Ok, so we already knew a few things about Galactic Civilizations 3, Stardock’s sequel to one of the best space 4X strategy games ever made. Multiplayer, hexes, the 64-bit requirement, a most probable graphical upgrade, new aliens, a campaign, closed alpha somewhere in early 2014 and pre-orders starting at $39,99. But, what are people’s expectations on GalCiv’s third installment? What more do we want to know at this stage? To address this we asked you, the fine community of SpaceSector, to help us assemble some questions to ask Stardock. Well, the first batch of answers has just arrived. Here’s what Ray Bartos, producer on Galactic Civilizations 3, had to say. The second and last batch will follow on a later date.
Kordanor, adarax: Regarding multiplayer, will there be simultaneous turns or IGOUGO turns? If there are simultaneous turns, will the orders be executed right within the turn or will they be executed “between” turns? Will there be a special lobby for multiplayer? Meaning, will Steam be required or another platform for that purpose? And, will there be LAN multiplayer?
Ray: Galactic Civilizations III has simultaneous planning (ship design, planetary projects, ship path planning, research and tech tree choices, etc.) and sequential execution (battle, discovering anomalies, colonizing planets, etc.). Currently right now there are no plans for a separate LAN multiplayer; all multiplayer will go through Steam.
Kordanor: On mod support. Will it be easy to apply mods? And, will mods work in multiplayer?
Ray: Modding has always been a big part of Galactic Civilizations’ success. We intentionally data-drive our systems with XML data so that our designers and modders alike can easily modify the game. And of course many players will love the ability to create and share their ship designs, and in Galactic Civilizations III they will have better tools to do this than ever before.
Ore, Bobby E, Kordanor: Concerning planet management, is there anything else planned for GalCiv3 to put emphasis on the planet’s individuality, with more diversity of planets perhaps, or on what they contain? How much of the design is staying and how much is new regarding planet management? Are there reasons to colonize less than desirable planets, even “level zero” planets?
Ray: As far as managing the planets, it will be similar to the method in Galactic Civilizations II. We are adding more diversity to the planetary creation system. Initially there will be habitable and uninhabitable planets. Habitable planets vary in class, traits and features. Planetary traits affect what planetary features appear. These traits will give varying bonuses and penalties. In the late game, players can unlock technologies to make once-uninhabitable planets habitable.
jackswift, intraloper: Has the ship combat evolved from the previous installments? If so, what new mechanics or features should we expect? Can we expect some control or tactics this time? Also, will it be possible to inflict damage to individual components which could lead to some interesting results like drifting capital ships with smashed up engines?
Ray: We have a new combat system that we are planning for after the alpha. But we don’t want to mislead people – Galactic Civilizations isn’t about fighting long tactical battles. You are controlling a civilization that spans the galaxy and your focus is on producing and placing your fleets, not in giving every order in a battle. We want to keep players engaged at the empire level and fighting for planets and systems, not in ship to ship combat.
Sotiris, Happy Corner: Can we expect the AI in this version to be at the same standards as the previous one, considering that there’s multiplayer now? In other words, is it safe to assume that the single-player will not just be a glorified tutorial for multiplayer?
Ray: We fully expect the majority of our players to play Galactic Civilizations III single-player. Our focus is in making the single-player game great and then adding multiplayer on top of that. As such, AI is a huge focus for us and having the AI programmer for Galactic Civilizations II (Brad Wardell) back and programming the AI for Galactic Civilizations III is a huge advantage.
trix62, Wodzu: GalCiv2 was one of my favorite space games. I understand GalCiv3 will be 64 bit only. I use Windows Vista with 4 GB RAM. I’m using a fairly old computer. In my opinion these types of games do not need a huge graphics upgrade. I do not understand the reason behind this. Why do you need more than 3.5 GB RAM for this game? For what exactly?
Ray: Players tend to assume that FPS games have higher system requirements than strategy games because in on the screen looks better in an FPS game (close-up, high-res objects). They may incorrectly assume that the computer has to have what is on the screen in memory. In an FPS that is somewhat true; the game has stored what is in the player’s immediate vicinity and then it caches new areas when the player moves around. Since the game can predict the small environment the player has immediate access to, it doesn’t need to load up the entire world and can instead load a small sample of high res objects. If the player does “jump around” (think of quick traveling in Skyrim) a load screen is presented because the game didn’t have the new location’s assets in memory and ready to go.
In a strategy game the entire world (or in our case galaxy) is in memory. If you clicked on another area on the minimap and saw a loading screen you would throw your computer out the window. We have to load up the entire world and every asset in that world so that it’s ready to go if the player clicks the minimap or pans around. So memory is a major factor for a strategy game and something that Stardock has had to make hard decisions about with all of its titles. There are often things we would love to do that simply can’t be done because of memory concerns.
That leaves us with two options. Either we make a 32-bit game and add some additional options for players that are running 64-bit (maybe they have access to larger maps or better ship textures), or we make a game from the bottom up that is intended to be a 64-bit game and is never compromised for memory concerns. These can be very low-level engine decisions, including giving the AI plenty of memory to work with the cache data and plot against the humans.
Laird: Will there be any RPG elements? Specifically, named agents, governors, admirals, generals, etc?
Ray: There are some parts of the game that borrow from RPG conventions: designing your ships, improving your stats through access to new techs, improving planets, etc. But at its heart Galactic Civilizations III is a 4X game, not an RPG.
towerbooks3192, Ivan: Invasions. What would be the invasion mechanics in GalCiv3? Will the series be adding land units other than ships, or what will be the mechanics for planetary invasion this time? And, bombardment. Will there be a way to bombard enemy colonies without impacting the population? Or any other way to deny a colony with purely space combat ships (some kind of blockade option)?
Ray: We have a new planetary invasion system in the works, but we don’t want to comment on it until we are confident that the design is solid enough to share.
towerbooks3192, Adam Solo: Will there be a faction creator – with a points and tradeoffs system perhaps – and a chance to make a backstory for your faction similar to Fallen Enchantress?
Ray: Our developers have gone to great lengths to make sure that players will be able to make their own factions similarly to what they love in Galactic Civilizations II.
Fishy, SQW, Chuki792, intraloper, xadar: Research. How does research work in GalCiv3 compared to GalCiv2? Any extra features or major changes? Will there be randomized tech trees so you don’t bee-line to the same tech every time and get something a bit unexpected? Also, will each tech in the tech tree have its own icon or some sort of art? Something a la Deadlock: The Planetary Conquest maybe? You don’t see much art in tech trees these day.
