At the Game Developers Conference in March I previewed Endless Legend , a fantasy 4X strategy game from Amplitude Studios that is now available on Steam Early Access. I wanted to spend more time talking to Amplitude's creative director, Romain de Waubert de Genlis (above right), about the recent resurgence of the 4X genre and the success of his previous game Endless Space . We decided to talk over lunch with another 4X designer, Daniel DiCicco (above left), who is working on a sequel to his indie success StarDrive . Over the course of an hour we discussed different approaches to 4X design, their all-time favorite 4Xs, what they think the genre is missing, and more.
It's a long, meaty conversation about one of the most complex corners of PC gaming. Read on to join us for lunch.
Wes Fenlon, PC Gamer: To start off with a topic: [Romain], earlier we were talking about you having a really active community for the first version of your game. You guys had that with Games2Gether , fostering that. Let's talk about doing early access to your games and how that influences your development process.
Romain de Waubert de Genlis, Amplitude Studios: Although we've been in the industry for quite a bit, and we're big fans of 4X, we had to look at how to make a 4X. We had some ideas, but what I was really scared about was the balancing in the end. There are so many things. A game that lasts 10 or 12 hours, generally what you tend to do is play a lot of the beginning and polish it, but it's really hard to get the proper data to balance a game through the end. It needs to be interesting until the end. It needs to have stuff coming in that balances out the rest of the game.
That's one of the two reasons why we came to Games2Gether, to make sure that we had people who could help us and teach us how to make a 4X, particularly on the balancing side. On the technical side or the art side, we're not that scared. I wasn't too scared about any of the global ideas. Just the balancing. And also not having people get drawn into the details. It was a mix of that.
The thing is, when you're unknown, you need to find a way to have people that want to share the adventure with you. With that, what we saw in Games2Gether… Let's promise that we can create the game in front of them and include them in the process, so they really are part of the creation of the game. That way, as a player, I would find that a lot more attractive than just playing the part of a witness.
Dan DiCicco, Zero Sum Games: For StarDrive, we didn't have anything quite so formal as the Games2Gether, but we had a similar approach. Including the community early on, saying, we're going to make this game in front of you. The feedback that we got helped shape the game, and it's also very encouraging, to see that people like the first course. Here's what we've made up, here's what we're trying to do. They care enough to come back to the forums and post about it and tell you all the things they like or don't like. It helps me keep going, day to day.
PCG: What changed with the first StarDrive, getting feedback from people playing it?
Dan: There were some major systems that didn't even exist at the beginning. They came into being after people played the game and said, hey, it would be really nice if we could manage the power grids on our ships. StarDrive had this module-based ship construction system, and we added this SimCity-like power management, so you have to make sure all your modules are powered.
I love our community. It has its drawbacks, too. We learned the hard way, every time you engage with your community and tell them about something you intend to do, it's basically treated as an implied promise, even if it's not an actual promise. For me, I screwed up by saying I wanted to do multiplayer, and then decided after exploring the concept further that it wasn't realistic for StarDrive. I made a lot of people mad by doing that. There's a downside to strong community engagement also.
Romain: Yeah, I'd agree with that. For us, what we're trying to do is make sure that we have a scope which is very clear. We want to make sure that the vision is clear to everyone. We try not to go outside that vision.
People can get hurt easily if you say, this is what my game's going to be about, and then you change it. This is also why we didn't want to go on Kickstarter. I had many chances to change the game. The game begins as one thing and it ends as something else. As you make it, the game evolves. Some stuff that you promise at first turns out to just not be fun or interesting or challenging. It's better to kill that and do something else instead. With a Kickstarter, people pay money ahead of time for a feature that's on the Kickstarter. If I remove it, what happens?
That's why we wanted to make sure that we paid for the whole game. When people pay for the game before it's released, before they can play the game, when the game comes out, there's already a contract between them and the creator. But we did have some stuff that we kind of promised. Multiplayer is a tricky one. As players and designers, it was awesome. Technically, getting more into the details, it was more and more difficult. We'll do it, but it'll be painful.
