Turn-based RTS

[Marfig]

A what?

[BATTLEMODE]

Początkowo opublikowane przez MoRmEnGiL:

I am summoning Vendor Lazarus to this thread.



:P

Steam prevents VL crossing the threshold in the same way that a vampire cannot enter a house without being invited.

[Marfig]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mezmorki:

I agree with rob on this. But also agree that calling a game like Gladius turn based RTS comes across as an oxymoron, but it also a great way to convey the overall feeling of the gameplay in this case. It does play almost exactly like an RTS at a structural level - but happens to be turn based.

I don't see how calling it an RTS conveys useful information. Gladius really plays like a 4x without eXploit. It probably is better described that way than anything resembling an RTS.

Understanding that this was done only to try and come up with a way to describe the game and not categorise it changes the direction of this thread back to what it was initially intended (I initially thought it was just a tongue in cheek description of the game until Rob replied). And I am glad it does. But I honestly still am struggling with the idea that this game plays anything, and I mean anything(!), like an RTS.

[Nasarog]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Marfig:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mezmorki:

I agree with rob on this. But also agree that calling a game like Gladius turn based RTS comes across as an oxymoron, but it also a great way to convey the overall feeling of the gameplay in this case. It does play almost exactly like an RTS at a structural level - but happens to be turn based.

I don't see how calling it an RTS conveys useful information. Gladius really plays like a 4x without eXploit. It probably is better described that way than anything resembling an RTS.

Understanding that this was done only to try and come up with a way to describe the game and not categorise it changes the direction of this thread back to what it was initially intended (I initially thought it was just a tongue in cheek description of the game until Rob replied). And I am glad it does. But I honestly still am struggling with the idea that this game plays anything, and I mean anything(!), like an RTS.

Well, in the Warhammer Universe, there is no diplomacy. Not really if you think about it. Diplomacy is one of the biggest failure of most 4X, so, Gladius just eliminated it.

[BATTLEMODE]

The reason we all disagree over whether Gladius is a 4X or not is that there's no consensus on what makes a 4X game, and I'm highly sceptical of attempts to codify such things. Like I think Oliver's article on the subject was great and a decent rough guide but I've seen people trying to exclude Master of Orion by those criteria and I'm just not down with such nonsense.

[BATTLEMODE]

One of the reasons I'm playing less and less 4X games these days, I think, is that the very definition is beginning to strangle itself. Developers seem to be churning out the same old games over and over, and I can't help but feel like this obsessive need to classify things is actually stifling creativity. If we're gonna throw out Gladius as a 4X game, we're discouraging developers from looking at what made Gladius such an excellent game and incorporating those things into their own 4X efforts.

Same with Dominions. It's got the best combat system I've seen in a strategy game but because a whole lot of people refuse to accept it's a 4X game (I think it is) we're unlikely to see it properly promoted to that playerbase and so people don't get to see that system anywhere else.

It's nice to be a 4X community but in this particular case, I think the definition gatekeeping is harming it's development rather than preserving it's best bits.

[ESonix]

Definitely agree with you on those points. Although many players claim they want to see innovation, they often punish developers who innovate beyond the “canonical” boundaries that have already been defined. These behavior patterns are self destructive, and end up limiting continued development and interest in genres such as 4x.

[Marfig]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Nasarog:

Well, in the Warhammer Universe, there is no diplomacy. Not really if you think about it. Diplomacy is one of the biggest failure of most 4X, so, Gladius just eliminated it.

Sorry, but Diplomacy is not related to 4x.

4x doesn't define diplomacy in any of its terms. Diplomacy would at best be a part of Extermination but extermination is not defined by it. At all! There is nothing about diplomacy in 4x definition. You can have it or not. Traditionally 4x games added it as a game mechanic. But you can easily conceive the thought of a full 4x game without any diplomacy; i.e. everyone is an enemy of everyone else, or everyone is neutral to everyone else until they attack. Funny enough that's how many players play 4x games. Exactly because diplomacy sucks.

What Gladius removed that is meaningful to 4x is the eXploitation part of it. Resource gathering and managing. That's it! There is no RTS magic in this game... My jaw is just on the floor trying to understand what the heck is going on in that Discord group.

