DoctorObviously Dec 29, 2012 @ 2:58pm
Is it a good first space game?
I have never played any kind of grand space game, ever. Wing Commander, Sword of the Stars, I all have heard of them but I never jumped into it because they seem a little too intimidating to me. So, would this be a good game to start out?
Showing 1-15 of 25 comments
< >
Sid Dec 29, 2012 @ 3:31pm 
Well, it's basically Civilization In Space, and I think the general consensus is that it mostly succeeds.

It's fun, turn-based strategy, with optional cinematic cutscenes where you watch spaceships blow up. What it's most definitely not is a space shooter where you pilot a ship (which is what I'd consider a "space game").

As long as you're aware of what it is and what it's not, yeah, it's a pretty good game. Whether it's a good first game that is set in space is of course a different question - other people might weigh in there with more experience.

If in doubt, check out a Let's Play or video review to get a better impression of it.
Matthypaspist Dec 29, 2012 @ 6:00pm 
If you've played a 4X game(look it up if you dont know) before then it should be fine. If not it might be a bit confusing at first but you'll get the hang of it eventually. And yes, so far i find it quite a fun game
Last edited by Matthypaspist; Dec 29, 2012 @ 6:01pm
MVMiller12 Dec 29, 2012 @ 7:40pm 
This game is very fun, but I would personally consider Sins of a Solar Empire (particularly Rebellion) as a better first time experience - it has a better tutorial, and is somewhat more straightforward. Endless Space is a much more involved game and could be very confusing to someone new to the genre. Sins is a 4x/RTS hybrid and that enhances it's approachability quite a bit.
Dorok Dec 29, 2012 @ 10:24pm 
It's a lot Civilization in space and some differences not only coming from the Space Opera/galaxy context. It seems OP is making a confusion with exploration/battle/merchant space games like X3/X2.

Myself I bought Endless Space on a confusion, believing it was a sort of Space RPG with also managements. It's been a big surprise to discover it's a cousin of Civilization, a series I enjoy a lot but I'm tired of it.

And that surprise end to be a great pleasure to discover this game, 20 hours in it, learning curve to beat the game is a bit step and the game is probably more complex than Civ4. But the interface management is quite excellent once you have learned the controls/interfaces tricks and in fact much more pleasant than Civilization series. The space context is also very cool, it's not really good SF but it's clearly stuff from SF fans and good Space Opera/Galatic Empire context.
Haldurson Dec 29, 2012 @ 11:10pm 
Actually, probably the best first Space game to play (no offense to the person recommending Sins) is Master of Orion. It's not on Steam, but you can still get it from GOG.com (Good Old Games). Essentially, Master of Orion and MoO2 are obviously the two biggest influences on Endless Space, and MoO in particular is a bit simpler to learn. It's certainly simpler than ES.
Optimus Prime Directive Dec 31, 2012 @ 8:20am 
Originally posted by Haldurson:
Actually, probably the best first Space game to play (no offense to the person recommending Sins) is Master of Orion. It's not on Steam, but you can still get it from GOG.com (Good Old Games). Essentially, Master of Orion and MoO2 are obviously the two biggest influences on Endless Space, and MoO in particular is a bit simpler to learn. It's certainly simpler than ES.
MoO can be a bit more overwhelming compared to Endless Space.
@OP, Endless Space is more of a 4X (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate) rather than a 'space game' which is usually piloting a space shuttle. In a 4X you control an entire empire/government of a certain type. A typical space game, or a space/science fiction shooter can be just as overwhelming as a 4X but 4X has a large advantage for new players; it's turn based. While "Sins of a Solar Empire" is an amazing game the fact that unless you pause the game you can't sit back and absorb everything. In a 4X you can take as much or as little time as you need or want in a turn. I've played a good variety of both space games/shooters and 4X, and I can say with certainty that Endless Space is a fairly good place to start off (at least for 4X). It has a very good UI (that lets you know what does what when you scroll the mouse over something) Endless Space does allow room for you to be able to win without knowing a whole lot of the games advanced features.
Haldurson Dec 31, 2012 @ 9:07pm 
Sins has just about every element required to make a game a 4X space game,but it just happens to not be turn-based.

