X4 = dead?

Talk about strategy games like MoO series, Civilization, Europa Universalis, etc.
Message
Author
jursamaj@yahoo.com
Space Krill
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: X4 = dead?

#16 Post by jursamaj@yahoo.com » Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:41 am

Bigjoe5 wrote:
jursamaj@yahoo.com wrote:
That's pretty much equivalent to saying that those who don't buy a new luxury car ever 2-3 years don't buy many CDs/MP3s to play in their car stereos. I don't think you'll find good evidence to support either claim.
Not quite; it's reasonable to assume that people who don't spend a lot on hardware won't spend a lot on software either, because the purpose of hardware is essentially to support software, whereas the purpose of a car is by no means to play CDs/MP3s. It's more like saying that people who aren't willing to replace their DVD player with a Bluray probably aren't going to buy very many movies, which is a reasonable assumption. Anyone who is sufficiently "into" something to purchase the software is usually willing to purchase the hardware required to support it.
Again, bad assumption. Joe has been buying and watching movies on DVD for years. Now Bluray comes out. His DVD player still works fine, probably will for years. He's perfectly happy with it's picture, and wishes to continue to watch his current movies and future ones on it. But you claim because he doesn't want to pony up for a new Bluray player, whose extra quality he won't even be able to see without a really expensive new TV, that he's no longer going to buy movies *if* you'll put them out on DVD. Actually, you just *want* to sell Bluray discs instead of DVDs, because you get paid more for them. Even though it's the same movie.

Likewise, my computer is 6 years old, but still perfectly capable of playing the kinds of games I like *if* they aren't bogged down with extraneous 3D eye candy.

User avatar
Bigjoe5
Designer and Programmer
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Orion

Re: X4 = dead?

#17 Post by Bigjoe5 » Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:38 pm

jursamaj@yahoo.com wrote:*if* you'll put them out on DVD.
And if you don't, and this hypothetical "Joe" still wants to buy movies, odds are he'll go out and buy a Blu-ray player. I was happy with my VCR, but when movies stopped coming out for it, I bought a DVD player. If Joe really watches that many movies, the price of the Blu-ray player won't be that much of a deterrent to him...
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

gorgse
Space Krill
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: X4 = dead?

#18 Post by gorgse » Fri May 08, 2009 9:06 pm


Sai
Pupating Mass
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: X4 = dead?

#19 Post by Sai » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:57 am

Personally I'm still hoping for Master of Orion 4 :) But I've also been watching the FreeOrion project a while now, and I think it's promising.

I also still play Master of Orion 3, with the 'tropical' and higher modifications, it's quite nice with those fanmods.

User avatar
Zanzibar
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:35 pm
Location: Earth

Re: X4 = dead?

#20 Post by Zanzibar » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:49 pm

Definitely not dead... Sword of the Stars has just announced a 3rd, mini-expansion as well as sword of the stars 2. Full details on the message boards located here!

(sword of the stars is what master of orion 3 *should* have been... a true return to the moo 1 roots, with quite a bit of modernization in it!!)
Image

Image

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: X4 = dead?

#21 Post by utilae » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:44 am

Zanzibar wrote:Definitely not dead... Sword of the Stars has just announced a 3rd, mini-expansion as well as sword of the stars 2. Full details on the message boards located here!

(sword of the stars is what master of orion 3 *should* have been... a true return to the moo 1 roots, with quite a bit of modernization in it!!)
I do agree mostly. Sword Of The Stars has many good things going for it. And I think it is way better than Galciv. But I think there are still some things I don't like about sword of the stars, but alot more things I don't like about all the other games.

User avatar
yaromir
Space Kraken
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 8:30 pm
Location: New York City

Re: X4 = dead?

#22 Post by yaromir » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:31 pm

(sword of the stars is what master of orion 3 *should* have been... a true return to the moo 1 roots, with quite a bit of modernization in it!!)
Sounds dreadful! SOTS even with 2 expansions was painful to play.
I do agree mostly. Sword Of The Stars has many good things going for it. And I think it is way better than Galciv. But I think there are still some things I don't like about sword of the stars, but alot more things I don't like about all the other games.
I would agree that it had some interesting ideas, but ultimately, it didn't work for creating an interesting, engaging, fun and re-playable game. As for comparison to GalCiv...I don't know. They both got the same treatment from me (locked away in the dark corner of my game-library never to see light again)
Staying awake and aware is perhaps the hardest thing to do.

