Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Galactic Civilizations III Early Access

Steam News announces the release of Galactic Civilizations III via Steam Early Access:

Galactic Civilizations™ III is Now Available on Steam Early Access!

Galactic Civilizations III is the premier space strategy game. The latest installment of one of the highest-rated strategy series of all time, created by the original developers at Stardock, Galactic Civilizations III challenges players to build an empire that dominates the galaxy through conquest, diplomacy, cultural hegemony, or scientific research.

The stars are yours, if you can balance the demands of expansion, exploration, diplomacy, and all-but-inevitable galactic warfare. Careful strategy, not twitch reflexes, lead to victory in this turn-based strategy epic.

Online multi-player comes to Galactic Civilizations for the first time in Galactic Civilizations III. Conquer the galaxy alongside your friends or battle for supremacy in titanic clashes.

View
35 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

35. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 29, 2014, 13:55 Wolfox
 
Good points overall, Rigs. I hope you're right, I really do, because if Galciv 3 is as fun as Galciv2, but with more depth, it is just the game I want to play.

I'll just make a comment on one specific point:

Rigs wrote on Mar 29, 2014, 02:11:
GalCiv3 is part of a series where the earlier titles were successes and it now has precedent and a pedigree. They aren't going into this game blind. GC3 is pulling heavily from GC2 and since GC2 was such a wonderful game and did was it was designed to do, GC3 has that behind it already. What I mean is that with titles like Elemental, the team working on it had nothing to pull from.

Elemental borrowed heavily from Galciv2, actually. In fact, gameplay-wise, from early betas to the released product, it felt more like a total conversion mod for Galciv 2 than a proper, different game. Which is part of the reason why it didn't work - Elemental took two "sequels" to find its own thing, to grow into its own game, away from the shadow of Galciv 2 (and into the shadow of Fall From Heaven, though that's another topic). Of course, Galciv 3 will probably benefit of the Galciv legacy (unlike Elemental), but again, it's a bit too early to know.

The main point why I have difficulty trusting Stardock again on game design and development is how blind they were by the time Elemental got released. Even Brad admitted a few weeks after release that he didn't understand how they could have messed up that bad. The fact it happened may mean that they'll be more careful this time, which would be fantastic, or that they'll make the same mistake, which would be terrible. As I don't know which it would be, I find it's safer to wait and see.

I may end up preordering it at some point, if the feedback from alpha/beta testers is good, and if I notice that they're taking suggestions/criticism to heart and striving to make a good game. But for now, I'll wait. I'll have many good 4X games to play in the following months (Age of Wonders 3, Distant Worlds Universe, etc) that I won't miss Galciv3 all that much for now.

Off-topic: I love the quote in your signature. I miss Babylon 5.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Galactic Civilizations III Early Access Mar 29, 2014, 02:36 Akelm88
 
The price is a little high for a founders edition, at least for me. But being one who was in the original beta for GC2 I know what is going on here. The big problem in the GC2 beta was finding constructive criticism that lent itself to actually improving the game. Not just people who wanted to complain or people who want to cheer lead, but people who actually point out problems and help get real work done. the 100.00 price point weeds out a lot of people who really have no business being in the alpha/beta at all.
In the gc2 days they had a second forum that you could get to only by a promotion for doing real work. In there the atmosphere was very different and a lot more productive than the typical forum. That may be the point to this. question is.....how does this affect people's opinion of the final product? It's not a money grab, but people can take it that way.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 29, 2014, 02:11 Rigs
 
Wolfox wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 18:23:
Rigs wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 16:44:
If I had $100 to spare, based on their previous track record with GalCiv2, I'd hand it over without a second thought.

Ok, so let's recap.
*snipped for space*

Of course, for Galciv3, you're not paying US$ 50 or US$ 60 now. You're paying US$ 100 to: 1) not know what the game will be, 2) not know if the feedback you give will be considered (at least at first), 3) not knowi if you'll get the game you want when it is first released, or two games later (as was the case with Elemental). You're paying more for no good reason other than supporting a company with a very rocky history in the last few years.

Now, if you want to do so, feel free to. It's your money. But I know I won't, at least not until the price is more reasonable, *AND* I have better information on the game and its development process. Stardock has won a part of my faith back after Legendary Heroes, but not nearly enough to make me buy this blindly. So I'll do the smart thing and wait.

