| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: What *is* 4x?
 Posted: Jul 17, 2006 - 01:12 AM
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
Hi there. I'm a new user, and was impressed by the quality of writing on the front page, and thought I might be able to get an intelligent discussion going.
Of course we know what 4x is! We can rattle each X off, right?
- Explore the map.
- Expand by creating new bases or colonies around the map.
- Exploit the resources on the map, and find ways to increase your efficiency.
- And Exterminate your opponents to win.
Here's the problem.
In Starcraft, you explore a map, moving through the fog of war. You expand by moving towards new resource piles, which you exploit with increasing efficiency thanks to building upgrades. Extermination is a given.
Okay, you say.Starcraft is an RTS. What makes 4X unique is that it's a TURN BASED genre.
Then what the heck is Imperium Gallactica 2?
And, just what does Ironclad Games mean when they invent a genre term RT4X? What makes this an RT4X, while Age of Empires is just a regular RTS?
Let's get passed all the "it's obvious", or "it's intuitive" answers.
What makes a 4X game a 4X game, as opposed to a strategy game that just happens to let you explore and expand across a map, exploiting resources and exterminating opponents in your wake?
What IS 4X? I'm dying to hear your interpretation. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 18, 2006 - 05:37 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 117
|
|
I'm probably the only one who loves these types of discussions. Logically, I should wait to post to make sure I don't kill off the thread, but I can't resist.
First off thank you for the compliment. I aim to please around here. I usually only get feedback when I screw things up. And thank you for starting this discussion.
I would say there are a couple of key elements you're leaving out.
First is scale. 4X games are empire management games. It doesn't matter what kind of empire. It matters that the types of decisions you're making are affecting your whole empire and the balance of power in the game universe. The empire starts small with limited resources, but expands to a size and capability that's orders of magnitude beyond that start. Marines can take out an Ultralisk, but fission era destroyers aren't even going to scratch the paint of advanced dreadnoughts (advanced destroyers are another matter).
Second, to borrow from Douglas Adams, is the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. In a regular RTS, if you win a map or lose a map, it just goes into your win/loss record. It doesn't affect future battles at all. In a 4X game, a border conflict might erupt into a full scale war that wipes you out or might result in a hasty alliance that lasts for centuries. You might fight a battle now for a resource you won't need for ages. Winning or losing a battle won't end the game, but it will change your strategy. Each decision will affect the future of your empire in some way. Sending that scout out might uncover a powerful resource or alert a powerful enemy to your presence. If you go heavy into research early, you might gain a significant edge on your opponents or you might not have the resources to fight an early war. It's sort of like the difference between strategy and grand strategy.
Those pop to mind immediately. I'll keep thinking about it. I don't think turn based/real time has anything to do with it. That could just be me. |
_________________
Cheers,
Hrothgar
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 20, 2006 - 06:56 PM
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
Hey, thanks for responding. I love this kind of stuff as well. I'm glad that you didn't just give me a superficial answer, either. Lots of people are like "well, I guess starcraft is 4X when you think about it", or "well the difference is obvious!" or "starcraft is obviously inspired by Dune 2, which is nothing like civ!"
Interesting point about scale. I find that distinction kind of fuzzy, but then you bring up the example of ultralisks and marines. The notion of obsolesence is a real factor in 4X games, whereas other games like Starcraft that might APPEAR to have each of the 4 X's do not.
What IS the difference between strategy and grand strategy?
PS: I'd love to see you write a full article on some aspect of "What is 4X"? There are only a few articles out there as is:
http://www.rakrent.com/rtsc/html/glossary.htm
http://www.mobygames.com/game_group/sheet/gameGroupId,5703/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/strategic/pc/ |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 20, 2006 - 07:00 PM
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
| Oh, in other discussions I've had... one of the things that came up was the idea that each of the 4X's is inflated to form its own subsystem of the game. e.g.: in starcraft, managing your bases and your military is seamless. whereas in civ, each settlement gets its own management screen, and there's even a special screen for empire-wide settings. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 21, 2006 - 06:16 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 117
|
|
Strategy vs Grand Strategy
Simply put, strategy asks can I win this battle with the resources I have available?
Grand Strategy asks with the resources I can dedicate to this battle, can fighting it (win or lose) help me win the war?
Let's look at Rome TW quickly. Tactics is the art of maximizing the effectiveness of whatever troops you have on the field of battle. Strategy is getting the right mix of troops, supplies and leaders to the battle at the right time. Grand Strategy is putting together the empire that produces those troops, supplies and leaders while choosing your friends and enemies and battles.
