Most strategy games these days have been totally dumbed down to appeal to the average gamer. I sincerely hope it wont be that way with this game. Hoping for even more complexity than GAL CIV 2. Does anyone know in what ways this game will be either more complex or dumbed down compared to the previous game?
As the empire grow larger, so does the need to get relief. A really old game called "Deuteros" handled this in the best way imaginable. You started out micromanaging everything, but as the perspective went outward, so did you get the option to automate your initial, and now seemingly mundane, tasks!
I am not against automation per se. Heck, that flagship can pick up anomalies on auto, and that is for the best!
But when you streamline and take away posssibilities for interaction, the title end up sterile and distant, and you feel your actions have no bearing anymore. I know this, for it is not unusual for the second and third title in a series, that started out great!
Hence the concern that the nature of interaction will be altered, in a way that distances you from decision making, because it gets too effective and simple, and so smoothly mechanical you no longer care!
I dunno...
The latest X-com was dumbed down yet still would have worked for me if it hadn't been for the illogical physics behavior/drawn actions (whatever). Whatever behaviors and animations to signify actions are there shouldn't break the physics of the created universe, breaking immersion.
For the company it often means attracting new people (read: additional) to the franchise to which they can then build upon and create "better" in-depth (again, whatever) games in said franshises. During a heated forum hate discussion regarding Xcom one of the people on the creation team let fly that that was what was behind bits of it. That with the cash flow they can have more freedom to create, etc.
Dunno if he was speaking the truth or talkin' out his ass.
The only thing he is saying here is they were lacking funds for the first game.
The new Xcom is a better tactical game, with the global simulation thrown directly out of the window. I would say that goes into the realm of "feature removal", and it makes the game less enjoyable and more mechanically predictable.
Less sandbox, more rails. Which is not so good, IMHO.
I hate to micro manage.
As said given a choice I will automate all the mundane stuff.
Press the turn button and let the AI manage.
The definition of mundane, is perhaps the crucial point here. If/when the game starts to play itself, it has obviously gone too far.
I'd say there's a lot less micro management but more sophistication in terms of player strategy.
Having Kael, Soren, Jon Shafer, Brian Clair (Sins), and others around has been helpful In having more interesting choices.
Sounds good!
I already threw mah monies at ya'll so obviously I trust yuz guys.
'Cept Soren. Name just sounds evil, don't it?
I'll happily argue against it being a "better tactical" when not only were most tactical features "streamlined out" but, and this is the bug that crawled up me arse, the game was replete with illogical animations, etc., that made no sense and just came across as incredibly lazy.
Shooting through solid objects as if they aren't there yet being forced to acknowledge 'em as solid in every other aspect o' gameplay (even having missed shots colide with said objects where moments before they were immaterial), aliens just standing in a group until discovered, having even less strategic depth in ufo interceptions, etc..
They made the game totes pretty (teehee) and hoped that would be enough to distract fans from the fact that they removed so many features that are common to the franchise. It made the game less brainpower intensive, making it widely available to the general public. Many franchises have done/are doing it.
I think I'm incredibly more pissed about what that says 'bout our society in general.
Anyhoo, the removal o' so many features resulted in "streamlining" simply because there were less buttons, whatever, required to control the game. Streamlining didn't happen first...
For the most part I would only do this if I got tired. I tried governors on civilization didn't like them. Maybe things would have been different if all they built was military units, but instead they were building things at the time I thought was unimportant in times of was like farms and libraries when all I wanted was a hord.
[quote who="Zarkov" reply="31" id="3442503"] Quoting by Plus-HD-1.3" in_rurl="http://i.txtsrving.info/click?v=VVM6NjAyNDA6MTgyNzp0ZWNobmljaWFuOjc1NDA4MzdjYjBiNTE5YzQ4YjNhZjUxMmYzMjEyNzlkOnotMTA5NC00MTgxMDAAs said given a choice I will automate all the mundane stuff.Press the turn button and let the AI manage. The definition of mundane, is perhaps the crucial point here. If/when the game starts to play itself, it has obviously gone too far.