And you really think that MoO is overwhelming compared with ES??? I disagree. MoO has a relatively straight-forward tech tree, the aliens are a lot more distinct, diplomacy is more streamlined, and so on. It's a much more stripped down game, other than the combat (which is really not that mentally challenging, imho).

On the other hand ES has some concepts to it that I personally felt were alien, such as its economics system, its newbie-unfriednly tech tree, its expansion unhappiness, and so on. ES is a significantly less elegant game, thus making it harder to learn.
Optimus Prime Directive Jan 1, 2013 @ 2:56am 
Originally posted by Haldurson:
Sins has just about every element required to make a game a 4X space game,but it just happens to not be turn-based.

And you really think that MoO is overwhelming compared with ES??? I disagree. MoO has a relatively straight-forward tech tree, the aliens are a lot more distinct, diplomacy is more streamlined, and so on. It's a much more stripped down game, other than the combat (which is really not that mentally challenging, imho).

On the other hand ES has some concepts to it that I personally felt were alien, such as its economics system, its newbie-unfriednly tech tree, its expansion unhappiness, and so on. ES is a significantly less elegant game, thus making it harder to learn.
SoaSE (Sins) lacks very much in diplomacy, so I would disagree.
MoO2's ship creation and combat is much much harder than Endless Space. The combat is only harder because you participate more than using the battle cards in ES but creating a good ship combonation can be difficult, and in no way is new player friendly. The tech tree in ES is large and be confusing, but at the same time this only applies to the tech trees on the right and left. The top tree is mostly weaponary, and is fairly straightforward, and on the bottom is also fairly straightforward in what it gives.
Dorok Jan 1, 2013 @ 7:57am 
Endless Space has many special designs and players aren't used to them and it's not a simple game and players haven't the same behavior in front of games than they had in time of Civ1 and MOO1&2 and there isn't yet the same amount of help you could find on the net for classics like MOO series.

I don't think it means all those special designs are bad, more that there are uncommon. and for me I'm bored of games with too many similar mechanisms.

But it's possible they pushed it too far. The unhappiness vs expansion could be an element not existing in MOO series (or did it?) and quite streamlined and tune down in Civilization series and even more tuned down since Civ3 or 4 I don't remember. But it's a rather standard element in fact, but they made it special anyway. Let see:

There's 3 parameters, there's an overcrowding factor that seems linked to number of population, there's an expansion factor depending of the number and possibly spreading of systems you have but this factor happen only when you colonize more than one planet in a system.

You have multiple tools to manage that:
- Taxes,
- Local luxury, bu you need have unlock them and have colonize the planet where it is.
- Empire luxury when you succeed a monopole, and take care when making trading agreements with other empires that you don't lost such bonus you want.
- Special research give an empire bonus.
- Some system builds to unlock with research will give a system bonus
- Some planet build like terraforming could generate a malus (with other positive effects to compensate)
- Some builds offer special bonus when the population of the system is top happy.
- Some bonus has effect on overcrowding and other on expansion and some just add happiness amount.
- Some events could also bring some temporary happiness bonus, you don't really control it but first exploration will trigger those events and later moons exploration could also generate special effect (but not sure if those can include effects on happiness)
- Some race has a base happiness bonus.
- Happiness is also local to a system and will influence production of goods/food/research.
- You can dedicate a system to only transform a part of production into gold (dust) it's a lot of waste on the system but it could allow lower tax and get a boost of production on the whole system. But you need also gold for some stuff....
- ...and I certainly forget some points.

Is that too much? For me it's not, it's very cool but it requires time, trials and error, reading all elements in game (tooltips provide ton of information) and I'm still unclear on many points and I bet there's still many elements I didn't even noticed/realized.

For the 4 trees and dependent to race I do agree it's overwhelming at first, with luxury products unlock in multiple trees, important war factor spread in multiple tree, ok ships base design on bottom and weapon/armor/planet defense on top, but also heroes stuff and fleet size or speed bonus on right and that's not minor for battles, and ships stuff on right tree too, and luxury stuff to unlock that can influence stuff relative to battles from battles card to speed and defense, and probably more.

