Answering the Critics

[SafeKeeper]

"The amount of units do not add depth, just complexity, to cover up the dumbed-down economic model, the mediocre and crude combat engine, and the lack of 'city buildings'."

I could just as easily accuse Civ 4 of "covering up the mediocre and crude units" with

And as was stated, if a Civilizations player came over to me and whined about Dominions' battle system, I'd snicker, shake my head, and walk away. Far away.

Dominions's battle system looks easy. But once you start getting magic-casting units, combined arms, et cetera, it becomes so infinitely deep that it's a joke.

They're partially right, the economics is very simple and city building is non-existant. Although, one trend I've noticed lately among RTS games is to get rid of the complicated resource management and micromanagement of peasants because it's not fun, so...

It depends on what you want. You like a focus on city-building? Play Victoria or Sim City or Civilizations. Want action and battle? Play Ground Control (highly recommended).

What's the difference between 'depth' and 'complexity' of a game in their view anyway? Without knowing that, you cannot answer them!

Indeed.

No to mention the fact that in the Civ games, a single primitive spearman can destroy a battleship or an aircraft carrier. That kind destroys any semblance of credibility for the game, imo.

Less of that in the last game. But boy, what a horrific feature.

I still think that all reviewers and news posters should pass IQ and anti-drug tests before they are allowed to post.

That would be really, really nice. I've read so many idiotic reviews that it's not even funny anymore.