As for inflating subsystems, I wouldn't tie it to the user interface, but the rest ties back to what I was trying to say about scale.
I am working on my "4X made easy" project, but it's a back burner and gets time when it's available. I'm not adverse to help though. |
_________________
Cheers,
Hrothgar
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 21, 2006 - 05:17 PM
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
Very interesting stuff. It's the difference between a chief and a president, or a Major and a General.
Couldn't you say that a game like Starcraft has elements of Grand Strategy? Often, you can devote resources to a battle that won't win the battle, but might win the war.
I've read about your 4X made easy project. Some general strategies for winning 4X games sounds interesting in principle, but I honestly can't think of too many ideas that apply across the board. In some games, grabbing key colony locations is really important, but in other games that can make you vulnerable and have disasterous effects on your economy. In some games, chasing military technologies is the surefire way to win, since it gives you the power to take and extort all the peaceful benefits you need. But in other games, extortion is limited, and it's hard to support a military without strong cultural or economic achievements. Sure you could say that some games have one powerful unit type, but there's no general way to say what that unit is for the general 4x game.
To be honest, I can't think of one broad principle.
Maybe I'm thinking about it in the wrong way? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2006 - 05:36 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 117
|
|
I'd actually say it's the difference between a 1 star General and a 4 star.
I'd have trouble agreeing with Starcraft since there's no way to have a meaningful loss.
On the 4X project, I'd agree that there probably aren't universal winning strategies. Fortunately, that's not what it's about. It's about general principles that carry through 4X games. For instance, if your friend, a starcraft player, started playing a 4X game but hadn't played one before, he might ask you for some tips to help figure things out. Even if you hadn't played the game in question, you could give him some general pointers and things to look for. |
_________________
Cheers,
Hrothgar
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 30, 2006 - 07:07 AM
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
This is definitely making some sense to me.
As for the "4X made easy" thing... I'm not sure that there's enough material to make some general strategic comments about 4X. But YOU *could* make it sort of a "What is 4X" and "getting into 4X from RTS", even.
I think you have a better knowledge than I do on the topic, and there's a REAL lack of resources online saying -- definitively -- what 4X actually is. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 10, 2006 - 09:50 PM
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
| Anything ever happen with that "4X Made Easy" article? I'm quite curious. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2006 - 06:11 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 117
|
|
| I haven't gotten a lot of external feedback. I'll clean up the draft I have and post it some time in the near future. It hasn't risen to front burner status so it's still pretty rough. Maybe posting it will give people something to talk about and generate some input. |
_________________
Cheers,
Hrothgar
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 16, 2006 - 03:35 AM
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Aug 15, 2006
Posts: 2
|
|
Famous Q: "What is science fiction"
Famous A: "Whatever I'm pointing at when I say it."
There's no point in wasting too much breath trying to nail down an absolutely precise definition of 4X - the genre's fuzzy around the edges and is getting fuzzier as games like Supreme Commander, Sins of a Solar Empire and Spore wander nearby - and there's nothing wrong with that.
I will add that the heuristic that seems to fit best to me is the presence or absence of random maps. It can be argued that cutting through the fog of war in an RTS, even such a grand RTS as SupCom or TA, is not really exploration - just military intelligence gathering. Contrast that to the Civ/MoO or HoMM genres, wherein any entry without a random map generator to keep it fresh would be laughed off the shelves. The first time playing a strategy map is different, yes, but it's been a long time since I saw what I would otherwise call a "strategy game" with random maps or a 4X without, and an even longer time since I saw one that worked.
Except. Didn't Rise of Nations have a random generator for skirmishes? I couldn't get into it, so didn't play enough to remember. If so, it may be necessary to give it honorary "extremely fast 4X" status. Entertainingly, with the fanmade random map generator this heuristic also means I can make a decent argument for Moonbase Commander as a highly non-Euclidean "action 4X"! By the way, if you haven't played MBC, well, do. Its studio folded shortly after release and it's on HOTU these days, and is one of I think four games about which I've ever told stories to friends. Also one of only two ever to keep me up until dawn. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 17, 2006 - 07:10 AM
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
The random map idea is something I've never heard, but something that makes a LOT of sense. That's actually a very general and accurate difference between 4X games and other strategy games.
Looking forward to the "4X Made Easy" article. I really do think that if you're looking for ideas for content, you need not look further than this thread for inspiration. There really aren't many good resources saying what 4X is (and what 4X is not). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Maximize
