A few 4x games let you blow up planets, but there is only like 2 that i know of where you can actually blow up stars.



And nope, not in this one. lol

Yes, almost everything is easily translatable in terms of game mechanics (ignoring the setting/story/graphical differences). There are really only a few unique aspects in ES, and most involve the differences in races. For example, playing as Cravers, you cannot be at peace with other races. This changes the gameplay mechanics in ways no Civ game has ever produced. You cannot win a diplomatic victory, no trade, etc. As Horatio, you can clone heroes. This is a unique gameplay mechanic that only works in a sci-fi setting.



As others have pointed out, you also have customizable/modular units. There is no unit design in civ games.

Igncom1 wrote:
A few 4x games let you blow up planets, but there is only like 2 that i know of where you can actually blow up stars.



And nope, not in this one. lol

Space Empires 1 through to 5 come to mind (that's 5 already)



Oh I loved my articially created systems *hint hint*

I don't think you can play a race of warlike birds of prey in Civ.

Also, i could see a pirate mod for endless space, with systems becoming archipelagoes, planets becoming islands, and the entire research tree being reworked.

eobet wrote:
I think you misinterpreted my entire point.



The point is:



What makes sci-fi sci-fi?



And my question was, what's unique in this game's space setting that can't be recreated in a similar game which doesn't use a space setting (what can't you rename or re-skin and still achieve the same effect)?

All setting in a game is just a house for the game mechanics. chess for example is a game, very deep, infinity complex. it is a turn based strategy game. does it matter what bored you choose to play chess on? no. today i played a game of lord of the rings chess (it is a set, where the black pieces are various orcs and the white pieces are the fellowship of the ring) does lotr chess have a new game play element opposed to old chess? no.



there are strategy games that involve coloured blobs and samurai, and Romans, and jewels, and squads of guys with guns and grenades and cavemen. some let you control dragons, build dungeons, empires, houses, some just let you build towers to stop bad things with big health bars from getting to a predefined "end".



What makes this game endless space? and not endless rome? or endless civilisation?



_-->it is a solid 4x pure turn based strategy game: not very many pure/well made/fun 4x games are being made, most are hybrid action or rts



_-->combat is handled better than most other 4x: it is quick and simple and has the potential for lots of depth. more involved than civ combat, less time consuming than total war. best of all: entertaining (which cant be said of all 4x)



_-->easy to learn while being complex: (i can only speak for myself) going back to a Civ or Galactic Civ sav game after a week absence i often forget what i was planing before, it is hard to follow all the mechanics and i often start a new game rather than try to figure out the old one. this game however has just as much strategy (if not more) as other 4x, more tactics, but less clutter and confusion (like a chess puzzle you can pull up an old sav and instantly understand where you stand and make a strategy).... {space theme lends itself to simplicity eg:space is empty there is little clutter}



_--> Games 2 Gether: this community of people who love games like civ are basicly making this game. you say you want to know what makes this game better than your good ol favourite civ? what did you which civ had? say so here!



space 4x has a tradition of enormous complexity, enormous length, a focus on size, customisation, personal story telling, stratagy that is always changeing wildly based on unexpected developments but most importantly space 4x has a focus on player investment.



in civ IV fo instance (never player old civs except 3) you play as the (lets say germans) and you get German units and German strengths and you get a world to eXplore and make German.



in endless space you get a race (you will be able to design eventualy) with some strengths and a wide universe that is literally a big black void. your conquests are little coloured dots that you get to name... over 500 turns you as the player fill up that black void with a story, you construct a narrative. in civ IV for instance the game filled the screen with stuff, but none of it was yours.



endless space i believe is shaping up to be a game that you can play your way, in every way. if you want to reskin it to be about cowboys then do it and it will work. WHY WILL IT WORK?---> endless space is at its heart a very solid strategy game and it can only get better

Cadoras wrote:
On a more serious note: your thesis is somewhat flawed.



First: The thesis that a story where the setting is interchangable without effecting the main story is proof of a bad story is to shorthand. Take some Shakespearian novels for example. If Romeo & Juliet would be set in the future, would it be a bad story? If the main story of Star Wars saga would be transferred to the Medieval Ages, would it be bad? No, certain details would become corrupted (like a pony-stomping AT-AT), but the main story remains intact without losing its value.

