I know that this is explained by means of the game's background story, but it doesn't change the fact that the AI has a huge advantage over the human player. If GC2 fixes this flaw, I'll be a lot more comfortable spending my money on it!

As has been mentioned, the AI no longer knows where the good planets are in GalCiv II. They are on an equal footing.

Space Empires is one of the most successful 4x games of this century. It has been King Of The Hill since 2000, and looks to be holding that title for many more years to come.

Wow. That is quite a claim. What do you base this on? GalCiv I sold a lot more copies I bet. GalCiv I got better reviews. I think it can be objectively said that right now GalCiv I holds the space 4X crown having picked it up after the MOO 3 debacle.

GalCiv 2, SE V, Sword of the Stars, and god knows what else are poised to take that crown but SE IV may be popular with a very small niche but by no objective view could it be considered the king of 4X games.

I think that no one who posts either here or at the SEIV forums can be considered objective, so how is your opinion any more objective than that of Atrocities who posted his opinion that you quoted? You say GalCiv is king, he says SEIV...who's to say who is correct?

Also, as was said above, it's rather difficult to compare the two, as they appeal to a different demographic, though with some overlap.

Ill buy both, but Im sorry, anyone who says SEIV or what appears on SEV looks anywhere close to GC2, uh, no.

If you actually PLAY GC2 beta, Id say that SEV has its work cut out for it. And check out the unbelievable gamma screenshots. Lets not forget t6hat SEV is being developed on a much smaller manpower and $ budget than GC2. If they are smart over at Malfador, they will try to keep their 'complicated' paradigm, because I seriously doubt if they are going to be go head to head with CG2 on ease of use, and purdy gfx. They are going to have to rely on the hardcore tabletop wargamer with a computer market segment. As it turns out, that includes me. But the problem is, GC2 aint exactly a simpleton's game. Anyone can hit the turn button, sure, to get goo at GC2 at even the "Normal" setting takes a bit of doing, unless you are maxing out your bonuses or otherwiese tweaking. GC2 seems much more ordered, much less random than GC. It is going to be summed up as the greatest 4x game of all time.

SEV looks like fun, and if it is nothing more than a graphics and sound update to the core gameplay of SEIV, then it will be a fun game (just like MoO 3 could have been a tweak of MoO2 and been a stellar success).

I think that no one who posts either here or at the SEIV forums can be considered objective, so how is your opinion any more objective than that of Atrocities who posted his opinion that you quoted? You say GalCiv is king, he says SEIV...who's to say who is correct? Also, as was said above, it's rather difficult to compare the two, as they appeal to a different demographic, though with some overlap.

Did you read what I wrote?

GalCiv sold more copies. GalCiv got better reviews (see Game Rankings). There is no universally accepted "which is better" but the facts do make a stronger case for GalCiv than SE IV.

Space Empires V will be out soon too and it will be at stores. So you will have a 4X apples and apples comparison in terms of sales and in terms of reviews. That's about the least subjective you can get.

As a matter of fact, I did. However, to quote someone from the SEIV forums:

sales != quality(spears, nsync, good charlote all sell tons of crap and big mammas house 2 was the #1 flik last week)...

Shows that a lot of absolute shite has a lot of sales. I am NOT saying GalCiv is crap, trust me, my ONLY point is that amount of sales does not equal quality.

Enough said, and he stated it better than I.

In terms of games though, and especially with niche titles such as GC and SE, you can argue more that sales do equal quality to some extent... or at least sales to success. PC games, especially strategy ones aren't mass-market, so you can draw a lot more from sales and review scores for them than you can for say, the Madden games, or Doom vs Unreal.

Well i don't agree as it higly depends on the distribution/publicity of the game. MOO3 sold a lot copies as it was very well advertised....GalCiv managed to sell many as well but it was also thanks to various aspects (advertisement in the MOO3 box, good reviews, hearsay) and the game was finally not badly distributed in the world...but it took much longer. It would have sold a lot more if it had received the support MOO3 had. SEIV on the other hand was only sold on internet, thus limiting it to hearsay and internet surfers. And i believe that most would have preferred SEIV over MOO3. So even in this niche market, you cannot evaluate the value of a game based on its sales...

Goto go to Paradox now to preorder my copy....

Some of the SE fans are just being obtuse I think.

GalCiv I sold more copies. Fine. Sales don't prove its a better game.

GalCiv I got better reviews.

Look, I'm not the one running around saying galciv is the "king of the hill". It's the Space Empire fan that is claiming SE is king of the hill. But what does he base that on?

You guys completely ignored the reviews part. Average Game Rankings score with 52 reviews was 79%. GalCiv I with over 100 scores average 83.1%.

I don't think that proves GalCiv was a better game. I only am trying to prove that it doesn't make much sense to run around claiming Space Empires IV is the king of the hill of 4X strategy games.

You're obviously entitled to that opinion, and I'm not going to change your mind. You're not going to change mine. But please bear in mind that GalCiv is a game that can be leaped into very quickly. SEIV often takes a little bit to get to the same stage, the point where you meet a bunch of races and start really getting into the tech tree. Do reviewers play a game for several hours to get an overview of the entire game? Nope. Therefore, a game that has long-lasting appeal, even in the mid- to late-game, but takes a little bit to get going will get a lower score on a review than a game that leaps right in to the action, but gets dull in the mid- to end-game.

