SoTS 2 "All Clear" Issued

[keith.lamothe]

Generally-positive "reviewers" (or something like them) have a lot of value to me; not so much for critical analysis but for helping me "get into it".

I've often thought how great it could be (for some games at least) if there were "How to thoroughly enjoy (game X)" guides, in addition to the reviews and FAQs and guides on how to accomplish XYZ goal in the game, etc.  Basically just focus on how to get past the negative aspects, really dig the positive aspects, and get into it.

Edit: meant that to be partly a question: anyone seen anything like that?

[chemical_art]

It depends.

I almost want to know the games flaws. For some "flaws" cause me to go either "eww" to "so what?" to "that's not bad but great!"

[Mánagarmr]

It is rather amusing to see him fail horribly at puzzles and puzzle/platformers.

I sometimes wonder if he does that on purpose or not.

It's not. He's got dyspraxia, so puzzlers really DO kick his butt

[Cinth]

I haven't had a chance to load up SotS ][ since mid July really. Even then the game was in a very playable state. I should expect that by now the game is very solid, and if judging by Kerberos past support of SotS, I would expect a load of support throughout the game's life.

If I could ever put AIW down for a day or two, I might could see how far it has come 

[Kahuna]

If I could ever put AIW down for a day or two, I might could see how far it has come 

Sure you can. For me 2 weeks without AI War was max. Then I started drooling and couldn't sleep. AI War has sooo much content.. there's always something to do. 10 Raid Engine/10 Camouflager is next for me.. BUT SoTS 2 seems to have an insane amount of content and stuff to do too. If it actually works now and is fun (I'll try it on my brother's computer) I'll buy it and switch between SoTS 2 and AI War once in a while.

[Cinth]

If I could ever put AIW down for a day or two, I might could see how far it has come 

Sure you can. For me 2 weeks without AI War was max. Then I started drooling and couldn't sleep. AI War has sooo much content.. there's always something to do. 10 Raid Engine/10 Camouflager is next for me.. BUT SoTS 2 seems to have an insane amount of content and stuff to do too. If it actually works now and is fun (I'll try it on my brother's computer) I'll buy it and switch between SoTS 2 and AI War once in a while.

I'm still trying to break stuff in 6.001. I bought SotS ][ after launch and after knowing how launch went. Last time I played, the game wasn't feature complete but I'm sure it should be pretty close if not there. I have faith the guys at Kerberos will have SotS ][ just as polished as SotS is now.

[Echo35]

Well it's definitely playable. All the features are there, and (For the most part) there aren't any bugs. Still managed to find a few, mostly cosmetic like text wrapping being a bit off in one screen, but functionally, it works very well overall. Is it fun? Eh... not so much. The UI is still a complete mess and incredibly murky, and the game really isn't pushing any ground beyond what the first did, other than a few things here and there like multiple planets per system and completely redone battle riders. Also it looks insanely gorgeous. But yeah, I find myself playing MOO2 and GalCiv2 instead and it's just not that fun.

[eRe4s3r]

2 words (of something that bug me so much about SOTS2 that I don't even start it until it is really, 100% fixed)

GUI LAG

This game has the absolutely worst GUI performance ever. Of any game, I ever played. Even Distant Worlds has better GUI performance..

And oh boy... the GUI: The research screen doesn't remember where you left, and is incredibly finicky. No slider, no value, literally NOTHING gives you tooltip feedback as to what it does and when it does, it is often nondescript. Biosphere? Well sucks to be you, but it's completely mystery what it does to your trade, even if you read the manual. Wanting to understand the weapons? Well weapons give you great (useless) info but there is no easy way to actually compare them. There is no way to get a detailed view at WHAT COSTS WHAT in your income screen.

ScanningScouting a system gives you the absolutely most pointless screen of the entire game. Where you can neither give a colonization order, see which planet is valuable on a glance or decide even remotely whether the system is colonizable AT ALL.

Then there is that you can not give a "support colony" mission if the colony is already established. That you can still not give mission orders IN THE MAIN SCREEN. And disabling the nebulae... nope. And no random maps.

Or that you can not intercept enemies in space if you play humans or hivers

Or that you have to watch all battles wherever you have a ship or gate near (which is the most annoying "bug" in the entire game if you play hiver)

Then there is the stupid AI which can not become allied or when it does (via cheesing and cheating), can not be given hotspots like in SOTS1 so is completely pointless/useless.

