Man, it's just not there.

[Fyron]

Atrocities said:
The game dynamics are very different between IV and V.

Really? How so? They seem, I dunno, virtually identical to me. Sure interface and rendering elements are different, but the core gameplay is more or less the same in both games. There is far less difference (in terms of gameplay mechanics) than there was between SE3 and SE4.

[Atrocities]

Imperator Fyron said:

Really? How so? They seem, I dunno, virtually identical to me. Sure interface and rendering elements are different, but the core gameplay is more or less the same in both games. There is far less difference (in terms of gameplay mechanics) than there was between SE3 and SE4.

I guess the best way for me to put it would be to say that the finer subtleties between the two games is significant enough to support my statement that the pattern of growth, change, and development in the feel of "game play" between the two games is valid. Sure they are very close in game play but there are slight differences between them that manifest themselves in a way that makes the dynamics of game play of the the two games different. This is illustrated by the appeal that most people have demonstrate toward SE IV in preference over SE V.

When asked why some players prefer SE IV over SE V, most cannot specifically tell you why they like the one over the other. Hence my comment about the subtle differences in the dynamics of game play. These minute difference are prominent enough to affect people and their choice to play one game over the other time and again.

Simply put, SE V doesn't have what many gamers want. Sad but true.

Fixed misspelling of subtleties

[Fyron]

I dunno, everyone always seems to complain about the UI and clickiness, almost never actual gameplay issues.

[Atrocities]

Imperator Fyron said:
I dunno, everyone always seems to complain about the UI and clickiness, almost never actual gameplay issues.

You misunderstand, I am not saying people are complaining about game play issues. I fail to see where you formed that opinion from. Nevertheless, let me be clear, it is not the game play that people are complaining about. The game play is different and that is all that most people are saying. I believe many people have tried to explain that they simply do not enjoy playing SE V for various reason, least of which are these undefinable subtleties in game play. Now to say that you don't know why you don't enjoy playing SE V isn't the same as saying playing SE V is bad. There is a difference between not saying that you are not enjoying something, and complaining about it.

[Atrocities]

If we could specifically nail down the little things that seem to be spoiling the fun of playing SE V and resolve them, then no doubt SE V would become even more popular than SE IV ever could have dreamed of becoming.

[AngleWyrm]

I liked: Fleet subdivisions! Grouping ships into Strike group, Marine lander group, long-range fire support group, Civilian group. Each with separate strategies. Great idea.
I disliked: Having to do it over and over. No saving important creations.

I liked: Detailed Treaties! Fantastic, and loads of fun to think about. In theory.
I disliked: AI drained the joy out of them with clueless responses/proposals. Also couldn't save those treaties for later use.

I liked: Huge tech tree, that does a good job of being better than just a spreadsheet optimizable choice.
I disliked: research interface designed to keep players in the dark. Bug or a feature? Depends on who you ask. I certainly didn't enjoy it.

[Fyron]

The stock SE5 tech tree is really terrible. Every weapon increases damage by 5 per level, which destroys any semblance of starting balance between them as tech progresses...

In both SEIV and SEV, it is easier to just use hotkeys than waste time mousing to all the buttons. But yeah, the UI issue of the weird button panel is a big one.

[javaslinger]

Solubilities???

A quick search of dictionary.com to make sure I know what that word means reveals that I have absolutely no idea how that word makes any sense in the context that you've used it...

I would say you might want to find another word to describe the 'best' way you want to put it...

Javaslinger

Atrocities said:

I guess the best way for me to put it would be to say that the finer solubilities between the two games is significant enough to support my statement that the pattern of growth, change, and development in the feel of "game play" between the two games is valid. Sure they are very close in game play but there are slight differences between them that manifest themselves in a way that makes the dynamics of game play of the the two games different. This is illustrated by the appeal that most people have demonstrate toward SE IV in preference over SE V.

When asked why some players prefer SE IV over SE V, most cannot specifically tell you why they like the one over the other. Hence my comment about the subtle differences in the dynamics of game play. These minute difference are prominent enough to affect people and their choice to play one game over the other time and again.

Simply put, SE V doesn't have what many gamers want. Sad but true.

[Atrocities]

Stop making fun of me! (one misspelled word and its open season on the atrocitinator.)

[Ragnarok]

Atrocities said:
Stop making fun of me! (one misspelled word and its open season on the atrocitinator.)

I'm pretty sure that AT meant to use the word "subtleties."

www.dictionary.com for subtleties.