[TrashMan]

Wait...are you that obnoxious guy that eventually got banned for constantly trying to argue with the devs?

I dont recall ever getting banned, I do recall that those sots devs couldn't take critism of any kind and even deleted negative threads on release day because they heavily applied censors. Kinda like putting their fingers into their ears and going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Not to mention like saying stupid **** like "Sots was totally ready for release in spring" even though they needed a patch like a day after release to address a wide array of bugs and to add features. And openly talking **** about Gal civ's tech tree "In sots you don't research pen and after that ball pen". Oh really? Even though your tech tree goes from red laser to green laser and after that violet laser? They also had this semi-hostile attitude toward mods, because some mods were 'going to improve on their perfect game', which was not possible and quite insulting apparantly.
Now I know its no real use talking to you about this, cause I already know you are a tremendous fanboy but hey 

Oh, smooth..Trying to de-value anything I say before I even say it (by throwing labels around). And lying trough your teeth while at it.

Hostile to mods? SOTS is very mod-friendly and the devs support mods. They even made a few changes to make the game more mod friendly after moddeers asked for it. Heck, my mod is one of the biggest one out there for SoTS, and no dev has ever been even remotely hostile about it. Or the ACM mod, which is even bigger than mine..again, no hostility there...something I can easily back up with the mod threads on their forums.

If you're virolitic and a douche (while posting critics or not), you will get smacked on that forum, they run a pretty tight ship. Mecron can be extra-snarky so it may come across more hostile than it is, but other than that, the devs are decent people. Douches that can't take criticism? Again..the very forums lack proof of that.

[TrashMan]

No, it's not and I counter that you're the one not accepting that consoles can actually do ****.

Avoided thread so far, but posting your opinion as undeniable truth, hell, the only truth on the matter irritated me enough to say something.

There is only one truth.
If you fell your is the one - more power to you.

But if you somehow expect me to deny mine, just because you don' like it?..Well, tough luck.

[BloodEagle]

Spoon, you might want to check out Psychonauts, if you haven't already.

[Topgun]

now now girls, lets be civil.

[headdie]

now now girls, lets be civil.

civil this is a GD on PC vs Consoles 

[Scotty]

There is only one truth.

This way of thinking is the reason the world sucks.  Congrats.

[qazwsx]

tl;dr, does it really matter what platform people prefer?

[Flipside]

tl;dr, does it really matter what platform people prefer?

Not even remotely in the long term, otherwise I'd still be playing an Atari 2600 and my ZX81...

[NGTM-1R]

Galactic Civilizations, same story as Sins. I played one long game and after that felt I had seen it all. (again, poor a.i. does not help enjoyment)

There's your problem. If you discount GalCiv's and GalCiv 2's AI as poor you have serious issues in grasping reality. I'm not joking. That's not qualitatively wrong, it's quantitatively wrong. GalCiv II's AI is the best 4x AI yet put out. There are documented cases (really, you can probably find it, think it's PCGamer) where professional human players discover after the end of the game that they were never even relevant in grand strategy.

Now I agree that SotS is crap, mainly because they couldn't art design a paper bag much less out of one (I would rather watch Homeworld being played than this. It's truly that noxious in terms of art design; everything is cartoony and ridiculous), the interface is about as unfriendly as possible, the advisor voices leave you with a pathological need to kill the actors, the scenarios are designed by somebody who has no clue how to build an interesting scenario, the manual is poorly edited and actually totally useless when it comes to basic gameplay mechanics (seriously, they have like twenty lines on the realtime combat section that don't actually appear to be relevant to it ingame; the refueling mechanics are mentioned once, in a way that you could easily miss and that doesn't give them remotely the level of attention you'll actually need to pay to having a tanker about), and did I mention whoever designed the interface was a sadist?

Say what you want about Sins, but at least you could find your fleets and planets and monitor/construct across a large empire without dropping four hours on a turn obsessively clicking every point of light in the universe (several times because you lose track). The decentralized fleet construction and inability to set rally points complicates the game immensely and was an awful choice.  The "Whooo turn aroundsssss" tech interface is possibly the most annoying tech tree design I've ever seen.

EDIT: Also, the CnC mechanic. It's bollocks. It sounds great but people have been commiting to the field forces larger than they can actually control since Alexander of Macedon and before. Most modern military doctrine conspicuously and openly acknowledges the fact that they cannot properly control the forces arrayed below a general or admiral in detail, that to do so would be counterproductive, and that a battle will be in the hands of the individual captains or squadron commanders.

Instead, SotS thinks "we can solve all problems of warfare command and control by committing our forces in very small groups!" an approach that has never and will never be adopted.

[Spoon]

Oh, smooth..Trying to de-value anything I say before I even say it (by throwing labels around). And lying trough your teeth while at it.

I am just stating what I have noticed in that other sots thread about the trailer. You have shown tremendous amounts of fanboism. I have no real reason to take your opinion about sots serious. Especially not when you are calling me a liar
That really kinda makes me angry and just makes me want to disregard everything you say forever.

Hostile to mods? SOTS is very mod-friendly and the devs support mods. They even made a few changes to make the game more mod friendly after moddeers asked for it. Heck, my mod is one of the biggest one out there for SoTS, and no dev has ever been even remotely hostile about it. Or the ACM mod, which is even bigger than mine..again, no hostility there...something I can easily back up with the mod threads on their forums.

The time I spend there (I was there when they made the modding section) showed me otherwise. This Mecron fellow especially had this pretty hostile attitude toward mods that improved on aspects of the game. Because surely, there was nothing to improve?

