If they shut off the servers tonight I would be sad but all good things come to an end.
No kidding? How would you say it compares to galciv 2?
I like galciv2 and was thinking about 3 but a lot of reviews i read gave the impression that it was largely more of the same with better graphics, so i started looking around.
The best luck i have had so far (and im not very good) is to expand quickly, do lots of military and weapons research and try to build up quickly when things turn hostile. My current game im trying to emphasize diplomacy and so far that seems to be going well, too early to tell really tho.
Im a little uncertain about how to build up planets, rather than dedicated research or production planets i have been trying a balanced approach on each planet.
I think what i like most about galciv2 is the build up phase, after the shooting starts it can get a little monotonous.
Hmm, that makes it kinda tough. The big thing GC has over Stellaris is the ship builder, which is kinda redundant if you arent into combat much. More generally speaking, IMHO GC is more 4x versus Stellaris' Grand Strategy. have you played/enjoyed other games by paradox before? IMHO, if you already have galciv, stellaris will offer more for your money than galciv3. GC3 is a mix of upgrade/downgrade compared with GC2, whereas Stellaris is simply a very different game.
Anyone else thinking of asking for a refund?
I have no problems with the Engineers in general.I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
I don't see how the basic, advertised nature is changed, but perhaps I know not enough about how Powerplay is advertised.Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold,
I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.
I don't see how the basic, advertised nature is changed, but perhaps I know not enough about how Powerplay is advertised.
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
In any case, there is no mention of Solo mode, offline support or any of that. At best people can claim its ambiguous. Either way, its clearly not 'a deviation from what is marketed'.
.I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.
I've gotten over a thousand hours of entertainment out of a $30 purchase. I might send them money out of guilt.
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.
No. Don't be silly.
I thought the Engineers was as low as it was possible to go in bad game design, but here FD is thinking about changing the basic nature of the game after we bought it.
Not that i really care whether pp is open only or not, but just on the principle that FD shouldnt be rewarded for changing the basic nature of the product from what was advertised and sold, I am thiniking about asking for a refund. This sets a precedent i dont want to see play out.
A vendor removing basic features from a product after its sold and the money is in the vendors pocket seems unethical, maybe fradulent, and possibly illegal.