Thoughts On The Game?

[BigPete7978]

Just saw that the game was on sale and figured I would ask what everyone's thoughts were on the title?

[Johari]

I think the game's wonderful. The AI is pretty dumb, but the recent update would seem to improve it greatly(I haven't gotten the chance to play the game when it was released yet).
If you want a nutshell, think Civilization. Now put it in a space setting. Now add almost absolute customization of empires, planets, your military, add beautiful illustrations to look at when an event happens and give everything a very sleek UI.

It does of course have its bad sides, like any other game. I feel that conducting diplomacy with other empires is very cold and lifeless(I loved how fluid and "real" diplomacy felt in Civ, it's close to opposite in Endless Space), the AI can be ditzy and sometimes admirably quirky at times, and you don't have total control in combat like you would see in, say, SotS or Sins of a Solar Empire(you give orders by selecting cards in each phase), but that's not a bad thing - I think it's a welcome change from more traditional methods of combat.

Again, I haven't had a chance to play it since the recent update(gonna try it now! may post back) so the AI and whatnot is probably much better now, but those are my thoughts pre-patch. Overall the game is very solid and I recommend you check it out more deeply. I also have to say that the customer support is very good, and the men & women working in Amplitude have been very generous what with all the free updates and all, and they've been working very closely with the community to push out new, player-requested content.

[bhssinger3]

It is a very deep game that, in my opinion, is as good, if not better, than sword of the stars. It is endlessly replayable as it is, no pun intended. And with how simple mod integration is, it will become a different game each time you play.

[Johari]

Escrito originalmente por bhssinger3:

It is a very deep game that, in my opinion, is as good, if not better, than sword of the stars.

Sword of the stars came out in 2006. Endless Space came out in 2012...
That's a big gap, don't you think?

[bhssinger3]

Escrito originalmente por ownomics:

Escrito originalmente por bhssinger3:

It is a very deep game that, in my opinion, is as good, if not better, than sword of the stars.

Sword of the stars came out in 2006. Endless Space came out in 2012...
That's a big gap, don't you think?

Yeah, but I am an old school strategy gamer lol. Until this game Endless Space came out, I thought Sword of the Stars was the best. But now with Endless Space, Endless Space is the best and will be for a long, long time.

[Johari]

Escrito originalmente por bhssinger3:

Escrito originalmente por ownomics:

Sword of the stars came out in 2006. Endless Space came out in 2012...
That's a big gap, don't you think?

Yeah, but I am an old school strategy gamer lol. Until this game Endless Space came out, I thought Sword of the Stars was the best. But now with Endless Space, Endless Space is the best and will be for a long, long time.

I must be an old-timer too, then. I was just pointing out that Endless Space would naturally be better since it was produced with more advanced technology than SotS was when it came out.
That was a poor analogy, but I hope you get my point.

I'll always love Sword of the Stars, though. It was one of my first 4x games and is high up on my list of favorites, possibly alongside Space Empires IV.

[cobruh]

Escrito originalmente por ownomics:

Escrito originalmente por bhssinger3:

It is a very deep game that, in my opinion, is as good, if not better, than sword of the stars.

Sword of the stars came out in 2006. Endless Space came out in 2012...
That's a big gap, don't you think?

The fun part about this is that new games are nearly always worse than old ones. Unless you prefer watching cutscenes instead of actually playing.

New technology does not come with better content inclusive. Just fancier looks and more bugs.
Best example: elder scrolls and fallout
Fallout 2 beats the ♥♥♥♥ out of new vegas, same goes for morrowind vs skyrim

[Brick n Wall]

It's reasonably deep game, but not to the same level as some other strategy titles I have played. If you thought that Galactic Civ 2 was deep, you'll probably feel that way about this too. If you are more accustomed to what Paradox thinks of as 'deep' then you will find this one very easy to pick up.