I understand your reluctance and that's fine. I'm not advocating here that everyone go and give Stardock $100 now (at gunpoint). Obviously, there have been some monumental disasters to come out lately that people lost money on due to pre-ordering, where they felt they didn't get anywhere near what they wanted or expected. Aliens: Colonial Marines sticks out as a major one. Elemental was, indeed, also a huge mess, nearly beating out Swords of the Stars 2 in the 'epicness' of it's disaster. But you have to remember something also. GalCiv3 is part of a series where the earlier titles were successes and it now has precedent and a pedigree. They aren't going into this game blind. GC3 is pulling heavily from GC2 and since GC2 was such a wonderful game and did was it was designed to do, GC3 has that behind it already. What I mean is that with titles like Elemental, the team working on it had nothing to pull from. Everything there was new, untested, unproven. SINS was new, untested, unproven. Now, it's a great series, but in the beginning, it had to work through some rather awkward growing pains, over multiple expansions. The latest SINS release is great and draws from it's previous base, which is solid, thus making the new one - solid, and readily playable. GC3 will have the same benefit. It's already evident by looking at the teaser videos and screens that there's a lot of GC2 inside. That's not a bad thing! Some look at that as something that should be shunned and ridiculed. I do not.

When Masters of Orion 2 came out, it drew from the first release. It was almost exactly like the first one but the mechanics and gameplay had naturally progressed from the first version and thus kicked ass when it was finished and released. I see no reason why the same can't be said for GC3. The team at Stardock working on this doesn't have to go back and reinvent the wheel. They can cherry pick the best elements of GC1 and GC2, throw them into GC3 and then expand on it. This isn't something that could be done with Elemental or DemiGod.


=-Rigs-=
 
Avatar 14292
 
'I know what you think you are, what you want us to believe! But I don't buy it! For three years now you've been pulling everyone's strings, getting us to do all the work, and you haven't done a damn thing except stand there and look cryptic.'
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2014, 22:02 verybad1
 
I enjoyed GalCiv 2, but not for that amount.

I'll wait till it's released, reviewed, and reduced.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2014, 18:23 Wolfox
 
Rigs wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 16:44:
If I had $100 to spare, based on their previous track record with GalCiv2, I'd hand it over without a second thought.

Ok, so let's recap.

I was a big GalCiv2 fan. I played that game a lot, and liked most of my time with it. By the end, I noticed it was a bit shallow, but still lots of fun. In short, I became a fan of Stardock because of Galciv2. Bought all expansions (pre-ordered, even), the works.

Then came Sins of a Solar Empire. I pre-ordered it, and despite a somewhat rocky beta, it was a pretty good game (still is). So all was ok, despite some forgotten promises, but hey, it happens.

Then Stardock announced Demigod. I pre-ordered it immediately. Lots of promises were made, many of which never materialized (particularly the promise of a strong single-player mode). It was not a bad game, but it was far from what had been promised. My faith began to wane.

Then Stardock announced Elemental. I was a bit wary at this point. However, Brad Wardell himself came forward to say that the other games with minor or major problems were not developed by Stardock. But Elemental, in his words, "was their baby", and they would make it right. I remembered GalCiv2, and believed him. I pre-ordered the game. And it was a HUGE disappointment. I played the beta. I was in the beta forums. And one of the biggest disappointments was seeing all the feedback from testers being ignored and dismissed as if the final game would be so much better than anything the testers had seen so far. And we know how that turned out.

Now, Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes is pretty good (and I got it for free, having preordered Elemental a full year before it came out). But I could have bought it for less than I spent on my Elemental preorder, and have the game immediately instead of 2 years later.

Now, GalCiv 3 is coming. I have no idea if it will be good at the first try or not. And after Elemental, I will not risk the money I have now for something that may or may not come out good enough one or two years from now. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... you know the rule.

Of course, for Galciv3, you're not paying US$ 50 or US$ 60 now. You're paying US$ 100 to: 1) not know what the game will be, 2) not know if the feedback you give will be considered (at least at first), 3) not knowi if you'll get the game you want when it is first released, or two games later (as was the case with Elemental). You're paying more for no good reason other than supporting a company with a very rocky history in the last few years.

