PCGamesN has a great Galactic Civilizations 3 article up where they talk to Stardock CEO Brad Wardell and GC3 Lead Designer Paul Boyer.
"Reading between the lines of an interview with Galactic Civilizations designer Paul Boyer and Stardock CEO Brad Wardell, they seem a little anxious about maintaining the values that made Galactic Civilizations II the best game Stardock ever developed. They return a lot to the theme of their own naivete in the mid-2000s, the fact that they did some things with GalCiv 2 because they didn’t know any better, and stumbled into some magic."
Read more...
http://www.pcgamesn.com/galactic-civilizations-3-preview-were-making-galciv-2-we-always-wanted
“The sales of GalCiv 2 were actually higher last year than they had been in the year before. We've put some considerable effort in trying to understand that. That’s not how it's supposed to work, if you understand.”
If a game is good it will continue to sell. It could also be that the game served a particular part of the market, and no other game did, or at least not as good.
"Right from the start in GalCiv 3, players have to choose which lines of research they will pursue at the exclusion of others. Nobody can expect to completely fill-out a tech tree, and trying to be comprehensive will result in a mediocre civilization."
Not sure if I like this, I liked being able to complete all the researches in the tech tree.
“The AI cab essentially play the game within the player’s [turn]. ...That’s one of the things that we get by having 64-bit that that would've been insane to try to do back then. Basically, you're running two copies of the game at the same time. The other thing is that because we have so many cores to deal with ...every computer player gets their own thread,”
I hope this means less waiting for the AI to finish it's turns.
So this is the economy dial, I like it. Although it makes me worry that there will be only one production queue, for both buildings and ships.
Damnit....I'd done such a good job putting this game out of my mind for the time being....
I am worried about the comment on distinctive tech trees. I 'like' being a warmongering Terran. Will I be forced to follow only diplomatic paths because thats what we are good at, at the expense of weaponry and defenses?
What if I want 1/2 Reganesque diplomacy, and 1/2 warmongering weapon persuits? I see that if we try to get all the techs we will gimp ourselves.
I guess I will have a sandbox game of trying to get all techs...
Am I missing something? How is that any different from sliders? It's still just 3 percentages.
Exclusive techtree path is brilliant. A strategy game is all about tension between different choices. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
At the moment we don't know if the mechanics actually work the same way or not, but the obvious difference is that it's a single setting instead of several sliders. That UI is a major improvement at conveying the same thing as the sliders.
im concerned about the tech tree path limitations, i hope a dev speaks soon in more detail (or we get screenshots) about what kind of structure it will be such as an initial tech branching off in 2 linear paths, or will it be something like a, b, c starting techs that lock you in a particular tree for that type of research; like multiple methods of diplomacy.
I'm intrigued by the idea of having mutually-exclusive research tasks, but I'm not sure if you should be completely locked out of, say, weapons tech. Maybe have it so that there are separate branches, with "non-specialized" branches being weaker than if you chose the opposing "specialized" path?
For instance, if you specialize in weaponry, you get pulse lasers which do 2 damage at 100 cost, while someone who doesn't gets particle lasers which do 1 damage for 80 cost. Just a thought.
Regardless, I'm sure you guys at Stardock will make it work, and if you don't, I'll be the first one to complain about it!
Who had a problem with certain tech being alignement-specific?
If you look at the quote regarding the tech tree, "Nobody can expect to completely fill-out a tech tree, and trying to be comprehensive will result in a mediocre civilization." tells me you don't get locked out of anything. A jack of all trades play style 'will result in a mediocre civilization."
Whether this is between being able to choose diplomacy & war or diplomacy or war remains to be seen.
I think there is a general misunderstanding of what multi-threading is. Also, it was well advertised before GalCiv2 came out that it was going to take advantage of the multi-threading capabilities of the hardware and Windows that had recently been delivered at the time. 64-bit addressing postdates the availability of multi-threading and has no direct effect on these disciplines.
Another thing, the idea that two (or more) copies of the game are needed to use the mult-threading capabilities of the hardware and the Operating System is not true, however, the game itself has to be coded to take advantage of the capabilitiy in a way that doesn't cause lost resources, stalled games, or program exceptions. I.e., much of the game's code has to be coded to run "asynchronously", as in having more than one thread and/or task running through the code at the same time. Note that this is not two copies of the code, but multiple simultaneous uses of the same copy of the code.
Those are quotes from the article, it's Brad saying it. I assume he's talking about having extra copies of the game state and such so the AI can try things and see how they will play out in a few turns.
