Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
17 
この投稿を報告する
I am a 32-years-old Transportation Civil Engineer with a life-long passion for Strategy games, going all the way back to the phenomenal (for its era) “The Ancient Art of War” (1984) by Broderbund, which in my opinion has a couple of features that modern strategy games could still learn from, and “Defender of the Crown” (1987). But it was my first encounter with “Sid Meier’s Civilization” (1991) that made me fall in love with the genre and opened my eyes to the infinite potential of Strategy games that has yet to be fully explored in the years since then.
What was to me the most impressive aspect of Civilization was the grandness of its scope, tasking you to lead your people in an epic journey across the entirety of human history! Never before (or since) has there been a more ambitious premise handled with such elegance and clarity of purpose. The game’s tagline – “Build an Empire to Stand the Test of Time” – reflects perfectly Sid Meier’s design philosophy, which focuses heavily on player immersion, and makes them feel like they truly embody the role of an ageless ruler of an entire Civilization. Also, while relying heavily on history in order to define its mechanics, it managed to allow for an unprecedented amount of flexibility in shaping our unique path through it and featured an amazing array of meaningful choices with which we could do so. It is for these reasons that I regard Civilization as something far greater than a mere piece of entertainment and it is these aspects of it that I aspire to replicate in [game name that I’ve been “designing”].
Naturally, I grew up with the Civilization sequels (and spin-offs), which expanded on the game mechanics of the original game, adding mostly depth and complexity but also quite often new and innovative ideas that greatly enhanced the player experience. Unfortunately, I also feel that somewhere along the way some of the “magic” and “soul” of the original was lost, as the designers tried to “play it safe”, or unintentionally disturbed the delicate balance between a Board Game and a Simulation that the first installments had achieved, or severely underestimated the importance of several seemingly extraneous elements for – the always elusive – player immersion. Brief examples of these 3 flaws are:
1) For “playing it safe”: excessive reduction of supposedly “frustrating” situations for the players, even when they were particularly flavorful and created interesting opportunities for interaction and choice-making (e.g. eliminating city disorder due to unhappiness in Civ 4 – which brought a city’s industrial production to a complete halt until addressed - and replacing it with a minor and gradual numerical malus in production).
2) For failing to keep the balance between Simulation and Board Game:
a) Introduction of obscure and complex mechanics whose behind-the-scenes workings are not transparent to the players (e.g. Civ 3’s Resistance mechanic or Civ 4’s Civic Upkeep system) that move the indicator towards the “black-box simulation” side.
b) An increased focus on the “winning conditions” and on “winning the game” in general (even for the purposes of determining the AI’s goals and diplomatic behavior), instead of focusing on the “journey” and encouraging the players to set their own goals and standards of success on top of those provided by the game, which moves the indicator towards the “board game” side (a phenomenon present since Civ 4 but much more prominent in Civ 5 and Civilization: Beyond Earth). This emphasis on gamey terms and behaviors also shatters the illusion of epicness, makes it feel “fake” as well as “smaller” in scope, and greatly hurts immersion.
3) For failing to immerse the players the way the series used to: I’ve already mentioned one example just above, but I also blame the excising of flavorful snippets that were obviously deemed unnecessary, mostly in the name of streamlining the player experience. I do believe that “the devil is in the details” when it comes to immersion, which suffers due to discontinuation of minor elements that may seem unimportant at first glance but in my opinion they aren’t, like the City View graphical depiction, (which was already becoming marginalized even in Civ 2 and absent in all latest titles), the victory and wonder cinematics that are now replaced with still images, the enemy leader portraits (and musical theme) that changed as they advance through the ages, the hilarious FMV advisor council of Civ 2, the global warming “doomsday clock”, comparing you to historical leaders after the game ends and earning a spot at the “Hall of Fame”, heck even the palace that you got to upgrade visually (and had no effect whatsoever) as a reward from your people for being a good leader, plus more such features that contributed to stoking the player’s pride and sense of achievement. A special mention must also be given here to the amazing (and surprisingly detailed and flavorful) printed game manuals of the early installments that the digital distribution era rendered mostly obsolete, unfortunately.