Dan: A similar concept has been on my mind lately. A lot of indies have chosen to be full-on indie, but both of us have chosen to partner with a publisher. To me, the benefits seem obvious. There's a lot of noise out there. There's a lot of games. It's easy to get lost. It's nice to have partners who know more about business. What do you think about that?
Romain: I think our approach is a bit different from yours, because we don't have the same relationship with Iceberg. First, when we decided to work with [publisher Iceberg Interactive], we were already working directly with Steam. But at the same time, we knew that Steam was only 90 percent of the digital sales we could make. We also knew that a boxed version could work out in some territories. We wanted to have boxes. That's why I came to Iceberg. I wanted them to take care of that 10 percent, and the boxes. Also, we asked them to take care of PR and promotion, because again, we didn't have time and resources to take care of that. We wanted to focus on what we can do best. At the same time, we lead the communication at stages.
Dan: My relationship with Iceberg is different, I think. Part of it is the structure of our company. You have 35 guys now?
Romain: And you have one.
Dan: Yeah, I have one, plus a bunch of freelancers. When I started, I hadn't ever made a video game. Here were people who knew the industry. They knew how to get a game to market. If I'd tried to be a completely solo indie, I just might have been lost. I see a lot of indies out there making a lot of success, and I think that can be a bit misleading to people who are trying to break into the scene. They all want to be the big hit, but they don't realize that there's so much more.
It's not just making the game. It's marketing the game. Things like [GDC], where you can meet with journalists. It's been on my mind lately.
Romain: For us, we're able to do more on that side, because we had a lot of publishing-side experience previously. It may come out wrong, the way I say it. But from what I've seen, being on the publishing side, I realized that publishers were probably the worst ones at selling indie games. Each time, I was seeing these games that we were making, and you always had some marketing guy coming in with his own recipe. Which is the same for every game that he ever does. You do a small game, and it's the same recipe as for any other—web advertising, TV if you can. Wait, what if I don't have TV? What will I do? I don't have TV [ads] on this game! I'm lost!
That's why we realized, if we went with a publisher who would lead the communication, again, we'd be on this classical way of doing things. We know that's not the way to do it with a smaller game. We're only aiming at an audience of maybe 60,000. That's what we're hoping for. And they're all over. We have a few thousand in France, a few thousand in Germany, a few thousand in the U.S. Traditional advertising wouldn't reach those guys. We knew we had to find another way. That's why we chose this community-centric approach.
PCG: Let me change topics and ask a super broad question. Why do you love 4X games?
Dan: It taps into that industrious drive in all of us. You look at a game like Minecraft. Why is that so wildly successful? It's because of that human drive to build and to see a reward from our effort.
I think 4X games, set in space, let you be industrious. You can build your empire from nothing and see it grow into this technological powerhouse. Then there's also… It lets you live your space fantasies. I watch all these science fiction shows—Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica—and think, yeah, I'd love to command that battleship. For me, that's the appeal. It's the growth, and then the fantasy of living it out.
Romain: For me, there are two things I love. I love to be able to play a game the way I want to. I want a sandbox. I love that I have some toys to play with. And I love strategy.
For me, when you mix strategy with open gameplay and the toys you have to put together to make your own game, that's where you come to 4X. I think 4X is a representation of those two concepts meeting together. I'm not a big fan of games that are scripted for me. I know that some people love that, to have levels and build up this set of skills to go on to the next level. That's not my cup of tea. I rarely play those kinds of games.
But with the sandbox… It goes back to what we were saying. It's something that fits your imagination. It's building stuff. I have toys. What do I do with them? I can create my own story and put them here and there the way I want to and it all becomes mine.
Dan: I really love to see the after-action reports that players write. They have these elaborate fantasies where they create characters that are driving their ships. You can see their imaginations just going at it.
Romain: Exactly. We re-used some of that. We're feeding some of people's stories back into the game. We love that so much.
PCG: What's your favorite 4X game?
Dan: It's a cliché to say Master of Orion II, but… Let's divide it up. I have space 4X and other.
PC: Yeah, you specifically mentioned space 4X a minute ago. Do you like Rome and Civ and stuff, but just space you like more?
