![]() Also makes the game much more of a challenge without needing to resort to giving AI cheats. Asymmetric starts are just way more interesting than the usual 4x where everyone starts with one city/planet. That’s my fundamental problem with Stellaris. I fully agree, a starting point just like in EU or CK or Victoria or all their other games. Much shorter than normal games, but endless variety and many different challenges. I think having an end-game start in Stellaris with a randomised fully colonised galaxy, existing alliances/fleets/wars/whatever - would be really fun as a sort of puzzle game. It’s still rare to get to play with the end-game toys, though. It has a good idea of when a player has won the game and will indicate this with a victory screen (though of course you can continue if you wish). And there are enough games that go the distance that you should get to experience the end-game pretty frequently.Īs far as 4X games go, Master of Orion (the original) does perhaps the best job of avoiding case 1. Both humans and AI will resign the game when they can no longer see a path to victory. Charting the course of a civilization is a bit disappointing if you never get past knights.įor chess, neither of these is really a concern. Because if you do stop playing you miss out on the end-game content.Because many players don’t like to arbitrarily decide they have won (or lost) and so keep playing even when it’s stopped being much fun.Same with Civilization and it’s descendents, I rarely if ever play the games through to the end as it’s a foregone conclusion. I usually have a good idea that I’ll “win” in EU4 by the 1600s and rarely play past 1700. I think this is true for me in most 4X or grand strategy games I can think of. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |