starcraft?!?!? we need more tbs reviewers

[MarkG]

http://www.strategyinformer.com/reviews/galciv-review.shtml

Personally, I like turn based games at the beginning but as things get really big they start to look too much like work.
....
f this appeals to you and you like detailed and long campaigns, I can tell you that this game will not disappoint. If you played Civilization and are looking for a somewhat narrower space version, I think you will like this game. But for anyone out there looking for the next Starcraft don’t set yourself up for disappointment and give it a pass.

dude, if you dont like tbs games, do everyone a favor and do NOT review them!

[Nirvana_CN]

I posted about this on galciv too..i mean..sheesh how clueless is he..reading that review he really was trying to play it like a RTS game, now personally RTS are my favourite games..but they are so removed from TBS that they aren't even comparable!

[playshogi]

This guy was clueless, but his score is probably accurate. Once I got the hang of how to build and equip starbases, it's not a problem defeating the AI even on intelligent. The AI does not know how to deploy starbases to 1) extend its range in the early game 2) magnify its power in the middle game. All it knows how to do with starbases is grab resources -- otherwise it lets tons of constructors float around the galaxy doing nothing.

[vee4473]

Perhaps he was just giving the Starcraft comparison to those casual surfers who might not be as familiar with TBS games as we are.

who knows

[Draginol]

You think the score was fair?

Did you look at how they rate other games?

Things have to be put into perspective. I'd be interested in knowing what strategy games AI GalCiv's should aspire to.

Since we made the Starcraft add "StarCraft:Retribution" I can tell you a lot about Starcraft's AI for instance - it basically doesn't exist. It's all triggers and scripts.

That doesn't mean Starcraft's a bad game of course, it's one of my favorites. But saying that the AI in galCiv is essentially mediocre because it doesn't use star bases as well as a human seems a bit of a stretch IMO.

[Nirvana_CN]

Yea the AI deserved better, but he seems pretty unknowledgable about this Genre, he probably didnt realise what he was dealing with.

Looking at the User score its currently at 8.5 compared to his 7.2

Im sure we all take more notice of the user reviews than the reviewer's.

[playshogi]

I think it should be easy to "teach" the AI that if there are no habitable planets in adjacent sectors it should either 1) establish a starbase to extend its range 2) settle a class 14 planet (and build Soil Enrichment, pronto). But it does neither, though it has constructors galore. Of course, it WILL do that if it finds a resource, but if its beaten to it all the mutithreading and thinking while the player is thinking is useless. Two AI in my game were essentially confined to 1 sector the whole game. To say that "... the AI in galCiv is essentially mediocre because it doesn't use star bases as well as a human..." is to suggest that the AI knows something about starbases-- and that's a stretch.

[Romanus]

Draginol,
I recently purchased GalCiv(at EB), and I will gladly testify to the fact that the AI is top notch. I am a veteran and still a fan of the RTS genre, but the RTS AI in most...hell, all games I have played is generally weak. I think that it would really be hard to make a decent AI in a RTS because there is so much instantaneous action....the read and react abilities required are hard enough for a human playing against another human, but to expect a computer to hang in....I dont think we are at that point. Some games seem to just produce units like mad and throw them at you, like Empire Earth....good way to counter human strategy, but not a true thinking, competing AI.

I play TBS almost exclusively now, mainly because I do feel the AI is actually trying to beat me. Civ3, and GalCiv are a cut above, and even much maligned MOO3 is starting to give me some good games after the data patch.

Im not concerned with the GalCiv AI because its something I see you guys taking seriously. I truly feel that GalCiv is pretty much on par with Civ3, very polished and definately fun. The bags under my bloodshot eyes will attest to the fact I get no real sleep.

[Draginol]

Originally posted by playshogi
I think it should be easy to "teach" the AI that if there are no habitable planets in adjacent sectors it should either 1) establish a starbase to extend its range 2) settle a class 14 planet (and build Soil Enrichment, pronto). But it does neither, though it has constructors galore. Of course, it WILL do that if it finds a resource, but if its beaten to it all the mutithreading and thinking while the player is thinking is useless. Two AI in my game were essentially confined to 1 sector the whole game. To say that "... the AI in galCiv is essentially mediocre because it doesn't use star bases as well as a human..." is to suggest that the AI knows something about starbases-- and that's a stretch.

Okay I'll bite.

By your own ommission the AI knows how to use star bases. Not only does it capture resources but it intelligently upgrades its starbses.

Secondly, the Arceans do build star bases across their trade routes.

