https://www.ign.com/articles/galactic-civilizations-4-review
It scored a 5 (mediocre). Thoughts?
This one is a more positive:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/galactic-civilizations-4/review
Hatchet job.No way IV is a 5 while CG3 release version is a 8.
Yeah, seems a bit harsh. I haven't played the early access a lot, but it doesn't seem that bad.
yeah this guy's obviously biased, cause on that page they show that they gave gal civ 3 a 8.6, and yet he called gal civ 3 a "disaster." just read the whole review and imo this guy has no idea what he's talking about with this game. i think he needs to find a really storyline-heavy rpg, that seems to be what he's really interested in.
Well, the author literally says on the third line "it is not a disaster". More importantly, where is the review wrong? I found myself nodding through the whole thing. Some of the UI issues go away with more play, that doesn't change the verdict:
After completing a few campaigns I’m left struggling to find reasons to come back to Galactic Civilizations IV. What few new ideas it brings to the space 4X genre prove to be poorly implemented and ultimately uninteresting, with promising features like Sectors and Galactic Challenges missing the mark and feeling unfinished. Every option and playstyle inevitably blurs together into a galaxy-spanning land grab, and without flavorful writing to back it up the tedious nature of that and its whack-a-mole warfare mean I’ll probably forget I played GalCiv IV by year’s end. Other 4X games have solved these problems more effectively, and with more flair and identity. This leaves Galactic Civilizations IV feeling barren, hollow, and in desperate need of a balance and polish pass – which, to be fair, Stardock has a respectable history of doing with its games after launch. In its current condition it’s not particularly good or bad; it’s just boring, soulless, and not up to par with other recent games in its style.
It's a fair (in words anyway) and lengthy review and makes many valid points but author also gets a few things wrong. 5 is well harsh.
What does he get wrong? Be specific.
I think a 5 rating (just below Humankind's 6) is perfectly fair given the current state of the game.
Humankind got a 7 on IGN. Also, did you play Humankind on release?
I think there is fair criticism in this article, but I dislike how he tends to focus on the worse parts of Gal Civ 4.
My first issue is that he's comparing it to Stellaris which has had multiple years of development, expansions, and time to sort out the bugs. Stellaris has had it's fair share of issues that have been reworked and polished. GC4 is just entering the first phase of it's hopefully long life.
Any 4X game is going to feel similar to what he's describing. Balancing tall and wide is not something that is easy to do. At the end of the day, more resources in the form of land or planets will clearly give an edge unless you punish the player for owning too much.
Hundreds of icons are normal for 4X games
He acts like Gal Civ hasn't brought anything new to the table, but they've made some major changes to the way the game works.
Sectors can be blockaded even though it is difficult and expensive. While they need some more work in the form of more options, they are a big change from GC3.
Colonies was a great idea. Managing every single planet in GC3 was tedious. Also the way sieges work is so much better! Legions were my most hated system in GC3. I don't know why he's complaining about this.
The battle viewer is something we asked for and they put back in. It needs some work, but overall I don't fault them for it considering it was a last minute addition.
The prestige meter again needs work, but it really is a great addition if you don't want to fight to the bitter end. I play until I crush the last of of resistance and then I start a new game. Just because I've never finished a game doesn't mean I didn't have a blast playing.
The only criticism I really share is the whack a mole part. Single file ships are a pain to deal with. If that gets reworked, then I would give the gameplay a 10/10 compared to GC3.
There are plenty of great things they could do to make it even better, but for now I think they've done plenty.
I could quibble endlessly on the IGN review. At the end of the day, he doesn't like GalCiv games. He didn't like GalCiv II or GalCiv III so it's not surprising he doesn't like GalCiv IV.
I am surprised at the number though. Elemental: War of Magic, got a better score.
GalCiv games are not story/narrative based games. They are Civ games. It's a niche but it's a good niche.
Games shouldn't be scored in a vacuum. IGN gave GalCiv III an 86. I welcome anyone to suggest that GalCiv IV isn't leaps and bounds better than GalCiv III today let alone at release.
Because of the Gal Civ ‘open space’ map it plays completely differently to the ‘join the dot’ star sector gameplay of ES2 and to a slightly lesser extent Stellaris - as a result it is almost unfair to put them up against each other.
