Another funny story.
My love of original Gal Civ was because it didn't strike me as a colonialism love-in, like Sid Meier's Civilization, with emphasis on Civ 5.
I've played the Civ series fairly heavily, usually getting disgusted at some point, and putting it down, but I finally reached a breaking point, and couldn't stand the blandness, the watered-down cultures, and the tacit acceptance that the "only" way of dealing with your neighbour is to slaughter him, to break him, to have him driven before you, to hear the lamentations of his women, etc, etc.
Gal Civ I: ultimate was like a breath of fresh air. I adored the gameplay, I loved the races, I cheered when I could set their AI, and they would actually behave (more or less) in a believable fashion.
I also skipped Gal Civ 2 entirely because it was on Steam. I know, you've heard me say this, and likely shook your head.
I don't care, I hate Steam. There is it. I hate Windows 95, too. You don't have to agree with me.
Now I see Gal Civ 3 going the same route as Civ 5.
Am I being premature? Did not Gal Civ I turn out to be wildly awesome, in spite of my complete lack of input?
That having been said, I'm here now, I paid $100 to be a Founder, and to chime in, and I'll continue to do so, with the best interest of my overall gaming experience in mind, regardless of agreement, or the lack thereof.
I also giggled that a guy who told me I didn't know how to play this game later commented on the forums that he only plays on beginner.
Now that's funny.