Matrix Games Forums

...but I've tried several 4x games and simply don't get them. I see people rave about some, but I've just never been grabbed.

GalCiv2 was meant to be "it"...customisable ships and everything, but I just found the turns boring.

Maybe I missed something. I'll look at comments on this and see...have to say I was disappointed to find out that someone linked to the Total War series was in on this...especially seeing as I read the first few pages of the manual and right away thought "This sounds like Total War in space"...then I read at The Wargamer that there was indeed someone from that series involved.

The reason this "worries" me is I have NEVER thought the Total War series done anything good except the battles (Diplomacy was all but useless and tech was pretty poor too)...and the only strong part (the battles) are the only things NOT in this game.

Regardless of who is involved in the development, I still seem to have an "enjoyment" block when dealing with 4x space games...

So I am concerned and will wait for feedback.

It's just life JD everybody doesn't like everything that everybody else likes. I don't like monster games like WitP. I don't like naval games. I really don't like flight sim games except WWI ones. I don't like Napoleonic games except Battles of Napoleon. I don't like Lima Beans. [:D]

I do like GalCiv 2 though and Master of Orion 2 though GC2 gets most of my 4x space game attention now. I like you can make huge galaxies and games can take months to finish. The real meat of most 4x space games is in the middle and toward the end game where everything is being decided. Most of them are boring when you first start out with 1 planet and a handful of ships. I get into the diplomacy in the early game making all of them like me then buying wars and jump in and get some of the good stuff as the war is about over. There's a tactics to diplomacy in GC2 that I really enjoy. Trading with one race and selling the tech to all the others nets me huge profits. Making one race hate another getting them to goto war with each other is fun. There's a lot to be had in the strategic and tactical departments of most games it just takes discovering them and exploiting them to your advantage and that's part of the fun of them is discovery anyway.

Diplomacy?? I never liked that, always prefered to turn it off or ignore everyone and just fight it out, thats how I play most my games, hey I might not be a crowd pleaser but I like it when the odds are stacked against me
 

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

...but I've tried several 4x games and simply don't get them. I see people rave about some, but I've just never been grabbed.

GalCiv2 was meant to be "it"...customisable ships and everything, but I just found the turns boring.

Don't worry...4x games are my fav since MOO and, while i am convinced that GalCiv 2 is indeed a great game and is on my computer, i don't like it much either. There are various space strategy games around and you'll find people crazy about one and hating others. You just have to keep up looking and you'll find one that suits you [;)]

Cheers

ORIGINAL: Janster

Diplomacy?? I never liked that, always prefered to turn it off or ignore everyone and just fight it out, thats how I play most my games, hey I might not be a crowd pleaser but I like it when the odds are stacked against me

Now those are the games I get tired of quickly just battle battle battle as I like more than one method to victory than the last man standing. That's why Civilization type games are so popular I believe because they offer so many different ways to victory and so that draws in a larger crowd of different type of gamers. That's smart gaming design. Sid Meier knew it well too back in the early 90's sittin on that sack of seeds.

Actually, i believe that the true genius was Steve Barcia. Sid Meier got all the credit for taking ideas from him and from the original board game, Civilization...imho, Sid is overrated. Master of Orion 1 beats any Civilization game (and i do like them).

Judge,

This is not the Total War series, though it certainly has some similarities in some of the general design elements, but the AI is IMHO much better. It's also a very fun game. I enjoy it more than most Total War games, though as it is Sci-Fi it also doesn't have some of the historical issues to deal with that the Total War games did.

ORIGINAL: Anguille

Actually, i believe that the true genius was Steve Barcia. Sid Meier got all the credit for taking ideas from him and from the original board game, Civilization...imho, Sid is overrated. Master of Orion 1 beats any Civilization game (and i do like them).

Having played a lot more of the original boardgame (and latter add-on/revision Advanced Civilization, out before Civ1 on PC) than the PC game, I can tell you they are very, very different games : there is no combat to speak of in the original (simple population trade off until population limit of region is reached, the player with less population starts first by taking out one pop, etc), trade is the only way to go (did I mention the game had no dice ?) using the commodity cards.

Sid Meier helped define (or "invented") a new computer game genre, loosely based on the original boardgame (as they made a boardgame from the computer games in latter years, it bears being specific )

Sorry, a bit tired of people crediting the boardgame author for a totally different game : Sid Meier and team deserve all the credit on the design and execution of Civ 1, 2, etc. Civ1 was not really a computer version of the original game : again, totally different mechanisms and gameplay. Not much in common except the name, and theme, period.
Albeit, I do appreciate people reminding others that there was a better Civilization game before the PC one

Cheers !

Sid might be overrated, but i still believe, that CIV4 is the best civ game as of today (including 1-3, the spinoffs and maybe even Alpha Centauri).. Not to say i havent had extreme amounts of fun with each one of those, but putting them all next to eachother, civ4 would easily be the best. Civ 4 gives you back the feeling of Civ 1 while also preserving the innovations that i liked in civ 2 and 3. Heck, would they somehow add the space and underwater aspects some of those spinoff civ games had, i would seriously not consider any other game, ever again.