Dan: I feel like it's almost its own genre. It's totally different to me. The basic concepts of building an empire are the same, but I'm living different fantasies. It's almost like saying, what's your favorite, an apple or a pear or an orange? It depends on what mood I'm in. Sometimes Civilization is just the best 4X game, but that's because I want to pretend I'm Hannibal and march my elephants to Rome.
PCG: Not Gandhi?
Dan: [Laughs] Yeah. But then sometimes I want to feel like Admiral Adama, and in that case, playing some Master of Orion II and launching fighters from my carrier, that's the fantasy I want to live. Sometimes I want to be a wizard, so I could play Fallen Enchantress. It's hard for me to pick a favorite. They're all different flavors.
PCG: What stands out about Master of Orion II, if you were going to choose that as top tier?
Dan: The economy and the strategy layer is very well-balanced. It's compelling throughout. There's this menace, the Antarans, who are attacking to provide pressure on you. I like how you get to design your own ships and bring them to battle. That was a big draw. That obviously was a heavy influence on StarDrive's ship design. I just think it's a well-executed concept. It basically hasn't been topped.
PCG: And when did Master of Orion II come out?
Dan: It must have been…1992? (1996, actually! - ed.) I think a lot of us are chasing that dragon a little bit with our space 4X games.
PCG: What about you, [Romain]? Can you name a favorite?
Romain: For me, actually, I would say… I've only liked games in the areas of space and history. I don't think I've found any good ones in the fantasy area. I hope to fix that someday. But that's a difficult one.
I love Master of Orion II, for the space one. Again, it's a game that we kind of idealized for a time. It was awesome when it came out, and for a very long time, I don't think there was anything that came close to it. Although Civilization II was a very good game. When you play the games we do now in space and compare them with Master of Orion II, you find a lot of stuff in Master of Orion II that might not be as good anymore.
For me, I always hated the end of Master of Orion II. I was playing a lot of multiplayer with my friends back at the time, and we were all playing on our own sides. For a few hours we'd keep on going, not saying a word, just playing and playing. At the end, okay, guys, we have to go to bed, so let's all meet here and have the big fight. The best fleet won, and there was no way to recover from that.
Dan: I think it's actually really hard to end a 4X game. It's been a big design challenge for me. You've designed several now. What do you think about that?
Romain: No, I agree with you. It goes back to what we were saying earlier. When you develop these games, you work a lot on the mechanics, and you test a lot of the beginning—the first two, three, four hours of the game. That might only be about a third of the game. If you play a lot of these games, that first third, it's always very good, but even in something like Civilization, after that first third, you wind up with too many things to handle. There's not enough new mechanics coming in.
Dan : The Master of Orion II formula, which is something I'm going to bring to StarDrive as well, has that external pressure. At a point in the game, the game decides it's going to wrap things up, and you ramp up that external pressure. Invasions from aliens. Maybe you're doing the winter thing with Endless Legend. That might be a good way to do it.
Romain: I think that's a good way. But in the end… To me, the only way is to do that early access and get more feedback on the last two-thirds of the game that you don't personally have time to work on enough. It would be great to have more of a tracking system for that. We're too small to have a great tracking system today. But I hope one day to be able to better track how people play the rest of the game—to see when they quit, how they quit, why they do that. For me, also, what I'm trying to do is ration out a lot of the new gameplay elements, to see where we can add a new way to play the game, and try to make sure we don't add all of those at the beginning of the game. I want to spread those throughout the game.
Dan: Paradigm shifters, right? Things that change the way you look at the game.
Romain: Yeah. I'm working on that at the moment. I'm not saying that's going to save it, but… I hope we'll bring some new answers. For me, I hope a mix of community feedback and these paradigm shifts will do it.
PCG: Have you built any information-gathering technology into Endless Legend?
Romain: No, unfortunately. We're too small for that. I hope, before we start our next game, we'll be able to do that. Each time we say, well, we'll get to that at the end, and then you never have the time. That's the last thing you want to do at the end of the process. Next time we'll make sure to get that done at the beginning and keep tracking as we're doing the game. You have to have a server running and accessible all the time.