Now, if you want to do so, feel free to. It's your money. But I know I won't, at least not until the price is more reasonable, *AND* I have better information on the game and its development process. Stardock has won a part of my faith back after Legendary Heroes, but not nearly enough to make me buy this blindly. So I'll do the smart thing and wait.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2014, 16:44 Rigs
 
Ozmodan wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 11:02:
Well sorry to burst your bubble, but if you read the comments on Steam more than half are negative, in fact some very negative. Pair that with the positive comments being weak at best with "hoping for more to come" comments predominating.

When you put out an unfinished product and than charge a rather outrageous price for it, it does not say much for your studio. Reading some of the comments on Steam the game seems like a GSII with a few new wrinkles. Hardly worth $100. Far as I am concerned Stardock is heading downhill fast.

The positive comments I was talking about weren't of the current alpha on STEAM, but the original announcement here. Of course there's not much to see yet, it's a damn alpha! They just announced the damn thing not very long ago. This is a major production and Stardock knows what the hell it's doing. They handled GalCiv2 the best any dev could have and pretty much made a bug-free, infinitely playable 4x space game. How is 'Stardock heading downhill fast'? Because they ask for $100 on an alpha? Does that mean Braben is out of his mind too? All those paying ridiculous amounts to RSI for Star Citizen are brainwashed? (Yeah, ok, bad example)

Me thinks you don't understand the complexities of handling a AAA game without a AAA publisher throwing money at them. If I had $100 to spare, based on their previous track record with GalCiv2, I'd hand it over without a second thought. I still have faith in some devs in this industry. A lot of them have burned their bridges and used up all of their 'continues' (*cough*Peter Molyneux*cough*), so to speak, but a few still command some respect. Stardock is one of them.

Creston wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 15:05:
And sure, you can say "Well, you'll get all the DLC for free!" but if the game sells like shit there isn't going to be any DLC, so...

I'm pretty confident that it's not going to sell like shit. Even name recognition alone will guarantee quite a bit of sales and I have no doubt Stardock will put all of their marketing resources behind it when they have more to show...


=-Rigs-=
 
Avatar 14292
 
'I know what you think you are, what you want us to believe! But I don't buy it! For three years now you've been pulling everyone's strings, getting us to do all the work, and you haven't done a damn thing except stand there and look cryptic.'
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Galactic Civilizations III Early Access Mar 28, 2014, 15:05 Creston
 
SpectralMeat wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 06:32:
Creston wrote on Mar 27, 2014, 23:30:
Your ROI is supposed to be that you get the game cheaper. Maybe someone forgot to tell Brad.
Not every Early Access game does that, some goes the other way and sells more expensive in early alpha state than when it is finished, Planetary Annhiliation, Elite Dangerous for example are like this.

They were both Kickstarted games who had alpha access as a higher-priced rewards tier. So they felt they had to sell the early access at the same price, to avoid pissing off their Kickstarter backers. (blabla Palmer Lucky blabla learn etc)

This just gets priced as a hundred bucks for alpha access, so yeah, it's still pretty stupid. And sure, you can say "Well, you'll get all the DLC for free!" but if the game sells like shit there isn't going to be any DLC, so...

 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Into the Black Mar 28, 2014, 15:04 dj LiTh
 
SpectralMeat wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 11:54:
From now on people write the whole damn name of the game you are referring to, to avoid confusion on an already really confused Blues forum!

Hahah true, this thread went over my head
 
Avatar 46370
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Galactic Civilizations III Early Access Mar 28, 2014, 12:57 Ruddrage
 
Just to add that after the poor reviews of Elemental: War of Magic, people who had pre-ordered where given Elemental: Fallen Enchantress for free when it was released.

So if you jump in now and GalCiv3 doesn't turn out so well, at least you might get GalCiv 4 for free.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Into the Black Mar 28, 2014, 11:54 SpectralMeat
 
From now on people write the whole damn name of the game you are referring to, to avoid confusion on an already really confused Blues forum!  
Avatar 14225
 
Steam: SpectralMeat
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Into the Black Mar 28, 2014, 11:27 NegaDeath
 
dj LiTh wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 11:11:
Now i'm even more confused, because no i wasnt thinking about Sots2, i was thinking Elemental was being referred to, which to my knowledge is the same dev. Stardock.