Basically, this is by far one of the worst 4x games made to this day. And that is when it is completely finished. Currently, it is maybe 50% so, no tutorial, no scenarios, and no random maps... no thanks ;p

Wish I had taken that refund after all.. they even removed features in the last patch to be able to say that it is "all clear" haha.. (Operations, spies, counter-espionage, that entire feature doesn't work)

When I think of SOTS2 and how much I was hyped about this, I am a sad panda ;(

The game is now out an entire year. An entire year of patching, prodding and bug fixing. And they haven't managed to fix the nr 1 major issue of this game -> The GUI <- it is horrible. click heavy, what you could do with a drag and click in sots1, now takes 5 clicks or more (creating fleets, research, even giving movement orders urgh)

[Cinth]

~snip~

And the game is in worlds better shape than where it was at launch. For me the worst part is the turn lag starts creeping up when you have large games with lots of players.

A lot of what your complaining about sounds a lot like what D3 haters are crying about. SotS was a lot better.. blah blah blah. Even the first game had issues at release and now its a pretty solid title. The folks at Kerb haven't stopped supporting ][ at all. Some of your gripes about the game will get improved. Others? Complaining about the flavors of the game. Yeah.. I'm going to stick with my original thought. You sound like a D2 fanboi crying that D3 failed hard because of whatever inane reasoning...

Nothing against you personally e. Just the way your post comes off.

[Kahuna]

I tried SoTS 2 on my brother's computer and I didn't have any problems with the UI after turning down the graphics settings.

[eRe4s3r]

~snip~

And the game is in worlds better shape than where it was at launch. For me the worst part is the turn lag starts creeping up when you have large games with lots of players.

A lot of what your complaining about sounds a lot like what D3 haters are crying about. SotS was a lot better.. blah blah blah. Even the first game had issues at release and now its a pretty solid title. The folks at Kerb haven't stopped supporting ][ at all. Some of your gripes about the game will get improved. Others? Complaining about the flavors of the game. Yeah.. I'm going to stick with my original thought. You sound like a D2 fanboi crying that D3 failed hard because of whatever inane reasoning...

Nothing against you personally e. Just the way your post comes off.

That's right, the list of technical and gameplay flaws is obviously just whining. That is also why I am wide and far known for bashing games for totally baseless reasons because I am a SOTS 1 fanboy.. wow, do read these forums? ^^

The hilarious thing is, I never said SOTS1 was better. Not once.

In case you don't know this, I am a 4x fanatic. If a 4x game sucks I detail why. And sots 2 sucks. It is a terrible game, just like SOTS1 is only an average game (it does many things better, some much worse).

So if anything, my post "came off" perfectly well. SOTS 2 is not a good game. 365 days after release and with constant support since then. My next review will come in another 365 days.

also @Kahuna

That is not the GUI lag I mean.. I mean for example, what happens when you press on create fleet (delay) or click on research (delay) or the battle reports. All these subsystems are not kept in memory, and I have 16GB Ram. There is absolutely no excuse for GUI lag (I don't mean the first-load lag, I mean recurring, and worsening delays for GUI actions over long gameplay periods) at best described as a memory leak that impacts reaction times to button presses that are related to opening new GUI elements again and again... It is a SQL issue though.

The perfect best example, is how slow the info element pops up when you click on a planet. This used to be instant back on release day. They have somehow made it worse in all this time. And yes, you could live with it, if the game was fun underneath.. (To me it isn't, because of my hobby "profession" GUI issues hit me like a bullet every single time I notice them)

[LaughingThesaurus]

I like TotalBiscuit, but also dislike him because he's not enough of a critic.

Literally every game I've ever seen him review he raves about how good it is.  Well god, every game can't be good can it? 

He just doesn't seem like he has very high standards at all.  As long as the game is pretty and plays well for the 30 minutes or so he'll give a good review, which is really kind of disappointing because I know some of the games he plays are garbage.  I'd really like a reviewer who is just absolutely brutal with every game they play, and instead of pointing out all the strengths, focuses more on the flaws.  This would be a nice change of pace with everybody else essentially doing the opposite.