One day we did some tracking at Ubisoft, for the multiplayer on Dark Messiah, and we made some mistakes. We tracked every projectile that was coming out, instead of tracking which weapon was being used. It was so much data that we just crashed the server. So that was bad. You really need to have some good technical people to take care of that stuff. But once it's in place… Now we have much better tools for that kind of thing, so it's probably easier to do.
PCG: You've both designed about one and a half 4X games now. When you started working on the first one, what did you look at as far as the other 4X games that have been made when you were thinking, this is what I want to do that's unique?
Romain: The weird thing is, on all the games I love… To go back to something earlier, for historic games I loved Civilization IV, and for space, Master of Orion II. But then I have many others I liked. For each one of them, strangely enough, I remember more about what frustrated me, the frustrations I had in these games, than anything else.
By working on my games, I'm trying to approach those frustrations and see how I can remove them. Can I find mechanics to repair that? How can I make exploration interesting? How can I make the universe more immersive? How can I create a sense of continuity in battles and everything else that happens in the world? I'm not just thinking about game mechanics, but also just reducing the distance between the game and the player, and all the tools we have for that. That goes from the music to the interface to the terrain to the game rules.
The problem that you have as a designer sometimes, you tend to have fun creating new gameplay elements. You add and add and add. It's easier to add something than remove something. In smaller, less mature I would say, 4X games, you tend to see this explosion of options. As a player, you just don't know where to click. You get lost in all those elements.
Also, when you're a small company, when you have all these choices, it's very hard to put real meaning behind every one of them. I think the challenge is to be able to reduce your mechanics to a very few ones, and to focus on the things that frustrated me before, the places where I never found satisfaction.
Dan: With StarDrive, I wanted specifically to address ship design. The design of the game sprang up around the concept of modular ship design and having some exciting combat with that. I've made countless mistakes making StarDrive. I was a complete newb when I started.
StarDrive experienced a fair amount of success. We did well. We built a community. I finished it. Now I can approach StarDrive 2 with a much more seasoned viewpoint. My approach to StarDrive 2, basically, I'm looking at my frustrations with StarDrive and trying to address the things I thought were lacking.
Each X in the 4X needs to be important. StarDrive was very heavy on the extermination. Now I'm really focusing on exploration. I want to make sure that when we're exploring this world, there are all kinds of interesting things to see and characters to meet, things like that. Romain and I perhaps had very different points of reference when we started out on our projects. Mine was much more newb-ish. But now I think I have a much better perspective, having been through the gauntlet.
It's cool for me to be able to… Instead of looking at another 4X game and trying to base yourself on that, trying to differentiate yourself, now you're looking at your game. Now I have this template. What am I going to do better or do differently? What worked and what didn't?
Romain: The good thing for you, you don't have to find a common ground with the rest of a team. If you want to do something, you just do it. For me, my first community is my team. Once I pass the test of that first community, I can go on to the real community. Sometimes, you need to negotiate and say, okay, you all hate that, so I'll try to put that aside. But as a designer, you think, I really wish I could do that!
Dan: But you also have the benefit of someone on your team who can say, you know what, that's a really bad idea.
Romain: Yeah. It can go both ways.
Dan: Sometimes I don't make that discovery until much later in the process.
PCG: When Endless Space came out… Has it been a full two years? A year and a half?
Romain: It's about two years, yeah.
PCG: I would have said at the time, that 4X wasn't necessarily a dying genre, but maybe it was a sparsely populated genre. I feel like that's really changed in the past two years. Why do you think that is?
Romain: This may sound overly confident, but I would love to say that we contributed to that. I think, strangely enough… We're expecting, as I said, 60,000 people to play our games. We don't expect any more. But we knew, from the numbers that we had on previous games, that something like Civilization had more than two million players. We knew that the 4X genre always had the potential to reach a pretty big niche. You just need to make a game that can attract more people—that's more open, with its game design and visions, to a wider crowd.
