Episode 396: Endless Space 2

[Rob Zacny]

Three Moves Ahead 396:

Endless Space 2
It's a giant-sized gulp of Three Moves Ahead as Rob, Rowan, Fraser, and Sean "The Game Horatio" Sands discuss Endless Legend 2. Amplitude Games brought a competent - if not a bit bland - entry into the space 4X pantheon with Endless Space and followed up with the brilliant Endless Legend. Does Endless Space 2 continue their march toward greatness? Amplitude have expanded their writing and storytelling but unfortunately neglected the "QA" section of the tech tree in favor of ballistic weapons.

Endless Legend 2, Endless Legend, Endless Space, but not the movie Legend or the Neverending Story.

 

• Listen on the Episode Page
• Listen on Soundcloud
• Listen in iTunes

[sclpls]

I'll add one more irritating bug in addition to the two mentioned on the show: Endless Space 2 has an issue with with its scripting when it comes to the narrative text. Too often the variable names pop up in these texts instead of the value of whatever the variable is pointing too. Personally, I don't find learning about the great heroic exploits of %VodyaniNPC to be a particularly great read.

 

It's really strange because whatever you thought of all of Amplitude's earlier games, they were all extremely polished in my experience. But Endless Space 2 has been a bit of a mess. There's a lot of stuff that I find underexplained. I just finished a campaign as the Riftborn, and I never used those weird time sphere things because I couldn't determine what the planet depletion mechanic was all about. Seems like a huge oversight to me because without understanding that mechanic it is hard to understand the benefit of making everything else twice as slow. I am hoping that it is just growing pains as the studio scales up after partnering with Sega.

 

Despite the bugs, I'm still having a good time with the game, although I think all the criticisms have been fair. The best thing I can say about the combat is that I don't hate it. I'm on my 4th new campaign of the game and I'm still picking up on some intricacies of the game not related to the uniqueness of the new faction I'm playing so that's a very good sign to me that the game will potentially stay engaging for a good long while. This is in contrast to Civ 6 which had a really strong opening impression but felt more and more shallow with each subsequent new game.

 

I think it is probably time for new 4X games to ditch the conventional victory conditions (conquest, science, economic/industrial). Those are boring, and are responsible for these games having the feeling of sameiness. It would be cool to have a big list of objectives, and each playthrough you receive a randomly selected objective from that list to complete, and then the game is all about figuring out how to get from A to B under your particular conditions, trying to suss out the competition's objectives to determine whether you should treat them as an ally or enemy, etc.

 

Also, I think the fact that a lot of diplomacy stuff is locked away under the tech tree is stupid. You're a spacefaring civilization, you shouldn't have to research how to do trade agreements. I think one obvious area for an expansion for the game is to to make the law/political system have more impact. Then you can lock some of that stuff in the empire expansion tech tree, but keep the diplomatic stuff unlocked.

 

One point Rob made was that there are a lot of developments that are only worth building under the right conditions. I liked that aspect of the game a lot too. It is undermined a bit because by the late game often times you are economically powerful enough that you can just build everything, but I think if they leaned into those sorts of mechanics more heavily you would end up with a game that really did deliver on strategic complexity.

[Nessin]

You guys missed a lot in the combat system.  I'm not saying it's great, but it's far more complicated than presented.  Weapons have range assignments and the purpose of the cards is to provide some sort of bonus and assign the ranges you're going to attempt to fight at.  You can also manually change which ships are assigned to which lanes.  A lot of it is still opaque but on higher difficulties when you need to win consistently with few losses, juggling your lanes to ensure your ships are putting their best damage on the best targets, picking and choosing when it's worth sacrificing a lane and eating the moral hit, or building ships specifically to soak damage so they take fire from a lane while your other ships are free to rush a different lane or engage across lanes all build up to some interesting strategic variables.

 

Edit:

Also it'd be so easy to solve all diplomatic problems just by making the whole thing an open book.  Have a resource (Endless Space already has influence) that you burn for other effects.  Someone doesn't like you, just spend more to force the issue.  It's not rocket science but almost no one does it and instead tries to create these complex systems which ultimately never work and make no sense.  You can even still cover multiplayer scenarios by turning off the force decision part of it between players.  Probably my most frustrating thing with most 4X games given how simple and easy of a solution it is and yet everyone thinks they can somehow do better and it never works.

[Gormongous]

13 hours ago, Nessin said:

Also it'd be so easy to solve all diplomatic problems just by making the whole thing an open book.  Have a resource (Endless Space already has influence) that you burn for other effects.  Someone doesn't like you, just spend more to force the issue.  It's not rocket science but almost no one does it and instead tries to create these complex systems which ultimately never work and make no sense.  You can even still cover multiplayer scenarios by turning off the force decision part of it between players.  Probably my most frustrating thing with most 4X games given how simple and easy of a solution it is and yet everyone thinks they can somehow do better and it never works.