I'll ask again - what AI should GalCiv be taking its lead from? If GalCiv's is mediocre, then you should have no problem listing off dozens of games with better AI.

[Alex]

I didn't play GalCiv yet, but, judging from what other players are posting in this forum, the said reviewer did not understand the game. Which may well be the case, considering his "Starcraft" remark.

[Harry Seldon]

I can't think of a better AI I've played against. They recognize the massive build up, massive attack strategy I like to use when I feel I'm hopelessly outclassed. I tried it in one game and watched my relations drop from friendly to hostile and was threatened two turns before my invasion to watch my step. It's funny that he was actually building up a force right outside my sensor range and when I launched my assault he swept out of the darkness like a coriolis storm and massacred me.

If anyone's got something better than that, I want to play it.

[MarkG]

They recognize the massive build up

i loved it when i got the "we see that you are building up forces on sector 2,2" for the first time

[playshogi]

Draginol, I never said GC AI was worse or bad. It is just that many claim "great AI" or "top-notch" AI. However, I don't see any better or worse than MOO1, MOO2, CIV2 or CIV3 which are the only TBS games I've played. It irks me that the GC AI is claimed to be plotting strategy while I'm thinking, but can't find a way to escape its beginning sector even though it has constructors roaming the galaxy. Finally, as my single dreadnaught approached its single planet, I noticed that it had ringed said planet with 5 unimproved starbases. Wouldn't it have been better to have 1 starbase with 4 upgrades?
I also said the AI knows how to plant a starbase on resources, as far as upgrading them, I have not observed that any were upgraded in my game, let alone intelligently upgraded.

[Draginol]

Well I'm sure you must be at the top of the Metaverse then.

Try playing the game on larger sized galaxies and I think you'll see the difference. As for GalCiv AI vs. MOO 1 or 2, well, I dont' think there's really any point in discussing it.

MOO 1, a great game, didn't actually have "AI" in terms of what most people think of it. It didn't actually play the same game as human players did.

The reviewer, who you said you agreed with, found the AI too hard. You claim it's easy. I found one game for you on th emetaverse which you did win at a reasonably high level on a small sized galaxy. On small, starting conditions trump tactics most of the time.

[Draginol]

BTW, the point is, they rated the AI worse than pretty much any strategy game they have reviewed.

One thing that is very obnoxious about the gaming media, which is in stark contrast with the commercial software media is that the webzines, at least many of them, are woefully amateur. That is, each review that many of them do is completely independent from every other review they're previously done.

Ratings should be relative to other games in the genre. If Civ 3, for instance, is a 9, then how can GalCiv's be a 7?

Games should not be compared to some theoretical ideal. They should be compared to other games that have been previewed.

They had reviewed Civ 3, so they had a benchmark to go by. In each category they could figure out whether the game was better or worse in those categories and then decide by how much.

This is one of the complaints many people have about the gaming media -- and it is (in the software industyr anyway) a problem with the gaming media specifically. Smaller titles don't get the benefit of the doubt. Civ 3, for instance (a game I really enjoyed) got a 9 on graphics from that site. Ask yourself this, if Civ 3 had been called "Land conquest" or something, do you think it would have gotten a 9 on graphics? or a 10 on value?

Look at Civ 3's ratings:
Graphics 9
Sound: 8
Stability: 9
Gamplay: 10
AI: 9
Value 10

Now look at GalCiv's ratings:
Graphics: 6
Sound: 7
Stability: 9
Gameplay: 7
AI: 7
Value: 7

Now, one can look at the GalCiv ratings and (as I would agree in a vacuum) "Well, graphics in galciv are so-so, sound is so-so, AI might be a bit low but overall, not too unfair.."

But to be fair, they need to be compared with other games so that there is a context. How can Civ 3 get a 10 on value but GalCiv a 7? What is the justification? We're doing a year's worth of free updates. How can Civ 3 get a 9 on AI while GalCiv a 7. Or heck, even graphics, GalCiv's graphics are what I would rate a 6 but not in a world where Civ 3's are a 9.

It ultimately doesn't matter. StrategyInformer is about as popular as my personal blog page. But it illustrates a problem that spans out into the gaming media in general (other than a few pretty well known exceptions). If you're a big name game, you get a lot of slack.

It shows that even webzines, that are definitely not corrupt or anything (i.e. I don't think they give puff ball reviews to the big named titles because they're bribed, I think they just fall into the hype like many consumers do).

Remember Black & White? Guess what it got from StrategyInformer: 9.5.

Value: 10/10. Given that you couldn't actually finish the shipping game out of the box due to the creature cruse bug, this is very telling.