Dan: When I got into doing StarDrive, I had a whole other life going on. It had nothing to do with video games. I chose the 4X genre because I thought it was underserved. I saw Civilization, basically, and it was the only show in town. There hadn't been another big one for the better part of 10 years. Galactic Civilizations 2 and Civilization IV. I knew I wanted it, so I built one, and Romain built one. We figured, if we built it, they would come, and they did. Now there's some more interest.
Romain: When you create a quality 4X, as I think we did, you create more interest in the genre. I think there was less interest in the genre because you only had Civilization coming every three years. Besides that, what else did you have? You didn't have much in terms of quality in the 4X genre.
I think the genre was only dying for lack of quality products in that area. Not for lack of interest from players. Again, whenever a Civilization comes out, you have lots of people buying it. I think there was a lot of immaturity in the way 4Xes were made up to that point. People could satisfy themselves with reaching just a few players, keep it cheap, follow the same recipe.
Dan: I think the rise of the indies contributed to this as well. I'm a perfect example. The ability for someone like me to build a team cost-effectively, using the internet and using powerful tools that are cheap… And then I can bring the game to market without paying tons of overhead costs to put it in a box. That's helped bring a lot of these old genres back to life. You have the new XCOM and things like that.
PCG: What do you think, technology-wise, has contributed to that? I don't know how many people made Civ or Civ II, but if you look back at 4X games made in the '90s, it seems unthinkable that one guy, with a freelance artist and a freelance musician, could make a 4X game. Maybe I'm wrong?
Romain: If you go back to the '80s, there were really small teams.
Dan: That's what Sid Meier did, when he made Civilization. It was a pretty small team. Today, we can squeeze so much more power out of a computer using these tools. Today, on StarDrive, I've built it using Unity. Romain also uses Unity for all of his projects.
PCG: All the Endless games use Unity?
Romain: Yeah. I think we both had more or less the same analysis of the market when we started. On our side, we had Unity. It's cheap and powerful technology. We can now have access directly to our distribution channels, which wasn't the case a few years ago. I need fewer players to make my game profitable. Again, the genre that we loved wasn't very crowded.
Dan: The access to Steam is the biggest. Things may be changing with Steam. There are rumors in the pipeline – I went to the Dev Days conference – that basically they're going to make it a self-publishing type of platform. I can't speak for them, but indications are that it's going to be a very different marketplace in a short period of time.
PCG: They want to get away from Greenlight. They want to advance past Greenlight.
Dan: Even so, those relationships… Unless you're on the front page of Steam, or unless you're on sale, you hardly exist. You have to get… You still need to have a quality product to get those banner placements. That was a huge driver of sales for StarDrive, and I'm sure for Endless Space as well.
Romain: If you look at the traditional way of making games… Let's go back, say, seven years ago, just to make sure we're on the right page. A publisher would spend a lot of money on stuff like advertising in printed magazines. They'd do that in every single region. You'd have advertising in stores. You'd make all these boxes. All that comes out of the revenue from the game that would otherwise go to you, the developer. Once everything's come out of it, you get maybe 14 percent, as an average developer. If you're a big star developer it could go up to 30 percent.
How many millions of copies do you need to sell to get enough money back? And that was the whole point. It was extremely difficult for you to make any money, given where the balance point stood between the cost of making the game and the revenue it could bring in. You could only target big markets, ones that were already known for being big. Everyone made a shooter or an RPG, because that was what was selling. You couldn't do something that was aimed at a smaller niche.
Now all that is finished, with digital communities and publishing and everything. That costs practically nothing by comparison. You can make a great game for those 60,000 people and sell it to them all over the world. Steam, I think, reaches 80 countries? It's not the entire world, but it's a pretty big part of the world. We don't have China yet, which is annoying.
Dan: Steam gives you this map of where you've sold all your games. It's fascinating to look at. I saw that somebody bought StarDrive in the Palestinian occupied territories. One copy.
Romain: Yeah, same here. One guy.
Dan: Probably the same guy.
Romain: Maybe he's an American spy. Now we know where to find him.