Personally I always enjoyed Gal Civ more open approach to space gameplay (space is quite open after all), whereas ES2 and Stellaris feel more restrictive in terms of movement than even a terrestrial 4x like Civ, which is quite ridiculous.
The IGN author admits that Stellaris and ES2 are his recent gold standards, and he also admits to never been a big fan of any of the Gal Civ games, so for me personally his opinion of Gal Civ 4 is irrelevant.
If you are an actual fan of any of the past Gal Civ games then you are much more likely to enjoy Gal Civ 4 than this guy ever was.
I think we can all agree that the 86 GCIII review didn't age well. I apologize for getting the HK review wrong. I'm not sure where I got the 6 from. Yes I played it on release and no I didn't like it but at least they nailed the neolithic era and tactical combat pretty well.
No single aspect of GCIV works well. Many supposed features are broken to the point of uselessness. I would love to play a game with lots of tiny sectors and few hostiles but I can't because the map generation options are broken. I would love to play a custom faction, but not if there is a chance that if I don't do everything exactly right, I won't get all of my assets. But then again, I'd also love to have a reasonable number of the bugs we have reported get fixed. At your current velocity, it would take at least two solid months just to clear out the bugs that have been reported in this forum. More on this line.
Most of the races are completely undercooked. Even worse, the AI plays every race more or less the same way, psychotically. The game steers you into early war whether you like it or not and your survival hinges on acquiring 3 techs, defense minister (to survive the initial onslaught), medium hulls (to turn the tide), and planetary invasion (to win wars). The other mechanics barely move the needle and I don't find your combat all that fun especially when every game basically plays out the same way.
It doesn't matter. You don't want hear the opinions of people like me who think your game is in a lousy place. I think you guys have your heads in the sand. Whatever. Go ahead, block me on Twitter. If I could return the favor by deleting my account on this site I would. Good luck, guys. I'm out.
Even if one agreed with what you wrote (which I don’t), it wouldn’t justify a 5 out of 10 in IGN. We can quibble about whether the game should have more map configuration options or whether the combat should have some different mechanic, these are, speaking as someone who’s been doing this for 30 years, debates that argue between a 75 and 80.
That particular reviewer just doesn’t like GalCiv games. I only know that because he literally says so. He wanted a narrative, story rich game with strategic elements. If you watch the video review it’s pretty obvious.
Even if we addressed every single thing you brought up, it wouldn’t have moved the needle in that review as the video review makes clear. It’s not as if making custom factions fancier (which he didn’t even try) would have made him give it a 9.
The overwhelming consensus. Even in the IGN review, is that gc4 is better than gc3. And it is. But someone who didn’t even like GalCiv II is not going to like GC4. Which is fine. So far, the game has received mostly positive reviews with this one outlier.
I think the reviewer had many valid observations. There's a severe lack of events, The cultural traits really are something you just pick to get the best benefits, not something that really reflects your philosophy. The AI does seem to prioritize colonizing planets near you rather than in its own sector (which could arguably make sense, but it's annoying to play against). The races aren't balanced (though again, this might not be a bad thing)
However, despite the problems, it's a very fun game. Much more fun than 3
I think it needed another 3 months or so in the oven, but I guess there were reasons to ship it. By the time the inevitable Steam release rolls around, I'm sure its potential will be more fully realized.
I don't trust ign reviews personally. For me it comes down to user reviews. Steam reviews and user reviews on metacritic are much more reliable.
So far the IGN review for Galactic Civilizations is lower then everyone else's. This makes them seem even less reliable.
I did find the 5 harsh. I also agree it might have been better to flesh out the game more in early access you could still get some sales increase the amount of free beta testers while adding more polish. I barely remember 3 at launch but I do remember the end of 3 being VASTLY different and much better in imo at the end. I wasn’t a fan of the colonies / core system at first but it works well, at least when I’m doing it the AI seems to engage in some questionable tactics. The tech tree is so divisive. Having an RNG tech tree would be ok for chance techs maybe hidden techs but for mainline techs that can completely fuck you it just doesn’t seem to be a good idea. I’ve been playing a lot of Civ 5 again and even though the tech tree is nearly identical for all races, which it ain’t and shouldn’t be in Gal Civ, my research path changes basically every game. Except I always open with pottery gotta get my Panth.
