Galactic Civilizations III trailer!!

[son_of_montfort]

At the risk of being a killjoy, I will post one tidbit from the FAQ at http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq:

Q: What are the requirements to run Galactic Civilizations III?
A: It will require a 64-bit version of Windows 7 or 8 along with a DirectX 10 or 11 compatible video card. There will be no 32-bit version. Most PC gamers in 2013 have this kind of hardware, and it allows us to create the best game possible for the majority of our customers.

Q: Why are you requiring 64-bit?
A: We want Galactic Civilizations III, and future expansions, to be able to handle extremely large galaxies with a very high resolution graphics and large data sets for the computer AI to make use of. It allows us to design the best game possible without being constrained by the limitations of older hardware.

I may be in the minority here, but I'm not running 64-bit at this point in time and am not that eager to upgrade to Win7.  Maybe by 2015 when the game hits the market, though...

Where did you get that 2015 date? I was under the impression that they were shooting for next year.

[Darkspire]

Q: Will the game require a network connection to play?
    A: No. However, some of the AI learning mechanisms will require access to the Metaverse in order to perform analysis on player strategies. This will be optional and able to be disabled by the player but does require an Internet connection.

That will make turning to the darkside, regards installing Steam, worth it on it's own  :)

That was supposed to have happened to GCI but did not happen, this will make things very interesting on the single player front, some of the folks who used to play were like Kasparov, having the routines downloaded and integrated to add to the AI will be a real challenge, the AI will become sentient at this rate  :o

Darkspire

[Martok]

Yeah, that is a cool-sounding feature.  Hopefully it works out like it's supposed to. 

At the risk of being a killjoy, I will post one tidbit from the FAQ at http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq:

Q: What are the requirements to run Galactic Civilizations III?
A: It will require a 64-bit version of Windows 7 or 8 along with a DirectX 10 or 11 compatible video card. There will be no 32-bit version. Most PC gamers in 2013 have this kind of hardware, and it allows us to create the best game possible for the majority of our customers.

Q: Why are you requiring 64-bit?
A: We want Galactic Civilizations III, and future expansions, to be able to handle extremely large galaxies with a very high resolution graphics and large data sets for the computer AI to make use of. It allows us to design the best game possible without being constrained by the limitations of older hardware.

I may be in the minority here, but I'm not running 64-bit at this point in time and am not that eager to upgrade to Win7.  Maybe by 2015 when the game hits the market, though...

Where did you get that 2015 date? I was under the impression that they were shooting for next year.

SoM, I think the 2015 date is mentioned in the fansite kit. 

[Darkspire]

Yeah, that is a cool-sounding feature.  Hopefully it works out like it's supposed to.

I once got all the way to 60 odd in the Metaverse, that's what the idea was / is, the player uploads there score for a game at the end but it was also supposed to upload the decisions and choices made by the player regarding the strategies employed within that score upload. If anyone can pull off turning that data into something useful I believe Mr Wardell can, when GalCiv came out some folks were on dial up modems still, broadband makes passing that data in amounts a reality with today's tech.

Darkspire

[Nefaro]

If they manage to expand the gameplay enough and implement some of the more interesting features like the AI strategy thing, then I'll probably give #3 a try, depending on it's post-release condition.

[FarAway Sooner]

I figure, if they're only in Alpha right now, there's just no way they'll be all the way through Beta in less than 15 months.  It'll probably be one of those "mad rush for Christmas release" things that gets pushed back another 2 or 3 months because these things happen in most IT projects...

[Nefaro]

One thing I thought sorely missing from the previous two was proper planetary systems, varied planet types and races different enough to prefer colonizing types that are uninhabitable for others.  This is essential in any 4X, in my opinion.  The GalCivs were "one size fits all" in this regard and there wasn't much in the way of realistic star systems.  :(

[Martok]

I figure, if they're only in Alpha right now, there's just no way they'll be all the way through Beta in less than 15 months.  It'll probably be one of those "mad rush for Christmas release" things that gets pushed back another 2 or 3 months because these things happen in most IT projects...

Good points, FAS. 

Also, Stardock has a history of sometimes deliberately delaying a game's release so that it misses the Christmas release window, and instead comes out in the following year's first quarter.  That way, they not only have more time to polish the game, but it also doesn't have to compete for attention during the busy holiday season. 

One thing I thought sorely missing from the previous two was proper planetary systems, varied planet types and races different enough to prefer colonizing types that are uninhabitable for others.  This is essential in any 4X, in my opinion.  The GalCivs were "one size fits all" in this regard and there wasn't much in the way of realistic star systems.  :(

I'm always of two minds when it comes to this argument. 


On the one hand, you certainly have a point about different races possibly needing/preferring different planet types to survive/thrive.  And it would be cool to be able to peaceably co-habit star systems with other species. 

On the other hand, though, if races don't require the same planet types, then there's much less need to compete for "territory"; hence, very little cause for diplomatic tension and/or war.  While that would obviously be nice if it worked that way in the real world, from a gameplay perspective, most folks would find it pretty boring. 


