Talk:Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords

Question

Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galciv2#Player_criticism it says

Other updates are set to follow after the release of a demo version.

I was just wondering where this information came from, and when they mentioned a demo version? --Mercury1 17:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want an official source, you should try this forum post, which has a reply by Brad Wardell (User:Draginol, aka Frogboy) who states that it should be available by the end of March. GreenReaper 18:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting! http://digg.com/gaming/Company_WANTS_its_game_pirated_ TonyJazzman 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a Stardock response to the Starforce incident. Besides, the digg people are undigging this article as a fake. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1563 users digged the story as Truthful. EuERERS 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the nice warning box there: Warning: The Content in this Article is Under Review Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Digg is concerned with what people are interested in reading, not in what is accurate. In their own words: "To help promote stories to the homepage, simply visit the digg area and digg stories you think are cool." It may be really cool to hear a story about a company that wants its own game to be pirated, but that doesn't mean the story is true. GreenReaper 16:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

GreenReaper is a StarDock employee, thus he should not edit this article.

I believe this applies: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself

Sn0rlax 23:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No. GreenReaper is not Stardock. Therefore he is not writing a biography. Nothing prohibits users from editing articles on their places of employment. Also note that he did not revert to a version that he wrote. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Just like Marty Meehan's employees have been banned from editing wikipedia, so should GreenReaper. Sn0rlax 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And why exactly is that? As long as GreenReaper is writing objectively and from NPOV, there is nothing barring him/her from editing any Wikipedia page. Also, could you explain why you insist on reverting to a grammatically incorrect version with numerous spelling errors? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The congressional staffers were blocked because they were found to be vandalising articles, not because they were editing articles. jacoplane 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, you can use your User:Robust Physique account to respond here. It is not blocked. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The congressional staffers did not vandalize articles, they inserted POV, there is a huge difference. Sn0rlax 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The question of my contribution to Stardock articles has been discussed elsewhere. While I was not intimately involved in its development (I'm on the credits, but that's mostly for the metaverse map), I do know quite a bit about the game, and I considered myself in an ideal position to improve this article. Without my input, it would probably still look a lot like this, which I think is somewhat lacking in comparison to the current version.

Moreover, you have offered no compelling reason for your own edits — or indeed any reason that relates to the content of the article. Why are you reverting to a version that is quantifiably worse? The digg story inaccurately represents Stardock's position (including a quote that they made up), by the author's own admission. They're someone I happen to know personally and they misunderstood something that was written by Brad. The phrase "download source" is also misleading - it seems to me to imply that Starforce was linking directly to a CD image or something, which is not the case. The reasoning behind the original employee's decision to link is also important, and it helps them come off just looking misguided rather than intentionally malicious (which I believe to be an accurate representation of the situation - I like to think that they didn't do it with the deliberate intention of "getting back" at us, it was just an angry developer who was tired of seeing negative reports of copy-protection). GreenReaper 16:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Two races will be exterminated during the campaign, the Drath and the Dominion of Korx. They will, however still be available in 'sandbox' mode, but will not appear in the future releases of the game"

References Error

The reference link (#5 currently) to the StarForce article is no longer functional.Dp76764 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Erronous Screenshot

The screenshot that claims to demonstrate the use of bonus tiles seems to show an entertainment network built on a tile with a food production bonus [and thus negating the bonus]. Hopefully, someone will replace the screenshot with a more accurate one. Filippo Argenti 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This could in theory demonstrate the bugs in the AI prior to 1.4 which caused such behaviour. :-) GreenReaper 06:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

General Plot

This section seems to be a complete rip from a game jacket, press release or some sort of promotion. Either quote it for what it is, or I'll take it down after attempting to find a suitable replacement.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It does sound rather like the voiceover to the introductory video. Should it be quoted as such or just removed/replaced? GreenReaper 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm..

