Rob Zacny

Episode 302: The 4X Genre

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I'm kind of sad that it's over now, because reading over it, I think that thread may have subtly influenced my decision to go to grad school. I think if we were to have that conversation again, I'd be able to contribute a lot more productively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, maybe I should have been clearer. I'm not trying to say that CK2 is better than Civ because it focuses more on people. I'm saying that I think a big part of why 4X games kind of feel stale design-wise and ahistorical when they use historical themes is that things are far too stable. CK2 is just the first example I had at had of a game that introduces instability. A 4X game wouldn't necessarily need to introduce instability the same way that CK2 does, but I would like to see somebody try something.

 

No worries, I hear you on the idea of holding an organization together against the enemy within (well not explicit enemies, more like agents with their own desires and goals) being really cool and historical because yeah, command is about people management and CK is like the only well known franchise to gamify that really well (it has its issues of course).

 

I think feudal eras (CK picked good era for the game type) are really ripe for this cause they are most often ripe with treachery cause authority is so shaky... like imagine Sengoku Jidai military game where it's less about maneuvers but more about making sure all of your subordinates are just weak enough so that if they betray you, you can manage it, and you are constantly stacking your armies based on likelihood of betrayal (treacherous generals get their flanks covered by more royal ones so that in case they betray you, they get rekked).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest issues with 4x games is the victory conditions. This was hinted at in the podcast: paradox games weren't included in the cirtism of 4x games; and, lategame 4x play came in for a lot of flak; and several of the panel stated they really enjoyed the opening/midgame, and would start a new game long before they got to victory condition.

 

So maybe it would be interesting to see a more "traditional" 4x game (ie, as opposed to Ck2 and EU4) that dropped victory conditions all together. That would fix a a few of the zero-sum ai diplomacy issues which would be an added bonus - people appear to dislike it when the AI doesn't try to win the game, but they also dislike it when all the AIs declare war on the player once they're within reach of a victory condition.

 

So, lets just try a simulation/toybox/sandpit style 4x with no explicit victory conditions. there enough similar games in other genres (minecraft, the sims, elite, etc) that it shouldn't be too big a risk. It should also be an easier design problem - there's no need to make it that every faction/playstyle has to have a chance of "winning," you just need to make them interesting. 


You could also keep many of the victory tradition tropes, as interesting things to do/achievements/optional goals. I believe CK2 has some goo examples (reunify the Roman Empire as the Byzantine for example). But there's no need for these to trigger the game to end with one winner. etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion the best 4X is Master of Magic.

 

The clear concepts of two good games, Civilization and "Magic: The Gathering", makes the game better as any other 4X game or of the Civilization series. No questsystem, a very clear victory condition (ban or defeat all other sorcerer) no system of victory points but a climax in the end game, a flat "science" with magic spells (and you don't need spells with the combination warlord+artificier+charismatic...!), a lot of possibilities to win (play with fantastic creatures, spells, heroes, units), very fantastic world, a lot of tactical battles (you get a flow of little victorys!) and every new spell gives you a new game mechanic (other as in Civ). The combination of spells and units is a great thing too: In Civ you get a new technology with new units with only more HP,ATT,DEF. In MoM you get a new possibility for combination in fight, empire improvement or world domination and with the heroes you have a high personal relation to the game.The progression is impressive too: from a lttle sorcerer to the god of the world.

 

Civ is interesting in the early game and the phase of exploration, but starting with the middle game the game is  micromanagement only. Other design flaws are  the needing of a good starting point, you need defensive neighbours and you look every round to the victory points. A good design needs new mechanics after a while, interesting deciscions, a curve of suspense, a climax at the end, and a flow effect in the game! But not so much victory conditions with no overlaps (only the military way forced to interact with other players). Civilization was good in 1991, but Civilization V is not  good anymore.

 

4X is to much Civilization today. That is the problem.

 

EDIT: At last one more important point: Citys are overpowered in the most 4X games. They produce food, science, mana, units and so on, the lost of one of them can decide a game. In my opinion it needs a more dynamic gameplay, without mass of troops in citys. In MoM there are towers to the other plane and mana nodes as a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Civ is interesting in the early game and the phase of exploration, but starting with the middle game the game is  micromanagement only.

