What is 4X all about?

[Marla_Singer]

Civilization is considered formative of the turn-based 4X genre: explore, expand, exploit, exterminate. We often come back to these in our discussions and it seems most of us agree that it is very central to the Civilization series. But beyond those four words, what makes the concept enjoyable? What drives players to dedicate many hours in a single game? Is it about growing something? Is it about taking control? Is it about winning? Is it about something else?

Some additional questions to stimulate your thinking:

• Did the Civ series progressively went away from the concept, or does it remain at its very core up to Civ6?
• Should "4X" be interpreted strictly as 4 successive stages played one after the other, or could they all happen simultaneously?
• Are 4X concepts fundamentally relying on board game logic or are they better expressed as a "videogaming" experience?
• Is immersion (the idea to "believe" in what you're doing) important to define the 4X genre or is it a question of a different nature?

Of course any other ideas about the topic are welcomed!

 

[Evie]

I feel singled out by the second question XD

But that said, I did NOT say "four successive stages played one after the other". I talked about a gradual change in focus over the course of the game, from exploration being the main focus of the game at the start, all the way toward extermination (that is, the pursuit of your victory condition) being the main focus in the later stages of a game. They DO overlap, they just usually aren't equally important when they do, and it will be very rare (mostly on Terra maps) that all four overlap at the same time.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I feel singled out by the second question XD

But that said, I did NOT say "four successive stages played one after the other". I talked about a gradual change in focus over the course of the game, from exploration being the main focus of the game at the start, all the way toward extermination (that is, the pursuit of your victory condition) being the main focus in the later stages of a game. They DO overlap, they just usually aren't equally important when they do, and it will be very rare (mostly on Terra maps) that all four overlap at the same time.

Sorry my point wasn't addressed at you specifically. It's true that the talks we had with others grew on me, wondering what do I enjoy about 4X games, how do I apprehend them. Yet rather than giving my opinion, I'm more interested about how people perceive the concept. The question about linearity is interesting but it's not the only one. More broadly, what hooks you when playing a Civ games? What makes you feel satisfied once you reached a certain stage?

 

[Naeshar]

Civilization is considered formative of the turn-based 4X genre: explore, expand, exploit, exterminate. We often come back to these in our discussions and it seems most of us agree that it is very central to the Civilization series. But beyond those four words, what makes the concept enjoyable? What drives players to dedicate many hours in a single game? Is it about growing something? Is it about taking control? Is it about winning? Is it about something else?

The 4X genre may be specified by these four principles, but a game contains much more than that. There is also the theme, in Civ6 it is historical civilization and empire building, in CivBE it is the same but in space, but I like both of them. On the other hand there are other 4x games like Millennia or Stellaris (I guess) which I dont like as much, despite having same theme, yet different implementation.
I dont feel singled out by the question, we are all Fanatics here after all. Personally, I dare spend much time in a game mostly to immerse in the evolution of my civilization, in seeing it progress and go through the motions to do so. It is never specifically only about growing or only about controlling cities and city states. Winning is a secondary goal that stops that immersion, but a goal that needs to be reached. On the other hand losing happens rarely. Either I lose suddenly or know the game cannot be won and leave at the spot. Or I didnt like how it was progressing. So I start new game . Then immerse and slowly get to winning again. Each game is different.

• Did the Civ series progressively went away from the concept, or does it remain at its very core up to Civ6?
• Is immersion (the idea to "believe" in what you're doing) important to define the 4X genre or is it a question of a different nature?

The immersion is important, but in games general. Otherwise we would be powering and min-maxing through the game as if it was StarCraft or Chess, use it as a tool or system. Immersion in chess or RTS games detracts from the experience as a competitive game, which I believe 4x games may be, but usually arent.
Which is an interesting point to comment that Civ series did what it could to increase immersion - better graphics, more realistic research systems, representation of uniqueness and variety in society... I would say that it varied away from the simple game that was Civ1. In no way this means it has gone a astray from 4X principles, but some may think so, given all these other developments. I would say it is still core, but less important.

• Should "4X" be interpreted strictly as 4 successive stages played one after the other, or could they all happen simultaneously?
• Are 4X concepts fundamentally relying on board game logic or are they better expressed as a "videogaming" experience?

