I didn't mention minigames - I've never played Space Rangers, so I can't comment on that...

The idea of personalised species tech trees would work quite well, especially if you can still trade tech - the game would need to be coded to deal with it, e.g. Humans could have something like "Drop Pods" (soldieringability + 20) and the Arceans "Genetically Modified Food factory" (food + 19mt/wk), and you could trade them, but it'll cost double the amount, because it is a tech that each species wouldn't normally have. It shouldn't be that hard concidering what age of gaming we live in. It's not like the good ol days of the Amiga now, with those tear jerking graphics and characters who walked about with limbs moving at 90* angles.

I don't think it would weaken the game at all, so I would like to see someone make a poll (someone with a website, and who knows how to do it), and stick a link to the poll here.

All those in favour can say yea, and those against nea.

I was talking about GC3, not 2...... As is the topic of this thread, which I started.


Or maybe the next Gal Civ game should be written with/or by another company

I wouldn't mid seeing them do it with Fireaxis, or even Square Enix, and at least then the graphics would be totally awesome - instead of slighly above average.

And if anyone wants to argue with me about the graphics, don't..... I've seen better graphics on games much older than this. I have played a wide range of games, on nearly every format since the Spectrum. This is thanks to my dad, who has been using / working with comuters since the 1st mainframes onwards.... Which used punch cards and took up a good sized building.

We both remember when a 1Gb hard drive was about £2300....

for ground combat why not a more simple ersion of like advance wars (GBA) as in turn based and a rock paper sissicors scheme, wouldnt have to be too complex, just interactive.

i would never want to see a galciv game made by any company but stardock. to my knowledge square has never done anything like galciv so it probably would not be as good if they did it (not that i think they would ever have the least desire to make galciv 3). As for graphics, i have a hard time beleving someone who has played games for as long as Lightworker claims too have puts any stock in graphics. besides, gamespot likes them and gamespot is a slave of the industry so they cant be too bad.

i relise this may sound like im angry and on the offense but im not trying to be.

I take your point, but Gamespot aren't always right, same for the rest of them...

I have been playing games (computer and console) as long as I can remember, and as far as I am concerned, the graphics in this game could have been better.....

The only reason my PC get stressed is because the game is doing so many things at one time.... Although, with 2GB of DDR2 RAM (running at 533MHz) and a PCI-E 256Mb Graphics card, it shouldn't be stressed at all.

gamespot is hardly ever right, there slaves of the idustry. by poor graphics im assuming your refering to the low polygon count? if thats the case then ill agree there not the best but the pixel shaders and the specular (i think thats whats going on) make the low poly models look great in my opinion. also its not a first person shooter, it doesent need super good graphics. i can defenantly see were your coming from about the graphics tho.

my computer has 512 megs of ram, a radeon x700 pro agp at 256 megs, and a athlon 64 3400. i can run the game at 1280x1024 with 2x aa and 2x af with a perfect frame rate. i could probably bump up the aa or af and still be fine. something else must be bottleneking your pc. the processor maybe?

anyway, back on to the subject of galciv 3 ground combat. maybe you could design mechs or tanks similar to the way you design ships. then get to watch them along with some infantry battle over some randomly generated terrain or city.