Also, a third point specific to the GalCiv series is that races preferring the same planets is basically part of -- and possibly even crucial to -- the universe's lore/backstory.  To have species needing different planet types would require a fairly significant reworking of that backstory, which I suspect Brad is not at all interested in doing. 

[Nefaro]

One thing I thought sorely missing from the previous two was proper planetary systems, varied planet types and races different enough to prefer colonizing types that are uninhabitable for others.  This is essential in any 4X, in my opinion.  The GalCivs were "one size fits all" in this regard and there wasn't much in the way of realistic star systems.  :(

I'm always of two minds when it comes to this argument. 


On the one hand, you certainly have a point about different races possibly needing/preferring different planet types to survive/thrive.  And it would be cool to be able to peaceably co-habit star systems with other species. 

On the other hand, though, if races don't require the same planet types, then there's much less need to compete for "territory"; hence, very little cause for diplomatic tension and/or war.  While that would obviously be nice if it worked that way in the real world, from a gameplay perspective, most folks would find it pretty boring. 


Also, a third point specific to the GalCiv series is that races preferring the same planets is basically part of -- and possibly even crucial to -- the universe's lore/backstory.  To have species needing different planet types would require a fairly significant reworking of that backstory, which I suspect Brad is not at all interested in doing.

Conflict doesn't necessarily need to come directly from competition for habitable planets since any space-travelling race worth it's salt will want them all for resource procurement.  Simply being in the same planetary system, and competing for resources there, is more than enough to implement friction. 

What's more, it even makes conquest more difficult since it would take away the 'Occupation' option between certain races - leaving only extermination.  The biggest issue is specific races laying claim to planets or asteroid fields they can't inhabit, but this is most often covered with cultural influence zones or something similar.  DW started using influence zones to good effect, for example.  The planetary types don't need to be exclusive, only add more dynamics to the gameplay.

[Martok]

Incidentally, someone's gotten in an early interview with one of the devs (credit goes to RooksBailey for finding it):   

http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/18088/article/galactic-civilizations-3-interview-with-lead-designer-paul-boyer/

[RooksBailey]

I ferreted out some info on GalCiv 3 concerning the design direction and team.   Somebody asked if GalCiv III will stay faithful to the series, and here are three responses, the first from dev Mormegil, the second from Brad Wardell, the third from another dev, Abiessener:

Mormegil:

I am loving this thread.

First off, as the designer, this is perhaps my biggest challenge. Keeping the soul of Galactic Civilizations II, but making it better sexier, and feel new. I can't really roll out a big list of what has changed, and what has stayed the same… Yet. But I will let you know that keeping GalCiv, GalCiv, so to speak is my number one priority. This is not to say we won't have lots of new things, we have lots of new things, but they all have to pass a very simple test. “Does it feel like GalCiv”. If and new feature, or enhancement fails this test it goes back to the drawing board.Can’t wait to tell you guys more.

And

Brad Wardell

No worries there, my friend.

Galactic Civilizations has been around for a very long time. It's as old (if not older) than Master of Orion (the first beta of GalCiv for OS/2 was released before Master of Orion 1 was released).

GalCiv II isn't perfect. I can think of a lot of areas we can improve on.  There's a lot of really cool things we're doing with GalCiv III that make it even better than GalCiv II.  That said, when the first screenshots come out, people are going to look and say "It seems very similar to GalCiv II except prettier".  But that's because the core game play is still the same.

There are some exciting areas we can expand on thanks to improvements in PC hardware and also, admittedly, just having more years of being able to think about how different game mechanics lend themselves to new and interesting things.

When some of these new game mechanics show up in the betas, I think most people (as in 99%) will think "Oh yea, I see. This should have been part of GalCiv II actually."   That's been my reaction when we start implementing some of these things. It's not just that they are great for GalCiv III but I kind of wish we had thought of them for GalCiv I and GalCiv II because they seem so obvious now.

and

Abiessener:

Putting together a journal post that I hope you guys will like though, so that's something! Hopefully that should go up tomorrow.

Looking forward to that journal!

[tgb]

 the Beta is available on Steam as Early Access

I had sworn off early access, but boy, howdy am I ever tempted to pick this up.

I guess there are still some playable races missing, as well as non-military victory conditions,  minor races, and diplomacy.

$45 is a bit high for Early Access, although this would be a Day One purchase anyway.  Still, I might hold off until diplomacy and other victory conditions are in.

[bbmike]

the Beta is available on Steam as Early Access

I had sworn off early access, but boy, howdy am I ever tempted to pick this up.

I guess there are still some playable races missing, as well as non-military victory conditions,  minor races, and diplomacy.

$45 is a bit high for Early Access, although this would be a Day One purchase anyway.  Still, I might hold off until diplomacy and other victory conditions are in.

That still sounds like Alpha stage to me.  ???
But, that said, this is a must have for me. I might go ahead and get it and encase it in carbonite and store it with the many other games I have waiting to be played.

[mikeck]

Yeah. Last few years it seems like the definition of "Beta" had changed. Didn't it used to mean a game that was featured complete but needed to be bug and play tested?  Now games are marketed as beta versions that have l half the planned content

[Anguille]

Don't have the time to to beta-testing...