Galactic Civilizations III Announced - 64-bit ONLY

[Scott Tortorice]

Woohoo!

Galactic Civilizations III Announced for 64-bit PCs

Stardock announces Galactic Civilizations III, saying the next installment in the highly regarded space strategy series will be coming exclusively to 64-bit PCs. No release date is specified, but the Galactic Civilizations III website is offering a Founder's Edition that includes beta access and a $10.00 discount or a Founder's Elite Edition that includes alpha access, though the lack of features and additional bugs carry a hefty premium, as at US$99.99 it is twice the game's eventual retail price. This trailer celebrates the news, and speaking of celebrations, Stardock notes this announcement comes as they celebrate their 20th anniversary, which is also being commemorated by a Steam sale. Here's word on the game and how it will leverage 64-bit PCs: Stardock announced the third installment of its award-winning PC strategy game series today as the company celebrates its 20th anniversary: Galactic Civilizations III, the long-awaited next chapter in one of the highest-rated strategy franchises of all time. Coming exclusively to 64-bit PCs, Galactic Civilizations III stays true to its core gameplay while adding new features including multiplayer, political intrigue, vastly improved visuals and much more.

"The move to 64-bit architecture heralds a new era of game development at Stardock," said Derek Paxton, vice president of Stardock Entertainment. "The technology allows players to experience a level of graphical detail and on-screen activity unprecedented in large-scale strategy PC games. It dramatically increases the size and scope of the maps, and opens the door for modders to add a virtually unlimited amount of new content to the game."

Galactic Civilizations casts the player as the all-powerful leader of a spacefaring civilization that must explore, expand and colonize new worlds across the galaxy. Dominating rival alien species through technological, economic, political and military prowess tests players’ cultural, ideological, and diplomatic skills as they pursue victory via peaceful or belligerent means.

Galactic Civilizations III gives players far more detail in the textures, models, and overall look of everything from the planets they colonize to the fleets they command. New interstellar terrain elements on the hex-based map like black holes and mysterious Precursor relics change the way players explore the galaxy. A completely overhauled ship builder puts nearly every element of starship design in players’ hands, while the new resource system creates fresh opportunities to explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate.

It is amazing that after seeing a bunch of 4X space games released over the last few years (talking after GalCiv II), only Distant Worlds, Sword of the Stars I, Sins of a Solar Empire and AI War have really been standout titles, and even here none of those titles ever completely scratched the "living galaxy" itch (DW came the closest). GalCiv II was a solid title but it is showing its age today, plus it comes across as a bit bare-bones compared to some of the innovations made in the genre since. Seeing how Wardell is making GC III strictly 64-bit, I think he has some BIG plans for the game.

Trailer:

[video=youtube_share;owdjizoiqVY]http://youtu.be/owdjizoiqVY[/video]

Please don't let there be any Elemental mistakes!

 

[Yang]

The Trailer is quite nice but in the end its just a Trailer. Any Gameplay videos out too? Wardell did a good job on those with Elemental to give people an idea what they can expect.

Its been quite some time since i last played GalCiv but in my memory it was solid and a bit bland. The strategy part was very Civilization-esque which is a bit weird and never really stuck well with me. Maybe because those mechanics are too associated with the ground-based Civilization and don't translate well into Space? I'm not calling them out for that, better take something that works and improve on it than to invent the wheel new.

What i hope they improve though is the Shipdesign, in Galciv that was purely designing the asthetics of your ships. But i want to equip them with engines, weapons, shields, reactors and items like cloaking devices to further tailor them to specific purposes! Then they just need to do something nice about combat.... i'm actually curiuos if there is a game that manages to do off-hand battles nicely where you just watch the results with only limited player interaction. I don't mind a Dominions approach but there you can set a lot of things beforehand. Just don't follow the Endless Bore.. ahem Space approach.

Ah well i guess it will end up on Kickstarter soon enough. Or Stardock Preorder. Or Steam's Early Access. And then i will make sure not to buy it and just wait. :laugh:

 

[Scott Tortorice]

The Trailer is quite nice but in the end its just a Trailer. Any Gameplay videos out too? Wardell did a good job on those with Elemental to give people an idea what they can expect.

Not yet. According to SD, the game is only in an internal alpha, so we have a ways to go yet. The Founder's alpha is scheduled for Q1 2014, so you probably won't get much info before then.

Its been quite some time since i last played GalCiv but in my memory it was solid and a bit bland. The strategy part was very Civilization-esque which is a bit weird and never really stuck well with me. Maybe because those mechanics are too associated with the ground-based Civilization and don't translate well into Space?

I think you are exactly right. The game always struck me as lacking the dimensional depth of a space game. That is, everything took place on a flat, board game-like plain. I think that shows how GalCiv copied the real Civ a bit too closely. Plus, the game did lack a lot of chrome. It had some solid mechanics, but it needed more bells and whistles to keep it interesting over the long term.

