 |
|  |
 |
|
Eric S
|
|
Las Vegas, NV
Jan 2002 time: 21:26
|
|
I agree that GalCiv isn't the MoO 2.5 that a lot of people have been wanting. There's no tactical combat at all, no ship design, and (currently) a depressing lack of variety of ships. There's a few other areas where GalCiv is simpler than MoO3, such as different races having a different idea of a habitable planet. Simpler isn't better or worse than complex, just different, and different people will have different preference.
For example, GalCiv allows new ship designs to be added, but I'm not sure that it's flexible enough to pull off what I'd like to see, where ship X is better than ship Y at attacking ship A, but Y is better than X at attacking ship B. Just about every major SF setting has some type of missle (even Trek has photon torpedoes), and in some, missiles are the major type of weapon. One ship might have stronger shields (better defensive rating all around), but another might have strong point defense (doubles it's defensive rating against missile-attack ships). From my reading, GalCiv doesn't have this kind of depth, but that's understandable since it isn't a combat simulator. Or maybe an escort ship that doubles the defensive rating of any ship in the same fleet when attacked by a missle attack ship. Maybe a different type of escort designed to defend against fighters. Nothing that throws out the current combat system, just makes fleet composition more interesting.
However, I'll be judging it according to how I like it, rather than how much it fits my preconceived ideas of what it should be. For the record, except for the PD bug and passive AI, I like MoO3, though I do think it could be better.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
swordsman1612
|
|
I must admit that the fact that GalCiv doesn't have multiplayer is what caught my eye. I'm really tired of games that push multiplayer so much that they leave a lackluster single player experience for those of us that don't have the time or patience to deal with multiplayer. NWN, Mechwarrior 4, MOO3 were like this... too simple, too short, too boring... soulless in a word.
No tactical combat doesn't bother me that much: CIV2 and SMAC didn't have tactical combat like MOO2 and it didn't hurt the gameplay experience.
But I'll wait for gamer's reviews from the game... I don't think anyone else wants another MOO3.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ray K
|
|
Allen, TX
Nov 1999 time: 23:26
|
|
The lack of multiplayer is a plus. The primary reason for the MP push in the industry for TBS games is because the AIs have historically been so lame.
With a very good AI, MP is unnecessary. Here's to hoping that GalCiv pulls it off.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|