Ray: The research tree is something that is currently being overhauled. Short answer: it’s going to be different but familiar, and we’re confident that it’ll be a huge improvement over Galactic Civilizations II.
xadar: Resources. Will there be exotic resources with some specific use (art, rare metals, anti matter, gas isotopes…) or just credits ?
Ray: Different resources exist on the map and are used for a variety of purposes, primarily the pursuit of optimum efficiency in creating ex-Drengin (or Terrans, or whomever).
Happy Corner: How much would the expansion packs cost? Will there be at least two, like with GalCiv2? You say you have some “big plans” for expansions, but some actual numbers might help make that Founder’s Elite option look like a better deal.
Ray: Right now we’re putting 110% of our effort into making the base game awesome.
TanC: I see that you’re planning on using Steam and Steamworks. Do you have plans for a non-Steam version?
Ray: No. A huge majority of our fans enjoy playing on Steam and having it hooked up through Steam allows us to easily take advantage of Steam’s features (achievements, multiplayer, etc.). We tried providing a Steam and non-Steam version of Fallen Enchantress and hardly anyone used the non-Steam version.
eleazar, Kordanor: Will there be a boxed version? If yes, at what price (compared to the digital versions)? And, with which content? Oh, and will there be Mac support this time?
Ray: There are no plans for a boxed version. American players have largely moved away from buying their games in physical stores (it’s more common in Europe). We really enjoy being all-digital; it means we can adjust our dates when needed (we don’t have to release on a specific day just because a contract we signed with Wal-mart says that will be our day) and it’s much easier to get updates to our players. It also allows us to focus on making the game and not manufacturing, shipping, store contracts, etc.
Adam Solo: What will you say are the most significant innovations from GalCiv2?
Ray: Our most important criteria is that this be the best version of Galactic Civilizations. But we are excited by the addition of the new culture system, map hexes, multiplayer, the new battle system, and interstellar terrain as well as the long list of refinements to every aspect of the game.
To be continued…
Subscribe RSS
103 Comments
Related Articles:
- Ask the Devs a Question: Galactic Civilizations 3
- Galactic Civilizations 3 Enters Alpha, Release “A Year Away”
- Galactic Civilizations 3 Announced !!
- Galactic Civilizations 3 Interview: Beta 2, Status and More
- Galactic Civilization III: Mercenaries – Impressions
Loading ...
Nice! Great interview!
This is BY FAR AND AWAY the game I’m looking forward to the most for the next year or two. I spent AT LEAST 1000 hours with GalCiv 2 and cannot wait to do that all over again!
Good job getting these answers, Mr. Solo… once again, Space Sector stands among the web’s most excellent sites when it comes to 4X coverage.
I have to say, though, that I’m disappointed by the answer to my question about the expansions. In fact, he did not answer the question at all! Unless I choose to interpret his answer to mean that they are not even thinking anything about expansions at this point. Fair enough, but that makes it harder to justify the $100 pre-order level.
I’m pleased to hear of a new planet invasion system, on the other hand. I always felt that was one of the weaker areas of GalCiv, so that’s good news. Curious about the new battle and research systems, too (even if he didn’t spill much abou them).
I’m looking forward to the next part of your article, Mr. Solo!
Yeah, it’s a pity that Ray didn’t want to get into details about the expansions, therefore the “110% focus on base game” answer. At least we tried. And, yes, I also think it was a pertinent question because of the $100 pre-order level.
I agree, the questions were great, but my impression from the answers is that either the detailed designs for a lot of these systems (planetary management, invasions, resources, research) are not in place yet or he doesn’t for whatever reason want to talk about them in detail for this interview. I’m still looking forward to this, but as those are my pet peeves with the second game I’m not going to rush out to preorder a copy just yet.
Over on the official website forums, they’ve suggested that there are plans for two expansions and some DLC. Course, how much (if any) of that gets made depends on how well the game sells, as it does with every game.
None of these answers are satisfying in anyway. Not that I’m mad or anything:)
It’s obvious they’re very early in development (or don’t want too much hype).
It can be the case that they’re in early development as you say, but at the same time they talk about an “early 2014 alpha” and a public beta “soon after”. So, I suspected that they would be a bit further in development by now.
I think most of the answers were disappointing, but the statements about a new ground combat system (replacing the frankly execrable one in GC2) and modifications to planet management (not so bad, but could have been so much better) and tactical combat (“OK Skywalker, here’s your chance to take out the Empire with our biggest fleet. Whaddya mean just five ships? This is the most our logistics can handle!”) should be seen as potentially good.
On the other hand we have the downright bad:
Steam Monopoly – Giving a single distributor exclusive rights is never a good thing, especially when that distributor has a history of TOS abuse and draconian DRM. And for just Achievements? Give us a break – if small publishers like Aterdux (Legends of Eisenwald) or Goldhawk (Xenonauts) can produce Steam and non-Steam versions, Stardock has no excuse. Especially when they have an existing codebase to work from.
64-what? – “In a strategy game the entire world (or in our case galaxy) is in memory.”
Every other strategy game has that aspect and some, like Blind Mind’s Star Ruler, allow you to create 10,000 star galaxies on a 32-bit OS (though manipulating the 3D rendition of the map gets a bit sluggish – a GPU rather than OS issue). Graphics textures are limited by more by GPU memory and DirectX/OpenGL constraints rather than OS and, if needed, AI could be spun off as a separate process (or processes) like with the HOMMV AI mod at http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=34594 so each has its own memory space.
I did comment previously that this seemed to be more a marketing ploy (“64-bit! Everything now l0lz!”) and I don’t see much here to change that. Memory limits will still apply since Win7 Home Premium 64-bit is restricted to 16GB (compared to the 127GB that 32-bit Win2K/XP can access using PAE) so anyone thinking it will make a big difference (Stardock included) is likely to be disappointed.
64 it has clear advantages over 32 bit. Direct access to more then 3.7G memory and not indirect like PAE.. PAE is very slow really. Also it can handle bigger numbers directly and last but not least. Al new computers fro now on will have a 64 bit OS.
So there are real technical reasons to choose for 64 Bits because everything can be bigger. If 32 bits would have been great then my servers would not have had a 64 bit OS since 1999 ;-) Its not just marketing.