A problem with that is actually that to be truly critical of a product, you need to know all about it. For instance, he does a game called Snapshot, and says it's pretty good but he's afraid the camera is a glorified use key. It actually is far from that once you get like four levels (which is 12 stages) in... but the game is buggy and some of the puzzles are really awful. So, because of his limited view of the game, he can't actually provide a complete critical opinion on it. Yet, if he played through the entire game comprehensively, then he would not have time to do the variety coverage that he actually wants to do. What he does, to me, is what demos often don't properly do in the gaming industry. He gives a basic impression of how the game functions at the beginning, and lets the viewer go from there.
More examples: In Snapshot, you actually are introduced to a new game mechanic or puzzle element every single level. All he was able to demonstrate was a tiny portion of what the game was. If the concept was cool to you, that would be the only way you'd be able to really discover what was going on. You had to buy the game to actually understand what all was in it because it is so varied throughout. WTF is just does not do a good job of testing how the game actually holds up, or whether the game actually improves or declines.
I think it's not as much a problem with him, mostly it's a problem with his format. First impressions is great for covering a lot of different games, but doesn't cover any of them well.
As far as actually judging the game, that's really harder than you think. I'm entitled to hate how Tomb Raider and Uncharted play, but I would be an idiot to declare them bad games. There are people who like the mechanics and people who don't. If something flat out does not work, then it's grounds for a good critical lashing, and that's what he does. Likewise, I bet I know a whole lot of people who would declare that AI War is not a very good game. They would say that for the exact same reason.

[Cinth]

~snip~

And the game is in worlds better shape than where it was at launch. For me the worst part is the turn lag starts creeping up when you have large games with lots of players.

A lot of what your complaining about sounds a lot like what D3 haters are crying about. SotS was a lot better.. blah blah blah. Even the first game had issues at release and now its a pretty solid title. The folks at Kerb haven't stopped supporting ][ at all. Some of your gripes about the game will get improved. Others? Complaining about the flavors of the game. Yeah.. I'm going to stick with my original thought. You sound like a D2 fanboi crying that D3 failed hard because of whatever inane reasoning...

Nothing against you personally e. Just the way your post comes off.

That's right, the list of technical and gameplay flaws is obviously just whining. That is also why I am wide and far known for bashing games for totally baseless reasons because I am a SOTS 1 fanboy.. wow, do read these forums? ^^

The hilarious thing is, I never said SOTS1 was better. Not once.

In case you don't know this, I am a 4x fanatic. If a 4x game sucks I detail why. And sots 2 sucks. It is a terrible game, just like SOTS1 is only an average game (it does many things better, some much worse).

So if anything, my post "came off" perfectly well. SOTS 2 is not a good game. 365 days after release and with constant support since then. My next review will come in another 365 days.

You just made comparisons between SotS and SotS ][. To me your post was exactly what I read on the D3 forums. People comparing D2 to D3 and blasting off on the differences and "flaws".

The only valid complaints in your entire post were about the interface lag and the AI. These will be improved in time.
The mission system is fine and a lot more realistic in flow. The game doesn't abstract battles (complaint from SotS) so that's why you watch them. The missing features will get put back in when they work correctly. Scenarios weren't even on that list (known to be added at a later date). There wasn't (and as far as I know) a plan to have random maps in at all. It just doesn't work with the way they have diplomacy set up with the regions (Not Mecron's exact words but close enough to the point).
Everything else? You just complaining since it doesn't suit you. It is all opinion at that point.

Eraser, I've been active on these forums since July. Before that I was only keeping up with the changes in AIW.
I don't know you from the next faceless name on the internet. The only reason I even responded was because you presented opinion as fact. You have a few valid complaints then what reads as rant about what you consider flaws.
Those parts of your post read just like the crap I read on the D3 forum (over there it is crap and mostly funny).
That is where the comparison I made comes form and is my opinion. I've enjoyed many hours in the first game and am enjoying the time I do spend playing ][.

SotS took a few years to mature into a good game. SotS ][ is still a toddler. It needs time to mature.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Games can and should be compared to their predecessor.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Games should also be compared to other similar games, and if a sequel goes an entirely different direction (for the sake of familiarity, look at AVWW2), then you really can't compare it with the original... since that, very well, could be a sideways comparison.
There's also the idea that games need to innovate on their predecessor, but that isn't always true either. Borderlands 2 gets a fair bit of flak for being too similar to BL1, but BL1 had some serious lack of polish issues that needed to be sorted out. They could have gone all out on the innovation front, but a good reason not to do that is the idea that you will end up having yet more unpolished content, instead of getting everything right before going for more stuff.