From around the net I've gotten a lot of questions regarding Elemental. Here are some of the questions and answers that have come up:
(incidentally, this Q and A was a joke)
I'd guess the installation would include all the game resources and both a 32 and 64 bit exe, but it may just decide at runtime. I seriously doubt they'd make you download a differerent version considering nearly all the resources are the same (maybe a map or two's difference, but not nearly enough footprint to warrant seperate versions or installs).
I am looking forward to this game as I was a huge fan of MOM. With the kind of resources that can be used with todays computer systems it will be super to see the kind of world that can be built and fought over. I like the idea of a pausable tactical battle for giving orders. Total war was fun but the real time cbt was some times overwhelming and I alwase had more fun in the stratigic parts. Hear is looking forward to another great game from Stardock
Will there be multiple worlds like Master of Magic, or at least a subterrainian level like several other TBS games?
Does Stardock already have plans on how to integrate differing versions of games into their customers' purchases? The native 64-bit version will doubtless require dedicated development resources, enough maybe that it could be considered a separate game from the 32-bit edition. Many puchasers still won't have computers running 64-bt architecture by the time the game comes out.
-If I were to purchase a copy of Elemental for my 32-bit WinXP computer, would I be charged for a new license or an upgrade fee in the future if I get a 64-bit system and want to re-download and keep playing?
From past experiance, you can trust SD to do right by you.
And from what I've heard, the game purchase includes both 32 and 64 bit additions, you don't have to choose the right version.
Ron is speaking gospel here.
This would be great if true!
I'm just not sure that I'm ready for a world where I can trust PC game publishers to do right by their customers. It's really, really nice to be proven wrong sometimes.
SD is one of two gaming companies I know of in the industry which as a matter of policy actively goes out of its way to actually take care of its customers way beyond the point of sale. I say that speaking as customer of SD since it was first started well over a decade ago.
Who's the other?
Publishers, no. A publisher, yes -- SD is that good.
Well, you can trust StarDock because you can trust the owner of it, Brad Wardell. Imho the fact that it is wholly owned by him is the major reason why StarDock is so unique. He can follow his own vision and isn't bound by shareholder to follow the easiest path to fast money.
So yeah, whom else can you trust in the games industry?
I can trust EA and Atari -- to royally screw me over every chance they get!
The question is, who else can you trust to do right by the gamer?
Paradox Interactive. It has at least from what I have seen and experienced always stepped up like SD and treated gamers right. It is very similar to SD in my opinion, which is why I have suggested several times that they should consider a merger.
Passing on some questions about the combat mechanics, in case any SD staff have the time/are at liberty to answer:
1. Will it be possible to queue up actions for individual units for future turns?
2. What happens if you don't give a unit an order for a turn? Does it do nothing? Continue its previous action? Or does the game's AI make some determination of what the unit should be doing?
3. Understanding that the system is continuous, how strictly will the turns be enforced? Will all my units always begin their turns at the same time (making it easier to pause the game and update all my orders at once) or will different movement rates/action timings result in the turns being asnychronous?
- Ash
Are you going to hire some good writers for the main story. The GalCiv2 story had a good basis, but it ended up being pretty poorly written in practice. I think you should get some professional writers to help spruce things up, so they are a little more 'readable', and flow better with the actual gameplay this time around. Just my two-cents. I don't mean to be insulting at all, I just don't think that story writing is your strongsuit.
I seem to remember hearing a lot of good stuff about Bethesda; were those lies, exaggerations, or did you just forget?
Wow! Talk about something coming out of left field... Beth is a good company but some of its policies are not as gamer friendly as I would prefer to say the least. It has a master that looks at it as a money machine and consequently that culture works its way into the company to some degree. Furthermore just because I consider another company to be a better match for SD because of its intrinsic nature and consequently more trustworthy in general in no way takes away from another.
For the record I also considered BW a stellar company for a very long time. However with the recent acquisition of it by EA and subsequent policy changes my opinion of it has changed. The same also applies to Blizz for the same reason.
Additionally, to me open responsiveness to customers and perpetual interaction with them directly by the all the developers and fostering a sense of transparency with regards to the development process of titles as well showing sincere value for the community's input and general respect for all customers goes a long way in strengthening trust in my book. Moreover I know I can contact the top dogs at SD and PI with easy and get into long threaded discussions with them. I simply can't say the same for Beth or BW or Blizz for that matter.
I've been looking forward to this since you guys talked about MoM in the GalCiv 1 forums ages ago. Makes me want to read Silmarillion again too.
Yea, certainly most people will be playing it 32-bit but the 64-bit version lets us have much larger maps because we aren't
fighting with the 2 gig limit of 32-bit.
Does this mean the 32 bit version won't be linked with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE for some reason? Some of us with 32-bit CPUs can use stuff that eats up more than 2GB of address space. 3GB per-process address space should allow maps several times larger than 2GB, unless map data makes up the greater majority of memory usage.
I don't typically play super ginormous maps in 4X games very often anyway myself (and upgrading to 64-bit would probably break half my non-DOS game library anyway), so an upgrade to 64-bit is unlikely just for this, but I don't see any reason not to use the extra 1GB if it is available in 32-bit.
The only programs I've had trouble with are my antivirus and browser -- Vista 64 is pretty good about not letting most programs know it's 64 unless they can handle it, and some plugins won't function in 64 bit IE (which is fine because I prefer Firefox anyways).
Why? Isn't it better to have two good companies to chose from? It would be far better for SD and PI to aquire other companies, grow larger and change the industry's attitude.
I agree with the "change the industry's attitude" part, but I suspect that there is some level of growth that is just too much for the kind of quality many of us long-term Stardock customers want from both our software and the people who support it.
Revenue growth is swell, and perhaps a fully-staffed second game dev group would be nice, but at some point adding people (or buying other firms) will give too much influence to bean-counters and bloviators. I want Stardock game projects to remain 'by gamers, for gamers.'
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account