GalCiv3 Forums
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.
Personally that's what I want. Galciv2 with more content and better graphics. They don't have to re-invent the wheel.
I am completely WITH Charon on this. That is exactly what I want as well. As i stated in another post about hexes, I have played GCII for many years. It is one of the best 4x space games ever made (in my opinion). I have always wanted GCII redone in native 64bit, better graphics, more AI players and MEGA maps. The rock/paper/scissors move was genius and works well in a game like this. Furthermore many folks always wanted a multi player game where you could play each other or Co Op against the AI.
I would rather sacrifice 'innovation' for the sake of better game play any day of the week. This formula really works and I am happy to see the game is on track as next step in the series.
I agree with Larsenex and Charon on this as well... I'm looking for an improved Galactic Civilizations II by the end of the day, better graphics expanded gameplay more options. To this point, that is where it appears to be be going, which is why I'm excited about it 
There is a lot of subtle changes. When I play GalCiv 3, I think this is Gal Civ 2 with better graphics. But then I play Gal Civ 2 and go... well why can't I do this... why doesn't this work... and the differences start to become apparent.
1. The adjacency bonuses on the planet tiles are a big difference. Where you build your buildings makes a difference.
2. The updated shipyard designer is not just a prettier version, there is a lot more capability than the last one.
3. There are star ports on the actual gameplay map. In Gal Civ 2, you built ships and structures on a planet. This now has moved to building ships in space and structures on planets. Where different planets sponsor the starport to add to the starports production capabilities.
4. In order to build some ships you need particular resources like Durantium.
5. Ideology tree is new and can give your civilization major bonuses depending, if you are Malicious or Benevolent (or somewhere in the middle)
6. Multiplayer
There are other things, but you can find lists of these things around. I don't know if these changes are just called tweaks. But there are some definite core changes here that you know are not from Gal Civ 2, but they integrate nicely with the game. Also, since Gal Civ 2 was a good game, it would follow that the next iteration should model itself after that game and only add things that worked and remove very little, if anything at all.
I'm not sure what you would consider tweaks here and there. We'll see what new things are being added, but the initial alpha release was a close copy of Gal Civ 2, then they add new things and it's becoming a little more substantial as we continue down the path of development. I can't wait to see what the combat system will bring to the game.
Well said Parrotmath. For a 4x game we all need to realize this is now being coded IN 64bit! The sky is the limit on memory and map size, something that no other 4x game can currently boast it can do!
Personally i am more worried whether they are going to reach their goal of feature complete or close to it by the time beta comes around. Seeing the size of the previous content patches compared to the feature list on the store page, that's a lot of stuff they still got to get in.
4 races
black holes, possibly galactic resources
4 victory conditions
fleet design (distinctly mentioned as different from ship design)
combat (technically this is in tho but presumably they mean a bit more fleshed out version)
diplomacy
Quite a lot for 1 content patch.
They already have mentioned that the beta will not be feature complete to start. For one, they will not have diplomacy until late beta by their tentative schedule.
Yeah but wasn't the whole reason to delay the beta to be close to feature complete?
There is a lot of subtle changes. When I play GalCiv 3, I think this is Gal Civ 2 with better graphics. But then I play Gal Civ 2 and go... well why can't I do this... why doesn't this work... and the differences start to become apparent.
1. The adjacency bonuses on the planet tiles are a big difference. Where you build your buildings makes a difference.
2. The updated shipyard designer is not just a prettier version, there is a lot more capability than the last one.
3. There are star ports on the actual gameplay map. In Gal Civ 2, you built ships and structures on a planet. This now has moved to building ships in space and structures on planets. Where different planets sponsor the starport to add to the starports production capabilities.
4. In order to build some ships you need particular resources like Durantium.
5. Ideology tree is new and can give your civilization major bonuses depending, if you are Malicious or Benevolent (or somewhere in the middle)
6. Multiplayer
There are other things, but you can find lists of these things around. I don't know if these changes are just called tweaks. But there are some definite core changes here that you know are not from Gal Civ 2, but they integrate nicely with the game. Also, since Gal Civ 2 was a good game, it would follow that the next iteration should model itself after that game and only add things that worked and remove very little, if anything at all.
