Some 4X Games and the Origins of the term.

With Amplitude Studios announcing Endless Legend 2 and Civilization 7 around the corner, I decided to write a couple of stuff about some 4X games which I played and also about the origins of the 4X as a genre, which is what we will start. From there, then I will talk about those two game and a bit more. To be clear, while I am curious about Civilization 7, for 4X, my main interest lies in the Fantasy and Sci-fi games, such as Age of Wonders and Endless series, but Old World (which is a Historical 4X) too.

Update:

- I did mention, but add a link to an archived version of very preview of Master of Orion where the term 4X would be coinded.

- Added more links (mostly Steam) to some games mentioned in the list and added two images.

The Origins of the 4X

This is a section which I originally wrote for a piece about Master of Orion 3. The reason begins, that while I played a lot of strategy games, I thought I knew where the term 4X came from… but I start to wonder if that was correct, but turn out it did I got parts of it wrong, so I double or triple checked… which lead me here, I will repeat a couple of stuff from the original post (apologies for quoting myself) with some additions, the idea is also having this part in a more accessible piece. Please note, that while I did my best, I could still get something wrong.

Shall we begin? Again this was written for my blog about Master of Orion 3- https://www.giantbomb.com/profile/valorianendymion/blog/master-of-orion-3/273688/

Also all link will point to Mobygames so you can see images and more info of the said games.

“This (4X) is a term trick term, that you might have heard about, but there is a sort of “children telephone game” effect, that even I got caught on it for a long time, where what you heard isn’t wrong, but is exactly correct either, might be variations of “Sid Meier invented it” or “the Master of Orion games invented it”. But it more complicated.

The source of the term came from Alam Emrich, which in a preview for the Computer Gaming Magazine (93) for Master of Orion I (93), there the term 4X would be coined. The idea was to describe that game as a part of a larger genre to which it would belong, whose roots can be traced back to board games. Meaning that is possible to retroactively say a game is a 4X.

Autor´s Note: I was able to find the actual text - https://archive.org/details/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_110/page/n91/mode/2up?view=theater . I put the image below.

Depending on the source (all links here will point to Mobygames), the actual first 4X (even before the term), would be Reach for the Stars (1983) but I found mentions (again depending on the source) to other potential candidates such as Galaxy (aka Galactic Empires, 1979), Andromeda Conquest (1982), Cosmic Balance II (1983), because they would feature elements which later would be associated with the genre. There is also the board game Stellar Conquest, released in 1974, would feature elements associated with the 4X genre (for more info, https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1708/stellar-conquest) and in 1980 Avalon Hill would release the board game Civilization (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/71/civilization) which would be very influential.”

With origins covered, we got a clearer sight: the genre, already existed with ties to boardgames, but the term came later, but now, let’s go to what it actually means:

“So, what exactly is a 4X game? Well, its 4X stand for: “eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate”, but that this means? In general, is you have a set number of players in a map (often covered in a fog of war), which they all start in single point, from there they “eXplore”, to claim territories (“eXpand”) to use it resources (“eXploit”) to improve them, to then defeat their opponents (“eXterminate), it is a simple, derived from board game, structure.

To quote the original text: "...because it features the essential four X’s of any good strategic conquest game: EXplore, EXpand, Exploit and Exterminate. In other words, players must rise from humble beginnings, finding their way around the map while building up the largest, most efficient empire possible. Naturally, the other players will be trying to do the same, therefore their extermination becomes a paramount concern. A classic situation, indeed, and when the various parts are properly designed, other X’s seem to follow" (Computer Gaming World, 93, page 92)

If it sounds complicated, a simple way to think of it, it is the fact players start from a single point (in other words, players start in symmetrical conditions) in an often empty map, acquire resources and territories and defeat opponents. It is a very board game like structure (remember the original roots) often more focused on direct competition and not meant to be a hyper realistic simulation of something (but it can feel cohesive) and some abstractions or concessions need to be accepted.

Now it might be worth to throw another word you might be heard about, but come more in use much later, the “Grand Strategy” as a genre, because the comparison might make thing easier. This term is often associated with Paradox games, and I think it might emerge organically, by both Paradox and its player base using it. But again, kind like the 4X, games which might be called “Grand Strategy” might exist way before that, like some old Koei strategy games.