There's a founders vault picture showing how the tech tree currently functions in GCIII, fear not people, it operates similarly to GCII:TA, each race has it's own tree and by "players have to choose which lines of research they will pursue at the exclusion of others" they just mean that unlike in Civilisation where regardless of what technology you are researching they all meet up at the end, it is like GCII where your research in weapons technology will never ever link up with say your farming research tree, or any other tree.
Interestingly the picture I saw had separate streaming within a single technology, so upon researching singer missiles you then can research a low mass variant, a high yield variant and a long range variant, or alternatively go on to the harpoon technology. The picture doesn't show clearly whether or not one has to research a single variant or not before going on, but considering the technologies are sequential while the variants are stacked on top of each other I would hesitant a guess that you must research one before moving on, but you have the option of getting all of them if you want. It looks like a very cool evolution of the GCII system, and nothing at all to worry about!
Thanks for the read Stardock, I'm pretty excited for the alpha!
This could be decent or really really bad, depending on how stiff the penalties are and how they are applied. Focusing on missiles and taking a penalty to mass drivers and lasers to do it is fine, taking a hit to diplomacy because you researched too far into the planetary invasion techs is not really acceptable.
This fits much better with the concepts.
That’s not how it's supposed to work, if you understand.”
I hope that this means they will take into account the latest findings on astronomy, or better game mechanics.
The interface drives them crazy now, especially its lack of helpful tooltips.
Advisers and maybe a right click extensive description on what the improvement and wonder does would be nice. Better governors some smart Ques, on the Gnn news screen only display what I need. Local and global ingame settings, as a disclaimer these are the things I would like to see.
“Essentially, we’re not really so much making GalCiv 3 as we’re making the GalCiv 2 that we always wanted,” Boyer says.
I like this idea.
Wardell points to the Yor Collective, a robot faction, as an example of the kind of faction customization Stardock are trying to do.
Ok how about androids and cyborgs. Even a computer running a faction. Genetically engineered or laboratory made genetically with different amino acids.
GalCiv 3 is beginning with custom tech trees for every race. That should give each civilization a distinctive style that underscores their fictional identity.
Awesome I want to see how this is different from Twilight of the Arnor. I hope that this time they will pay attention to the fact that new technologies do not mean that you should get less wonders. I would like to hope that between one per planet, galactic achievements, trade goods, and super projects that the different would be about on par with their proper gameplay with each other.
Right from the start in GalCiv 3, players have to choose which lines of research they will pursue at the exclusion of others.
I think a major tech revision is always nice. This is kind of a compromise between the ones that want random techs and the ones that want to plan out there techs. I think I came up with this idea.
The greater variation between factions and their research paths will, Stardock hope, make ship customization a little more relevant to players and encourage more diversity when fleet-building.
As far as I know before Distant worlds this was exclusively your domain on how to build ships. This is one of your major features.
Well as far as I can see until recently they beat everyone on a comprehensive customizable space version of Civilization better than anyone else, and even their rivals now are lacking customization and/or good ship customization, or their techs aren't done as good.
I still want to see a ship yard and a social production where I build on the planet at the same time. That is something else that Galactic civilizations does seem to do superior than most games that I've seen.
I know that I'm not a programmer, but if they are using a modern language they support multiple thread programming where it will take advantage of your threads and cores. Plus considering that a lot of modern computers has only four cores with hyper threading if you are Intel I'm sure this is what they mean.
I agree I want control its up to the Devs on how It's done though, so if they think its better I trust they know what they are doing on this.
Htorne
I think the Dev should invite them to a private Beta thingy, and not a marketing Beta.
I would like to volunteer for this.
I'M beginning to regret buying into the Alpha; as it sounds like this is not going to be the game I was wishing to see come to fruition. I prefer options, but I see that the developers are doing things in a way other than I was hoping (whether I/we like it or not). They already have my money; what do they care what I want (now).
A limited tech tree? Sure, treat us like children (or worse yet, teenagers)! I wish I was a teenager; as I could ask for my money back and just go back to playing Gal Civ II; which I quit playing due to its limitations.
Oh well, that's life. I should've remembered the fiasco with Empire Earth Three (where they did away with the ability to pause the game and still view everything and issue commands).
I'm wasting my time here though; as the rule of thumb (in this monetary world we live in) is "always leave them wanting more!" "The developers know what they're doing" and they're doing what the bean counters tell them to do (or they don't get paid).
But that's just my opinion and I'm just a bum with a Bachelor's Degree in Business Management with only an Associate's in CIS/CIM and a (former) Novell CNE - what do I know?
SK
On a more positive note, though: the good news is I am no longer waiting in anticipation for the release of the Alpha. Heck, I no longer care if the game ever comes out at all. I might as well go back to playing Masters of Orion; after all, that is what this game is turning into...