The original poster was referring to Sword of the Stars II by Kerberos which is why I mentioned different developers. While it wasn't brought up Elemental would actually be a sufficient reason for concern regarding a new Stardock game.
 
Avatar 57352
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Into the Black Mar 28, 2014, 11:25 SpectralMeat
 
NKD wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 10:54:
SpectralMeat wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 09:32:
dj LiTh wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 07:05:
Different dev? Who is this different dev you speak of?
SotS2 was developed by Ironclad
Gal Civ3 is developed by Stardock


SotS2 was made by Kerberos... You're thinking of Sins of a Solar Empire.
Yeah that is what I was thinking.

This comment was edited on Mar 28, 2014, 11:32.
 
Avatar 14225
 
Steam: SpectralMeat
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Into the Black Mar 28, 2014, 11:11 dj LiTh
 
NKD wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 10:54:
SpectralMeat wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 09:32:
dj LiTh wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 07:05:
Different dev? Who is this different dev you speak of?
SotS2 was developed by Ironclad
Gal Civ3 is developed by Stardock


SotS2 was made by Kerberos... You're thinking of Sins of a Solar Empire.

Now i'm even more confused, because no i wasnt thinking about Sots2, i was thinking Elemental was being referred to, which to my knowledge is the same dev. Stardock.

Anyways, even if the game looks exactly like galciv2 (which it does, but hey its alpha) and only expands gameplay just a little bit then i'll be happy. I wonder though if Brad and his team still have 'it' because galciv2 really was their last good game IMO (i dont count Sins expansion, since it only added a few things).
 
Avatar 46370
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2014, 11:02 Ozmodan
 
Rigs wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 08:12:
When the game was revealed, most of (that's 95% or more) the comments were positive, including my own. I fucking CHERISH GalCiv2! I've spent more hours in that game than most games I've played in the last decade...combined! I'm in the middle of one right now, in fact, after taking some time off from it to play Distant Worlds. Stardock has a very good record with me concerning things they do (I didn't play Elemental, so that whole thing wasn't a big deal for me).

I think we need to step back and think about this for a second. When E:D's alpha came in at an extreme price, some balked but most just shrugged it off. Now Stardock does the same with GC3 and you guys give them the virtual finger? WTF?! They're not trying to pull some WARZ bullshit. They tell you what the condition of the game is and what you get for the price. I don't see a problem. And that's not just because I'm an admitted fanboy (yes...YES! I confess! GIVE ME, GIVE ME, GIVE ME!!! )

There might be a particular reason for it, like E:D. They want people that are serious. They don't just want people that want to play and see what it's like. They want, basically, beta testers. And let's not beat around the bush anymore, guys. No matter how much you wish it otherwise (and I do as well), the path this industry is taking is that if gamers want in on development of games and want to participate, the GAMER will have to pay, not the dev or publisher. That's just the way it's going to be. I think the days of demos and free public beta testing are over (with the exception, of course, of BF4...HA! ooh, BURN! *tsss*)


=-Rigs-=

Well sorry to burst your bubble, but if you read the comments on Steam more than half are negative, in fact some very negative. Pair that with the positive comments being weak at best with "hoping for more to come" comments predominating.

When you put out an unfinished product and than charge a rather outrageous price for it, it does not say much for your studio. Reading some of the comments on Steam the game seems like a GSII with a few new wrinkles. Hardly worth $100. Far as I am concerned Stardock is heading downhill fast.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Into the Black Mar 28, 2014, 10:54 NKD
 
SpectralMeat wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 09:32:
dj LiTh wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 07:05:
Different dev? Who is this different dev you speak of?
SotS2 was developed by Ironclad
Gal Civ3 is developed by Stardock


SotS2 was made by Kerberos... You're thinking of Sins of a Solar Empire.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Into the Black Mar 28, 2014, 09:32 SpectralMeat
 
dj LiTh wrote on Mar 28, 2014, 07:05:
Different dev? Who is this different dev you speak of?
SotS2 was developed by Ironclad
Gal Civ3 is developed by Stardock

 
Avatar 14225
 
Steam: SpectralMeat
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Into the Black Mar 28, 2014, 09:23 Slashman
 
NegaDeath wrote on Mar 27, 2014, 22:33:
Burrito of Peace wrote on Mar 27, 2014, 22:14:
...so you're not smart enough to follow the logic that buying a space based RTS sight unseen from a developer that hasn't done a real space based 4X game in 8 years yet seems to be promising the moon is a bad idea?

