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

[WolfEyes]

A good definition of 4X..

http://www.rakrent.com/rtsc/html/glossary.htm

[Shadowlord]

Y'know, I always thought 4X only applied to space games (like that page says), not games like Civ, SMAC, etc.

[Gufnork]

Eternal, you're assuming that everyone has played every game. That is not my belief. These games who flopped were often loved by most who actually bought them, but people didn't expect them to be good. People buy the games that they liked in the past and games that has a nice image (hence all the Star Wars crap games). The quality of the game has very little impact on sales, I'm afraid.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by EternalSpark

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.

This is the complete opposite of what you said before! Previously, you claimed that the widespread use of the "4X" term is a sign that people widely agree that it's a good descriptive term for the games they play. Now you admit that people use it without even thinking about what it means. That means they can't possibly be endorsing the "4 X's" as a good description of their games, if they don't even know what those 4 X's are!

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.

It's not win-win if I, and people like me, don't like it! It's win-lose. A win-win situation is where everyone benefits. The least-common-denominator approach to content production is a win for the average person, but a loss for someone who wants more.

Suppose that 70% of people would prefer games of type A, 20% would prefer games of type B, and 10% would prefer games of type C. There are three companies making games. From the point of view of the game companies, they all do best to produce games of type A: they each get 1/3 of the market. The consumers who prefer B and C go unserved. This is a Pareto optimum for the publishers, but it's not the best outcome for the public. The public, as a whole, would be better off with one game of type A, one of type B, and one of type C. Then everyone could have their first choice.

[fed1943]

"the best quality"here the question.Are top graphics the best quality?No.Is great speed the best quality?No.Is good information and control about the game the best quality?Yes.Is a game that can be played in one hour the best quality?No.Is a game that I can always win and lose with diferents ways the best quality?Yes.
Do you get the point,gents?I didn't say anything about quality.I spoke about what I like,by far more important to me that quality(well,may be someone wants the advice of the top engineer who never plays).
(BTW,this game is like...say other games,please)
Best regards,

[Aquiantus]

If you dont like the standard, dont support the Industry, why the hell should they listen to you?

You didn't support the Mixed SimCity+4x called Moo3
You probably won't support that Pinball+RTS game.

They already have funky, wacky radical games are out there, you just dont support them no matter how much you whine, complain, and nag developers to make radical games.

BTW Starcraft was not "outside the box" anyone who played Warcraft 2 would be extremely familier with building structures, moving units, upgrading units at those structure, upgrading techs at those structures, and shortcut keys, as well as real-time strategy. All these elements where NOT changed, they were in Starcraft and Warcraft 2 both.

You guys think Starcraft just spawned in out of the blue, that just shows your lack of age AND experience.

[EternalSpark]

These games who flopped were often loved by most who actually bought them,

And very few people bought them.

This is the complete opposite of what you said before! Previously, you claimed that the widespread use of the "4X" term is a sign that people widely agree that it's a good descriptive term for the games they play. Now you admit that people use it without even thinking about what it means.

I apologize for the confusion. Most people don't know what the 4x term means off the top of their head, but most of those that do agree that it's a good term.

That means they can't possibly be endorsing the "4 X's" as a good description of their games, if they don't even know what those 4 X's are!

If they see reviewers using it, reviewers they agree with, they'll endorse the 4X.

It's not win-win if I, and people like me, don't like it!

People like you are increasingly marginalized in this (and other) industries, so it's still a Win-Win situation. Granted, a more technically correct term would be "Win-Win(lose)".

A win-win situation is where everyone benefits.

No, a win-win situation is when the bulk of both sides benefit.

The public, as a whole, would be better off with one game of type A, one of type B, and one of type C. Then everyone could have their first choice.

But making those three games costs money, and Type B and Type C games do dismally. Using arbitrary numbers, why make 50 dollars on a Type A game, lose 10 bucks on a Type B game, and lose 30 bucks on a Type C game (a net gain of 10 dollars), when I can make 3 Type A games and make 150 bucks?

