Very cool interview.

Now I'm really stoked for the single-player campaign!

Yup ..well worth the read... now if i can just survive until the Sunday/Monday Gold version treat!

Great write-up! It was a good read!

Excellent read.  Brad, you're doing a great job of spreading out interesting tidbits all over the place.  I'm super-stoked.

One thing I don't get is that he keeps saying that the system requirements are the same as GalCiv II, but according to Impulse, the requirements for Elemental are considerably higher:

GalCiv II

• 800 MHz Processor
• 256 MB Available System Memory
• 32 MB DirectX 9.0c Compatible 3D Video Card (32-Bit Color)

Elemental

• 2.4 GHz Processor
• 1 GB Available System Memory
• 128 MB DirectX 9.0c Compliant 3D Video Card (GeForce 6800 / Radeon X1600 or Better)

Am I misunderstanding something?

Cloth map only mode, would be my guess. I wouldn't be surprised if the Elemental specs are only temporary at the moment, as well.

It's partly because you have to state specs that are not too low or people will think you game is outdated.

F.e. new Paradox game Victoria 2 has higher minimum specs than Hearts of Iron 3 which came in 2009 but runs fine on PC where I can't play HoI. And my PC is below minimum specs of Victoria 2.

it's probably the "same" as Gal Civ given the rate that techonology has advanced. That is, if you had a computer of X caliber and it ran Gal Civ fine back then, then if you have the same quality of computer now, you should run Elemental just fine. 

Cloth Maps are mostly for netbooks. 

This was an excellent interview! Well done.

That was a very good interview!  I am glad that they tried to ask some different questions.  I liked this:

 

Let's move on to diplomacy. It seems like the particular beta I’m playing in (beta 4) - and I’m sure that it's improved - that diplomacy is bare bones…

Oh it is. The diplomacy just got in. I write the AI for the game and the diplomacy was the part that I just really started getting into because I had to wait for a bunch of stuff. In the latest version you can gang up on players, trade items, trade champions back and forth, there's a lot more arranged marriages than what's in the version you're playing, etc. One of the things that's a lot more fun now is that they'll talk to you and say "let's gang up on so-and-so" or they'll gang up on you, or they'll message you and say we have to look out for "such-and-such" - and all of that is such a big part of the game experience.

 

That sounds like just the type of diplo I was looking forward to having in the game.  I am a bit bummed about no espionage, but I'm sure it will get in there sooner or later.

The Gameshark writeup has me a bit bummed.

For me, it's about the multi-player. I'm one of those guys who used to play 48 straight hours of hotseat MOO 2, and enjoy huge, hairy multi-player games with friends.

Reading this, it seems clear that Brad doesn't really like multi-player in turn-based games - seems like he finds it too slow (compared to say Starcraft), which I can appreciate.

What throws up alarms for me is this quote:

"Some people imagine that multiplayer should be like the single-player game with humans in it, but our play-testing on it found that that isn't fun at all. So what we've been doing with the multiplayer is really streamlining it so that players get a different technology tree that focuses on the parts that are the most fun in multiplayer. It kind of moves the game along a little better."

I want to play the big, hairy multiplayer game with all the complexity of single player. I don't want it 'streamlined' (dumbed down?) to move faster.  I don't want the tech tree pruned so the game takes less time.

Now, it may be that techs that are fun in single player are useless in multiplayer, and if that's what's getting taken out, sure. But I have a concern that a decision is being made by folks who aren't really into multiplayer to begin with, which could mean the wrong decision is being made.

Take me - I can't stand first person shooters. If I had to design one, one of the first things I'd do is take out all the different weapons you can get and make everyone play with the same weapon, because one of the (many) things I can't stand in FPS are how being able to get a great weapon allows you to toast someone who doesn't find one fast enough. Now if I did this, FPS fans would hate it, and rightly so, because my decision is being made as someone who doesn't like such games and is making a decision which would make me hate it less.

If Brad and Stardock don't really like turn-based multiplayer because they think it's too slow, they may be making decisions to speed it up so they hate it less, which isn't really in the interest of those of us who like the big, hairy multiplayer game.

Hey, I could be entirely wrong here, and that Brad is 100% right when he says that multiplayer is much more fun with the changes made. But I'm still nervous.

If that's the case then it's a very misleading thing to say to the point of being outright deceptive.

However, I wonder if the stated minimum is for playable performance on the 3D map while a computer with GalCiv II specs will be able to run the cloth map without a problem.  That would make more sense.

Is he getting 40 - 50 fps on that laptop in the cloth map mode, or full game?

Regarding the multi-player vs single-player issue, I have got to say that I'm very much in the single-player camp. But I think the changes they are suggesting for multi-player make sense. I don't see it as 'dumbing down' the game-play, but rather focussing it. This makes sense.

I understand his point about streamlining the multiplayer experience to make it more enjoyable, but I also see the other side of the issue where people are saying make that optional so that they can get the full experience if they wish.