I wonder how the '64-bit' requirement is going to go over with galCiv3?

The 6GB of RAM check on COD:Ghosts, as well as the DX11 requirement, is literally causing FPS gamers on the PC side of al lthings, to lose their marbles. There's a weird irony of calling the game "PC unfriendly" when it has requirements that only PC rigs could meet.... People have so much cognitive dissodance sometimes.

At least he admits the tech tree is kinda 'lame'

Honestly Satoru1 that's one of the things about a lot of the "hard core" gamers, is they are basically career whiners. What I mean by that is if a game is released that is below their specs they go "Oh they dumbed this crap down for the "casuals" and their crappy rigs!"

But if a company makes a game that actually stresses THEIR rig then it's "OMG These f-tards don't know how to make a good game!" while the OTHER-other hardcore gamers with rigs that can meet those specs easily descend upon their "kin" like a pack of laughing hyenas going "Oh hey I don't want them dumbing this down to meet your "casual gamer" rig!"

I for one am glad to see a company go "Screw the neckbeards we're going to get complaints either way, we might as well make a game as spectacular as possible and take advantage of modern machines!"

That's just the thing about Ghosts, though -- nobody would be complaining about the huge requirements if the game deserved those requirements. Instead, we have people with top end machines, people with dual GTX Titans, having awful microstutter, lag and hiccups on the menus, locked FoV to 65, capped FPS, no way to change mouse acceleration or sensitivity... and, visually, the game looks WORSE than Black Ops 2! Now, if Battlefield had those insane requirements, nobody would be surprised, but this is Call of Duty. The maps are tiny, the max player counts are anemic, and the graphics look dated.

Now, talk about a game like GalCiv III, where having a 64 bit requirement would give it new features. It's a sequel to a game we've been waiting for since ages ago. That's the kind of game that's worth 64 bit. CoD Ghosts is still the same damn game it's always been, and that's why people are so upset about its high requirements.

No offense but people with SLI rigs should be used to stuff NOT WORKING all teh time. The fact that many many games have some weird issue in SLI rigs, yet people keep insisting stuff should work with SLI. I've got no real sympathy for those who dive into that pit knowing full well what it entails and yet complain when it does.

Also no one complaing about teh DX11 or memroy requirements is actually looking at teh quality. They just want to run the game on their rinky dink systems and are finding literally anything aabout the game to bitch about so they can justify that.

Note that 64 bit doesnt' mean the game LOOKS better. And thats the fallacy in Ghosts.

Question. Can a civilization change its ideology? For instance, could the Drengin discard its ideology of excessive cruelty, slavery, consumption of intelligent species? Could they adopt a more benevolent ideology?

Back in GalCiv 2 Twilight, a random event might change the Drengin from Evil to Good alignment, and I find it weird that their tech tree remained largely the same (they still had access to slave factories, pain appliers, death furnaces, etc). Basically, I'm wondering if their ideology changes, would their tech tree change to match the changes? Would other traits change as well?

That event was so rare that I was never able to definitively test it out, but I'm fairly sure that "event" was simply a very small random chance to occur when the AI civ researched Xeno Ethics themselves. There was a small chance to pick an alignment that doesn't match the civ's normal alignment, and if it happened the game announced it.

I kind of can't wait to look at their idealology looks like. There good vs evil option was a little unfair. I plqyed evil because it was the only logical option on the game. If it was more fair I would probably be neutral. I wouldn't want to sacrifice the game for multiplayer. I will want to play some of u on multiplayer. Just judging from some of the posts I think some of u want a piece of me anyways.

I was thinking U could add a Tech tree option for the races who change alignment that is geared to much for a specific alignment where it doesn't work. The game could have three tech trees these could even be customized tech trees even. One for good, neutral, evil to replace the species when they change their alignments when it doesn't work to keep the tree, or u could just change to the tree for default. This way it would make sense when they changed alignment. The tech trees would have to have level on the techs so the tree would transfer interchangeably. This tree could also be acessed by Xeno ethics; maybe even giving a player a choice to change tech trees. The reason I want to also give this to Xeno ethics not just the event is; because, this way the player can choose to aces this tree just in case he felt his races tech tree wasn't suited for this alignment change.

Sounds promising.I like that single player is not being compromised in both events and aliens stats to make way for bland multiplayer balance.I also like the idea of diplomacy having meaning.

I hope the combat is a lot better in both player involvement and the weapons tech has an actual meaning rather than the simple and dull system in GC2.Weapons should be like cool spells with different effects that mater in combat.

Xeno Ethics has nothing to do with it. For example, in my last game, the Drath had moved from Good to Neutral. Eventually, they turned Evil. However, they never researched Xeno Ethics. In fact, nobody had it at that point of the game.

Battlefield 4 can scale down a fair bit, but the recommend specs are pretty beefy too. It seems to be a lot better optimized than Ghosts is.

There isn't a whole lot of complaining about 64 bit going on anywhere other than Ghosts, really (and people are complaining about Ghosts on every platform, even it's Xbox 360 rating is well below normal for a Call of Duty game). Star Citizen is 64 bit only and it's raising absurd quantities of money. By this time next year with XP dead and 64 bit consoles entrenched, there's just going to be no particular reason for a major game to be 32 bit. So for Galciv, which desperately needs access to all that RAM people have, it's natural to go that way now. By time the game is ready for release, 64 bit games will be the norm.

And it's about time. Hopefully it can actually use a quad core processor to full effect as well. There's nothing more annoying than when Sins lags and task manager shows three idle processors.

The Sar Wars reference... uf. Sith are evil (according to [some] western ethics). If you go SWTOR with light sided Sith possibility, in which you are nicer Sith and less bloodthirsty. But still evil as you are still working for Sith. But of course Sith don't considerer themselves evil. Every group considers itself "good" and anyone who opposes them is "evil".

Maybe people would prefer to stop talking of "good and evil" and talk about "right and wrong". In the end, it's just that.

Ugh.  Welp, that's all I needed to know. 

Brads mentioned Ideologies and poaching from Civ games, which would seem to suggest that ideologies are akin to Freedom/Autocracy/Order. But he also seemed to indicate that ideologies replaces the Good<---->Evil axis. Right now it sounds to me like ideologies will be social engineering options with diplomatic effects (as in Civ 5), but a different set. I am however, hoping that the ends in view will be a lot more varied.

The highest good, the ideological endpoint, might be personal, such as honor, religion, duty and/or transcendance; it might be a goal, such as acheiving the technological singularity, purifying the galaxy of [evil | organic life |other intelligent species], uniting the galaxy diplomatically, converting the galaxy to Bokonon, cornering the galactic market on left-handed windchangers, &c. Or, hell, it might be discordian: keep everyone else too distracted and disunited to resist your insidious manipulations, so that whoever seems to win is still just another puppet of yours.

Since all these will be, IIRC, in XML files, we will presumably be able to add new Ideologies such as tridecaphilia (a fascination with the number 13), which gives, for example, a big morale boost every 13 turns? This of course would require the ability to set triggers, etc.

One disadvantage of GvE is that it means the other side automatically hates you. With ideologies, some goals can coexist. Since races need not be equal, neither do ideologies. The ideology "Organic Life Must Be Erased" might be a weak ideology relative to "Death Before Dishonor" because of a strong penalty (no trade routes)  coupled with a weak economic benefit (more revenue from piracy). I myself would be tempted to select a weaker ideology if doing so removed some micromanagement (no longer need to protect my own trade routes, since I have none). Fun trumps balance. And balance is difficult when races are truly different.

 TL;DR - Unique races good. Balance? pfui!