How this game compares to MOO III? Is it better or worse or same?

[Gufnork]

EternalSpark, every single game you mentioned in your post is a game I love. They may not be popular, but that wasn't the issue. The claim was that these game ruin the industry, which I claim is false. It's what makes it go forward.

Oh, you might also want to mention another game by out-of-the-box thinkers. The Sims. I think it sold one or two copies.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by EternalSpark

These things don't make their way into the culture for no good reason.

Baloney.

Currently in the USA, we are plagued by a growing subculture called "Stop Snitchin". Criminals and gangs are promoting the concept, buying gear that sports this peer pressure message. To what aim? To intimidate others against the idea of cooperation with law enforcement, to market the idea that bad is good.

It's utter trash, harmful, and in a deeper sense, evil.

But hey! Anything that gains popularity has to be valid, right?

Wrong.

Sometimes it's just a bunch of sheep playing follow the leader.


Anyway, you are rationalizing. The word "exterminate" is not synonymous with victory. In fact, you're proving my point. Next I'm going to come out with the 3M analogy. Doom and Half-Life shall henceforth be known as 3M games: EMbark, EMboss, and EMbalm. That's really all there is to the gameplay you know. You, like, embark on a journey, see? Then, you emboss your imprint on everything you encounter. Then you embalm all the corpses. See? This is BRILLIANCE IN MOTION. I can summarize the entire genre with the three Em's. Somebody hand me a cookie. They'll be talking about my LEET HAXOR skills as a game analyst for decades!

4X? Should be 5X. They forgot an Ex: EXcrement. Which is what that whole nonsense is really all about.


- Sirian

[DaviddesJ]

Well, I think Sirian and EternalSpark are both wrong. The 4X terminology is widely used but for reasons having nothing to do with its original etymology. It's now just a shorthand description and the vast majority of people using it aren't thinking in terms of any actual meaning for the X's; they just use the word for the class of games. This is exactly how almost all new words enter the language: there is a need for a descriptive term; several candidates are coined by different people; there is a semi-random process of accretion by which one (or more) gain popularity. Ultimately, whether a term gets widely adopted has little to do with its origins, nor does the fact that one term happens to win out over another depend primarily on that people find that coinage to be more accurate than others. E.g., being easy to pronounce or remember or type is more important.

[EternalSpark]

They may not be popular, but that wasn't the issue.

It's the only issue that matters.

The claim was that these game ruin the industry, which I claim is false. It's what makes it go forward.

Games that fail ruin the industry. Had Looking Class made more in-the-box games, System SHock 2 wouldn't have killed it. The industry is weaker for the lack of Black Isles, Troikas, and Looking Glasses... all because they went Out-of-the-box one too many times.

But hey! Anything that gains popularity has to be valid, right? Wrong. Sometimes it's just a bunch of sheep playing follow the leader.

Sounds like somebody is upset that a much larger (and thus, more important) demographic of gamers didn't make the choice you wanted them too... I can understand why you'd badmouth them - being far more convincing them you - but still!

Next I'm going to come out with the 3M analogy. Doom and Half-Life shall henceforth be known as 3M games: EMbark, EMboss, and EMbalm. That's really all there is to the gameplay you know. You, like, embark on a journey, see? Then, you emboss your imprint on everything you encounter. Then you embalm all the corpses.

Doom and Half-Life already have their 4X. First Person Shooter. You're in the First-Person mode, and you're shooting at things. Oh sure, there's occasions where you're not just shooting them, but it's the same situation as your dislike for the 4X label: 99% of the time, it fits just fine, and the term is appreciated and understood by the majority of gamers.

[Gufnork]

Games that fail ruin the industry. Had Looking Class made more in-the-box games, System SHock 2 wouldn't have killed it. The industry is weaker for the lack of Black Isles, Troikas, and Looking Glasses... all because they went Out-of-the-box one too many times.

I disagree. Sure, they could have made the same crap everyone else makes and still be around, but atleast now they've created something worthwhile. Something worth playing. 100 pieces of **** isn't worth more than one piece of quality gaming.

[Carewolf]

They are two very different games. While I would say GalCiv2 is a lot more fun, it also hascompletely different goals. MOO3 attempted to be quite realistic and failed missirably in playability.

Galciv2 is very cleary nowhere near realistic anywhere, but is quite fun.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ
Being easy to pronounce or remember or type is more important.

Meaning is indispensible to wordplay.

The genre should be called Empire Games. All of these games are about starting from scratch, with very little, and building a dominant empire through a wide variety of means. Tycoon Games and Empire Games are essentially the same concept, with one representing business empires and the other representing political empires.

Sid Meier gave shape to both genres, with back to back titles, Railroad Tycoon (from which that genre draws its name) and Civilization.

"Empire" is far more accurate to the description at hand, is a real word that does not require complex definitions or tortured rationalizations, and won't confuse people or dissuade interest by way of adopting elitist jargon.

"4X" is an obscurity that few understand. It's meaning is complex, twisted and inaccurate. There can be no doubt that it is a blight on this genre.


I'm a writer. Language is precious to me. I'm offended by those who would erode its power and function for silly reasons.

I find the 4X term to be destructive. It HURTS the genre. Literally. The MOO3 developers were so infatuated with this bit of mental sludge, they built their entire design concept around this term, hyping their game as a "5X" game with the fifth X being "Xperience". And what did we get to Xperience? Crap.


- Sirian

[Shadowlord]

I definitely like "Empire games" better than "4X games" as a name for the genre.

There were (much simpler) empire games before Civilization (1991), of course. For example, Lords of Conquest (1986), and several incarnations of two different games called 'Empire,' and probably a few others that I don't know about.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Sirian

I find the 4X term to be destructive. It HURTS the genre.