[BobbyBullets]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Marfig:

My jaw is just on the floor trying to understand what the heck is going on in that Discord group.

We talk, we speculate, we bring up news. We tried to define Gladius.

Nothing crazy. Why so serious, Mario?

[Marfig]

Początkowo opublikowane przez BATTLEMODE:

If we're gonna throw out Gladius as a 4X game, we're discouraging developers from looking at what made Gladius such an excellent game and incorporating those things into their own 4X efforts.

We definitely shouldn't. Gladius is not a 4x game. (BTW, I don't think developers will care! The game is safe). But with your own admission in mind, it will help even less calling it a TB RTS. RTS are so devoid of many of the tactical and strategical finesse of Gladius it's not even fun.

Gladius is a turn-based strategy game. You don't like gatekeeping classification. Me neither.

[Marfig]

Początkowo opublikowane przez DevildogFF:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Marfig:

My jaw is just on the floor trying to understand what the heck is going on in that Discord group.

We talk, we speculate, we bring up news. We tried to define Gladius.

Nothing crazy. Why so serious, Mario?

There is nothing like that about this. What you just don't seem to understand is that this is a conversation. A dialog. You just don't seem to be able to exist in that environment without immediately taking it personally. Stop!

We are also talking here, we are also speculating. Get it?

[TheDROCK]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Marfig:

What you just don't seem to understand is that this is a conversation. A dialog. You just don't seem to be able to exist in that environment without immediately taking it personally. Stop!

Nailed it. The only time this forum ever gets "toxic" is when certain people throw a fit because not everyone agrees with their opinion. It's happened numerous times here. It's just tiresome.

We have a lot of posters here...Tragic, Ashbery, Bou, to name a few...who have very strong opinions and are very blunt about it. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. But that's what leads to some very interesting discussions. And I've learned a lot because of everyone's opinions.

I think this thread has been very interesting especially with regard to Gladius being a 4x and whether diplomacy should be considered part of a 4x game. I look forward to hearing more opinions on these subjects from all of you.

[BobbyBullets]

Początkowo opublikowane przez TheDROCK:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Marfig:

What you just don't seem to understand is that this is a conversation. A dialog. You just don't seem to be able to exist in that environment without immediately taking it personally. Stop!

Nailed it. The only time this forum ever gets "toxic" is when certain people throw a fit because not everyone agrees with their opinion. It's happened numerous times here. It's just tiresome.

I don't care whatsoever if someone doesn't agree with me. It's literally my entire life. Toxic, however, is name-calling and anger over a single attempt to characterize a game. So what?

Początkowo opublikowane przez Marfig:

Początkowo opublikowane przez DevildogFF:

We talk, we speculate, we bring up news. We tried to define Gladius.

Nothing crazy. Why so serious, Mario?

There is nothing like that about this. What you just don't seem to understand is that this is a conversation. A dialog. You just don't seem to be able to exist in that environment without immediately taking it personally. Stop!

I only took one thing personally, and that was one person saying that describing the game the way I attempted to was "fucking stupid". That's just not how things should be. I don't give two shits if someone disagrees. You disagreed. I tried to explain myself. Others came out to say that it was "fucking stupid", while others made their respectful comments.

Toxicity is jumping on me for having an opinion that ya'll don't agree with. Which is why I don't post here very often.

Hell, people even bitched about a logo that was created for the site and group when it didn't cost them anything and changed nothing about their lives.

So, okay, cool man. Have a good day. Happy discussing.

And for what it's worth, I PERSONALLY FEEL that diplomacy is a part of a 4X game, as is empire building. That's just me, though.

[Mezmorki]

I'm responding to a few different lines of discussion here:

I've spent a lot of my time at explorminate and even more so on BoardGameGeek talking about game and genre classification. Many times it is indeed pounding a head against the wall. And unlike many other creative fields, there isn't really an authority (yet) on game classification.

But the mere act of trying to classify games or discuss classification systems is opportunity to learn. I don't have any expectation of arriving at a perfect answer or solution, but the attempt of trying to find one becomes its own insightful journey. Ergo, I never belittle the efforts at classification because it's about collective discovery and discourse, at least for the participants that engage in the conversation in good faith.

