Yikes! I just read through that entire Avault thread... hot stuff!

The changes to the review are up -- he added a bunch to the "intelligence and difficulty" section and upped the score for that section (but didn't change the final score). I very much doubt Brad will be very happy with the changes... The reviewer is demonstrating the same sort of double-talk he did the in thread, at one point describing the AI as "astounding" but at most other points arguing, pretty much as he did before, that the AI has an "unfair advantage" over the player...

Oh please. His addendum is a whine. First he falsely claims it was cheating, now he complains about a "stacked deck." Apparently he doesn't like challenging AIs.

He can go and play MOO3 and get a dumb AI if he wants. No skin off GalCiv's teeth.

From the sounds of things it seems the AI took lessons in trading from the Civ3 AI. If the AI is more inclined to trade amongst themselves, moreso then they ever would with the player its something worth complaining about. Though this may not be the case it would explain alot of things people have seen, where the AI can pull off some interesting things that seem like cheating through use of trades.

His 'corrections' to the intelligence and difficulty section were pathetic. I'm completely disgusted with Rich Leader as a reviewer.. what an egotistial twad.

He went on to blather how it is a complex AI.. but it isn't a *good* AI. What a jerk *sigh*.. I think he is just pi$$y because the game kicked his butt.

It is ironic. There has only been one other review I didn't agree with in all the reviews I've read on Avault, because typically, I love the reviews there. Divine Divinity only got a 3.5 (surprise), and at the same, I thought it should easily have been 4 or 4.5.. the game was FUN! And some of the comments were off.

Last night out of curiosity I went to see who did that review.. thinking 'no way'. But yup.. Rich Leader did that review as well. I am not surprised at all. He IMO, is a poor reviewer. He bashed his own credibility with his inane review, his trying to avoid the issue in the forums, and then with his even worse 'correction'.

Ah well.. what can one do. Spread the good word in the Avault forum about what a wonderful game this is.

fleabitfox

It's the problem when you're relying on post-teen volunteers to do your reviews. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

I have the saved game, I conquered the galaxy in less than 8 game years. Mostly with the Corvette he found and transports. We're not talking complexity here.

~SDC~

BTW, it was pretty telling that not a single player agreed with his review on the forum. GalCiv's #4 on Amazon.com, if the game had the AI problems the reviewer described, he would have had no problem finding people who shared his view.

~SDC~

Dont worry too much Brad, of the 6 or 7 gaming sites i regulary vist, cal civ is getting rave reviews, comments, most are having new gal civ forums set up and created.

PS because of me 5 guys at my workplace now own the game..can we talk commision here?

~SDC~

I've added my own post for GalCiv on the Avault forum, since I think those that visit the site (that might wander in the forum) should get another viewpoint, since the reviewers is obviously skewed to the negative for his own reasons (i.e. he sucks, and doesn't like it).

Make sure to post there, let 'em know what you think people! The game rocks.. spread the good word. LOL

fleabitfox

Good job Brad. It's nice to see such convictions from a developer. Not only were you able to pursue this particular issue but also your dedication to updating the game is beyond excellent. Thanks for a job well done.

BTW, of the two individuals involved, Brad and the reviewer, I think it is quite clear who will still have a job once the smog lifts from this ordeal.

That's such a funny image to me... Brad picking up where the Reviewer left off and finishing his game for him. Brad, you oughta email him your final save of that rout.

~SDC~

This is just sad, can noone accept that the reviwer just didn't like the game in the end? I thought you wanted a "Tom Chick" review Brad, accepting good and bad crticism of the game. Now I can understand with the suggestion that it was cheating intially, that the only way to see that it wasn't was by a debugger should tell us something. If theres very little feedback for the player theres not much explanation for something like that happening.

But besides for the suggestion of cheating which has been cleared up, the review is well written and valid. You all seem to focus on this one accusation and ignore the rest. He never claimed the example he showed where he thought the AI cheated made him lose. He never said he lost most games because of the AI. Really, read through it again before insulting the guy for being a "just a post-teen volunteer".

Since everyone seems to focus on the AI part of the review lets look at it. He explains how the AIs numerous trades and deals could seem like cheating. The AI seems to be much more open to lots of trades among itself, more then the player could probably get. As for this not being noticed by players, it took a debugger to find it for that save, how are players going to know all that dealing just went on normally?

