Basics of a 4x game

Firstly: Speed!
As in, TBS gameplay that feels (somehow) like an indirect RTS.

Secondly: Features.
Many may consider this an oxymoron - but, i doubt the greatest game(s) ever designed didn't rely almost entirely on some highly focused features. I mean that the essential choices implemented MUST/or/SHOULD answer the needs of the target user.
Another way of saying; i DO love Spacelike context and really want to immerse in a storyline with substance. *GC2-Check!

And, Lastly: Built-in expanding value and potentials.
Customization will always be a non-negligeable bang for my buck. Proof is, i extensively mod this game for others and myself. The interface itself (dx'packs) gives lots of leeway to adapt anything, the parameters are easily editable (xml'files)... and only the imagination of people can stop or limit them. *GC2-Check again!

- Zyxpsilon.

I love statistics and charts in 4x games.

Must be a fan of MOO3. It plays like Excel.

These are interesting ideas. I like to be able to mod stuff. But it needs modders like GC1 had(map maker,scenario maker, campaign maker). These are good for a game. That isn't all I think a 4x game needs. I am just going to spread it out.

* Strong underlying economic, political, and technological (magical) models.

* A narrative layer that balances entertainment value with helping players learn the underlying models.

* A wide range of setup options to help maximize replay value.

* Computer players that play well by the rules (at least for half the difficulty scale).

* A GUI that lets you choose whether to drive by mouse or keyboard for most or all common tasks.

* A GUI that adapts to your screen size setting to help avoid excess scrolling in pop-ups (dialog boxes).

* Clear, concise "dashboard" level reports.

* Full access to the detailed info behind summary reports.

* Some sort of governor/commander system that lets you develop a bit of automation for managing very large maps.

The first thing I thought of when reading the opening post was SLOW!

I agree with everything else Zyx and GW wrote though. I just prefer 4x games to go extremely slow; the closer a 4x game gets to RTS speed (or even the feeling of speed), the more I usually get turned off. Thankfully the speed of some (most?) games can be adjusted by the player.

One thing I would *love* to see in a 4x game such as MoOII or GCivII is an option/scenario/whatever by which, after a certain point is reached in the game, the AI's difficulty level gets increased, the map becomes larger, more of the tech tree gets revealed, and another alien race is discovered. Sort of like what a campaign can do, but without each step being a new game. I'd pay double the asking price for the game if it had such a feature. A bit off topic, perhaps, but I'd say it would be one thing that would make the 'next' 4x games good.

That's a pretty good list, GW.    In addition to all those, I would also add the following:


1.) A AI that's not only competent, but also behaves (as Frogboy would put it) somewhat "human-like". (It's also nice when the AI doesn't cheat, at least not overtly.) This is of obvious important to 4x gamers, as we tend to prefer singlplayer campaigns over MP more often than not.

2.) A strong diplomacy system -- and more specifically, one that the computer players will actually understand and utilize properly. There are few things more irritating than having having race A attack you for no particular reason, or stab you in the back when it has no chance of defeating you; or signing a cease-fire with race B, only to have them declare war on you again 1-2 turns later....   

3.) A sense of massive scale, of "epic-ness" (yes I know that's not a real word). This doesn't necessarily mean a 4x game needs large maps -- although it usually doesn't hurt -- but it does need to somehow convey a feeling that the player is involved in major events on a grand stage.



* Note that I'm not making any of these complains about GalCiv 2 -- it meets all three of these criteria quite handily.   

If all you're interested is the basics, all a 4X game needs is the four X's. Explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate!

Then again, those qualities really are the basis of most RTSs as well.

What makes a good 4x game? Maybe it's the 5thX - experience

Heu, davabled... notice i wrote (Somehow) when i mentioned speed as the most important factor that makes a good TBS/4X game.
But, there's another reason - user's PC gear.
Not to neglect is the huge gap one must cross-over when Joe'Schmo enjoys a full-blast gaming machine with all the latest techno-gizmos loaded in and all you have is a low-end PC, for a lack of a better word, nearly obsolete and soon enough, incompatible with game X & Y, plus Z and anything else down the road.

Consider this, I wouldn't pay 2500$ (approximation, btw) of my hard-earned money to stick an arcade-like quarter onto the CD plate only to play ANY sort of games. That includes, GC2.

But, if i DO have such heavy CPU spinning off the MoBo overclocking meta-megs worth of Ram along with Video components scaling bump-maps at triple-piping rates... it would be used for business and real work - also!

Thus, Speed matters - even to just me and my P4/1.5.

- Zyxpsilon.

1) Balanced options/models. An imbalanced choice (corner solution) should be regarded as a fun experiment, not the best way to play a game.