Also how the heck are people having whack a mole problems. You stage 5 fleets around your sector entrance with a military starbase and blow up everything that moves through. And when you siege a new sector send enough fleets to choke the sector entrances and slowly lay waste to the ships trapped in the sector.
Agree with those who think the game was released a little bit too early ... although I disagree with the 5/10 IGN rating .... 5/10 is completely unplayable ... Galciv4 is definitely not unplayable!
Galciv4 is fun and engaging ... there is plenty to explore and do ... and it has added some "intrigue and flavour" that Galciv3 lacked at times ... I feel as a starting point the game is actually a very good base platform to build upon for the future ... the ideas are interesting and the game is very playable. 7/10 or even 7.5/10 would be more realistic with the knowledge that Stardock will no doubt improve the game over time with feedback gathered.
I think it's the disappointment that gets most people. There was potential here, but somehow it has been squandered. There are so MANY issues. Folks that can be bothered use these forums to provide some feedback. OK some have a rant, but I can understand that. Worse, perhaps - how many have one go and give up in disgust or sheer puzzlement?
I have been playing computer games for over 40 years so I am no stupid noob. I really get the feeling that the dev team here are hiding behind the battlements, defending a wobbly structure, lobbing back a few smoke grenades because they know, in their hearts, the thing needs a serious rebuild.
One tiny ship taking a whole planet? Honestly? Did nobody stand up and say "Sorry boss, but this is ridiculous"? And that is just one example from all the others that have been included above.
5/10 Disappointed. Could do better.
Sounds about right
Just a note from yet another disappointed fan (and one who was kicked off the Discord by the lead developer for having the audacity to express her concerns and not coddle his ego professing how amazing the game's state was)... On a scale of 1-10, 5.5 is the numerical median average. IGN rating the game 5/10 means they are stating that the game is average (not "unplayable" as someone here misunderstood). Average is not the same as bad. The game is definitely average. What disappoints most of us, myself included, is that it could've easily been above average, if the developers only bothered to interact meaningfully with their beta testers and make use of the reams of useful feedback the beta testers were providing to them.
Dismissing reviews like IGN's because "they reviewed GalCiv3 with a higher score and we believe GalCiv4 at launch is better than GalCiv3 was at launch" is meaningless because years have passed since GalCiv3 and the baseline expectation has shifted with the passage of time. Likewise, dismissing undesirable reviews because they mention competing IPs in the same overall game genre and making statements like "the reviewer just doesn't like this series" is also meaningless, because if the reviewer dislikes the series, that's actually really valuable information to have and should warrant the question of "why not, if they like these other IPs in the genre". The lesson to be learned here is that ignoring critique and shunning opinions that differ from "this is amazing" doesn't suddenly make the game amazing because the concerns are no longer being heard. It just makes those who could be capable of improving their product miss out on the opportunity, and makes them look foolish for having made that choice when they had an alternative.
This game could've launched so much better. It's really unfortunate.
I'm sure this post will get deleted just like I was deleted from their Discord. We'll see if they have the integrity to accept this criticism or not. I've screenshotted this post and if they decide to censor opinions that don't flatter them (as they did on Discord), I can always ensure that the evidence of the censorship circulates around the internet. Not a threat. Just a decision on their part to accept critique or look really badly to their customers for the sake of trying to hide it.
I've been playing GalCiv since the original came out in my early college years. A fellow student told me about the game, and we both geeked out after class about how much we liked the game.
Of the franchise, I certainly logged the most hours in GalCiv 2. I tooled around in the beta a little bit, played it lightly after release, but really dug in and played many games after Dark Avatar, the first expansion, launched. I was hooked on the mechanics.
GalCiv and Sins have been a frequent companion over the years, to give me an escape from real life. I'm actually a bigger fan of Sins these days than GalCiv, but looking back, I most certainly got my money's worth for GalCiv 1 and 2.
I played GalCiv 3 a little, but it seemed to be missing something... je ne sais quoi. The graphics and the opening campaign were really impressive, especially compared to earlier versions of the game, but the gameplay didn't really hold my interest.