As for the who gets credited for what argument.. The very least we can say, that sid is great in getting great design ideas into his games. Me myself, i do not value pure factual knowledge as much as the knowledge of how to obtain knowledge when it is needed. So someone able to get the talented people together directing them in working towards a common goal is worth just as much, if not more, than any one of those people.

As for the comparison with moo1. i believe thats pointless. Both may be 4X, but they are more than an AU away from eachother in terms of both style and gameplay.

ORIGINAL: noxious

Having played a lot more of the original boardgame (and latter add-on/revision Advanced Civilization, out before Civ1 on PC) than the PC game, I can tell you they are very, very different games : there is no combat to speak of in the original (simple population trade off until population limit of region is reached, the player with less population starts first by taking out one pop, etc), trade is the only way to go (did I mention the game had no dice ?) using the commodity cards.

Sid Meier helped define (or "invented") a new computer game genre, loosely based on the original boardgame (as they made a boardgame from the computer games in latter years, it bears being specific )

Sorry, a bit tired of people crediting the boardgame author for a totally different game : Sid Meier and team deserve all the credit on the design and execution of Civ 1, 2, etc. Civ1 was not really a computer version of the original game : again, totally different mechanisms and gameplay. Not much in common except the name, and theme, period.
Albeit, I do appreciate people reminding others that there was a better Civilization game before the PC one

Cheers !

I was indeed exagerating...still, there's still not much combat in any Civ (that's the part that really deserve to be worked on). The Original Board game Civilization is great...

There are big differences, but the basic idea is the same.

I just want to underline that i do own every Civilization game which i do play and enjoy. I am just tired to hear everyone say how Sid is the genius and forgetting that other game designers are at least as good but not as popular.

Cheers

PS: while MOO is set on different time period, the spying and diplomacy system are still the best i've seen in any game.
PS2: i don't even know why we're talking about Sid has this is a forum about Armada and 4x space strategy games...

Because Sid is worth talking about in any thread or forum. [:'(] Don't forget he's famous for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri as well. A space game not 4x but still a sci-fi space game so it's worth a mention as a great game too.
Also this thread is more about JD's dislike of 4x games not Armada Specifically. So it's a broad topic to say the least.

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

Because Sid is worth talking about in any thread or forum. [:'(] Don't forget he's famous for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri as well. A space game not 4x but still a sci-fi space game so it's worth a mention as a great game too.
Also this thread is more about JD's dislike of 4x games not Armada Specifically. So it's a broad topic to say the least.

Well...actually Sid barely worked on Alpha Centauri (Brian Reynolds was the main designer)...so it's a bad example

In fact...it was the same procedure with Civilization 2....and Civilization 3....and Civilization 4 [8|]

The only Civilization where he was the lead designer was the first one...

Judge:

I never bought GalCiv2 because I found it boring too.  Watching tactical battles was not my version of exciting, either.

SMACX was the best game, Firaxis ever made.

Sword of the stars with all its addons is easily current #1 in 4x space oprah'.

Havent tried this new matrix games though yet.

GalCiv2 is the #1 4x space oprah. [:D] I played SofS one time and put it away as it just didn't have the glitz and glamor and fun value and AI of GalCiv2.

ORIGINAL: Anguille

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

Because Sid is worth talking about in any thread or forum. [:'(] Don't forget he's famous for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri as well. A space game not 4x but still a sci-fi space game so it's worth a mention as a great game too.
Also this thread is more about JD's dislike of 4x games not Armada Specifically. So it's a broad topic to say the least.

Well...actually Sid barely worked on Alpha Centauri (Brian Reynolds was the main designer)...so it's a bad example

In fact...it was the same procedure with Civilization 2....and Civilization 3....and Civilization 4 [8|]

The only Civilization where he was the lead designer was the first one...

That's like saying Lucas isn't responsible for the great Star Wars games we play on the PC. Sid was a consultant on those games he no longer needed to get his hands dirty with programming or Basic design features. Afterall the Civilization series is pretty much like the first one all the way to the forth one there's just a few changes in each one. The game principle and mechanics are still the same as the first one though and he was responsible for that. [:D]

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

GalCiv2 is the #1 4x space oprah. [:D] I played SofS one time and put it away as it just didn't have the glitz and glamor and fun value and AI of GalCiv2.

What galciv2 lacks and sots has is the space battles. You need to play one full game in sots to realise how good they are.

Actually I don't really care for space battles. I like the hands off approach that GalCiv 2 uses as it really helps to prevent exploiting the ai in games like these. Even MOO 2 as good as it is I can exploit the ai silly as well as in SotS.

ORIGINAL: Lützow

SMACX was the best game, Firaxis ever made.

Agreed! SMAC was awesome and SMACX was a very well done expansion.

I loved the tech-quotes.

"Einstein said 'God does not throw dice'. I say he does. He's even cheating."