From the information available, GALCIV3 is looking pretty much like the previous iteration with nothing that substantial to tell them apart. This is a gut feeling impression and I hope I'm wrong and there's more than updated graphics and tweaks here and there to justify wide consumer interest in a seemingly lackluster premise.
I love you Parrotman.
I hate to break it to you buddy, but . . .
Masters of Orion was hated for any number of reasons, not the least of which was that they decided to go to a FLEET system and not a Turn Based Tactical Combat system that Masters of Orion: Battle at Antares had.
Now GalCiv 3 is going with a "Fleet building" system, which, hello, MoO3 used.
There were lots of other problems, including NO CHEESE. No humor. No FUN.
Gal Civ has maintained the fun . . . so far.
Oh, and since I'm on the subject of problems with MoO3, let me point out something else where MoO3 went wrong and our beloved GalCiv 3 is matching it: a more complicated and ultimately meaningless, Tech Tree.
One of the biggest criticisms was . . . most of the techs merely added numbers and added complication, not fun. It was unclear what anything really did, or that there was a real purpose for the tech.
In his March 21 notes found in the Founders Vault, Frogboy warns the designers that they must be very specific about what a tech does and that techno-babble and nebulous quotes won't cut the mustard. Every tech needs to give the player something.
What made MoO2 better than MoO3 was that each tech did something that added to the game in a clear way. And it was presented in such a way as to make getting that tech exciting.
I played GalCiv3 for a few hours, and you know what I noticed? When a tech had completed research, guess what happened?
Nothing. Nothing at all. The button at the bottom said "Research".
That was the only feedback I got. Now, I know this is an ALPHA, but as I haven't seen any indication that there will be significant feedback when a tech is completed; basically I'm left to believe that researching tech is just about getting bonuses and nothing more. Which is EXACTLY what Masters of Orion III was all about.
And if the "Fleet" building system is anything at all like MoO3, then I'm going to throw up, right here, right now. I don't even want to consider the possibility of that abomination appearing once again.
Captain Tolan T. Grimm, Grand High Poohbah
I'd suggest you take a look at last weeks dev stream.
Ok everyone is emotional and illogical right now from talking about moo, so let me tell a story. My great great great great great great great grand dad was Oliver Twist DARCA, and he asked for more. So...sir, may I have some more combat please as a expansion?
My point is that Moo3 was hated for being radically different. GC3 is so far not radically different than GC2, so I expect it to be great. The tech tree is temporary, it's being completely overhauled in the final game.
Fleet combat is what's in GC2 and I love it, so if it's also in GC3, I'll be happy.
Galactic Civilization does not need revolution, evolution is more than enough when the game is already great.
For me, fleet battles done right would be a huge evolutionary step, alone enough for GC3. Everything else is additional bonus.
It hasn't been implemented yet- innovation is often one of the last things to be iterated, because it's being discussed.
1. This is still an Alpha
2. Never touch a running system!
Galactic Civ II was by FAR the BEST 4x Space game i played.
Where do you have the possibilty to design your own fleet, can counqer hundreds of stars and have a great deplomacy system.
PS: Galactic Civ III has a multiplayer.
In my opinion they should make more a "remake" of galactic civ II. Because it was the BEST!
And how far i can see it at the moment they are doing a great job.
Especially the new ship designer is awesome!
Frankly, shipbuilding, planet building/colonization, economics, combat, and tech trees are the areas that I think need the least work and change, since they did a pretty good job in GC2, and while there's the possibility that something innovative could be a huge win, there's also a big risk that it instead turns out be a turkey. The sole exception there would be invasions, which I think have a significant place for some low-risk innovation. Nonetheless, the new "economy wheel" is innovative, and looks to be quite a good thing, and I personally like starports and the new mineable resources. For the most part, however, I think we should spend a lot less effort on these particular areas, and stick with what we have now.
Diplomacy and trading are the areas that I think could be the most innovative, as the mechanisms in GC2 were still rather primitive. There's a whole lot of things that diplomacy and selective trading could be doing they aren't, and would seriously improve the non-combat elements of the 4X play, which is needed.
The alignment system is all new, and that's definitely innovative. We'll see how it turns out - right now, looks pretty good.
Spying/Espionage is another one, but that's a *much* harder thing to get right. From what I know, it won't be included in the 1st release of GC3. The rather primitive system used in GC2 was one of the glaring failures of the game, IMHO, so I'd rather that they spend some serious thinking-cap time (with our graceful help, of course) to come up with a much more innovative and fun system that still manages not to devolve into micromanaging.
