Gap in the market for a good 4x ?

boolybooly · May 5, 2003, 07:27

I think the best hope for the moment is MoO3 and that GalCiv is simply profitting from the rebound against the state of MoO3 at release, but I am concerned that there is nothing else in development apparently. Does anyone know of other games in developement which are true Galactic Conquest 4X (GC4X).

I played Pax imperia ED, also Space Empires4, Starships Unlimited, Imperium Galactica2, Master of Orion 1 & 2 and am a keen fan of GC4X.

I am a MoO3 supporter but even so I cannot help noticing that the game although revolutionary in some ways has yet to be brought to a state where it is acceptable to the average customer, and with the sidetracking of Hegemonia into RTS and Galaxy Andromeda(IG3) becoming GroundControl in space, there is a dearth of state of the art Galactic Conquest 4X games.

If MoO3 was brought up to scratch I think it would take the lions share of the GC4X market. But even so the engine is (as is a tradition in MoO) graphically not up to date when you compare it with the best latest 3D games, does this lack of attention to GC4X reflect the sales volumes ??

vmxa1 · May 5, 2003, 12:59

I am not currently tracking any space 4x games, since Stars II seems to be dead.
I suspect that graphics will never be considered good enough as long as they are not 3D and I hope they do not do any in 3D.
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.

Romanus · May 5, 2003, 13:22

I havent seen any either. I think MOO3, and GalCiv may be it for a while. I have both, and enjoy playing them....but neither has taken me away from Civ3 for any length of time. I still revisit Imperium Galactica2 on occasion also. Turn Based games have taken me away from the RTS genre for the most part, just wish there were more.

Harry Seldon · May 5, 2003, 13:32

Eeeeewwww... Console TBS. I can't even get the hang the RTS on console. I need my mouse! The best we can do is keep an ear to the ground for new games and get the word out when we see them. I heard through the underground about MOO3 and from these forums I found GalCiv. I just think the market may be getting too small for major TBS development. What developer wants to make a strategy game that a hundred thousand people will play when they can crank out three FPS or RTS games in the same amount of time that millions will buy?

raghar · May 5, 2003, 18:27

Final fantasy tactic was nice.
I do something so is sort so space strategy. It however wont make any money because I would release it as freeware, at least first version.
BTW I think it would be for very limited pulic. Freeware - no need to do it for everyone - no need to limit AI - AI that could destroy you everytime.

vee4473 · May 5, 2003, 18:57

I think the Galciv website listed as a daily news item a week or so ago that there was indeed another game under development by some other company.

Since I can't find the galciv website news archive, i can't say which...

MichaeltheGreat · May 5, 2003, 19:34

Stars!SG died because they couldn't get external capital to finish what would have been an awesome game.

Venture capitalists have good reason to be leery of game company investments - most of the game development studios that have existed have floundered badly and gone down the tubes fast. The only places where there's money, from the outside investor's standpoint, is in shooters/RTS and in consoles.

Unless a developer has a lot of in-house capitals or everyone has rich uncles, they can't run the cost of development themselves, and even if they could, they'd be very lucky to break even in a market where most of the bucks now go to the large publishers and to retailers.

Dr Strangelove · May 6, 2003, 00:10

I think that the next game in the Space Empire series is due out in a few months. SEV is supposed to be more space combat oriented than its predecessors.

The Templar · May 6, 2003, 14:52

I don't think there's a gap. If anything, other genras have a glut. I mean, come on, how many FPSs of RTSs do you really need? You get one or two and you're set. (RON is going to be rehashed C&C and we all know it - with lots of features that an AI can't use - just like every other Reynolds game).

I think GalCiv and MoO3 represent all the 4x market really needs right now. (This leaves us a game short as MoO3 doesn't work as of this writing - but there you go.) Besides, the smaller number of TBS games (really strategic games when you think about it ...) means that picking out the gems from the shite is that much easier.

Or not, a lot of us bought MoO3 ...

vmxa1 · May 6, 2003, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I think that the next game in the Space Empire series is due out in a few months. SEV is supposed to be more space combat oriented than its predecessors.

This is Space Fury and is an RPG set in teh SE world.
Aaron has not even mention SE V.

vmxa1 · May 6, 2003, 15:00

When I think about it, there seems to be few TBS space games from large companies.
Starships (RTS sort of) and Galciv came from basically individuals as did SE. They got support from larger houses after the fact.
I just do not see why Stars could not find support from the same places. After all it had a public release and a large cult following, that is still going.
They were showing it at E3 so many years ago.
The graphics looked good for the time, but as years go bu it will not age well, sighs.

MichaeltheGreat · May 6, 2003, 17:09

The problem with Stars!SG was that they still had a lot of development time and cost to go, so they needed up front funding of the remainder of their development cost, and apparently couldn't get that without giving up more than they were willing to give up.

boolybooly · May 7, 2003, 06:30

People just hate giving away money almost as much as they hate giving up power!

