I've been following Galacti Civlizations 2 for a long time.  Probably not as long as some folks( never played GC1 ), but I remember reading the developer diaries on this website before it went beta.  I still have this reccolection of somebody mulling over STL containers, and how they don't really like to use them ( which makes me chuckle a bit ).  When the game was finally released, I was very excited, and impressed by what this "indie" team had produced.  Yet, for various reasons, the game never really stuck with me.  It was very difficult for a first time player; I would make so many mistakes that I often wouldn't have a single military ship up by the time the Drengin came knocking with troop transports.  And sometimes it just felt a bit "flat"; I didn't feel all that connected to my civilization.  I tried again when Dark Avatar was released, and I definitely saw a big improvement, but it still didn't feel like the gameplay was compelling.  Now, after TA and 2.0, I think I can finally say that I'm hooked.  The game has polished off those rough edges, filled in the dull spots, and delivers on the best part of 4x. 

But it's made me wonder.  For me, it took 2.5 years, 2 expansions, and a lot of frustration to really get to "the good stuff".  Yet I always knew that there was a real gem in there, and I'm glad I kept trying.  4x games are possibly the ultimate power fantasy, and I think that's a pretty universally appealing experience.  But for whatever reason, I feel games like these are relatively obscure. 

I keep thinking about what this game might be like with more production value, the sorts of features that draw in your average gamer.  Things like voiceovers for your "secretaries", generals, governors and fellow leaders.  Perhaps some real-time animated scenes depicting the galactic council, starbases, and various locations on your planets.  A little more "activity" floating around the galactic map, like bustling trade routes, ships docking into stations, etc.  Fleet battles and ground invasions that are flashier and more entertaining.  These sorts of features help you feel like your civlization is real, and not just some collection of statistics that you are trying to balance or min/max.  A lot of these things are elements that CivIV did to some degree, and I think it has helped elevate the game beyond the usual 4x status.

And then, I also think about what might make GalCiv a bit more approachable.  It's been said by many designers that the player should never be confused about what he or she is supposed to be doing.  In GalCiv, I have been completley stumped countless times as to why my people are going down the toilet.  Some of that could be helped by simple toggleable messages, such as :

"Your people are getting cramped and angry!  You will need entertainment to sustain a population of this size." 

Or perhaps,

"Your Military is considered a Pushover.  Not even your friends will support you if this trend continues." 

GalCiv2 had tips, but nowhere near enough for the complexity involved in running a proper civilization.  An easy-to-read breakdown of your facilities' output and costs per planet, and as a whole would also go a long way.  The AI could also be a bit more communicative, and have more personality.  There are some good interactions in the diplomacy window, but it would be nice if they made passing comments to you that indicated how the AI is reacting.  The "Relations" tab is good, but some colorful feedback would help clue people in without pouring over the tab every turn.  Better visual indicators would be great too; for example, I just recently found out that your Influence form starbases falls off exponentially whereas the little radius is a solid circle.  An alpha gradient indicating influence strength would have been so much clearer.

The above suggestions are some of my big wishlist features for a GalCiv3.  I'd like it to get bigger, and broader appeal.  I'd love to have a more visceral connection with the universe.  But when I take another look at it; does going "mainstream" make sense?  First, there is the financial perspective.  Doubling your engineering staff and quadrupling your content developers ain't cheap.  Flashy or not, I dunno how many more 4x titles you can really sell these days.  The genre is always going to be a bit niche; theres no way around managing tons and tons of numbers, even if the numbers are clearly explained.  Hard to sell that over Halo.  Second, GalCiv2 went a long way on its "indie" street cred.  This isn't a big-budget cash cow, and it doesn't feel like one.  Sometimes the "low-budge"-ness of it is kind of nostalgic, and comforting.  It reminds me of simpler times in PC gaming.   Maybe people want it to stay a bit obscure, and difficult.  Perhaps the numbers and using your imagination are what fans dig the most.

So what do YOU think?  Do you feel one way or the other?  I saw a poll here the other day where GalCiv3 was clearly the most desired future project.  How would you want it to shape up?  Just more gameplay depth, or would you like lots of bells and whisltes?  Do you want an epic media-filled experience, or to keep it simple and focus on the core gameplay?

Let a brotha know!