They sold an unfinished game. :(

[Armorydave]

I feel cheated because the Mona Lisa does not have a Groucho Marx mustache and is clearly incomplete. Damn art patrons. They probably rushed him and he couldn't get the moustache on in time for the unvieling.

 

[meatwad4289]

im going to have to agree with the original poster.. although in Civ3 i never used cannons or catapults so and in Civ4 i do often...

Anyway, yeah i miss cruise missiles. I only used them a few times, but i used them on cities on my continent that i didnt want to waste a nuke. Air Force is actually better, i like the protect city option, i dont think that was in civ3, and they have pretty much the same planes and options. I utilize them a little more now than i did in Civ3. Navy tho, navy is horrible.. in civ3 Gallys carried 2, Caravals 3, Galleons 4, transports 8. now i can understand caravals only carrying 1 unit because its faster. But galleons only 3? Trasports only 4? WTH? No nuc sub?.. actually what i miss the most is Privateers. Usedthem all the time before going to war. Mass produce them and frigates and galleons on coast mass produce units in the innercities, and then launch out my fleet of privateers to destroy the other countries navy. bring the frigates to the coastal cities and bombard. Navy sucks..

I love civ4, but i've noticed that my war strategies no longer work. and ive had to find new ones, my last game i had more power but they had more tech. this game I have more troosp,more power, and more tech. I've pusheda few civs into a small colony and let them live. I figure they don't have much land, their going to build improvements and soldiers... If i feed them resources i can use them to fight others. in civ3, i would of just wiped them out.

war has been dumbed down in civ4. and it happens that they were planning an expansion pack based on war before civ4 was released.... little fishy. I mean, im not saying all of it is missing intentionally but i kno atleats half of the features in Warlords were intentionally left out of Civ4, i mean the Great leader is a give away, lack of units, no great wall?IM SORRY I LOVE GREAT WALL! lol.

 

[KingCruz]

The expansion will come out some time, so expect (or don't ) expect these changes to occur.
I like the game. And I think most people complain about how much harder warmongering is... the concept of the game is Civilization, in which there is no right way to win, as long as you win

Hey warmongers, have you heard of Cultural victory?

 

[meatwad4289]

i dominate in cultural victory and domination... and conquest.. and diplomatic.. by the time the UN comes out ill have 51% of the vote or 45% with one or 2 countries supporting me. these countries are usually either the next 2 that are invaded or my allies in eliminating the heathens! lol In my 2nd game i won Diplomatic Victory while at war with 3 countries.. only one country didnt vote for me.. they were the second most powerful when i...destroyed them within a turn. giving them 10 votes

 

[Armorydave]

war has been dumbed down in civ4.

If they "dumbed down" war then why are so many people complaining that it is so much harder? My definition of "dumbed down" is "easier" and I cannot see an informed argument that war in Civ 3 was harder than war in Civ 4. Quite the opposite IMO.

In Civ 3 war equaled 1-2 armies, a stack of the current two move offensive units and a stack of artillery. The AI would almost never counter attack an army (never if it was a 4 infantry army) and you could literally just move from one city to the next with absolutely no risk (or pillage every road around a land locked capital and remove all resources from the entire empire). No risk, no thought and after a while, no fun. If you fought long enough to get an army you were essentially gauranteed victory.

I do miss privateers and used them fairly extensively. Other than that, I cannot think of a single unit that I actually used from Civ 3 that is not in Civ 4 with the exception of Trebuchets. Paratroopers, helicopters, cruise missles and all the other modern era fluff had almost no impact on the game as Armies+tanks+artillery = gauranteed win every time. So is it more fun to have a ton of options that you barely use or less options, all of which are useful?

 

[Commander Bello]

Actually, quite a lot of what you call "cut" or "missed" or "left for an expansion" was dropped because of us testers. They just didn't work.

Dale

With all due respect, Sir, but a lot of things are in the game, and don't work either.

Besides the things I have mentioned above, diplomacy doesn't work very well, to say the least.
I will only mention one thing: you may find in each game a nation, which will not stop trading with a third nation (redlined option). Yet you can make them go to war with that very nation quite easily. If this doesn't make for a conceptual flaw, then I really don't know.

Bombers (yeah, air units once again) on the other hand are something the AI doesn't understand at all. In principle, building bombers already constitutes an exploit, as you as human player can completely confuse the AI by their proper use.

I really face problems when you ask me to accept that the game has been tested in depth. This may stand true for the early ages, but the modern times just give me the impression to have been implemented without almost any testing.