MOO III sucked too, come to think of it.
You actually can ask for your money back, if you send them an email. It may or may not actually happen, but it's worth the attempt if you're this unhappy. Since the alpha isn't out yet, it's likely doable. (sales@stardock.com)
It'd also be a valuable lesson - next time, don't buy something based on expectations that are in your head, rather than what they're actually building. That's a recipe for disappointment.
(I do kind of like how we have people complaining that this game isn't enough like Master of Orion due to the tactical combat situation, and now there's someone complaining that it's too much like Master of Orion. That's a nice, consistent message for the developers from the fans.)
imabigbaby.txt
From what the article states it seems that while you COULD fill out the tech tree, he is saying that it isn't exactly the best way to go to spread resources that thin.
I think that picking different branches are a little more than specializing. I think that they are planning both specializing and minusing techs by what you research. I'm sure that even though their will be different branches they will set it up that when you are done; their will still be a balance for reasonable game play. This will be trial and error. This will be fun practicing. Now the factions will be able to play more like your style. This should be like a combination of the faction and your style game play. I don't know why people don't think this wouldn't be fun. I hope that after you pick your tech paths and specialize their would still be about as ,amy techs as there was in Dark avatar with just as many trade goods, super projects. and Galactic achievements as their were in dark avatar for each faction.
.
I think the penalties would be more like less turns for the techs you are specializing in while their would be more turns for the others.
I would say more like a tech tree customized to our specifications or gameplay, and specializing in that.
Sure, treat us like children (or worse yet, teenagers)! I wish I was a teenager; as I could ask for my money back and just go back to playing Gal Civ II; which I quit playing due to its limitations.
I personally liked what they did on research I thought it was a good try. I also liked what they did with the Thalans. I would like to hear the problems you are having. I think a good way to solve problems is to let them know what they are. From what I can see they are expanding on existing concepts without minusing gameplay. If this is what is happening I think it could be a serious upgrade. This comes from someone who liked the games.
Well I definately think this is bad. I can't imagine how this would help game play.
I agree with that whatever Galactic civilizations is doing in their previous games do it more hear. More of and like what they are trying to accomplish in Galactic civilizations.
Isn't that the problem we all have different opinions even us less educated people.
Well if it is; it won't have tactics. Hopefully Moo3 sucked they have learned from their mistakes, and do it better this time around. I played Moo and Moo2, and didn't like them. I thought the graphics were to limited. I thought the map was to small. I thought the factions were to limited. I guess the ultimate edition spoiled me.
I somewhat do this I will buy the game, and if doesn't do it the first time then I won't bother buying expansions. I learned this with masters of Orion. When the first game didn't work I tried the second with the same disappointment.
I think it had more about viewing things different. Most people consider things evil because of perspective and alliances rather than people actually being evil.
The most inspiring thing about the article is what they are doing with their techs.
I have long found it faintly amusing that a number of 4x space games tend to give humans 'a diplomatic edge' when assigning racial attribute to us Ho-mans. That this is not borne out by either history, past or present, or reality in general never really seem to cross designers minds. I think its outgrowth of the Humans are Special Trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreSpecial
Perhaps optimistic 4x game designers prefer to imagine a time(in the far.....far distant future) when human diplomacy is not the plodding, bureaucratic, two-faced and largely self-serving exercise that pretty much characterize all human diplomacy past and present. Maybe in the future they imagine human diplomacy will involve actual skill and perhaps even some genuine good will, rather than subterfuge, threats(real and implied), and general brow-beating. I would think any superior and civilized race subject to human 'diplomacy' would be just as likely to conclude that vaporizing all of us would be the wisest course of action, as opposed to be dazzled by our diplomatic wiles.
If I were designing a 4x, I would definitely assign us ho-mans racial attribute and bonuses, I just dont think diplomacy would be at the top of my list however.....
Some people are drama queens, the dev's have repeatedly said in interviews that this is GalCiv2 2.0 and that it will resemble it strongly, with 33% the same features, 33% improved features and 33% new features. People are reading one poorly worded article and freaking out unnecessarily. Please stop doing so, or read all of the information available before doing so.
I gave a strong example above of the proof that Stardock has already provided to founders that the game will be true to the essence of the GalCiv franchise, Stohrm please take a stroll into the founders vaults and see for yourself if you need more convincing.
That said the game is still in development and could change dramatically before release, but I have the upmost faith in Stardock, Brad and Paul producing a quality title that I will continue to enjoy for nearly another decade!
Fate,
Oh, come on, Chief, people do what they do better - overreacting.
Besides, there is nothing else to do yet, so let them blow off some... steam.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