The game has some nice elements, but the AI is not all that good, and the races, aside from having a different look to their ships and unique avatars, don't really have much of a different feel, one from another. There are some racial bonuses to set them apart,so the strategy can vary a bit, but that's just it- each race feels like a very close variation on the same thing.

The tech tree is a bit bland and boring, and specialization is not rewarded as it would be in other games- you are better off working in a sort of outward spiral from the center, regardless of what you would prefer.

All of that is forgivable however, as the game definitely has fun enough to keep me engaged.. right up until I hit the bit that includes combat.

If you love grand strategy games that feature control over tactical situations, look elsewhere. If you prefer a nice game of Tic Tac Toe to a game of Chess, the combat system won't bother you, you may even like it. It's basically three rounds of Rock, Paper Scissors, followed by some pretty generic combat animation over which you have zero control.

This game, much like Sword of The Stars 2, feels like an incomplete product. It has a lot of potential that it has yet to reach.

I would suggest it if you prefer a very casual game, a sort of Galactic Civ light. If you were a fan of games with a Masters of Orion sort of depth, I would not touch this. I would rate the title at a ~$10-15 value.

[cobruh]

While I agree with the tech tree, it does not seem like you have any idea what you are talking about.

[Johari]

Escrito originalmente por Farsight:

I disagree.

I tried playing both Fallout 2 and Morrowind, but their outdated graphics and poor controls made them unplayable. Where on the otherhand both Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim with their support for 4x SLI systems were gorgiously lush and vibrant games.

Now with the dawn of systems that are powerful enough to hold eight graphic cards the graphics in games are only going to get better and better.

I agree with your disagreement.
Raub is either trying to troll, is a hipster or simply has a very warped sense of quality and doesn't know how to adapt to change.
This sort of conclusion, that "The original game was best, all the sequels ruined the series!" seems to be heavily influenced by one's nostalgia, and fond memories of their first time playing a game. As the series is capitalized on and changes are made, the series becomes very mutated; quite unlike what they remember their first experience to be. They continue playing these new re-iterations, vainly hoping to find what they felt and enjoyed when they first picked up the game. They, of course don't find it and despite all of the good changes made, they are unsatisfied.

Psycho-babble over, I think skyrim's gameplay left much to be desired. I think comparing morrowind and skyrim and saying morrowind is better is a huge stretch, but I think if morrowind were re-iterated and remade with the same kind of budget and technology as used in skyrim, we'd have something of a masterpiece. Oblivion felt to be a very nice median between the two, also - and is my current favorite in the TES line of games.

On your comment about graphics cards, I don't see why anyone would install more than two. Wouldn't that be hard on the motherboard, anyway? And I thought GPUs weren't utilized to their full extent if they were operating alongside so many others?
I suppose I shouldn't talk since I have essentially no experience with hardware, but my curiosity's in control.

Escrito originalmente por Farsight:

Before you decide which one of these two is right you should be aware that Lemondrop has 28.8 hrs on record, while Raubtier has 282.0 hrs on record for Endless Space.

Lemon was very apparently dissatisfied with ES, or at least not too intrigued by it, therefore it only makes sense that he wouldn't have put hundreds of hours into it like Raub has.
When opinions are involved, though, nobody is necessarily right in any sense of the word.

[Brick n Wall]

Escrito originalmente por ownomics:

Lemon was very apparently dissatisfied with ES, or at least not too intrigued by it, therefore it only makes sense that he wouldn't have put hundreds of hours into it like Raub has.
When opinions are involved, though, nobody is necessarily right in any sense of the word.

You have it exactly right, ownomics. I was less than intrigued with the game, it simply does not have the depth or polish I was hoping for. I've been playing grand strategy
games since that was done with a group of friends on a paper map with cardboard markers, and I have a pretty good handle after 30 years of playing games which ones I will find worth extensive time investment.

With better games to select from I saw no reason to put more than 30 hours into this one. I felt I had my $7 worth at that point.

I fully expect for the game's fans to disagree with my assessment, but someone looking to purchase a game probably wants to hear from people that did not like it (and more to the point- why not), as much as from those that do.