All in all, it comes down to a matter of personal preference. As do most things in life.

renegade read carefully what is being said:

response #12 by atrocities:

Space Empires is one of the most successful 4x games of this century. It has been King Of The Hill since 2000, and looks to be holding that title for many more years to come.

followed by response #13 where he says that SE is the "undisputed" king of 4X.

john comes on and asks how can someone make such a bold claim when GalCiv, a 4X game outsold SE and got better reviews?

atrocities left no room for opinion. se4 is the "undisputed king" until se5 comes out. that's ridiculous. it's obviously disputable by many fans, reviewers, and the market place.

john isn't saying that galciv is the king of 4x's. he's just saying that se4 is in no position to have people make such blanket statements.

i've played se4. i found it obtuse. it's a bunch of features with little game to it. the computer players basically don't work. is it even possible to lose? there are mods that make it better. a bunch of checkbox features don't make a game deep. deepness comes from gameplay. galciv 1's diplomacy is lightyears beyond se's computer diplomacy. there's no real equivalent to galciv's culture system. what good are a bunch of complicated features if there's no worthy opponent to put them up against?

the difference between galciv fans and se fans is that we don't run around the net proclaiming that galciv is the UNDISPUTED king of 4x. it doesn't bother me if people like se better than galciv. it does bother me to have some guy come onto the forum and try to claim se is the king of 4x games when there's no way to back such a claim up. by any measurement that i can find, galciv is a much more liked and popular 4x game. se's only king to the small and sometimes obnoxious group of followers who mistake feature creep for "depth".

Claiming one of these games is "better" than the other is about as useful as claiming to know how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

Just buy BOTH games. You guys aren't 12 years old. You can afford it. Pony up the cash and support the precious few developers who actually cater to us turn based space strategy fans.

Well I agree with whomever said you can't judge a game's quality by its sales alone.

BTW, I do lurk on Shrapnel's forums.  I have no idea why SE fans have a tendancy to want to come on and poop on GalCiv or sit on their forums talking about how shallow GalCiv is.

These are gamers that should be on the same side.

GalCiv is not a shallow game.  Malfador and us have different design goals. We reach different groups.  For me, I'm interested in making a game that's focused on AI. I want players to be able to play against players who play intelligently.   The SE series has been more about creating a vast, deep universe to play in that is infinitely expansive.  By contrast, we are very selective in what we add because of how it would impact the AI. 

I don't think depth can be defined by how much "stuff" you can build.  Interacting with different civilizations in hundreds of different ways is depth too.   Having computer players that really evaluate the situation and make intelligent decisions is depth as well.

I really hope SE fans will give GalCiv II a try.  It is vastly different than GalCiv I.  There is a lot more to it. A LOT more.  I'm not saying that SE fans will like GalCiv better, only that they will probably like it.

But regardless, trying to argue one is better than the other is pointless.  The communites should see each other as allies IMO.

To put things simple :

1. Is "Space Empires" good game ? - defenatly .

2. Is "Spase Empires" as good as it could be ? - Defenatly not , it is "cheap" but since there is nothing better in this area and this is imagination area of gaming anyway ...

3. Is "Space Empires" better/worse then GalCiv2 ? - Can't tell the games are from the same genre but different by aproach. Some people love some aspects others another, personally my ideal would be a Windows based version of Master of Orion with better high res graphics , more races and tech, better combat AI and better diplomacy. But others preffer different. But this does not prevent me from buying playing and most importently enjoing GalCiv and Space Empires series.

I believe there will be a number of folks that will purchase both SE V and GalCiv2. What we need to do is get those folks hooked on the ridiculous "real time strategy" games back over to REAL strategy games, ie, turn-based strategy. I just played the demo of Star Wars--Empire at War, and although it was cinematic and gorgeous, it felt empty as far as strategy goes. No matter what game it is, real time strategy just seems like you build as many forces as you can, and point them toward a battleground, and let em slug it out with the enemy.

It would be great if you folks at Stardock ( and those at Malfador) or the developer of Sword of the Stars, and so on, could tap into those RTS gamers, and get them to kick that bad habit. Once you do turn-based strategy, you'll never go back.
(ok, a little over the top I admit).

BTW, I do lurk on Shrapnel's forums. I have no idea why SE fans have a tendancy to want to come on and poop on GalCiv or sit on their forums talking about how shallow GalCiv is.

Because Gal Civ 2 has a release date

I'll probably buy both, BTW.

Claiming one of these games is "better" than the other is about as useful as claiming to know how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

True, especially when it's really all about preferences anyway. After all, is a steak really better when you're craving a chilli dog? Not saying that SE is steak to GC's chilli dog, but different people have different priorities, so what is better for one person isn't better for someone else.

I couldn't play a 4x game that didn't have a decent AI since I don't have the opportunity to play MP, a so-so AI isn't much of a challenge, and a "tough" AI that is only tough because it's not really playing the same game just isn't satisfying.

Sure, give me something with all the bells and wistles and an AI that plays the game well, and I'll have yet another addiction. But that isn't saying that I won't want to play GC2 when I want to focus on the empire, not on the details as well.

I played the SE series since version II and I played also Galciv I to some extent. I think both game series are good games and I like them both. Its difficult to compare them but I will try it a little bit.

Pros of Space Empire 2-4
-great micromanagement of vast fleets of ships and hundreds of planets
-totally moddable (at least version 4)
-deep technology tree
-interesting tactical combat system
-Spacecraft Carriers

Contras of Space Empires:
-sometimes unnecessary complexity and an rather incompentent AI (with the TDM modpack its better)
-inferior diplomacy (too many and unnecessary options)
-stock game techs often unbalanced

Pros of Galciv I
-easy to get in and to understand
-great graphics (at least for this genre)
-great AI
-excellent streamlining

Contras of Galciv I
-Micromanagement is sometimes too "light"
-only singleplayer
-no tactical combat
-no Spacecraft Carriers

And now the most important, which nobody in the above post cared to mention:
Space Empires V tactical combat will be REAL TIME! (boo, boo) As a long time fan of the series I am not even sure I will buy it, because of this new approach (maybe the game designer wanted to be more "modern")