I definitely view the 4X as simultaneous principles. The difference to board games is complexity, in that you cannot fit as much of each as in a videogame, both being limited by board space size and actions/time. Videogames allow more actions per player, such as commanding each unit (exploring and exterminating) and going through your cities/resources (exploit, expand), than a traditional board game, more so that board games are usually a multiplayer game where you are supposed to interact with others. While in Civ6 most people play singleplayer (against AI, which goes through turns quickly) and only have to spend time in their actions. This may also be why multiplayer is not as popular, even though the human player turns are simultaneous - even then players interaction is limited, as if we are playing next to each other, but not together. Except in special times, when you decide it is time to win and move your units before enemy can.
Back to 4x being simultaneous: Player is allowed to perform actions according to these principles at any stage of the game. Sure, map exploration is more important early and less later, but you need to lift fog of war later, for example. Extermination is supposed to happen all the time, not just at the end, but I choose specific times. I sometimes expand in waves, utilizing policy cards for that. I think it is also brain limitations or laziness when I dont want to think of a new settler often. There are various way for players to play and use the concepts, but you get to use them in each game. Even if extermination only means stealing all tourist points or getting highest score.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In no particular order . . .

I think the 4X game as we recognize it in the Civilization series is particularly a video/computer game experience. The physical mechanics of board games simply do not lend themselves to handling the complexity of all the 4X experience. The old Civilization board game, for instance, had technological and civic and social advancement, but exploration was impossible since the game board was present in its entirety in front of you and combat was completely abstracted.

I might add that this is one reason why the attempts to use 'board game mechanics' in computer games does not work very well: they are by their nature designed for a much simpler game system and so unnecessarily simplify the computer game. As another board game example, the games that attempted to simulate tactical to strategic battles like the Europa series, which had maps that could cover 6 - 10 square meters or more of surface and thousands of separate and distinct units and rule books thick enough to stop bullets, would actually make a relatively simple computer game: all the complexity of unit movements and movement types, terrain factors and combat factors and modifications to them, are actually less complex than Civ VI! -And again, even a board game of this scope and complexity has no element of Explore because by nature the entire map and most of the units of all sides are physically displayed in front of you, with all their characteristics and strengths printed on the counters.

There's a part pf '4X' that is left out, then, that I think is more important the longer I study the various forms of the '4X game', and that is Complexity. Each of the Xs can be its own Mini-Game: early Exploration, later Expansion and Exploitation, possible (but by no means certain) Extermination. And the game, at least in the Civ series, offers you opportunities to struggle with the complexity in numerous different in-game situations: early lack of infrastructure, in-game dramatic changes in capabilities of units and cities, late game Super Urban maps and technologies: the game can become as many different gaming challenges and scenarios as you desire, and between variations in maps, playable Civs, Leaders, starting situations, rules, Mods, etc you can very nearly never play the same game twice even after 1000s of hours of time in the game.

 

[Evie]

I'd still stand by the concept that Extermination is best understood as a metaphorical reference to defeating your opponents, with the word chosen more to fit the X theme than for precise accuracy. In that perspective, any direct pursuit of victory is part of extermination, and extermination is present in nearly all games.

 

[AffineConstant]

It seems like most every 4x kinda wishes it could be Civ to some extent. The amount of "Civlikes" that have/are coming out recently is amazing. I'd flip the script, "What is it Civ has that other 4x games, whatever that even means, don't?"

 

[Naokaukodem]

possible (but by no means certain) Extermination.

While it's certain that extermination means Domination victory, at least in earlier versions when you had to totally conquer the other civs and not only their capital (not counting the domination of the map in land and population, which Exterminate doesn't encompass), I would add that the bit "Exploit" is a little weak on the side : whatever game you are playing, you mostly will exploit something in order to do something, but especially in Civ, you obviously have to "exploit" your citizens, army, resources, etc. While Exterminate is not always the case, Exploit is ALWAYS the case because that's essentially what you do all the time, so I mean that this term is quite vague.

Also, Exploration is not necessary to the genre, you could very well have no fog of war and the entire map and moves revealed since the start. (to be more on par with the AI, for example)

Also, the Expansion part has been put at a challenge particularly in Civ5, while - I learned lately - your techs cost 5% more per city (which is huge IMO) and limited expansion was encouraged because of harsh happiness system and tradition opener.
As to Civ6, expansion is punished by less outputs and possible barbs spawns, only if expansion is possible. (especially with Gathering Storm and Loyalty pressure which seems absurb to me some times, and completely out of proportions most of the time) I would call it more "conquer", even if conquest is a mean for Expansion too.