The 2 things I expect to do well in this game are:
1. The AI will be above average compared to most 4X titles out there. Bad AI has been the game breaker in most 4X games.
2. The other is that I expect the game to be quite moddable. Now that mega events and other things that were once hardcoded are moddable through XML, I imagine a lot of new things will become possible after the modding community takes it up.
Now the bad. I hate to be so blunt, but the reason why I have not funded this game is because I just don't see this game becoming awesome, so to speak. I think this game will become decent, but not great.
1. The graphics are outdated for a 2014 game. It's understandable for a medium sized company, although it is a bit of a disappointment. I'm not saying as a medium sized company that Stardock should try to push the envelope the way, say, Crysis 1 did (I should note that the subsequent games were a step back from Crysis 1), but I do feel that the quality of the models and textures are, for a 2014 game, is a bit lacking. If this game gets 3-5 years of development, that means that we could be looking at 2020 as the end, and by then, the graphics are going to be well ... ancient. There may be subsequent improvements in expansion, but the engine fundamentally locked in, so upgrades may be limited.
2. There isn't as much depth in the story, in the way they have made the factions compared to many other games. Alpha Centauri for example tried to put a lot of depth into the different factions and a really, engaging storyline that drew me in. Now GC2, as a game did take a good step forward of introducing tech trees for each faction and some unique improvements. That's a step in the right direction, but the emphasis should be much deeper.
Whatever it's other failings, I think Starcraft did a really good job of that. How you built buildings, how you made units for example, was quite different, and the fundamental tactics, and synergy between the 3 sides is very different.
SOTS tried this too. The different races had different methods of propulsion and their designs were fundamentally different. Some emphasized frontal fire power. Others were broadside based. Some focused on energy weapons. Some focused on mass drivers. This had huge implications. Of course this is only possible with tactical combat, but it shows how much depth tactical combat could add, if it were implemented well.
Sins of a Solar Empire, with its Titans and Capital Ships also arguably demonstrated substantial differences between the races.
3. There aren't really very many game-affecting decisions.
Example: The good/evil/neutral has been expanded into the ideology tree, but it's for a few limited bonuses, none of which will have a game changing effect. Ideologies are small bonuses and will not make a huge difference.
4. The living universe is somewhat ... dull. There has been some effort to put things like black holes in, but it's not a truly living environment in a sense. Elemental I think did a better job overall of this. Alpha Centauri with its extensive terraforming, along with the other mechanics like worms I think was the best among them again.
I'm not ready to pass judgement on 4 yet, I want to see the Starbases and other options available.
5. I'm not sure about what they are doing for ship to ship combat, so I can only case judgement when the game is released.
I'm not saying the game will be awful, but so far, what I'm seeing is well ... average in a sense. It has it's flaws and advantages. It's an incremental improvement in some areas, but it may also turn out to be a step back in others.
I have not had a game wow me in a while now, and well, I don't expect to play this game and go "wow this truly revolutionizes 4X gaming" the way a game like MOO2, Alpha Centauri, or any game that has been so influential that it has shaped future games has.
Ya see, when people get older they get stuck in their ways. From liking older games to not being wowed by newer ones in years it's all because of a lack of complacency. So take a vacation or get some more "me time" because you need it.
You do realise, that the game is still in development, right? A lot of the game mechanics haven't been implemented yet, and what's already in is still being worked on. I don't think it's fair, to pass judgement just yet.
Also, regarding Ideologies not making a huge difference, have seen the last dev stream? The devs were showing the updated Ideology trees, and talking about some of the effects they will have.
I think you are just tired from playing to many 4x games.
Every game can be godlike, but at some point it will get boring, just because you played it to often.
And the things you ask to pull off form this studio is just to much when you look at the budget they can spend.
And only because a company spent LOTS of money on a games it can still be really bad.
Look at EA: BF 4 was a really BAD game and they have spent millions on it. EA is still is the worst game company in the business...
Diablo 3: Bad game, Blizzard is making billions every month and they could not even make a proper GCI ending in the expansion of Diablo 3. Even the expansion is bad.
Starcraft 2: Yeah they have made this game so "PRO LIKE", that NO "normal" player is playing it anymore. SC 2 is DEAD! Even they have spent so many dollars on it, they made it wrong.
The most important thing about a game is NOT, that the hardcore gamer are playing it. It is about that normal people are playing it.
Why do you think "Sins of Solar" was sold that great? Because normal people could play it too!
What would happen if Stardock would spend billions of dollars on Galactic Civ III, but no normal player could play it?
