Galactopedia ;)

I'd rather have them making improvements toward the game. It would take a long time to do something like Civilopedia in Gal Civ2. Too many technologies. I'd bet they would do something like this in Gal Civ 3 while they are creating the game. Or maybe not. This isn't even an important feature for me. The techs tell which leads to another and exactly what comes with it when you click on it now anyways.

If your gear can handle it, i'd recommend alt-tabbing your way to this wonderful little proggy by Netriak (and, Christoph Nahr)...

Galactopedia

For everything you need to know and more!

I doubt SD would bother for an extra in_game asset - since, the community of Modders has ALREADY given "it" - although, i'm also actively planning GTeChnos which you can read about in the X-Worlds thread.

It's pretty silly to expect a mass audience to alt-tab to a freeware app just to get quick access to the still-very-thin documentation available in the XML. And I say that as someone who loves the game, admires Stardock despite their devotion to (C), and is very grateful for the volunteer work that went into the Galactopedia freeware app.

IMO, more ongoing attention to both in-game documentation and the PDF or wiki publication routes would be a very worthwhile improvement to the GC series.

Hi,



It IS an improvement toward the game.



Well, that's what they're for... The programmers I mean, they get paid for their work and they're supposed to devote their time... Developing good graphics also takes time, and the storyline... So let's do away with them and play only Windows miner...



IMO, it's a useful feature that could come in handy for anyone perhaps apart form hardcore veterans who already know the ins and outs of this game...

Cheers

Never said otherwise... let me rephrase, "true" interactive help or complex guidance within gameplay is a feature which many new players would enjoy and although, the process can be useful to some - many more would NOT click this option if it were there... they just play.

- Documentation (however extensive) grabs runtime bytes.
- Distributed package would grow to an almost unlimited size if one was to integrate everything there is to know or explain more clearly; just take the "other" games and consult all aspects of pedia principles and you will soon find out that the essential rather than the whole is even a GREAT amount of typed text.
- All and each of the Learning_Curves i had to go through with the many games i've played over the years involved on-hand experimentation with features for about 75% of the time while consulting a reference (either in a book or within ingame options) to find out some facts added up to the remaining 25%.

Sometimes, i too wished for a more thorough PDF guide -- but, this issue falls more into the personal choices or needs of many different kind of players than what a developer decides to include into THEIR stuff.
The added value comes in the process of "Learning" easily or the much harder way(s).

Extremely thin line, if you ask me.

Zyxpsilon, do I have a wrong impression, or are you some sort of coder? You certainly seem to embody the sterotype of documentation-resistant programmers that's a common water-cooler joke amongst PC-related editorial types like me

Seriously though, I can't really buy your balk about "runtime bytes" b/c there is no need to include a full "galctopedia" in the runtime when the file can be referenced on demand. True, I'd like better (and more) ScreenTips and verbiage in the tech tree and building things UIs, but you can't seriously think that a few hundred (or even a few thousand) more plain text strings is going to compare to all the graphics whiz-bang in terms of bulking up the app? I'd even hazard a guess that the decision code for the computer players might out-bulk the UI text strings.

Re the personal learning curve, you hit my weak spot as a former teacher. There is no comparing knowledge that you worked out yourself with something you got fairly easily from a reference. Both are useful, but the former is more satisfying and builds "muscles" that you can use in many other ways.

Re your PDF remark, IMO a manual should not be a developer's responsibility. That's what writer-editor types like me are for. We just need to have enough access to the devs to translate their in-group langauge into mass-audience language and find as many of the not-really "duh" questions that they don't even consider worth asking as we can.

Yep... an "oldy" coder that worked a lot in the mid 80's at a number of first-level languages, but whom hasn't really considered returning to the crush bitting slam dunk activities i once was involved with.

If a complete (to many's standards or expectations) in_game guide would ever be considered for serious implementation by SD - i'd expect the regular D/L of say, TA to go from about 350MBs worth of bandwidth access to, i dunno, most probably twice that much... just for a thorough fully illustrated verbose blue-print of biblic proportions!

See ya -- in six months time. Version 2.0 gone & pending baby, no more patches & slight fixes by Carielf. Although, as you have suggested some outsiders could simply do it for a price.
Is Frogboy willing to hand-over some cold hard cash to get such an asset from someone "professional" enough to earn it? Should he rather go the design additional content and gameplay value ways? Ask him, maybe he would agree.

BUT - i want a full 3d Galaxy, three layers on planet surfaces and a number of important features added (gee, read the Slam_my_Game thread all over again to fully grasp what WE all wish for also!) waaaaayyyyy before a help gimmicky supplement.

In the meantime, i consider Netriak's Galactopedia to be a fair solution to most of my current needs.

Should they all stop working at Enhanced Espionage and de-bugging Twilight, or more importantly, designing truly "powerful" editors?

GC2 is **not** Civilization 4 with its Firaxis driven engine of_a_descriptive_about_mankind_history as per Sid Meier' & gang opinions, that's for sure. In all theory, i only understand that a Terror Star destroys whole systems -- having any additional commentary about it or almost anything else in that crazy game would kill off all the fun and possibly the pride one gets from the usual learning curves struggle.

Documents or not. Virtual or Printed.

I never specified an "outsider." If they don't have a full time writer-editor yet, they probably should soon. IIRC, Brad is working on a large tome as part of the NotMoM2 project, and games are not the biggest part of Stardock, so there should be plenty of stuff that needs writing and/or editing. And an internal editor could help make sure that future games have far fewer of the minor text goofs that are still sprinkled throughout GC2.

I didn't mean to pick even a play-fight, nor was I making a serious claim that Stardock needed to make massive adjustments to their labor allocation for the 2.0 effort. Literacy is going out of fashion everywhere, which leaves folks like me steadily more frustrated. I'm just a little sensitive when people ferociously reject documentation.

Me ferocious? Comon', I'm really all for some added or expectable quality & values (or validated grammatical enhancements & what else) for something i paid a whole bunch of hard earned cash.
But, i simply do not own SD, since Brad takes his own good and/or bad decisions.

Not everyone is an English Major in this world, me - i'm just from Quebec and spoke mostly French in the essential part of my short life. I could go in London and possibly square even with some of the best Shakespeares in the making found in these streets though.

As it is... we're all simply blasting AIs ships in a 4X enviro. Correctly identified or commented about - somehow, anyway.