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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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).

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.