I'm really liking the direction the version 2.6 opt-in is going.
That said, I feel like I'm really only touching the surface of where we're going with this game.
Do you guys understand that the engine is state of the art and brand new? As a game developer, it's very exciting.
The next big thing on my plate is all the political stuff. That's what the next major expansion will be about but the main game and Crusade players will benefit as well as balance continues to get more and more interesting.
From the AI side, the next major effort for me personally will be the ship design AI. I'm going to be tossing out the "modding" stuff that no one uses and instead have the AI procederually design its own ships which I think will be a lot more interesting anyway.
Meanwhile, lots of interesting editors are being made for you guys to actually access the 11,000+ files that make GalCiv III.
I promised you some years ago that for GalCiv III we were in it for the long haul. Well, I can say for a fact that here at 2017, we're not even warmed up yet. There's so much more we can do.
The only real question will be whether people WANT turn-based strategy games. I have nothing but joyous feelings about Stellaris and Sins of a Solar Empire. But there does seem to be a preference for real-time games over turn-based. Real-time makes pacing a lot easier since you just speed up or slow down the game as needed. But I feel like RT games (and yes, I mean Sins too) lose some of the crisp game mechanics that turn based games can have.
In any event, we have a lot of exciting stuff coming up!
I prefer the turn based game system. I can easily multitask with it. I take my laptop to the workshop, piddle in there and play turns, go away for a bit, come back and play a turn or two. The turn based game lets me play more by being able to play turns at my leisure as opposed to having to keep checking on the game status in real time.
And yes, I am having as much fun as you!
I am having a great time and always sit on the edge of my seat whenever a new patch/update comes along. I read every line of the change logs and appreciate that you folks make those available in a timely manner. Thank you for that.
The game is definitely improving as time passes, so, thank you for all your hard work,
I also prefer TBS to RTS.
Just out of curiosity, ribbiter-in-chief, what size galaxy do you tend to play on? Do you take advantage of the 64-bit capabilities to play on the largest maps, or are there too many demands on your time to play on larger maps?
I tend to play on Large but not any bigger than that. I rarely have time to spend days on end on a single game.
I prefer RTS.
I prefer TBS, but acknowledge, as Brad mentioned, its an increasingly small, niche market. :/
Prefer TBS by a large margin to RTS
Glad to hear that the improvements will not be slowing down. I also love the direction things are going, and look forward to each update.
I prefer tbs.
I like RTS, but short RTS matches. I get into a game and someone knocks on the door. What am I supposed to do? Invite them in to watch the last five minutes of the match. (got some converts that way, but more really strange looks)
There is NO WAY that a concept such as GC can be implemented as a RTS. The scale won't permit it. Perhaps a non-RTS as a grand framework for RTS events, but that's a difficult problem, at the very least in marketing terms.
I'm just thrilled to hear that Stardock is re-emphasizing GC. I haven't been completely converted yet, but you're making all the right noises.
Now, I have an couple issues with the designer, which I'll address elsewhere. What do you mean by " the "modding" stuff that no one uses"? Using base designs for modifications? Eh.. It's a little quicker than starting fresh. What would be much more useful is a Designer that understands (or that you could tell) what your design goals are.
BHG managed to turn Civ into a RTS with Rise of Nations, and Rise of Nations is awesome.
I'm personally not convinced that TBS is on the way out. recent success that incorporate the format like Civ, XCOM and to an extent Totalwar should tell us that TBS still has a place in gaming. I would consider, as a gamer, that Endless Space 2 is a successful game, and Endless Legend did quite well for itself as well. last I heard GalCiv 3 was still doing pretty good sales-wise, or am I incorrect?
oops. quoted myself. Not edited.
Yep, the return of isometric RPG's, and just generally what independent developers have been able to do with 'dead' genres of gaming is pretty revealing. You are unlikely to get the market share of the big budget stuff like Battlefield or FIFA, but why would a 4X be looking to compete to such a broad market? These are pretty niche games as they have a pretty high level of depth and complexity. There's no one line answer, but I am yet to see a convincing argument that TBS isn't in anyway appealing to gamers in general.
On your point on Stellaris. I feel there are a few specific factors that have contributed to its relative popularity. 1. Paradox are a big player in strategy games and have a pretty rabid and large fanbase 2. Paradox are the perhaps the most accomplished dev/publisher at presenting their games through media like twitch and youtube. Their streaming game is strong and they get good views. 3. Paradox fans, and many people in general, have been wanting Paradox to take EU and CK and basically make a space version of their form of grand strategy. Paradox largely achieved this as well as provided a fairly interesting spin on the 4X genre.