I'm not sure what you would consider tweaks here and there. We'll see what new things are being added, but the initial alpha release was a close copy of Gal Civ 2, then they add new things and it's becoming a little more substantial as we continue down the path of development. I can't wait to see what the combat system will bring to the game.
That was informative. Thanks.
For sure that GC2 was a good game, and that all the good stuff should be included in the new one. But instead of hexes for squares there could have been a full 3D map - it would've been a greater impact taking the idea from SINS or SOTSII than CIV V - which would fit more nicely in a next generation 4x in space (but still being turn based).
The more of the same feel will likely be a point of contention with reviewers and their scores, and this eye-candy generation of players will likely be put off with the seemingly simpler graphics. Another gut feeling I'm having is that sales will hurt due to this "outdated" feel of the game.
Sins was a 2D game. The ships moved a little up and down off of the 2D plane, but that's all. It was still played in 2D. I can't think of an "innovation" that would destroy GC more than a 3D map.
Meaning that they hope to have most of the game play features in by beta, such as all resources, and black holes.
Most likely we won't get more races until later in beta, as those will be finalized as we approach the release date (simular to how previous versions were released in beta)
As stated above by parrotmath diplomacy will be late beta as well.
Basically they want to get the game functional prior to adding more races, even larger maps, diplomacy, fleet battle screens, invasion screens ect...
Thus, is the purpose of the Alpha's & Beta's to test the game to get it ready for the release of the fully game
Alap, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I am glad you are investigating the game. However, to generalize that everyone will be put off by the look is a bit of an overstatement. Currently (I feel) the graphics are amazing. The ship detail is far better than anything I have seen so far. I had endless space and it was 'meh'. GCII was amazing but was limited in 32 bit.
As for features, somethings will change. This is after all a 4x game. The basic mechanics are in play and anyone who knows of this type of game will (in my opinion) find this iteration well worth looking at.
I also happen know of 6 personal friends who are waiting on Beta to pick up the game. They are nerds like me who happen to be in the gaming industry. One friend is a CS guy for EVGA, and another is Network guy who goes to business to install OS and get the net running. Both of them are really excited about GCIII and they have friends looking at it.
I personally think we will see a surge in purchases when we go to the first beta.
From what I remember it was to include a better AI so people won't dismiss the game outright.
Somebody is reading our thread...
"Innovation in an existing series is a tricky thing. We have players here on the Galactic Civilizations III forums who are outspoken about their desire for an updated GC2 with bigger maps and fancier graphics, and others who constantly question why they should invest in a new game if they don't see dramatic steps forward.
We do have answers to these questions -- in some ways, these are the central questions Stardock has struggled with since we started production on Galactic Civilizations III years ago, well before it was announced to the public. We've been thinking about the dichotomy of innovation versus faithfulness for some time."
I know right. The decision to keep it 2d was made long ago and has never been up for debate(as far as i know). The idea has been beaten to death on these forums, and yet here it is again.
Personally that's what I want. Galciv2 with more content and better graphics. They don't have to re-invent the wheel.
Absolutely this. All I want is Galciv2+1.
Absolutely this. All I want is Galciv2+1.
But that is not what you are getting... They are changing things. It is not galciv 2 HD.
Could someone who feels this way try to explain what is an okay amount of iteration, and when it becomes to much of a leap foward, rather then a step?
I personally feel it has much more to do with wether the innovation "fits" and "feels" galciv enough, rather then the actual amount of innovation. I feel that if they came up with some revolutionary new feature never before seen in a 4x game, and it fit in nicely without distorting the rest of the game noticably, nobody would bat a eye. But if that feature were clunky or got annoying after a while, everybody would be up in arms.
But that is not what you are getting... They are changing things. It is not galciv 2 HD.
