I didn't really like Endless Space 1 - it was strictly a "meh" game for me. Very dull and extremely simplified combat, and not much of anything to actually do politically/diplomatically. Polished, but boring.

I'm a big fan of strategy games and wargames - from the tactical to strategic; making the small decisions or the big ones. Turn-based, real-time, whatever. So the combat system and the political/diplomacy system are my two make-or-break features for this game.

Endless Space 2 not being a carbon copy of ES 1 is good. I'd like them to move, in particular, as far away from Endless Space 1's combat system as possible; unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening here. In fact, it seems to be the biggest thing ES2 is carrying over.

If there's anything that has me queasy about how Endless Space 2 is coming together so far, it's the combat system. I'm not against what is being attempted, having read the design documents - but I'm extremely pessimistic with how it's going to turn out. It feels a lot like a combat system designed by someone who doesn't want a combat system, with too much focus on simplicity and appearance over gameplay and substance. I guess from a marketing point of view that's great - superficial beauty tends to sell nicely. From a deep, engaging, fan-base building point of view, it's awful. Like a pick-up-and-play game that entertains you for a day and then you completely forget about it, versus something you'll play for years.

It really isn't the case that you can't have a relatively simple / easy to understand combat system that's simultaneously complex. I would actually argue vehemently that the best videogames out there are the ones that manage to design and present very complex mechanics in very simple and intuitive ways. What I see with ES2's design is the goal of simplicity more for the sake of it, than it is to whittle down an entertaining and complex system to its core components that cannot be stripped away.

An example in gameplay design, though in the FPS genre, are Doom and Halo. Superficially, all you do is point a gun and shoot bad guys. It's simple, easy to understand. Underneath it's complex - weapons have completely different behaviours, so do enemies. Complexity is introduced from the interaction of multiple simple concepts with each other. Specific examples from Halo, and you'll quickly see how simple concepts quickly add to each other:

Energy weapons are good against energy shields, projectile weapons are good against armor / flesh.

The Plasma Pistol in Halo has an overcharge capability, this has the unique trait of completely eliminating the shields of an Elite or Jackal, but is less effective against any other enemies (though not useless).

You can switch weapons on the fly, but can only carry two weapons at a time. You have to make decisions on what weapon is the best for the moment.

Shooting a plasma pistol overcharge at an Elite will take out his shields. You can immediately switch to a projectile weapon to more quickly take out it out than using the plasma pistol alone.

Elites, when they lose their shields, will stand their ground, roar in defiance, and then charge in a berserker rage at the player - Gold Elites will draw out their sword instead of using their gun when this happens.

Jackals, when they lose their shields, will panic and run.

Elites are command units, they lead packs of Jackals and Grunts.

When an Elite dies, the units he's commanding panic and run.

Grunts and Elites are the only enemies who can throw grenades.

...

and so forth. A lot of simple concepts very quickly building on top of each other. Before you know it you have a very complex interaction - different weapon types work best on different enemies. AI changes behaviour based on what has happened to or around it. Enemies all behave differently and have different strengths and weaknesses. This is what a lot of people might call "emergent gameplay". What it means is that you can have literally millions of completely unique experiences within the game, and all you need to do is change the weapons you use, or the specific enemy or combination of enemies you face. Fighting a pack of grunts is different from a pack of Jackals, is different from a pair of Hunters, is different from a bunch of Flood. Grunts + Jackals is different from Elites + Jackals. Using the Plasma pistol + Human pistol is different from using the sniper rifle + rocket launcher. Changing just one of these will completely change the dynamic of any encounters.

Here is a video that helps reiterate this gameplay design concept, (though focuses on Doom instead) in case my attempt to describe it has fallen short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOObGjCA7Q

So this is getting pretty long-winded and perhaps losing focus, but I think it's necessary to try and describe the crux of the issue I have with Endless Space 2's combat as described so far: It doesn't appear to have this emergent gameplay. It looks like the combat will end up stale, boring and deterministic with most people just autoresolving because they can't be bothered to watch (an especially important word here, because there is so much focus on watching, not playing combat from the design document!) something where their decisions hardly even matter anyways. Worse, it feels like the person designing it doesn't even want to entertain the idea of complexity or engagement whatsoever. Like it absolutely MUST be simplified and boring and there is no other option or room for discussion on the matter.