I honestly think GalCiv 3 is hitting a pretty good stride, and I do observe the recent updates as being quite well received (poor quality, negative steam reviews being the exception). I think the idea of another expansion adding in political mechanics is something that will definitely appeal and round out the game quite nicely. I've also noticed Stardock putting up more videos on their channel, and if they continue to develop this form of communication it will help in the long run. Everyone in gaming should be learning from Paradox when it comes to marketing and streaming.
Turn based and nothing else.
I'm with the majority in this thread - I can only stomach real time strategy in small doses. Turn based feels much grander in scope.
TBS here as well. I seldom just play, most of the time I do something else at the same time, like looking videos or reading, so I like to be able to press "Next turn" at a leisure. Pausable RTS would be tolerable, but still not the same.
I dare say I'm having more fun than you, Frogboy! I have a lot more time to spend with the game than you do and I've been enjoying the hell out of it since its' release. I've logged more than 3000 hours on it so I better be enjoying myself...
I much prefer turn based to real time, too.
I thought my 701 hours was a lot.... Heh
I tried pausable RTS in Lords of Magic and Dragon Age, and hate it. And Dragon Age got good reviews.
I think it makes more sense instead to slow down the RTS heartbeat. Make it take a couple minutes to take a planet, even with all the bombardment in the world. A fast heartbeat (such as C&C:RA2) makes it more about memorizing hotkeys and muscle memory, which is more like an arcade game. Too slow, and you have to commit the next 6 hours of your life to play one MP game.
Sorry. Things haven't been as fun as I would have liked. I hate to sound like a kill joy, but you keep asking for feedback.I really liked GalCiv 2. I wanted a sequel to it, but you guys fumbled in my books. It feels too much like a different game.You added features that I did not like, such as planet tile adjacency and tech specializations. You did not expand (or expand enough) on features that I would have liked expanded on such the ship designer. I like the game designing ships for me so I don't have to, nor do I like having dozens of ships in my active list. I still want to have a say in the matter, such as using lots of gun with little defense, or must use this module.To put it another way, I would have liked a remake of GalCiv 2 using a new engine, not a sequel that threw away stuff I liked away.
1600+ hours here. I love this game. In fact I am an ardent supporter of Stardock on the principle that it is not a huge behemoth of corporate bureaucracy. I love the fact that Frog can stroll into his office and actively engage his developers, artists and do a 'hands on' approach.
Turn Based will always have a place. We as players need to show our 'friends' the game and let "word of mouth" spread that way.
My first introduction to 4x was at a friends playing Heroes III (99') while we were drinking beer. Fast forward to today. I have introduced many close friends to this game and they love it, as do their friends!
People will ask me ...You spend 9 hours a day on a computer at work why would you spend more time at home?
I simply tell them that it is the most engaging entertainment you can have.
TBH I'd have to go back to GC2 to see how I would actually compare the two. GC2 is tighter (ie finished), but other than that there's very little I like in 2 more than 3. (although I understood ship combat mechanics better in 2 than 3, but this might just be me).
As far as I can tell, the ship designer has more functionality in 3 than 2 and you don't have to use any of the pre-recommended ships (and you can even remove them from the list also). The tech specializations can be a bummer psychologically as it always seems like I'm "giving up" something to pick one over another, but all-in-all I think it fits the goal of trying to add more choices in tech, rather than just obviously researching everything..
all in all, I'd agree with you much more strongly a couple of years ago. It's a much tighter play experience these days than it was during release.
In response to Brad's OP..
TBS and RTS both have their place. For GC3 size/type games I do think TBS is superior.
Some of this topic thread might be onto something with the turn-based-resurgence speculation. Not only have a lot of video games gone retro, but we seem to be in a golden era of tabletop resurgence - and with this possibly a new appreciation for slower, more methodical turn-based experiences. After all, I've always considered video games to simply be iterations of tabletop playtypes without having to sit around and crunch numbers all of the time (especially the D&D type games).
Keep it up..
Pulling another thread into this one:
As a fan of RTS who's put in plenty of hours to Galciv, I'm clearly not married to any one genre. I would take it a step further:
Brad has some seasoned game veterans on his staff. They know the rules, and they know when to break the rules. Chart your own course. Galciv1 was its own game. If Stardock publishes one more successful game that is neither TBS nor RTS--along with 4 failed ones--then I count that as a raging success. Let's hear GDC 2020 talk about the new SDG that is all the rage (Stardock Genre).
If I architected a game myself, I would have to follow in someone else's footsteps. But not them. They're the footsteps I would follow.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account