Unlikely 4X, in a Grand Strategy game, players often start in highly asymmetrical conditions, instead of everyone start from a single point, depending on the game, player might start with anything, from huge empires to small kingdoms, with the rest of the map might be already filled in.

Another way to look, in episode 589, of the podcast Three Moves Ahead (https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/board-game-vs-simulation-style-strategy-games) where they compared the genres of 4X and Grand Strategy, they came with the main idea, that 4X have a more board game like structure, where Grand Strategy is akin more complex simulation, which the player is part of it. By last, another major difference, is that often, while 4X might feature competitive victory conditions (which make sense if you remember the link to board games), Grand Strategy, might not have any victory conditions!

Please note, that there isn’t a rigid definition of both genres, a game might feature the overall frame of 4X, but verge in different ways, like dropping the competitive victory conditions, or being less focused in the military aspect and so on. In fact, in later Civilization games, you can set up the victory conditions to your liking. Also, one isn’t better or worse than the other, much depend on tone, setting, aims and intentions, as both have their own challenges, strengths and weakness.

Now let’s go back to the frame, like I said, in general, in a 4X, players start from a single point and move from there, this is likely the genre greatest strength and it is the greatest weakness.

The reason is simple: the focused start mean that in one hand, because you start small, it is easier to introduce players to game mechanics, there is the exploration element, but it might mean that every start can feel very similar…”

With this structure in mind, now let’s give a look to this list of 4X games on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_4X_video_games), I am going to use it here, because the way it organizes stuff is quite useful and reveal something: Majority of the early 4X games were in the sub-genre of “Sci-fi 4X”, later both “Fantasy” and “Historical” appear too.

If you think about the general structure of the 4X, and remember that the first games were the “Sci-fi 4X”, the whole, player start in a single point (often a planet), move from there and then make contact, make a lot of more sense. In other world, 4X works really well with Sci-fi themes. Fantasy too, as it is not aiming to be “realistic”, works pretty well too.

Note: You might notice that the list splits the Sci-fi 4X in Space and Planet, as the name suggest the first evolves control of multiple planets or stars, while the latter is focused on a single planet, begin the first one, Emperor of the Fading Suns (96, Holistic), but the most well know is Sid Meier’s Alpha Century (99, Microprose)

Now, this leave us with the historical ones, and there, the structure of the 4X can produce some oddities in it themes, but still it can work, as you still can still have an experience which feel narrative cohesive, but you might have to make some concessions and accept some constraints and abstractions.

Sid Meier, might not invent the term, but maybe reinvented the genre, by, while not the first (that would be Incanabula in 84 by Avalon Hill), using historical themes in a genre largely defined by Sci-fi, and more than this, some mechanics and style introduced in Civilization I (91) would be quickly adopted by others, just look at Master of Orion I (93) and Master of Orion II (96). In other words, once you got Civilization, you sort start to see “Civilization style” 4X games, which follow the leader. In other words, not every 4X follows the Civilization model, but once the game released, many would adopt it.

While the way it’s historical themes are featured, like I said, can become a bit odd and act more like flavour, but it still works in an impressive way, because it makes it much easier to introduce players. Since it allows organizing information and progression in a much clearer way, the line between a Spearman to a Tank is a clear one, while in a Sci-fi 4X, tell if technobable A or technobable B is better or worst is not so much. More than this, even the leaders, being historical figures, need no introduction, unlike other cases.

Before we move on, I need to address one more thing, which is kind unrelated, but is important: elements of the 4X can be found in all places, there are games, which don’t appear on that list I just showed you, and you might even wonder why I didn’t mention it, stuff like Dominions, the Warlords series, Heroes of Might and Magic, Total War, and many more. So, 4X as a genre is older that Civilization, and it can be very wide, and not every 4X game is Civilization, but its existence would change the genre.

Some 4X Games

Like in the section above, in some games I will leave a link to Mobygames in some of them, since some are quite old and for easy reference. Sorry if this list is incomplete or out of order. It is most stuff which I planned to talk about, but could not figure when or where. I also not going to list every 4X, since this would make this post way too long.

Call to Power II (Historical 4X)

While games such as Humankind, Millennia and Ara, might suggest a modern history of attempts to take on Civilization, games which tried that already existed.

