This feature to be implemented in version 702.
from EA
Published on May 21, 2012 By Savyg In PC Gaming

Righteous.

 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on May 23, 2012

igorCRO

Quoting Frogboy, reply 8
Give it time. We have games in development that are 64-bit only.  


So Galactic Civilisations 3 is gona be 64-bit only.  

 

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.

 

on May 23, 2012

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! 

on May 23, 2012

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.'

 

on May 23, 2012

Frogboy
This is incredibly important to the industry.

Not having access to more memory is very limiting these days.

For instance, for those of you who have read Elemental: Destiny's Embers, you know that the Fallen aren't just "big humans".  They are, effectively, a collection of fantasy archetypes.  The Ironeers are supposed to be dwarves.  

But we can't have lots of equally equippable body types because we can't fit it in memory. Obviously budget is a limiter as well but FE has, effectively, an unlimited budget. What we don't have is unlimited memory. 

 

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?

on May 24, 2012

Campaigner

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.

on May 25, 2012

Vallu751

Out of curiosity, how much do you consider this also a design issue rather than just a memory limitation issue?

Elemental uses stuff that takes up a lot of memory. I assume all the equipment is shown on the units, in the sense that a unit that is given a red cloak also shows a red cloak on the strategic map. Isn't that a huge drain on memory? Or is the main drain something else than the bodies & equipment?

Could dropping details on how units are presented on the strategic map enable you to concentrate more on adding the stuff that is now missing? How about dropping something else?

Sometimes less is more.

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.

on May 25, 2012

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.

on May 25, 2012

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. 

on May 25, 2012

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?

on May 25, 2012

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.

on May 25, 2012
Exactly. We can't have everything so we should have that which serves the purpose best.
on May 25, 2012
Let me put this in another way. You have 4 bucks. An ice-cream costs 2 a cherry 3. You want the ice-cream more, but you buy the cherry and complain you didn't have enough money. Now change the words: red capes on campaign map = cherry, some other feature = ice-cream, money = memory. That's a design decision. Sure it would be best to have 5 bucks, but if you only have 4, you need to pick where to use it.
on May 25, 2012

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.

on May 25, 2012

Vallu751
Exactly. We can't have everything so we should have that which serves the purpose best.

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.

on May 25, 2012
Very well, I now see the light 64 bit it is then, others can eat cake! Sorry about yet another food analogy, MarvinKosh
3 Pages1 2 3