Again..the very forums lack proof of that.

OF COURSE IT DOES. THEY *DELETE* THREADS WITH CRITISM. Just outright censor them. I saw it happen, just after release several threads just vanished because they had a negative tone. It's easy to say "there's no proof of them not taking critism well" when they just destroy the damn evidence.
But hey, its been many years now. Perhaps the devs on the forum grew up a little.

There's your problem. If you discount GalCiv's and GalCiv 2's AI as poor you have serious issues in grasping reality. I'm not joking. That's not qualitatively wrong, it's quantitatively wrong. GalCiv II's AI is the best 4x AI yet put out. There are documented cases (really, you can probably find it, think it's PCGamer) where professional human players discover after the end of the game that they were never even relevant in grand strategy.

My problem is that I steamrolled the a.i. on my first game in Galciv II? aright.
Now I know I only played one game, but the a.i. did very little to oppose me, they didn't bond together to defeat my uprising empire, they didn't all massively declared war on me or anything. They just let me grow and grow and take over enemies one at the time. It's been a while and things may have changed in patches or something but I didn't see any of this brilliant a.i. that you speak of when I played

[NGTM-1R]

My problem is that I steamrolled the a.i. on my first game in Galciv II? aright.
Now I know I only played one game, but the a.i. did very little to oppose me, they didn't bond together to defeat my uprising empire, they didn't all massively declared war on me or anything. They just let me grow and grow and take over enemies one at the time. It's been a while and things may have changed in patches or something but I didn't see any of this brilliant a.i. that you speak of when I played

Did you at least try on higher difficulties? If you were up there on a high difficulty with tough opponents, I will bow to your superior opinions since I play on medium at most (and I've never seen the AI show that sort of true brilliance either, but it can be a real pain in the ass nonetheless and I'll believe it's possible).

[Topgun]

There is only one truth.

This way of thinking is the reason the world sucks.  Congrats.

lol, so you think that there can be more than one truth?

[NGTM-1R]

lol, so you think that there can be more than one truth?

2+2 and 1+3 both equal 4.

Scary ****, man, hide your children!

[Spoon]

My problem is that I steamrolled the a.i. on my first game in Galciv II? aright.
Now I know I only played one game, but the a.i. did very little to oppose me, they didn't bond together to defeat my uprising empire, they didn't all massively declared war on me or anything. They just let me grow and grow and take over enemies one at the time. It's been a while and things may have changed in patches or something but I didn't see any of this brilliant a.i. that you speak of when I played

Did you at least try on higher difficulties? If you were up there on a high difficulty with tough opponents, I will bow to your superior opinions since I play on medium at most (and I've never seen the AI show that sort of true brilliance either, but it can be a real pain in the ass nonetheless and I'll believe it's possible).

Tbh I really can't recall. I really liked the ship design part of the game though, even if it was just for looks 

[Topgun]

lol, so you think that there can be more than one truth?

2+2 and 1+3 both equal 4.

Scary ****, man, hide your children!

y u no let me troll?

[Hades]

Probably because you're pretty terrible at it.

[NGTM-1R]

y u no let me troll?

Because A: you suck and B: I'm working on my professional countertroll technique.

[Mikes]

Did you at least try on higher difficulties? If you were up there on a high difficulty with tough opponents, I will bow to your superior opinions since I play on medium at most (and I've never seen the AI show that sort of true brilliance either, but it can be a real pain in the ass nonetheless and I'll believe it's possible).

Can only second that opinion... if not playing on "intelligent"  the AI is handicapped in the actions it can take.
(There s that hilarious screenshot floating around where the AI sends you a message complaining that "it can see what you are doing and it knows you are amassing a fleet to attack its empire and is outraged by it and if its admirals weren t complete morons it would do something about it. )

Also... anyone calling GalCiv2s AI "bad" has to realize the following (and as highhanded as it sounds, this is really the only way to approach the matter, since it really is that obvious if you spent enough time with the game):
- GalCiv2s AI is - by far - the best that the genre has to offer.
- contrary to pretty much every other game... GalCiv2 AI's, on intelligent, does NOT cheat and is subject to the same rules as the player is.
- AI quality does not necessarily equal difficulty (an AI damage or ressource multiplier can do that as well) ... It does equal replay value however.
(This point is especially relevant when comparing GalCiv to games that feature moronic AI that can only put up a fight at all by cheating left and right.)
- the more you keep playing the more you will appreciate it.

As far as other (somewhat recent - for the genre anyways) games go...
Sins... Supreme Commander in Space: cool.... but, as already NGTM-1R already said, lacking in character - it's simply too bland.
SEIV... uhm... let's not mention that pile of *** again... worst AI in this list by far and zero replayability - in comparison anyways.
Sots...  isn't as bland as Sins... and is worth playing... because it has multiplayer - other than that, not so much. Worth mentioning: Gimmicky and really badly thought out (balance wise) real time part allows for hilarious exploits against the very predictable and monotonous AI... /snooze.

Honorary Mention: Star Ruler... a gem in the making? Plays like a pre-alpha still.

What do 4x games have to add to a PC vs. consoles thread? Well. That is simple. Consoles suck because they don't have any 4x games worth mentioning - if they have any at all. :-) :-) :-)

[Mongoose]

Seeing as how 4X games seem about as fun as managing a government bureaucracy, I feel like consoles are better off without them.

[Spoon]

Seeing as how 4X games seem about as fun as managing a government bureaucracy, I feel like consoles are better off without them.

I've come to realize that you are now offically very low on my ranking of cool people on hlp