Stewart97

This game suffers from the same thing as the new Starwars movie "Force Awakens". It is another generic, shallow, RTS, reboot in a galaxy far far away that we've already seen in the 70s. Only in our case the 1970s is the 1990s. We've seen the same plot, same characters and same story. We've seen the whole thing done better and the bottom line everything in Ashes with the single exception of DX12, we've seen before. Just like the new movie, Ashes of the Singularity is flashy, and it is all lasers and wiz bang without really satisfying any whys or hows. Yes you take territory and you gain resources, but you don't do so strategically you do so tactically. The only strategy that works is larger numbers of units overwhelming smaller numbers of units or higher tiered units having the durability to cut through swarms of smaller units. Also note there is no water combat. Not a major thing but most other RTS games based on planets have water/land and air but evidently the planets that these battles take place on don't take place anywhere the form of matter necessary for life to exist. Just like the new clones they must be "using the force" at **** to suspend your disbelief at just how lacking an RTS can be. The thing Starcraft (SC) has going for it is tight matchups between units and twitchy gameplay where micro a handful of units can mean defeat or victory. Matches in SC are typically fast because of this mechanic and it works good. Even the longer matches where two players of even skill, or even mistake making are satisfying. The SC reboot also did what Force Awakens did for better or worse. It didn't reinvent the genre. It kept the game play tightly similar to the original. The thing Forged Alliance Forever (FAF) has are two refined RTS innovations missing in Ashes. FAF relies on a strong balance respecting the effectiveness of the micro and the necessity of the managing your macro. In SC strong micro can mean the difference in outcome of the game. In FAF it can mean the outcome in the battle but you need to win a successive number of battles before it will mean the outcome of the game. This is called refinement and this is lacking in Ashes. While FAF indeed did not launch in its current state but, as Supreme Commander, with a clunky interface and only 3 races. Each race was very different, had different tiers in which they were superior or inferior and the micro vs macro concept was there. Ashes has tiers and it has 2 races, but they are largely the same without anything to distinguish them from the other. In fact another core problem with Ashes is it is hard to while in battle distinguish without constantly moving to select to see who is who. The biggest innovation in RTS since 2005 was the advent of Strategic zoom which allows for very large maps as well as very large battles. SC doesn't come close to FAF when it comes to scope. Ashes only meets FAF at the strategic level by only showing you 1/5 of the battle at once, while also not having the right tools to properly organize or manage forces. Sins of a Solar Empire (Sins) has Strategic zoom and also a good Icon UI system for managing forces. While Sins plays slow like a space opera and FAF plays much faster, Ashes is also painfully slow so lack of tools can be forgiven. What can't be forgiven is how slow the units in Ashes move, and the fact there is no "transport" or teleport of units to the front line. One could point to air units but they are so pathetic as to be essentially meaningless for the cost. The other really big feature of FAF is unit wrecks. Everything vaporizes in Ashes. In FAF you can "reclaim" salvage mass on the battlefield. Which create dynamically important locations to hold both tactically and strategically as well as a potential bonus for the victor in battle. Completely missing in Ashes. All "strategic objectives" are pre-positioned and don't change with a changing condition of the battle. They only change when the front line changes. What changes the front line? Without variation it is always more units x>y type number game. The only problems of early rushing exists in Ashes but this isn't a main criticism of the game. The main criticism has to be the lack of polish at all levels. The sound effects which are annoying to the point you need to turn the sound down, to the "voice overs when you direct units which sound like every single one was recorded though a rusted 30 ft long lead pipe its just not good. On the plus side The landscapes are good. The soundtrack is well somewhat inspiring but not epic. Visuals are great if you like shimmering lasers and colorful explosions that dissipate quickly. As far as RTS, strategy, tactics, 2 race matchups in RTS where you have a limited view of the battle zone and slow units make for a regression in the genre not an advancement. While the engine may be impressive the game and thereby game play built around that engine is far from impressive.

The Good: >Bigger Map more Stars. >Larger Galaxies which actually look like they could be a whole galaxy. >Great ship designer. >Multiplayer is finally a thing now. (Simultaneous turns as well) >Hexes instead of squares. >Maps have more features >Shipyards build ships instead of planets The Neutral >Fewer things to do make the game less of a micromanagement hassle. But also takes away some of the fun. >Graphics are improved but largely due to resolution. Only the ship editor will WOW you >Economy sliders have been replaced by an Economy wheel, which provides more control however the overall effect of finances or money on an empire is substantially diluted. The Bad >Fleet AI is dumber than a box of rocks. They make piecemeal attacks, they don't have to scout to find planets or other races, they just know they are there. >Empire AI is downright bad, they build but they build in non-nonsensical ways which limit the threat they will post to players even on the highest difficulty. >Lots of cool stuff from Gal Civ 2 Expansions, GONE. >Diplomatic design is really bad, limiting you to things the AI can do but you cant, once you trade with them you have a lockout which prevents you from doing anything with the other AIs except declare war, even with allies for up to 20 turns. Oh yeah and they pester the hell out of you for money and send you short messages which are annoying and repetitive. In short the AI = Half baked. >Largest Maps even on recommended systems lag between turns, stutter, and don't run the game well. How many gigs of ram do you need to run those? Even systems with 8GB,16GB, of RAM are being reported as struggling. >No Manual. Tutorial crashes sometimes. >Lacking polish. >Space combat while looking better, if you can get the camera to follow the ships, is completely hands off, so it is boring. >Franchise has seen better days unfortunately. >Gal Civ 3 vs Gal Civ 2, Feels much less polished, with much less to do, the stuff there is to do is repetitive and boring, not as satisfying. or complex as Gal Civ 2. >Some penalties are way out of balance which ruin the game. >AI plays essentially the same irregardless of which race. >While the game ships with a custom race creator, and supports up toe 128 opponents which was trumpeted as a major features, creating a custom race is an involved process that takes a significant amount of time. (No random auto-custom race creator, exists only 8 are supplied with the game) Overall it feels like the game was simply rushed to ship and will get extensive patching. Where have we heard that before? If Gal Civ 3 follows the same development as Gal Civ 2 gamers will probably see loads of additional development leading up to another rushed out expansion which will be patched liberally as well.