Could someone who feels this way try to explain what is an okay amount of iteration, and when it becomes to much of a leap foward, rather then a step?
I personally feel it has much more to do with wether the innovation "fits" and "feels" galciv enough, rather then the actual amount of innovation. I feel that if they came up with some revolutionary new feature never before seen in a 4x game, and it fit in nicely without distorting the rest of the game noticably, nobody would bat a eye. But if that feature were clunky or got annoying after a while, everybody would be up in arms.
An example of innovation that I like very much is adjacency bonuses. That's a great idea that adds to the gameplay. A bad idea, would have been 3D maps or tactical battles. That's too far away from core GC.
You only say that because the adjacency is done right. If it was even a bit more detailed or complex, it would become a chore and people would complain about it. Similarly, if this game was being made for the Occulus Rift, there is a good chance everybody would be begging for 3D maps and innovations in the UI, because it would be a lot more natural and immersive on such a device then 2d.
Could you try to explain why you think adjacency is good? Why does it add to gameplay? And why wouldn't it be great anymore if it was for example (exaggerated) a sim city minigame? "too far away from core GC" is a feeling, try to explain that feeling.
EleventhStar, even though I love the concept of a "simcity" mini game on each planet, this is not GalCiv. GalCiv is a galactic game on exploration and conflict in space, how races interact w/ one another, not how great you can make your planet, however, it is nice to do on the side.
With that being said, I wouldn't mind this concept being added at a later time.:)
Building adjacency is nice as it gives one a little more focus on where to place buildings and a reward for doing so. You also have trade-able resources added to this point, black holes, nebula's, a movable shipyard, a shipyard not on the planet, and several others.
Yes, you can complain about terror stars and espionage, however, you are getting more, and if you're an elite founder, you will get all the expansions so don't sweat it.
This is another person looking for a GalCiv 2.5 more than a brand new game. I don't want something that "feels" significantly different. The word "feels" is obviously subjective. Some examples from my subjective point of view. Tactical battles would make it a different game for me. Different in a bad way since I do not like tactical space battles at all. The adjacency bonus is a good example of something that looks intriguing yet simple and will add to my desired level of micromanagement. That "desired" level is tricky for a widespread crowd like us. Some folk would love micromanagement down to the level of creating a name list for each ship crew roster. (to exaggerate a little) Someone like me is happy to just throw neat looking ships at each other and see who wins. To me, the first option would break the "feel" beyond my ability to accept. I can see adding a little to the space battles, but I am very concerned that it will want me to acquire the twitch fingers reflexes I just do not have.
I don't have any definitive answers. I don't think there are any. It is a balancing act the devs and game publishers go through. The fan base demands are very diverse, almost schizophrenic. I have nothing but sympathy for the developers of any game, let alone my precious GalCiv, which they had better not mess up. (Looking great so far!)
EleventhStar, even though I love the concept of a "simcity" mini game on each planet, this is not GalCiv. GalCiv is a galactic game on exploration and conflict in space, how races interact w/ one another, not how great you can make your planet, however, it is nice to do on the side.
With that being said, I wouldn't mind this concept being added at a later time.
Building adjacency is nice as it gives one a little more focus on where to place buildings and a reward for doing so. You also have trade-able resources added to this point, black holes, nebula's, a movable shipyard, a shipyard not on the planet, and several others.
Yes, you can complain about terror stars and espionage, however, you are getting more, and if you're an elite founder, you will get all the expansions so don't sweat it.
You misunderstand me, i don't mean to complain. (tho i will readily admit i have mixed feelings about cut features being all but announced for dlc/expansions. but that has nothing to do with innovation except on the long term.)
I just want people to try to put into words why some things are galciv, and why some are not. How great you can make your planet is definatly part of the game, more so with adjacency, but sim city on every planet would obvioulsy be overdoing it. Where it the line between it feels galciv and it is to much?
(Looking great so far!)
I see you too are having a hard time putting "what is galciv?" into clear language.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Stardock Forums