“PAE is very slow really.”
No, not really – I see transfer rates of 8-9GB/s from a Ramdisk using PAE with DDR3-1600 (with 12.8GB/s bandwidth). While PAE does add an overhead, that overhead is present on any system with DEP (Data Execution Prevention) enabled. And 64-bit Windows adds its own overheads.
“Also it can handle bigger numbers directly…”
Any OS can handle “big numbers” – WinRARs use of vints (variable length integers) documented at http://www.rarlab.com/technote.htm being one example.
“…and last but not least. Al new computers fro now on will have a 64 bit OS.”
If you’re referring to Windows 8.1, that has a 32-bit version too.
“So there are real technical reasons to choose for 64 Bits because everything can be bigger…”
And potentially slower too, since the main bottleneck in modern PCs is the RAM-to-CPU connection and 64-bit software means doubling the size of data (pointers, etc) effectively halving the rate at which they can be read by the CPU.
Now for software that *genuinely* can use more than 2-3GB of data, that speed loss can be compensated for through less access to virtual storage. However there’s little evidence so far that GalCiv 3 is going to fall into this category.
I’d like to point out that one theory about 64-bit buzz is less testing. Testing one version of an installer and an application takes less man hours than testing two of them. Making only a Steam version also supports that theory.
As programmer I find their official “more memory” argument BS. But it could be that they are using 3rd party library or engine that doesn’t work on 32 bit environment. Remember SPAZ. They used Torque engine and the game couldn’t utilize multiple cores becasue of it. Stardock PR is either failing to comprehend such problem or think it’s not good to mention it.
To be honest, it’s just easier for the programmers when they don’t have to worry about memory constraints. If you know all of your users are going to have a 64bit os and 6gb of available ram you can spend a lot more time on features, AI, etc and not on optimizing ram usage.
PAE lets your OS use more ram, but each 32 bit process is still limited to its own 4gb virtual address space. There are ways to work around this but they are complex and make life much harder for the programmers. Time that the programmers spend on messing with ram is time they aren’t working on the AI, ship design, etc.
It is sounding more and more like GC2.5 with better graphics.That will make some people happy but not me.
Honestly, I don’t even see how there’s enough information provided here to walk away with that conclusion. In any case, sequels in 4x games are rarely revolutionary anyway. When they are, they tend to anger people more than delight them (MOO3, Civ 5, at least for a couple years, etc.).
I don’t want to jump the gun and say negative things when the game hasn’t even came out, but it SOUNDS like they want to make the same game, but with tweaks. I do love GalCiv2, but I am disappointed to hear that planetary management will stay the same, and they won’t be adding any kind of heros/generals/agents, to the game. Their excuse for not having them doesn’t really make sense, “galciv3 is a 4x game not an rpg”. We don’t want an RPG, but those character elements added to the game would be a great addition. As far as combat, I don’t know what they are going to change in it, but it sounds like they want our focus at the Empire level. If that is the case I hope they add a lot of depth in that area. From what I read in the interview, it didn’t sound like they were making any major additions, besides tweaking things already in the game. I hope I am wrong, but I hope to see some some new additions to the game, and not just and upgraded GC2.
I agree with you about the lack of heroes being a downside. Say what you will about Endless Space or Distant Worlds, but I thought the heroes/characters in both games were well-handled… as they were in Master of Orion 2 before them.
In fact, now that I think about it, it’s weird that they won’t be in GalCiv 3. The GalCiv series (with its campaigns and colorful races) has always put a little more effort into actually having a story than most space 4X games. You’d think they would be MORE open to having actual characters in the game, not less.
I would think they would look around and see that Characters in 4x games bring a great amount of depth and enjoyment. Like you said before, ES, DW, and MOO2 all had a character system and I don’t think you can say anything bad about them. Star Lords is in Alpha and they have a character system in place too, and it looks pretty sweet. I just hope there are fresh additions to the game and not the same ole thing.
Heroes in Endless Space were absurdly overpowered. Put a high level one in a fleet and it would add so much power that your one fleet could now take on 20 without a hero and come out barely scratched.
And let’s not even talk about the administrator hero, which was basically a “if you don’t have this at the start, restart the game” level of broken on high difficulty play.
Really disappointed with his answer about combat. Tactical combat is something a lot of us want in a 4X and one of the main complaints about GC1 & 2.
Same here, he was pretty vague. I get that GalCiv is all about 4X, but when the “eXterminate” section involves just pumping out whatever ships have higher numbers of blue, yellow or red icons and moving them on top of other ships with lower icons… ugh.
I also get that having tactical battles in the first two installments would’ve been a mistake, since moving those same high icon ships around a seperate battle screen would’ve just added more tedium to the game (and would’ve been seen as a laughably bad MoO2 combat clone). However, they have an opportunity to make it fun and not too time consuming. Battles in Fallen Enchantress:LH are enjoyable and don’t take away from empire-managing. Auto resolve is there for people who don’t care for it.
I saw nothing in those answers that persuaded me to buy the game… it sounds like they’ve done nothing to address the major late-game tedium (even more than your usual 4X late game tedium IMO) and constructor-fest the first two installments were plagued by. Give me more planet building options, give me more planet individuality, give me more immersion in the universe and give me something more than moving ships on top of their ships (Even Endless Space-type combat would be an improvement), then you’ll have an awesome game that I will purchase.
Or they’ll prove me wrong and I’ll buy the game anyways for 75% off during a Steam sale after they release a GotY edition.
The constructor-fest was the other major problem I had with the game as well. End game you basically have to build stations everywhere and then upgrade each one eleventy-billion times. It was extremely tedious and seemed like that’s what you spent most your time doing in the end game.
Oh the Constructor late-game spam, Urgh! I will not miss that one bit!
Please SD, sort that out!
At least give us an option to turn Tactical on or off. I understand late game tactical could take a long ass time, and thats when I usually auto combat.
Yeah, I realized a month or two ago (while perusing the GalCiv3 forums) that there was going to be no real tactical combat AGAIN, at which point my interest in the game plummeted sharply.
Moreover (and in general), I’m not seeing much in the way of major changes/improvements over GalCiv2. As ashbery said, it sounds like Stardock is merely re-doing GalCiv2, just with slightly improved graphics & AI. As it stands right now, I can’t see myself picking up the sequel until long after it comes out — if ever.
