|
Achernar posted:Does anyone in the thread have any experience with Wizard Warfare? I'm not sure if I should pick it up or just get Master of Magic. This seems cool. I haven't tried it yet, but I'm curious.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
I think a lot of 4x games fall into a trap that designers don't know how to get out of. When you start as a single small planet, moving a population over to food instead of science is a meaningful choice. Your first new colony picking the large poor planet vs the small toxic rich planet, vs the high gravity desert planet matters a lot. Researching Hydroponics vs lasers vs shields vs engines matters. Building a colonyship vs developing planetary infrastructure vs building a frigate to fight off pirates matters. But after a few hundred turns, those details should no longer matter. Instead the game needs to smoothly transition your focus over to more galactic empire concerns. How many ships am I producing a turn? What's my total population growth? How quickly can I colonize new planets? I no longer care about missiles vs lasers, vs mass drivers, I should be caring about a well balanced fleet and I should expect my AI General's to handle fleet things themselves. Something I really liked (though it was a fairly shallow system) was the Planetary Governors/Fleet Commanders that MoO2 got. I could envision a system where well experienced governors manage a planet better then the player can. Have some that are good for building up a new planet, some that are good at building ships, some that are good at research, some that are good on a more empire-wide scale that handle internal logistics etc. Have fleet commanders that unlock new tactics that the player can choose when they are fighting (kind of like endless space did with the cards, choose correctly and you get bonuses choose poorly and you get penalties). But give the player interesting strategic decisions and remove the trivial decisions as the game progresses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2020 08:23
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Let's have a debate: What 4X strategy had the best/most enjoyable AI opponents? MoO2 you can actually lose to, so that's pretty fun.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Zurai posted:MOO3 did this. Which may be part of the answer to why nobody else did, even though MOO3's problems were that it just didn't have enough time in the oven rather than anything with the base concepts. Moo3 had way too much time in the oven I think development started in like 1998? and they still couldn't figure out how to actually get any of their systems to work together this was made worse because the main system, the Heavy Foot of Government made it where you couldn't actually do anything about the broken systems as a player.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Gal Civ 4 announced! Looks like they've been heavily inspired by Stellaris and Endless Space 2 and are really shifting around how the core game works this time. Aiming for a 2022 release and an Alpha public test this summer. Seems cool. Hope it's good and that it takes the right lessons from GalCiv3. Also makes the tech tree actually interesting instead of number literally go up.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
Mokotow posted:Those GC blogs and Q&A sure sound like Brad. Having said that, the MOO-like sub genre needs to expand. I always found the sub-1000 star galaxies as too much of a stretch, sort of like Civ always felt like an abstract board game rather than an actually exploration of taking a Civ through history. This multiple sector idea is kinda cool. I guess Stellaris made some inroads into this topic with L-Space or whatever it was called, but nothing in that scale. I'll be curious to see what Distant Worlds 2 does - the galaxies there will also be larger. As long as there is a macro way of controlling your empire that is fun and engaging instead of random then sure more stars could be cool. But honestly I'm not really sure why I should be excited about colonizing star number 190232 in sector 212fa, as oppose to just colonizing planet number 9. Number's going up isn't really the source of fun from games like this. Not that Number Going Up is a bad thing, it's just that the mechanics that exist should be interesting and impactful.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
orangelex44 posted:The problem is that if the AI is better than the player, the player figures "why play the game" - but if the AI is worse than the player, the player gets frustrated with using it "because it's not optimal". AI control is something that people say they want, but are invariably wrong about. There's no middle ground to aim for here. The only way to do it is to change the mechanics of the game entirely to support it, which *surprise!* people won't allow either because it's not the accepted way that 4x games are played. There is more to a 4X game then managing colonies. In fact in the end-game that is literally the more boring part. Let me the player build my bespoke home planet and let the AI optimally manage my worlds that I've tagged as "research" or "Industry" etc. As the player I want to manage my fleets, conquer planets, choose my long term research strategy. If the game mechanics support it (they probably won't) let me do some diplomacy and trading. Maybe some Espionage etc. There is a ton of room for the player to do things they find fun that an AI can't do better. As for an AI better then the player I'm not worried about that, if a perfect god-like AI is invented, then I'll play on an easier difficulty level.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