 

It's definitely one area of game design where abstraction is routinely rejected in favor of over-detailed verisimilitude. It always baffled me how the developers of Civilization V defended their black box-style diplomacy by saying that, in real life, you don't know exactly what people are thinking... ignoring that they were making a game where, unlike in real life, the "people" are immortal nation-spirits with a fine-grained control over every aspect of society.

[hexgrid]

One thing I'd be interested to know but couldn't really distill from this show is whether it improves on the lack of meaningful choice in Endless Space 1.

 

I had several problems with ES1, but the main one is that at every moment of the game you have a meaningful decision to make, there's a clearly optimal choice. You have to go after the Casimir drive full tilt or the galaxy will be colonized before you escape your little corner. You hire heroes as quickly as you can and make them governors because of the vast multiplicative effect they have on the system stats, especially as they level up. The quadrant of the R&D tree that has the unlock-the-map drive also contains all the terraforming tech, so you mostly hit that first. You send your scout off scouting, you build mostly colony ships and just enough military to see off any pirates that show up. You use the correct exploitation for each planet, because they're free buffs.

 

You can run the entire early game off a script, and then it's just painting the map your colour. I probably played over a hundred hours of ES1 (yeah, I know...), and I can't recall a single time I found myself weighing the options. I'm not even really sure there's a game there behind the shiny interface.

 

It sounds like the political system might add some actual choice to ES2, but does it?

[ilitarist]

It does give you much more interesting choices, mostly in tech tree. Politics mostly happen to you - when you fight you get more militarists, when you integrate people and trade you get pacifists, but it's all subtle and hardly will really affect your decisions. Spending lots of influence to get the party you want to be represented is a form of choice, yes. Systems are also much more interesting. And terraform features are mostly late game and aren't that good so I think guys exaggerate when they say that your empire becomes homogenous.

[Brian Rubin]

Thanks for this excellent episode, glad I'm not alone in how..."meh"...I feel about this game...and hell, most space 4X games of late. 

[sclpls]

Just hit another annoying bug. This one I think will actually put me off the game for a bit until the next major patch. I researched Universal Aerodynamics so that I could unlock the planes for planetary invasions, but it stayed locked away after I researched it, and everything else I researched after that stayed locked too. The game was totally unplayable at that point as far as I'm concerned.

[riadsala]

I enjoyed listening to this show, but have two gripes. They're along the usual things I moan about, and I suspect the problem is simply that I want the podcast to be something that it no longer is (or perhaps never was!).

 

First, my favourite episodes of the podcast are when the panel are talking about a game they really know and have had time to explore. And more importantly, they're talking about a game that has had time to mature and settled after launch.(ie, when they discuss a class game, or revist a game a couple of years after release). I find the review shows really mediocre and they're not doing anything I can't find elsewhere (I can just go read Fraser's excellent review if I like! And a quick search on forums or twitter will give me a good idea how how buggy the games is). So I'd much rather hear the panel discuss new games a few months after launch, when the big bugs have been fixed, and the more obvious balances patches have been made. This also gives the panel (possibly) more time to play so they can discuss the game in more depth. With most strategy games, I feel like they only really come together when you increase the difficulty a little (especially for 4Xs and COM). Please don't take this as moan... I really would like to hear you guys discuss the game, and not the bugs. Perhaps that's just me though, as I have so many games that I never really buy anything at release anyway.

 

Secondly, how come you still haven't worked out if Endless Legend has any depth to it or not? I find it strange that a specialist strategy podcast still hasn't made up its mind about one of the most important 4X games in recent time. Shouldn't you have an opinion by now? I'd love to hear it. Perhaps this type of critical analysis is more Bruce and Troy's strength? [My own opinion is that it has very little depth. I enjoy playing it, it's a game I really like, but a lot of it feels like it reduces to following a present strategy for the faction you're currently playing to mixmax all the numbers in a set way. Again, this doesn't mean it's not a good game (I like it!) but I don't rate it as a strategy game, to me it's more of a fun toy with pretty colours. And after listening to the ES2 episode, I've gone back to play it again, as pretty colours are nice!]

 

Again, I hope this doesn't feel like too much complaining.

[ilitarist]

True, riadsala, true. I too was disappointed when it was obvious guys clearly missed or misunderstood some things.

 

Podcast format doesn't work as review and it's at it's best when it's a work of love. There were some great episodes born of extended play. One of the best episodes, Rome 2, had Rob playing Rome 2 long enough to read a book!.. And it's always a good listen. Rob and others mention some games they're still playing and I'd be glad to hear what they now think of, say, Total War War Warhammer or maybe Stellaris, or Europa Universalis for the tenth time. In a week we'll have 6 months without dedicated EU4 show!

[riadsala]

4 hours ago, ilitarist said:

True, riadsala, true. I too was disappointed when it was obvious guys clearly missed or misunderstood some things.