You would have a "super complex strategy simulation", but how much would by this? 3000 people?
Great. 3000 hardcore gamer playing this game and the company is financially ruined. That will not work!
Quoting UnleashedElf, reply 62I have not had a game wow me in a while now, and well, I don't expect to play this game and go "wow this truly revolutionizes 4X gaming" the way a game like MOO2, Alpha Centauri, or any game that has been so influential that it has shaped future games has.
THAT happens EXACTLY when you are playing TO MUCH games. There will be NO game which can satisfy you in the end. Just make a break and maybe
you will find some fun in games again!
BTW: In galactic civ you have one of the best communitys out there in the whole gamer universe. Even look at the forums. I see never insutling or shouting at other people. That is really rare!
Haven't played BF4 but wasn't only the launch bad?
Diablo 3 was more unfinished and poorly tested when it came out, not bad by design. I hear its a great game now with paragon levels and more content and what not, but i never went back after the first bad impression. And look how much effort they put in the console port, thats way above and beyond the average company puts into a port.
Not sure what you mean with SC2 being "PRO LIKE" or it being dead. There is tons of normal people playing it and skill level varies wildly, and they have a pretty decent matchmaking system too. Sure you will benefit greatly in this game if you put some research into builds etc, but popular MOBA games typicalyl require much more upfront knowledge from the player. I personally have a bit or ladder anxiety in starcraft so i don't play it much, irrational no doubt, which i guess is maybe what you were getting at? There is no problem with starcraft, there is only a problem with the RTS genre that is going through a drought at the moment, much like 4x games went trough a drought untill about 5 years ago.
What do you mean with a hardcore player? someone who puts in a lot of time? someone who is in the top 1% of skill? someone who takes the game "serious" by researching strategies? hardcore is used so much it has lost all meaning.
Why do you consider sins a better RTS? I get the feeling its because you like macro based RTS more then micro based RTS, in that case you should probably check out planetary annihilation.
sorry if this comes across a bit to ad hominem, i don't mean it that way i am just curious to your reasons.
In my experience smaller and/or niche communities in general are nicer.
oops pressed quote instead of edit.
Stardock does not even have $1 billion to spend.
You seem to prefer based on this argument that "dumbing down" is a good thing. I would like to know when dumbing down has been a radical success. Let's see:
- Supreme Commander 2: Failure
- Civ V: Launched in a pretty awful state, you could argue that GK and BNW fixed some of the flaws though
- There has been a decline in depth from Morrowind to Oblivion to Skyrim in the TES series
- Dragon Age 2: Failed
- Crysis 2 and 3: Crytek is now in serious financial trouble
- Command and Conquer Series: Red Alert 3 and C&C 4 killed that one off
- Dead Space: Arguably killed off by poor successors
So find me a case where dumbing down has been successful?
I suspect that it would be the exact opposite. If Stardock were to release a game with the depth and complexity of some of the best 4X games in history, then the community would increase their support for Stardock, not decrease it. The audience would increase.
It's not really a matter of money ... it's more a matter of resource allocation and design decisions.
There are some things that older games have done right. MOO2 heavily influences games today for a reason for example.
I think it's the culture too. There's a mentality these days of "what can we do in x amount of time".
You do realise, that the game is still in development, right? A lot of the game mechanics haven't been implemented yet, and what's already in is still being worked on. I don't think it's fair, to pass judgement just yet.Also, regarding Ideologies not making a huge difference, have seen the last dev stream? The devs were showing the updated Ideology trees, and talking about some of the effects they will have.
I have. They are mostly 1 time bonuses. A few on the bottom appear to be ones that have moderate game changing effects.
The other issue is that the game is in late development. Not early. Late. They've probably been making the game for years now before they announced it formally. The closer you get to the final launch date, the less can be changed ... unless an expansion shakes things up thoroughly.
The estimated release is supposed to be in 2Q2015, so we still have a little under a year left. Also, we are currently in the alpha stage, which isn't feature-complete. We are soon entering the beta stage, which won't be feature-complete at the beginning either (as is customary for Stardock-games). It won't be quite as barebones as usual this time around, due to "reasons". However, I still wouldn't expect the first beta version to be anywhere near feature-complete. Just a bit closer to what most people expect a beta to be.
Remember, the whole starbase-mechanic was added due to player-feedback during the beta for GalCiv 1. In other words, the game is still going to change a lot between now and release.
Hmmm... (take that as you will. )
Vastly improved Gal Civ II with added multiplayer is exactly what I've wanted from Gal Civs III.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account