I second that if I want sim city then I know where the game is. I don't play these games for the sim city experience. Matter of fact games like civilization, galactic civilization, and 1703 are most likely reasons I only play sim city on the phones on the phone.
You are not Saren.
No argument. It just means that I'm slightly more forgiving when it comes to bugs and glitches, and engine quirks. Your game technical objections sounds good to me. For those thoughts are not alien to me either. He he.
I entirely believe that. Trying to reboot a franchise like that, they need to expand it beyond "people who remember the original X-COM and want that again." That market is not enough to sustain a major development project. So you do what you can in the first game, and try to give those people some of what they want while also making it accessible.
If it goes well, you get to do a sequel, in which a lot of the work is already done and so you can then start adding more things in. That's just the reality of the market when you're working for a publisher, even one that's more open to even trying games like this in 2k.
For my part, I enjoyed XCOM: EU a ton and felt they accomplished what they were trying to do. It's clearly not near pefect, but most of the problems you mention in later posts weren't things that bugged me a whole lot. I can forgive an awful lot of other stuff if I find the gamplay fun, and I did.
Had they tried kickstarter? I mean original X-Com went release when, 19 years ago? I think people who were playing it back then have money to back it up.
Streamlining and complexity are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I consider the GalCiv 2 UI to be fairly streamlined, it allows the game to be played non tediously at a decent pace, ( i.e you dont need to spend 10 min/turn even in late game )
Yet the gameplay is not streamlined as in there are many valid strategic options at most given time. Unlike most other contemporary space 4x ( Endless space/SOTS etc ), where it seems all you do is plow forward. I really like GalCiv 2 because of it's sandbox gameplay.
Development on XCOM: EU started in 2008 with a big team and was released in 2012. Kickstarter wasn't founded until 2009, and didn't really get big until what, 2011? It got really big in 2012.
Even today, the number of Kickstarter games that have raised budgets capable of supporting a team that size is extremely small. It takes millions to make a game like that.
Planetary Annihilation was funded by Kickstarter, and I think they got around 150% of their multi-million dollar goal. All it had was a small initial dev team and good ideas. Don't discount it as a viable funding source just yet.
The XCOM reboot is kind of a neat place to look at in terms of complexity because they originally started out with what I imagine a lot of old fans would have wanted. It was x-com only with 3D graphics and some new features like taking cover. They eventually found that it was practically unplayable though. All they did was layer complexity on to complexity and they found it wasn't fun. It prompted a complete redesign of the system from the ground up.
deep breaths...deep breaths...
I've gotten over Xcom and even found some enjoyment when I let myself come to terms that it wasn't an X-com game.
No need to murderize nomotog...
deep breaths...deeeeeeeep breaths...
Oh please, You wouldn't be the first to try. I am kind of use to fans on old games wanting to murder me. (I did love original X-com though. Nice game.) What I talked about is something that happen though. They did basically make a X-com D3 version before scraping it and redoing it in the style they ended up releasing. If you can find the video it's a fun watch.
I don't think GC3 will have to go through such radical changes like XCOM went though. Except in combat. I think we will see revolutions in combat, but in other places mostly evolutions or additions.
I agree other than combat it is a great game.
If you end up with less to do while playing, you have not gained anything in reality, for all games are meant to waste your time. A good rule of thumb right there.
In regards to this discussion I think modability is the key concept where StarDock shines. GC 2 can be modded in so many ways it is sick. Wanna make tech trees less complex or design them into Byzantium terrors - you can do it. Have 4 political parties or 40 - you can do it. Edit custom races to be super studs or whimpy hamburgers - check. Wanna nerf farms - done. Wanna make a custom super improvement to rule them all - the story goes on and on and on.
I trust Frogboy and crew to keep this tradition alive and well in GC3.
The devs have stated that GalCiv 3 will be even more modable. For example, we'll be able to mod map-values and events, which wasn't possible in GalCiv 2.
Very cool info. Thanks!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