So yes it's far to be straightforward, and it's hardly in one game that you'll get a really clear idea of anything.

But I don't know if make simple obvious trees is better and not showing the whole tree would be hardly logical.
Haldurson Jan 1, 2013 @ 11:49am 
Originally posted by H4unt3r:
SoaSE (Sins) lacks very much in diplomacy, so I would disagree.
MoO2's ship creation and combat
I was not talking about MoO2 -- I just mentioned that as being a primary influence on ES. MoO is what I was saying is a good first 4X space game. I do agree that MoO2 is a bit more difficult for a newcomer.

Diplomacy, deep or otherwise, is not essential to what makes a game 4X -- It's the actual Xs (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate, if you need a reminder). If you look at the first Civ game, it really didn't have much in the way of diplomacy either. Or look at the primary influence for MoO -- Stellar Conquest (the board game which was the primary basis for "Reach for the Stars", the first real commercial 4X computer space game). IT had no diplomacy at all, period. Or you can look at Empire, which was the primary influence of Civilization -- again, absolutely no diplomacy.

So diplomacy, while something that many enjoy and look for, is not essential. Empire is one of my favorite computer games ever. But then again, I'm an older guy.
Last edited by Haldurson; Jan 1, 2013 @ 11:52am
Optimus Prime Directive Jan 1, 2013 @ 7:26pm 
Originally posted by Haldurson:
Originally posted by H4unt3r:
SoaSE (Sins) lacks very much in diplomacy, so I would disagree.
MoO2's ship creation and combat
I was not talking about MoO2 -- I just mentioned that as being a primary influence on ES. MoO is what I was saying is a good first 4X space game. I do agree that MoO2 is a bit more difficult for a newcomer.

Diplomacy, deep or otherwise, is not essential to what makes a game 4X -- It's the actual Xs (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate, if you need a reminder). If you look at the first Civ game, it really didn't have much in the way of diplomacy either. Or look at the primary influence for MoO -- Stellar Conquest (the board game which was the primary basis for "Reach for the Stars", the first real commercial 4X computer space game). IT had no diplomacy at all, period. Or you can look at Empire, which was the primary influence of Civilization -- again, absolutely no diplomacy.

So diplomacy, while something that many enjoy and look for, is not essential. Empire is one of my favorite computer games ever. But then again, I'm an older guy.
Endless Space is very influenced by GalCiv and MoO, and if you played those at all you would infact know how important Diplomacy is. IF you are the kind of person who /only/ wages war, then perhaps you should find a space RTS to play. A 4X at the core is a simulation of empires, be those in space or on land. The eXploit of the game primarily comes from trade and diplomacy. In most 4X you cannot have trade without diplomacy, other than internal trade. Clearly you do not have a broad range of 4X history or you would know this. I have not played Civlization series and I have only played space-based 4X. Other than SoaSE (Sins) most 4X give good benefits to diplomacy, and when you remove diplomacy what you end up with is a large turn based war game. While some 4X are very much a large turn based war game, Endless Space is not one of them seeing as the combat is not the focal point. I'm not sure if you played GalCiv2 or not (seeing as ES is more GalCiv than MoO) but if you removed diplomacy from that game it would drastically change the flow.

I have to ask though; how can you think that diplomacy isn't a good chunk Endless Space if one of the races is almost entirely based on being in peaceful diplomatic relations?
Haldurson Jan 1, 2013 @ 10:11pm 
Originally posted by H4unt3r:
I have to ask though; how can you think that diplomacy isn't a good chunk Endless Space if one of the races is almost entirely based on being in peaceful diplomatic relations?
Are you talking to me because I never said that. My only point is that if you look at the history of the genre, diplomacy didn't even exist at all, or to any great extent in the earliest 4X games. That's all I'm saying. I agree that it became an increasingly popular staple as time went on. But if you understand the history, then you can't claim that it's essential to the definition. It's a revisionist definition -- you are trying to change history retroactively, and that can't be done.
Dorok Jan 2, 2013 @ 10:14am 
I like quote I'm not alone to see the revisionist definitions of genres/tags, and more. A quite typical example is RPG tag. But the point is also a genre is just a word and words meaning can shift, it always happened and it will happen.