I haven't played GalCiv 4 yet, but I did buy it to support Stardock - a company I like very much. I am probably going to wait to play it for at least 6 months, to see what gets improved and fixed. There are enough people saying that the game has bugs and gameplay issues that I'm not going to sour my experience before it's right and truly ready.
If indeed playing a tall empire is completely impossible in GC4, I'll probably just hold off from playing it until/unless that changes.
And I will conclude by saying that, while GC4 is different from and has every right to differ from Stellaris, I now hold every 4X game to the standards of Stellaris. That doesn't mean every game has to be identical to Stellaris; but there are many innovations it brought to the table (and, most importantly, did it all together in a single, cohesive game, instead of a bunch of separate games). Any new 4X game should be compared to it.
I hope that GC4 one day achieves the depth and flexibility of play style that Stellaris has. I'm not expecting GC4 to reach the level of story-driven narrative that Stellaris has; I know that's not a goal. But I want the gameplay to reach a level of depth, even if different, that compares well to Stellaris, which I've logged hundreds of hours in (hundreds more than all of my time in all GalCiv games to date).
Keep it up, Stardock - I'm confident you'll make GC4 a great contender in the 4X space genre, even in a post-Stellaris world. No way will I ever request a refund. But for now, based on testimonial from fellow players -- not from IGN, whose opinion I don't put a lot of stock in -- I think I'm going to hold off.
Meanwhile, I'd like a Sins 2, please!
I don't think it takes a forensic analysis to detect that the reviewer had some negative bias toward the game--it just seemed to me that this wasn't the kind of game he is interested in.
That said, sometimes the hard thing about being criticized is getting past being defensive and seeing whatever is true in the criticism. I assume that the dev team isn't fond of this review, and I would completely understand them being defensive about it. But I hope they can see the elements of truth throughout the review--biased though the delivery may be.
I mean, what I got out of the review does match what I find unpolished about the game.
Every game I play, Yor dominate.
Diplomacy has issues.
If all ideological choices were in one bucket, I'm not sure it would make a significant difference (i.e., choosing a particular path doesn't seem to have a big impact--and choosing from opposing paths doesn't seem to be an issue).
Citizens and Leaders are a great idea (one of my favorite parts of the game, in fact), but I think the game design needs to lean more into them and make them matter more. I spend time thinking about the Citizens I use and the Leaders I assign, but I'm not sure it matters much who I pick to do what.
The UI has some issues (most don't bother me much, but the offset planet icons covering stuff up does tend to annoy).
Tall options could be stronger (i.e., I'm not sure they really exist).
I hope Stardock proves the reviewer wrong when he says the flaws in the game "are so prevalent that balance seems more than a few simple patches away."
People keep talking about Stellaris as the benchmark for space 4x style strategy games, like it’s some kind of holy grail in this genre. Don’t get me wrong I like Stellaris - I appreciate the atmosphere, the story aspects and the visuals and sound, the UI etc, although to be honest I often start to feel like an accountant when I’m playing it.
However it’s worth pointing out that Stellaris took the vast openness of outer space and squeezed it down into individual miniature sized pockets of space - allowing you to go from pocket to pocket (assuming there’s a line joining those two pockets) but nowhere in between.
This is a much easier way to develop a space strategy game and therefore it already has a massive head start by choosing this design. Personally I struggle to accept these restrictions and limitations on ship movement (in space of all places), but so many space 4x games head down this route as it’s just so much easier to build a balanced game around it. As a result you end up with space 4x games feeling much more confined than terrestrial games such as EU4, Civ, Endless Legend as those games allow you to move freely around the map. I’m amazed more people don’t notice this, or if they do notice it they don’t seem to care and are happy to accept the restrictions.
Gal Civ has a very different approach to space and tries to keep it as open as possible, with creative ways of adding some variety to the ‘terrain’. This design decision (to actually make space feel like space) must cause so many more headaches for the developer, but they’ve stuck with it over the years and continued to make what I consider a much more interesting and engaging game to play.
New accounts are initially limited in how many posts they can make to prevent spam abuse. Typically this expires after a certain period of time. I think this allows posts on the same thread as before (as you seem to be doing), but limits new threads initially.
This just helps control the spam on the forums as a new user cannot spam everywhere which used to be a problem. Less spam = less cleanup = happier forum mods.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
