|
JonathanStrange -> RE: comparison with Armada (3/29/2010 8:23:13 PM)
|
quote:
Armada's races truely play differently than the ones in DW in my admittedly limited experience here (who has had time to play them all?! Not me!). In Armada races have different strengths and weaknesses just like they do in DW however in Armada, how they collect victory points is very race specific. This makes the different races truely play differently in order to win. I'm not sure if everyone really appreciates this fact. I'm not finding this true yet in DW. There's three ways to win of course but it all seems to be based on forced expansion. How much you have to expand may depend on your race such that natural merchants may not need to expand as much to get the GDP goal but all races would need to own the same number of planets to own x% of the galaxy. Some races just are better at it.
I find your mentioning of Armada's idea of the different races victory requirements to be the idea that intrigued me the most when I considered the game: there's this alien race busily engaged in mining a useless resource or those odd creatures extravagantly constructing buildings to satisfy their particular goals and thus forcing 'em to play differently and not as humans-in-disguise. I think I'd have bought Armada except that in seems to generate lots of negativity; and while I can judge for myself, I try to place my "do I buy this game" gambles on games with more devout fans.
Most of the other space strategy or 4X games mentioned I've enjoyed to a great extent - they all have some emphasis that has hooked me for a time. (I'm not going to say I'm a fan of the genre in one breath and then in the next say I hated every space game except some game published 10 years before I was born).
However, Distant Worlds "living" aspect is one thing I've not experienced in this genre - although there are several trading or rpg games that have grabbed me for long periods.
So I'm interested in any sandbox style impressions that amused any of you.
|
|
|
|