Regarding 4X games - I think the six-point system I wrote up a while ago (more specifically the refined version that evolved out of the conversation and I've yet to formally write up) does an excellent job defining specifically a "traditional 4X" game, and the system can be used to gauge how near/far other games are to that traditional 4X game benchmark. (Edit: empire building and diplomacy is a core part of the traditional 4X genre IMHO - so I'm there with you Rob!)

One observation is that in common usage "4X" doesn't really work that well on its own without qualifiers. A lot of games get thrown under the 4X moniker and the genre is getting pretty diverse at this point, especially when you consider the pool off 4X adjacent games like grand strategy or total war or Gladius.

It's like telling someone a game is a FPS game. It's an enormous genre and there is a huge range of games within that umbrella. Hence you get FPS... arena shooters, MP team-based games, single player, survival games, battle royale, cooperative FPS, etc... Same with 4X. There are traditional 4X games, war/conquest centric 4X, asymmetric 4X games, survival 4X, RTS/4X hybrids, and so on.

As it pertains to impacts to innovation and creativity. Contrary to some posts above, I think classification efforts can actually support innovation because they draw attention to GAPS in genres where no or few games exist - and by naming these gaps and developers making games to fill them the consumers start to get a sense of what sort of game they are getting.

It's all about telegraphing expectations as a designer. If you sell your game as a vaguely-defined "4X" people will criticize it for "missing features XYZ this game is trash, rant rant rant...". If it's presented more clearly and its genre/gameplay devices are communicated more carefully, I'll think gamers will approach it with more aligned expectations and it will head off some of the criticisms.

Regarding RTS games - I do think "traditional" RTS games (war/star-craft, C&C, dawn of war etc) have a pretty distinct and clear gameplay structure or arc. If gladius were real-time, I think it would be a shoe-in for the 4X-RTS hybrid label - but this one just happens to still be turn based, but still has the pacing and feel of an RTS game in many ways still.

All of this sort of underscores my point, which is that efforts to think creatively and differently about classification opens up lines of discussion and insight. Such as what we're having right here.

[Nasarog]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Marfig:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Nasarog:

Well, in the Warhammer Universe, there is no diplomacy. Not really if you think about it. Diplomacy is one of the biggest failure of most 4X, so, Gladius just eliminated it.

Sorry, but Diplomacy is not related to 4x.

4x doesn't define diplomacy in any of its terms. Diplomacy would at best be a part of Extermination but extermination is not defined by it. At all! There is nothing about diplomacy in 4x definition. You can have it or not. Traditionally 4x games added it as a game mechanic. But you can easily conceive the thought of a full 4x game without any diplomacy; i.e. everyone is an enemy of everyone else, or everyone is neutral to everyone else until they attack. Funny enough that's how many players play 4x games. Exactly because diplomacy sucks.

What Gladius removed that is meaningful to 4x is the eXploitation part of it. Resource gathering and managing. That's it! There is no RTS magic in this game... My jaw is just on the floor trying to understand what the heck is going on in that Discord group.

I always figured that Diplomacy is part eXploit and part eXterminate.

[Mezmorki]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Marfig:

Sorry, but Diplomacy is not related to 4x.

4x doesn't define diplomacy in any of its terms. Diplomacy would at best be a part of Extermination but extermination is not defined by it. At all! There is nothing about diplomacy in 4x definition. You can have it or not. Traditionally 4x games added it as a game mechanic. But you can easily conceive the thought of a full 4x game without any diplomacy; i.e. everyone is an enemy of everyone else, or everyone is neutral to everyone else until they attack.

I'd like someone to name me a single 4X game that only and exactly hits the 4X terms (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) and has nothing else tacked on to the design.

The 4X terms provide an incomplete definition, and they have from the very beginning. The defining corner stones of the genre - Civ, MoO, MoM - have had diplomacy in it from the beginning. More over the implicit assumption of 4X games has likewise always been managing an "empire."

The curse (or ahem paradox) of the 4X label is that it's often used way too rigidly on one hand, but on the other people hand wave away stuff that exactly meets the precise 4X criteria yet "obviously isn't 4X." The 4X definition is inadequate - and we should debate what would be a more precise and effective definition, rather than cling to some literal interpretation that wouldn't actually even apply to the overwhelming majority of the games in the genre to begin with.