Poll: 4X: Coming or Going?

Recommended Videos

Fenixius

New member
Feb 5, 2007
448
0
0
Unknower post=9.70145.682512 said:
I can't help but compare SoaSE to Hegemonia: Legions of Iron. SoaSE repeats the same flaws as that game and it doesn't even have as FRIGGIN' AWESOME explosions as Hegemonia had. Hegemonia is 6 years old already! Why do we still have ships stopping when they enter a battle? Do some evasive maneuvers, dammit!
I've played Hegemonia. And yeah, it was far superior to Sins of a Solar Empire simply because the game moved at a comparatively hectic pace. Which is really sad, considering how well Stardock made Galalctic Civilisations I and II. You'd've hoped that Stardock learned from the mistakes of other games and the successes of others, but no, apparently not. It seems that someone should mail them a copy of Homeworld and say "More like this." Oh, but wait, they did learn from Warcraft III how to make Heroes work in RTS games. They stole that aspect completely, minus the items they could hold in Warcraft. Alas, they copied from the wrong game.

Asehujiko post=9.70145.682675 said:
Explain the fundamental differences between 4x games and regular rts/tbs please.
Well, it's called 4X because of exactly what Eldritch Warlord said. I'll refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X, because they explain it fairly consisely. And, just to cap it off for the lazy people who don't want to go to Wiki, I'll quote GameSpy [http://goty.gamespy.com/2006/pc/index6.html] for you.

GameSpy said:
They're called "4X" games. The X's stand for eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate. They're the incredibly deep, hardcore strategy titles where players build up enormous empires by trading, colonization and (when all else fails) using the business end of projectile weapons.
They tend to be turn based (but not always), tend to take many many hours to play a single game, and tend to have deep customisation of your territories. So you'd usually start off with one territory, a homeworld, a capital city, whatever, and go from there.

eXplore
You'd have to explore the surrounding, possibly fending off neutral hostiles who'll try to crush you early. It's all fog of war at the start, so knowing where you are is very important. How else can you know where to strategically place your next city, or your finest legion?

eXpand
Once you've got the lay of the land (or a stellar map), you'll have to set up some new cities or colonise some new worlds. This usually requires moving a relatively expensive and fragile unit to where you want your new base, having it set up, and then defend it from the neutral hostile AI. These guys are often things like wolves and bears or barbarians and pirates. Or their Sci-Fi equivalents. Sometimes they even have their own cities, and sometimes they can capture yours. So it's not just about expansion, but holding what you take.

eXploit
Once you've expanded your empire/business/kingdom/whatever, you need to exploit the natural resources and upgrade your territory to provide whatever it is your going for (which is usually happiness for your people, or money, or both). This upgrading stage is often allowed due to the huge number of territorial improvements you can place, and the large number of city/world upgrades available to the player.

Also included in this stage (though also in every other) are the often vast research trees incorporated into the game. If you think the tech tree in an RTS is complex, forget it. There are usually 4 or more paths to research down, and they don't always cross over to help you upgrade quicker. You could focus on economics, diplomacy, offense, defense, speed, or a whole host of other things. But once you've raced ahead of your opponents in technology, your victory is assured.

eXterminate
The final stage is the simplest to explain. You attain, using your highly developed/efficent/powerful empire, one of the victory conditions. Usually stuff like "Exterminate all enemies", or "Win the election to lead the world/galaxy", or "Research down the Tech Victory tree", or "Have influence over X% of the world/galaxy". Stuff like that. You win the game by getting one of those.

That's what a 4X game is. Perhaps you can see why people don't go for them now? They're big, frequently unwieldy, and require lots of thought. Most people don't want that from a game.
 

Eyclonus

New member
Apr 12, 2008
672
0
0
Fenixius post=9.70145.684472 said:
That's what a 4X game is. Perhaps you can see why people don't go for them now? They're big, frequently unwieldy, and require lots of thought. Most people don't want that from a game.
I'd say the unwieldy part is more to do with the studio's design choices, Alpha Centauri being very streamlined and also complex at the same time.
 