Call to Power was a duology of games, developed by Actionvision (Yeah, you read that right, once they did try to make a 4X), which were one of the most well known attempts at making a Civilization style of 4X game, I mean the first game even tried to call itself, as Civilization: Call to Power, until the second game, where they changed, due obvious reasons. Since I never had chance to player the first game, in fact the first game is quite obscure, due likely legal reasons due to the name (the second game was spared by the title change), I will focus on the second, which I played.

Call to Power II, would be released in 2000, only one year before Civilization III (2001), in a certain way, it was both an attempt to fix criticism about the first game and likely a direct attempt to hit some ideas which Civilization III was aiming, but before it.

The end result was… a bit strange, almost disjointed, sometimes feel like is throwing darts and seeing what stuck or not, since it can’t take a lane, it was trying to be serious or not? Because you got Lawyers as an actual unit, but also, Slavers too, and Eco Terrorists too, and later you got Spider-like Giant Robots as a unit… late game didn’t involve going to space, but under the sea… Even wonders would go from things like the Forbidden Palace to concepts, such Emancipation, but also somewhat sci-fi ones, such as All Seeing AI, which maybe could turn against you… and other ones which appear inspired by Alpha Century.

Battles and armies featured some quite cleaver ideas, first you could group units in an army, something which Call to Power did first (I mean before Civilization), but not only this, unit would have roles, like frontline, flanks and rear. In battles, you watch in a separate screen where up to twelve units in each site fight. Dynamic frontiers would show up first here (again, in comparison with Civilization), however, while I think there was diplomatic agreement for frontiers, AI often just ignore it and put cities all over the place.

One of this curious decisions, how they handle factions, you got around 40 Civilizations and you can even create your own… however… they were just a name and a leader name, that is it, no special ability or unit, no sprite or 3d model, not even unique units, no personality, no unique dialogue or anything. The end result was weird, by making every faction the same, it makes all matches feel the same, there is no sense of dealing with different characters, and therefore, in comparison to Civilization III which was right around the corner, it looked less appealing, specially after it was released.

Still, the game was not terrible or anything, I remember spending days play it, often checking the Appolyton site and so on.

Empire Earth Series, Empires Dawn of the Modern World (RTS, Historical 4X)

Not every 4X is in turns, there have been attempt to mix the Base Building RTS and 4X for a while now, such as Rise of Nations (2003, Big Huge Games), and this franchise was one of them. Composed of a trilogy of game (plus two spin-offs), developed by Stainless Studios and Mad Doc Studios, lost a bit of it lustre with each interaction. I am going to talk about, because it is a fun curiosity and while researching it noticed that while I thought I knew the general history behind, I got stuff wrong (mostly that I thought it was all developed by a single studio).

The first game (released in 2001, by Stainless Steel), is maybe the most well known and the own with more unique version, a Civilization style 4X in real-time featuring extreme zooms and a wild range of epochs, from Stone Age to giant robots in the far future. However, there were a lot of issues, which if you watched Mandalore video about the game you might be aware.

The second game (released in 2005, now by Mad Doc), is a bit trick for me to talk about, since it came after Rise of Nations (another one of the RTS 4X), and unlikely the first game, gone where the zoom and robots, it overall felt like way too similar to other games, I remember playing a demo and losing interest on it, since it felt way like Rise of Nations, so I never played much beyond that.

The third game (released in 2007,also by Mad Doc) is quite infamous, missing many of the aspect of the original games, sorry for being unable to say more, but I never played, but reviews will tell you all you need to know.

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World was released in 2003, long story short, was by Stainless Steel, even Rick Goodman, the designer of Empire Earth was back. A spiritual sequel to many of the idea of the first game, such as the extreme zooms, but you had way fewer epochs and factions, but, maybe ahead of it time, they tried something, which we would only see later in Humankind, the whole idea of a faction branching out once hit certain periods, appear here first, but the result is… weird.

There are very few factions, you start in the Medieval period, with England, Franks, China and Korea, which remain as the only options, until you reach World War 1, where these they can change in the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany and France. That was it. Yeah, you can start a Korea or China and then find out there was no modern version of them. Also, as you can notice, gone were all the different epochs. I played this one a lot and it was… fine…

Endless Space, Legend and Humankind (Fantasy, Sci-fi and Civ style 4X).