I like the game. And I think most people complain about how much harder warmongering is... the concept of the game is Civilization, in which there is no right way to win, as long as you win

Hey warmongers, have you heard of Cultural victory?

First of all, if you like the game, it if fine for you and I don't want to spoil your fun.
Second, please accept that a lot of players already have identified some issues with this game which they want to be improved. Bad enough that these things have to be improved, since they could have done right from the beginning.

Third - and most important - Civ4 still is a game about military domination. Granted, there are shy attempts to lessen this part of the game, yet this attempt has not yet been very successful.
Just have a look at the number of units - the vast majority of units are military units. Then, have a look at the other - non-military - options of the game.
Where do you have decent economic options to reduce an opponent's power?

Let me state just one thing: if you have a ressource A and a second nation has 3 deposits of it, how do you make them stop trading this very ressource with a third nation? The answer is simple: you just cannot do this.
You may succeed in making them stop trading at all, but you just cannot stop the trading of this one ressource.

Sure, you may win by a culture, but this is a tedious doing. You have to build your improvements and to foster your great persons. But this is mainly based on just waiting for the next turn.

No, unfortunately, Civ4 is still a game mostly based on the military action. But this military action has been weakened in many aspects and no substitute was presented.

 

[King Flevance]

The expansion will come out some time, so expect (or don't ) expect these changes to occur.
I like the game. And I think most people complain about how much harder warmongering is... the concept of the game is Civilization, in which there is no right way to win, as long as you win

Hey warmongers, have you heard of Cultural victory?

Bello hit the this thread earlier than me tonight. I don't have much time atm but in response to this, I think anyone playing on a larger map has achieved this victory and the spaceship. In regards to the expansion solving this, the point of the OP was to assume that we are paying for half a game now and the other half with the expansion. Only thing is, we pay 2 times the price as a result. I agree with him.

ArmoryDave - An archer in Civ 3 was alot different than an archer in civ 4. What makes it so impossible to change the attributes to the paratrooper to fit this system? What makes any unit immune to being able to be adjusted to fit in the game. If Firaxis is being compared to Leonardo De'Vinci this should be no problem.

I probably come off more hostile to this game than I am. Mostly because I have been let down by it more than a few times. But I do like what I see in the core game. Its the details that disappoint me.

 

[Boomer ang]

I really face problems when you ask me to accept that the game has been tested in depth. This may stand true for the early ages, but the modern times just give me the impression to have been implemented without almost any testing.

This is another sad reality, I agree 100 %.

I am just wondering why developers started to develop and hopefully tested ancient eras in a fair way then they decided to go home cause it was late and the job of modern eras has been finished by cleaning men of Fireaxis offices.

Of course no offense is intended for those men.

Why Fireaxians did you manage to let the game military part beeing done by cleaning men when you were out of the office late at night ?

Why the naval warfare , one of the most sensible part of the real world story , has been ridiculed to a child that crashes his micromachines ?

Why the air stuff have been reduced to Pong eras in terms of strategic managment ?

Why our civilizations can manipulate the atom and still ignore how to cross a mountain ?

Why did you cut out several strategic weapons like nuclear sub, AEGIS cruiser , ICBM etc etc... because they didn't work ?? Let me teach you how do they work,let's look at very old Harpoon game and try to learn how they can work, in conjunction with hundred extra units BTW.

Boomer ang

 

[Armorydave]

ArmoryDave - An archer in Civ 3 was alot different than an archer in civ 4. What makes it so impossible to change the attributes to the paratrooper to fit this system? What makes any unit immune to being able to be adjusted to fit in the game. If Firaxis is being compared to Leonardo De'Vinci this should be no problem.

I am guessing the designers didn't think paratroopers were a worthwhile addition to the basic game. The fact that they were pretty worthless in past Civ versions probably weighed heavily in this decision.

Just because they don't include individual units from past versions doesn't make the game incomplete. It just means they did not consider these units worthy of inclusion in the current vanilla version. In the case of paratroppers that seems an emminently reasonable decision (especially since their movement mechanics are so much different than other units). I miss Privateers and hope the enslaving mechanic is added with Warlords (barbarian privateers would be great fun), but their ommision does not mean I bought an incomplete product. It just means there is room to expand with future patches and expansions.

 

[King Flevance]

I am guessing the designers didn't think paratroopers were a worthwhile addition to the basic game. The fact that they were pretty worthless in past Civ versions probably weighed heavily in this decision.