Saskwach

New member
Nov 4, 2007
2,321
0
0
Please God, let 4X live on.
Fenixius post=9.70145.682139 said:
Unfortunately, it does seem that 4X gets no love from publishers or developers outside of Firaxis/Sid Meier and Stardock. And hell, I don't even know if Stardock are making anything new, but they did do Galactic Civilisations II recently(ish).
Good news: GalCiv 3 confirmed. Bad news: Not for this decade.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/08/29/galactic-civilizationier/#more-2408
 

Daymo

And how much is this Pub Club?
May 18, 2008
694
0
0
I just brought Civ 4 yesterday and i'm really enjoying it, it's good to get away from the fast pace of other games, but sadly it seems less and less companies are making them. Sid Meier ,might single handedly keep 4X alive though.
 

Fenixius

New member
Feb 5, 2007
448
0
0
Saskwach post=9.70145.684711 said:
Good news: GalCiv 3 confirmed. Bad news: Not for this decade.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/08/29/galactic-civilizationier/#more-2408
Thanks for posting that link, Sask. Galactic Civilisations II is so great that Tom Francis wrote this about it [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161570&site=pcg]. It's a diary of the a game played on a Gigantic sized galaxy (and it goes half again as big as the one Tom played on in that link). The guy knows how to write an amusing article, and it helped that he was almost constantly in a tight spot. At the very least, read the final entry, which is a retrospective on the AI that used him as a pawn in its game of Galactic Conquest.

Given that that's how good GalCiv2 is, it's awesome to hear about GalCiv3. I don't really mind that I won't get the game until sometime after 2009 (2010 counts as a new decade, people), because I know it's going to rock socks.
 

Saskwach

New member
Nov 4, 2007
2,321
0
0
I've read that diary thing and it was great. Sadly, it only left me wishing there were more. :(
 

Fenixius

New member
Feb 5, 2007
448
0
0
Saskwach post=9.70145.685250 said:
I've read that diary thing and it was great. Sadly, it only left me wishing there were more. :(
Well, he's writing another one here, but it looks like he's doing daily updates, so it might take a while until it's finished.

So, does 4X count as a genre with at least one, probably two (I have no idea if Sid is doing a new one) coming up? And do games like Empire: Total War count as 4X? I want opinions from other people on the board here.
 

Unknower

New member
Jun 4, 2008
865
0
0
I like the term "Grand Strategy Game", more than 4X. I think it covers every kind of a more complex strategy game.
 

Daymo

And how much is this Pub Club?
May 18, 2008
694
0
0
For games to be 4X, they need to have ways of victory besides combat, thats why Sins of a Solar Empire shouldn't really be counted as one.
 

Fenixius

New member
Feb 5, 2007
448
0
0
Unknower post=9.70145.685356 said:
I like the term "Grand Strategy Game", more than 4X. I think it covers every kind of a more complex strategy game.
Would you count Supreme Commander as a Grand Strategy game, then?

Daymo post=9.70145.685377 said:
For games to be 4X, they need to have ways of victory besides combat, thats why Sins of a Solar Empire shouldn't really be counted as one.
An interesting proposal. Perhaps you should count Spore's Civilisation phase as a 4X game then? You can win via Military, Religion or Economics.

Fenixius said:
...Do games like Empire: Total War count as 4X?
Just linking back to what I said before, I'm somewhat inclined to say that just because a game comes with a metamap as they're called (though Megamap would be more appropriate, I think) doesn't make it 4X. Even if there's a Mega-economic side to the game, I still don't think it counts as 4X without the customisation offered by other titles. A military megamap is present in the later Dawn of War expansions, but it's obviously not a 4X game, it's an RTS game. So what exactly is required for it to be 4X?

I reckon you need at least 4 of the following:
A) Mega-level Research
B) Mega-level Diplomacy
C) Mega-level Economy
D) Mega-level Military
E) Mega-level Victory Conditions

Essentially, the game must play at the Megamap level, not just on individual maps with the Megamap to follow your progress or pick which map to play next. And by play at that level, I mean have more decisions to make than "Attack here" or "Attack there". The megamap should represent the entire civilisation/empire, not just the military commander's map.

That's my opinion, anyway...
 