 

I actually enjoy middle age through early modern the most in every civ games, with early exploration feeling like a chore to get to the interesting part :P  Mid-game is where I feel like I have enough tools to actually have diverse options, while early game the answers are usually obvious and late game many choices feel too meaningless.

 

That's why I really like EU4, because it gives me all of that juicy mid game elements right off the bat.  Still suffers from late game problem but until someone actually solves late game issues of strategy games, I can't even hold any title against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a great episode, wow. Thanks.

 

Last things first - I would love an RTK episode so much. Any and all of them.

 

And really it's completely appropriate to bring it up in a discussion about a strategy game that would properly address the issues between ruled and ruler. I thought the mechanics in Victoria II were really fascinating and maybe the only (??) approach I've ever seen to this that actually makes you wrestle with the complexities of interweaving cultures. If I were magically blessed with the ability to put together my dream game it would probably be something like Victoria II POPs with some blend of EU, Civ, CK and citybuilding on top. But better than POPs, something even more than that. We'll get it some day, I'm sure. I think (I hope?) you guys aren't the only ones who are thinking along these lines, and definitely some of the weirder more experimental games you guys mentioned are pushing in that direction.

 

Even in a recent Designer Notes, Soren mentioned that he's always been uncomfortable with the conceptual implications of Civ 4, that history is this railroad of murder and technology.

 

I'm looking forward to future games that really look at how history unfolds in more complex ways.

 

And, man, Alpha Centauri was so good. Everything you guys said about it. You can't say those things about .. any? other game?

 

(P.S. Where's the Patreon - I'm going to keep asking this every episode until you make one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small thing – reference was made in the episode to a board game called "dog eat dog" which I thought sounded fun but I couldn't find it via board game geek although I found some other board games with the same name which were not it. Is it still around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small thing – reference was made in the episode to a board game called "dog eat dog" which I thought sounded fun but I couldn't find it via board game geek although I found some other board games with the same name which were not it. Is it still around?

This should tell you all you need to know:

http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/review-dog-eat-dog/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest issues with 4x games is the victory conditions. This was hinted at in the podcast: paradox games weren't included in the cirtism of 4x games; and, lategame 4x play came in for a lot of flak; and several of the panel stated they really enjoyed the opening/midgame, and would start a new game long before they got to victory condition.

I think part of the problem is the assumption that victory happens in the late game. This somehow relates to the idea that the game has to be "played through" before you can win so that you can play with everything before it's over. Which might be interesting the first time around, but in a genre that is all about replayability I wonder if it's a good idea to impose this principle on the player. Sure, good players can win in the Renaissance in Civ, but you can't really win the game in the classical era for example.

 

Why do you even have to conquer the world or colonize Alpha Centauri to prove that you've built a great civilization? Neither of these things have happened in real life, but civs in history have accomplished actual great things. Why not make victory conditions about these things?

 

This is a major reason why I like the Rhye's and Fall mod for Civ4 so much. With its historical victories, you could actually win the game before the late game with an appropriate civilization. Not only does this somehow feel more "right", you can get a lot of different game experiences that focus on different aspects and phases of the game. Or if that is too rigid of a system, how about the idea that you can "win an era" based on certain appropriate conditions, and you win the game after you've won three eras or something? Just throwing some ideas out there - I really think the concept that the game needs to be won in the late game should be questioned.

 

So maybe it would be interesting to see a more "traditional" 4x game (ie, as opposed to Ck2 and EU4) that dropped victory conditions all together. That would fix a a few of the zero-sum ai diplomacy issues which would be an added bonus - people appear to dislike it when the AI doesn't try to win the game, but they also dislike it when all the AIs declare war on the player once they're within reach of a victory condition.

I think 4X games have always been more abstract or "arcade-y" with the implied subtext that they are still mostly a game that is there to be won, not a sandbox/simulator. To make something like that interesting, the game mechanics will probably need to be changed to the point where you have a Paradoxian grand strategy game, which is the genre where this approach makes more sense. If the solution to the problems of 4X games is to essentially stop being 4X games then the genre is in even more trouble than I thought ;)

 

 

As an aside, I recently started playing MoO2 again, and noticed that it doesn't seem to have as much lategame slog as the Civ style 4X games. I'm not really sure why, really. Is it just my nostalgia and the fact that I haven't played it for so long that it's not repetitive yet? Is it the simpler 90s game design with less stuff in the game? Are node-based maps less susceptible to the problem than tile-based ones? I'd really like to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the problem is the assumption that victory happens in the late game. This somehow relates to the idea that the game has to be "played through" before you can win so that you can play with everything before it's over. Which might be interesting the first time around, but in a genre that is all about replayability I wonder if it's a good idea to impose this principle on the player. Sure, good players can win in the Renaissance in Civ, but you can't really win the game in the classical era for example.