For the reasons mentioned above, I consider the peak of the series to be found at Civilization 2 and Alpha Centauri (in terms of overall experience), though I enjoy many individual ideas and features introduced in later sequels:
.[Note: the above shows where I stand on the age-long argument between a game and a simulation. I believe that both sides of the spectrum feel "wrong" for the 4X genre and that the "golden spot" lies in a very narrow zone in between, probably closer to the game side though. That's why I'm not a great fun of Distant Worlds or Europa Universalis, games that can potentially "play on their own", but I also disagree with designing everything around the winning conditions][...continuing below]
[In the following paragraphs, I talk about a core mechanic of my game’s design, the Social Tapestry]
Weaving the Social Tapestry – 4Xs and Social Factors
This post presents the 4 Xs of strategy game design and discusses their role both in general and also specifically in regards to [game name]. It also introduces the concept/mechanic of the Social Tapestry and the 12 Social Factors (the 12 weaving threads) that it is composed of.
The design goal of the Social Tapestry, the 4Xs and the Social Factors is to create the necessary background (and tools) upon which (and with which) the players can customize their playing experience to whatever suits them best (and pleases them the most). The aim is to create a system that is simple and intuitive but also allows for the maximum freedom of expression while creating the opportunity for impactful and meaningful choices and consequences.
The 4Xs and their Role
Games like Civilization and Master of Orion belong to a subgenre of strategy games that has been known as 4X Strategy Games. 4X stands for eXplore, eXpand, eXploit & eXterminate, four words that quite accurately summarize and engulf the vast majority of actions performed by the players of such games. A common misconception is that the 4Xs represent distinct phases of the game: first you explore your surrounding area, then you expand upon it, you exploit the available resources there and finally you use them to fuel your war machine as you exterminate your neighbours. This point of view isn’t entirely unjustified, as it applies to a great degree to some of the iconic games of the genre, but I personally find that if the 4Xs are reduced to mere sequential “steps” in a very linear – and thus repetitive – path that you always must follow, then you give up on one of the genre’s greatest strengths: that feeling of boundless freedom to choose your own unique way and mould your playing experience to best reflect your personal preferences. Instead, I believe that the correct way to view the 4Xs is as playstyles, as 4 distinct foci and alternative options that the players can pursue at their whim. I’m not the first to make this analogy, but I view grand-scope strategy games (like 4X games) as essentially Role-Playing games, with the only difference being that you play the role of an entire Civilization, instead of an individual or a small party. And the 4Xs can play the role of archetypes -or classes- in RPGs: will you choose to be a powerful warmonger, spreading fear across the galaxy with your unstoppable armadas (the “exterminate” path) or be an economic powerhouse, controlling the flow of resources and money from all around the cosmos? (the “exploit” path) This is the type of flavor and meaningful choices that 4Xs-as-playstyles can bestow upon a strategy game.
It is for the above reasons that while designing [game name] I decided to fully embrace the 4Xs and assign them the most prominent role possible: being the 4 Founding Pillars of the game. With very few exceptions, every aspect of [game name] will be “colored” (literally, using a blue-green-yellow-red convention for each X respectively) according to which of the 4 distinct playstyles it caters to: for example, technologies and structures will be labeled as “exploration”, “expansion” or “extermination” (military) techs/buildings (and some may be a mix, like “multiclassing” in an RPG). Most importantly, the 4Xs are fundamental elements of a core feature/mechanic of [game name], “The Social Tapestry”. But before we get into that I’d like to elaborate a little on how exactly I define each of the 4Xs, what I believe they stand for and which elements they encompass in order to cover the entirety of a strategy game’s experiences.