I'm not the only one to voice these concerns, I'm just adding my own bit of weight to encourage rethinking how the combat system is going to look going forward.

HaxtonFale wrote:

Hobbesian wrote:
I think if anything ES2 has shown Amplitude are at their best when they break stuff and look for completely new ways for their games to work, and at their worst when they try porting mechanics from games they've finished.

We don't know that. They hardly ported anything from ES as we know it, given that EL reimagined most of the mechanics, and a lot of the complaints I see and agree with can be summarised by ES2 being too close to EL and too far from ES (best example being the techs and further nickel-and-diming of basic functionalities, like resource extraction or buyout).

But everyone saying that is sorry to use that word i dont have a better word for it since my english is limited, a "fanboy". Endless Space 1, as fun as it was, was not a good game from a mechanical and gameplay standpoint. So many bad design decisions, like that horrible thing of a tech tree (not saying ES2 is perfect mind you) Yet, Endless Legend is a far superior game to ES1. So ofcourse they will build upon that, but i have faith they will diverge enough from it to make it a great game. I mean The Political system inside your Space empire, with emigration, immigration, different partys etc, is already quite different from everything i have seen so far and is great. Other systems clearly need way more work. (Politics with other empires , battles, planets, the tech tree)

I say, hell yeah its closer to EL than ES1 because ES1 WAS NOT GOOD. It was a fun game for you and many others and bad games can be loads of fun, but it was just not a good game. sry. 

Also where many people are kinda mislead a bit:  Endless Space 2 is not meant to be a SEQUEL. It is rather a reimagining of Endless Space with more and Better knowledge of gameplay, UI and so forth. If thats for the better or worse is to be seen. 

Fenrakk101 wrote:

Yeah, the entire point of this thread was to say what Romeo repeated just now - nobody should be praising Amplitude for making a sequel that is nothing like its predecessor. It doesn't matter if you liked ES or hated it, it doesn't matter if you love ES2 or loathe it, there is no justification for this game being called ES2, or for ES2 to be this game. They could have called it basically anything else and we wouldn't be having this discussion, or half of the other debates going on right now.

I don't agree with the sentiments above and others like it.  Frankly - I could care less what the name of the game is, because for me it's ultimately a question of whether it is a well designed game or not.  From a thematic and lore standpoint, it builds on ES1, and so I have no issue with calling this game ES2.

Consider that MoO1 is a VERY different game from MoO2 mechanically.  The entire system for colony management, handling of stacked ships vs individual ships, technology - practically everything is different between the two.  But they share a similar lore and background and hence share a name.  And it isn't a problem.

FWIW - I think the stated goals in the game's design docs for ES2 coupled with what we see in EA paints a pretty clear direction for the direction for the game.  Yes, the tech tree is different (and better IMHO, even with many needed changes), the combat is different (still needs much more work), leader's are more elaborate, ship design has changed, and so on.  

While it's tempting to pass these changes off as "cutting back" on the game's depth (i.e. less free form decisions in the ship designer), I personally am less attracted to the mini-game of ship design optimization or system management than I am to the potential of systems like the internal politics.  

So yes - ES2 is different than ES1. That may mean it isn't the squeal you or others were hoping for.  It may mean that it's a better game (or a worse game) at the end of the day from the perspective of a certain set of preferences.  Personally, I vastly prefer the direction that ES2 is heading in and find that almost all of the things people are lamenting from ES1 are things I didn't like about ES1 in the first place.

