Beyond Earth E3 Demo Videos

NeverMind

Proud to be Russian
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
618
Location
Moscow, Russia
He mentioned that the human player always lands on the planet first; that sounds pretty bad. I'm sure he meant that you can choose either to land late with more stuff or early with less stuff.

Also they really need to come up with names for their techs.
 
Also they really need to come up with names for their techs.
It's all part of the same demo, which wasn't even updated for E3. Give them some time.
 
You find a portable fusion reactor in the pod

yea, i can see how that would give energy, until its fuel runs out

you dismantle it and convert its parts into 60 energy

GIANT FACEPALM
 
I've only seent the first vid, but the frist big news comes for me at 2:50 when he says you pick your civ "and in addition to that you pick your leader, your cargo...".
That's the first non-ambiguous official statement that factions and leaders aren't tied to one another.
 
I've only seent the first vid, but the frist big news comes for me at 2:50 when he says you pick your civ "and in addition to that you pick your leader, your cargo...".
That's the first non-ambiguous official statement that factions and leaders aren't tied to one another.

In the IGN video, does Will Miller announce mod support for multiplayer near the end?
"A lot of the features...will be customizable in multiplayer"

Don't try to get too much from the live speech. These could be mistakes.
 
I've only seent the first vid, but the frist big news comes for me at 2:50 when he says you pick your civ "and in addition to that you pick your leader, your cargo...".
That's the first non-ambiguous official statement that factions and leaders aren't tied to one another.

They pretty unambiguously said on Polycast 200 that this wasn't the case, and the recently released bios for the leaders and factions also strongly suggest that leaders are tied to certain factions (the Kavithan Protectorate sounds akin to a cult with Kavitha as its figurehead so having Fielding or Samatar lead it would be a bit weird).

Unless what they're actually hinting is that there are multiple leaders available per faction..?

Or yeah, he misspoke.
 
yea, i can see how that would give energy, until its fuel runs out



GIANT FACEPALM

That is because 'energy'=\= energy, 'energy'=money
(Very very stupid stupid thing they copied from smac)
 
That is because 'energy'=\= energy, 'energy'=money
(Very very stupid stupid thing they copied from smac)

I can see energy working as currency when you can store it. on a planet where you lack in everything and you don't know if your trade parter will still be around in 10 years you'll want something very tangible and independently useful as currency. That could well be energy (its quite well explained in SMAC imho).
It's the design decision to make them find a energy generator and not use it but somhow magically convert its materials into energy thats very strange. To clarify they could have written that they found a generator that had fuel enough for generating 60 energy in it.
 
I can see energy working as currency when you can store it. on a planet where you lack in everything and you don't know if your trade parter will still be around in 10 years you'll want something very tangibale and independently useful as currency. That could well be energy (its quite well explained in SMAC imho).
It's the design decision to make them find a energy generator and not use it but somhow magically convert its materials into energy thats very strange.

The problem is, its like using 'bread' or water for currency in civ1-5.
They are too close to food (like energy is to production)
And the market efficiency Trade aspect that 'currency' captures is lost when it is a survival/basic good (like energy or bread or water)
 
Simple. Think of it as the value for the still usable parts of the reactor.


I don't think the mechanic ist strange, but the message. Its like throwing perfectly good food on the compost to create soil to grow food. The whole part of the "we can't transport it so we scrap it down and thats why you get currency instead of a reactor" is unneccesary from a game design point of view, if the reactor would produce that currency anyway.

And it does not evoke the question: "Who the heck is buying those parts and where does he get the energy to pay me for it on mission year 6 when the only humans on planet are your subjects that are struggling to survive in a makeshift colony?"
 
I don't think the mechanic ist strange, but the message. Its like throwing perfectly good food on the compost to create soil to grow food. The whole part of the "we can't transport it so we scrap it down and thats why you get currency instead of a reactor" is unneccesary from a game design point of view, if the reactor would produce that currency anyway.

And it does not evoke the question: "Who the heck is buying those parts and where does he get the energy to pay me for it on mission year 6 when the only humans on planet are your subjects that are struggling to survive in a makeshift colony?"

Well actually it says you salvage the parts because the reactor itself can't be transported back/is damaged.

So the explanation is: You take the parts back and use them to make new things and Save yourself 60 energy that you didn't need to spend.

After all if you had a fusion reactor... it would provide X energy per turn.. not a lump sum of X energy.

In any sense, that is part of the problem with using a "real good" as "currency"
 
I don't think the mechanic ist strange, but the message. Its like throwing perfectly good food on the compost to create soil to grow food. The whole part of the "we can't transport it so we scrap it down and thats why you get currency instead of a reactor" is unneccesary from a game design point of view, if the reactor would produce that currency anyway.

And it does not evoke the question: "Who the heck is buying those parts and where does he get the energy to pay me for it on mission year 6 when the only humans on planet are your subjects that are struggling to survive in a makeshift colony?"

I can be mistaken, but I thought the message also said something in the lines of "unworkable fusion reactor", meaning something is damaged in it.
The spare parts were maybe used to "produce" the energy you received. Think of it of a form of credit received in advance.

Whatever, if you don't like the message, just change it to something you find appropriate.
 
I don't think the mechanic ist strange, but the message. Its like throwing perfectly good food on the compost to create soil to grow food. The whole part of the "we can't transport it so we scrap it down and thats why you get currency instead of a reactor" is unneccesary from a game design point of view, if the reactor would produce that currency anyway.

A fusion reactor presumably still needs raw materials to feed in, which doesn't come in easily even on earth (You need deuterium and tritium, which is not easily separated and enriched from hydrogen).

And it does not evoke the question: "Who the heck is buying those parts and where does he get the energy to pay me for it on mission year 6 when the only humans on planet are your subjects that are struggling to survive in a makeshift colony?"

It says nothing about selling it, but convert it. There may be part like battery or even parts you can burn/fission/react to give energy.
 
note: looking at some of the Demo videos, the game starts (ie you land) in 2600 AD and each turn is 1 year. (depending on game speed)

(so a full game would be 2600-3100 AD assuming turn length doesn't change)

I could even see turns being = to one year regardless of game speed... after all its not like the game has to end in a particular year (unlike civ1-5.)

Indeed its possible there won't be a time victory, ie the game can go on and on until someone triggers one of the other victory conditions
 
I also furrowed my brow at that description... it's not terrible, but it adds a confusing explanation where none is needed. "You found a working reactor; you collect 60 energy!" Done!

Actually a Working reactor should give me a permanent 1 or 2 energy pt boost. (maybe for the next X turns until it breaks down)

On the other hand reactor Parts could save me production energy because its easier to refurbish than to build new.. so that amounts to an excess of energy I have available.
 
I don't really find the reactor find any more bizarre than earning gold coins before you have the technology to mine gold or mint coins or continuing to use those coins when you reach the point where money has become fully post-metallic; it is simpler for the game to use one name rather than change the name at realistic points.

Abstraction is a part of Civ.
 
Top Bottom