Dissecting the 4Xs
#1: EXPLORE
The first of the 4Xs, Exploration, is usually the more narrowly defined of the four. For most, it simply refers to the act of geographical exploration, of scouting your immediate surroundings in order to determine the optimal targets for future expansion, exploitation and conquest. And thus Exploration is usually deemed as something only important in the early stages of a game, being utterly disregarded once all the features on the map have been identified. I, on the other hand, prefer a far broader definition of what it means to “explore”: under that label I assign not just physical exploration but also noetic, exploration of the mind. Thus, I believe that scientific research, artistic expression, philosophical inquiry and sociopolitical debate all belong in the domain of Exploration. Additionally, the gathering of information about a rival (intel), can also be considered a form of exploration. Finally, all the aforementioned types of exploration are simply the many facets of the always seeking, adventurous human spirit. Therefore, the first of the 4Xs is nothing less than the embodiment of human curiosity, the urge of discovery and the thrill of adventure.
#2: EXPAND
The second of the 4Xs, just like the first, can also be given a more expansive interpretation than what it appears to be about at first sight. It obviously refers to growing outwards, claiming more territories and colonizing new worlds (horizontal growth), but it is also about progress and development, building up your existing assets to their full potential (vertical growth). Finally, Expansion deals with the logistical difficulties that said growth (of either type) is bound to create, the inefficiency, the instability and the conflict inherent in any large organization or endeavor and it aims to create the ideal conditions and organizational structures for your civilization to thrive. The second of the 4Xs is the embodiment of our relentless drive to improve ourselves and move forward, to make our dreams, our desires and aspirations a reality, but also to impose a semblance of structure and harmony onto an often chaotic and incomprehensible universe.
#3: EXPLOIT
The third of the 4Xs seems pretty straightforward in comparison to the two previous entries. It is naturally concerned with making the most of what the land has to offer, be it raw natural resources and energy or fertile soil suitable for farming. But plundering the land for its riches isn’t the only resource that can be exploited in this way. Your own people are another asset ripe for exploitation, as their hard work and diligence are put to use. And let’s not forget the opportunities arising from commerce and entrepreneurship, where you get to exploit the needs and desires of those that you trade with. Even diplomacy (exploiting your rivals through manipulation) can be said to belong to Exploitation. In other words, the third of the 4Xs is the embodiment of human ambition, effort, cunning and greed.
#4: EXTERMINATE
The fourth of the 4Xs is the most notorious of them all (and to the eyes of many players it is the only one that matters, the true final goal of all strategy games). It obviously deals with power, military might, and its inevitable applications whenever it is yielded against foes usually external but also even internal. It is about the ability to raise and support armies, about patriotism and oppression, security and solidarity, determination and heroism. The fourth of the 4Xs embodies our sense of (civic) duty, courage and bravery, our need to belong to a group and our fear of those who are not part of it, our desire to be in control of our lives and the subsequent quest for power and reliance to might as the only means to achieve that, our demand for safety and the price we are willing to pay for it.
[When I was writing these flavorful descriptions of the 4Xs I was deliberately mimicking the style of a series of articles written by Mark Rosewater, lead designer of the trading card game Magic: The Gathering, about the 5 Colors of Magic, which serve as “the foundation of Magic both in flavor and mechanics, and give the game a psychological underpinning that creates a unique identity”. In these articles, he examined each of the five colors and delved into their philosophy, answering questions about what the color desires, its end goals and the means it uses to achieve them, what does it care about, what it represents or what it despises. He defined each color’s greatest strength and biggest weakness and finally reached some deeper understanding about their nature, such as that Black is not actually the color of Evil or immorality, merely selfish and amoral (so Capitalism is Black) or that White (the color of Order and one that cares about communities and sacrificing the self for the greater good) is in fact the color of Fascism. With the 4Xs (and the 12 Social Factors that will follow next) I aim to duplicate the elegance and the flavor of the 5-color system of M:tG and similarly create a philosophical foundation for the game’s mechanics, not unlike what Alpha Centauri masterfully achieved with its Faction Ideologies, or what Civilization: Beyond Earth attempted (with less success) with the 3-Affinities System.]