Was not a good excuse for 64 bit.
Why would there need to be an excuse for it? Processors have been 64 bit for pushing a decade, and the OS has been 64 bit since Vista. At this point if you’re still on XP with 2GB of RAM, you’re just holding everyone else back.
It’s not like it’s even all that abnormal now. Any cross platform game with the PS4/XB1 is going to be 64 bit, as seen with games like Battlefield 4. The Witcher 3 is 64 bit as well, as is Watch Dogs.
At this point, there would need to be an excuse to keep it 32 bit, given how archaic that is.
“…the OS has been 64 bit since Vista.”
Actually every version of Windows (including the current 8.1) since XP has had 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The reason for keeping 32-bit is simple: compatibility with hardware lacking 64-bit drivers, either because the company responsible has stopped updating them or gone out of business; and security – 64-bit’s Kernel Patch Protection may offer vanilla Windows better protection against rootkits, but it also hamstrings security software that needs to modify the kernel to operate.
An example of the latter would be Sandboxie, see http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?ExperimentalProtection and it appears Windows 8 64-bit has made things worse, see http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?Windows8
There was a 64 bit version of XP, but it was only the pro version, was never well supported by hardware or software, and was dropped early by Microsoft (it never got SP3). It was more of a specialized release for some specific needs, and not a general home release.
Vista is when they started pushing 64 bit in the mainstream.
At this point, any hardware lacking 64 bit drivers is going to be old enough that it’s unlikely to matter for games. Particularly now that a large swath of the industry is moving to 64 bit at the same time.
“At this point, any hardware lacking 64 bit drivers is going to be old enough that it’s unlikely to matter for games.”
As one example is the (otherwise excellent) Microsoft Force Feedback 2 joystick, I’d beg to differ:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-hardware/windows-7-64-bit-is-unable-to-find-driver-for/37b56279-bd2c-4e0d-8397-4fcf8691a5f2
Hardly seems relevant to Galciv, you’d never use a joystick to play it. You would use it for something like Star Citizen, but that’s 64 bit, too.
I have a hard time being overly concerned that games continue to support 32 bit for hardware that Microsoft stopped supporting five years ago, when most of the market is on 64 bit and the developers really want to be able to take advantage of it.
“Hardly seems relevant to Galciv…”
No, but it is to gaming generally. And it applies also to Microsoft’s Sidewinder Strategic Commander which certainly could be used for Galciv and similar games.
“I have a hard time being overly concerned that games continue to support 32 bit for hardware that Microsoft stopped supporting five years ago…”
If you don’t have an existing hardware or software collection then that’s quite realistic and in this case the blame can be laid squarely at Microsoft’s door. However it is equally realistic that those with existing investments in software and hardware should be leery of an OS “upgrade” that requires them to replace (if replacements even exist) items that otherwise work well. And developers who trumpet “64-bit” as some sort of rallying cry would do well to consider that.
I feel your pain as a guy on a 32bit OS. I’m just going to keep my old pc around for my older games and hardware and eventually I’ll build a new 64bit pc for modern games.
Imho the whole discussion is pointless.
Like XP 64 bit, Vista 32bit and Win 7 bit were abominations which should not have existed and you can mainly find them on laptops which are designed having limited capabilities in mind. Yes, there are some current games you can play with them. But starting a average game while having a mail program and a browser running will bring these PCs to it’s limits.
I mean we FINALLY have consoles which are almost on par with the PC.
So we don’t get Games which are created for 7 year old hardware and then ported to the PC.
Now please don’t hold them back by demanding that the Game is designed with having either a non supported OS in mind, or having PCs in mind which were not designed for gaming in the first place.
That said they are using a engine which doesn’t support 32 bit systems anyways. You can lament what you want, but there is no way back. They won’t go get another engine, especially as they are heavily invested into it.
Or would you rather have them use unity? I still hear people whining about the Might and Magic Release where they revealed that 32 bit is limited to low end graphics and where environment and voiceover is disabled due to system limitations.
“Or would you rather have them use unity? I still hear people whining about the Might and Magic Release where they revealed that 32 bit is limited to low end graphics and where environment and voiceover is disabled due to system limitations.”
Then those developers are lying or incompetent – I have two Unity games (Legends of Aetherus and the Worlds of Magic demo) that run on “fantastic” settings on 32-bit WinXP. And for LoA with voiceovers and environmental effects. Games like Wasteland 2 and Pillars of Eternity (formerly Project Eternity) should give a better idea of what Unity can do.
I highly doubt they are lying just to make fun of people using 32 bit systems. It’s rarely a good way to sell more products.
I guess they just weren’t highly efficient in using the engine.
But Wasteland 2 will probably also not the best game to present how good a game can run on a slow 32bit machine as it also is extremely hungry for hardware much like M&M.
But that is not the point. You are using such an engine to not have to bother with programming it yourself. It will never be as ressource efficient as creating an own engine for it.
Stardock decided in using Oxide’s Nitrous engine which was co-funded by them. This is a pure 64 bit engine.
Now before you say that they should chose a different engine, think again about what it would cost them.
“But Wasteland 2 will probably also not the best game to present how good a game can run on a slow 32bit machine as it also is extremely hungry for hardware much like M&M.”
Care to provide a link to confirm this? Because that seems to contradict InXile’s statement at http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3698#p66859 and it seems rather unlikely that an isometric viewpoint game is going to be demanding by modern hardware terms.
This statement is from March 2013. I played the first alpha for just a short time, but my impressions can be found anywhere.
See the preview from Rock Paper Shotgun:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/19/wasteland-2-preview/
“Wasteland 2‘s currently appalling performance (for many, but not all, players) is just one of many reasons that its ‘beta’ tag winds up sounding a little too Mission Accomplished. Which makes this another case of an Early Access game I wish I’d waited longer to play, as right now the experience is much more about trying to stomach the problems than it is enjoying what does, pleasingly, seem to be the alternate-universe Fallout 3 that Wasteland 2′s Kickstarter backers so craved.”
“Other than performance, the other huge bugbear with the current build is that…”
Or see the forums at:
http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=5570
(yes, there are tons of people with no complaints, but these are not the ones insisting to run it on a 32bit system with old hardware)
“This statement is from March 2013…”
Thanks for the links but they discuss a beta (arguably more alpha) version. I’m sure I don’t need to explain why its performance will likely bear little relation to the final product.