Personally I find internal strife to be nothing but a chore. "Oh no, I have to make sure this bar is above 50%, and it goes down every turn randomly, how engaging!" Better click on this guys portrait and give him 5 bear asses so that the bar goes up 10%. Why do I care about that? How is that fun? It just doesn't seem to work when the player isn't a actually a character in the world but instead some kind of immortal omniscient being. If that guy is unhappy, I can just kill him and he'll be replaced with an identical version of the unhappy guy, but he'll be happy for the next 20 turns and I can do things that actually matter like raising armies, or moving them around, or fighting or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
From a simulation of society perspective, I'm the omniscient immortal emperor of an empire that has hundreds of billions of citizens. Who the hell is this guy asking me for bear asses? For gaming, again I am the omniscient immortal emperor of a space faring FTL capable civilization, there is supposed to be a galaxy full of threats, if I'm still worried about some guy asking for bear asses then you are distracting me from the purpose of the game. Basically internal strife is a crutch bad game designers, like paradox, use because their game systems don't work, their AI can't play their games and their already sandbox heavy games would have nothing happening in it's universe without random events like a huge army appearing out of thin air in the middle of the players empire, i.e. a "rebel" army. It's bad design and I find it tedious at best. I like my games tight-knit with game systems that matter and will naturally enable opponents to attempt to win on their own and provide conflict to me, the player, that is measurable and and possible within the games mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This bodes good things for Old World I actually like Old World a lot. It has internal conflict that you have to manage, but the way you manage it is by playing the game aggressively. Every time you found a city (or conquer one!) that is an opportunity to appease one of the 3 factions. Every time you achieve a legacy that is an opportunity to make one of your houses happy. You are rewarded for expanding as long as you keep your internal infrastructure robust. It's a bit imbalanced in some of the higher difficulty levels (reminds me of the corruption mechanic in Civ3), but it's a very transparent and manageable system. Beamed posted:Paradox explicitly avoids putting internal strife in their games, and refused to allow sectors to have any internal politics at all in Stellaris, because one of their designers hates the idea of internal politics. So, I think you need to work on your examples a bit - I think the idea that internal strife is a crutch for broken game systems is in fact backwards, and broken game systems avoid internal strife to cover up shortcomings in abstraction. That's fair. I'm honestly not familiar with Stellaris, but Paradox with CK2 and CK3 and their magical armies that appear constantly are just an example of the fact that they don't have game systems the AI can interact with so they have to spawn enemy armies instead. Specifically this stuff: https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Event_troops I'd also say that an abstraction isn't a shortcoming. It's the only way to establish the scale of a game. I don't care that farmer bob got his field destroyed because there was a planetary invasion. That damage needs to be abstracted out as -X% food, I don't need to give bear asses to farmer bob because he is upset his field was destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 03:30
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:Yeah I think they are committed to Epic forever as far as I can remember. AFAIK it is an Epic exclusive because they funded the game to begin with. Without Epic, the game wouldn't exist at all. In anycase It's a good game and you can play it without the EPG once you buy it. You can literally install it, uninstall the EPG store, and play it from steam if you want. You would have to open up the EPG to update the game, but otherwise that's it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2021 07:25
|
|
|
The biggest problem with 4x games imo is the lack of macro-tools. It's super important to have a handful of planets/cities/colonies/whatever that you will carefully manage and will be pumping out the majority of your ships/science whatever. While your other planets are important to control/deny from your opponent, they will drastically slow down the pace for each additional planet you get. So you end up with the most important early turns taking a <10 seconds, whereas the less important later turns are taking minutes at a time. Given this scaling problem, the game should be designed to either help the player easily manage all their planets with bulk-orders/build queues or AI Governors, or something that reduces the busy work for the player as they are conquering the limitless worlds the universe has to offer. It's a hard problem to solve and other then star ruler I haven't seen a game handle it well. As an aside star ruler is really good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2021 07:16
