Galciv2: Dark Avatar gets a 9.0 in IGN

[Renegade 13]

Raapys said:
I don't see SE as a very suitable game for multiplayer, really. PBW simply doesn't appeal to most (younger?) players since you get a limited number of turns to play each day...

I'm with Fyron on this one; I believe it's a question of temperment, rather than age (as with many things). I began playing SEIV at about age 15 or 16, and started playing multiplayer shortly after. Much more fun when interacting with real people, and the number of turns per day really didn't factor into it. Fewer turns was actually kind of nice, having school to attend

AAshbery76 said:
I have seen no evidence of cheating in GC2, it's usually weak players who make these claims.

You are entitled to that opinion, as I'm entitled to my opinion that you're an ***.

You do not and can not know the reasons behind my belief that it cheats; therefore your statement is utterly meaningless, yet insulting at the same time.

[Raapys]

Well, whether you disagree or not about how well-suited it is for multiplayer, the point still stands: PBW doesn't appeal to most players( I am not disputing the fact that it's tons more fun to play against human players ).

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say somewhere around 95% of the player base will never touch PBW( usually, only the minority of players even partake or visit the forums ), making it largly a single-player game.

[Combat Wombat]

Also you can get in like 10 PBW games so your playing new turns all the time.

[Azselendor]

Raapys, I think you're really mistaken about the PBW. It's creation is what fuels a lot of play in SE. Most people who use the PBW, play multiple games at the same time.

Plus don't make a 95% statistic without first conducting an online poll

[Raapys]

I didn't exactly make a 95% statistic: I said, if I were to venture a guess.

I'm not sure what you mean by me being mistaken about PBW. Do you suggest that I am wrong about how many people are playing it?

If that is the case, and while there's always the possibility that I am gravely mistaken, remember that though a part of the players on the forums are going to be playing PBW, the biggest part of all non-multiplayer-only games' player bases are casual players who will most probably never visit the forums, let alone find out what and where PBW is, register, and then start playing it.

Thus I consider SE primarily a single-player game, whereas I'd consider a game such as Half-life and its mods more of a multiplayer game. In SE only the 'hardcore' players, like us here on the forums, are going to consider PBW, while in Half-life everyone and their cat can press the 'multiplayer' option, join a game and have fun.

That's how I see it, anyway. It's not like I have documented facts to back it up, so let's just agree to disagree on this very off-topic subject.

[raynor]

I bought Gal Civ I and played it several times. The AI was very, very challenging. But I didn't like the combat. I also didn't like that you set spending rates for ALL your planets at the same time. I also didn't like how the game radically changed with each new version to provide a better challenge for the folks playing on the highest difficulties. I began to feel like Gal Civ was primarly about the really tough AI to the expense of all else.

I thought about buying Gal Civ II several times and even more so when the expansion came out. But then I remembered the dry gameplay compared to SEV. So, I decided to pass. Then, I played a little SEV. But I had forgotten how horrible the UI is. So, I think I'm going to browse some websites for MOO 3 patches and give that game another shot. (Just kidding!) Seriously, I'm looking for a Shrapnel Game to spend money on. I'm gonna give Dominions 3 a try and wait another three months for more SEV bug fixes.