*nudges out Spiffor* I need a great Space STRATEGY game! - Page 3

Boris Godunov · February 19, 2004, 15:32

I'm a pretty big SW fan, which I think is why I was so disappointed in Rebellion. If anything, that made me like it even less. The designers made a lame game and then slapped on SW graphics and names, but the game has little to do with the SW universe.

Hagbart · February 19, 2004, 18:42

The best Star Wars game I've played is definitely Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast. Great fun. But not a strategy game I know.

Spaced Cowboy · February 20, 2004, 11:47

What not KotOR?

Boris Godunov · February 20, 2004, 13:36

Now where can I get the original MOO, and will it run on Windows 2000 or XP?

Spaced Cowboy · February 20, 2004, 15:13

Did you try the usual suspects?

It should run on xp, abeit without any sound.

child of Thor · February 20, 2004, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It's like a quest for a holy grail.

Yesterday I went to the Hayden Planetarium here in NYC and saw the space show which gives the scope of the universe. It was rather awe-inspiring, and filled me once again with the desire to experience an atmospheric space strategy game.

Ok, here's what I own:

Imperium Galactica II
Master of Orion II
Ascendancy
Galactic Civilizations
Space Empires IV Gold
Star Wars: Rebellion

.........snip.........

Well you got most the good-uns already.

No one has mentioned 'Reunion', it came out about the same time as Ascendancy i think.
Its a involving game which i got into heavily at one point, it demands alot of the player to really find all its good points. Worth a look if you have a machine capable of running DOS games.
I'm playing a game on and off at the momment - and realising all the helpful things i'd forgoten to have a chance to beat the game......you can get it at the place with no name

If you have an amiga, or run emulators, the game 'Deuterous' and 'Milenium 1.1' were considered the best of their time, and it was many years before the PC came out with deep games like Masters of Orion etc.

Urban Ranger · February 20, 2004, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Now where can I get the original MOO, and will it run on Windows 2000 or XP?

Should run on either OS.

I never had sound anyway when I played it in DOS.

General Ludd · February 21, 2004, 08:27

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion
Azazel, did you get FA to run under WinXP? I tried, it starts but crashes very soon in the game.

I haven't had any luck geting it to work on XP. ( I had a craving for it last week and dug out the CD only to be disapointed.

)

What I would do for a space strategy with actual politics and more depth than just building **** and conquering the galaxy....

EDIT: But, since you have Space Empire IV, I recomend you go here and play a PBEM roleplay game.

Az · February 21, 2004, 10:08

Quote:

What I would do for a space strategy with actual politics and more depth than just building **** and conquering the galaxy....

FA sorta had it. sorta.

Boris Godunov · February 21, 2004, 10:36

Well, I picked up MOO3 for $10. I'm going to mod it using suggestions from the forum here at 'poly and see if I can't make it playable. This is the best I can do for now, I think...

General Ludd · February 21, 2004, 11:26

I would recomend Birth of the Federation over MOO3 if you're going to be trying the bad ones too.

asleepathewheel · February 21, 2004, 12:33

good luck

Urban Ranger · February 21, 2004, 13:13

Birth of the Federation?

Nostromo · February 21, 2004, 16:28

Anybody tried Emperor of The Fading Suns? Is it any good?

Skanky Burns · February 21, 2004, 17:36

EoTF is quite fun. I must admit losing interest in playing it before having managed to even invade another computer's planet completely though.

General Ludd · February 21, 2004, 18:11

Emperor of the Fadin sun would make a good PBEM game.

Jamski · February 22, 2004, 09:23

EotFS is a GREAT game... but it gets a bit heavy - like playing wars on 12 different planets at once is a bit mind destroying...

-Jam

Boris Godunov · February 22, 2004, 11:04

EotFS supposedly has crap AI, from all the reviews I've read.

Well, I finished a Solaran game of IG2. It was pretty frustrating at the end because I wanted to see what the 4 crystals did, but to get the last crystal I had to invade the last of the Kra'hen worlds, which meant it triggered the Kra'hen victory condition rather than letting me see what the crystals do. Grrr.

Looking around, I see there's nothing in the pike in terms of 4X games.

Maybe Freeorion is our best hope?

*weeps bitterly*

Urban Ranger · February 22, 2004, 11:09

It's your mission to design one

Too bad Alpha Centauri isn't getting a sequel, yet. Perhaps because the original was so well done, there's nothing much you can add to it.

Boris Godunov · February 22, 2004, 11:20

SMAC doesn't really count though, as it's Civ on another planet, not a 4X game. Sure, it kicks ass, but there's no conquering a galaxy!

Jamski · February 22, 2004, 14:17

Quote:

EotFS supposedly has crap AI, from all the reviews I've read.

