I think "pretty awful" is harsh. (I'm not saying
you shouldn't think that or express your thoughts here, by the way - I'm just disagreeing with you)
Quote:
cjx said:
The depth of strategies in GalCiv2 boils down to which overpowered strat do you want to cheese the computer with. If you're satisfied bumbling around in the dark and never trying to understand the game you're playing and never actually formulating a strategy, GalCiv2 is for you. If you've played and liked Dom2 (MoO2) you'll be disappointed.
|
Winning SP by applying cheeze strats most certainly applies to dom2 (see SC's recent post advocating summoning all the blood uniques - we all know full well that the AI can't handle that). As for Moo2, the AI's "intelligence" consisted entirely of giving the computer overwhelming resource advantages.
Sure I'd love MP galciv2 (if they could implement it so that the game actually moved along at a decent pace). But for SP, comparing gc2 to dom2, it is a lot easier to have fun by choosing to
not use cheeze strats in gc2. Even the civ4 forums are full of ideas on ways to make victory all but certain on most of the difficulty levels. Maybe that makes me a "bumbler", but I really cannot think of any SP TBS games (discounting chess, etc) that cannot be beat by exploiting AI weaknesses.
Yes, I prefer MP TBS games for that reason (but very very few other than dom2 implement MP in a way that fits my schedule). So I won't knock gc2 just because it has not fully overcome that inherent weakness of SP strategy games.
Finally, while you may or may not like Brad Wardell and his style, I find it refreshing that he is putting himself right out front - not just in the stardock forums, either. He regularly answers questions in places like OO and QT3 as well.