Look at this way: the (original) Star Wars-saga possesses very many similarities with the standard Greek tragedies, but there are not many people who say the story sucks balls. For its time it was even considerd original.



Second: This game doesn't proliferate itself on the storyline, nor does it (in my view) intend to. The setting is probably chosen for its scope, technology and strategygame-value. In my opinion, the ambiance that has been created thusfar has been very consistent with a good scifi-feel, even at its alpha-state. Its goal is probably not an in-depth lorebase, but more a decor for a good and immersive strategy-game.



Third: It is unavoidable that a 4x sci-fi strategy game shares many things with other 4x strategy games. Does this game have a (important) feature that makes it stand out from the crowd? No, but it is very refreshing that this is the first game since a very long time with a decent turn-based 4 x strategy. I have some problems with the common urge to desire a certain uniqueness with a game. To quote a demotivator: the fact that it is unique, doesn't make it useful. If the game is very good in its own right, that makes the uniqueness factor somewhat less important, especially when there are not many relevant competitors around. The uniqueness of this game is not so much the game itself, but the sheer involvement of the community it surrounds it with.



Fourth: The fact that you compare this game to Civ I is on itself flawed. Civ I is a (well-deserved) benchmarkgame for the genre, but nevertheless irrelevant for comparison. It would be like comparing Modern Warfare 3 to Wolfenstein 3D and complain about the similarities. Bottomline: the principle remains the same, only additional details and the graphics change.



To summarize: I know how you feel. Judging by the choice of game I may presume that you have already been gaming for probably 15-20 years or longer. The chance that a 12-year old these days would pick up Civ 1 is utterly remote, unless its the last game in the world. We know how good certain games were and we can look past the (very) outdated graphics and such, certainly with the little help of a bit nostalgia.



Look around, every one is still comparing new games with games that are more then 10 years old: Morrowind/Skyrim, Modern RTS/Red Alert (or even Dune 2), Mass Effect-series/KotoR, every 4x turn-based strategy with Civ and so forth. We sometimes forget to stop comparing and judge a game on its own merits. Ask yourself honestly: do you enjoy yourself with the game, despite its possible faults? Yes? Than you have found a nice game. Do you invest many hours into the game and find yourself playing it over and over? Than you have found a very good game. Do you compare it with other games even 10 years after it was launched? Than you have found a classic.

I think you misinterpreted my entire point.



The point is:



What makes sci-fi sci-fi?



And my question was, what's unique in this game's space setting that can't be recreated in a similar game which doesn't use a space setting (what can't you rename or re-skin and still achieve the same effect)?

I only played Civilization 2 a short time so I will not be able to answer you so much.

The only thing I can say is : I love space strategy and the fluff, the background story, the designs here are just impressive.

From a total newb's point of view (pre-ordered two days ago) :



-How would you translate the system / planet management ? Countries / cities ? Meh, in civ you have to build your cities, choose their emplacement etc.

-Replacing ships with horses ? Well those horses have a wide array of customization options in my opinion. And what would a dreadnought be ? A giant mutated horse that stomps poneys ?

-There are no heroes in civilization. Except my spearmen unit that killed a panzer, of course.



Also, your theory is interesting but it applies more to narrative games (and of course films, books...) than a 4X game. The important point here is to create a setting that is fun and does not break immersion. If a team of modders can reskin the game into a pirate theme, I don't see it as a drawback.



Lastly I do not think the design decisions should be affected much by "Is this too close to [Civ/Moo/whatever] ?" or "Is this sci-fi enough ?".

Utinam wrote:
From a total newb's point of view (pre-ordered two days ago) :

-Replacing ships with horses ? Well those horses have a wide array of customization options in my opinion. And what would a dreadnought be ? A giant mutated horse that stomps poneys ?

A Trojan horse, maybe?

Utinam wrote:
And what would a dreadnought be ? A giant mutated horse that stomps poneys ?

YEAAH, definitely !!

Made my day

Spess, all the time and every day

eobet wrote:
I was just thinking about this theory that if a sci-fi story can be translated to a western without a problem, it's bad sci-fi (like for example, if the space ships could just as well be replaced by horses).

On a more serious note: your thesis is somewhat flawed.



First: The thesis that a story where the setting is interchangable without effecting the main story is proof of a bad story is to shorthand. Take some Shakespearian novels for example. If Romeo & Juliet would be set in the future, would it be a bad story? If the main story of Star Wars saga would be transferred to the Medieval Ages, would it be bad? No, certain details would become corrupted (like a pony-stomping AT-AT), but the main story remains intact without losing its value.

Look at this way: the (original) Star Wars-saga possesses very many similarities with the standard Greek tragedies, but there are not many people who say the story sucks balls. For its time it was even considerd original.



Second: This game doesn't proliferate itself on the storyline, nor does it (in my view) intend to. The setting is probably chosen for its scope, technology and strategygame-value. In my opinion, the ambiance that has been created thusfar has been very consistent with a good scifi-feel, even at its alpha-state. Its goal is probably not an in-depth lorebase, but more a decor for a good and immersive strategy-game.



Third: It is unavoidable that a 4x sci-fi strategy game shares many things with other 4x strategy games. Does this game have a (important) feature that makes it stand out from the crowd? No, but it is very refreshing that this is the first game since a very long time with a decent turn-based 4 x strategy. I have some problems with the common urge to desire a certain uniqueness with a game. To quote a demotivator: the fact that it is unique, doesn't make it useful. If the game is very good in its own right, that makes the uniqueness factor somewhat less important, especially when there are not many relevant competitors around. The uniqueness of this game is not so much the game itself, but the sheer involvement of the community it surrounds it with.



Fourth: The fact that you compare this game to Civ I is on itself flawed. Civ I is a (well-deserved) benchmarkgame for the genre, but nevertheless irrelevant for comparison. It would be like comparing Modern Warfare 3 to Wolfenstein 3D and complain about the similarities. Bottomline: the principle remains the same, only additional details and the graphics change.



To summarize: I know how you feel. Judging by the choice of game I may presume that you have already been gaming for probably 15-20 years or longer. The chance that a 12-year old these days would pick up Civ 1 is utterly remote, unless its the last game in the world. We know how good certain games were and we can look past the (very) outdated graphics and such, certainly with the little help of a bit nostalgia.



Look around, every one is still comparing new games with games that are more then 10 years old: Morrowind/Skyrim, Modern RTS/Red Alert (or even Dune 2), Mass Effect-series/KotoR, every 4x turn-based strategy with Civ and so forth. We sometimes forget to stop comparing and judge a game on its own merits. Ask yourself honestly: do you enjoy yourself with the game, despite its possible faults? Yes? Than you have found a nice game. Do you invest many hours into the game and find yourself playing it over and over? Than you have found a very good game. Do you compare it with other games even 10 years after it was launched? Than you have found a classic.

This story transfer made me think about a Donald story









Then, I didn't find the picture but there are :



A western story with Matt savage. A high-speed fight on his horse with some crooks. He suppose the horse flips and bursts into flame.

And :

A Sci-fi story where Buck Savage has a high-speed fight with some crooks. His comet flips and bursts into flame... well... difficult to see on a comet.



;D

Fantastic. Love this. Donald Duck analogies, always +1. Tutor of the masses.

Cadoras wrote:
On a more serious note: your thesis is somewhat flawed.

First: The thesis that a story where the setting is interchangable without effecting the main story is proof of a bad story is to shorthand. Take some Shakespearian novels for example.

Absolutely.

Shakespeare himself had written about a famous United Empire billionaire.



Hamlet:


And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,


Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

SpaceVC wrote:
Absolutely.

Shakespeare himself had written about a famous United Empire billionaire.



Hamlet:


And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,


Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Why do I hear this In the Voice of Elcor?

I was just thinking about this theory that if a sci-fi story can be translated to a western without a problem, it's bad sci-fi (like for example, if the space ships could just as well be replaced by horses).



So as I was playing this (and noticing how much things from Civilization I was missing) I began to wonder what unique things in this game I could do that I can't do in Civilization.



Like, what is the reason for it being in outer space. Could the map of the galaxy just as well be re-skinned as a map of the earth, and the game still work?



Right now, it's just an idea I'm thinking about, and I've only scratched the surface of the game.



So, so far my answer is "yes", this could be a western. But I'd love it if people could prove me wrong! In fact, I'm fairly certain of it. What am I missing?

Its a case of comparing apples to oranges.



Civ 4X games are not like Space 4X games.



The comparison is kinda foolish.

Igncom1 wrote:
Its a case of comparing apples to oranges.



Civ 4X games are not like Space 4X games.



The comparison is kinda foolish.

Are you serious?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X