Just because they don't include individual units from past versions doesn't make the game incomplete. It just means they did not consider these units worthy of inclusion in the current vanilla version. In the case of paratroppers that seems an emminently reasonable decision (especially since their movement mechanics are so much different than other units). I miss Privateers and hope the enslaving mechanic is added with Warlords (barbarian privateers would be great fun), but their ommision does not mean I bought an incomplete product. It just means there is room to expand with future patches and expansions.

I can see them not liking the idea of paratroopers. Though basing this decision off previous versions of civ is kind of tunnel vision for a designer who decided to rebuild the basics of the game entirely.

I am not asking for the units of the past. The paratrooper was only an example. I guess when I look back from what Civ games have given me in the past upon my initial purchase, I feel I got more for my money. This version of civ is worth about 30-40 bucks when I payed 60. At the time of the other releases I was definatley more pleased by the strategy game I had bought. I didn't own any expansions to C3 until the complete triple pack was release and price dropped once as I was content with vanilla. C2 I didnt buy expansions until around the time that 3 was released almost as I didnt know there was any and again I didn't need them. I never had an expansion to 1 as I am sure there wasn't any and I never looked (as like 2) because I didn't need anything else. Yet 6 months from the initial purchase from 4 and I feel the game NEEDs one. Heck really at 4 months I had uninstalled because I was bored with the drab disflavor. I will no doubt be uninstalling it again soon until I buy warlords in a year or two after it comes out and price drops.

If you love the game, thats cool. More power to you. But this whole excluding war more than any other civ game and then having the first expansion pack be about war seems a bit too suspicious for me. I see an unfinished project finally getting done. Others obviously see an expansion. I have a hard time believing anyone believing the latter to be a warmonger ever in their games.

 

[Armorydave]

I agree with some of your points but that doesn't make it an "incomplete" game. It just means the designers did not place the same value on certain aspects of the vanilla game that you do. I have no objection to people saying they don't agree with those decisions but to state that they sold an incomplete game strikes me as absurd if not insulting.

For the record, I am almost exclusively a warmonger (75% of my wins are domination) and find the current system INFINTELY superior to the lame, exploit ridden combat system in Civ 3. Civ 3 combat was so badly broken that it took almost no thought once you figured it out. I have yet to find a combat method in Civ 4 that was close to the gauranteed victory that armies provided in Civ 3. If they bring back armies in Warlords and apply them as poorly as they did in Civ 3 (AI never builds them, AI almost never attacks them) it will ruin the game.

If they want to add worthless variety units to molify some of the player base (paratroopers, helicopters, cruise missles) I just hope they do a better job than in Civ 3 where these units were little more than window dressing. Increased selection does not always mean enhanced experience. To me the promotion system is far more important than the useless units of Civ 3 that were not included in Civ 4. In that sense, Civ 4 is a more "complete" game because the combat system allows for far more useful variety than Civ 3.

 

[Smidlee]

I agree with Armorydave ,I hope they don't just add features such as armies without upgrading the AI. I refused in many game from using armies since they so overpowering (in civ3vanilla armies was useless). It's like using the "invincible" cheat codes in a FPS.

 

[Commander Bello]

I agree with some of your points but that doesn't make it an "incomplete" game. It just means the designers did not place the same value on certain aspects of the vanilla game that you do. I have no objection to people saying they don't agree with those decisions but to state that they sold an incomplete game strikes me as absurd if not insulting.

The incompletness is not constituted by a certain unit missing, it is constituted by vital concepts not properly working.
I really couln't care less about paratroopers, xy-propelled subs and what not. What I care about is that air, naval und partially even ground-bound combat doesn't really work.

For the record, I am almost exclusively a warmonger (75% of my wins are domination) and find the current system INFINTELY superior to the lame, exploit ridden combat system in Civ 3. Civ 3 combat was so badly broken that it took almost no thought once you figured it out. I have yet to find a combat method in Civ 4 that was close to the gauranteed victory that armies provided in Civ 3. If they bring back armies in Warlords and apply them as poorly as they did in Civ 3 (AI never builds them, AI almost never attacks them) it will ruin the game.

(Marking by me)
Try bombers. Bombers seem to be the "armies" of Civ4. You as human player can completely devastate the AI by proper use of them, and the AI has absolutely no means to counter your actions.