User avatar
Zanzibar
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:35 pm
Location: Earth

Re: X4 = dead?

#23 Post by Zanzibar » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:31 pm

What was so terrible about a game that returns to the roots of 4x, and improves on that formula? The only real improvements on the Moo 1 system are...

1) Each race travels the galaxy in a different way! (This is quite well done, and balanced)

2) Galaxy maps are now 3d (sure, some of the controls for the 3d map could have been better, but full 3d galaxies? Very cool! (There are also 2d galaxies and the ability to make your own, custom maps if you choose)

3) Combat is real time and turret mount placement has a very important factor in how the combat plays out... also the drive systems, and other systems!! Finally having a faster engine actually means something in combat! (the combat system is quite well done, a refinement of the homeworld system).

4) Trading done right. Build freighters and forget. Not much micro here!!

5) Ok, sure the diplomacy is rather lacking... but this is a WAR game, people... it's all about blowing things up!

6) Each race has it's own idea of what a "perfect" environment on a planet is... it's not all the same like galciv!

7) No tedious micromanagement like moo 2. Build wheat farm x on planet y because WHY again? How does this effect me taking over the galaxy?? Shouldn't my civilians be able to take care of that, while I, the great galactic emperor worry about the war?

Again... quite confused as to what you saw as terrible about the game, especially after the 2 expansions...
Image

Image

User avatar
Ron_Lugge
Space Floater
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 10:04 pm

Re: X4 = dead?

#24 Post by Ron_Lugge » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:22 am

Zanzibar wrote:Again... quite confused as to what you saw as terrible about the game, especially after the 2 expansions...
Personally, I just didn't 'get' it. Hence why I never got the two expansions...

I keep considering giving it a second chance, especially now that it, and the expansions, are on Impulse.
There are 10 types of people in the world;

Those who understand binary and those that don't.

User avatar
Zanzibar
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:35 pm
Location: Earth

Re: X4 = dead?

#25 Post by Zanzibar » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:06 pm

The expansions definitely add elements the original game was lacking like trade and diplomacy... that's for sure!
Image

Image

krum
Creative Contributor
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Re: X4 = dead?

#26 Post by krum » Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:41 am

Bigjoe5 wrote:
jursamaj@yahoo.com wrote:*if* you'll put them out on DVD.
And if you don't, and this hypothetical "Joe" still wants to buy movies, odds are he'll go out and buy a Blu-ray player. I was happy with my VCR, but when movies stopped coming out for it, I bought a DVD player. If Joe really watches that many movies, the price of the Blu-ray player won't be that much of a deterrent to him...
Hm, in this case it's more like, all new films pretty much suck, but there is the accidental good one, which he would like to see, but it's so are it doesn't warrant the cost of a Blu-ray.

greenbalrog
Krill Swarm
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:42 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Space Strategy Games: What's next?

#27 Post by greenbalrog » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:46 pm

Definitely the Master of Orion series (MOO1 and MOO2) was the best. It simply had the magic feeling about it. Planets toleration that need special (expensive) researchs; the spaceships customization, the basic but interesting sounds (who does not remember the fascinating sound of the doom ray), ultimately the simplicity of processes.

The question is where we should go from now to keep the concept of 4x appealing at the same time expanding its coverage.

Which of the following features would we like to see explored in future space gaming experience or which elements do we favor more and in which order? Or basically what do we want to see next?

* Human-Computer VS Human-Human experience
* Thin Client Browser based approach vs Normal Client based
* Free content with paid extensions VS Paid to use
* Reward system importance
* Eye candy factor importance
* In-game movies?
* Technology tree depth
* Spaceship customization depth
* Races number and customization level
* Story depth
* Universe depth
* Overall customization
* Others

I'm running a blog to discuss this point: http://www.spacesector.com/blog I'll be posting my ideas there in a regular basis in the hope to keep the concept alive and innovative. Hope you can drop by to leave a comment and help spread the discussion for the next generation of Space Strategy Games 4x style.

User avatar
Zanzibar
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:35 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Space Strategy Games: What's next?

#28 Post by Zanzibar » Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:43 pm

greenbalrog wrote:Which of the following features would we like to see explored in future space gaming experience or which elements do we favor more and in which order? Or basically what do we want to see next?