He goes on to state some problems with the AI including: It ignoring lower class planets that could be improved with social structures. While I think its been said they cost more they'll provide more influence/population/range for you and give you an advantage over the AI. After that he goes on to say how easy(note, that says easy, not HARD) it is to out expand the AI, unlike in other 4x games.

The lack of being able to tell whats going on, the willingness for the AI to trade often amongst itself, their ignorning lower-class planets as ways to boost ship range/influence are reasons the AI gets a 3.5 i'm guessing.

Really, how did everyone deduce the AI was wiping the floor with him every game when he lists problems that made the AI EASIER? Read through it without viewing it as an attack on the game, but a review from a different angle. He goes on to compliment StarDock on their support at the end of the review as being an equally hard reason NOT to recommend the game. Its a most positive review he just didn't end up liking the game in the end.

As for there being noone agreeing with the review or speaking out against portions of the game.. Anyone who does is called a troll, told to go back to MoO3, and is accused of having been beaten by the AI easily. Just yesterday someone who suggested improving combat got mocked in reply by Brad, rather then any real response. Yes the combat he was suggesting wasn't wanted by the majority and had been stated that they were taking a simpler approach, but could he have known all that? Even more, is that the right way to treat a customer?

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Sigh. The problem with the review is one of errors and ommissions.

Tell me Abe, do you even have the game?

You simply cannot lie about something when it affects someone’s livelihood. There are laws against that sort of thing.

Besides for what intially looked like cheating that was corrected, what glaring errors and ommisions are there in the review? Please, point them out because i'm having trouble finding fault with the review besides for the intial bit that got corrected. And have you nothing else to say about what I said?

Also, no, I don't have the game yet i'm waiting for the demo to try it so I can decided to buy it. I don't see what that has to do with anything here though, my post was just on the review and how badly it was being mis-interpreted. If anythings turned me away from GalCiv it hasn't been a review, its been the insults given in response to reviewers and even to fans who disagree with something in game.

You are joking, right? It was a postive review? What review sites do you normally frequent? If I read this comment:

"Unfortunately, out of the box, it is hard to recommend due to its own failings"

... there is NO way I could twist it to make it seem like it was a 'positive' review. A positive review does not at the end of it, recommend against purchasing a game.

I had more problems with this review than his own personal feelings toward the game. As a gamebuyer reading a review, I expect it will be professional and ACCURATE.

"The AI seems to follow the house rules of blackjack as well: never colonizing a planet rated under sixteen or seventeen"

Wrong. The AI most certainly does colonize class 15 and 16 planets as well. Kind of sad when a 'professional' review has blatant innacuracies. How can you trust a review when the reviewer gets very BASIC information wrong?

"For all of the complexity of the interactions behind the above example, the end result was the Yor going deep into debt for two units they did not particularly need."

Wrong again. How does he know if the Yor did not particularly need constructors? When I found an economic resource close to my starting planet (almost right next to it in fact), I indeed cranked up my military, and eschewed getting techs or social improvements just so I could crank out two constructors and nab and upgrade it, since I was going for a cultural win, and wanted to rely heavy on trading, and needed more economy.

His 'updated' AI section was bitter. He clearly was dead set on making it sound like a poor AI, not matter what. And it is not. With so many difficult settings, I've been challanged to the level I like in EVERY game.

As far as the person recommending adding combat, his tone was far from friendly. Go back and read his responses again. And not having tactical combat has NOTHING to do with taking a simplier approach, if you think this, you don't understand the game *shrug*. Instead of focusing on tactical combat (which you have to admit, when playing MOO2, SEIV etc, you 99% of the time KNOW the outcome of the battle before it starts), they focused on logistics, strategy and diplomacy. Very cool, IMO. Ship design often annoys me (ala the obsolete ship issue with MOO3.. senseless).

Avault is a well respected site, IMO. I have always loved their reviews! If I had read that review prior to purchasing GalCiv, I probably would NOT have bought it! And I would have missed out on one of the most fun, addicting and clever 4x flavor of tbs games in a long while.

This is also not the first time that Rich Leader has made a review I thought was rather poor. I didn't know who the reviewer was at the time, but I thought the Divine Divinity review was poor when I read it, since the game was a blast. I had to look.. and sure enough, same reviewer. What a great surprise. :notsure:

People are upset because the review started off badly (plain wrong information), got bitter after the 'correction', STILL has inaccuracies (new ones), and doesn't make very much sense. He acts as if he likes the game.. but he can't recommend it. Wonderful.