If they want to add worthless variety units to molify some of the player base (paratroopers, helicopters, cruise missles) I just hope they do a better job than in Civ 3 where these units were little more than window dressing. Increased selection does not always mean enhanced experience. To me the promotion system is far more important than the useless units of Civ 3 that were not included in Civ 4. In that sense, Civ 4 is a more "complete" game because the combat system allows for far more useful variety than Civ 3.

I agree about the variety aspect.
I don't agree about the promotional system. Quite some promotions are totally overpowered, others are in no relation and so on.
The basic idea is a good one, as many basic ideas of Civ4 (literally most which have been adopted from other games). The implementation is weak in most of these cases and that gives me a very bad feeling about the ones responsible for the kind of implementation.

 

[T.A JONES]

I agree with you guys on Army units, Smidlee had the right idea, I used the option where you limit how many armys you can have at one time by raising or the number of citys you need for each unit. I had to go at least 30 cities a piece depending on the map

A single Army unit like the queen piece in chess, is a refreshing addition (give him a name like Bart the 1st and see how long he can tough it out. As units advance it becomes harder cause hes stuck with the same crap so when he dies replace him with his son Bart the 2nd. and so on

There's ways to have fun and not unbalance things but having any more was a real ball breaker for the AI and a bore for the player.

I should add that I play ala mod so theres a greater amount of units turning over,obviously this cuts the life of a army unit considerably even if theres a greater tech rate or number of turns, at least I find this

 

[meatwad4289]

If they "dumbed down" war then why are so many people complaining that it is so much harder? My definition of "dumbed down" is "easier" and I cannot see an informed argument that war in Civ 3 was harder than war in Civ 4. Quite the opposite IMO.[/qoute] Actually, wars in civ3 were harder, and yet funner. Once you get the ball rolling on 4 its fun as hell. But civ3 had more military options. By Dumbeddown i intended as lack of options(troops, wonders, functions ect), but in ur definition yes Civ4 is easier than Civ3 when fighting. I'm sorry, but in a single game of Civ3 i lost twice as many units as I did in Civ4. the other civs grow faster in civ3.

[qoute]
In Civ 3 war equaled 1-2 armies, a stack of the current two move offensive units and a stack of artillery. The AI would almost never counter attack an army (never if it was a 4 infantry army) and you could literally just move from one city to the next with absolutely no risk (or pillage every road around a land locked capital and remove all resources from the entire empire). No risk, no thought and after a while, no fun. If you fought long enough to get an army you were essentially gauranteed victory.[/qoute] were u playing on cheiftain? 1 to 2 armies? I never built armys using great leaders, I used stacks of doom more often, but I normally used the Human Wall strat. in Civ3 my units were constantly attacked by nearby units when trying to invade a city. In civ4 Barbarians allowed my settler threw, and passed rigth by an undefended city. Civs with more military power than i do, send a stack of doom of like 10 or 15 past my capital with maybe 4 to 6 units on it, and send them to a large city with 15 troops on it...if that aint dumb, then i dont kno what is

[qoute]
I do miss privateers and used them fairly extensively. Other than that, I cannot think of a single unit that I actually used from Civ 3 that is not in Civ 4 with the exception of Trebuchets. Paratroopers, helicopters, cruise missles and all the other modern era fluff had almost no impact on the game as Armies+tanks+artillery = gauranteed win every time. So is it more fun to have a ton of options that you barely use or less options, all of which are useful?

Ton of options never used or less options? well for some, those "unused options" are the options they use. I used just about every option possible in civ3. In civ4, I won every victory, except space race, IN ONE GAME! my first to be exact. In civ3 it took me a month to win anything, after that I started winning all the time. I won everyway you can in civ3 from the time its release to the weeks before civ4 was release, won spacerace at that time.
Civ3 gave more options and had more playability. Civ4 has less options for me, and id preferre it if Civ3 units and wonders replaced civ4s.

 

[Dale]

In civ4, I won every victory, except space race, IN ONE GAME! my first to be exact. In civ3 it took me a month to win anything, after that I started winning all the time. I won everyway you can in civ3 from the time its release to the weeks before civ4 was release, won spacerace at that time.

My hero.

 

[Urederra]

Clearly, Urederra, you are unhappy with some of the design decisions that were made with regards to Civ4.

Not unhappy, cheated or deceived would be more appropiate.

I perfectly understand and respect that, it being impossible after all to make a game that fits perfectly with the vision that each and every individual has in mind.

Me too, I also understand that. But that is not my point.

