Very cool interview.

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

Great write-up! It was a good read!

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?

It's partly because you have to state specs that are not too low or people will think you game is outdated.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

This was an excellent interview! Well done.

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.

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

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.

It depends on how much customization they're doing for the multiplayer game.  If it's a simple matter of making certain techs unavailable then it seems they could easily include a check box that says, "Allow all techs in multiplayer" or "Disable simultaneous turns".  If they're making hard coded changes explicitly for multiplayer then it will be significantly more difficult to make those optional.

Bitterly disappointed about the MP info.  There's a reason my friends never picked up GalCiv2 but were chomping at the bit for Elemental.  Now I have a feeling most of them are going to be clamoring for refunds, depending on how gutted..er.. "streamlined" the MP experience is.

I know Elemental is a SP focused game, so I'm not asking for additional features in MP, I'm just asking to play the same game that I bought.

I know MP isn't a big deal to a lot of people, but it is to me.  This game wouldn't even be on my radar without it.

Good job Brad its funny but normally i find out about games from game sites this time around i seem to be finding out about game sites I've never heard of through Elemental LOL, anyways I'm really lucky i found out about this game a month ago through word of mouth because i love these sort of games and there are very few around let alone that are done well and also to know that Stardock is behind it a company I've known through games like calciv 1and 2 with a good reputation and with ethics I agree with , I hate soulless corporations who use hype and enormous PR machines that are very good at making lots of money but little else.

I am really looking forward to this game so much so that every other game is on the back burner I love Strategy RPG games and its nice to know that my money (most of it anyway) will be going towards supporting people who make these sort of games purely out of a selfish point of view you understand i want this game to get even better and Stardock to be around making more games

What's wrong with that? A veteran spear-unit could well beat a tank if they knew exactly where to poke it.