Gap in the market for a good 4x ?

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Zealot


Excuse me vmxa, but I'm 22 and I started playing Civilization 1 when I was 13 and Moo 1 when I was 15 and english is not even my mother tongue!

My first strategy game was Populous at 10, followed by Sim City at 11.
So my point is, you either enjoy intelectual challenges or not.

Hi Zealot, I agree, but you are more of an exception to people in your age group.
Some do find Moo/Civ/Homm games as fun, but most do not play them.

[vmxa1]

TBS games that are well recieved do not sell all that well.
Look at Age Of Wonders II, it got rave reviews, but did not get near the top of the sales chart and is already long off the top selling list.
Now look at DiabloII, still hanging on the list after all this time.
Moo2, did not sell in the millions, nor did Heroes II or III.
In fact I can;t think of many TBS games that hit the top of the sales chart. Lots of RTS and Shooters.

[The Templar]

Oh, I don't know Boris, the next big TBS could be GalCiv 2.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That was indeed Space Empires V, which will not be 4X at all, but a space combat sim. Why on earth they are doing this, I don't know, but that's what it will be.

I have to vehemently disagree with the initial post's assessment of GalCiv vs. MOO3. GalCiv would have been a big hit even if MOO3 had not come out beforehand. It is a beautifully-done game with terrific support from the developer. It is in so many ways better than MOO3 that I can't enumerate them here.

I'd say the future of 4X will very much be directed by the huge flop that is MOO3. I think it will prompt many developers to shy away from such games, unforunately. Hopefully it will also encourage some to pick up the banner and make something great. My suspicion is that the next really good/freat 4X game won't be a sequel to anything, but rather something new.

Actually I heard that the next game is Space Empires Star Fury (due this summer) which is a combat sim/shooter and that the Start Fury engine will be incorporated into the upcoming SEV scheduled for next summer ('04). But this was in a post that I read a while back. May not be accurate.

Whoops found the post here

[Daz]

Well, what I think is that we dont need a "revolutionary" new 4x game like they tried to do with moo3 (and failed miserably).

I'd be more than happy with a Civ3 type of game where you basically take the old game (civ2) and make the graphics and AI up-to-date and add a few interesting features.

If the same was done to moo2 I guarantee success. I hope the people who do Space Empires do that with SE 5. Or someone else, doesnt matter. Why not mape ascendancy 2?

[boolybooly]

Boris I tried engaging with Stardock Central after getting GC against my better judgement and the online update system is a disheartening experience of over complexity and bugs, before I even tried the game.

This game reminds me of Star Trek Armada graphically and is really looking more like a heavily polished late 90's console style game as time passes. It also reminds me of "STRANGE ADVENTURES IN INFINITE SPACE", it is fun but not really $44 dollars worth.

It may be too early to say for sure about gameplay as I have not yet finished a game since i prefer playing Stars but I am even more positive now I have tried GC that GC is benefitting from MoO3s buggy condition to a degree it does not merit due to a rebound effect, & there is a gap in the market.

[Stormhound]

I haven't had any particular problems with Stardock Central since the first week...and it doesn't strike me as overly complex, either, but then a lot of things don't.

GC is okay, but it isn't the Second Coming of TBS.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Stormhound
it doesn't strike me as overly complex, either, but then a lot of things don't.

Given who you are, this might be the funniest thing I've read on Poly in a long, long time.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Stormhound
I haven't had any particular problems with Stardock Central since the first week...and it doesn't strike me as overly complex, either, but then a lot of things don't.

GC is okay, but it isn't the Second Coming of TBS.

DAVID! My dear dear David! My God, how I wished to have heared from you more often!
Where have you been? What have you been doing?
I noticed you're still in Jersey, I'm glad to see your personal life going well!

Tell me, as a MoO fan, is there anyway, anytime, we're going to find out the truth about MoO 3?

[boolybooly]

Originally posted by Stormhound
I haven't had any particular problems with Stardock Central since the first week...and it doesn't strike me as overly complex, either, but then a lot of things don't.

