I must say, I'm impressed

[Vincent]

I owned Endless Space since the beta. I played it here and there and thought it was alright.
It had a couple cool features but I still considered it more of a light 4x.
I was one of the people that prefered most other 4x's like GalCiv II, Distant Worlds, etc.
The one plus this game had was the multiplayer.

I decided to give it a try since the Virtual Awakening patch.
After playing for a couple days I must say, I'm impressed.
The amount of polish, as well as features that have been added, have skyrocketing my opinion of this game to near the top of the list, maybe even the top.

The game feels quite feature rich now, with the events happening to change things up, pirates to deal with, the way the diplomacy feels...
The game has gotten so much right by this point, I actually think it would be extremely difficult to go back to GalCiv II or the like, especially when this game has multiplayer and it's pretty difficult to find good 4x space games with multiplayer.

I don't know how to explain how the game feels so much better now, there's just so many little improvements as well as larger ones that add up to an excellent game.

I just want to say kudos, to the ES team.

Taking a 4x space game from mediocre to top of my personal charts is no small feat, believe me. And although there's always room for improvement, as in every game, this game is quite exceptional now.

Vince

[Apheirox]

Strongly disagree. The 'expansions' (more like 'patches') have added content to the game, but have had an overall negative impact on the game. If/when you dive in a bit deeper you'll learn that the new features are completely unbalanced, while the game's core problems remain unaddressed. The 'exploration events', for instance, are both ridiculous and completely destroy any semblance of balance or strategy to the game.

I've played a fair few hours of ES, but I actually can't recommend the game. There are far better games out there for you to play.

[RancidPain]

I'm on the fence right now. I totally love Orion 2 and a close second was GalCiv2, but other than the ones I just mentioned what others would you recommend Apheirox?

[Mephasm]

Sins Of a Solar Empire is pretty good..if you like more RTS.

[IamError]

Sins of a solar empire was awesome! I cant recommend that game enough really. It is a real time strategy but you can pause at any time. The games are slower though so it really almost does not feel like an rts.

[76561198082597244]

Cool. I thought about buying this and did because of your post.

[Undergrowler]

I agree with Apheirox. The "expansions" are more like patches that haven't been tested for balance. But I still like them. They add some needed flavour to the game.

Sins of a Solar Empire is a RTS in almost every way. The 4X part of it is much less important than the RTS part. If you try to play it like a 4X game you will have a hard time because it wasn't designed to be played that way.
Don't get me wrong. I love Sins but I wouldn't compare it with a true 4X game like Endless Space.

[Vincent]

Yes Sins is fun for it's own reasons, but when I want a deep strategic 4X, I don't look to Sins.

And I don't really think of the addons to Endless Space as expansions either, they seem more like patches to me, but that doesn't make them any less welcome.

[Vincent]

Streaming Live if anyone is interested.
Can't promise high quality but we'll see.
--Streaming Now Finished--

[RancidPain]

Yes I agree. Sins was cool but it is not a real 4x. More like AoE in space. I avoided Sword of the stars 2 cause of all the negative issues and was thinking about this game but does any one know of any real 4x games like Orion 2 or Galciv2? I think GalCiv2 is great but it's been played to death by me and Im really looking for a real good follow up with current graphics if not this one. I kinda liked the demo but still looking.

[Haldurson]

I didn't think especially highly of ES at first, but as it's been updated, my opinion of it has much improved. Now, I think it's a very fun game and highly addictive.

As far as other 4X space games are concerned, Sins is good, though I understand why some might not consider it a true 4X game. I think it really is one, just not a traditional one. My personal preference is for turn-based games so I prefer games such as MoO, MoO2, Galciv 1 and 2 (though I haven't played either in many years), and SotS. Of those, SotS is my favorite.

Note that I agree with the choice of staying away from SotS2. I preordered it because I was a big fan of the original game, and I'm sorry that I did. I think that classes on UI design could use that game as an excellent example of what NOT to do.

[Apheirox]

Sins is definitely a 4X, it just isn't turn based and has a very heavy focus on combat as opposed to economy management. It is still plagued by heavy balance problems - something that seems to continue to elude developers - but it really is an impressive game that mixes the best of many different styles into one strong game.

GalCiv2 is a horrible, horrible game, easily the worst 4X I can mention. Why it received praise is beyond me. In terms of 'being balanced' or 'not being bland/generic' it makes ES look like an olympic champion by comparison.

SOTS1 is an absolutely fantastic game in every way. That would definitely be a good game to pick up if you want some space-based strategy that isn't Endless Space.

[Undergrowler]

Sorry for going off topic but I do not agree that Sins should be classified as a 4X game.
Yes it have all the things a 4X have except one very important one. It doesn't play as one. It plays like a RTS.
You grab resources fast and use them to build ships and then rush the enemy. Everything else is secondary. It is a rare Sins game that go so far that research, empire building and all the usual 4X game mechanics really matter. Using ship abilities and micromanaging your ships is much more important than empire management.
But that's me. If someone say that features in a game is more important when classifying them than actual gameplay I don't think I have enough reasons to effectively counter argue. :P

For some reason when I play the GalCiv games everything takes ages. I'm probably not very good at it because of how slooow everything is. It's ok games though. :)

Regarding 4X I think ES stands up to mentioned games very well. Especially considering that it doesn't look like it's really finished by far yet. I'd put it above average in overall 4X games comparisons.

[Haldurson]

You are wrong. It has all 4 Xs (eXploration, eXpansion, eXploitation, and eXtermination), and that is what makes it a "4X game". Just because it is an RTS game doesn't prevent it from also being a 4X game. That would be like claiming that a tank is not a vehicle because it doesn't have wheels.

[Undergrowler]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Haldurson:

You are wrong. It has all 4 Xs (eXploration, eXpansion, eXploitation, and eXtermination), and that is what makes it a "4X game". Just because it is an RTS game doesn't prevent it from also being a 4X game. That would be like claiming that a tank is not a vehicle because it doesn't have wheels.

First please understand I am not after a argument. I just find conversations about game genres interesting.

If you generalise and think about what these 4X stand for you find that they fit perfectly in a game that is what define RTS.

Take Warcraft 3 as an example. If played with Fog of War on a Skirmish map you have all of the 4X. EXplore the map, eXpand your influence to the resource (Get troops there and hold it.), eXploit the resource and finally eXterminate your enemy.
So therefore I think what truly separate what's called a 4X game is the gameplay and not only the features.

Oh and research. You build buildings that give you the option to unlock new bonuses, buildings, troops and such for a resource cost in most games that are called RTS. I see no difference in Sins.

Unless you want to call Warcraft 3 a 4X game. If you do I'd really like to hear your reasoning behind it. No sarcasm, if someone came up with logical reasons for that I think it would be a very interesting read. :)

[Haldurson]

I've never played Warcraft 3 -- I tend to, for the most part, stay away from rts games. I have tried Sins and played it enough to be convinced that it is a 4X game. If it plays like Sins with regards to its 4 x's and has a strategic rather than tactical scale (which if its as you describe it, sounds about right) then I probably would consider it for inclusion as a 4X game as well as rts, which is the more obvious category.

Note that labels on games are about marketing. If a publisher wants to capture a 4X market, then they will market it as such. If they want to capture an rts market, then that will be the focus of how it is sold. But that does not mean that a game cannot have qualities that allow it to fit just as easily into other categories. People have to learn that they should not merely look at a game by how it is marketed, as you can be surprised at times.