Given this statement+ Jon's latest blog post where he announces a detail about a game he's working on, I think this is the case.  (It's either GCIII or a new IP, I think one of these is much more likely)

It's also 5 years from GC2 time coming up, which was the miminum time Brad set for a sequel to GC2.

Good to hear! The only game that I know of that's 64bit is Arma 3 if I remember right...  

GalCiv3 Please! 

Only one tiny problem I have heard is companies lobbing the console makers to have better hardware... Seriously Microsoft and Sony man up! 

GalCiv 3 will probably feature Kinect capability, so if you don't like that guy staring at you from the diplomacy screen you really can tap and say 'Hello?  Is this Universal Translator on?  I must have missed the punchline because I would never agree to this.'

So the Men look kinda the same and the Fallen look very similar as well because of RAM limitations!   I never thought that....I thought it was because you insisted on making an original world with original races.

If I have interpreted what you said correctly, then why didn't you ever say that when criticism of the sameness of the races first surfaced?

I would think they were busy with all the other complaints.

I was just playing Dragon's Dogma and thinking to myself 'man, this would make an awesome 64 bit game' cause of its sidekick system.  (You make your own, and hire two others from a global pool of user created ones.  It's pretty cool.  Ones you haven't hired show up in the actual game world at cities as well as in 'the rift.')

This is so awesome I don't think I'm even going to care about anything else announced for months now.

Didn't know how to respond to this at the time but here goes something.

Less is more might make sense from a gameplay perspective, but from a technology perspective it makes none at all.  I don't think any developer is happy about being hamstrung by the same restrictions they were struggling under five years ago, when the technology is readily available and already in most gamers hands.

Could their design be less ambitious?  Of course.  But if it was, would they want to play it?  Who would want to create a game they don't want to play?

I'm sure I could continue, but I assume you get the point.

Yeah, it's a valid point. I guess my point revolves around the "bang per buck" principle. Which is more valuable to the player? Nice looking trinkets on the strategy map, or visually distinct races.

I want to play a game with maximum value to the player, not the one with the most ambition.

So you're advocating they put in less stuff to give you more value?

I really can't parse this.  Perhaps I should go to sleep instead.

Mass Effect 3 multi til 4 in the morning is awesome. 

Savyg, this is what started this:

"But we can't have lots of equally equippable body types because we can't fit it in memory"

Are you on track now?

You know what else we can't have?

Gigantic maps.  Minor factions.  More impressive late game cities.  More random events.  More creatures.

It is not just one thing we can't have because of 32 bit limitations.

The argument could be made that if you keep offering cherries or ice-cream, there's no incentive to have them together.

Also, food metaphors are wrong and you should be ashamed.

We CAN have everything!  Just as soon as we ditch 32 bit.  That is the point.

Hell, by your own analogies, 32 bit is what we're choosing to get rid of so that we can have everything else.