Man, it's just not there.

[Fyron]

Atrocities said:
The game dynamics are very different between IV and V.

Really? How so? They seem, I dunno, virtually identical to me. Sure interface and rendering elements are different, but the core gameplay is more or less the same in both games. There is far less difference (in terms of gameplay mechanics) than there was between SE3 and SE4.

[Atrocities]

Imperator Fyron said:

Really? How so? They seem, I dunno, virtually identical to me. Sure interface and rendering elements are different, but the core gameplay is more or less the same in both games. There is far less difference (in terms of gameplay mechanics) than there was between SE3 and SE4.

I guess the best way for me to put it would be to say that the finer subtleties between the two games is significant enough to support my statement that the pattern of growth, change, and development in the feel of "game play" between the two games is valid. Sure they are very close in game play but there are slight differences between them that manifest themselves in a way that makes the dynamics of game play of the the two games different. This is illustrated by the appeal that most people have demonstrate toward SE IV in preference over SE V.

When asked why some players prefer SE IV over SE V, most cannot specifically tell you why they like the one over the other. Hence my comment about the subtle differences in the dynamics of game play. These minute difference are prominent enough to affect people and their choice to play one game over the other time and again.

Simply put, SE V doesn't have what many gamers want. Sad but true.

Fixed misspelling of subtleties

[Fyron]

I dunno, everyone always seems to complain about the UI and clickiness, almost never actual gameplay issues.

[Atrocities]

Imperator Fyron said:
I dunno, everyone always seems to complain about the UI and clickiness, almost never actual gameplay issues.

You misunderstand, I am not saying people are complaining about game play issues. I fail to see where you formed that opinion from. Nevertheless, let me be clear, it is not the game play that people are complaining about. The game play is different and that is all that most people are saying. I believe many people have tried to explain that they simply do not enjoy playing SE V for various reason, least of which are these undefinable subtleties in game play. Now to say that you don't know why you don't enjoy playing SE V isn't the same as saying playing SE V is bad. There is a difference between not saying that you are not enjoying something, and complaining about it.

[javaslinger]

Solubilities???

A quick search of dictionary.com to make sure I know what that word means reveals that I have absolutely no idea how that word makes any sense in the context that you've used it...

I would say you might want to find another word to describe the 'best' way you want to put it...

Javaslinger

Atrocities said:

I guess the best way for me to put it would be to say that the finer solubilities between the two games is significant enough to support my statement that the pattern of growth, change, and development in the feel of "game play" between the two games is valid. Sure they are very close in game play but there are slight differences between them that manifest themselves in a way that makes the dynamics of game play of the the two games different. This is illustrated by the appeal that most people have demonstrate toward SE IV in preference over SE V.

When asked why some players prefer SE IV over SE V, most cannot specifically tell you why they like the one over the other. Hence my comment about the subtle differences in the dynamics of game play. These minute difference are prominent enough to affect people and their choice to play one game over the other time and again.

Simply put, SE V doesn't have what many gamers want. Sad but true.

[Atrocities]

Stop making fun of me! (one misspelled word and its open season on the atrocitinator.)

[PvK]

I liked SE3 retreats pretty well, too.

I liked SE3 overall a whole lot, too. There are still some fun things about it that never reappeared in SE4 or SE5.

I'm still waiting for SE5 to evolve into something I want to (mod and then) play. I still have patience and some hope, though, remembering that I wasn't really satisfied with SE4 until it got to the Gold edition.

[marhawkman]

Yeah I did like that method of Retreat too. It actually made sense.

[Atrocities]

Fight for the Stars

You get one planet, a huge infrastructure establishment and as your tech grows you get better technology. No colonizing other planets. You have to conquer them. With your infrastructure working at peek performance you can have a huge fleet of 1,000's of ships.

[Kana]

Atrocities said:
Fight for the Stars

You get one planet, a huge infrastructure establishment and as your tech grows you get better technology. No colonizing other planets. You have to conquer them. With your infrastructure working at peek performance you can have a huge fleet of 1,000's of ships.

Huh?

There was a risk style SEIV PBW game that was alot of fun, you would basically get a limited choice of ship types (3). You could build one per system, one planet per system, and then the combat would basically kill 1 ship per hit. It was a quick but wild game, especially if you throw in alittle bit of diplomacy.

Of course the Junkyard SEIV PBW game was also fun. You could only get tech by finding it on planets, so you would have a mish-mash of tech to build your ships with, and fight against the other players. You could have a butch frigate go up against a pretty paper-thin wuss of a baseship depending on what tech you were lucky to find.