[To summarize a bit the above: in my personal opinion, Strategy games are all about "emerging" stories, so they don't need an actual detailed and hand-crafted storyline, or even an elaborate backstory. However, a "philosophical background" of the type described above, is essential to bestow meaning upon those emerging stories and immerse the player in the game's world.]
[...continuing below]
Governments, Civics and “Social Engineering”
One of the more interesting features of the original Civilization game was having the ability to choose between several Government types (provided that you “discovered” the corresponding technology on the tech tree) and also to switch between them at any time by going through a brief period of social turmoil (called “anarchy”). The choice of government had far-reaching consequences, as it impacted many aspects of the game: from the effectiveness of your economy and the level of corruption that you have to deal with, to your ability to field and support large armies or wage offensive wars, among other things. On the other hand the implementation of this government system was far from ideal, mainly because there was very little actual choice involved if you wished to manage your empire in the most effective way: in general, government types that were available earlier (like Despotism and Monarchy) were almost strictly inferior to governments of later eras and sticking with an “outdated” government for too long would only end up severely handicapping you. Therefore, governments were pretty much always chosen in a particular sequence, with the players “rushing out” to unlock and implement the next “tier” as soon as possible in order to not fall behind. This logic definitely contributed to the game’s constant feeling of progression (along with the technology tree itself) and even lent it an air of historical accuracy, but otherwise it could be categorized as a failed opportunity to implement a more engaging and interactive political system.
Civilization 2 took a few small steps towards addressing the problem, by giving some advantages to neglected government systems and making all end-game governments at least good enough to be worthy of consideration under certain circumstances (early game ones were still inferior in all cases), but that was far from the breakthrough that this mechanic needed. And then came the series sci-fi sequel/spin-off, Alpha Centauri.
Free from the restrictions of past history, the way Alpha Centauri handled governments, political, economic and social choices is paradigm: it identified 10 numerical rankings (“social factors”), such as Economy, Efficiency, Growth, Industry, Research or Morale, each of which could take several values, from negative to positive, according to your faction and your social (government) choices. Positive rating represented assets of the society and negative ratings were liabilities. You could modify the values on the empire level through “Social Engineering”, choosing one of several options on each of 4 categories (Politics, Economics, Values, Future Society), brewing your own unique society mixture. Then you could further modify the values on each individual city by the structures built there. The “Future Society” social engineering choices were extremely interesting on their own, as they represented social/political choices available only due to the sci-fi setting, such as a Cybernetic Society or Total Thought Control, but all of the choices were engaging and meaningful, mostly because they all involved both advantages and disadvantages: for example, adopting the “Knowledge” value may have resulted in greater efficiency in technological research but also made you more vulnerable to enemy espionage, or choosing to follow a “Green” economic system may have enabled you to deal with the problem of rampant pollution, but also severely hampered your growth. You had to carefully weigh the pros and cons of each option and also consider the synergy between the 4 choices: will you pick options that complement each other, aiming for example to achieve the greatest positive score in Industry (“Planned” Economy and “Wealth” Value) at the expense of many negative scores in the other factors? Or will you attempt to achieve a balanced political mixture, choosing for example to enforce the “Thought Control” type of Future Society in order to mitigate the negative effects on Public Order (riots and demonstrations and civil disobedience) caused by your “Free Market” Economy? It is worth noting that the game posed no (“in the name of realism”) restrictions on the combination of choices, so it was for example perfectly possible to create that Thought Control Democracy, that Eudaimonic Police State or a Fundamentalist government that values Knowledge and science. Finally, this whole system was used with great success in imbuing flavor and personality in the diplomatic interactions of the game, as friendships (and rivalries) were often based on sharing a common government, value or ideology (or having contrasting choices, respectively).