 

Why do you even have to conquer the world or colonize Alpha Centauri to prove that you've built a great civilization? Neither of these things have happened in real life, but civs in history have accomplished actual great things. Why not make victory conditions about these things?

 

This is a major reason why I like the Rhye's and Fall mod for Civ4 so much. With its historical victories, you could actually win the game before the late game with an appropriate civilization. Not only does this somehow feel more "right", you can get a lot of different game experiences that focus on different aspects and phases of the game. Or if that is too rigid of a system, how about the idea that you can "win an era" based on certain appropriate conditions, and you win the game after you've won three eras or something? Just throwing some ideas out there - I really think the concept that the game needs to be won in the late game should be questioned.

 

I think 4X games have always been more abstract or "arcade-y" with the implied subtext that they are still mostly a game that is there to be won, not a sandbox/simulator. To make something like that interesting, the game mechanics will probably need to be changed to the point where you have a Paradoxian grand strategy game, which is the genre where this approach makes more sense. If the solution to the problems of 4X games is to essentially stop being 4X games then the genre is in even more trouble than I thought ;)

 

 

As an aside, I recently started playing MoO2 again, and noticed that it doesn't seem to have as much lategame slog as the Civ style 4X games. I'm not really sure why, really. Is it just my nostalgia and the fact that I haven't played it for so long that it's not repetitive yet? Is it the simpler 90s game design with less stuff in the game? Are node-based maps less susceptible to the problem than tile-based ones? I'd really like to find out.

 

One of the things that's striking to me is how much different Civ4's MP is than its SP.  In that game style, games are in fact often decided in Classical and Medieval because the players recognize that the quickest way to win is to kill the other guy, rather than go for anything else, because it's usually 1v1 or a similar small amount of players, and unlike the AI, the player isn't bound by relationships.

 

It's just in the way people play SP, with six or more opponents on large maps where the AI has bonuses that you end up having to play through most/all of the game.  That's quintessential 4x to people, though.

 

I like the idea of rising and falling civs, and you see it in some board games like Vinci, Small World, and Britannia, where players are meant to be switching countries once they're done with the current one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of rising and falling civs, and you see it in some board games like Vinci, Small World, and Britannia, where players are meant to be switching countries once they're done with the current one.

 

There's a CivIV mod/unoffical expansion that does a little of that: Legends of the Revolution. the main thing it introduces is civil wars, allowing for big empires to break apart. It makes the game a lot more dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a CivIV mod/unoffical expansion that does a little of that: Legends of the Revolution. the main thing it introduces is civil wars, allowing for big empires to break apart. It makes the game a lot more dynamic.

 

It does but if you're doing well at all you'll never have civil wars.  In any case, that kind of thing in a 4x game becomes a reset anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how the hosts start by complaining about how stale 4X has become, then proceed to cite all the innovative games that are coming trough right now (or in the works) : Endless Legend, Last Federation, Star Ruler 2, At the Gates...

 

  • Social interaction.  In a board game each empire has a friend behind it, making conquering and allying vastly more meaningful.
  • Larger start location differences?  This may just be my perception, but there are massive differences between starting positions in Eclipse or even Risk. In theory the start location matters a lot in Civ and Endless Legend...but does it really?  The maps are so large and you can claim so much territory it all seems to average out in the end.  When you only have 3 or 4 hexes in Eclipse, the nature of those hexes matters a great deal.
  • Random techs.  Video games never seem to use random technology availability.  I think this is a great mechanic that makes each play unique.  In Eclipse the available techs are random, and players compete for them.  In Civ you can just follow the same optimal tech path every game...gets old fast.