99% of all games have crap AI, so that's not really saying much though

-Jam

Illuminatus · February 22, 2004, 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Birth of the Federation?

Why is it so funny? Sure it doesnt have much of classic 4X elements, but must you laught at it? It is a franchize oriented game so there are some faults. I find it more entertaining than GalCiv and Moo3.

Sandman · February 22, 2004, 18:01

Most space strategy games don't really seem to capture the vastness and beauty of space. I wouldn't mind seeing one with a three dimensional map, with a realistic approach to scale. You could zoom out to view situations in the local star cluster, but you could also zoom in to inspect production at an orbital factory orbiting your homeworld.

And a nearly endless universe, like in Frontier, would be nice. You'd have to find other limits on player expansion than planets though.

Urban Ranger · February 23, 2004, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by obstructor
It is a franchize oriented game so there are some faults. I find it more entertaining than GalCiv and Moo3.

Some faults?

That surely is an understatment

I haven't played GalCiv, so I can't tell. Though it's hard to get as bad as MoO 3. I knew it would be a stinker once I looked at their initial design.

Urban Ranger · February 23, 2004, 01:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Most space strategy games don't really seem to capture the vastness and beauty of space. I wouldn't mind seeing one with a three dimensional map, with a realistic approach to scale. You could zoom out to view situations in the local star cluster, but you could also zoom in to inspect production at an orbital factory orbiting your homeworld.

That's only eye candy though.

Grumbold · February 23, 2004, 08:07

There have been a couple of games with 3d star maps but I have to confess finding the 2d maps more playable even if they are inherently silly.

okblacke · February 23, 2004, 08:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

That's only eye candy though.

"Only eye candy". As someone who's been playing since the days of "ADVENT" and who stuck with Infocom-type games while Sierra was pumping out graphical adventures, I have to say that I've grown to respect "only eye candy" in recent years.

Atmosphere is a big part of a game. "Eye candy" is part of that. "Homeworld" has a lot of "eye candy", but it simpley would not be as immersive if it were played out on a flat map like Civ games always have been.

Civ 3 is marvellously streamlined for gameplay, no question. Yet a lot of the little touches--riot screens, wonder movies, full screen diplomatic interactions--added something to the immersion. (Not that they should add these things back in, necessarily, but they didn't really compensate in a "You Are There" kind of way.)

As a result, Civ-like games seem to end up being boiled down into a kind of chess or even checkers game, where we're thinking of moving pieces around rather than building a vibrant empire.

A real stroke of genius would be to add immersive elements in without interrupting the game flow. GalCiv, which is particularly dinky in its graphic presentation, forces you to make ethical choices throughout the game--which aid immersion a bit. The planetary council also has a more "real" feel to it than, say, Civ 3's UN.

Starflight did an excellent job at this. A lot of the pilot-sims do a pretty good job as well.

But empire building games? There aren't any. (At least that I know of.)

[ok]

General Ludd · February 23, 2004, 08:49

Quote:

Originally posted by okblacke

"Only eye candy". As someone who's been playing since the days of "ADVENT" and who stuck with Infocom-type games while Sierra was pumping out graphical adventures, I have to say that I've grown to respect "only eye candy" in recent years.

Atmosphere is a big part of a game. "Eye candy" is part of that. "Homeworld" has a lot of "eye candy", but it simpley would not be as immersive if it were played out on a flat map like Civ games always have been.

Civ 3 is marvellously streamlined for gameplay, no question. Yet a lot of the little touches--riot screens, wonder movies, full screen diplomatic interactions--added something to the immersion. (Not that they should add these things back in, necessarily, but they didn't really compensate in a "You Are There" kind of way.)

Civ3 and Homeworld. A couple of the more boring games of recent years.

Quote:

As a result, Civ-like games seem to end up being boiled down into a kind of chess or even checkers game, where we're thinking of moving pieces around rather than building a vibrant empire.

I agree with you here, but the answer isn't eye candy - it's gameplay. It needs to take away the focus of 'powergaming' and the unquestionable goal of conquest and the rigid / nonsensical diplomacy. Take a look at Europa Universalis, for example - the graphics are nothing special, but it's one of the most immersive strategy games.

EDIT: Although, I suppose you could make the argument that Europa Universalis is heavy on the "ear candy"

Illuminatus · February 23, 2004, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Some faults?

That surely is an understatment

I haven't played GalCiv, so I can't tell. Though it's hard to get as bad as MoO 3. I knew it would be a stinker once I looked at their initial design.

Well AC has a ton of faults and look how many people are playing it.

And I even mention Civ3 which is more than 95 percent "faults".

Sandman · February 23, 2004, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's only eye candy though.

It's not just eye-candy. There'd be no grids, or battlescreens. Viewing the 'map' and viewing the battles would essentially viewing the same environment, but at vastly different levels of magnification.