1 Human-Computer VS Human-Human experience
2 Thin Client Browser based approach vs Normal Client based
3 Free content with paid extensions VS Paid to use
4 Reward system importance
5 Eye candy factor importance
6 In-game movies?
7 Technology tree depth
8 Spaceship customization depth
9 Races number and customization level
10 Story depth
11 Universe depth
12 Overall customization
13 Others
Why not have that discussion here?

1. I think a game that can be open to both play styles (for example Sword of the Stars) is what people are looking for. Also the fact that you can let the computer take over for a few turns and then rotate back in is HUGE.

2. Not sure what this is... but I think a game that plays on internet explorer or firefox isn't going to give you as much features here.

3. I tried EVE. I really wanted to LIKE eve... the main problem with EVE? Space is huge. unbelievably unimaginably HUGE. Takes you forever to get somewhere even at FTL speeds. I don't need to spend 90% of my game getting from point A to point B. Put me in the action, thank you very much!!

4. Being able to salvage parts and other things from your enemies wreckage, bringing them back to your labs to be reversed engineered or just slapped onto your ships in "as-is" condition would be really cool. Now, Sword of the Stars does have salvage, and the reverse engineering... however, I was sadly dissapointed when the zuul especially didn't get the 2nd option. Sure, it's sorta been added back in, in an abstract kind of way with Argos Naval Yard... but I think there could be some good depth to this system here.

5. At the end of the day the main question is... does it get boring too fast, or is it fun? Eye candy is secondary to the "just-one-more-turn" feeling...

6. See number 5. I can take it or leave it.

7. Now the way Sword of the Stars uses it's tech tree is really unique and awesome, and I think should do well to study. Over 300 techs (with the most recent expansion) and no one way to get the "uber I win" button!! Also the fact that most techs aren't 100% gaurunteed gives the game HUGE replay value.

8. How your spaceship is customized should be an important factor in how they behave in combat. Galactic Civilizations has great customization, but in combat has epic failure in bringing any real meaning to it. Please don't give me more epic failure.

9. The number of races is not as important as much as how they play. If every race plays like humans, just with different bonuses and penalties even if you have 500... it's not going to work here. Each race needs to have it's own play style and needs to be unique and have it's own strategy. This is what makes a game like Sword of the Stars shine better then most.

10. How much story depth can you convey in a game that's 4x?? I'm on the fence about this one... Sword of the Stars for example... has a HUGE backstory... and TONS of literature on the web and other sources from one of the best science fiction writers of our time. And yet... when you play the game? Yeah... you don't get much of it simply by playing.

11. See number 10. Unless you mean customizable 3d galaxy shapes?? Now that is pretty big... If done right, each map having it's own uniqueness and strategy to play on is a good concept!!

12. A moderate level of customization is good. I don't need to be bogged down in the details, I'm the galactic emperor. I really don't care if vega 5 is building it's 50th wheat farm. I got a war to wage!! I have a galaxy to conquer... let my civilians worry about that!

13. Not sure what to write here, so I won't.
Image

Image

User avatar
pd
Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1924
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: 52°16'N 10°31'E

Re: X4 = dead?

#29 Post by pd » Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:26 pm

Are you getting paid to do this Zanzibar? I mean, seriously. You are advertising this game in every post you do.

greenbalrog
Krill Swarm
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:42 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: X4 = dead?

#30 Post by greenbalrog » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:04 am

If I recall in MOO2 uncreative would get a random tech, if "normal" one could choose one tech, if creative the player gets all three techs of a field. This is a perfect example of race traits determining the research hability.

Ok so the creative trait would need to be super expensive, something equal in magnitude as the ability to colonize all planets without the technology (tolerant if I recall correctly in MOO2).

As a Sui Generis has commented in my blog post: http://www.spacesector.com/blog/?p=21 it would be neat to be able to mary the randomness factor of MOO1 with the creative/normal/uncreative traits of MOO2. This allied with the factors I introduce in my post would turn in my opinion the game experience in terms of what research is concerned much more exciting:

* An ancestor ruin is discovered
* Special artifacts were found on planets
* Unexpected contact with alien races that shares knowledge (with the “correct” approach/answer)
* Luck
* Race characteristics
* Decisions made on certain actions like colonizing, government decisions
* Previous breakthroughs
* Planet events
* Special people (specialists) born in the planets

I invite you to read my post http://www.spacesector.com/blog/?p=21 where I discuss this topic a bit. Leave a comment if you're in the mood to help build more ideas :idea:

Post Reply