Romeo wrote:

That's all well and good, but this IS a sequel to Endless Space. If you didn't enjoy the first, chances are, you wouldn't enjoy the sequel. That's the nature of sequels. I don't think any of us want a carbon-copy, but a sequel should always be evolutionary, not revolutionary. You want to try entirely different gameplay, that's awesome! I wasn't crazy about Endless Legend, but I thought it was cool they tried new things. But a sequel isn't about that. If Pokemon changed it so you randomly were given Pokemon as the story progressed, and there was only three levels per Pokemon, some people would really like that. But the fans would despise it, because it wouldn't be their game. Also see: Fallout 4, Deus Ex: Invisible War and Dawn of War II. Great games, terrible sequels.

atejas wrote:

I enjoyed Endless Space quite a bit, but at the end of the day a lot of its mechanics were relatively generic for space 4x games. The lore and art were really the only thing that differentiated it strongly from other games in the genre (that and the combat system, but that wasn't really a change for the better).

Disclaimer: 

Beware! This post is full of tolerance and agnosticism!

Hey! 

I think there is not much point in arguing about "sequelness" because as you could probably noticed in this thread, it is rather a perception based on very personal criteria.

For me, ES2 is likely to become a sequel to ES1 because it inherited a mix of features that made ES1 a special game:

1) 4x space strategy...

2)...with simultaneous turns for all factions,...

3)...set in the Universe of the Endless

- with various consequences like weird factions and specific multiplayer in-turn dynamics.

Tech advancing is very important for me too but not as a criteria of sequelness: I could hardly managed to recall the one of ES1, but I still remember some of diplomatic roleplay in the chat and even used Dust as a currency in a homebrew setting for sci-fi DnD.

The Devs might have some alternative criteria and they call it ES2 in compliance with theirs. I am not sure it is not a reason to blame them.

Moreover, sometimes I have an impression that the source of complaints (around sequelness) is not actually a difference from ES1 but succession of some EL mechanics. Well, if EL never existed and these mechanics were an innovation of ES2, would that make ES2 a better sequel?

While this thread is useful to collect various opinions and measure attitudes, I don't think there is a point in arguing who is right in his/her assessment of ES2 sequelness.

feeling like a hippie

Fenrakk101 wrote:

Sotnik wrote:

I think there is not much point in arguing about "sequelness" because as you could probably noticed in this thread, it is rather a perception based on very personal criteria.

No, they're not personal. "Oh hey, a sequel, that will be like the previous one" is not some arbitrary assumption we made based on ignorance and projection. It is a rational, logical prediction about what the game will be. That is the entire point of naming a game "_____ 2": you are promising that it will be comparable to the previous game. You are asking for it to be compared to the previous game. What's more, Amplitude are a highly trusted developer. They have shown that they care about their community, and thus have earned our trust in spades. If they say they're coming out with a sequel, it has to be good, right?

Thank you for your detailed reply - and for your contribution to the discussion in general.

I just want to repeat that my rational, logical assessment based on my own priorities implies that ES2 is a sequel. If I am within a minority - and the majority's voice will contribute to making the ES2 both a better sequel and a better game, that will be great! As a multiplayer player am actually at a curious situation because even if I don't like some design solutions and the others like them, I might still benefit because I want more players online :).

Fenrakk101 wrote:

No, they're not personal. "Oh hey, a sequel, that will be like the previous one" is not some arbitrary assumption we made based on ignorance and projection. It is a rational, logical prediction about what the game will be. That is the entire point of naming a game "_____ 2": you are promising that it will be comparable to the previous game. You are asking for it to be compared to the previous game.

This is my entire point, thank you. The entire point, 100%, to sticking a progressing number on the end of a title is to show that it is directly successive to the previous game. If I liked Forza 1, I know I will enjoy Forza 2. It is Forza with more stuff to do/drive/collect. Now, when they wanted to try a more arcadey racer, they had the great foresight to notice that calling the arcade racer "Forza 5" would pull the rug out from under the core fanbase: They'd be expecting a game that was directly based upon the tenants of the first four games. Wisely, due to the sweeping changes in mechanics, they called it Forza Horizons - and everyone was AOK with that.

Again, the issue to basically everyone here who's upset here fall in to two catagories: General changes, wherein a system isn't working well. Then there's those of us where the issue is with the fact this is called Endless Space 2. The tech system might not be unsalvageable, but it will always be "wrong" in the eyes of those who grew up on the original game, regardless of how well it's polished before release.

Right now ES suffer from a great problem that is called Lack of 3D perspective.

As in many space games out there, including ES1 we do not have a galaxy.