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Isn't that every single space 4X made since then? They keep loving up moo2 remakes by putting crap like starlanes in the game, or making colony management too finicky.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:off the top of my head Interstellar Space Genesis is literally just MOO2 without multiplayer or the Antaran stuff. There've been others but that's the most recent, if you're one of those people who wants zero deviation from MOO2 but for some reason won't just buy MOO2 on GOG Oh yea, the Moo2 remakes also get rid of the Anataran's and the ship boarding and scraping for tech as well. Both critical things that contribute to the fun of the systems. That said, I have MoO2 it's great, but it only works because of the way all the systems put into the game work. If you put in starlanes, or remove ship scraping for tech, or remove the Anatarn's or make Combat auto-resolve, or whatever other stuff they do, it both makes the game worse, while also keeping in place some of the bad parts of MoO2. They basically constrain themselves to the MoO2 formula, while making an inferior game.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:Starlanes mean geography and, more importantly, choke points. If everything is in the same stew, it gets boring to me. The lack of geography is a key feature of a space 4x imo. If I can't create my fleet of universe conquering ships at the end of the game and send them to every enemy star system in one turn for the crushing victory, then the end just becomes a pointless slog. Chokepoints suck.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
uber_stoat posted:i always enjoyed the gimmicky space pirate build where you just steal everyone's ships with your burly combat bear men. mistake to take it out. It's fun as hell, especially against Antaran's. Getting Particle Beam and Xentronmium armor early on is a rush.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:moo1 letting you win once you get the council votes is one of its many advantages over moo2 MoO2 had the council as well. Ways to win in MoO2. Exterminate: conquer/destroy all your enemies. Not too much of a slog tbh since end-game tech lets you literally destroy planets and render the entire system uncolonizable which prevents anyone from backfiling. Build the Anataran Portal and kill the Anataran's at their homeworld. Council Votes, most votes wins. AI's are coded that at a certain level of "liking you" they will vote for you to win. If you have the most votes you can win as well without worrying about cleanup.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Bremen posted:That one was cool, but I was really bad at it. I did a quick google for anyone who hasn't played. It's really good. And the total size of the ship scaled the production cost of the ship. Whereas the more components you put into the ship scaled their efficiency/damage output. In addition to armor being directional, if you put a group of 3 hexes of armor on the front, each provides ~1.7x as a single hex of armor. As you unlocked better techs you could make larger total size of ships. Apparently in Star Ruler 1 the maximum ship size was enormous, like planet sized, but in Star Ruler 2 there was a more "reasonable" cap (though reasonableness in a 4x game with FTL travel seems pointless to me  )Additionally a ship wasn't destroyed until it was damaged such that >50% of the ship was disconnected from each other, or all of your power-stations were destroyed. Possibly if all of your engines were destroyed too? I'm not sure. So distributing your power-generation plants throughout your ship was encouraged, but when power stations were damaged they had a chance of exploding causing cascading explosion to adjacent ship components. Anyway, play Star Ruler, it has a lot of great design decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Star Ruler armor was pretty intuitive I thought. You put armor where you are worried about being hit. During combat you can literally see where your ships are taking damage. Each hex of a ship has X hitpoints modified by component type and size of the ship, Armor has the most hitpoints.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:https://store.steampowered.com/app/1606340/Conquest_of_Elysium_5/ Seems extremely overwhelming.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Do majority of 4X players actually like ship/unit designer features? Star Ruler 2 (I never played the first one) has some interesting takes on how it's ship design works. Since you construct your ships on a hex grid and all weapon hits are drawn as vectors, depending on how your ships are facing in combat will dictate where the damage they are taking is coming from. So you can reinforce your armor on say the front of a ship, and have the weapons facing backwards creating a fleet that charges through the enemy fleet, then attacks them from behind. You could also decide to decentralize your shield/energy systems, but concentrate your weapons in a single place. You can scale your ships based on your industrial capacity, so if you made a ship that works well at a "medium size," you could make the same ship twice as large if you wanted. Basically the geometry of the ship matters to the combat, in addition to whether or not you have shields 5 vs lasers 1 or whatever. I found it pretty fun overall.