So far so good, looks like our Kaijus will be stomping all over the world! The first additional tier has already been revealed - Spanish, German and French versions available at only 10k CAD over the goal! Jump in and remember that those are Canadian dollars, so don't be afraid to chip in more of them! :D
Kerberos Productions, makers of Sword of the Stars (yeah yeah, I know how everybody feels about no. 2, they still want to see it finished though) and crowdfunded games The Pit and Groundpounders, loved the crowdfunding aspect of making games, so here comes Kaiju-a-Gogo . Fed up with saving Humanity, killing beasts and aliens? They called you MAD in school? They stole your LUNCH MONEY?! It's time to build your SECRET LABORATORY and PLOT REVE
[quote who="smeagolheart" reply="31" id="3462654"] why is magic incompatible with civilization 4x type games? Is it not just another resource or tool available to a player or AI?[/quote] I completely agree... Magic or high-tech, no difference. As for MP, it is a retreat. A lot of games of late are MP only, which is the result of AI coding being hard if you want to make it good. I never buy any game that does not have a single pla
[quote who="Cronocke" reply="47" id="3461805"]I like Sword of the Stars, but really, when you think about it, it's not a 4X game. There's no technological victory. The trade and diplomacy systems are barely functional, if that. Fine-tuning your planets boils down to sliding bars to determine mining rates, population limits, and other abstract concepts. The only things you can build are ships, starbases that give your ships and economy bonuses, and satellites that protect your planets
This guy is awesome, period.
[quote who="satoru1" reply="42" id="3455032"] I don't think people mind micro managmeent, as this is an important part of the strategy and maximizing your resources and efficiencies. [/quote] Well, it is for me. The ideal management of a colony would be choosing the type of development (type of the governor) and a slider to set the colony's budget priority. This would tell the budget how much money it can throw at that colony. Anything beyond this is microman
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="42" id="3450007"]SotS 1 doesn't have much clutter on the map though. One planet for each star system (or one star, if you haven't explored the system yet), and a couple icons around it (for fleets in the system, Hiver gates, starbases, asteroid monitors, etc.), one icon for fleets, a few icons for certain random encounters (like a silicoid queen on the way to the next system), nodelines. That's pretty much it. [/quote] Exactly! Not having ever
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="35" id="3449854"]I never realized how much sensory overload a 3D map could cause. This changes my mind completely. PLEASE!!!! NO TO 3D MAPS!!!! [/quote] Don't "realize" stuff before you try them out. Try Sword of the Stars 1 (really cheap, a phenomenal game with expansions) and you may find 3D is not as indecipherable as some people here claim. It is more than worth it.
Luckily for those of us who do see the benefit, some game developers saw it, too.
[quote who="Tergon" reply="15" id="3448110"] So you want pretty instead of good? I guess that is common these days. Eyecandy instead of function. Some eyecandy is necessary, but making stuff which complicate matters unnecessarily is not that.[/quote] Bah, I see you got your port guns at ready... Calm down. 3D has no less functionality than 2D. I don't understand where you got that idea. Some are less able to orientate themselves in 3D, but that does not make it any le
[quote who="Tergon" reply="12" id="3447846"] 3D just does not add anything into game of strategy. It is not like getting extra dimension makes any bloody difference except add distance between 2 points which from one projection appear to be close by. And time to travel HAS to be told in the game, so it makes no bloody difference.[/quote] I'm surprised you don't propose a 1D map... Because it could be done, all systems in a row. Why have that extra 2nd dimension and the f
[quote who="sleepyx732" reply="10" id="3447541"] It's too bad the one and only game you bothered to mention was a flop. Why it was a flop will be irrelevant to most.[/quote] Not to most, most want to know where SotS2 failed. Condemning all the features it has is not really enlightening. SotS1 was a pretty big success and it had a 3D map as well, so 3D was surely not the reason for the flop. [quote who="sleepyx732" reply="10" id="3447541"]To reply to both quotes,
If this guy pulls it through to an enjoyable game I'm buying it even though I won't be able to play it. He's just that cool.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="33" id="3441747"] We hired Chris bucholz from cracked.com as a full time writer. Most of his work will be for star control but he's also involved in GGalCiv iii and another unannounced title.[/quote] Mhm, we understand... Which one would that be? Don't think please, just answer. ;)
I'm with Joeball on this one. You want only one ship of a kind? Make it so expensive nobody would be able to afford more than one - yet make it awesome enough players will save their money to get one. A hard cap is a sign of bad game economy balancing. Seriously, why should one not be able to build another one if one is loaded with money? Realistically, I mean.
[quote who="Hausser_" reply="12" id="3440505"] The problem with Sins of a Solar Empire was that there were so many ships, and they were difficult to micromanage in battle. Personally i am OK with smaller fleets when we are free to design our own ships.[/quote] Just a different view of the same opinion; no, them being difficult to micromanage was NOT the problem, the problem was that they needed micromanagement in the first place. The ship behaviour leaves a lot to be desired in
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="30" id="3439753"] What you'll have here is if you have support ships in your fleet you'll be able to set up some battle options before the fleet battle begins. its hard to describe, it's a bit magic the gathering (select what you want to do at the start). but you won't be controlling the ships directly. The problem is that people would feel forced to micro manage their battles in order to get an optimal result.[/quote] &nbs
A lot of people played SotS without playing tactical battles altogether. Autoresolved all of them. No distractions from the strategy left. Features like random tech tree, 3D map and a different way of travel for each race had passionate believers (me) and also passionate critics. Some had a serious problem navigating the 3D map and others demanded a chance to always take the same research path as they didn't want to be forced to use what the game threw at them in that playthrough. <p
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="23" id="3439069"] I really like tactical games (...Sword of the Stars)[/quote] Ah, but I need to intervene. You know, because I don't agree and this is the internets and you should bow to my opinion as I am RIGHT. ;) Anyway, on the serious note; Sword of the Stars is far from being
It may be just my interpretation, but the statement "Galactic Civilizations isn’t about fighting long tactical battles" does not mean GC is about fighting non-tactical games. It means that GC is about fighting short tactical battles. Second statement just tells us that GC is primarily a strategy game. Not a tactical battle simulator. Which is what GC has always been all about. Naturally, if you want your battles to last for half an hour, you may b
What, 17 pages were not enough?! Can't we just freaking wait a bit more for more details from the devs?
[quote who="antibor" reply="44" id="3431953"] Quoting Dumhed, reply 40Or lets say base material is used by both buildings or ships. Focusing on building those things would later help that planet with building the final products. Or..... or... you can create ships transfer these major materials from planet to planet. Muhhaha, has it (building ships to transfer materials between planets) been done in any free flow 4x space game since Stars! from 1996?[/quote] <p
I used to stay far away from anything digital. Even further from anything Steamy. Then I realized I play individual games only a limited period of time, so even if they all got wiped out, I'd really only be a game or two short. Also, I have nowhere to put them boxes. I still dislike Steam to some extent. But only its demand to be turned on when playing a game I bought. If I want to play one game (program), it seems kinda perverse to have a dem
Oh, I knew about it while KS was active, I just didn't think it was feasible for the project to be brought to a successful end by one guy and the low funds he was asking for - those didn't allow him (IMO) to get any real help. I do wish for him that I was very wrong.
This guy is incredible. I still doubt he'll be able to finish the game as he envisioned it on his own, which is also why I haven't backed his project. I don't have enough money to just throw it around sadly, though this guy seems awesome enough to support his talent even if the game is never finished.