2) Strong governors. Reduce micromanaging without taking away control from the player. Otherwise he might just as well watch the governor play the game for him. GC2 does this quite well already.

3) Strong diplomacy. It should be about more than just two tests:
a) am I stronger?
how does my roll compare to me liking him?
-> War it is.

4) A polish. A game has to look and feel finished. You can see this in the details such as diplomatic texts. Having the AI grovel because it attacked you and got his face punched in is gratifying and entertaining (which is what it's all about).

5) A game tailored to the gamers. Stardock does this unlike any other developer I've seen by launching scores of updates on the AI to cope with player reactions to the AI. One such addition was the AI declaring war when you stacked transports along the border.

6) A strong AI. It's less fun to see the Yor declare war on you when you've got transports near him because the Drengin declared war on you and has his planets close with the Yor. It's understandable nevertheless.

7) A fair AI. The AI should play fair on a decent number of difficulty settings and should put up enough of a fight to make it fun. GC2 succeeds in this for many players I think.

8) Balanced victory conditions. In some games, one victory condition becomes so dominant, it impoverishes the game. Technology should be about more than 'Alright, I invented hammers! What new and exotic way did I find to kill my neighbors?' for example.

Yes but if you have just gotten the game, how can you have experience

This is a reference to the buzz around Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which I loved and is the game behind most of my complaints about wanting build queue lists and colony governors.



The experience here is not in the sense of expertise, it's about immersion--the notion that the UI and the game story pull you in more deeply than even an awesome, gigantic miniatures wargame could.

Alpha Centauri had a much stronger story layer than the GC series does, so far anyway, because it was connected to the game structure from the beginning and playing the different factions was always very different. Plus, they were only dealing with one planet, so it was much easier to design a game version of the "story arc" that many popular TV shows trie to build into a season of episodes.

People are going to flame me but Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri with updated AI would be the perfect gaming experience.

I'll scoff the word "perfect" b/c I wish it didn't exist (I edit for a living, no such thing as "perfect" writing).

But I really do think that, despite it smelling a bit of marketing babble, the "Fifth X" thing was a very worthy design goal and they made an excellent effort to live up to it.

I'd happily dump the traditional 4th "X" (eXterminate) in favor of it. I very much look forward to a time when a leading 4X game like GC2 is so strong that it has room for folks who want to play hugely long games and end up with a vibrantly complex map instead of what, to me, feels like a dull, monocultural wasteland.

This IS interesting. Can someone inform me of this alpha centauri thing?

The game site is here. The Wikipedia page is here.

I imagine you can buy a copy somewhere, at least a used one.

I praised it sincerely, but must admit that it didn't have the long-term replay value that GC2 has had for me. Not sure whether the emphasis on the story (5th X) was a bigger factor in that or if it was a matter of corporate culture at Firaxis.

'Speed' is a poor choice of a word, maybe 'gameflow' would be better. It has to flow naturally from turn to turn, from task to task without becoming repetitive and boring.

However, for simplicity's sake, my definition of a perfect 4X game:

It has 'Master of' in the title and a version number lower than three.

That Alpha Centauri thing is sweet. I haven't played th3e game. What exactly happened to earth?

Has anyone played Moo2 recently? It seems a lot of people look at that with nostalgia goggles on. It was memorable but it wasn't that good it had plenty of flaws. Galciv2 and Civ4 (which I think trumps Alpha Centauri for the most part)have been the overall best 4x games I have ever played. I've played them all except Europa universalis or what ever its called.

I really enjoy 4x games. These are the best games in my opinion.

I haven't played recently, b/c I don't play as much as I used to and GC2 is the only thing I want to spend PC playtime on right now.

I do look back with nostalgia, and it is a fuzzy gaze because I have too many different app UIs in my memory to re-visualize MoO2 correctly. But I definitely remember it causing me just as much of a problem putting it away as Civ and Civ2 did (for some reason, Civ3 didn't hold my attention very long, and I haven't tried Civ4).

I don't like the label 4X, but the genre is the only one I like. I like this thread because it reminded me about that "5th X" stuff, and I hope the Stardock devs might be thinking along those lines as they work on Not-MoM2.

Being a relative newbie to the 4x genre (and only having GalCiv and MTWII to go on), this incomplete list is comprised of the things that come up most for me:

-Customizability: no matter how slow-paced a game may be, when it's an extension of your imagination it becaumes more fun by many orders of magnitude.

-Depth (gameplay)

-Good diplomacy. In my opinion, GalCiv2 has incredibly good diplomacy. The one option it lacks is the ability to send another faction their ambassador's head in a sack.

The most important 4x feature is tons and tons of units, buildings, improvments, techs etc, ALOT. Sins isn't very 4x in this area.

Haven't you heard the saying Don't kill the messenger? But that would be nice.