If i'm a gamer, i just use windows. If i'm a professional + gamer i install windows + Linux or MacOS. Emulators or implementation of the Win32 libraries just to be able to play some games gives you more problems than just installing 2 OS on the same machine.
I like the complete list, expecially Nr.10, it's annoying as hell to keep your CD/DVD in your DVD-ROM just to check for the original. No-cd patches are still not allowed to use, but i use them nowadays anyway because without them - it hurts the CD/DVDs in the long term (CD/DVDs should be only needed if you want to install the game) - and it's just super annoying to switch the discs, expecially if you have like 20+ games installed. <p
[quote]Shader 3 - that's DirectX 9, right? That's the GeForce 6 and 7 series - you should be able to get one for $20.[/quote] If i had to buy a card with shader 3 i would want atleast an high-end 7800+. But yeah, s3 cards are actually cheap :)
[quote]Can't wait to show you guys what we've been doing [/quote] Can't wait to actually play or maybe beta test all the new nifty things, the good thing is, i just like every theme and Not-MoM will be very interesting. [quote] I agree 100% with that. I also think that your team has took the good decision for GCIII (comes after the new fantasy game). GC III will be just better!! Regards, P.S. Sorry if my English is not good.
[quote]Yeah, shader 3.0 is what most of our code is written for. Theres some cool stuff in s4 we'll make use of, and we NEED to support s2 (turn based games don't hold the same hardware clout as FPS's), but in the end we're shooting for it to look great across the board.[/quote] Yes, totally agree with s2.0, i know many friends who just can't afford a new card with s3.0, let alone 4.0 or 4.1 support. It would suck to not be able to play such games only because of the
[quote]DirectX 9c (Shader2) will be our min requirement. The engine is built to allow DirecttX10 and 11 support too, so we'll see what expanded features those libraries allow.[/quote] Make use of Shader Model 3.0 or better 4.0 too :)
Add multiplayer to GC3 only if you are sure about that you do not have to sacrifice any cool features for single player or the game in general.
WTB more GC2 info as well, we don't need to know everything, but maybe atleast a bit more than just "enhanced espionage" ?
[quote]the real isn't isn't "would you buy multiplayer if you could?" the real issue is "would you prefer SD devote its resources to multiplayer in lieu of other features?" and the answer to that question was an overwhelming, "no, focus on other features."[/quote] Yes, that's the bad part about this. An extra team would be great for this, but that's just impossible.
[quote]Well, interesting, so this is a very old thread.How about a new poll ? i'm sure the yes/no ratio will change drastically today.It would, but not in the way you'd want. Yes probably wouldn't get more than 10%. The people still playing are the ones happy with the single player game.[/quote] Well i don't really need multiplayer, but wouldn't mind it. But it would be interesting to see the current interest of the players regarding the multiplayer feature. I actually believe t
Well, interesting, so this is a very old thread. How about a new poll ? i'm sure the yes/no ratio will change drastically today.
The biggest and best features in a turnbased multiplayer game should be simultan movement while playing with an ally. Playing GalCiv2 in a team sounds great. It rocks in Civ4, can't see why it wouldn't in GalCiv2. In other words, adding the multiplayer feature only hurts the budget in most cases, it's a fact, but in general not the overall gameexperience if done right. Civ4 however was a good example of how to NOT do it, like it has been said, no campaign, no serious szena