I still love Avault.. their reviews are the best in the biz, bar none in my opinion. But I am not impressed with this reviewer. I've gamed 18+ years.. I know a fun game when I play it. And a balanced game.. and a challanging game. And this is all of the above. So yes, I for one and very preturbed. Instead of making it his personal vendetta to prove the AI is 'no good', perhaps he should have taken a more professional approach.

fleabitfox

Brad:

As I wrote over there, all it takes is a few minutes of reflection to ask: "Now, if the AI isn't cheating, how can it possibly get so many colony ships so fast?"

Duh!!! Leases. Etc.

Your AI is astouding. Let this pathetic review fall to the wayside. As they say in advertising: There's no such thing as bad press.

The fact is, you made them admit they were wrong. Their double talk after the fact is egg on their faces alone.

P.S. Looking forward to the stand-alone .exe patch because the tribute bug is really ruining my game on 'Crippling' level. Fact is there that having to pay tributes on that level is almost a certainty! LOL Note: This is not a criticism of the game. I've been enjoying it more than any strategy game in recent memory.

Abe, since you don't have the game, how can you argue that the review was fair?

The issues with his review aren't a matter of semantics or subtlety. It's a matter of glaring basic factual errors.

I'll give one example since you brought it up:
He complained that the AI is able to trade amongst itself better than the human. This is completely untrue. As anyone who has played the game a bit could tell you (and look at the posts here) you can trade ships, techs, etc. with minor races and major races for ongoing money.

His demand that there be some sort of pop up dialog or something informing HIM when the AI did a trade is absurd. No other strategy game does that and it would be completely unrealistic (and obnoxious).

His whole review is full of this kind of stuff. Basic basic game play that he completely misrepresents. He even misrepresented my email. The Torians didn't built a sensor buoy. Their survey ship found it. They gave the Yor the sensor buoy to help them against "human aggression" because it's all they had available. The Torians, being good guys, were trying to be helpful to a civilization at need at the start. The Yor sold the sensor buoy to another race.

The above scenario can, and does happen for humans. Any Galciv player can tell you that when you're losing a war, a computer player will regularly come in and give you ships and other things to aid you. It doesn't take very many games to do this.

And like I said, this is just one example. His whole review is full of that kind of double talk and mischaracterization. At one point he talks about the game being too hard on normal and at other times talks how easy it was. Which is it?

If someone claimed that Warcraft III did't have a 3D engine and that its multiplayer was barely functional, they would get reemed too. This isn't a case of "well, both sides have some good points.." Sometimes, one party is right and the other one is wrong. Completley wrong. This is one of those cases.

~SDC~

One final note about why it was building constructors:

What else should it have built? This was in the first couple minutes of the game. It could built colony ships, constructors, or scouts. The reviewer had managed to find a corvette and playing on a tiny galaxy (another issue is that he pretty obviously didn't try the game on anything beyond smaller maps) having a corvette allowed him to attack the AI vigorously before the AI could build anything beyond the default ships.

So what should the AI have built instead? Scouts? Building constructors was its best hope to survive at that point and it did. And it's hard to understand how it building or not building of a given unit on a particular game on a particular map should affect the scoring of the AI so drastically.

That's what's really absurd -- the idea that one particular game and action by one of 6 AI engines could make the difference between a 2 star AI score and a 3.5 star AI score. It just shows how ridiculous the whole review was.

~SDC~

If you're going to quote something, it'd be good to include at least the rest of the sentence.

"As a result of its timing, Galactic Civilizations is in the rare position of being able to capitalize on the failings of Master of Orion 3. Unfortunately, out of the box, it is hard to recommend due to its own failings — although it is equally hard not to be optimistic about its potential given both current and future patches, as Stardock has a strong record of staying committed to their projects. Those who are seeking immediate gratification or a sequel to the far more militaristic Master of Orion 2 should look elsewhere. Ultimately, Galactic Civilizations is an extremely approachable game that has a strong foundation for those who are willing to stick with it for the long haul, despite the fact that it tends to wear a bit thin at present due to the vagaries of its random events and a difficulty level that tends to be too easy or too hard, with very little middle ground for experienced players."

Doesn't sound like hes damning the game, it has some problems for him but thinks the patches already out and future ones to come will alleviate this.

