to ask for new orders. A "go-to ship/fleet" command would be nice, too.

I try to tell my friends that Stardock is one of the best companies in gaming, but I'm really not seeing it. C'mon guys, do better. There's almost zero reason to play this over GCII with expansions.



 

All of what you say is very true and personally i could take that on chin as the game will get better with time.

What has me livid though is that the game is an unstable piece of crap. I must of played at least a couple of dozen games now and every sodding one gets to a certain point and then no more, the game keeps crashing. Effectively killing the game off and all the hours i put in are gone up in smoke and i have to start again.

 

 

 

 

 

End of 18Zulukiller's quote

 

Uhhhh have you tried playing the latest build? Prepare to be asked that.

Reply #21 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting KD7BCH, reply 20
Uhhhh have you tried playing the latest build? Prepare to be asked that.
End of KD7BCH's quote

 

Yep I'm playing on the latest build. 

Reply #22 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting sjaminei, reply 18


This is the problem with having a small team. They can't just "grow" the games bigger with a sequel. From what it looks they've done a good job getting the sandbox done, and all the content you could ever want will come out in DLC's and expansions, if you don't try modding it yourself. I get that you are disappointed when comparing it to GC2, but that took years and two expansions no? This game has been out what? Half a year with open access. 

I think you are expecting something different, that you probably would be getting from the big gaming studios, they "frontload" tons of content and reap quick rewards. SD seems to create a game and develop it with the community more, until it's a great product, but not necessarily a good one right away, which makes sense given their small team. Take a break, let modders and the SD employees work a bit, and this game should be much better when you get back.


End of sjaminei's quote

 

Everything you say is fair. I'm sure eventually I'll get my money's worth; I already paid for all the expansions. But how do I convince a friend to buy this? By telling them that once multiple expansions have been released it'll have more content than GCII? That's a really hard argument to make.