IGN gave MOO3 a 9.3... their reviews are never a factor on anything if they are good or bad.

I agree totally, but they are a major gaming site and I thought i would alert everyone who feels the way you do. I mean, come on, if GC can get a 9.0 on Gamespot, and IGN gave MoO3 a 9.3, GC should have gotten a 11.2 on IGN.

IGN have really tightened their scoring system since the release of Moo3. They very rarely give above a 9 now. They gave only 11 9+ reviews last year compared with over 25 in 2003. Also they have only given 1 this year (to LOTR Battle for Middle Earth 2). So 8.7 now is very good.

The IGN Moo3 review was an obvious review purchase by Atari in my opinion. No one could have given Moo3 a rank of above 6 or 7 out of 10 in their right mind. I really wouldn't place the Moo3 IGN review in comparision to the GalCiv2 one tho because when Moo3 came out most games were getting 8 or above from IGN.

I agree totally, but they are a major gaming site and I thought i would alert everyone who feels the way you do. I mean, come on, if GC can get a 9.0 on Gamespot, and IGN gave MoO3 a 9.3, GC should have gotten a 11.2 on IGN.

I'm not a fan of game ratings period. But 8.7 shoulds pretty reasonable so far for GC2. Granted, that's not considering the ratings that they've given to other games; that's simply taking the game and assigning a number to it as is.

That's true, it is just more good rating for GC anyways. *Yawn* Its getting boring now...

Lol I remember the backlash IGN got on MOO3 it was uuugly. The reviewer was obviously smoking something. In fact does that reviewer still work for IGN? I noticed that he tended to rate fairly high for games when he probably shouldn't have. I bought MOO3 based on that review...ooops big mistake. I tried to like MOO3 based on it's own merits and not comparing it to MOO2. There were things to like but the bad out wieghed the good. To many fundemental design flaws (not bugs but just the raw concepts were wrong). There were pointless layers of game play that added nothing to the game and plenty of pointless complexity both overt and transparent. It generally flowed poorly and homgenized too much. The game was a strategic flat line (was there any true strategic paths in that game?) The poor ai didn't help much either. I heard the game was alot better if played multiplayer, but I never bothered. I went back and played Emperor of the Fading Suns till galciv 1 came out.

Programming a laundry list of features and adding some inconsistent graphics doesn't make a computer game.

Civ4 and Galciv 1&2 are simply the best overall epic TBS games I have ever played. (well ok X-Com was pretty good too)

huckdogg, are you a major fan of ign.com or work for them or something? I dunno why you'd link a review from ign otherwise.

I agree totally, but they are a major gaming site and I thought i would alert everyone who feels the way you do. I mean, come on, if GC can get a 9.0 on Gamespot, and IGN gave MoO3 a 9.3, GC should have gotten a 11.2 on IGN.

Are you kidding me? IGN.com has got to be the WORST game review site alive. The MoO3 debacle above is a prime example as well as grandiose quotes from IGN.com on the retail box of many games only to be reviewed badly.

Want me to prove IGN.com are a bunch of idiots, ok. This quote taken from that review:

For those who don't know, the 4x genre lets players run entire empires, using the four X's -- expansion, exploration, extermination, and exploitation -- as guiding strategic principles.

The four X's are:
eXplore
eXpand
eXploit
eXterminate

IGN.com got the order of the 4 X's wrong. Come on, how basic is that. After you eXterminate, the game is over, geniuses.

Please I couldn't get past the second paragraph of IGN.com's "review" without wonderig if they've even played a TBS before.

Oh and what the heck, "the lowest setting will still provide a bit of a challenge."
Sandbox mode giving you problems, IGN.com? Man ok I gotta stop reading that review, I just can't believe that someone over the age of 5 wrote that.

huckdogg, are you a major fan of ign.com or work for them or something? I dunno why you'd link a review from ign otherwise.

I'm sorry you don't like IGN, xFlukex. I know a lot people share your opinion of the site. While I don't feel as strongly as you do about their quality, I, like lots of other gamers, like to see the opinions of all of the game reviewers that I can. Plus, as waitingtoconnect stated, IGN *has* improved their rating system since MoO3. I don't ever take the opinion of one site over the other, because all reviewers have their own biases, but I do like to read as many of the reviews that I can. Nowhere in any of my posts did I say that IGN was the best gaming site "alive". In fact, I said in the quote you posted above that I did not agree with their score. My sole purpose in linking the review was to draw attention to another review from a major gaming site (any way you slice it, IGN *is* a major gaming site).

In short, I'm not sure why you attacked me. It seems a bit trollish. If you aren't trying to be a troll, you might want to realize that your behavior will not garner much respect from the politer people on these forums.

(Quote from IGN)

Also, the tech tree isn't made up of branches so much as a series of trunks. Laser I leads to Laser II leads to Laser III, and so on. It's not as if researching lasers is ever going to lead to anything other than better lasers. I'd love to see more obvious relationships between the technologies. Maybe a sensor technology allows for more accurate weapons; maybe better logistics allows for more efficient trade routes as well as bigger fleets. As it is, the technologies here seem almost completely isolated from each other.

I love it how what one person consideres a good idea another considers a bad idea... From what I remember this was designed this way for a very good reason... But I guess you can't please everybody...

I think it makes more sense the way it is. If you research lasers, you are ONLY going to get better lasers... if you research ship fleets, the only thing you are going to get is better fleets. If you research trade, the only thing you are going to get is better trade.. I think it makes perfect sense. compared to "you can only get better trade if you research something that gives you better fleets".

I love it how what one person consideres a good idea another considers a bad idea... From what I remember this was designed this way for a very good reason... But I guess you can't please everybody... I think it makes more sense the way it is. If you research lasers, you are ONLY going to get better lasers... if you research ship fleets, the only thing you are going to get is better fleets. If you research trade, the only thing you are going to get is better trade.. I think it makes perfect sense. compared to "you can only get better trade if you research something that gives you better fleets".

I thought the same thing when I read that part of the review. I have absolutely no problem with the tech tree. I like starting down a branch and knowing that I am just researching better and better trade or better missile defense. I don't even find the tech tree uninformative. I have seen that pointed out in a few reviews.