And you don't see how that correlates to pre-order customer from SotS II, which also promised the moon, and how those same players were fucked royally for two years solid?

Oh, yeah, "Early Access"...except in every shitty "Early Access" titles, there are always the mouthpieces and white knights that plead "But it'll get better" and it so rarely does.

Since it's a completely different developer no it doesn't correlate. Unless you're trying to claim that somehow a different developer screwing up a game has eternally doomed an entire genre to the same fate?

SHHHHHH! I wanna sit back and enjoy his logic-free tirade a bit longer. Idiocy like that doesn't come along every day.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2014, 08:12 Rigs
 
When the game was revealed, most of (that's 95% or more) the comments were positive, including my own. I fucking CHERISH GalCiv2! I've spent more hours in that game than most games I've played in the last decade...combined! I'm in the middle of one right now, in fact, after taking some time off from it to play Distant Worlds. Stardock has a very good record with me concerning things they do (I didn't play Elemental, so that whole thing wasn't a big deal for me).

I think we need to step back and think about this for a second. When E:D's alpha came in at an extreme price, some balked but most just shrugged it off. Now Stardock does the same with GC3 and you guys give them the virtual finger? WTF?! They're not trying to pull some WARZ bullshit. They tell you what the condition of the game is and what you get for the price. I don't see a problem. And that's not just because I'm an admitted fanboy (yes...YES! I confess! GIVE ME, GIVE ME, GIVE ME!!! )

There might be a particular reason for it, like E:D. They want people that are serious. They don't just want people that want to play and see what it's like. They want, basically, beta testers. And let's not beat around the bush anymore, guys. No matter how much you wish it otherwise (and I do as well), the path this industry is taking is that if gamers want in on development of games and want to participate, the GAMER will have to pay, not the dev or publisher. That's just the way it's going to be. I think the days of demos and free public beta testing are over (with the exception, of course, of BF4...HA! ooh, BURN! *tsss*)


=-Rigs-=
 
Avatar 14292
 
'I know what you think you are, what you want us to believe! But I don't buy it! For three years now you've been pulling everyone's strings, getting us to do all the work, and you haven't done a damn thing except stand there and look cryptic.'
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Into the Black Mar 28, 2014, 07:05 dj LiTh
 
NegaDeath wrote on Mar 27, 2014, 22:33:
Burrito of Peace wrote on Mar 27, 2014, 22:14:
...so you're not smart enough to follow the logic that buying a space based RTS sight unseen from a developer that hasn't done a real space based 4X game in 8 years yet seems to be promising the moon is a bad idea?

And you don't see how that correlates to pre-order customer from SotS II, which also promised the moon, and how those same players were fucked royally for two years solid?

Oh, yeah, "Early Access"...except in every shitty "Early Access" titles, there are always the mouthpieces and white knights that plead "But it'll get better" and it so rarely does.

Since it's a completely different developer no it doesn't correlate. Unless you're trying to claim that somehow a different developer screwing up a game has eternally doomed an entire genre to the same fate?

Different dev? Who is this different dev you speak of?
 
Avatar 46370
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Galactic Civilizations III Early Access Mar 28, 2014, 06:32 SpectralMeat
 
Creston wrote on Mar 27, 2014, 23:30:
Your ROI is supposed to be that you get the game cheaper. Maybe someone forgot to tell Brad.
Not every Early Access game does that, some goes the other way and sells more expensive in early alpha state than when it is finished, Planetary Annhiliation, Elite Dangerous for example are like this.

The problem with this model is that instead of making the game accessible in early stage and let people jump on board and try it out possibly provide feedback, the price eliminates early adopters that are new to the game.

I guess it is good and bad at the same time. You only get people that are hardcore fans playing the game, so the feedback from them if any will be a lot more clear and possibly biased as well, yet the dev will not get the extra funding they were hoping for from the early access because a lot of people will not pay $100 to beta test a game they are unsure of.
Even finished games $100 is a lot of money to ask for up front, as opposed to buy the base game for $50 and pay for DLC over the period of 1-2 yrs.

So best of luck to them.
 
Avatar 14225
 
Steam: SpectralMeat
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo