Why is the tech tree and empire/colonization so deep and I can outfit my ship for a specific purpose, but when that situation arises, I can't give priority to certain targets or even change fleet positioning. If I have a ship I spent the whole game developing for a purpose, however meaningless but possibly fun, I should be able to protect it with worthless ships I made a turn ago. The turn based part of alerts, empire, large scale is dead on. It has to be turn based, but the combat needs to be RTS, im sorry but the auto button is there if you want it, but don't include features like choosing all missiles and basically creating the biggest most badass long range fleet, but then tell me I cant even target a specific ship or part of ship. My empire isnt dumb and my generals know where their reactors are. If I cant choose to aim for them, and have skill be some determining factor, then this game is dead to me.



So many developers are missing the boat on what gamers want, I really think you have a chance with this one, but more attention needs to be paid to certain parts. Do you remember what it was like to pick up mario for the first time and just have fun? no choices just go! well, today's games have captured the choice part, and completely forgetten the GO. alot of games(MW3,sins of a solar empire, civ1-5, diablo1-3, etc im tired of listing) don't even get fun until you have beaten them, or atleast among the community the "ENDGAME"(wtf does that mean anyways) is what matters. mario didnt have an endgame, you beat it, it rolled credits, you played again. all im asking is get a little mario back into games.

These are very different genres and I do not want Endless Space to cater to people who expect to be swept into it without any investment of thought or time.

Who's Mario?



Seriously, fun has to be there but I don't want to play games that are just about clicking on this and that like a Pavlovian dog. This game is fun for me so far and not tedious compared to others in the genre that I've played. Maybe much depends upon what you regard as "fun." It sounds like you don't have as much fun with empire building as I do, so that could be part of it. But I like the direction this game has taken.

As the other two posters said:



*alec guinness voice* "this isn't the game you are looking for..."



This game is aimed more at fans of Civ, MOO and the like than fans of Mario (although that's not to say a person can't be both). There are plenty of 'twitcher' reflex-based games out there, it's nice to have a few you can play at your own pace. In short, the skill requirement in this game is of the strategic variety, not the tactical.

I can wholeheartedly recommend endless space, it creates an incredibly complex and dynamic universe, while giving a simple yet powerful UI to control your empire.



As long as you take a little time to figure out the basics, you will become hooked

Sins of a Solar Empire, Civilizations, and Diablo have no end game...

Sounds like the problem lies within if you can't have fun with a game until you beat it. There's plenty of fun to be had in Endless Space and labeling the game 'not fun' or 'not what players want' because you have minor gripes with the combat system is a little over the top methinks.



As for the comparison to the Mario games... It is insane to compare a side-scrolling platformer from 30 years ago to a modern TBS 4x space opera. As for Mario being more 'fun'... many people, myself included, find Mario to be boring as hell. You go from left to right endlessly doing the same menial tasks over and over only to achieve the same results over and over. Every time I boot up Endless Space it's something new and different, an entirely unique adventure. If doing the same thing over and over again is your thing you should check out Minesweeper, you'll love it.

I can definitely recommend the game. This game is amazing even in ALPHA stage, and its only going to get better. I think a lot of people will tell you that this game is looking extremely promising and it does have a great chance to be a very unique game.



The combat being an RTS is not going to happen though... For games like this I think the turn based combat system is for the best. But I think as they develop and tweak the combat system more it will become more interesting and fun.

I still have yet to beat this game, I've just been trying out all the choices. One story line with one way to play is incredibly boring to me. I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the pinnacle of gaming was the super nintendo era.

TheLastRonin wrote:
Sounds like the problem lies within if you can't have fun with a game until you beat it. There's plenty of fun to be had in Endless Space and labeling the game 'not fun' or 'not what players want' because you have minor gripes with the combat system is a little over the top methinks.



As for the comparison to the Mario games... It is insane to compare a side-scrolling platformer from 30 years ago to a modern TBS 4x space opera. As for Mario being more 'fun'... many people, myself included, find Mario to be boring as hell. You go from left to right endlessly doing the same menial tasks over and over only to achieve the same results over and over. Every time I boot up Endless Space it's something new and different, an entirely unique adventure. If doing the same thing over and over again is your thing you should check out Minesweeper, you'll love it.

Old school games have something that is lacking from modern games; I think this is what he was getting at. Sorry you don't enjoy Mario, but it (and other old titles) has an "enjoyability" value that many modern games do not have. It is fun. This is the reason why decades after, people still play NES, SNES, etc. games with decades old graphics and simplistic "left right" controls. They are so much more than many modern games, because they could not rely on modern graphics, effects, voice acting, features, etc. The developers had to focus on making a purely fun product. But I agree, Mario can't really be compared to new games; who comes out with 2d platformers anymore?