Of course it’s performance will likely be better at release than now.
My point just was, that it’s probably a bad example as there is no indication that this game is an example of great performance with decent graphics in unity.
I have to correct myself here. GalCiv 3 is not using the Nitrous Engine.
From their FAQ:
Q: Is Galactic Civilizations III using Oxide’s new Nitrous engine?
A: Stardock is thrilled about our strategic relationship with the talented team at Oxide Games, but Galactic Civilizations III is not using their Nitrous engine. Not because we don’t think Nitrous is amazing – we’ve seen it, and “amazing” is a good way to describe it – but because we’ve been working on Galactic Civilizations III for a long time, and Nitrous is still being built. Galactic Civilizations III runs on a custom, in-house engine we built specifically for the game.
Well that does not siot well with me,its in alpha and answers seem vague.
I will wait and see what happens but for right now its on the bottom of my list
Reminds me of a certain huge game that was released a few months ago, Xtremely vague details and “choice video footage” (and that was even a month before release.) We all know how Xtremely bad that pile of Xcrement turned out to be!!! Oh, i bitter, SO Bitter about that Xcuse for a game, even now! I wish there were a way to remove it from my Steam library, unistalling it still leaves a grey(ed out) stain after XCOM :-(
Have you considered asking for a refund? Seriously. It would be great to hear know it went. Because, I heard that many people have asked for refunds for other games in the past, including from Steam.
Oh i’ve considered it many times Adam, but i’ve heard stories of people’s accounts being banned (losing access to their games in the process). I do know that Steam’s stance has been said to be at odds with UK trading standards laws and some have used that to get their refund… plus i’ve only logged about 3 hrs in the game (about 30 mins with each patch – its still shockingly poor btw) so I may be elligible… I still have a sliver of hope that they will fix it, even though it means going back on a number of shocking design choices but again, that could take years given Egosoft’s history…
But I think the whole process has taught me a valuable lesson and seeing it in my Library acts as a reminder, as a lesson to not be so impulsive :-(
“I’ve heard stories of people’s accounts being banned (losing access to their games in the process).”
For asking for a refund? Certainly not. I doubt Valve would go that route.
I’m sure there are reasons for Valve terminating accounts (system abuse stuff) but I don’t believe it’s related with asking for a refund. They may say no, you may say yeah, because… So, it will most probably involve some email exchange but from what I’ve read it’s certainly possible. At the minimum you should be able to get Steam credit to buy any other game. At least that’s the way I think it should be.
Steam won’t ban your account for asking for a refund. That’s someone lying about what happened.
Most times they refuse refunds, but they have been more open to granting them on incredibly buggy games like WarZ and X-Rebirth. They’re also more likely to grant you one if you’ve never asked before.
Give it a try. The worst thing that can happen is nothing.
Yeah, It’s one of those stories that’s hard to verify and as Tridus says, it could’ve been someone’s hyperbole about banning their account. I might just give it a go afterall, I suppose in the unlikely event x-Rebirth happens to get better in the future, it may be worth getting it at the inevitable reduced price. And since i’ve been with Steam since HL2’s launch and never asked for a refund… yeah I’ll give it a go, I’ll let you all know how i get on :)
Banning accounts for requesting refunds? Sounds like a hilarious lie.
Personally I got a refund for Legends of Pegasus. I had to ask like three times but it finally worked.
I guess there are multiple factors for a refund:
-How long do you own the game already? If you own it more than a week, your chances are bad
-How long did you play the game? If you played the game for multiple hours I’d also say it’s unlikely you get a refund
-What is the general perception of the game? If there are tons of people wanting a refund, I guess it’s more likely that they will do another one
I contacted them within days, had not played the game for more than 2 hours or so and tons of people were coming for a refund.
In addition in my last request (where I finally got the refund) I asked for a refund as steam credit. This will most likely increase your chances as well.
Steam doesn’t ban you for asking for a refund. They ban people who do chargebacks on their credit cards.
@RandomBlue
Good point. People tend to sell the crap they did as the big bad company’s injustice.
@Kordanor: “Good point. People tend to sell the crap they did as the big bad company’s injustice.”
And how about cases where someone used Paypal who then reverses the transaction? Examples like:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1699614
http://forums.2k.com/showthread.php?91998-Steam-account-disabled!
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=192749
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=993709
And there are cases not involving Paypal:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?2848-Steam-will-ban-you-and-not-tell-you-why
http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/236909-Steam-Account-Disabled…
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.173899-Steam-A-tale-of-Woe-in-abundance
http://consumerist.com/2011/03/valve-disables-steam-account-wont-explain-why.html
Chargebacks allow those who cannot get problems fixed by the retailer a way of seeking redress. Valve’s tactic of disabling entire accounts (which may cost hundreds or thousands of $/£ to build up) when their DRM allows them to *just disable the games in question* should be decried by any sensible person.
Chargebacks are not the right way to resolve these issues. If you buy a Book in a store with cash, and you find out that some of the pages are missing, you don’t go back to the store, wait till nobody is watching and steal the money.
That steam is locking the whole account when a payment goes wrong is totally fine and you will be able to solve this issue with their customer support. Take your first link as an example: If some hacker bought games with your paypal account, wouldn’t it be best to 1. block further payments and 2. lock the whole account to get the attention of the player himself before additional damage is done? This was a false positive security measure.
I mean it’s pretty simple: If it is an error with the payment or a security issue you will be able to solve it with steam.
If you take your money back on your own, you will get punished for that by having your account locked. The alternative? Get some papers from Valves Loyers claming back the money you owe them. Would you prefer that?
“…If you buy a Book in a store with cash, and you find out that some of the pages are missing, you don’t go back to the store, wait till nobody is watching and steal the money.”
Of course you don’t – but a chargeback here would be more analogous to taking the store to court to get your money back. Assuming you’re in the right, they have to refund and bear legal costs. Valve’s disabling of accounts would then be analogous to the store sending someone around to your home to take back every other book you (legally) purchased from them.
“If some hacker bought games with your paypal account, wouldn’t it be best to 1. block further payments and 2. lock the whole account to get the attention of the player himself before additional damage is done?”
Block further payments, yes. Disable access to disputed purchases, yes. Send a message to the person explaining this, yes. But disable access to all previously purchased content which is not being disputed? That’s nothing short of blackmail.