Alpha Centauri’s “Social Engineering” system managed to capture my imagination like very few other things at the time. I was fascinated by the concept and couldn’t wait to see it expanded, polished and fine-tuned in future installments of the series (or even in other, rival, strategy games). Unfortunately, with one notable but flawed exception, that hope was never substantiated. Civilization 3 simply backtracked to the government system of the previous historical installments and to this day Civilization 4 (and its “Civics” system) remains the sole attempt to replicate and build upon this brilliant idea. This attempt was well-thought and well-implemented, but also lacked the “elegance” present in the original. Gone were the social factors and instead of the 4 categories of Social Engineering we had 5 categories of “Civics”: Government, Legal, Labor, Economy, and Religion. Now, instead of bestowing simple numerical bonuses or penalties (that can be added up or cancel each other out) on the Social Factors’ numerical scales (who then determine the effects they have), each Civic choice’s effects are unique (thus non-cumulative with other choices) and need to be described in text every time. This system does indeed allow for a greater variety of effects than it was possible in Alpha Centauri’s iteration and it makes great use of that flexibility (such as by coming up with different ways to “rush” construction projects: by sacrificing population -forcing the workers to work to fatal exhaustion- if you have the Slavery Civic, or by spending money -paying for overtime- if you have the Universal Suffrage Civic) but it lacks the synergy, as well as the elegant and holistic approach of its predecessor, it feels clunky and harder to comprehend in comparison. Still, there are some brilliant ideas there that are worthy of further exploration. Finally, it must be pointed that the Civic choices (unlike the Social Engineering ones) only come with bonuses and no penalties (with the small exception of their effect on the monetary Upkeep cost), thus the only cost one pays by making a Civic choice is the lost opportunity cost of the choices that were not picked. It is open to debate which of the two approaches is the best but I personally find that Civ 4’s decision to not allow the players to make choices with visible and easily quantifiable negative aspects takes away some of the “edge”, the thrill of making said choices.
Civilization 5 (and Beyond Earth) moved even further away from the type of systems described here, as instead of a toggleable set of choices that can change throughout the game, they opted instead for a system where the players accumulate “points” with which they purchase bonuses (again only positive) that are permanent and unalterable for the entire duration of a game. This system of “Social Policies” sacrifices the flexibility and adaptability inside a single game (the option to change your course mid-flight) for an increase in replayability between several games (as each time you try out a different set of policies). It is apparently a very effective mechanic and it definitely achieves the goals it was designed for, but I hold the opinion that it stands in dire contrast with the spirit and philosophy of the series up to this point and of the 4X genre as a whole. The individual ideas (the specific bonuses) within the Social Policies, though, are once again quite interesting and they practically beg to be utilized in a less rigid framework.
Government-style mechanics have been employed by many other 4X games (though much fewer in recent years, curiously) but none stand out in particular and all are vastly overshadowed by the thorough examination and experimentation of the concept that the Civilization franchise has performed, so I won’t elaborate any further on their implementations.
Now, if you haven’t already realized it, the purpose of this quite lengthy digression was to prepare the ground for the presentation of my own version of a social manipulation mechanic, one which leans more heavily on Alpha Centauri’s version (though it also deviates from and expands upon it) and one that makes extensive use of the 4Xs as its foundations: this is [game name]'s “Social Tapestry”!
