In the first developer diary for Stellaris, there was a comment about how the game will adopt some characteristics from 4X stategy games. This got me thinking about how Paradox grand strategy games (like Crusader Kings) differ from 4X strategy games (like Civilization) more generally.
One of the ways that Paradox grand strategy games have stood out to me is in how they offer an unguided playing experience. In Civilization, I am usually trying to build a spaceship, or conquer the earth, because that's what the game tells me I should be aiming to do. I might do it through primarily military, or espionage means, the exact details are different every time, but ultimately I'm shooting for a goal set for me by the game. In Crusader Kings, by contrast, I try and turn Wales into an ethnically pure fortress, just because I can. If I manage it, by whichever criteria I set for myself (this is very important: only I can decide when I am "done" with my mission), then I again decide what it is I want to do next.
I think this is a huge differentiating factor. A game with victory conditions tells you what things you can do, and then you decide how to go about doing them. A game without victory conditions tells you: just play. You decide what to do, and you decide when you're done doing it.
I understand that not having victory conditions can make a game "hard". Sometimes it's good to have structure, and to know what to aim for, especially when you're new. But for example, Crusader Kings trusts the player to make this judgement for themselves. The game might subtly guide you, with a hint like 'how about starting in Ireland and trying to unite the Kingdom?', but fundamentally the game will never set you concrete goals or tell you when you've achieved them. That freedom empowers the player to decide, at all stages in the game - even to decide for themselves if they are "winning" - and is the main thing that sets these games apart for me.
One of the ways that Paradox grand strategy games have stood out to me is in how they offer an unguided playing experience. In Civilization, I am usually trying to build a spaceship, or conquer the earth, because that's what the game tells me I should be aiming to do. I might do it through primarily military, or espionage means, the exact details are different every time, but ultimately I'm shooting for a goal set for me by the game. In Crusader Kings, by contrast, I try and turn Wales into an ethnically pure fortress, just because I can. If I manage it, by whichever criteria I set for myself (this is very important: only I can decide when I am "done" with my mission), then I again decide what it is I want to do next.
I think this is a huge differentiating factor. A game with victory conditions tells you what things you can do, and then you decide how to go about doing them. A game without victory conditions tells you: just play. You decide what to do, and you decide when you're done doing it.
I understand that not having victory conditions can make a game "hard". Sometimes it's good to have structure, and to know what to aim for, especially when you're new. But for example, Crusader Kings trusts the player to make this judgement for themselves. The game might subtly guide you, with a hint like 'how about starting in Ireland and trying to unite the Kingdom?', but fundamentally the game will never set you concrete goals or tell you when you've achieved them. That freedom empowers the player to decide, at all stages in the game - even to decide for themselves if they are "winning" - and is the main thing that sets these games apart for me.
- 51
- 2
Something like.. "your game ended because life as we kown it ended" or " The AI Revolutions has vansihed intelligent life from the galaxy" Meaning you lost an long endgame War against the Robots.