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Relax Or DIE posted:imo more 4x games should steal SotS' grand menaces and generally just be willing to introduce big problems onto the board and force players to scramble. i know stellaris does it but i've rarely managed to care about a game of stellaris long enough for it to occur. Those are so artificial though and are honestly just lazy design that developers throw in because they realize that their game system doesn't work but they need to have some kind of end-state so they can finish their game. Just spawning a stack of doomstars each worth 10x the entire games production of combat stats or whatever next to every single occupied planet on the game map would be more satisfying because it would signal that the game is over now and you should start a new one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
When I play a 4x game the number one thing I look for are consistent mechanics. If the universe presents itself as symmetrical starts amongst an empty universe, then that is the system I want to interact with on turn 200, just like turn 2. The numbers should be bigger, the specific game state should be different, maybe a player or two has been wiped out, some battle lines and alliances have been forged that is the stuff that is interesting. Some big bad from beyond the void doing things that the mechanics don't allow the player to do minimizes anything that happened beforehand and cheapens the whole experience. MoO2 handled the concept deftly with the Antaran's and what they did/how they attacked, using the game mechanics as a powerful faction, but one that still played by the same rules of the universe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:imagine getting this mad about the bigass flying saucer that pops up whenever someone tries to start a battle shooting at everything and screaming about how you're all under arrest for doing violence, until all the belligerents work together to ambush the nerd so they can go back to genociding each other in peace idgi are you the mad one here? I'm sorry my idea of fun is different then yours I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
Ardryn posted:If you've never played SotS you could've just said so. Also I'm pretty sure I've played SotS because I absolutely remember that one of the end-game industrial techs was AI and there was also an end-game AI Computer Tech that boosted research, and one for combat too. The bonus' provided you were HUGE, but there was a chance it would spawn a rogue AI which was basically just a pirate faction with technology parity. It could be defeated by either (re)conquering your planet's or by researching some kind of Tier-N+1 tech that would end the AI rebellion. However the "end-game" shake-up things I barely remember since ultimately they weren't really that interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Kanos posted:None of the SotS grand menaces came remotely close to instantly ending a game unless you just sat there and did absolutely nothing about them like a deer in headlights. The System Killer and the Peacemaker gently caress off on their own even if no one deals with them(though the Peacemaker can come back later) and the Puppet Master and the Locusts start relatively weak and manageable and only spiral out of control if literally no one tries to do anything about them at all. The pseudo-Grand Menaces like the AI Rebellion and the Von Neumanns are also "this only becomes a problem if you never do anything about it" threats. Oh I know. I'm not saying they were impossible to deal with. I 'm saying they are boring and lazy. Those types of things are used by game designers that realize their game system doesn't work on it's own to provide a satisfying endgame. This is why I specfically offered the alternative of just a 1turn universe wipe, because then the player can just start a new game which in almost every 4x game is the fun part.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 04:05
|
|
|
Kanos posted:Okay, so let's unpack that last statement a bit. Why is starting a brand new game the most fun part in almost every 4x? In most cases, it's because 4x games suffer from a massive case of endgame stagnation where the player has either snowballed sufficiently that nothing can really challenge them or stop them any more, or where the player has failed and has no real chance of winning any more. Right my thesis is that introducing "grand menaces" doesn't actually solve the end-game problem anymore then just reseting the map does. If the System Killer shows up and you can't deal with it? You start a new game. If the system killer shows up and you are already rolling, it's a speed bump and annoyance since ostensibly you were probably having fun doing something else, (If you weren't having fun, then you probably shouldn't be still playing in the first