“I mean it’s pretty simple: If it is an error with the payment or a security issue you will be able to solve it with steam.”
No solution in the last link above. And the RPS thread shows recurrences like this from 2012 with no resolution:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?2848-Steam-will-ban-you-and-not-tell-you-why&p=139911&viewfull=1#post139911
Of course, even in cases where bans are eventually reversed, those affected typically had to wait 2-3 weeks before they could access content that they had paid for.
“but a chargeback here would be more analogous to taking the store to court to get your money back.”
No, because in the case of a chargeback you take the money back on your own. There is no legal system involved at this time. Instead of you trying to get back the money now they need to get back the money.
“Valve’s disabling of accounts would then be analogous to the store sending someone around to your home to take back every other book you (legally) purchased from them.”
“Of course, even in cases where bans are eventually reversed, those affected typically had to wait 2-3 weeks before they could access content that they had paid for.”
They just block your access until the money you owe them is paid or the issue is solved. I agree that if this is an error caused by Valve/Steam itself you might have legal claims of a compensation. But in all the paypal cases the “issue” is clearly on the customers side. And it’s the job of “clearing up things” is yours (or paypals) but it’s not Valves.
And with that I am judging their general policies – not their support. If their support was awesome I would have gotten my refund on the first time I asked, or at least gotten infos about instructions or conditions. I am not saying that Valve is making it easy for you when you f***ed it up. But it’s the customers who f***ed it up in the first place, not Valve.
Request submitted at the weekend… watch this space.
Well I have good news and bad news.
Bad News: My refund request was refused. :(
Good(ish) news: I would have been eligible for a refund had i submitted the request within 30 days of purchase (which is in line with UK retail laws)…
I’m a little peeved to be honest as I really did want to give Egosoft a chance to fix the game, or at least make it playable since their design choices can’t really be “fixed”, so I gave them a little time but well, after 30 days its at the sellers discretion whether they offer a refund.
I have now resubmitted, asking for a store credit but i can see the above being the case again… ah well, lesson learned!
Thanks for the follow up!
Ok, so it’s bad that you couldn’t get the refund but it’s good news to know that you’d been eligible within 30 days! But, could that be UK (laws) only, or everywhere? I think that’s very useful information for everybody in any case.
So, round 2 is asking for store credit. Let us know how that went.
Yeah, its definitely a learning experience and i’d encourage all to check their local laws on digital media sales when considering a refund request. I’ve spoken to a few people on the steam forums and it seems that Steam only take this approach with UK customers because the law here treats physical retail and digital media the same way, and you usually have to mention the law in your requests.
However, the Law states that the item must be returned within 30 days and in a ‘resellable’ condition, which in the case of games means unopened (Physical media) or not played (or very few minutes/hours played in the case of digital media) so don’t wait too long or play it past the point where you know its the game’s a lemon.
Oh and my account’s not banned so ignore my previous comment, and I’ll certainly update on the response to my store credit request.
“Good(ish) news: I would have been eligible for a refund had i submitted the request within 30 days of purchase (which is in line with UK retail laws)…”
If you “just didn’t like” the game, then you would have no legal rights whatsoever in the UK. The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/contents/made which normally allows a return/refund within 7 days for any reason (section 10) specifically excludes (section 13d) “unsealed” software. How a digital download qualifies is here is open to debate.
However the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/35/contents *does* require that goods be “of satisfactory quality” (section 1(1)(2)) which should exclude buggy games. If X-Rebirth qualifies (and you can back it up with specific details including support tickets or issues raised by others) then you should have a good case for a refund, regardless of time elapsed.
It wasn’t that i just didn’t like it, the game was completely unplayable and lacked many advertised features, its still mostly unplayable even by patch 1.22 (i think its on 1.24 at the moment)
I’d quoted the 2000 distance selling regulations (though not as fully as you just did) in my initial request, stating that the game was incomplete and not fit for purpose but I didn’t remember to mention the 1994 Act (Legal speak gives me a head ache). I didn’t raise any support tickets myself, i never really do unless its an MMO but plenty of thread contributors did so maybe i can use them as an example/reference.
And thanks for the Links, I’ll reference those in a further response if they refuse my store credit.
“I’d quoted the 2000 distance selling regulations…but I didn’t remember to mention the 1994 Act..”
I think you’ll be on much stronger ground with the 1994 act especially if you can give specific details on missing features, though you’ll still be reliant on Valve’s goodwill (and it is very much in its commercial interest to make refunds as rarely as possible).
Unfortunately, Valve don’t have a legal presence in the UK so you can’t take them to court if they decide to continue refusing their obligation as a retailer. It is in such situations where a chargeback would be appropriate (and legally enforceable under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75 for goods between £100 and £30,000). Unfortunately, as discussed above, following such a path even when legally valid would expose you to retaliation (account suspension) from Valve.
I don’t think that mentioning any laws makes any difference at all. Why? Because Steam is a big company with multiple departments. And when you contact them you contact the customer support. They will act within the margin the company rules allow them. And these were created together with the legal department.
It’s not the support agent’s job to play lawyer or judge. Or to avoid legal conflicts.
So if you can estimate that the support can’t help you within their normal “margin” and if you still think that you have the legal right you most likely will have to contact their legal department and that is probably via a lawyer. But in this case you must be aware that there are probably a lot of laws which give Valve the right to screw you. Not in this particular case, but with your steam account.
But tbh – if I was a retailer and someone waited more than 30 days to give back a product I would not want to give a refund as well.
Don’t understand the negativity in the comments. The questions were great (good job everyone) and the answers were good. Not really explaining everything, but it’s giving away some tendencies.
I love the answer about multiplayer. It’s the best case scenario.
The news about modding are also great.
Great detailed description about the 64 bit question. They could have said “it’s the engine, we are going with the time” or something like that.
I didn’t expect the combat becoming too tactical. There is hardly a game which is doing it right, especially in multiplayer where long tactical battles vs NPCs won’t work. I’d be happy with some 10-20 second encounters and it sounds like they are going for something like that.
Also great news about the AI. Huge weakness of civilization 5 for example. Where the AI just completely sucked. Became better after time but still.
Sure, would have loved a boxed version and more info about expansions, but well…we can’t get everything.
Great Q&A and thanks again to SpaceSector for doing it!