GC is okay, but it isn't the Second Coming of TBS.

Stardock is highly reminiscent of MS support a few years ago, you end up going in circles because the links lead in circles. It is not merely complex, it is also dysfunctional.

For example the cookie system does not detect that you have Stardock Central installed and you are offered the download to instal Stardock Central as a route to gaining access to the files you need which are allegedly on Stardock Central, even though you accessed that link to find those files from Stardock Central itself, so you must have it installed, if you see what I mean.

Its more confusing than existenZ and a lot less entertaining.

[vmxa1]

I can say I have not had much trouble with SDC, but I stopped play Galciv after about three games. It just seemed not to excite me for some reason.
I would rather play Moo1/2 or Stars, but that just me.
Star Fury is some sort of SE RPG game as I understand it. SE V is another game for next year as was mentioned.
Since I like SE and I like RPG, I will take a look at it when it is ready.
I agree with the sentiment that revolution was not required for Moo3 or any TBS sequel. What hey did to CivIII from CivII was enough for me.
I am scared that Warlords IV will get the same treatment and wreck it.

[boolybooly]

Well maybe I was getting more easily confused than usual that day as I was coming down with a summer cold ?!

I will try again in a few days.

What I find interesting is the compelling nature of those graphically raw old games. Its almost as though the suspension of disbelief they encourage because they are so unsmooth helps enjoy the game more.

But also the interaction between game elements is more satisfying because it is good old fashioned arithmatic and seems much more responsive because you can readily see the effect of your decisions, like driving a vintage sports car. GC is a bit fuzzy in that regard IMHO.

[Stormhound]

Originally posted by Zealot


DAVID! My dear dear David! My God, how I wished to have heared from you more often!
Where have you been? What have you been doing?
I noticed you're still in Jersey, I'm glad to see your personal life going well!

Tell me, as a MoO fan, is there anyway, anytime, we're going to find out the truth about MoO 3?

I'm around, I just don't have much to say.

"The truth" about MoO3? While I could say that it depends upon what you mean by "the truth" I imagine the answer is "probably not" in any event. What on earth is there to say, at this point?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Daz
Well, what I think is that we dont need a "revolutionary" new 4x game like they tried to do with moo3 (and failed miserably).

I'd be more than happy with a Civ3 type of game where you basically take the old game (civ2) and make the graphics and AI up-to-date and add a few interesting features.

I don't think MoO3 was particularly revolutionary. To me, it feels something like MoO but with a lot of extraneous information. DEAs for instance, especially Space Ports. I can't build them, but I get told that they are there. To me, thats just MoO with information that may enhance the feel but does nothing for overall gameplay.

Having said that though, I do like the direction MoO3 tried to go in. More macromanagement - or am I the only one who every palyed Civ3 and said "If I could just say 'build tanks' and a competent governor did so efficiently." I though Dev Plans in MoO3 were good. I even liked the addition of "real time" tactical combat embedded in a TBS game. I would like to see a game that actually works go in this direction. Could you imagine straight-up MoO with improved combat and an interesting senate (maybe something like GCs UP Council of SMAC's Council)? That would be a good game of macromanagement. I guess I subscribe to the anti-Reynolds school of gaming - keep it simple.

MoO3 could have started a revolution, but it was too crippled to do so. Unfortunately, given the game tanked in many respects I am afraid nobody is going to look at what the game did right and try to put that in a game that actually works.

Actaully, I would argue that Civ3 is a bit more than a simple update and was somewhat revolutionary. The culture system and border system was amazing, and the air/missile combat was so good that I can't even think of returning to the Civ2 system. Maybe we just need revolution in small steps.

For that matter, GC is revolutionary in its customer service. But I doubt that aspect will catch on - even if it is successful.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Stormhound


I'm around, I just don't have much to say.

"The truth" about MoO3? While I could say that it depends upon what you mean by "the truth" I imagine the answer is "probably not" in any event. What on earth is there to say, at this point?

The truth that hurts, but that feels good to tell.
I understand nevertheless.
Good to see you around.