What i hope they improve though is the Shipdesign, in Galciv that was purely designing the asthetics of your ships. But i want to equip them with engines, weapons, shields, reactors and items like cloaking devices to further tailor them to specific purposes! Then they just need to do something nice about combat.... i'm actually curiuos if there is a game that manages to do off-hand battles nicely where you just watch the results with only limited player interaction. I don't mind a Dominions approach but there you can set a lot of things beforehand. Just don't follow the Endless Bore.. ahem Space approach.

Yeah, I agree. I want better ground battles (something closer to the multi-month sieges of Crusader Kings II would be better), and I would love a Gratuitous Space Battles approach to fleet battles where you can pre-plan your strategy, but once the battle starts, the AI is on its own.

Ah well i guess it will end up on Kickstarter soon enough. Or Stardock Preorder. Or Steam's Early Access. And then i will make sure not to buy it and just wait. :laugh:

It's already up for pre-order. I am not pre-ordering yet - I am going to await the feedback of the alpha testers, as well as to see some AARs, but I will definitely be pre-ordering. Even though Elemental was a royal screw-up, SD handled that crisis so well that I have nothing but respect for them. I seriously doubt they will make the same mistakes again, and even if they do it just means I will get the first two GalCiv III expansions for free. :laugh:

 

[Nexus6]

Yang, you are a man after my own heart. I agree completely with what you wrote. First of all, as you and Scott noted, although the gameplay of GalCiv 2 was pretty solid, it did strike me too as being a bit bland and a bit too obvious a civ clone. Secondly, I think the absolute worst trend in PC gaming these days is Kickstarter and Steam early access. If I've said it once I've said it a million times, why would I want to pay money to play an unfinished and buggy game, or in the case of Kickstarter, a game that doesn't even exist yet? I did it once with Stardock's Fallen Enchantress beta, and the really odd thing was that by the time the complete game was released I was already pretty well tired of it. I would also mention that Scott and I have conversed frequently in the past about how overrated Kickstarter is, and all the myriad of problems associated with this latest in a long of line of internet darlings. If you want a good example of an average Kickstarter project, you need look no further than the disappointing Stardrive. Much was promised in that game's Kickstarter campaign, but significantly less was delivered. In fact the great Sid Meier said as much in an interview. To paraphrase, he was happy that people like Chris Roberts and Ragnar Tornquist seem to be getting second winds with Kickstarter, but he was concerned that a Kickstarter project kind of locks you in to initial promises that, as the game development proceeds, you may find are no longer tenable. You loose a lot of flexibility in the development process when going the Kickstarter route, and worse, having a lot of disappointed backers when you find you were unable to deliver what was promised.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

Secondly, I think the absolute worst trend in PC gaming these days is Kickstarter and Steam early access....If you want a good example of an average Kickstarter project, you need look no further than the disappointing Stardrive. Much was promised in that game's Kickstarter campaign, but significantly less was delivered. In fact the great Sid Meier said as much in an interview. To paraphrase, he was happy that people like Chris Roberts and Ragnar Tornquist seem to be getting second winds with Kickstarter, but he was concerned that a Kickstarter project kind of locks you in to initial promises that, as the game development proceeds, you may find are no longer tenable. You loose a lot of flexibility in the development process when going the Kickstarter route, and worse, having a lot of disappointed backers when you find you were unable to deliver what was promised.

Yeah, I have come around to this POV over the last year or so. Initially I was supportive of Kickstarter, but so far the results have been less than positive. All we ever seem to get are mediocre games that never live up to the hype. But I think we are now actually getting worse than that as with Steam's Early Access program, we are getting games that never seem to reach a proper 1.0. Instead, we are getting games locked in a perpetual open beta. It is a mess.

Coincidentally, I was going to make a post today about how bad gaming continues to be these days. I was looking at Steam again and but for a shrinking handful of big budget titles, all I ever see are "Early Access" games, and tons of low budget side-scrollers and platformers. Man, how far we have fallen.

 

[Nexus6]

Couldn't have put it better myself Scott. The whole situation with Steam Early Access is indeed one big mess. It really is disheartening how as you said, the early access and side scroller/platformers seem to be taking over Steam.

BTW, my other experience with this trend was Cryptic's Neverwinter. I mean, 6-7 open beta weekends followed by several months of regular open beta, and I was beginning to wonder if Cryptic would ever put a stake in the ground and say, hey, it is released. I wonder if they were doing that in an attempt to put off official reviews as long as possible? Anyway, when they finally officially released Neverwinter, the vast majority of the reviews (with the exception of the paid fanboy at Forbes) were decidedly mediocre.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

Gameranx has one of the first interviews with a GalCiv III dev. No details are revealed, but the tone is optimistic:

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

One of the great things about Galactic Civilizations II was how alive the galaxy felt—the universe, it was full of random events and the presentation and things. How will the universe feel alive in Galactic Civilizations III? A big problem with a lot of 4X games is that they feel rather dull and procedural.
What kind of random events can we expect in Galactic Civilizations III?