Yet to then turn around and claim that the game is unfinished, just because the game doesn't correspond to YOUR vision of what it should be, well that's a bit of a cheap shot. It's one thing to disagree with a design decision, another to charge that Firaxis was being deliberately dishonest to its customers. I hope you can see the difference.

I see it. but it seems that you fail to see that I am not disagreeing with any design decision. If I were, I would have posted rant posts about not having trebuchets or military great leaders long time ago. Civ III vanilla didn't have trebuchets and I didn't think the game was unfinished.

I have stated in this thread that I do think the culture system is very well developed, great. They introduced religions, wonderful. They changed the economy system, looks OK, but people are talking about cottage spam, I have no opinion on that.

I do think that the battle system is not as developed at it should be, Commander Bello explained that much better than me, but anyway, I wasn't feeling deceived until the advertisements about the "expansion" came around. I have read the articles on-line and now I have the feeling that the main purpose of the "expansion" is to improve the battle system, trebuchets, military leaders (how could they have possible forgotten to include a military great person in the vanilla version?) Great Wall wonder, Mongol camps... Heck, even the name of the 'expansion' is gonna be "warlords". Sincerely, that makes me feel deceived. Looks like they are completing the battle system rather than expanding it.

I didn't feel that they were selling the game in two installments when they released CIV III PTW. Why do I think the difference is? Very simple, Let's say you have a house with a kitchen, a living room, two bedroooms, a bathroom and a garage and you add two bedrooms more and another bathroom. That is an expansion. Let's suppose now that you have a house with a kitchen, a living room, two bedrooms and a garage, and you add two bedrooms more and a bathroom, that is not an expansion, that is completing the house, because, IMHO, a bathroom is an essential part of the house that was missing in first place.

In a game like this, the line is more difficult to define. and maybe they couldn't do better with the battle system, that would be fine, another mediocre game, no problem about that. But when I started to feel cheated is when I read all these features Warlords is gonna have. Now it seems that they are going to take care of the warmongering. To sum up. a game sold in two installments, That is what It looks like. I am not sure yet if am was cheated, that is why I opened this thread, to discuss with other people whether they think the expansion is going to complete or to expand the game. (Maybe I should have added a question mark at the end of the title, but, oh well, too late now)

As those of us who worked on Civ4 have posted (time and time again), the game was not rushed out the door. It was, in fact, finished at release.

I havent's said anything about the game being rushed, but anyway, I am going to bite the bait. Could you tell me when did the game went gold? Not enough time before the releasing date. Maybe that's why my CDs are misslabeled and some people received a tech chart in french.

Could you tell me when they incorporated the graphics of modern units to the game? Of course you can't, the confidenciality papers you signed. But I clearly remember fans in the forum being worried because until a very few weeks before the release the screenshoots they released for advertisement only depicted ancient units. At that moment, I though, Oh, maybe they don't want to release modern era pics, but, as somebody has already said in this thread (Commander Bello, I think), ancient era looks very elaborated, modern era looks rushed and the space rocket screen is a step backwards from Civ III.

[A]s far as actual design, you have the game that was intended. Maybe you don't like it, which is fine, but it is indeed the gameplay that the designers were trying to create. As Warpstorm posted above, a different team is working on the expansion, and they (not surprisingly) want to introuduce some new features. The notion that features were deliberately withheld for the expansion is not only false, it's rather insulting to those of us who were involved in the whole process.

You do not know that of which you speak.

And, the new team has a task, to program an expansion called "Warlords". Whether this is really an expansion or the second half of the game... well, same as with the graphics of the modern era... time will tell.

Come on guys! Be reasonable. Firaxis is a company there to make money. T2 is a company there to make money. We're the consumers.

Of course, they program games to make money, But if the customers feel that they were cheated, then they will go nuts.

They know they can get us to buy 2 products: game + xp. So what? What do you think will fund SMAC2? Or CivCity? Or any other project they undertake? PROFIT!

I happily bought Alien Crossfire because I love SMAC, and I didn't feel the need of having the pirates in the vanilla version, although they were my favorites when playing SMAC. It was a wonderful game, wonderful expansion too. I don't mind paying for both. The time I enjoyed playing SMAC pays off for both.

Same happens with Civ III vanilla and Civ III Conquests (Didn't bought PTW, when I realise it was on the market, they already were shipping conquests) And even I bought Civ III complete a month ago, to play in my Mac laptop.