PCG: So while you guys are making 4X games—when you're in deep and working on it for a year or two years—do you play other 4X games? Or are you sick of them?
Dan: No, I play all of them. It's research.
Romain: For me, I always play them as research. Sometimes, like StarDrive, I get hooked on them. Hmm, hmm, hmm! I have to tell him to fix that! My kids will come in and say, "hey, dad, come with us!" No, working! Eight hours later it's like, I'm still working! I get hooked on it.
But the games that hooked me on the 4X genre… Not many have been able to do it. StarDrive was definitely one of them. Fallen Enchantress, with the latest additions, I really liked that, but I hated all the previous ones. I think it all came together with those last additions, in Legendary Heroes. I liked it. But you have to play them all. There are interesting ideas and inspirations to find everywhere. It would be a sad thing to make the same mistakes that everyone else is doing. It's better to learn from other people's mistakes, just as we learn from our own mistakes.
The same way, when someone figures out something good, it's good to build on that. It's in our interest, all together, to build on everyone else and move all of our games in a direction where we can get better. If we're not looking at what everyone else is doing, we'll all make the same mistakes.
Dan: For me, playing other 4X games as research, I tend to look for the smaller things. I don't have a lot of experience with things like UI design. It's just seeing how a menu transitions up into the screen and how the elements are arranged. That's the type of thing I'm doing when I look at a game from a research perspective. I need to break it down and understand how they did it, so I can figure out how they did it and at the very least mimic, if not improve on the concept.
Romain: Also, on the code side, you try to figure out how someone did something code-wise.
Dan: Yeah, definitely. It's really hard for me to play any video game now. Only the best video games I can play and not start breaking down, well, how is this constructed? The best ones are the ones where you're so immersed in the world that you don't even think about it. It's kind of a curse, a little bit.
Romain: That's true. We're always focused on what's going on behind it.
PCG: Do you ever go back and play really old games like Civ 1?
Dan: I play Master of Orion II a lot. I was taking a close look at their economy, because I think it worked really well. At least for a starting point on my economy in StarDrive 2, I'm using the same sorts of mathematical figures and formulas. Then I can expand from there. I know what works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just try to improve it a little bit.
Romain: For me, it's the same with video games, movies, books, whatever. When I love something, I don't want to go back to it, because I'm afraid of breaking the dream. The more I liked it, the more true that is. Whenever I see something I loved that's getting a bit old, I want to keep it there. I want to just remember the feelings and emotions I liked from it.
Which doesn't mean I can't go back and look for some pictures, or look at… Like, how did they do the economy at the time? Looking at the Master of Orion economy and thinking, oh, that's how that worked, I remember now. So I can still do that. But I'd hate to say, oh, God, is that what it looked like? God, was that the music back then? It would disrupt my dream.
PCG: Are you going to feel that way about Endless Space in 10 years?
Romain: I don't know if it's the same for Dan, but I played the game for hundreds of hours in development. I think I'm up to 1200 hours at the moment. When the game comes out, everyone gets all excited, and it's just… [deep breath] Let me take a break! At least at the end, I'm playing a lot of multiplayer. I'm not the best one at that. There are always community guys that are way better than me, way faster than me. That keeps me playing some more of the game.
But not so much more of the single-player. The thing that sucks is, when the game has finally become what you wanted it to be, that's when you stop playing it, because you've played it so much. But it's good, that feeling where it's like… You put the last stone on and it's finished.
Dan: It's a good feeling, though, to look at your previous work and have that feeling of, oh, that's not very good compared to what I'm doing now. I'm able to use my own work as a reference point, somewhat. When I look at StarDrive, I'm like… It almost seems amateurish compared to what I've learned since then. I hope that every time I make a game in the future, I can feel the same way about the previous one.
Romain: Yeah, I agree. It's true that sometimes… It's funny. In a way, it's bad to look on the past, because you know that everyone loved something, and the reviews were all great on certain elements of the game… But you look at that element that was supposed to be good, and with a new perspective, maybe two years later, it's like, really? Really? You liked that? Okay…
PCG: Were there some bits of your Endless Space design that you were surprised people liked so much?