 

Podcast format doesn't work as review and it's at it's best when it's a work of love. There were some great episodes born of extended play. One of the best episodes, Rome 2, had Rob playing Rome 2 long enough to read a book!.. And it's always a good listen. Rob and others mention some games they're still playing and I'd be glad to hear what they now think of, say, Total War War Warhammer or maybe Stellaris, or Europa Universalis for the tenth time. In a week we'll have 6 months without dedicated EU4 show!

 

 

Thanks for replying, as it's nice to know I'm not the only one! And perhaps you're right that reviews inherently don't play to a podcast's strengths?

 

I feel a little bad being negative about free podcast, but one of the reasons why I haven't yet joined the patreon is I feel there are too many episodes that I only to out of habit. Listening to people moan about bugs just isn't that interesting or insightful. The types of 3ma show that I think are the best are usually (as you suggest) the ones on Paradox games, which I assume reflects the panel's tastes, (rather than directives from overlord Troy!). But personally, I'm not a huge fan of Paradox (I enjoy Ck2 and have over 100 hours logged, but that's about it). I'd love to hear some other non-paradox games receive that type of insightful discussion.

[hexgrid]

Personally I don't mind the review episodes, but three comments:

 

1. i agree that I kind of prefer when the reviews happen after the game has matured a bit; discussions of working games are much more interesting than discussions of bugs, and there's enough of a wealth of strategy games out there now that I'm not waiting on tenterhooks for the next game to drop.

 

2. I'm generally most interested in the "mechanics" episodes; the ones where some subject like "Diplomacy" or "Movement Models" or "Logistics" is considered, and a variety of new and old games that relate to the subject are brought in. My interest in 3MA is primarily from a strategy game design point of view and only secondarily as a review of specific games.

 

3. I do enjoy the occasional "after hours" episode like the beginning of the last Q&A where the cast have some unstructured blowing-off-steam time.

 

Of course, I may also be part of a small niche audience that isn't large enough to sustain 3MA on its own; maybe most people only show up for the timely reviews and put up with the rest. I've no idea.

[metuk]

I agree that it's a shame that these review eps can be slightly dimished if game-breaking bugs prevent the panel from playing - but it's hard to know that without hingsight (and standard caveat that I enjoy the show and don't intend to whine).

 

Some blame surely rests with the 4x genre, where increasingly it's not worth playing games until they have 1dlc and 9months of post launch under their belts. 

[Gormongous]

I thought this episode wasn't bad, although I haven't had the time with Endless Space 2 to have developed a more matured opinion, but I definitely agree that review episodes on 3MA are weak in general and weakest when they're trying to be a deep dive on a just-released strategy game. At best, they tend to be a spoken equivalents to the plethora of written reviews out there, which doesn't play to the podcast's strengths, and at their worst they're bitch sessions about the little frustrations of a newly released game and miss the forest for the trees. The exemplar of the latter, for me, is the XCOM 2 episode where Rob and Dave came into the episode very cranky about the seven or eight hours that they'd spent in the game and ready to write off entire systems that they didn't understand as under-designed and inferior to the first XCOM, a game that they clearly hadn't played in at least a year and bore minimal resemblance to their recollections. They bagged on the game for an hour and never came back to it. I don't listen to every episode of 3MA anymore, but when I do tune in, it's for considered analysis, and not hot takes and gamer rage.

 

I know it's a huge ask for the panel to put in dozens of hours for every game that gets discussed, but even a little more critical distance than just a week after release, with most panelists barely able to get through one campaign, would improve matters noticeably.

[sclpls]

I think 3MA placing more emphasis on strategy game themes and mechanics is a fine idea. I'll also note that it has been awhile since any tabletop games have been discussed. On the one hand that is good for me since I literally don't have any more room in my apartment for board games, but on the other hand it is a real shame because tabletop games are often able to generate a lot of good stories that are conducive to the podcast format.

 

As an aside, Amplitude released a big patch today. I played this patch in beta, and was able to complete a campaign without encountering any bugs. The UI and performance seemed a lot better too.

[riadsala]

12 hours ago, Gormongous said:

The exemplar of the latter, for me, is the XCOM 2 episode where Rob and Dave came into the episode very cranky about the seven or eight hours that they'd spent in the game and ready to write off entire systems that they didn't understand as under-designed and inferior to the first XCOM, a game that they clearly hadn't played in at least a year and bore minimal resemblance to their recollections. They bagged on the game for an hour and never came back to it. I don't listen to every episode of 3MA anymore, but when I do tune in, it's for considered analysis, and not hot takes and gamer rage.

 

 

Yes, I agree completely. Given the nature of XCOM (1 & 2), I'm only really interested in what people think of ironman classic mode (which I confess, I still haven't got around to completing, as that's when the game is at its best. And also when the strength of the design is really pushed.

Although, of course, this isn't an ironfast rule, as I really liked the show on Aurora, despite Michael clearly still being new to the game. I'd love a follow up episode. Did he ever play any more?

[cornchip]

I also would rather games be discussed a few months after release if that's what's needed to keep the focus on strategy and design rather than bugs.

 

I understand that the panelists are very busy and a show that's a byproduct of paid work is easiest, though.