- Social interaction you get by playing 4X in MP. The slower the game, the more social interaction you get - especially in the Play By E-Mail games where one turn can take a week, which allows for some insane backstage diplomacy sometimes...

- Larger start location differences are problematic for fairness reasons. It's better to have different game mechanics depending on empires.

- Games with random techs : Sword of the Stars 1 (and 2 where lots of people complain about it adding too much complexity), Pandora with its (somewhat) randomized tech tree, MoO2 with the "uncreative" trait, StarDrive 2 with it's random racial techs (and all the random techs from events).

 

The biggest problem I've had with the little Civ I've played is that your empire is so stable. You build a city and you're in complete control of it for the rest of the game, unless an enemy takes it over. The people might get unhappy, but that just makes the city less efficient. There's never any threat of rebellion or disagreement or anything. Not only is that mechanically dull, it's also historically ridiculous. One of my favourite things about Crusader Kings is that it emphasizes how tough it is to actually get the things you want done and hold a group of disparate places together. I wish 4X games tried to implement mechanics that rocked the boat a bit more.

The issue is that empire games are all about the (exponential) rise of the empire. People don't like the "collapse" part of empires, so developers tend to tone it down (if they even include it). Sword of the Stars 2 is a good example of these kind of mechanics being problematic (though it might have worked if the GUI allowed for easier morale management). Or the Civ4 Revolutions mod where it tends to hamper AI empires more than anything. It's also about the game losing focus if you introduce this kind of mechanic.

 

So you get a glorified tutorial, which is only nice in case of games like Endless series - the ones with good UI and great aesthetics. As Robert had said, we are not even sure if this is a good strategy. Mods and indie games are guaranteed to not be "good strategies", even the most developed ones like Fall from Heaven 2 do not even pretend they have competitive AI.

"Good strategy" and AI are separate issues. (Again, there's a such thing as 4X multiplayer.)

 

While I really like 4Xs, my secret confession is that I have only ever finished one game. Of anything. I think it was Civ 3. The RPG analogy worked perfectly for me. I love character creation and the scope of possibilities way more than I like the fiddly business of managing a large empire. For me, though, with no real interest in an end game, character creation is founding cities. I love exploring the map and picking out my city spots. I like the tension of getting the good spots before the other civs do, and figuring out exactly which tiles my future city could grow into. Even if... well, even if it never actually does.

Like basically everyone else. Even MP games are rarely finished once you get to the cleanup phase.

 

On the other hand, it's kind of sad how uninspired they are. From a visual perspective alone it's kind of depressive how much Endless Legend or Pandora look like Civ5.

Weird, Endless Legend has been touted as very visually innovative (well, Game of Thrones intro ripoff, but no other game dared).

Unless you're talking about hexes - well they're just the best way we have to tile a plane - blame mathemathics.

Another similarity might come from them all using a similar set of (DirectX 11 ?) 3D technologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-listening to this podcast again (one of my favourite episodes), I'm struck by Rob's description of Alpha Centauri. The way he describes it makes it sound like it has the same relationship with traditional 4x games that Watchmen has with superhero comics.

 

I've always found the victory condition in Civ (or any other game) to feel rather artificial. I'm reminded of William Gibson's quip that the future is just... more stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should listen to the alpha centauri episode with Bryan Reynolds. Still one of the best interviews on this podcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that's another favourite of mine. I wonder what Reynolds is up to these days with Zynga being in rough straits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side note, something jolted by a recent Idle Thumbs robot news... does the music in the Alpha Centauri opening right after the Conclave Bible quote remind anyone else of the (also apocalyptic) Terminator 2 theme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that's another favourite of mine. I wonder what Reynolds is up to these days with Zynga being in rough straits.

 

He bailed on Zynga a bit ago, but is disappointingly still working in free-to-play. Apparently, he rescued the Big Huge Games name from the garbage fire that was 38 Studios, and actually put out a game earlier this year: http://bighugegames.com

 

It looks like a Clash of Clans clone :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could never get into Alpha Centauri myself despite slavishly playing Civilization 1-3 and Colonization as well.

 

Even tried again recently to once again dive into the game after all the hype from the podcast but I have to say I just cannot stand the game for more than half an hour. I suspect it's a combination of visuals and audio, particularly the audio for the mindworm attack which sounds vaguely like a vacuum cleaner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now