Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by wuxbustah8 Can anyone recommend Galactic Civ? I've played a lot of Civilization, but have never played any of the space games. I already have Sins of a Solar Empire: Trinity. Should I stick with what I have?

Depends on the kind of strategy gaming you prefer. SoaSE is a really slow-paced RTS and GalCiv is a more traditional TBS. If you like the Civ series and its gameplay, GalCiv is probably a more natural fit for you. I played it a bit several years ago and I personally (and this is just me) was never comfortable with the fact that I didn't have a clear sense of what other players were doing while I was slowly building up colony worlds and researching and building ships.

If you remember MOO then you'll know pretty much what GalCiv is. I LOVED Stardock back then (some of their later stuff was Garbage). There used to be some awesome GalCiv mods as well. You could have Babylon 5 ships or Star Wars or Star Trek.

SoaSE was a completely different type game. Not at all the same.

Originally Posted by wuxbustah8 People like you are the reason that my wishlist never seems to go down.....

I apologize lol

Originally Posted by yangwenli Gal Civ II got great reviews, but I didn't like how the combat is very simplistic (just a comparison mash of numbers). I suppose that's similar to most Civ games, but I still couldn't get into it since the empire building portion isn't as deep I don't think. I didn't play it that much however so maybe I didn't pass the hump of enjoyment. If you like tactical combat similar to Age of Wonders: SM, then it's a miss in that area. You can design your own ships though a bit.

Originally Posted by warreni Depends on the kind of strategy gaming you prefer. SoaSE is a really slow-paced RTS and GalCiv is a more traditional TBS. If you like the Civ series and its gameplay, GalCiv is probably a more natural fit for you. I played it a bit several years ago and I personally (and this is just me) was never comfortable with the fact that I didn't have a clear sense of what other players were doing while I was slowly building up colony worlds and researching and building ships.

Originally Posted by IkedaTeramusa If you remember MOO then you'll know pretty much what GalCiv is. I LOVED Stardock back then (some of their later stuff was Garbage). There used to be some awesome GalCiv mods as well. You could have Babylon 5 ships or Star Wars or Star Trek. SoaSE was a completely different type game. Not at all the same.

Thanks. I think I'm gonna hold off for a bit.

re: RPGs should be more story focused and be on task vs giving you freedom and letting you wander.

It's an old, old argument and in my opinion both sides are correct but what we're really looking at is two distinct subgenres within the RPG genre and each may be appealing to some people and not to others.

In my opinion it's very difficlt to tell a good story and give the player lots and lots of freedom and be good about keeping them on task and not getting to distracted. When you put more emphasis in one area, the other seems to suffer a bit.

Way back in the early 90s, when there was like 12 people on the internet, this exact debate went on over Ultima 7. Now that game is my favorite game ever to this day, but there were people who criticized it for being too open and not knowing what to do etc.

Origin (the defunct software company, not the client software) took that criticism to heart because Ultima 7 part II was much more story focused and linear and you pretty much always knew what you needed to do next but I still think they did an excellent job with that game too.

Then they let EA buy them out and meddle and proceed for flush their entire franchise down the toilet.

TL;DR: Sandbox and Story RPGs are two different types, both will have fans and non-fans.

Originally Posted by Motoki there were people who criticized it for being too open and not knowing what to do etc.

My best friend hates The Elder Scrolls and Bethesda era Fallout titles for just that reason. He can't figure out what he's supposed to be doing, so he gets frustrated and quits playing. I always enjoyed that aspect of both games, especially Fallout. I loved going through the burned out cities hunting for books and bobbleheads.

It's an argument no one can win, cause preference is gonna preference.


Edit: Come to think of it, you could skip like the first third of the main quest line in Fallout 3 if you stumbled across the correct vault. I skipped over three dog entirely because I found Rivet City while exploring for bobbleheads. I thought that was pretty awesome.

Originally Posted by Motoki TL;DR: Sandbox and Story RPGs are two different types, both will have fans and non-fans.

Agreed, which is why I won't lay into the Elder Scrolls for what they are. While that kind of game would have been attractive to me in my younger days (and Morrowind was the only game that was up to snuff in those days), nowadays I want a stronger story in my RPGs.

Originally Posted by Broken Cage My best friend hates The Elder Scrolls and Bethesda era Fallout titles for just that reason. He can't figure out what he's supposed to be doing, so he gets frustrated and quits playing. I always enjoyed that aspect of both games, especially Fallout. I loved going through the burned out cities hunting for books and bobbleheads. It's an argument no one can win, cause preference is gonna preference.

I remember conversations like this in 1992

Guy on the Internet: I got Ultima 7. I went and talked to Lord British. Now what? What do I do?

Me: Anything. Whatever you want. That's the point of the game

Guy on the Internet:

You're right. It's an old debate that's not ever going to go away because some people just need more structure and those open games won't ever be their cup of tea.

That said, if you were good about keeping yourself on task I thought Morrowind's main story was excellent. You did a lot of digging into some key historical events in that land and got multiple view points that conflicted and were left to interpret for yourself what was right and wrong, truth and fiction.