Sixteen and seventeen, thats one or two numbers away from the lowes they'll go. Also given that on larger maps the AI will have built social improvements upping PQ so that there aren't any 15 class planets looking to be owned by them its not hard to think that. Is the AI not colonizing anything below 15 in the manual, or was it just posted somewhere here on the forum?

From what I understand the Yors very homeworld was being threatened, so a couple of constructors wouldn't really have helped them. Now a player might be able to persuade the AI the leave them alone and recover fromt hat intial setback, so constructors might be a good strategy. But do you think a human will let an AI recover from that? They'd have had more luck trying to expand or focusing on military to stop further blockades.

And yes i'll admit he did start off rude with his suggestion. Had he just looked around more he probably would have found earlier threads with similar results and just not posted. But he was new to it and felt it to be important, he didn't go about in the best way but getting mocked by one of the games creators shouldn't really be happening.

I can understand people being upset over the cheating, but that was corrected. And the PQ issue is minor at best. This doesn't explain how everyone figured the AI was creaming him. It seems like hes sort of torn more then anything else. The game has some good features, but then theres things he doesn't like. In the end it is still given a pretty positive result. I don't think he went on to prove the AI was horrible either, it was just his problems with it.

And a bit OT but on Divine Divinity it got kinda old, a refreshing change from all the Diablo clones but it could have used more quests/openendedness and it soon got too easy.

"Sixteen and seventeen, thats one or two numbers away from the lowes they'll go. Also given that on larger maps the AI will have built social improvements upping PQ so that there aren't any 15 class planets looking to be owned by them its not hard to think that. Is the AI not colonizing anything below 15 in the manual, or was it just posted somewhere here on the forum?"

So if he is off by a # or two.. no biggie? um.. no. I expect if a review is going to be professional, it is going to be ACCURATE if nothing else. The only systems the AI won't actively inhabit are those of quality 14 and lower, since they incur such a large penalty. It says no where in the manual, the faq, or anywhere else that this is the case. Not that this reviewer would have read the manual, OR visited the website. If had visited the website, he would have known as we did that this game was going to focus on creating NON cheating AI's, and he wouldn't have screwed it up in the first place.

Look, I recommend (if you like the genre) getting this game, and then deciding for yourself. His review is full of innacuracies and a very poor view of what this game is supposed to be. It is like he hadn't heard of GalCiv until the moment it hit his desk, and he loaded it and played it for the afternoon, and wrote his review. THAT is what it seems like to me after reading it.

I've gamed for frickin' ever.. I can tell you this game deserved a better review than it got, simply because it is a better game than he makes it out to be. This to me, is much more addicting and fun than Civ, Civ II, or Alpha Centuari, not to mention a host of other games not in the genre. It is an excellent, engrossing, addicting game.

If you get the game, and play out a few games, I think you'll see what I am others are saying. His review simply doesn't wash. I am ok with him saying 'graphics are on par with this genre.. nothing special'. This is true, and this is fine in the game, I have no issues with graphics. But when he completely trashes what is the strongest point in the game, the AI, it is infuriating. And no, I don't think he played the game very long, nor that he did very well at it. Playing a harder, much more well defined AI would probably explain his shoddy overall review, and how he probably got his rear handed to him, and was upset about it. I doubt he won a game. LOL

I do agree Divine Divinty btw, got to easy.. but it was still a blast. And there were a TON of side quests, if you looked for them all. Unforunately, you can only play once really. I just didn't like the review. I read it and thought 'geeze.. what a cruddy review, it is wrong about some things, and it really should be rated a bit higher'. That is the only reason I looked last night to see who wrote it. LOL

fleabitfox

I have to pay to have my thoughts heard? I've been following the game a good while now and reading the forums, I lack a large amount of direct experience with the game this is true. But I don't see how that invalidates my arguement, unless i'm totally wrong on some things here.

Yes, players have the same wide range of trades available. But would the AI accept as many? Where it takes the human time to think up trades act on them, then get the AI to accept them the AI does it in no time. If its doing deals like this every couple turns it could be annoying. He also never demanded a pop-up informing him of trades, he just said it was hard to get any clear picture of what was going on.

Okay, so the AI found the sensor buoy not built it, so about being a small galaxy doesn't matter. They give it to the Yor to help them stop human aggression, and since sensor buoys aren't exactly Battleships they sell it so they can buy...constructors. Two constructors at that, taking them into debt. Wouldn't trying to colonize more planets have been useful, or were all worlds colonized?