place). Or worse case, you actually have an interesting geo-political situation in the game state where the various factions are somewhat balanced so you aren't just rolling yet, and maybe you have a chance to make some interesting strategic decisions as you try to win. What does a "grand menace" add in any of those situations? There are ways to make the end game have an interesting goal that isn't just painting the map, or filling up the blue research bar all the way. MoO2 did it, and I'm sure other 4x games have too. Games with good diplomacy normally have some kind of diplo victory which can be implemented in an interesting way as well. But spawning random battles out of nothing in the mid-to-end game isn't the right approach. I'm playing against some rivals that I expect to be following the same rules I am and my goal was set on turn 1, I don't want it randomly changed for turn 200. Games that do asymmetrical starts can be great too, but I'm not talking about those.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 09:08
|
|
|
Kanos posted:The grand menace adds spice to an interesting geopolitical situation because it brings the potential to flip the script, like I said So introducing a coin-flip that made the decisions and development of the game world that came before meaningless improves the game? quote:It's extremely difficult to design a 4X game where the AI is legitimately playing by the same rules as you that can remain interesting into lategame, because 4X games have ridiculously complicated decision trees that simplistic "if x, do y" AI programming can't handle, and those decision trees only get more complex the longer a game goes on and the more complicated the game state is. This is why almost every 4X game ever made resorts to increasing levels of AI cheats at higher difficulty levels. "I want a game where I'm playing the same game as the AI" is already kind of a unicorn dream that doesn't exist. There is some subtlety here. An AI can absolutely play the same game as the player and still provide a challenge. For example in Civ4 (one of my favorite games) the AI has the same rules as the player. The AI can't for example build cities on Mountains, or in the Ocean. The AI can't just create a city out of nothing, it has to actually transport a settler to the city location. It can't build units that require Oil if it doesn't have oil. It can't just create infrastructure without using workers. It has to research techs in order to use them. These are the rules of the game. Where the AI get's advantages is that maybe a grass tile produces 2food and 2hammers for the AI. Maybe the AI get's a %discount on how many hammers it takes to build a tank, or how many beakers it needs to research the next tech. Maybe the AI has a diplomacy bonus to other AI's so that they are more likely to "gang-up" on the Player. Maybe the AI get's bonus happiness, or the player get's a happiness malus all depending on difficulty. These are the handicaps applied to player because we don't have a magical AI for Civilization. The "rules" of the game are what should stay consistent and the designers of the game should let the player know early on if the design of the AI means they have different rules. The easiest way to communicate this is with asymmetric starts but I'm restricting this discussion to symmetric starts. The handicaps can be changed for difficultly purposes this isn't "cheating" it's making up for an AI that doesn't play as well as a player does. I see the grand menaces as a lazy way of changing the rules and they are necessary because the designers made a game the AI can't play. In some cases they introduce a new player that isn't restricted to the same production scheme as the rest of the game universe (The locusts fall under this), or changing the map topology (system destroyer), or allowing fleets to change ownership (whatever the non-AI mind control event is). All of these things could be interesting and incorporated into the natural development of the players and most importantly could be significant end-game snow-ball technologies, but they aren't. They are one-off events and once they have passed in 50 or so turns they no longer matter which kind of leads to the question: "Why are they there in the first place?" The AI-Revolt trees are actually an example of an interesting decision based "menace." You can bee-line to them and start building your huge fleet at double the efficiency of the pre-ai universe, but you run the risk of rebellions. So do you try to build a huge fleet using your AI Bonus and then use that fleet to put the rebellion down? Or do you play it safe and wait to get the fixed AI before going for the bonus? Maybe you risk it and beeline to the Research Bonus AI, so that you can quickly get the fix. Maybe you just ignore AI completely since you are already ahead?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
What? This thread is about 4x games and I'm discussing the design aspect. My claim is that grand menaces or coin-flip events are bad design. The specific implementation that SotS used isn't really what I'm arguing about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:But the specific implementation in SotS is good you dingus. That's what everyone is getting annoyed with you about. The only thing in support of them I've seen is this: quote:The grand menace adds spice to an interesting geopolitical situation because it brings the potential to flip the script, like I said