If it really is the sales (and fashionability I suppose as the two go hand in hand) then vmxa1 must have a point that indy developers will carry the genre forward. The time may come that one of them hits a motherload like SM did with Civ and achieve metaphorical escape velocity.

I think as things stand at the moment, the future of big money space combat games will be in Homeworldesque 3d RTS with varying degrees of resource management which might eventually result in empire building space strategy games but not as we know them ;-)

Its like watching an evolutionary process at work.

Zealot · May 7, 2003, 08:57

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
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.

Excuse me vmxa, but I'm 22 and I started playing Civilization 1 when I was 13 and Moo 1 when I was 15 and english is not even my mother tongue!

My first strategy game was Populous at 10, followed by Sim City at 11.

So my point is, you either enjoy intelectual challenges or not.

Boris Godunov · May 7, 2003, 12:48

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473
I think the Galciv website listed as a daily news item a week or so ago that there was indeed another game under development by some other company.

Since I can't find the galciv website news archive, i can't say which...

That was indeed Space Empires V, which will not be 4X at all, but a space combat sim. Why on earth they are doing this, I don't know, but that's what it will be.

I have to vehemently disagree with the initial post's assessment of GalCiv vs. MOO3. GalCiv would have been a big hit even if MOO3 had not come out beforehand. It is a beautifully-done game with terrific support from the developer. It is in so many ways better than MOO3 that I can't enumerate them here.

I'd say the future of 4X will very much be directed by the huge flop that is MOO3. I think it will prompt many developers to shy away from such games, unforunately. Hopefully it will also encourage some to pick up the banner and make something great. My suspicion is that the next really good/freat 4X game won't be a sequel to anything, but rather something new.

vmxa1 · May 7, 2003, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Zealot

Excuse me vmxa, but I'm 22 and I started playing Civilization 1 when I was 13 and Moo 1 when I was 15 and english is not even my mother tongue!

My first strategy game was Populous at 10, followed by Sim City at 11.

So my point is, you either enjoy intelectual challenges or not.

Hi Zealot, I agree, but you are more of an exception to people in your age group.
Some do find Moo/Civ/Homm games as fun, but most do not play them.

vmxa1 · May 7, 2003, 13:22

TBS games that are well recieved do not sell all that well.
Look at Age Of Wonders II, it got rave reviews, but did not get near the top of the sales chart and is already long off the top selling list.
Now look at DiabloII, still hanging on the list after all this time.
Moo2, did not sell in the millions, nor did Heroes II or III.
In fact I can;t think of many TBS games that hit the top of the sales chart. Lots of RTS and Shooters.

The Templar · May 7, 2003, 14:08

Oh, I don't know Boris, the next big TBS could be GalCiv 2.

Spaced Cowboy · May 8, 2003, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

That was indeed Space Empires V, which will not be 4X at all, but a space combat sim. Why on earth they are doing this, I don't know, but that's what it will be.

I have to vehemently disagree with the initial post's assessment of GalCiv vs. MOO3. GalCiv would have been a big hit even if MOO3 had not come out beforehand. It is a beautifully-done game with terrific support from the developer. It is in so many ways better than MOO3 that I can't enumerate them here.

I'd say the future of 4X will very much be directed by the huge flop that is MOO3. I think it will prompt many developers to shy away from such games, unforunately. Hopefully it will also encourage some to pick up the banner and make something great. My suspicion is that the next really good/freat 4X game won't be a sequel to anything, but rather something new.

Actually I heard that the next game is Space Empires Star Fury (due this summer) which is a combat sim/shooter and that the Start Fury engine will be incorporated into the upcoming SEV scheduled for next summer ('04). But this was in a post that I read a while back. May not be accurate.

Whoops found the post here

Daz · May 9, 2003, 02:37

Well, what I think is that we dont need a "revolutionary" new 4x game like they tried to do with moo3 (and failed miserably).

I'd be more than happy with a Civ3 type of game where you basically take the old game (civ2) and make the graphics and AI up-to-date and add a few interesting features.

If the same was done to moo2 I guarantee success. I hope the people who do Space Empires do that with SE 5. Or someone else, doesnt matter. Why not mape ascendancy 2?

boolybooly · May 9, 2003, 10:42

Boris I tried engaging with Stardock Central after getting GC against my better judgement and the online update system is a disheartening experience of over complexity and bugs, before I even tried the game.

This game reminds me of Star Trek Armada graphically and is really looking more like a heavily polished late 90's console style game as time passes. It also reminds me of "STRANGE ADVENTURES IN INFINITE SPACE", it is fun but not really $44 dollars worth.

It may be too early to say for sure about gameplay as I have not yet finished a game since i prefer playing Stars but I am even more positive now I have tried GC that GC is benefitting from MoO3s buggy condition to a degree it does not merit due to a rebound effect, & there is a gap in the market.

Stormhound · May 9, 2003, 13:30

I haven't had any particular problems with Stardock Central since the first week...and it doesn't strike me as overly complex, either, but then a lot of things don't.