Amplitude Studios, might have changed the way 4X games featured their factions and story and presentation. It might sound shocking, but for a long time, often due to technical or resource limitations or simple not begin such focus, factions design were often limited bonuses, it didn't mean, however that more complex or elaborate ideas (just look at Alpha Century), it just wasn't that common.I mean, one of the thing which caught me by surprise with Endless Space 1, was that each faction had an intro, it looks obvious now, but it wasn't so much of a thing, many 4X games before might not even list which factions came in their box or store page.

This trend would continue in their next games, specially in Endless Legend and Endless Space 2, which would push the genre of the 4X even further. All of which would make Humankind, their last game under Sega, a bit of a strange direction to take.

Humankind wasn't the first attempt at a direct competition to Civilization, there were other games, but its main different was that you had both customizable avatar instead of leader, and the ability to change which civilization you play as the game progress. While battles and city building were fun, the other aspects didn't work so well, the custom avatar had limited customization and lacked the familiarity, meanwhile the change of civilization were cool, often feel in optimal solutions.

Giving their fantastic work, I am really looking foward for Endless Legend 2, which is also begin published by Hooded Horse (Manor Lords, Old World and more).

Old World (Historical 4X)

With a focus on character mixed with the 4X elements, Old World might be one of the unique historical 4X, it character and their interaction give it a vibe similar to Crusader Kings, while the focus in a short time period, give the game a unique flow, since unlike in a Civ style 4X, you can't fall that behind or ahead.

The end result is a fantastic game, the flow of the drama between the characters and the 4X aspects combines really well. The music is fantastic, and they just announced a new DLC - Warth of Gods!

Age of Wonders (Fantasy 4X) and Planetfall (Sci-fi 4X)

I failed to mention it, but there is a very important Fantasy 4X game, Master of Magic (1994, Microprose) it would be really influential, and many, many spiritual successors would emerge, but of all, the Age of Wonder series is maybe the best. Triumph studios would also, beyond making a fantastic 4X game, often feature some really fun tactical combat too.

Another major feature would be the way you customize your leader and heroes, and later, specially in the latest game, Age of Wonders 4, the way you create and customize your own faction, and this happen as you play the game.

Meanwhile Planetfall would be a Sci-fi 4X (Planet) take on the AoW formula and actually works really well, feeling almost like, to a certain degree, a spiritual successor to Alpha Century in a few aspects even if that was never the idea.

Warhammer 40K: Gladius and Zephon (Sci-fi 4X)

As one can expect, Gladius is a Warhammer 40K 4X but with the sole focus on combat, it plays more like a wargame, as economy while important, isn't the focus, there is no diplomacy. Instead, if all about moving your units, creating frontlines and so on.

The developer have released another game, Zephon, which take Gladius in an original IP and expand it, by adding more economy aspect and diplomacy, all in post apocalyptic with cosmic horror vibes. I plan to pick up this one later.

Author´s Note: I eventually bought Zephon and it pretty good!

Civilization 7 (Historical 4X)

By time I was writing this, reviews where out, sooner that I expected. This meant that I serious thought about removing this section, which was limited to some wonders about what it could look like, and with reviews already out, most of them where solved.

Still, I wondered if this time he ability to change Civilizations at each age work this time ? Humankind tried that, but wasn't the first, way before, there were Empires Dawn of the Modern World (2003) by Stainless Steel, which featured that.

The problem, back in Humankind and Empires, was a certain lack of the sense of emergent narrative cohesion. I say narrative, rather than “realism”, because to be fair, due to the structure of 4X and Civilization own style, there always will be oddities, but the general experience still can feel cohesive.

More than this, the game decoupled the Leaders from Civilizations, creating a mix and match, that can feel odd. This was also an issue in Humankind, but there the problem was that the custom avatars suffered from limited customization and lacked the recognition. And one review pointed that this sort happens in Civilization 7, as the leader don´t change clothes or anything, you might know how it is, but not immediate know what Civilization is begin lead.

Reviews so far, seam divided, but mostly positive, due to those changes and other issues, this isn´t a bad thing, after all, Civilization 7 also features other changes such as how Ages work, now limited to three and each meant to be a more unique experience, so divided opinions isn´t unexpected. Still, I am curious about the game