And just what could they have done with those constructors? Given that they just went into debt from making them they probably couldn't have added onto it again quickly so thats _one_ module to improve things. Not a huge effect really, it'd take them awhile to build up one starting out disadvantaged early on that would seriously help them I thought.

Those are both minor issues though, wheres all the glaring errors and him saying he lost all the time that everyone seemed to get? If you've got more problems post them, since theres so many and glaring it shouldn't be hard to round up a few good ones. As for being sometimes too hard and sometimes too easy, i'm guessing thats random events coupled with the tech trading exploits that got patched, or the Yor seeming to cripple themselves further after the ceasefire like shown.

I'll agree you're right this is a one-sided arguement, but its kind of hard to even find fans going against it when the devs themselves are leading the charge against a reveiwer that didn't like the game in the end.

Abe: Yes, that is what I am saying. If you don't have the game, if you haven't actually played it, you are not qualified to comment on how the game plays.

Similarly, if someone hasn't ever actually driven a car, I don't expect them to comment how well a given car drives.

You have on the one side, a very solid consensus that this guy blew it on his review by people who have played the game. Can you find even ONE person who has played the game who agrees with him? And I'm not talking just here, I'm talking on Usenet, other forums, etc. Even on Quarter to Three, which is where a lot of other reviewers hang out, the consensus is, this guy's review was extremely unreasonable.

The problem isn't his opinion. The problem is in the facts. I've already said in my other post the analogy of a Warcraft III review that claimed the multiplayer didn't work and that it had 2D graphics. If a reviewer made that claim, would you be on there saying that the reviewer is entitled to their opinion too?

He's entitled to his own opinion. He's not entitled to his own facts.

~SDC~

Abe: The biggest problem that I see with the review's evaluation of the AI and gameplay is not what's in the review, but what gets omitted from it. The review seems to focus on the constructor issue, but ignores the major elements of gameplay that clearly are impressive. It's like describing Jennifer Lopez's appearance by saying she has a crooked eyelash and therefore is mediocre. Or saying Dan Marino was a mediocre quarterback because he fumbled once in a critical game. It just doesn't do the subject justice.

Just to mention a couple of things, the reviewer doesn't mention the ebb and flow of alliances, how computer opponents will come to your rescue when you're in trouble, how the AI will rip apart your trade routes with hit and run tactics when you're at war. There are dozens more examples that I could give where the AI makes you shake your head and say, "Wow!" I think when you get a chance to play the demo, you'll see why it's easy to take the review as poor. It leaves out sooooo much, that you get a distinct sense that the reviewer didn't play the game much at all. And the omissions that result from that, more than anything, makes it a poor review in my mind.

No, you should pay for the game because it is fun to play!! LOL

As far as 'stacking the deck'.. cheating.. whatever, it doesn't matter IMO. As a game player, that stuff should be invisible to me. All that matters is: Is it challanging at higher levels.. is it easier at lower levels.. and is it fun? The answer to both is yes, so all his moaning is moot. The point of a game is to have fun.. not worry about how the AI got this or did that. If it is a fun challange, that is all that matters in the end, IMO. He seems to have missed this point, I think.

I am not going to go through the review paragraph by paragraph and point out where I think he was wrong, misled, or innaccurate. There are many places I disagree with what he said. And as I said, you would have to play the game to see what I am talking about. It is not worth the time and effort (at least to me) to prove this guy did what was in my opinion, a shoddy review. I am NOT saying he is a shoddy reviewer mind you.. perhaps this one (um... and his DD one) was an abberation. I just think THIS review was poor.

There is no better way to explain it than what I said.. it seems as if he literally played the game for a few hours, and made his judgements. He did not seem familiar with the game at all, nor did he seem like he played for a very long time. My opinion mind you.. but I've read MANY reviews over the years.

If someone who had no idea what a 4x game was.. or had not heard about GalCiv previously read this review, I doubt they would be purchasing it. Thus I feel the review is a poor one. It does not accurately reflect what the strengths of this game are. In fact, aside from customer service, he barely gives it any praise at all! A comment about diplomacy is followed up with a jab. That sort of thing *shrug*

But just out of curiosity, if you do not have this game, and do not PLAN to get this game.. why is this a concern to you? Just wondering. If you were indeed considering buying the game, but this review made you leery.. my point is made.

fleabitfox