The Social Tapestry
Starting from Alpha Centauri’s 10 “Social Factors”, I proceeded to evaluate them, merge some and split others, add and remove or simply modify them and I finally ended up with a list of 12 such indicators (that I also call “Social Factors” for now, at least until I come up with a term that I like more) whose combination I believe is sufficient to adequately define the characteristics of any society, both past and future. The 12 Social Factors (and their assigned numerical values, ranging from -10 to +10 at the moment) describe how a society feels about a series of important subjects, what is its stance on fundamental issues and its attitude towards debatable topics. In unison, they form a 12-dimensional cross-section (and dissection!) of an infinitely complex organism, its figurative genetic blueprints. The 12 Factors are also arranged in 4 groups of 3 and each group is assigned under the banner of one of the 4Xs. We’ll delve into how the Social Tapestry is “weaved” and what the effects of the Social Factors are but let’s first lay out the 12 Factors so that we have a point of reference:
The Social Factors
Explore
- Idealism
- Rationalism
- Empiricism
Expand
- Growth
- Harmony
- Efficiency
Exploit
- Autarky
- Industry
- Enterprise
Exterminate
- Unity
- Control
- Duty
[...and I'm stopping here for now because the size of my posts borders on ridiculous. One last thing I'd like to address is that -in my opinion- the original Civilization (and Civ 2) actually had quite a lot of the "revolutionary" jumps that you've been discussing about: there was the introduction of new (and completely different, not just stat boosts) unit types (aircraft, submarines, city-wall-ignoring artillery, nuclear weapons, as well as paratroopers and helicopters in Civ2), there was Pollution and Global Warming only in the late game, City Improvementa and Wonders that went "obsolete" with advanced tech, forcing you to alter your strategy, game-changing tile improvements like Railroads, brand new situations due to the government types (like Democracy forcing you into peace treaties and causing unhappiness if military units are stationed outside your cities, or Fundamentalism in Civ 2 that eliminated unhapiness and allowed for "total war"). I would like to see more of that of course, but it was there is some form already back in 1991!]
Yeah. I will be taking a deeper read too later on. Right now just did a diagonal one. (Thanks for the willingness to write a comprehensive post on the matter Cyber-Mage).
The thing is you can literally write a book about the genre just by discussing its structure and mechanics. There's something other than passion and dedication behind the fact a place like eXplorminate with its focus on the 4x genre can exist. It shouldn't be a surprise when it becomes evident there is a whole lot to discuss about the genre structure and mechanics. 4x and its derivatives is in fact a deep pool of game design principles that has enough material for a whole book.
Thank you for your comprehensive essay :) Just finished reading it.
I can relate to your experience since I'm of a similar age (36). I also played a bit of Defender of the Crown, plus the other classics that everyone knows (Civ, MoO, MoM, Alpha Centauri). Two other games that shaped my early 4X experience were Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty and The Sword of Aragon. I also played a lot of M:tG and read all the philosophical writings of Mark Rosewater that you refer to (I loved those).
Good points about the immersion of the older games. However, I think it can get progressively harder to "re-immerse" long time players of a series. Also remember that we were kids or teenagers back then, and computer games were a new and exciting world, so we were much more easily excited. I'm a roleplayer at heart though so I always deeply desired and enjoyed everything that the game would offer me in terms of immersion, expression and creativity. That may very well be part of the genre's failings in later years and therefore what new titles should seek to restore. EL makes a respectable attempt at this and though many love it, I personally fail to feel immersed while playing EL. Thea seems very good in this regard but I haven't played it much so far.
If you are to formalize the four X's in a game, you might still want to use different words for them. Though explore and expand are reasonable generic words, exploit and exterminate are more specific in meaning and perhaps too recognizable as being part of this gaming lingo. What synonyms are there? I'll brainstorm a few here, leaving bold those which I would probably pick:
eXplore: Discovery, Intelligence, Exploration.
eXpand: Expansion, Growth.
eXploit: Development.
eXterminate: Supremacy, Hegemony, Conquest.
Didn't come up with that many actually. My point is that generic terms would be better. Discovery can better encompass both map exploration and science for example. Supremacy encompasses all means of outcompeting your opponents and reflects a more reasonable or realistic objective than extermination (which isn't really fashionable in 4X these days, most players just can't be bothered).
Bravo on Defender of the Crown.