Events have always been one of my favorite aspects of the game. You will be playing along thinking you have the game wrapped up and wham, “the Jagged Knife” pops up and half the galaxy is suddenly at war with you. Events of all kinds – simple to crazy and game-changing – are some of the most fun elements of Galactic Civilizations to design. As the game gets tested we will refine which will stay and which will go, but I can promise more events than ever, not to mention the classic Galactic Civilizations II events that we are be keeping around and enhancing.

The galaxy felt alive in GalCiv 2? Really? Um...okay. Regardless, I like the idea of more random events. CK2 has proven that that can be a lot of fun and bring more life to a galaxy.

What is the scale of the engagements like in Galactic Civilizations III?


Like in Galactic Civilizations II, engagements will go from ships dueling one-on-one to massive fleets battling it out. One of the beauties of going to 64-bit is that we can have absurdly large fleet battles. However, fleet sizes will still primarily be limited by the player’s technology level and the resources they control.

Big battles!

How do ground invasions work in Galactic Civilizations III, in contrast to the second game?


It's safe to say ground battles will be different.

Thank you! I hated those game-y battles that were over in a single round of combat.


Other good stuff in there, too. :thumbup:

 

[Scott Tortorice]

I am amazed at how the strategic map looks and works just like the map in GalCiv 2. Well, except for the hexes which are much appreciated.

[video=youtube_share;iwU6YFOq0Dw]http://youtu.be/iwU6YFOq0Dw[/video]

 

[Nexus6]

It does like nice for sure, but I'm what I would call guardedly optimistic about it. IMHO Stardock has done games that are mostly good (in the B/B+ range) like SINS and Fallen Enchantress, but I have yet to see a title from them that I would call a great (A) game.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

It does like nice for sure, but I'm what I would call guardedly optimistic about it. IMHO Stardock has done games that are mostly good (in the B/B+ range) like SINS and Fallen Enchantress, but I have yet to see a title from them that I would call a great (A) game.

I think that is a solid assessment. I am a big fan of Sins, of course, but I concede that there is room for greater depth. GalCiv 2 had that added depth, so if they keep that, and just add in a better combat/graphics engine, GalCiv 3 could be a winner. But, like you, I am content to wait and see. SD has said they might not be ready for a v1.0 until early 2015, so there is a lot of time to wait and observe.

 

[Dr Zaius]

The trailer looks about as good as the in-game battles in EVE Online, but that's just a trailer. When it comes to the actual gameplay shown in that second video, well, it looks like something from 1995. Better than GalCiv II, perhaps, but I'm having a hard time getting excited about it.

I want Homeworld with EVE Online graphics mixed in with a little bit of Sins. Make it so.

 

[Nexus6]

The trailer looks about as good as the in-game battles in EVE Online, but that's just a trailer. When it comes to the actual gameplay shown in that second video, well, it looks like something from 1995. Better than GalCiv II, perhaps, but I'm having a hard time getting excited about it.

I want Homeworld with EVE Online graphics mixed in with a little bit of Sins. Make it so.

Although I think GC3 looks much better than '1995', I hear you about wanting an amalgamation of Homeworld, EVE, and SINS. Also, I agree that although I will be watching it from the sidelines, I'm not terribly excited about it as of yet either. Come to think of it, I think a lot of people were hoping that Stardrive was going to be the game that you described, but it fell seriously short. Stardrive is in my opinion a poster child for being wary of over-promised and under-delivered Kickstarter projects. I think the upcoming space game to watch is Elite: Dangerous.

 

[Chris Netherton]

I thought GalCiv Ii was a good strategy game, although it tended to grind to a halt once the maps got to a certain size on my old machine. I probably didn't use the ship design part of the game that much as I couldn't be arsed. Not sure that Elite Dangerous is going to fill anyone's strategy boots though.

 

[Nexus6]

I thought GalCiv Ii was a good strategy game, although it tended to grind to a halt once the maps got to a certain size on my old machine. I probably didn't use the ship design part of the game that much as I couldn't be arsed. Not sure that Elite Dangerous is going to fill anyone's strategy boots though.

Admittedly I didn't flesh out GalCiv2 as much as I should have, but to me it didn't seem all that compelling. IMHO it was a competent strategy game, but not a great one. And like many Stardock games it didn't seem to have a lot of personality (though admittedly SINS has been their best in that regard). One thing I noticed though was that you're in big trouble if a militaristic AI civ gets the technological edge on you, even more so than in the Civilization series. Of course this is very realistic, but not much fun.

Chris, I take your point about Elite not being a strategy game, but in fairness to me I was talking about 'space' games in general. Also, I was kind of referring to Zauis' allusions about wanting a space game with good graphics and tactical elements.

On the space strategy front there is the upcoming and moderately ballyhooed Predestination, but I will definitely wait for official release and reviews on that one. I keep thinking of the one guy's comment about how he wished he had his money back on all the 4X space strategy games that claimed pre-launch that they were going to be the MOO killer. lol For my part I learned my lesson after getting burned on the dreadful Endless Space.