No one is complaining about Space Sector and their questions, they always do a fantastic job. The complaints are coming from hardcore 4x fans, especially GalCiv fans, who want to see one of their favorite games become better. GalCiv2 is already a good game, but they can make it better, yet from what it sounds like, they want more of the same. I’m not saying there won’t be new additions or changes for the better, but from what they said in the interview, its more of the same with better graphics and tweaks. The main thing is the fans want the game to progress into a better game, and not just the same ole thing.
Never got into the GalCiv II frankly and I’ve given in many chances over the years. I found the races boring, tech’s bland, combat uninspiring and game became a station-grind-fest towards the end. Good AI though – ironic consider it succeeded in the one place other space 4Xs failed miserably.
If III is just the same as II with prettier window dressing, I’ll wait till the Steam sales. Oh, and please sub contract your AI coder to Kerberos.
Amen
+
First good comment here.
“I didn’t expect the combat becoming too tactical. There is hardly a game which is doing it right, especially in multiplayer where long tactical battles vs NPCs won’t work. I’d be happy with some 10-20 second encounters and it sounds like they are going for something like that.”
Tactical combat on multiplayer is more of a challenge but still easily handled e.g. restrict it to combats where the player’s Emperor is present, limiting such combats to one/turn and giving players a strategic choice – risk their character (game over if the Emperor gets killed) for an edge in a crucial combat? Total War Napoleon seemed to offer a good option where online players could join an existing game as an NPC during a battle, but that needs a large pool of spare players to work well.
However for single-player, detailed tactical combat is an important addition since it adds greater significance to (and benefits from) detailed ship design. If you can create ships optimised for a particular tactic (“shoot and scoot”, “blam then ram”, “stay at maximum range” etc) and perform that tactic in combat, that adds greatly to the depth of the game (especially when you have to develop counters to enemy tactics).
GalCiv II was a standout in offering good ship design but quite mediocre (non-interactive) tactical combat (the 5 ship per fleet limit didn’t help). That did simplify AI coding (all it had to do was note what weapons you used and add the appropriate counter for its ships) but left an unsatisfying game for those used to more in-depth slugfests.
I just hope this doesn’t end up being a big lame disappointment like most 4X space games lately…
My base for saying this comment are these answers right here:
[…]Ray: We have a new combat system that we are planning for after the alpha.[…]
[…]”Ray: We have a new planetary invasion system in the works, but we don’t want to comment on it until we are confident that the design is solid enough to share.”[…]
Those are hints for disappointment. Believe me. Every time someone “thinks” some thing is “new and improved”, you-know-what hits the fan.
First you always need to think it works before you can prove it. :P
If you don’t even start to think, then there wont be any new systems.
Imho this is better than usual press BS like “We have feature X and everyone here loves it!”
So, you want a sequel with nothing new and improved?
Just wait and see for yourselves. But this is not exactly a “sequel” what they are doing.
Brad Wardell has said GalCiv3 will be 1/3 old features kept, 1/3 old features tweaked, and 1/3 new.
We haven’t seen much of the new yet, and I suspect some of it isn’t developed/finalized. If the game is a month from release, and the game is GalCiv 2.5, then complaints are warranted- but not yet.
Also, I suspect some of these things will be expansions/DLC.
Thanks for posting my question on the research tree Adam. Unfortunately, the answer was about evasive as you can get.
Whether or not the tech tree is randomised affects the core of the gameplay mechanics from the initial design and I don’t think it’s something they can slap on last minute like icon graphs.
My money is on a traditional, static tree that may offer different race specific techs/branches.
If there is going to be a second round of questions I would like to know:
– Will there be something like a demo? Or to say it in other words will they be confident enough about there product to release a demo.
– And uhm… ugh that is actually the only thing I want to know.
Yeah, I’ve bought my last ‘no demo’ game.
It’s not a guideline for me, it’s a rule.
+1 to that!
“You are controlling a civilization that spans the galaxy and your focus is on producing and placing your fleets, not in giving every order in a battle. We want to keep players engaged at the empire level and fighting for planets and systems, not in ship to ship combat.”
How disappointing. You can do both, especially when you have the strategic aspect so well configured.
It’s a real shame they have shied away from introducing tactical ship battles for those X4 fans who enjoy them.
Frankly, there is no way this will compete with the expanded Distant Worlds.
I say yay for 64-bit. I find it odd so many peeps are complaining. I don’t know anyone with a 32-bit system anymore.
Actually the public library has 32-bit computers I think.
Markypoo,What bit system do you think most of us that still play GC 2 have? And Not everyone has either been employed over the last 5 years or been given a newer 64 bit computer.
I think this goes back to the whole “holding them back” comment from Korandor further up in this thread; there’s no way a company is going to develop a game around the minority of its customer base.
MOST people have been employed in the last 5 years, and MOST have less than 5 yr old systems (Mine’s a mix of 1-3 year old components but still holds up to sub-alienware standards) so I think its fair that they try to develop to the strangths of the majority of systems in homes now (based on no actual numbers, just many many conversations on forums and in-game chat)
FYI, my 64bit rig cost me a total of about £400 (about $650)over the space of about 9 months and only the Motherboard was new(-ish; from eBay, bundled with 4gb RAM, to which i added another 4 from CEX – about another £10/$16 on top of the £80 or so for the MB) so not that expensive given the hobby. It runs every single game at max, maybe not UUUBER MAXXX but certainly Very High (on avg one notch from absolute max) GW2, Tera, The witcher 2, Borderlands 2, Tomb raider, Farcry 3, SWTOR to name a few… and all this on an I3 2100! (Bought from eBay from about 3-4 years ago! :-o)
So if one is frugal and discerning, and patient one can certainly build a fairly high end PC on a budget. (FYI, I am super tight with my money so wouldn’t matter if I had cash to burn, one should always be frugal!- my new word of the day!)
“I think this goes back to the whole “holding them back” comment from Korandor further up in this thread; there’s no way a company is going to develop a game around the minority of its customer base.”
If 64-bit systems were unable to run 32-bit software then your comment would be valid – however that isn’t the case. GC isn’t the type of game that needs humongous graphics (even the ship designs in GC2 were overkill given you spent most of the time zoomed out, shrinking them to a few dozen pixels in size) and it rather beggars belief that GC3 is going to break the mold so much that it actually needs a 64-bit system. GC has to date been based around simple-to-moderate complexity subsystems (ship design, research, colonization, combat) and even the most complex games of this genre (Space Empires V, Distant Worlds, Aurora) run on 32-bit systems.