Romain: The music? I had people doing development on the team saying they didn't like it. And yet people seemed to love it.
PCG: I liked the music, yeah.
Romain: But until the very end, that wasn't very obvious. It was a choice of style. It had a lot of references to '80s music, old synth music from the '80s. It's very particular. But it worked, and I'm happy about that. Game design-wise, what people liked… There was stuff I wasn't sure about, like the battles. Not everyone loved that. 50 percent of the community hated it and 50 percent loved it. A few people were in between, which was interesting. But I was happy that so many people liked it.
What we wanted to show and prove with that was that the battles weren't at the center of the game. The battles were just one of the elements of the game. You were a leader, not a general. I was happy that so many people understood that. You always want to please everyone, but you can't. You have to admit that you can't please everyone. You want to please the majority, of course…
Dan: In StarDrive, one thing I didn't expect was, I put in some throwaway quest types of things. I had this concept where I wanted to have some events that you could encounter and some quest lines you could follow. I put one or two in there and I thought, okay, maybe this isn't the best. But actually, people really latched on to it, and they were kind of angry that I didn't follow it through so much. Which has really informed my design on StarDrive 2. It was kind of shocking. It took me by surprise. I was like, here's this crappy little thing, and people were like, no, I really like that, give me more!
Romain: It was kind of the same for us with the events we did. We did maybe 10 or 15 events and moved on. We didn't expect so much… For me, the things I didn't like about it… One, it was totally random. There was nothing you could do to encounter it. So I wasn't so sure. It does add some variety to the game, which is interesting.
Dan: I think it goes back to what I was talking about with 4X games letting you live out a fantasy. The events, although they're incredibly trivial as far as design and coding goes… How much they can immerse you into the fantasy, providing more context and giving you a place in the universe. So, lesson learned.
Romain: Yes. That's why we did the quests this time in Legends. In Legends, the quest system is basically an event system. You can go questing, because we know that people want to be more immersed in the game. But for me, it's still too directed. I love just having bricks I can play with.
Dan: I'd like to make some of these features optional. Even some of the hardcore features… There are some features that are non-optional in a strategy game like this. You have to explore and expand. You have to get out there. But if you come across an event and just think, aw, I don't want to deal with this, usually I just let them have a way out.
Romain: Yeah. You should be able to go and do something else.
PCG: When you're designing a game, how much of the design are you trying to pull straight from your own interests? I love this in a 4X. I love being able to do whatever and not have anything scripted. How do you balance that versus what you think might make for a better game for people who have different opinions? How much of it is kind of the auteur theory versus working together.
Romain: It's interesting. It's true that we're working on the game all together. This is a deal I'm making with the players. In the end, I can't forget that. I'm not just making this game for me. I'm making it for the community, for all the players. But I have to make sure that I define the limits, the constraints. We'll never go here, we'll never go there. As long as… I have my babies here. I have stuff that I want to keep and follow and see growing.
I also get those kinds of seeds from the community, and I'll make sure to grow them with them. They'll teach me. I'll learn from them. Having to adapt to that is a good thing in the end. The thing is, a lot of these things I probably wouldn't have done at all, like the quest system. If I didn't know there were such big expectations for it. But it pushed me to do it in a way where… If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it in the right way, what I believe is the way to go. That pushes me to be creative around something I didn't expect to do at all. You become even more creative that way.
I'm making sure that every quest is a sandbox quest. It's not just, pick up this sword and go kill that demon in so many turns, where it's all scripted out for you and you don't make any choices. For me, it's just one big goal for the quest, and it's up to you to find a way. It's kind of a puzzle that you have to solve as a player. And then you use the tools of a 4X to be able to solve it.
Dan: I think it's important for a designer to stay pretty true and consistent with their original vision. It's fine to get input from the community, but it's a tough balancing process to figure out.
Dan: I feel like gamers...If you ask them what they want, what they'll tell you they want is something they've already had. That can be a reality. Sometimes they just know what they like, and so they're not going to advocate, in a community-type setting, for massive innovation. It's our job as designers to try to bring innovation while still meeting their needs.