Gap in the market for a good 4x ?

[Nyghtfyr]

GalCiv is undoubtedly benefitting from MOO3's poor reception, but even Brad Wardell has written that it's sold barely 1/12 of what MOO3 has sold. Still, for having a 600k budget, GalCiv is doing very, very well.

As for the next big thing...a GalCiv 2 could do it, if it really cranked up the AI to the next level and added some additional graphical and gameplay content/complexity. It is not a revolutionary game...only a good execution of some basic concepts, and particularly good AI.

I read somewhere the highest selling category of games is strategy, although that may count RTS as well. Is this true? It seems logical to me, given Warcraft, Civ, AoE, etc. What is the TBS share though?

[boolybooly]

I dont know Nyghtfyr and am curious too. But I agree with your assessment of GalCiv. It has many of the elements of CivII and does seem to have a good AI !!

GalCiv and Starships Unlimited both share with CivII the feature of a game board which is also the battlefield. I think this qualifies as a different sub genre of Galaxy 4X. The other sub genre is like MoO3-2-1 and Imperium Galactica, Pax Imperia etc to have abstract fleet icons which materialise in a separate battle field. The merit of the latter is that it allows a semblance of vastness which old software, systems and visual methods simply could not handle otherwise, but this may not always be the case.

Another distinction is between games which employ resource handling as a player operation and those that abstract this concept. eg Stars! is comparable to Homeworld and Age of Empires RTS in this respect and unlike any other TBG I have played. I enjoy this element. Both this and the battleboard as above increase the visceral engagement of a game and this I think is a major component of RTS and FPS popularity.

Considering TBG v RTS, it is worth noting that RTS is very popular because it plays to the strengths of the computer (as opposed to cardboard games) which can produce vivacious automated animation. This is quite fun IMHO but it is also very hectic and TBG allows the player to deliberate which is a unique pleasure in its own right and always will require time to do.

What TBG's have failed to do to the same extent as RTS, is play to the strengths of the computer for their particular genre. In TBG what the computer has is time - lots of it compared to RTS, which means that they have the potential to render magnificent visual experiences which exceed RTS and make the game come alive for the players through game play (rules and dynamics). The argument re low min specs is IMHO not valid for TBG since RTS outsells it despite requiring higher min specs and FPS outsell RTS despite even higher requirements.

The other thing a computer will do which cardboard cannot is play with you (via the talents of the AI designer) and the oft neglected AI is the other aspect of any TBG which needs to be developed IMHO to capitalise on the strengths of the medium since TBG tend to take a long time to complete so single player becomes an real opportunity to offer players something they cannot get elsewhere.

The corollary to that is to develope more efficient play by wire methods eg play by ICQ or some sort of net messaging which do not necessarily involve sitting down for hours on end but can be somewhere between email and RTS/FPS handshakes and might involve a little engine running in the background to pick up turns etc. (One day perhaps designers will even offer an online AI opponent to to give a better adversary on demand !)

So IMHO for TBG to become more popular it should play to the strengths of the computer and internet medium to give people an experience they cannot find in another medium or genre. So it should seek to move towards the cutting edge of graphics, whatever subject or sub genre it may involve, AI and play by net without worrying about the min spec. That said it would be an error to neglect content in favour of eye candy, but I dont see why people should not attend to both in the same game.

[Corentor]

Originally posted by vmxa1
TBS and 4x games suffer from the lack of interest from the youngest of gamers. They just do not want to be bothered with anything but shooters and some RTS.
My son grew up on computer games (26 now) and does not play TBS games at all. See any on consoles? Ok maybe a few ancient ones ported such as Homm II.

Thats not true. My little sister (grade 11) loves the HOMM series. I'm 21 and I am a big fan of games like Europa Universalis and the MOO series.

What is true is that the console revolution of the PS box brought in a whole new wave of gamers (of all ages) that got hooked into the fast action. As a result it looks like that the tradtional TBS group has dissappeared. It hasn't, just been dwarfed by the wave of newcommers.

[vmxa1]

Corentor, you have to understand that because we have some exceptions, that does not negate the rule, it proves the rule.
IOW we know that some younger players like TBS, but not nearly at the level that the group plays shooters and RTS.

[Harry Seldon]

TBS's have always been that way though, haven't they? TBS tends to focus more on thinking and puzzles and appears slow paced. I have many friends that are avid gamers that never took an interest in TBS. I can't say why; these are the same people who foamed at the mouth when they heard Zork Three was on the way. I guess TBS players are like Marines: The Few, The Proud.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
TBS's have always been that way though, haven't they? TBS tends to focus more on thinking and puzzles and appears slow paced.

Sounds like Silent Hill
I love my PS2 but I also love strategy games - especially TBS games (RTS is a bit tactical for me, but their ok). But I don't think its the pace and thought that throws people off. My sister doesn't like TBS games but she does like console and PC games that have a slow pace and lots of thinking.

[boolybooly]

vmxa1 thats what I mean about visceral play, ie it is operational play, you have to be involved corporally or at least instinctually, whereas the TBS usually demands abstraction, it is a fact of education (I have minor teaching certificate) that people develope from an operational style of mathematical comprehension ie apples and oranges type counting where they add cuisenaire blocks etc, to abstract maths where they can manipulate ideas without involving the external world, ie the development of mind is related to the development of gaming tastes.

As long as TBS remain purely abstract their clientele will remain largely over 20. In every generation there are a number of people who are able to develope some aspects of their body faster and to a greater degree than others (some are muscular footballers others are brainy spelling bee champs) so you will always find some young who are capable of abstract thought and I think they should be nurtured just as footballers are, to get the best out of them ( & I dont mean put them in body armor and make them charge the pack!)

But to challenge young minds and sell more games requires that TBS be shaped to the young's requirements and at the moment they are not. They need to have the visceral elements such as resourcing operations and the battleboard.

[Sarxis]

MoO3 and GalCiv don't fill the 4x void- MoO3 is too broken and 'weird', and GalCiv is quite off the beaten path of 4x traditional game mechanics.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
MoO3 and GalCiv don't fill the 4x void- MoO3 is too broken and 'weird', and GalCiv is quite off the beaten path of 4x traditional game mechanics.

How so? GalCiv seems pretty normal and not particularly unique.