We have a monopoly board with colors and picture of space.

This could be manageable... IF the developpers clearly were thinking 3D, but unfortunatly they haren't. The dev aren t in space, they are still on Auriga...-> Flatland ->2D mentality. Not 3D mentality as a space game would require.

 This plainly show up on the universe, obviously 2d, on the combat with its total 2D mentality.

Lets get some reasoning. I have a ship with rotating guns above my "wings", and the body of my ship block a certain amount of degrees and latitudes of my firing possibilities. Now lets consider the left and right guns + the ones on the "dorsal" of the ship that can swivel anywhere on a half sphere. 

If i am attacked and am defending my life why would i not totate the dorsal of the ship toward the ennemy fleet and present all my weapons to them why woud i loose an entire section of weaponry staying exactly like 2 cars at each other side ?

It is also noticeable by the fact there no "ventral" weaponry leaving the ship as a fish or dragon...weak skin on the belly.

But there s no risk there because ennemy can only attack me by one side , left or right, not up not down not front not rear... and they will quite remarkably level to me during all combat, nice doggy. Multiple angle attack ? hah!! impossible...Noone is that smart.

This locked 2D mindset also show up in the tech tree, flattened mind on full display.

Instead of thinking "what can we do and what haven t been done before and would be cool"  Its OMG we don t know what to do lets copy what has been done.

What i liked in ES1 tech tree was the fact that there seemed to have a logic in techs order in the tech tree. It wasn t inovative but it was diferent from EL (i layed EL first and ES after but i know the release order is otherwise). 

My suggestions would be: Strenghten the cause-consequence of the techs but instead of making 4 totally separated tech, try to link some tech from branch A to branch B, C or D and so on.  

Instead of spreading out totally separated branches you could have a cone shaped tech tree that you would rotate (3D artist needed here) and when viewed from above you would have ramification crossing the inside space of the funnel shape.

Not sure i was great trying to build a mind picture on you people, so i will join a bad drawing to a bad explanation...

Black, Red, blue an green are the kind of tech (afaik number of diferent techs could be 4, 3, 6, 2 whatever)

Those are linked the way they were in ES1 indicating reshearch possibilities.

But as they are not spread out in a 2d space but rise as a glass of.... wine, whisky, vodka, beer (choose your kind), they can be linked togheter in 3d space...

As an example a blue tech can be necessary to acquire some red tech, or could be another way to reach it. So black (who should be the nearest perspective in the drawing, can link to a blue one (fartest) as well as a green could link to a red, blue or black one.

Second point:It could be interesting to create, as option, a surprise factor and so booster replayability. Lets have a randomize skill tree option.

Example:

On the vanilla tree, lets say that to acquire AP (armor piercing) Missiles , a red tech,  you need to know how to colonize (blue tech) or industrially explore**** (this is another subject - Why the hell have we to colonize an entire planet to acess its ressources, even parcially? Does all diamond or gold mine have a full fledged city near it ? Or just the kind of infrastructure that is needed for the workers? Can we have Exploitation split from colonization? At least for some case like Icy/thundra/boreal whatever Planets. Sorry long rant) ****kind X planets to be able to collect Material Z that only exist in these kind of planets and, let say, you would also need the knowledge on propellants (black tech) to create enought speed  to be able to pierce ennemy armors.

Now, on second run, as you now, know the tech tree by heart, you decide to increase the emotion calling some "discover" factor.

You press a button called "randomize tech tree" and now to build the same missile, you don t need Icy planet but lava planet, and doesn t need a specific propellant anymore.

This way we have many effects on the game:

Basic:

1) The techs requirements are scrambled (at least part of them)

Advanced:

2) Tech requirements can expand or shrink in numbers of pre-requisites to be reached

3) Some tech will exist on some random trees and not on others.

And i would add another optional feature: The mystery tech tree.

Basic:

You don t see the whole tree, only the techs avaliable to you with what you have discovered, but you see, the kind of tech (color) and what you will find (the tech per se)

Advanced (and quite masochist):

You don t know for sure what you will find but you know the kind of application it can lead - You only see the tech color not the exact result it will produce.