That last bit makes me say that the term is maybe not so light : Explore means meeting other civs, Expand means creating new cities out the blue and conquer those neighbours, then you Exploit the conquered populations (in the meaning of nearly "slavery" but not quite, you can be seen as a liberator, a concept to dig maybe, but still having a note of "see now you're working for me, whatever you think of me/us"), and Exterminate is the final step of Exploiting, it is to say assimilate/kill the strangers. (maybe why Genocide is a recurrent suggestion - which would be ok in the perspective of a game to "win")

 

[pokiehl]

I don’t think Firaxis has ever described Civ as a 4x game, interestingly enough.

 

[Evie]

Like I said, "exterminate" I would read to mean "defeat your enemies". Which you do by reaching any victory condition.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I come back to the question about what is making us hooked to a game to dedicate many hours on it. As told by @Naeshar, I think immersion is very central. You're ready to dedicate many hours because you "believe" in what you're doing. He mentioned "Starcraft", and maybe RTS game of that genre are, perhaps, more purely speaking 4X games than is Civilization. What I mean here is that they are really only about exploring, expanding, exploiting and exterminating, and all this in a very short time (compared to Civ). The game is all about doing these 4 phases, with a certain linearity (more so than in Civ), in playing as efficiently as possible according to the rules, like in a sport. The theme, be it medieval, space, fantasy or whatever else, is purely esthetic and secondary. That is not the case in Civilization, the historical theme is very central to it, because there's that question of immersion which matters more.

I also agree that it's the sense of progression which is important in Civilization. In that aspect, it may share similarities somehow with an action-adventure game like Zelda. In both case, you start out of nothing, you're weak and vulnerable in a world you know nothing about. You progressively explore, develop yourself, and take control of your environment in order to, ultimately, dominate it. At that point you feel very powerful, but what matters isn't that feeling of power, but the path you went through in order to reach that point.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Seems like the 4X's miss out on that you can interact with other Civ's in the game. I'd also say the unique abilities of civs were not always connected with having do perform the 4X's.

 

[vorlon_mi]

My thoughts on Marla's questions --
I think that all of the 4X mechanisms are present in each of the Civ franchise games, and important through most of the game. The most successful games in the franchise do address the long historical timeline; both BE(RT) and Colonization were less successful. I would commend Beyond Earth for keeping Exploration relevant throughout the game; trying to find the last expedition sites or biome wonders adds to the fun.
I agree with @Naeshar about immersion; when I'm playing a civ game, I think about the next moves for *MY* empire while lying in bed, trying to fall asleep. I would not say that I alter my playstyle too much to match the civ I am playing. I don't take steps or make decisions that are particularly German, or Chinese, or Egyptian, or Aztec-ish. I will play to the strengths of the attributes of that Civ in that game: Scientific in Civ3, leader attributes in Civ4, unique buildings or improvements in Civ6. But I am invested, emotionally, in pursuing a victory condition, whether it is military, diplomatic, or scientific.

I believe that the franchise has moved CLOSER to all 4 X's, especially compared with the early games. Civ2 (the first one I played) had only two victory conditions. Defeating every opponent really emphasized the eXterminate, in exactly the sense that @Evie describes. The change in Civ5, BERT, and Civ6 to focus only on conquering the capitals served to scale that back. But the eXpand aspect is hugely important in Civ3, Civ4, Civ6, and yes, even BERT. Exploration remains relevant in Civ6, as one tries to find the last few natural wonders or city states. Less important, sure, but still relevant.

Board games are limited in scope, that is map size. Even "Risk" was somewhat limited by the coarse scale of its Terra map. Video games are very good at bookkeeping, tracking all the units on all the tiles, knowing which techs come next, which cultures have expanded, even on maps that are much larger than board games. Some board game mechanics are represented, including negotiations (Monopoly, Catan), drawing random cards or rolling dice, and pursuing a long-term goal with incomplete knowledge (Clue). But the essence of empire building -- whether on our Earth, on an earthlike random map, or on another planet -- is best represented in a video game that can track and automate all of the details.

"Is it about growing something? Is it about taking control? Is it about winning?" Yes, for me, it is about growing something. I love looking at the mini-map and seeing what I've built/guided. Yes, I like queuing up build orders and I dislike being surprised with a declaration of war. The Civ4 war trumpet was/is jarring. Yes, I do want to achieve a victory condition. I have a personal goal to win with every Civ -- achieved in Civ3, amped up to include every affinity victory with every faction in BERT. I'm not competitively interested in multi-player. I'm interested in my personal leader board, in recording those accomplishments.