I bought Civ IV collection edition, misslabeled CDs but correct tech tree. Is not as great, but that is not the question, that is a matter of opinion. My feeling now is that meat for the warmongers is gonna come with warlords. If it is so, then I would not buy Civ V, not the vanilla version. (Not pirating either, that's a Maybe I would buy the last expansion, if I read that is good, but definetively, not the vanilla version)

Maybe King Flevance is right, maybe is T2 politics. Bad politics I would say, If customers feel cheated they won't repeat.

So the bottom line is, if they can't make profit they can't make games. If we don't buy games, they don't make profit. The consumer circle.

So Firaxis releasing an xp with what you're saying is "intentially left out items" is perfect business sense. They know SMAC2 will sell big-time. But they need money to make it. Civ4 + xp = money for SMAC2.

Dale

SMAC2 will sell big-time because lots of customers are very pleased with SMAC, But, after the issues with Civ IV, more than one will wait for some months after buying it.

I just want to finish this long post with Bello's sig. One of the best sigs in the forum.

"It is from their critics, not their fanboys, that companies learn the lesson of making good software...." Aristophanes Bello

 

[Drogear]

OK, I have played CIV iV for some time, not as much as many people in these forums though, but I have also read many posts in these forums and my impression is that they sold us a game which is not finished yet.

I am not talking about bugs and the lack of throne chamber or palace view. I am talking about that one key feature of the series was INTENTIONALLY left unfinished. The warmongering.

If you look carefully you'll notice that. Here are some clues, I am sure that warmongers who played more than me can add some points to this list

• Domination victories are usually more difficult than cultural or space race victories.
• Many unit types are missing. Particularly siege weapons. You'll keep playing with catapults forever, until you upgrade them to cannons. Trebuchets are obviously missing in the game. But is not only that ones, there is only one type of missiles.
• Naval and air warfare is dumbed down. There are also very few types of naval wessels.
• Fewer world wonders to help the warmongering. No Great wall, no Leonardo's workshop (BTW, did it really exist in first place?)
• As Tr1cky pointed out, (I think It was him) there is a always war option which is umplayable in many circumstances due to the war weariness.
• EDIT: Added from post #17. GREAT LEADERS. One of the most succesful additions of Civ III, great leaders, is missing in CIV IV. How could they add great prophets, great artists, great scientists and great engineers and leave the original great leaders out?

You can add more points if you like, but I think you'll get the message.

The point is that they INTENTIONALLY left all those things out. Why? to sell the expansion. As Jesse Smith confessed in gamespot:



Bolding is mine. So, in my opinion, they sold an unfinished game. It is true that you can enjoy the game, have some cultural, space race or even domination victories, but, compared to the other iterations of the series, the game is not completed. It will be when they release Warlords.

Now days its rare to see a finished game realise, most/all games require patches, its just a sad fact so stujp *****in about it, by the game 1y after realise then.

 

[shinah]

Taking Sullla's word for it (I think that's reasonable), that the game was shipped as intended (with just minor issues because of time constraints), it appears that the lead designer(s) of CivIV purposely made the decisions with respect to e.g. the use of catapults, the few available naval and air units and how air combat works. So I don't expect an expansion will do much to change that.

I can understand that the way catapults and air units are used in-game now may be good for game play issues, but it shouldn't be that hard to make it more in line with how the units were being used historically. I think a lot of people prefer to play this game where such units' behavior is close to how the units were actually used; this to get a more immersive gaming experience.
Also, I think that a lot of people think they should be able to give naval and air combat more importance and have the ability for interesting air and naval battles, where that just doesn't seem possible now. Probably therefore, the game just doesn't give the 'wow'-feeling that many hoped for .

The good thing is, that the game is highly moddable, so it might turn out alright in the end. But imo it would take quite some time and effort from quite a number of dedicated people to turn the game from where it is now to something that _will_ give it the wow-factor.

Personally, I think the game is nice, but lacks in some areas to make me want to play it for long. I think it's just some design decisions that make me feel that how the game was released is a missed opportunity; it could've been so much more. So I don't think any foul play is in there in any way. But hey, there's always a next game to look forward to and try out

 

[Commander Bello]

I am a little bit surprised that we don't hear anything anymore from the defenders, as soon as some facts from the game are put on the table.

I understand that it may be easier to counter a general statement "the game wasn't finished" with a similarily general statement "oh yes, it was!".

I'd guess that Urederra, King Flevance, some others and myself have put quite some valid arguments on the table. If we actually were wrong, I would have assumed the supporters of game and company to happily jump onto our errors. Since they obviously don't, I have to assume that our argumentation is valid.