Disclaimer:

1) If you missed the word "optional" somewhere add it at will.

2) Critics mode on i m here to take flaks, those are just ideas to play with.

3) I m obviously aware that this lead to a rethinking of the tech tree concept and can take time and be frustrating at the end. BUTT, AFAIK, and i can be very wrong, if people ever thought as far, nobody never displayed it in a game. AFAIK i m pushing some boundaries there, and there can be some tech constraint(but i highly doubt it, this is almost as simple as a pool of questions to simulate an exam), what is needed here is an individual techonology examination to see what can be randomised and how deeply, what remains interesting and what is too static. Design thinkers, double diamond is prossibly necessary here. (those who knows, knows) 

4) Doesn t need to be 100% random, just what is plausible, but as an example: why the hell Icy planets are always for any kind of civilization harder to be colonized than thundra ones...or than boreal with high radiations level. Why the hell Material X is always harder for any kind of civilization to extract and be used and always result in more damage agaisnt any kind of tech than tech Y. 

Fueur Fir!!!

Well there seem to be quite a heated atmosphere in here (we need some hot colonization tech ;) )

The sequel argument is bit flawed, for it is quite a generic term. At it's most basic level it could mean little more than same franchise. If we consider 4X specifically, Civ 4&5 are very different mechanically while retaining some common elements (the game concept, resources, etc) For me how close ES2 is or not from ES1 is not important, I'd rather judge it on its own merits. I'm not sure there are some non negotiable features from the first game that can't be removed/reworked in the second installment. 

Systems ? They stay, but I don't think the way you colonized/upgraded them was paramount to the game.

Combat ? It's one of the most often criticized aspects of ES1

Science ? The tech tree had its flavor but was far from perfect.

It's subjective, but I feel like some others that the main issue with ES1 was of a quite staightforward style of playing different factions. There had their advantages and some perks (some don't use a resource at all, the cloning of heroes etc) but still when facing them you could expect an opponent with a specific powerful output (pop, dust, industry, science... ) but not a specific challenge, at least military wise. 

So in any case, I'm more looking forward the promise of new features than a return of old features. I'm totally biased because I couldn't get into EL in the end, and don't expect ES2 to bear it's legacy no more than ES1. Besides, existing mechanics may not make any sense when adding new features or changing the numbers behind. 

Slaunyeh wrote:

Right now ES suffer from a great problem that is called Lack of 3D perspective.

As in many space games out there, including ES1 we do not have a galaxy.

We have a monopoly board with colors and picture of space.

Haxtonfale Wrote:

No.

No, no, no, no, no.

No.

The least adding 3D to the game does is increase confusion about whether a star belongs to a volume of influence. Stellaris has lines to a common galactic plane, but they are still not always clear unless you go for a top-down view.

Second problem is actually displaying the information. On a flat screen you lack the depth component, which makes games like Homeworld confusing at times when it's impossible to quickly determine whether asteroid patch X is closer to my mothership than patch Y; seeing the volume coverage of your sensors is also nontrivial, especially since they are not displayed as a solid shape but as a uniform sphere of blue. Without a 3D display, a fully functional 3D interface runs the risk of being counterproductive.

One thing is having full 3D game another is having 2D 3D integration. What should be 3D and what should be 2D is the cern of the problem, the line is probably thin. 

Like the game is now, its merely a monopoly game with space wallpaper and does certainly not give the feeling of a space game.

Navigation in a 3D "sphere" is merely a question of engine and setting correctly Anchor point Zoom in and Zoom out and turn on the anchor. Influences ? diferenciation by colors shades ect.

problems of distance happens merely when the distance is quite similar.

But i have to recognize it gives more work to the developpers and stress deadlines and budget.

 Anyway Homeworld and EVE are irrelevent here as the games have nothing in common and the speed of response in ES is way slower due to its turn based nature. Comparing apples and boiled eggs does not work well.

The combat is assumed card based, the animated part being merely a side stuff, that may be a waste of time or not (right now it is IMO), depending on how tactically interesting the card combat possibilities will be and how it can picture it. 