..does anyone see any similarity to a certain other game? Not in terms of 4X, but concerning plot and terminology? I'm not saying its not a great game or even a rip-off, but shouldnt the obvious inspiration source be mentioned? --Echosmoke 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're not going to specify the game, it's a little hard to know what you're talking about. Note that the OS/2 version of Galactic Civilizations was first released in 1993, and much of the plot was created in that era. It would also be necessary to find a published secondary source that stated that "obvious inspiration", otherwise it would be original research. GreenReaper 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The game(s) im referring to have been released prior to that. And if u cant find out very easily which ones im referring to then the inspiration might not be that obvious ;) try it out --Echosmoke 14:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, this isn't twenty questions. Just spit it out, find a reliable source that suggests it, and reference it. The opinions of random wiki users are immaterial - what matters is the opinion of reputable game reviewers and other industry figures. If something is obvious, they will probably have mentioned it. GreenReaper 14:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You realize "Terran" (Terra Latin for Earth) is commonly used in sci-fi to refer to humans... You'll find em in: Wing Commander, Starcraft, Starship Troopers, Star Trek, the BattleTech universe, and FreeSpace, among others. Other than that, GalCiv also has some very commonly themed alien races; the techy pacifists, the evil bio-tech looking spacecraft for instance (perhaps the movie Aliens). I could draw parallels to dozens of sci-fi games that all reflect on the same collective sci-fi ideas. Could it be that maybe you've played like one other game with some of these familiar references and because you're not all that familiar with sci-fi writings you suspect they've lifted ideas from a game when really both games are drawing from the same sci-fi public domain. The plot... good vs. evil... the evil characters wielding unimaginable power... wildly advanced technology lost in the past and resurfaces... hmmmm... sounds like the plot of about every space-type game I've ever played. XLjedi 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to none of that, no. The paralells are much more specific. The games you mention show that your knowledge of computer games does not reach very far back or outside the mainstream, btw ;) --Echosmoke 01:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How far back should I reach? I wasn't even referring specifically to PC games (although I mention there are dozens out there) I was talking about the more general sci-fi public domain, Starship Troopers was a novel from 1960, Star Trek is from the mid 60's, battletech was a boardgame in the mid-80's, Wing Commander and Freespace PC games from the 90's. My point in mentioning those was to emphasize that there's so much to draw parallels to you'll have to cough-up something a little more specific to make your point. Actually, I shouldn't even have bothered to add to the topic, I'm not really a big GalCiv fan anyway. This will be my last commentary as this guessing game is a total waste of time...XLjedi 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Who know's what he/she's referring to. As you rightly point out, it's hard to find something truly unique in sci-fi, mostly everything has been done before. Star Control II for example has the common theme of bad empire, good union and precursors. Babylon 5 had to a similar degree. Stargate obviously had stargates. None of these were of course really original to these works, they'd been done before and will be done again. I presume none of these are what is being referred to since they are mainstream and not old enough but it does just prove the point, it's somewhat silly to play guessing games and I suspect you're right, echosmoke has perhaps played one game with some similarities and not realised how common these themes are. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The original comment is referring to the Master of Orion series of games. This includes the good Master of Orion, the excellent Master of Orion II, and the disappointing Master of Orion III. Out of Phase User (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless I don't know my games, The very first game I encounted with the alliences mentioned in this game, earth sheild, race similar to human and the the "Precursors" I thought it was an extention of the Star Control II Universe. In fact I originally came to Wikipedia to see if this game was made by the same developers of Star Control. Only to find out most likely it was an imaginative teenager developing his own game back in the early ninety's who may have been deeply influenced by one of the greatest games every. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.122.14.34 (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not officially supported you mean?

These two statements seem to contradict somewhat

Serial numbers can be used multiple times and the company owner, Brad Wardell, has stated that they are taking an approach based on the view that people who install the game illegally were unlikely to purchase it anyway.

Reselling copies of the game is against Stardock's license terms. Resold/used copies will not be supported, meaning that the buyer of a used copy cannot download game updates.