GC is okay, but it isn't the Second Coming of TBS.

moomin · May 9, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormhound
it doesn't strike me as overly complex, either, but then a lot of things don't.

Given who you are, this might be the funniest thing I've read on Poly in a long, long time.

Zealot · May 9, 2003, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormhound
I haven't had any particular problems with Stardock Central since the first week...and it doesn't strike me as overly complex, either, but then a lot of things don't.

GC is okay, but it isn't the Second Coming of TBS.

DAVID! My dear dear David! My God, how I wished to have heared from you more often!

Where have you been? What have you been doing?
I noticed you're still in Jersey, I'm glad to see your personal life going well!

Tell me, as a MoO fan, is there anyway, anytime, we're going to find out the truth about MoO 3?

boolybooly · May 9, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormhound
I haven't had any particular problems with Stardock Central since the first week...and it doesn't strike me as overly complex, either, but then a lot of things don't.

GC is okay, but it isn't the Second Coming of TBS.

Stardock is highly reminiscent of MS support a few years ago, you end up going in circles because the links lead in circles. It is not merely complex, it is also dysfunctional.

For example the cookie system does not detect that you have Stardock Central installed and you are offered the download to instal Stardock Central as a route to gaining access to the files you need which are allegedly on Stardock Central, even though you accessed that link to find those files from Stardock Central itself, so you must have it installed, if you see what I mean.

Its more confusing than existenZ and a lot less entertaining.

vmxa1 · May 10, 2003, 00:02

I can say I have not had much trouble with SDC, but I stopped play Galciv after about three games. It just seemed not to excite me for some reason.
I would rather play Moo1/2 or Stars, but that just me.
Star Fury is some sort of SE RPG game as I understand it. SE V is another game for next year as was mentioned.
Since I like SE and I like RPG, I will take a look at it when it is ready.
I agree with the sentiment that revolution was not required for Moo3 or any TBS sequel. What hey did to CivIII from CivII was enough for me.
I am scared that Warlords IV will get the same treatment and wreck it.

boolybooly · May 10, 2003, 05:22

Well maybe I was getting more easily confused than usual that day as I was coming down with a summer cold ?!

I will try again in a few days.

What I find interesting is the compelling nature of those graphically raw old games. Its almost as though the suspension of disbelief they encourage because they are so unsmooth helps enjoy the game more.

But also the interaction between game elements is more satisfying because it is good old fashioned arithmatic and seems much more responsive because you can readily see the effect of your decisions, like driving a vintage sports car. GC is a bit fuzzy in that regard IMHO.

Stormhound · May 10, 2003, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Zealot

DAVID! My dear dear David! My God, how I wished to have heared from you more often!

Where have you been? What have you been doing?
I noticed you're still in Jersey, I'm glad to see your personal life going well!

Tell me, as a MoO fan, is there anyway, anytime, we're going to find out the truth about MoO 3?

I'm around, I just don't have much to say.

"The truth" about MoO3? While I could say that it depends upon what you mean by "the truth" I imagine the answer is "probably not" in any event. What on earth is there to say, at this point?

The Templar · May 10, 2003, 15:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Daz
Well, what I think is that we dont need a "revolutionary" new 4x game like they tried to do with moo3 (and failed miserably).

I'd be more than happy with a Civ3 type of game where you basically take the old game (civ2) and make the graphics and AI up-to-date and add a few interesting features.

I don't think MoO3 was particularly revolutionary. To me, it feels something like MoO but with a lot of extraneous information. DEAs for instance, especially Space Ports. I can't build them, but I get told that they are there. To me, thats just MoO with information that may enhance the feel but does nothing for overall gameplay.

Having said that though, I do like the direction MoO3 tried to go in. More macromanagement - or am I the only one who every palyed Civ3 and said "If I could just say 'build tanks' and a competent governor did so efficiently." I though Dev Plans in MoO3 were good. I even liked the addition of "real time" tactical combat embedded in a TBS game. I would like to see a game that actually works go in this direction. Could you imagine straight-up MoO with improved combat and an interesting senate (maybe something like GCs UP Council of SMAC's Council)? That would be a good game of macromanagement. I guess I subscribe to the anti-Reynolds school of gaming - keep it simple.

MoO3 could have started a revolution, but it was too crippled to do so. Unfortunately, given the game tanked in many respects I am afraid nobody is going to look at what the game did right and try to put that in a game that actually works.

Actaully, I would argue that Civ3 is a bit more than a simple update and was somewhat revolutionary. The culture system and border system was amazing, and the air/missile combat was so good that I can't even think of returning to the Civ2 system. Maybe we just need revolution in small steps.

For that matter, GC is revolutionary in its customer service. But I doubt that aspect will catch on - even if it is successful.

Zealot · May 10, 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormhound

I'm around, I just don't have much to say.

"The truth" about MoO3? While I could say that it depends upon what you mean by "the truth" I imagine the answer is "probably not" in any event. What on earth is there to say, at this point?

The truth that hurts, but that feels good to tell.

I understand nevertheless.
Good to see you around.