For the 4X genre strict definition I don't care much and won't argue. :-) For me tags are made to be broken but for games it's opposed to some players that expect plays always the similar games, it's also because they want what they was expected (instead of being opened and have fun discover a new approach).
Vexov Jan 2, 2013 @ 11:44am 
Its a pretty scary game for new ppl, the tech tree is.. garbage and so is the games tutorial. Its likely to take a few games or finding someones youtube tutorial. Graphics are great, BGM as well. Space-combat is weak, its auto aside of your using an ability/card that on chance may take effect or not, you can also just skip watching the fights and still pick your "cards". Ground-invasion is far more lame as you can't even get some lame video of the battle... your ships simply sit around the system and a "fist" with a counter decends per turn. The Tech tree I find it terribly designed, its just all over the place with no sense to it, and you basicly just go in circles learning all the lower tech.... its was an amazing feat added to this game. You also cann't fully create your faction, you can only copy pics and take on the image(ships, humaniod forms) really the only editing you can do is select some perks(negetive/postive).
Its not a bad game, but it should have easily been much better with so many other TBS and RTS games to learn from. I wouldn't be shocked if GalCiv-3 takes everything good from this game and adds also improves on their own mechanics.(but we won't see GalCiv-3 for maybe 6years if never)
Haldurson Jan 2, 2013 @ 1:08pm 
Originally posted by Dorok:
For me tags are made to be broken but for games it's opposed to some players that expect plays always the similar games, it's also because they want what they was expected (instead of being opened and have fun discover a new approach).
Agreed.
Here's what I'm seeing, from my perspective as an old-time gamer. There's been a resurgence in indie gaming, unlike anything that has happened since the very beginning of computer gaming, Entire game genres that actually faded away into insignifcance, because of the domination of the Big Game Companies, are actually making a huge comeback. Part of the reason for this are Steam, GOG.com, and digital distribution in general, as well as websites dedicated to retro and indie gaming helped a lot. And they resulted in the big success of some notable indie titles, mostly created by individuals or very small groups on shoe-string budgets. Previously, small companies couldn't compete for shelf space in the stores, but now the chain stores are not the big players anymore so that has permanently changed the playing field.

My personal pet genre are rogue-likes. I played the orginal Rogue when it first appeared on Unix machines (I was in college at the time) and it was a real phenomenon. It was a very specific sort of game that gave rise to all sorts of imitators. Everyone wanted to make their own rogue-like game, and they did. But these were games that were pretty much distributed for free, and spread across college campuses, and later, across bulletin boards, as freeware at computer fairs, and so on. There were a few attempts to bring Rogue-likes to the mainstream, but mostly these were attempts that had abandonedt a lot of the rogue-like tradition. Diablo is a prime example of a game that followes a lot of rogue-like traditions, but was distinctive enough (because it was an action game) that it lost the rogue-like label.

Nowadays though, Diablo certainly would be considered a rogue-like, because the definition has become more inclusive (and rightfully so). Simply put, innovation has expanded the genre beyond Rogue and it's more immediate, less innovvative imitators. You have games as diverse as Dungeons of Dredmor, FTL, Conquest of Ellyssium 3, and The Binding of Isaac (and yes, even Diablo 3, according to Ascii Dream's Rogue-like of the year poll), all falling under the Rogue-like label, at least as used by many of the primary figures in the field.

To me, it's more important that a person should not miss out on a game because it doesn't fit a specific narrow definition, than it would be for someone to be disapponted because something wasn't exactly like the previous game they played. Innovation is what makes a genre thrive. More variety is a good thing, not a bad thing. Look at the complete mess that has overtakine the music industry because of increasiing fragmentation. What it means is that people do not get exposed to music they may like simply because it's not marketed to them because it has the wrong label on it.

It's my contention that the more inclusive a label is, the better for all of us.
Last edited by Haldurson; Jan 2, 2013 @ 1:16pm
Showing 1-15 of 25 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Dec 29, 2012 @ 2:58pm
Posts: 25