Petr,

While this game is far from perfect, most of the issues you have with multiplayer could have been easily brought to your attention before you purchased if you had you done a bit of research into the features of the game, or even just posted a thread here asking.

Certainly there are bugs as you mention, however try not to give up on it just yet.  Stardock generally have pretty good turn around time for patches / fixes so you never know, these issues might be resolved quickly 

Reviewers aren't going to hammer the AI of a base game in a franchise where 73% of players never once go above Beginner. I, for one, never once go above the difficulty where the AI gets additional bonuses the player does not. Min-maxing in a strategy game simply isn't my idea of fun, even if I could sit down, do the math, and game the system for extreme efficiency.

I suppose I would have also preferred a more polished 1.0 but, when the game is already where it's at, what's the point? Stardock clearly knew they had a quality product on their hands and the official release, along with all of the marketing for it, is no doubt going to drastically boost sales, players, and the number of reports about bugs and issues that Stardock will continue to furiously improve. You can already see that in the incredible surge of threads around here!

Combine that with the 8/10 and 9/10 reviews and you have what looks like a stellar launch from a business perspective. The future of Galactic Civilizations 3 looks strong and I am extremely pleased with my investment as an Elite Founder.

I can't imagine why I, in the shoes of a reviewer, would ever get on a game about easy-to-fix bugs or typos. As an educated reviewer I would consider the company behind the game: Stardock. What does anyone know about Stardock? They have incredible post-release support and will be working on this game relentlessly. Therefore, what do I care about in my review?

Big things. Big, hard to change things that will keep my review content current for as long as possible. This means not sweating the small stuff, such as typos.

That, in my mind, is a very sensible reason for it. And as you can tell, it hasn't impacted reviews at all: The response to Galactic Civilizations 3 is phenomenal. Stardock has another huge win to notch into their belts.

Even though there's a huge amount of work to be done, I'm hoping Mr. Wardell, Boyer, and the rest of the team at Stardock popped a few expensive bottles of champagne. This is an occasion that deserves it.

And going forward we already have cool new features to look forward to: Downloading custom Major Factions from other players through the Steam Workshop, for instance! That'll really help me fill out those Gigantic+ games!

In the face of those things, I don't care about their broken spacing in Race descriptions, bad grammar, or outright mispellings. Those are easy to sweep through and resolve.

But Elemental still leaves a bad taste in a lot of people mouths. The first Elemental War of Magic where they ended up giving TWO free expansions because the uproar was so great they almost had to. Still the taste is there and I'm still much skeptical about buying in new release by Stardock.

I think they said they would fix all multi-player issues as fast as possible but also said that multi-player are less then 2% of the player base of the game so other stuff might get a higher priority. I guess stability in multi-player are a high priority but more refined changes less so.

Minor issues have not impacted review much as far as I can see and I really don't see why they should either. The game are perfectly playable even with minor errors here and there.

In my opinion the game is really good and the potential of the game going forward seem really big, given they will add content to the game for many years to come.

The fact the AI also is completely data driven means that it has the potential to become quite good in the future once they manage to teach how to interpret all the data in the game properly.

The loading screen stays on for 2-3 minutes?? You should defrag your HDD or something. On my PC it lasts for just a couple of seconds.

The AI has serious deficiencies compared to what other game?

Maybe you should also take into account the things that do work and that are good instead of just focusing on yet uncompleted or missing features. It's easy to loose track of the big picture if you obsess on certain aspects. Are there teething troubles? Of course. Is it overall a good and fun game? I think it is. 

As for the loading time: What makes a big difference on my machine are the power settings of windows. If it is on power-saving than especially the performance of games really goes down compared to the high performance settings.

Distant worlds AI is pretty amazing - and can be modded. The entire trade system runs via AI with zero interaction from the user as far as trade ship movements.

I can't decide who's worse....fanboys or trolls.....

Reviewers aren't going to give GC a bad review because of MP, which is the absolute least important thing in a 4X strategy game.  They see the bigger picture.

Honestly, my complaints about the game are small and related mostly to accessibility issues (and "medium" ui size is coming soon.) I played and loved GC2 and I'm playing and loving GC3. I agree with that one review that said this game is planning for the long haul. I can see tons of areas where expacs could be put out to really make this game shine like DA and ToA did for GC2.

My only complaint is the short campaign. Though I would like to see ship loadouts due to weapon range and type and ship role be a little more viable.

I'm still optimistic that stardock will fix issues before moving the team over to their next project of StarControl 4. I mean they sold us the founders pack on the idea they would be creating more content for the game as expansions and that we'd get it free... so if all they do is fix some bus and move on I'll be pissed.