If the serial number can be used multiple times, then I fail to see how someone who buys a used copy can't download updates, unless the serial number has ben used so many times that it's not accepted (and of course, it's possible the cdkey was never registered with Stardock at all if someone didn't want to download updates or chose to do so via some other means). Also, presuming there is a serial number problem, wouldn't the original CD case or manual or whatever that contains the cdkey be sufficient to show you are the owner of that cdkey? The way I see it, whatever Stardock may like to say, their statements are contradictary and while they may not officially support owners of resold games, they do anyway. I believe GalCivII can also be purchased online in which case, it would indeed be difficult for an owner of a resold game to try and claim they are the rightful owner but this doesn't seem to be the case for owners of a retail copy, whatever Stardock may like to say. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

When you register a serial number with us to download updates, the key is linked to your Stardock.net account. If you don't have that account, then you cannot use the serial - it will not let you register it again. It is quite possible to install the game because the serial number is not activated on install, but then you are stuck with 1.0. GreenReaper (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on converting to new reference style

Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution_on_converting_citation_styles I would like to convert the citations in this article from {{ref}} and {{note}} format to the new <ref>...</ref> format so the references are easier to maintain. The new format automatically re-numbers the references. Post your views please.Electronic mass (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

By all means. It's a bit messy at the moment. Rooker75 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ship design has no effect

I was going to revert this but decided to tag it as pov instead.

Unfortunately, designing a ship has little to no effect on its combat abilities, since tactical combat is still missing front the game.

My own pov is that this sentence is incorrect and shouldn't be there even if it were, but I'll just tag it and leave it at that. Rooker75 (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "unfortunately" and reworded it. Claiming it as a shortcoming is unfair because the game is not designed to be a tactical shooter - it's like complaining that Civilizations doesn't allow you to control individual soldiers. If you want that, you want another type of game. GreenReaper (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That is better but I still consider it inaccurate. If I design a ship without adding weapons, that has a pretty important effect on its abilities. If I design it with weapons but no defenses, it doesn't last very long. If I design it without engines, it won't matter whether it has weapons or not because the war will be over by the time it finds something to shoot at. It looks like nothing more than someone just wanted to rant a little that he can't control his ships with the WSAD keys. Rooker75 (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why I put the "other than component selection" bit in there as well. Maybe the "since tactical combat is not a feature of the game" should just be taken out. GreenReaper (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the lack of tactical control is mentioned in the combat section that follows anyway and does it in a more neutral tone, so that would probably be best. I was actually going to rewrite that whole section from Races down to AI, but my PC decided to crash right in the middle of it, so there went an hour's worth of effort for nothing. Maybe I'll try it again after I decide whether or not to set fire to this bloody thing... Rooker75 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you were using a recent Firefox, it would have restored the form when you restarted . . . GreenReaper (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Economics section seems dodgy

I haven't played this game, but the economics section is making claims about the Civilization series which doesn't sound right to me. In Civilization you pay for industrial output with resources, a fraction of which determines tax revenues; the claim in this article is that there is no connection between industrial output in Civilization and the civilization's income. There are definitely qualitative differences between the systems used in the two games, but it feels like there's an implicit "Civilization sux because it isn't realistic" slam in this section that just seems inappropriate and inaccurate; I'd like to suggest it be reviewed and perhaps revised by somebody more familiar with both games. That said, this game sounds pretty cool :) David A Spitzley (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are reading way too much in one sentence, I don't get that impression you describe. In any event if you think Civ is misrepresented go ahead and change it but I don't see that it is.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

is this standalone?

can one play this game without the original Galactic Civilizations II installed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.102.22 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081023202512/http://forums.galciv2.com:80/100828 to http://forums.galciv2.com/100828

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forums.galciv2.com:80/100828
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219075643/http://www.gamespot.com:80/pc/strategy/galacticcivilizations2/review.html to http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/galacticcivilizations2/review.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417015939/http://esupport.stardock.com:80/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=457&nav=0,52,146,1473 to http://esupport.stardock.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=457&nav=0,52,146,1473

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)