[Shadowlord]

Originally posted by Aquiantus
You didn't support the Mixed SimCity+4x called Moo3

This just in: Consumers are being urged to buy unique games on the basis that gaming isn't REALLY about having fun - No, sir, it's about funkiness and wackiness. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Originally posted by Aquiantus
They already have funky, wacky radical games are out there, you just dont support them no matter how much you whine, complain, and nag developers to make radical games.

Personally I'm not going to go out and buy games that aren't any fun, just because they're unique. I'll try the games, but if I don't enjoy them, or if they feel like work instead of fun (like MoO III), then I see no reason to reward the people who made them.

Originally posted by Aquiantus
BTW Starcraft was not "outside the box" anyone who played Warcraft 2 would be extremely familier with building structures, moving units, upgrading units at those structure, upgrading techs at those structures, and shortcut keys, as well as real-time strategy. All these elements where NOT changed, they were in Starcraft and Warcraft 2 both.

Warcraft certainly didn't have three very different races with different units, tech trees, abilities, even interfaces, etc. Of course, we could also point out Warlords: Battlecry, which has crazy huge number of races. I don't think that's gotten anywhere near the popularity that Blizzard's games have gotten, has it?

Originally posted by EternalSpark
But making those three games costs money, and Type B and Type C games do dismally. Using arbitrary numbers, why make 50 dollars on a Type A game, lose 10 bucks on a Type B game, and lose 30 bucks on a Type C game (a net gain of 10 dollars), when I can make 3 Type A games and make 150 bucks?

Now wait just a minute. If there are three times as many Type A games on the market, what makes you think people are going to spend triple what they normally would on those games? More likely they'll spend their money on one of the three games, with the net effect being that profit is split among the three companies. Of course, if one of the games is clearly superior, or has better advertising, etc, the other companies may end up not making much money anyways.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by EternalSpark

But making those three games costs money, and Type B and Type C games do dismally. Using arbitrary numbers, why make 50 dollars on a Type A game, lose 10 bucks on a Type B game, and lose 30 bucks on a Type C game (a net gain of 10 dollars), when I can make 3 Type A games and make 150 bucks?

I understand very well why companies make me-too games. As I said, it's an example of market failure: companies, independently, pursue their own economic interests, but the end result doesn't serve the public as well as the alternative would. The free market system comes with no guarantee or expectation of maximizing public utility.

But the difference isn't as huge as you suggest. If I'm one of those 3 companies making type A games, I sell to 1/3 of the type A players, and maybe a few of the B and C players as well. So I end up with maybe 25% of gamers buying my game. If I made a type B game, I could have all of the type B players, so that might be 20% of all gamers.

Ratchet the figures up from 3 game companies to 10 game companies, and now, if no one is serving the type B players, a company can do better targeting that 20% of the market than by getting a thin slice of the 70%.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by EternalSpark
Most people don't know what the 4x term means off the top of their head, but most of those that do agree that it's a good term.

You place extreme faith in the wider market, but the wider market could not care less about this term or the handfuls of people tossing it around between each other.

You've admitted that the vast majority don't know the term. That makes it a net detraction for those people, who encounter this bit of senseless jargon and can do what with it, exactly? There's no up side, only the down side. Good marketers know they have to keep language simple, avoid technical terms and avoid jargon.

People like you are increasingly marginalized in this (and other) industries...

Now you're just blowing smoke out your rear. I can actually point to impacts I've had on the industry. How about you?

I'm clearly not going to persuade you to stop using "4X" and that's your prerogative. We've each made our case. I seem to have persuaded a few folks. I have nothing more to add to that case, so I'll bow out now.


- Sirian

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Aquiantus

You guys think Starcraft just spawned in out of the blue, that just shows your lack of age AND experience.

In your profile, it says you're 28 years old. This makes it a bit ridiculous for you to claim that other people are lacking in age and experience, don't you think? Sirian doesn't give his birthdate in his profile, but surely he's at least 28!

[Solver]

Besides, Starcraft is just 8 years old so even being 18 it's possible to know the predecessors .