Why this game bores me silly, yet I can't stop playing.
Or why compulsory behavior isn't always fun.
from 
GalCiv2 Forums
GalCiv2 Forums
I've developed a problem with this game since I bought it; I can't stop playing it. The problem is I always find myself thinking around hour 5, "What am I still playing this game for? I've been bored silly for hours now"
While this game, like may 4X games, creates a sense of "one more turn", but I feel it lacking in that I'm not having any fun taking those extra turns. I feel like a crack addict who has gotten to the point where the game just returns me to normalcy, which isn't a very good situation to be in.
The source of the problem -- i.e. the lack of fun factor -- is caused by multiple problems which I detail below. If you think I'm in fact on crack, you can just abort now.
1) Improvements are linear and predictable. Each additional technology doesn't really get you much and what it gets you is just like 45 other technologies in the tech tree. Since technology doesn't change how you play as the game progresses, once all the planets are colonized, each turn pretty much feels like every other.
"Oh look, Lasers V; better redesign all my ships; hmm, didn't really change anything"
2) Too much abstraction. The ultimate abstraction for a game using current UI concepts is a button called "I Win" with no other features other than perhaps a titlebar. This is a reason why I state that usability principles should be applied carefully to games -- but that's for a later discussion. Unfortunately, too much abstraction leads to too little interaction and decision making on the part of the player. If the player ever gets to the point that he or she can simply play in their head, then the game is over.
"They'll take this world, I'll take it back, steal their technology and sell it to my allies/team. That'll pretty much be it for the next two to three hundred turns."
3) No soul. This often happens to "engine" games. Total Annahilation, Dungeon Siege and this game all fall into the category of excellent engine writers, no game designers. Mind you I've played all of these games extensively and bragged about their extensibility and mod support, but in the end they just don't that "Je ne sais quoi" -- they have no soul. Part of creating a soul for a game is making twofold. One making a connection between the player and the characters they are controlling. This is done through characters in the story. Enjoyable multiplayer experiences often expand from enjoyable single player experiences. Starcraft, one of the most famous sci-fi games, had an excellent story that connected the player to the game. There are additional touches like unique music (e.g. Civ IV's Baba Yetu), a good and detailed mythology (e.g. the Warcraft franchise), and communication between things commanded and the player (e.g. "Yub Yub", "Yes, my liege").
"Hmm, I just lost 60 ships. Better build 60 more."
4) Too much symmetry. This is really a combination of 1 and 3, but it bears elaborating. Chess is the example for this. Knights aren't countered with other knights; rooks with other rooks; kings with other kings. The beauty of chess and the reason I feel it's survived this long and has so many devotees is that it lacks symmetry. King side plays differently than queen side. This leads to an inability to abstract and aids in a personal connection with styles of play.
Currently there isn't any reason to pick lasers over mass drivers of missiles since they play exactly the same way. That was a lost opportunity. So I can just choose one at random at the beginning of the game and be done with it and the only reason to pick a different one is because you've adjusted to my first one; though you'll adjust to the second one just as easily.
Good games are incredibly hard to balance and that's why you see Blizzard and other very successful game manufacturers rebalancing constantly. But it's a critical need. No two units in Starcraft are the same and the races play very differently. This has constantly been complimented by the people who play the game.
Orion Adrian
While this game, like may 4X games, creates a sense of "one more turn", but I feel it lacking in that I'm not having any fun taking those extra turns. I feel like a crack addict who has gotten to the point where the game just returns me to normalcy, which isn't a very good situation to be in.
The source of the problem -- i.e. the lack of fun factor -- is caused by multiple problems which I detail below. If you think I'm in fact on crack, you can just abort now.
1) Improvements are linear and predictable. Each additional technology doesn't really get you much and what it gets you is just like 45 other technologies in the tech tree. Since technology doesn't change how you play as the game progresses, once all the planets are colonized, each turn pretty much feels like every other.
"Oh look, Lasers V; better redesign all my ships; hmm, didn't really change anything"
2) Too much abstraction. The ultimate abstraction for a game using current UI concepts is a button called "I Win" with no other features other than perhaps a titlebar. This is a reason why I state that usability principles should be applied carefully to games -- but that's for a later discussion. Unfortunately, too much abstraction leads to too little interaction and decision making on the part of the player. If the player ever gets to the point that he or she can simply play in their head, then the game is over.
"They'll take this world, I'll take it back, steal their technology and sell it to my allies/team. That'll pretty much be it for the next two to three hundred turns."
3) No soul. This often happens to "engine" games. Total Annahilation, Dungeon Siege and this game all fall into the category of excellent engine writers, no game designers. Mind you I've played all of these games extensively and bragged about their extensibility and mod support, but in the end they just don't that "Je ne sais quoi" -- they have no soul. Part of creating a soul for a game is making twofold. One making a connection between the player and the characters they are controlling. This is done through characters in the story. Enjoyable multiplayer experiences often expand from enjoyable single player experiences. Starcraft, one of the most famous sci-fi games, had an excellent story that connected the player to the game. There are additional touches like unique music (e.g. Civ IV's Baba Yetu), a good and detailed mythology (e.g. the Warcraft franchise), and communication between things commanded and the player (e.g. "Yub Yub", "Yes, my liege").
"Hmm, I just lost 60 ships. Better build 60 more."
4) Too much symmetry. This is really a combination of 1 and 3, but it bears elaborating. Chess is the example for this. Knights aren't countered with other knights; rooks with other rooks; kings with other kings. The beauty of chess and the reason I feel it's survived this long and has so many devotees is that it lacks symmetry. King side plays differently than queen side. This leads to an inability to abstract and aids in a personal connection with styles of play.
Currently there isn't any reason to pick lasers over mass drivers of missiles since they play exactly the same way. That was a lost opportunity. So I can just choose one at random at the beginning of the game and be done with it and the only reason to pick a different one is because you've adjusted to my first one; though you'll adjust to the second one just as easily.
Good games are incredibly hard to balance and that's why you see Blizzard and other very successful game manufacturers rebalancing constantly. But it's a critical need. No two units in Starcraft are the same and the races play very differently. This has constantly been complimented by the people who play the game.
Orion Adrian
Stardock Forums