"Just read through the steam reviews and since GC3 was launched there is negative, after negative review, mainly down to constant crashing in one form or another.
This is not good for future sales of GC3, a lot of steam users are swayed into buying or not buying based on those reviews. Already GC3 is at mostly mixed.
Well I understand, a lot of players on this forum want to play insane galaxies with as much as possible, it might be better for the long term success of GC3 if the number of stars/planets was reduced and thus the sheer number of players having crashes was reduced.
Whatever happens Stardock need to prioritise making GC3 more stable, less of a HUGE resource hog so players can actually play the game."
I would really like to point out some things here. This goes hand in hand with my previous post with RavenX about systems. This poster is stating that on Steam forums there is "One bad review after another".
Yet the reality is the actual game review sites to this game are giving it very favorable reviews, both in Gameplay and performance. Why?
Because Game review sites typically have rigs like ours, better if not MUCH better than average and they can play BIG maps and not stutter. Also Game review sites have UPDATED drivers and know how to optimize windows outside of gaming. The honest fact is GCIII is a great game and runs great, if you have a reasonable system and you are not doing silly things like disabling the page file or running video drivers from 2014.
Thankfully, Steam complainers are a (negative) vocal minority as we are (positive) vocal minority. Unfortunately people as a whole tend to 'see' negative reviews faster than the positive ones.