Eyclonus

New member
Apr 12, 2008
672
0
0
To amend that I would say that a military "kill 'em all" victory condition is actually the hardest to achieve. At least in Sid Meier's games this emphasised with all other players declaring unrestricted warfare on an violent player.
 

Credge

New member
Apr 12, 2008
1,042
0
0
The thing about 4x games is that we don't need a lot of them. I'm currently playing 3 and I haven't finished a game in about 3 weeks. Yeah, I'm playing the same 3 games. I'm about to finish a Gal Civ 2 game and I'm about halfway through a Civ 4 game. The other one is a freecol game I've been playing to prepare for the release of Colonization this month.

There are usually about 2-3 4x games released a year. Most go undetected although this year we've had two really good 4x releases (Civ Rev and soon to have Colonization). That's all we need and that's all the industry really gives us. It's one of the few genres of game where I'm always satisfied with the end result.
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
Fenixius post=9.70145.685330 said:
So, does 4X count as a genre with at least one, probably two (I have no idea if Sid is doing a new one) coming up? And do games like Empire: Total War count as 4X? I want opinions from other people on the board here.
4X is more of an "intersubgenre." Strategy games are devided into RTS and TBS (both of which have "tactics" subgenres in which the player cannot by some method introduce new units to the battlefield). 4X is sort of a subgenre of both as long as you count a game like Sins as 4X.

EDIT: I believe 4X's will endure as at least niche-market games. They're not like point-and-click adventures that were conceived to work around technological limitations.
 

Saskwach

New member
Nov 4, 2007
2,321
0
0
Fenixius post=9.70145.685330 said:
So, does 4X count as a genre with at least one, probably two (I have no idea if Sid is doing a new one) coming up? And do games like Empire: Total War count as 4X? I want opinions from other people on the board here.
I'd say 4X is just a set of customs within the turn-based genre. To call 4X a genre is nice and helpful but as misleading about what "genre" constitutes as saying that "base-builder" is a type of genre distinct from RTSes just because their conceits are very commonly used amongst the genre.
This of course goes on from my definition of game genre: a (usually very small) set of mechanics or important aspects of presentation that have been agreed to be defining.
RTS: You order things around in real-time. The mechanics here are 1)ordering and 2)real-time presentation.
FPS: 1)Shooting. 2)First-person view.
Turn-based strategy: 1)Ordering. 2)Turn-based time system.
Using this definition 4X is very obviously part of the turn-based genre, but it has some added customs that might make it a sub-genre: being at the head of an empire; growing that empire being the object of the game.
 

Unknower

New member
Jun 4, 2008
865
0
0
Fenixius post=9.70145.685453 said:
Unknower post=9.70145.685356 said:
I like the term "Grand Strategy Game", more than 4X. I think it covers every kind of a more complex strategy game.
Would you count Supreme Commander as a Grand Strategy game, then?
Not really. Lots of stuff in it is in grand scale but it's not that complex.

At least I got that impression from the demo.
 

Eyclonus

New member
Apr 12, 2008
672
0
0
Supreme Commander is just Total Anilihation on the proverbial steroids, its still the same unit spam gameplay of RTS, people who naysay this are stupid for the simple fact that all the strategies involved in SG are the same as other RTS but the game scale forces players to use them all at once in one giant clusterfuck.
 

Aries_Split

New member
May 12, 2008
2,097
0
0
Maybe off topic, but I just made the hall of fame for Pandemic. My Virus is called DEATH OF THE GODS!
 

geldonyetich

New member
Aug 2, 2006
3,715
0
0
4X: Neither coming nor going, but evolved.

Basically, it's the turn-based versus real-time strategy thing. You could argue there's a place for both, but as soon as the technology allows the developers will scramble to the new ground while it's still fresh. (Perhaps RTS is a bad example, since that ground passed fresh a decade ago.)
 

Eyclonus

New member
Apr 12, 2008
672
0
0
Darth Mobius post=9.70145.694401 said:
Eyclonus post=9.70145.682157 said:
Sins of a Solar Empire was ok but like you said its slow enough to put off most RTS fans.
Yeah, and I still have trouble with expanding AND concentrating on building each planet up to maximum potential. I can do one or the other, but not both... I just need more practice...
So its more a case of an inumerable star empire of suck, or the grand utopia of a single star system.