Funny thing, what I wrote is actually far from being "comprehensive"/complete/covering all the aspects related to 4X (that would require at least 10 times the words with my verbose writing style, lol), but I suppose it is quite "in-depth". And I cheated a bit by copying stuff I've already written and worked on for some time now. I agree that there is so much to discuss regarding the design of 4X (and I've been disappointed that usually those ACTUALLY making 4X games and the journalists covering them seem* to put far LESS thought in them than us "backseat designers" who don't have a chance to see our ideas implemented. *though I could be very wrong in this assessment). Another thing is that wildly different opinions exist among the fans (and the designers) on many core issues, like the board game vs simulation balance, the need for tactical depth, the amount of acceptable micromanagement, etc. Personally, I'm a "builder" at heart (seeking to create the biggest city possible for example, or the one producing record amounts of culture/have all the Wonders, etc.) and a seeker of emerging stories (I've written another long post in this forum regarding my most cherished campaign on Medieval: Total War: Viking Invasion http://steamcommunity.com/groups/explorminate/discussions/0/492378806376382528/#c492378806383784230 ), while I don't bestow as much importance in the "overcoming a challenge" aspect of the games nor in in-depth tactical combat (thus, while I appreciate if the AI doesn't make too dumb decisions, I don't like an AI that "tries to win the game"/tries to behave like a human player - because it reminds me that it is a game and breaks immersion, but would like an AI that has a personality/behavior/goals that make sense INSIDE the game - e.g. the Gaians in Alpha Centauri wanting to preserve nature at all costs even if that isn't the most optimal strategy for a particular game). However, I know that a lot of you have very different opinions (and expectations) than mine and it is a very interesting puzzle to figure out how such diverging views could be reconciled (if it is possible at all).
The argument that "it isn't the games that have changed, it is us who did instead" is a valid one, but I don't think it is sufficient. When comparing most modern games with the now "ancient" Civilization 1* I see so many details that have "deteriorated" in terms of immersion, and this isn't my rose-tinted glasses speaking. For example, in Civ1, you were addressed with a different title depending on the government type you had, you saw your cities visually growing every time a new building was finished, or saw your troops marching through a newly occupied city, saw the rioters or the people parading becaused they "loved the King/President", truly felt the impact of a new tech's discovery (or when your Great Wall became obsolete because the Mayans discovered Gunpowder), got "news reports" that people were starving, or an earthquake/plague/etc. hit your city, and so many more.
*I played Civilization 1 on a Mac. The Mac version was graphically superior than Civ 1 on PC (google "Civnet" if you want to see what my version of Civ 1 looked like)
I haven't been able to get much into Endless Legend either (though I liked Endless Space more) and I can't exactly pinpoint why that is myself, but I think it is a combination of a lot of subtle details that make me feel as if the game is too "small", lacking grand scope. Instead of "building an empire that will stand the test of time" you're playing a more complicated game of Chess or a game of Risk and I only enjoy those types of games when I play against human opponents. From a 4X game I expect it to "sell" me the fantasy of leading a nation through history or through the vastness of cosmos, and it is still possible to do that even though we're not kids anymore.
Thank you for the renaming suggestions for the 4Xs. I've considered that as well, finding the optimal terminology for game concepts is really tricky. If I ever get my project off the realm of fantasy and into implementation I will need to look more carefully at things like this, but for now I'm sticking with the traditional "X" terms.
Thanks a lot for the suggestion Troy, I really appreciate it, but I'm not yet ready to fully lay out my design idea, nor ask for feedback. I just posted a snippet of it here because it was somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand and I'm perfectly content with my posts being read only by those few who have braved the past 120 posts (and my wall of text).
(Underlining mine.)
As a reminder, Alpha Centauri introduced innovations like "Social Engineering"!
Running your empire under, say, Police State / Planned, is quite a different experience than Democracy / Free Market!
No only this doesn't apply to Alpha Centauri with its Unit Workshop and all the very different chassis types and abilities unlocked as you advance in technology, it doesn't even apply to most 4x games!
So, yeah, I already pretty much stopped listening to Three Moves Ahead after the two podcasts about 4X :
302 : The 4X Genre[www.idlethumbs.net]
304 : Star Drive 2[www.idlethumbs.net]
(I've commented on both in their forums.)
Also, it would seem that some people on this thread misunderstood what a part of the article was about :
it's not about having more stories and better narrative in 4X games, it's about the narrative and these stories better integrated into game mechanics!