I generally welcome thoughtful disagrement-

I just refuse to feed the trolls.

[Undergrowler]

Escrito originalmente por Lemondrop:

Escrito originalmente por ownomics:

Lemon was very apparently dissatisfied with ES, or at least not too intrigued by it, therefore it only makes sense that he wouldn't have put hundreds of hours into it like Raub has.
When opinions are involved, though, nobody is necessarily right in any sense of the word.

You have it exactly right, ownomics. I was less than intrigued with the game, it simply does not have the depth or polish I was hoping for. I've been playing grand strategy
games since that was done with a group of friends on a paper map with cardboard markers, and I have a pretty good handle after 30 years of playing games which ones I will find worth extensive time investment.

With better games to select from I saw no reason to put more than 30 hours into this one. I felt I had my $7 worth at that point.

I fully expect for the game's fans to disagree with my assessment, but someone looking to purchase a game probably wants to hear from people that did not like it (and more to the point- why not), as much as from those that do.

I generally welcome thoughtful disagrement-

I just refuse to feed the trolls.

I feel as you except for one thing that make me really like Endless Space. It's that after playing Grand Strategy games for almost as long as you I sometimes feel I need a pause from having to think too much. For me Endless Space perfectly hits the spot between Beer and Pretzel strategy games and more complex that I play from time to time.
Also it have about the right amount of complexity for multiplayer with friends that isn't as into complex strategy games like I am.

[cobruh]

Escrito originalmente por ownomics:

Escrito originalmente por Farsight:

I disagree.

I tried playing both Fallout 2 and Morrowind, but their outdated graphics and poor controls made them unplayable. Where on the otherhand both Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim with their support for 4x SLI systems were gorgiously lush and vibrant games.

Now with the dawn of systems that are powerful enough to hold eight graphic cards the graphics in games are only going to get better and better.

I agree with your disagreement.
Raub is either trying to troll, is a hipster or simply has a very warped sense of quality and doesn't know how to adapt to change.
This sort of conclusion, that "The original game was best, all the sequels ruined the series!" seems to be heavily influenced by one's nostalgia, and fond memories of their first time playing a game. As the series is capitalized on and changes are made, the series becomes very mutated; quite unlike what they remember their first experience to be. They continue playing these new re-iterations, vainly hoping to find what they felt and enjoyed when they first picked up the game. They, of course don't find it and despite all of the good changes made, they are unsatisfied.

So you guys basicly say the old games were unplayable because they had bad graphics and no xbox controls (btw. Fallout was playable with mouse only so I don't know what you are talking about). And you call me biased? I lol'd.

edit: Neither fallout 2 or morrowind were the first of their series btw.

[Steph(✿◠‿◠)]

Is it tense here?!

Let's not derail the discussion any longer, please.

[Mofuji]

If the game had a story mode, I might like it more; the races and setting seem like it might be of some interest. But as it stands, it's somehow more painfully dull than Civ 5 could ever hope to be.

As it stands, I'd really rather play Civ 4 over this. Or if I feel like losing several months by getting addicted again, I'll just pop in Civ 3.

[Undergrowler]

Escrito originalmente por Sparkly Sparkly Pokon:

If the game had a story mode, I might like it more; the races and setting seem like it might be of some interest. But as it stands, it's somehow more painfully dull than Civ 5 could ever hope to be.

As it stands, I'd really rather play Civ 4 over this. Or if I feel like losing several months by getting addicted again, I'll just pop in Civ 3.

I have to ask. Why are you comparing Endless Space to Civilization games?
Granted they are both 4X games but to make a comparison between them is a stretch.

Well Endless Space have the same "I have to expand like mad in the beginning and forget about everything else" mechanic like Civilization 3. That's actually why I didn't like Civilization 3. It played more like a grab for territory wargame than a Civilization title.
The same mechanic works better in a 4X space game so I tolerate it in Endless Space. Not happy about it but it's workable.