While I do agree that there could be a bit more depth added to the combat, I can also definitely say that I wholeheartedly recommend this game simply for the fun factor. The one caveat I would throw in there however is that I'm a huge fan of empire building in all kinds of games and so even the minutiae of running a massive empire on a turn to turn basis is "fun" for me.



If anything, I would say that Endless space and other 4X games are probably the antithesis of the "endgame is supreme" design that has been in a lot of games recently. It's the development or your empire and the progress that comes from all manner of gameplay that drives the game and even failings are simply mistakes that you learn from and use toimprove your strategy. I've always found the late game slogging in games like Civilization to be a tad on the boring side.

How can you complain about the option given of keep playing or not? It says you are victorious and you can simple end the game or if you please have fun with the current state you just achieved of your empire and universe. How can you complain on options, really? It doesn't force you to do neither.



And comparing Mario with this? Come one, Mario is a fully story driven game. While this is not.

Inquisitioner wrote:
And comparing Mario with this? Come one, Mario is a fully story driven game. While this is not.

I don't remember Mario having a story, more like an objective(save the princess--scroll sideways til you do). But I'd take this game over Sins any day. As much as I'd love to tell my support cruisers not to be at the front of the formation I get more satisfaction out of the hero, retrofiting and fleet combinations when I see how well they do in battle without my help. Mostly because you can't win battles using cheap tactics against an AI that doesn't adapt. But at the same time I get to actually enjoy the combat of the game, I get to see my ships in action, perform their designed task, and I don't have to micromanage my ships.

GrimFrame wrote:
I don't remember Mario having a story, more like an objective(save the princess--scroll sideways til you do).

That's the whole story. Jumping your way to the princess and saving her. If we for example look at N64's Mario. Where you had to collect stars and keys, all in order to progress to the very top of the castle to save the princess once again. All the levels are just obstacles on your journey.

wheezit wrote:
So many developers are missing the boat on what gamers want.

Ok developers can be (and often are) gamers too.



"What gamers want ?" What is a gamer ? Aren't they several types of gamers, with various gaming backgrounds ? Aren't they as many definitions of what a good game is as they are gaming individuals ?



Game experience designers make choices and stick to them, sometimes they do it really wrong, sometimes they do it so-so, sometimes they do it ok-ish, sometimes they do it right, but according to what ? What is a great game ? A game that sells well ? A game that makes it to the history books ? A game that shapes all future games ? A game that is entertaining ? A game that is played by a lot of people ? A game that become famous ? A game that is still played for years after its release ? A game that provide a unique experience ? A game that is suitable for any public ? ...



Amplitude is a very small studio (if you check their page thoroughly you will see they are around a dozen people) who made there an alpha stage game that looks nearly like a triple A, which makes us sometimes forget what an Alpha stage is.



The fact they've chosen to make a game with very simplified combat system is probably related to their previous work experience (if you read their CV) and that Social gaming shows that simple games works sometimes better than complicated ones. As a company launching a first game it is important that they their first game has to be a significant success, so their choice is quite smart I would say, especially on the strategy games market that is no way near the FPS, racing, sports, RPG (etc.) sectors of the gaming market.



Now you ask for RTS battles, which is significantly harder to develop and offer much more opportunities to get bugs. I am sure everyone at Amplitude would love to work on more ambitious projects, but for that they need funds and to get funds they'll need to make themselves a name by having a few successful games released first.



What I mean here, and it's very natural, is that we all see a game with potential here and we all would like to shape it by our own standards, but hey, don't forget making a game come true requires work from people, and people require money to work because they have bills to pay and food to buy.



Now remember this is an alpha stage as well and users rarely get their hands on an alpha version, and this Games2Gether subtitle of Amplitude studio probably means they want to involve their users a bit more (than bigger studios) into the development of the games they create (and hopefully will keep doing so). It's useful and free feedback/ideas for them and rare and precious opportunity for their users and fans of the game to be part of the project. Not that "free" by the way, since there is a lot to sort and to prioritize, but fact is, suggestions like "make a different game than it's base concept design" are irrelevant. If you like RTS spaces battles, Sword of the Stars is for you (to name one out of many that could fulfill the role), if you like full RTS, Sins of a Solar Empire will do (out of many again), If you like full turn by turn thingies Space Empires shall do the job. And if you like different feelings you can play any of those for the different kinds of fun they bring to you, or ignore the ones you think aren't fun enough for you.



But Endless Space is Endless Space because it is "built" like Endless Space, and I am sure "the gamers" will enjoy it, at least some of them and hopefully for Amplitude as many as possible on that very tiny slice of the gaming market that space opera strategy games is.