The lack now is more in the tactical department as i said, the fact that the animation is vaguely interesting is merely a mirror of the shallow tactical combat in ES2 EA, but what make me sad is the totall compliance to this crippled battle possibilities i see on what seem to be the game combat roadmap.

When i was speaking about combat, in the example i gave, is merely that your combat system could be improved adding more tactical choices, like : Full "frontal attack" in "spread line" or "queued". Speaking clearly, if the ennemy is queued you could try to spear its flank, if the ennemy is grouped and weak vessels are in one side you could fake an attack with part of the fleet and suddenly attack the weak spot with the rest of the fleet, and so on. 

Of course again, this will strain concept and programmers, and it may not be welcome.

As saying that the tech tree would be hard to understand, i prefer not to comment ...as i sayd, it would need rethinking. It also doesn t need to be a mess of connections, and would only really be interesting with some degree of randomization from the tech tree. IMO the era stuff doesn t make any sense at all. As there s no relation between rechearched tech and next era tech but an illogical and higly questionable arbitrary set that has been used in previous game that sold more. Linking EL tech tree as a fundamental sell point, and i could be wrong here, is questionabe. And in any stance, its a step back not forward, it seem more like someone running toward a confort zone.

Admittedly, Stellaris will let you build mining/research stations in orbits of colonisable planets, but at the same time the output is much lower, while the numbers for minerals are much higher.

I ain t asking anything beyond that. More strategic/tactical choices.

Because, generally speaking, the races come from very similar environments that are conductive to life. A tundra planet is just a bit colder than usual, an ice planet is much colder. Unless your faction comes from an ice (or lava) planet, it's natural that the further you go from moderate climate, the harder it gets to colonise.

Similarly with strategics. The idea is that more advanced materials are harder to extract/refine/utilise.

Well thats exactly the expected answer and here my counter argumentation, valid or not.

Maybe species are too generic and uniform and could be pushed further. 

As an example what is the diference between voydani and Cravers beyond the ark and some text. Gameplay and base psychology behind them are the same. Parasites with no symbiotic exange.

IMHO your contriving too much some element with present reality facts. All could be expanded by the high fantasy settings you ve set.

For example why lifeforms can only come from those kind of planets you cited, especially, take for example, a livingrock form of life. It could come from any biosphere excluding probably the totally gaseous ones.

Same with materials, what i proposed is a change in requisites and order. Allegedly, for a rock species, define why material A is more difficult than material B. It seem all approach have a comon denominator that is based on a actual human perspective, sadly it cull possibilities to our known/perceived terran constraints.

Lets take voydani now, as they are energy siphoners it make sense that they would tend toward exploring energy emitting materials as they need energy and maybe life wasn t that simple to find and parasite, probably their suits provide protections too. This would seem diferent for a say human squichy fleshy specie where energy is maybe more harmfull and require more care to manipulate. 

So the logical process of A being generically as a rule, easyer to extract and work than B is flawed, its merely a reflection of some psychological/imaginative limitation, of course this could complicate a bit the inner tables of the game.

Henceforth randomization would make as much sense as other kinds of diferenciations. And on last analisys it doesn t have to make 100% sense, as actually, it doesn t.

anyway: 

All i give are ideas, i m just trying to raise ES2 from, IMO, the "universalmud" of the common 4X game is it now.

At the end of the day, there s no real diferenciation between EL, ES, CIV, ect 

EL brought me back from more than a decade out of this market.

Es2 EA is merely pushing me out again, and please don t get me wrong there, by a perhaps my wrong perception of lack of creativeness or implementation courage of the company, and maybe engine limitations, or all 3 together. 

OTOH, if nobody ever tells you that your maybe doing something wrong and what, how can you think about it, and  decide if you need to correct course or not. Just my half a cent drop of wiseness.

Fundamentally speaking ES2 EA is nothing diferent from ES1. 

The impression i have, and this is very personnal, is that i ve bought repixelated "more of the same", mingled uneccessarily with EL. I already have EL and ES, don t need another of them. It certainly will please many, but, personnaly, i expected more with all the fuss presented in the site, movies and publicity. Right now most of it turns to be shallow make up.