Oblivion's story was a lot more meh to me.

Skyrim's, uh, let me get back to you on that one. I still keep getting distracted.

Originally Posted by warreni Clearly I'm in the minority (again), but this is why I hated Oblivion and why I have very mixed feelings about firing up Skyrim. In the old days of cRPGs (and even pencil-and-paper for that matter), the games were designed not too be too open and that's what I'm comfortable with. I think people tend to forget that storytelling is kind-of the point of these games. If you were playing a game of AD&D with a few friends (or random strangers at a con) and the DM was running a particular module (or even a story out of his own imagination), do you think he would allow you to wander off to another continent and start fannying about? I don't mind open worlds in action games or to a much lesser extent in RPGs, but RPGs and adventure games are very much story-driven and they should be. If I want to wander around a landscape and pick flowers or mine for copper, I'll go play an MMO.

I sort of agree with this, or at least see where you are coming from. But I'd say the biggest reason why a DM wouldn't let you run around collecting butterflies or try to climb the highest mountain is because it'd be boring for the other players or disappointing for the DM that you don't care enough to enter his minotaur temple. In a game like Oblivion or Skyrim, you're just playing for yourself and I don't think anyone at Bethesda will have hurt feelings so it's not quite the same.

All of my Bethesda open-world experiences are me starting the main quest, going off to explore for a bit and eventually saying "Well, let's wrap this up" and plowing through the main story before finishing. The worlds are vast but sort of the same thing over and over and none of the randomly discovered locations independently feel like they have any resolution -- just another random crypt with stock generic bad guys and a barrel of potatoes at the end (or an office building with raiders and irradiated dried noodles).

Originally Posted by Broken Cage My best friend hates The Elder Scrolls and Bethesda era Fallout titles for just that reason. He can't figure out what he's supposed to be doing, so he gets frustrated and quits playing. I always enjoyed that aspect of both games, especially Fallout. I loved going through the burned out cities hunting for books and bobbleheads. It's an argument no one can win, cause preference is gonna preference. Edit: Come to think of it, you could skip like the first third of the main quest line in Fallout 3 if you stumbled across the correct vault. I skipped over three dog entirely because I found Rivet City while exploring for bobbleheads. I thought that was pretty awesome.

You know, I actually enjoyed Fallout:New Vegas quite a bit, even though it was only marginally less buggy than its predecessor. I only rarely had moments where I felt that I just didn't know where to go or what to do.

Originally Posted by Motoki Skyrim's, uh, let me get back to you on that one. I still keep getting distracted.

Is this your subtle way of telling me that I will get aggravated by Skyrim, ragequit, and uninstall after 3-4 hours?

For anyone on the fence about GalCiv read this and be on the fence no longer,
http://www.computerandvideogames.com...ary-days-1-26/ and this http://www.computerandvideogames.com...t-final-entry/

On the fence about Retro City, but going to put that on the bundle/summer sale wait list with Mark of the Ninja.

Originally Posted by warreni Is this your subtle way of telling me that I will get aggravated by Skyrim, ragequit, and uninstall after 3-4 hours?

Probably.

Originally Posted by Mighty Tor On the fence about Retro City, but going to put that on the bundle/summer sale wait list with Mark of the Ninja.

$7.50 on sale is nuts for Retro City Rampage. It looks like mindless 8 bit NES fun for a few minutes but I'm not paying that much for that raggedy little game. It should be $10 retail and 75% off @ $2.50 on sale in my (apparently not so humble) opinion.

Anyway both games will probably be in a bundle at some point.

Definitely wait on Retro City Rampage - it's a $5 game at best IMO. It's more or less a Family Guy episode ramped up x1000 focused on as many 80s references to movies and NES games as possible. Enjoyable in that respect, but not actually that great a game, sadly.

Games like Fallout and ES are as linear as you want them to be. The main quest line isn't hidden away to be discovered, so if you want a linear experience stick to that. Now, the main story itself may leave something to be desired, but if you just want that linear experience that's what you get. The side stuff is really the meat to those games, helping flesh out the world and assist in immersion.

Man, Tropico 4 barely won the community choice. While I'm happy that it won the majority vote for 39%, to see ANNO 2070 at 34% (with SimCity 4 dead last at 27%) has me worried... who votes for these things anyway?

Originally Posted by imac2much Man, Tropico 4 barely won the community choice. While I'm happy that it won the majority vote for 39%, to see ANNO 2070 at 34% (with SimCity 4 dead last at 27%) has me worried... who votes for these things anyway?

Be thankful. The voting has been pretty stupid all week.

FWIW If anyone is wondering most of that Tropico DLC with the exception of the Modern Times expansion is pretty meh and doesn't really add much to the game at all.

Finally got in on a decent flash sale for Dead Rising 2 Complete for $9.99 which is exactly the price I wanted to pay. I'm happy with that.

Woke up just in time to get in on the DR2 complete pack.

Well whadya know, Tropico actually won - it's a Festivus miracle.