nice job.

i dont understand why all the reviews are so crazy about the a.i.
i mean dont get me wrong...i really like the game and all but i dont think the a.i. is so very good

Well, seeing that there is no multiplayer, which isnt so bad; would you like to play against an ai that thinks making 100000000000 scouts could possibly overcome a fighter? you know what i mean...

Oh and he's definitely right about the manual. I learned more about playing this game from the Gameplay examples than I did from that manual.

In fact I learned quite a lot about playing the game from the examples now that I think about it.

83% is too low of a score for this game. Considering the constantly updates that will make the game better it seems more unjust. But at least they didn't pointed at the lack of multiplayer as a fault, that's getting boring.

i dont understand why all the reviews are so crazy about the a.i. i mean dont get me wrong...i really like the game and all but i dont think the a.i. is so very good

It's a case of comparisons. AI is always the weak point in any game but it is of special interest to "strategy" games. Galciv AI might not be able to make the tea while debating the nature of the universe, but it can do a good job of the things it's programmed to do. Add to that it will only get better with further patches and I think it's pretty clear why reviewers keep rating the AI so highly. It's very difficult to name a game where the player wasn't totally overpowered in comparison to the AI and the AI didnt need a slew of production and economic bonuses (read: Cheats) to achieve even a modicum of challenge.

CIV 4 AI is quite solid, especially when its on the attack, as is Rome Total War:Barbarian invasion which has a merciless AI (but it piles on the numbers so it doesnt quite count as much as a superior strategic AI, which it does an adequate job of)

I do think 83% is a bit in the shallow end of the pool as review scores go, but generaly PC Gamer UK have reviews in or around the target area 95% of the time.

No way did Empire Earth 2 deserve anything like that score, terrible game. Anything but revolutionary. Apart from the developer replacing the staff with robot replicates to give that high score, they mustve been bribed or held at gun point, i just dont see how they could have suffered such a lack of judgement on their part. P.S Their final score of NFS Most Wanted was far too low, it is by all intensive purposes a very fun and entertaining game.

I used to think reviews wernt biast (atleast of all PC Gamer) but now i have come to realise how untrue this is. They are, more often than not in bed with the big boys. Prove me wrong, prove me wrong.

PC Gamer and Starforce are in league whith each other, thats why it only got an 83%... my theory anyway

PC Gamer and Starforce are in league whith each other, thats why it only got an 83%... my theory anyway


I am assuming your being ironic or sarcastic.

PC-Gamer just did a huge write out talking about the evils of DRM and over zealus copy protection schemes.

83% is right on. Don't get hung up that its not 90%+
90% or above means instant classic IE Rail Road Tycoon or Sim City level.

80%+ means that its one of the best games in the 4X world.
Fair to say PI:II does some stuff better then GCII and Moo (1) does some things better then GCII.

Thats not to say that GCII is not a great game!

I am assuming your being ironic or sarcastic. PC-Gamer just did a huge write out talking about the evils of DRM and over zealus copy protection schemes.

After years of recommending games that had the Starforce trojan. That just doesn't buy them any credibilty. PC Gamer is just a shill for the industry. They only now spoke out because of all the outrage that has finally built up over Starforce, and they don't want to be on the losing side. I stopped reading their drivel long ago.

The reason Gal CiV 2 didn't get a better rating is becuase they are an indie publisher, and didn't buy enough add space from PC gamer.