You haven't given any reason to believe that it makes the slightest difference. I think they could be called Blodfart Games and it would make no difference. Sometimes a word is just a word.

Literally. The MOO3 developers were so infatuated with this bit of mental sludge, they built their entire design concept around this term, hyping their game as a "5X" game with the fifth X being "Xperience". And what did we get to Xperience? Crap.

Even if it were true that they were influenced in their design by the 4 X's (as opposed to just in their marketing), it doesn't follow that their poor choices stemmed from that. Civ4 implements the 4 X's just as much (or as little) as MOO3 did, and yet it came out to be a totally different sort of game. The things that make for a good or bad game are just not so superficial as you portray.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by EternalSpark

The industry is weaker for the lack of Black Isles, Troikas, and Looking Glasses... all because they went Out-of-the-box one too many times.

I don't think so. How would we be better off with a bunch of clone companies all making exactly the same stuff? Let's suppose that going "out of the box" means a higher chance of great success, and also a much higher chance of failure. As an investor, I might prefer the safe route, but as a consumer, I'd rather have many companies try the risky approach, because one or two of them will succeed and make great games, which I will enjoy playing, and everyone else can try again (if not in the same company, then the people from that company end up joining other companies).

I'm seriously interested in funding the development of a new strategy game, one of these years. Would it be better for me to copy the games that exist, or try to do something that is really better? To me, the latter is obviously more valuable to the hobby. If I succeed, I produce something of great value to a lot of people, and if I fail, there's no cost to anyone but me.

[sbradfor]

A thousand times better than MOO3. On a par with MOO2 and MOO.

[EternalSpark]

The genre should be called Empire Games.

As Albert Ellis says, 'shoulds' form the basis for irrational beliefs and assumptions. Stop shoulding on yourself. The games we're talking about are 4X games.

"Empire" is far more accurate to the description at hand,

If it really was, they'd be called Empire Games. But, they are called 4X games. Ever stop to think that the 4x term stuck because it makes sense to most people?

I'm a writer. Language is precious to me. I'm offended by those who would erode its power and function for silly reasons.

Language's power/function cannot be eroded. It can be changed and manipulated. Sometimes, those that refuse to adapt to the new methods will find themselves without their old power, but that's unfortunate for them, not for anyone else.

How would we be better off with a bunch of clone companies all making exactly the same stuff?

Given that those 'clones' are overwhelmingly perferred by the typical gamer, I cannot find much of a problem: commercial products doing well by finding their market and designing for them. It's win-win.

because one or two of them will succeed and make great games, which I will enjoy playing, and everyone else can try again

Unless that "great game" completely fails to find an audience, thus telling other developers to not try it again.

Would it be better for me to copy the games that exist, or try to do something that is really better?

That's the crux of the issue: would you make a different game, knowing you'd sacrifice the very markets you know you'll need, or would you make a game that you know your market wants?

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by EternalSpark

If it really was, they'd be called Empire Games. But, they are called 4X games. Ever stop to think that the 4x term stuck because it makes sense to most people?

Of course that's possible, but it would be unusual. And I see no reason to believe it's true in this case. I would wager that fewer than 10% of Civ4 buyers can "correctly" identify the 4 X's.

Given that those 'clones' are overwhelmingly perferred by the typical gamer, I cannot find much of a problem: commercial products doing well by finding their market and designing for them. It's win-win.

It's an example of market failure. Like the dreck on TV. Individually, each provider maximizes their own return by following the herd. But, collectively, the public is less well served than if there were more variety, because the marginal value of yet another choice that's very similar to existing alternatives is quite small, while the marginal value of a truly different alternative is much greater. Unfortunately there's not a good business model for capturing the consumer surplus. So the market forces don't produce the best outcome for the public as a whole (which is hardly unusual or surprising).

That's the crux of the issue: would you make a different game, knowing you'd sacrifice the very markets you know you'll need, or would you make a game that you know your market wants?

I'd definitely make something different. Fortunately, I'm in a position (like Brad with GC2) where I don't have to cater to the lowest common denominator. I can, of course, hope that many people will appreciate what I do. But I can live with it if that turns out not to be true.

[Gufnork]

Given that those 'clones' are overwhelmingly perferred by the typical gamer, I cannot find much of a problem: commercial products doing well by finding their market and designing for them. It's win-win.

The best selling artists right now has participated in a tv-show, never written a song in their life and generally have no talent other than looking pretty. Just because they're popular it doesn't mean it's good for the industry. Besides, those who enjoy the same game in a new packaging can't be hard to please, you just need to have someone they listen to tell them what to play.

[EternalSpark]

I would wager that fewer than 10% of Civ4 buyers can "correctly" identify the 4 X's.

Oh, I agree there. Thing is, though, it doesn't matter if they even know the 4Xes. If I asked them what a 4X game is, you're likely to find answers like GC2, Civ4, etc. It's a title, nothing more.

It's an example of market failure. Like the dreck on TV.

Your choice in words betrays you: by calling it dreck, you immediately reveal why you consider this win-win situation a "failure" - you don't like it.

Me, I ignore things like "good" and "bad". I look at if a game has found an audience, and/or how big that audience is. I look upon Doom3 more favorably than System Shock 2, because D3 found an audience. SS2 didn't. If a game can't get a large-enough-to-matter group of people to play it, what's the point in paying attention to it?

EDIT: Don't assume that every game I've enjoyed has been a mainstream hit. Some of them haven't. Will you see me showing those games off as examples of anything? Of course not. I liked it, but a lot of other people didn't. Therefore, it's not something I'm going to be praising.

Just because they're popular it doesn't mean it's good for the industry.

What's good for the most amount of gamer's is good for the industry. An industry that creates for what should be fun, rather than what their market says is fun, is one I would be happy to see die.