If the engine used for GC3 requires 64-bit, then that is frankly more a limitation than a benefit, and it sounds like Stardock are trying to portray it as a gaming revolution. The reality is good game design does not rely on memory maps and raising expectations on the basis of higher memory usage is likely to lead to disappointment.
So much “I agree” points!
“If the engine used for GC3 requires 64-bit, then that is frankly more a limitation than a benefit, and it sounds like Stardock are trying to portray it as a gaming revolution.”
Exactly how I see it, marketing with pink glasses. But I don’t think it’s so big limitation. Every engine has some quirky limits, if it wasn’t bitness it would be something else, probably something more important.
“The reality is good game design does not rely on memory maps and raising expectations on the basis of higher memory usage is likely to lead to disappointment.”
It may indicate that their marketing is targeting a bit different audience then us, one that is easier to impress with shiny stuff and tend to overlook game mechanics.
Which would be bad for them as well in the end since most hardcore strategy/4x people prefer gameplay/replay-ability over shiny thingies.
Goddamn, look at that diplomacy screen. It’s what I would love to do if I had a few million dollars to make a 4x!
I forgot to ask them if the map would be bigger this time. IMHO, Gal Civ 2’s largest map still looks too tiny for me especially after playing Distant Worlds.
It’s supposed to be, as that was one of the reasons they’ve given for using 64 bit. How much bigger will the biggest map actually be? Who knows.
One upside to early access games like this is that there will be people playing it long before “release” and talking about it, which means there will be lots of people to ask for real answers pretty soon.
He he he, the artful evasion of answering the battle system question lingers on. I can understand that they don’t want to give more details at this time (most likely those details are not even set in stone yet), but I… NEED… to know more. ;)
It is exactly what I tried to say but there are too many hardcore fans that would not see past the actual fact that they are just doing GC 2.1. Again, wait until it comes out and see for yourselves. Definitely this game’s “new combat system” and “planetary invasion system” are NOT the selling points of it. People…. marketing 101, otherwise, they would just give the details right away. Just look at the screenshots: they look exactly like the previous game, just a “bit” refreshed.
A little dissapointed about there being no real change to colony management, that part of the genrre seems to be getting less attention with each new release. The tactical combat as well is a little disappointing, not deal-breaking, although i understand their focus being on the bigger picture. I just hope that the battles actually look like real space battles, y’know, nore cinematic and less random camera angles. One other thing that i like is the focus on modding, that’ll guarantee replayability for me! :D
The ship combat in this series is terribly dull and uninteresting, there is no strategy to it all.
Without MOO2 style ship combat this series will always be meh, nothing special.
But this is not MoO 2 wannabe. Given how post Microprose 4X games do tactical combat I’d be more pessimistic than optimistic if they promised it. “Strategic combat” can be interesting, Civ 4 and SM Alpha Centaury showed that.
They can never match the multifaceted unit types,terrain types you get in the Civ model which adds tactics to the combat.I see Stardock try to compare it with Civ but its not and never will be in the same league.The issue is it not only makes combat bland but the weapons and defence tech also becomes dull as shit.SOTS1/2 and Moo2 had such imagination with its techs and the applications.
About 64 bit: I do not buy that epxlanation. They could have just simply tell us that they are using 64 bit engine(if it is true, dunno, haven’t checked).
But do not try to tell me that this game will be so complicated that it needs more than 3.5 GB RAM to operate properly. Civilization V is running perfectly on 32bit system.
Well, i’m seeing a lot of negativity towards the Win64 decision, but whether we think they are talking out of their posteriors with their reasoning or whether there is real benefit to this decision, the simple fact is that this is the decision they are going with, no amount of poo pooing is going to change that… and we will only know whether its the right decision when the game is released, or at least when there is a playable build available. I do agree with some of the views here about it looking like GC 2.5, it certianly looks like an updated version of what we already have from the screenshots, but again lets wait and see what the game is actually like before writing it off or calling the devs liars, incompetents etc there are still more answers to come, and I for one am looking forward to reading the rest (though im about 99% cert that i will not be pre-ordering this game, I’m only purchasing games that have reviews or ‘Let’s Play’ vids on YouTube from now on)
@Chuki792 some comments are probably a bit harsh but I personally treat “64bit” as a subject for conversation:) I am just curious what was the real cause behind this.
Since GA 2.5 will not have battle module like it was in MOO2 I won’t be buying this game and will keep waiting for M.O.R.E. :)
“I won’t be buying this game and will keep waiting for M.O.R.E. :)”
I see what you did there!
If you are suggesting that I am trying to somehow promote M.O.R.E. over this game than you are wrong. That was not my intention, I have nothing to do with any of these games besides that I like 4X genre:)
Nah, I just thought you were making a pun. Instead of “I won’t be buying this game and will keep waiting for more”, you wrote M.O.R.E.
I hear you about the non-tactical battles, bit of a buzz-kill for me too. I would have accepted well done “cinematic combat” or something that even looks close to Nexus:TJI; good 3d camera angles that show off my designs and actually look like a space battle is going on…
However I’m really not holding my breath and will certainly wait for a review/ gameplay vid before purchasing. I wonder though, with the spate of upcoming relesases, games like M.O.R.E, predestination, DSS and other very ambitious projects, all with 3D tactical battles, how Stardock think they can compete without them. I mean, are they taking the EA approach and thinking, “we’re so big/good that people will buy our over everyone else’s just on our name/reputation?” cos right now i’m more excited for the above mentioned titles than this :-(
Good to see the move away from 32bit. Nothing at all to do with RAM but as a moder I can program with lager numbers using native CPU cycles. (n vs n to the power of n operations)
I don’t quite get why anyone thinks that moving away from 32 bit is a bad thing. 64 bit is a good thing.
It allows:
– Better mod support in the future
– More available RAM for PCs that have the extra RAM
– Higher performance potentially
– Better upgrade-potential in general
It’s not the base game that I’m worried about using more than 4 Gb, it’s when you have some really Hi-Def mods that do that you run out of RAM.
Given the history of GC2, it’s likely to be a modable game.
By far the biggest underwhelming answer was on tactical combat, which is a question so far they seem unwilling to answer and it’s under intense debate at their official forums.
Otherwise, it’s looking like an incremental update to GC2.