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Kanos posted:Okay you're going to need to explain to me how, specifically, it trivializes everything beforehand, because it absolutely 10000% does not at all in the slightest. Let's say player A has built a strong economy with intelligent research and a powerful fleet, and player B has gotten his expansion stuffed and is in a much weaker position. Here's the permutations of how a System Killer appearing can affect the situation between the two of them: Ok. I agree with those three scenarios. But what I don't see is how it "flips the script." The only potential scenario flip is one where the System Killer causes enough damage to Player A that Player B can now win (This would be the coin-flip I was talking about). In the other two scenario's nothing different really happens. And if nothing different happens then what was the point? Don't get me wrong, changing up the topology of the map in the mid game through some kind of event is fine and cool, but it doesn't really "flip the script" except in an edge case.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
avoraciopoctules posted:I hear that Hero's Hour will be doing a Steam release soon. How does the real-time combat work in Hero's Hour? I always get nervous when I see that because I expect either a frantic click fest or an overly long sequence which may as well be an FMV. Having auto-calc battles being an option is sometimes ok, but normally you get punished for doing that. I love the obvious queues they took from the Heroes of Might and Magic series though. ----------------
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
I'm watching the developer stream it right now. I like that it pauses when you cast spells, though combat still looks a bit frantic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:I found the SotS races to be quite flavourful and distinct, which was definitely helped by them each having unique FTL methods. The unique (exclusive) FTL methods annoyed me since there were some that were absolutely better then others, and making them exclusive is really artificial. Why can't I be human's with star gates? Starting out exclusive in the early game makes a lot of sense, but by mid-game after all the civs have met each other, trading/stealing FTL methods should absolutely start being a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:The exclusive methods are also vital to the balance of the game, and massively boost the flavour. I'm also not too concerned about the realism aspect of tech trading in a game where one of the environmental enemies is the discarded space helmet of a giant psychic whale lich. Oh absolutely not realism, the gameplay should be number one. I'm also against tech trading, since as you said, it's tedious. But tech capturing/recovery is a lot of fun AND gives additional incentive to capture planets/ships. As for the eventual massive unbalance you would get if you allowed ship drives to be captured I think that is one of the best ways to actually end a game like this. After a few hundred turns of players jockying for supremacy, one finally achieves it and can now travel through space, without star lanes, instantly. Making the mop up painless and feel like an achievement rather then tedious. A Wizard of Goatse posted:because it's a game and there'd be no point in playing after someone gets there? It'd be like if chess had a rule where once one pawn crosses the board all of that player's pieces can move like a queen. the last thing in the Hiver tech tree is a slightly limited version of that where they don't need gates to hop to the nearest star anymore and if you've let things progress that long without seriously loving up the hivers that's GG Yes when someone "wins" the game it ends.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:So, what, you're complaining that the fluff on a tech victory isn't marginally different? Why not just tell yourself that's what's happening as you paint the map with your top-tier ships that can be anywhere more or less instantaneously
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2022 08:23
|
|
|
Wait, it's a pausable real-time game? lol What a mess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Psycho Landlord posted:Just like the game it's a sequel to, yes? Yea I didn't realize the original was that either. It's too bad, it sounded like it had some interesting ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
yea pausable realtime is a completely different genre from a tbs 4x game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
chaosapiant posted:I don't know that I agree that they're "completely different genres." They're both 4X space games. Pausing or turn based doesn't change that the goals are mostly the same between real-time games like Stellaris or Distant Worlds, vs Endless Space/GalCIv/MoO. the goals are the same but they play way different. the game play is a very integral part to any genre. a turn based FPS wouldnt be a twitch shooter fps even if the goal of "shooting the other players" is the same.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 22:26
|
|