*nudges out Spiffor* I need a great Space STRATEGY game!

[General Ludd]

Emperor of the Fadin sun would make a good PBEM game.

[Jamski]

EotFS is a GREAT game... but it gets a bit heavy - like playing wars on 12 different planets at once is a bit mind destroying...

-Jam

[Boris Godunov]

EotFS supposedly has crap AI, from all the reviews I've read.

Well, I finished a Solaran game of IG2. It was pretty frustrating at the end because I wanted to see what the 4 crystals did, but to get the last crystal I had to invade the last of the Kra'hen worlds, which meant it triggered the Kra'hen victory condition rather than letting me see what the crystals do. Grrr.

Looking around, I see there's nothing in the pike in terms of 4X games. Maybe Freeorion is our best hope?

*weeps bitterly*

[Urban Ranger]

It's your mission to design one

Too bad Alpha Centauri isn't getting a sequel, yet. Perhaps because the original was so well done, there's nothing much you can add to it.

[Boris Godunov]

SMAC doesn't really count though, as it's Civ on another planet, not a 4X game. Sure, it kicks ass, but there's no conquering a galaxy!

[Jamski]

EotFS supposedly has crap AI, from all the reviews I've read.

99% of all games have crap AI, so that's not really saying much though

-Jam

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Birth of the Federation?

Why is it so funny? Sure it doesnt have much of classic 4X elements, but must you laught at it? It is a franchize oriented game so there are some faults. I find it more entertaining than GalCiv and Moo3.

[Sandman]

Most space strategy games don't really seem to capture the vastness and beauty of space. I wouldn't mind seeing one with a three dimensional map, with a realistic approach to scale. You could zoom out to view situations in the local star cluster, but you could also zoom in to inspect production at an orbital factory orbiting your homeworld.

And a nearly endless universe, like in Frontier, would be nice. You'd have to find other limits on player expansion than planets though.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obstructor
It is a franchize oriented game so there are some faults. I find it more entertaining than GalCiv and Moo3.

Some faults? That surely is an understatment

I haven't played GalCiv, so I can't tell. Though it's hard to get as bad as MoO 3. I knew it would be a stinker once I looked at their initial design.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sandman
Most space strategy games don't really seem to capture the vastness and beauty of space. I wouldn't mind seeing one with a three dimensional map, with a realistic approach to scale. You could zoom out to view situations in the local star cluster, but you could also zoom in to inspect production at an orbital factory orbiting your homeworld.

That's only eye candy though.

[Grumbold]

There have been a couple of games with 3d star maps but I have to confess finding the 2d maps more playable even if they are inherently silly.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's only eye candy though.

"Only eye candy". As someone who's been playing since the days of "ADVENT" and who stuck with Infocom-type games while Sierra was pumping out graphical adventures, I have to say that I've grown to respect "only eye candy" in recent years.

Atmosphere is a big part of a game. "Eye candy" is part of that. "Homeworld" has a lot of "eye candy", but it simpley would not be as immersive if it were played out on a flat map like Civ games always have been.

Civ 3 is marvellously streamlined for gameplay, no question. Yet a lot of the little touches--riot screens, wonder movies, full screen diplomatic interactions--added something to the immersion. (Not that they should add these things back in, necessarily, but they didn't really compensate in a "You Are There" kind of way.)

As a result, Civ-like games seem to end up being boiled down into a kind of chess or even checkers game, where we're thinking of moving pieces around rather than building a vibrant empire.

A real stroke of genius would be to add immersive elements in without interrupting the game flow. GalCiv, which is particularly dinky in its graphic presentation, forces you to make ethical choices throughout the game--which aid immersion a bit. The planetary council also has a more "real" feel to it than, say, Civ 3's UN.

Starflight did an excellent job at this. A lot of the pilot-sims do a pretty good job as well.

But empire building games? There aren't any. (At least that I know of.)

[ok]

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by okblacke


"Only eye candy". As someone who's been playing since the days of "ADVENT" and who stuck with Infocom-type games while Sierra was pumping out graphical adventures, I have to say that I've grown to respect "only eye candy" in recent years.

Atmosphere is a big part of a game. "Eye candy" is part of that. "Homeworld" has a lot of "eye candy", but it simpley would not be as immersive if it were played out on a flat map like Civ games always have been.

Civ 3 is marvellously streamlined for gameplay, no question. Yet a lot of the little touches--riot screens, wonder movies, full screen diplomatic interactions--added something to the immersion. (Not that they should add these things back in, necessarily, but they didn't really compensate in a "You Are There" kind of way.)

Civ3 and Homeworld. A couple of the more boring games of recent years.

As a result, Civ-like games seem to end up being boiled down into a kind of chess or even checkers game, where we're thinking of moving pieces around rather than building a vibrant empire.

I agree with you here, but the answer isn't eye candy - it's gameplay. It needs to take away the focus of 'powergaming' and the unquestionable goal of conquest and the rigid / nonsensical diplomacy. Take a look at Europa Universalis, for example - the graphics are nothing special, but it's one of the most immersive strategy games.


EDIT: Although, I suppose you could make the argument that Europa Universalis is heavy on the "ear candy"

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Some faults? That surely is an understatment

I haven't played GalCiv, so I can't tell. Though it's hard to get as bad as MoO 3. I knew it would be a stinker once I looked at their initial design.

Well AC has a ton of faults and look how many people are playing it.

And I even mention Civ3 which is more than 95 percent "faults".

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's only eye candy though.

It's not just eye-candy. There'd be no grids, or battlescreens. Viewing the 'map' and viewing the battles would essentially viewing the same environment, but at vastly different levels of magnification.