Flies Like A 4X: Legends Of Pegasus

By Jim Rossignol on August 12th, 2011 at 11:26 am.

Spaceships! Better get the most out of pretend spaceships now that we cancelled the real ones, eh?
Kalypso send word that they are going to be publishing a 4X space game by Novacore Studios in Q1 of next year. The description of it makes Legends Of Pegasus sound like every 4X game ever made: “The 4X space simulation will put players in control of the last surviving humans, as they explore space in a quest to expand their galactic empire. Players will conquer and explore an incredibly detailed 3D universe as they use economic, diplomatic and scientific means to expand their empires. Through a deep technology tree, players will unlock new technologies to customize their ships and prepare their fleets for the next alien encounter…” No winged horses to be seen, so far.

But I suppose it might have something neat going on that we don’t know about just yet. Novacore themselves are some kind of German academic spin off from University Duisburg-Essen, so they’ve no previous history of games for us to infer anything from. Feature list below!

- A complete 4X science fiction gaming experience- eXlore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate your way to galactic conquest

- Tactical space combat – featuring a unique mix of turn-based and real-time strategy gameplay

- A realistic, immersive universe – three races and 12 playable factions exist in a living-breathing universe populated by a huge variety of non-player civilizations

- Play alone or dominate with friends – an extensive single-player campaign coupled with a strong multiplayer focus ensure an engaging experience

- Massive customization options – design, build and deploy ships created from research into hundreds of technologies based on an extensive tech tree

- Make it yours – modding options will be available, allowing players to customize missions, maps and more

Might be good. Might be average. Might be poor.

__________________

« | »

, , .

59 Comments »

  1. Sergey Galyonkin says:

    ” last surviving humans … expand their galactic empire”

    Am I only one who sees contradiction here?

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Nice observation! I suppose the humans may rule a multi-xenultural empire but may be becoming extinct… but that is grasping at straws

    • mickygor says:

      Very glad I’m not the only one who picked up on this. I sometimes get worried my desire for a little rigour in lore and science alienates me even from geeks.

    • piratmonkey says:

      That derailed the whole post for me…

    • Gundrea says:

      Mine came when I noticed the typo around eXlore

    • cairbre says:

      I had to reread that sentence a few times to make sure I was reading it right. Then again maybe something has been lost in translation.

    • jokomul says:

      This is confusing to me as well. Hopefully it gets cleared up in time. If not, I’ll be wondering about that contradiction all the way up until release.

    • Bart Stewart says:

      That’s hardly the only contradictory thing in these feature notes. It’s possible the writer was not a native English speaker, and I’m very happy to see someone trying to make a new 4X game, but there’s just so much here that’s confusing:

      - Tactical space combat – featuring a unique mix of turn-based and real-time strategy gameplay

      Auggghh. The words “tactical” and “strategic” are not interchangeable. They have different meanings, which matters when you’re trying to create game mechanics based on those different levels of force application. (The RTS term needs to be stricken from the English language anyway as a misleading oxymoron; if it’s “real-time,” it’s not “strategy.”) To be fair, maybe the writer just means some real-time manipulation of units and/or local resources in battles that occur as a result of turn-based strategy gameplay… but why didn’t they just say something like that?

      - Play alone or dominate with friends – an extensive single-player campaign coupled with a strong multiplayer focus ensure an engaging experience

      If the “focus” is on multiplayer, then how is single-player mode — which I believe is how most people play 4X games — not secondary? Again, maybe I’m reading more into the word “focus” than the writer intended, but I did find this confusing. Which mode really got more development attention? (“Neither” is possible, if unlikely.)

      This might be a worthy successor to the excellent MOO2. Or not. It’s hard to tell from this infodump. Looking forward to more specific details!

    • Ezhar says:

      Damn humans breed like rabbits.

    • aserraric says:

      I think this is a case of the translator taking liberties. The original german press release says nothing about “last surving humans”.

      Also, in reply to Bart: It also makes clear that the whole resource gathering and building part of the game is turn based, and the battles are real time.

  2. Jajusha says:

    Isn’t the name too similar to “League of Legends”, “Kings bounty: The legend”, “Tomb Raider: Legend”, or even “Blood bowl: Legendary Edition”? I see lawsuit material.

    On a more serious note, a new 4X game is always good news, lets wait for more details on this one

    • Richie Shoemaker says:

      Kalypso being in charge reminds me of the hype surrounding Dark Star One, which was to be the spiritual successor to Freelancer and then wasn’t. Thankfully in this case there’s no suggestion yet that Leg of Peg will be the best thing since MOO2

      More space games is always a good thing though. I’d rather play a mediocre 4X than a mediocre shooter.

    • rayne117 says:

      You’re thinking about it all wrong.

      Yeah, not the best way for me to start this post but it is true.

      Notch tried to copyright the word “Scrolls”, Bethesda has copyrighted “The Elder Scrolls” if Bethesda let’s Notch just go right ahead and copyright that very common word (as in, not a pronoun) then Notch could sue THEM.

      Notch shouldn’t have tried to do that. It is very disrespectful and reckless to attempt to copyright a common word. He can copyright something like “Notch’s Scrolls” or “Mojang’s Scrolls” but copyrighting “Scrolls” is like copyrighting “Mana”.

    • Malawi Frontier Guard says:

      @rayne117
      You are talking about trademarks, not copyright. Copyright is given to a creator automatically and is something completely different entirely.

      Please look up what both of those things are, because you are in no position to talk about either.

  3. IDtenT says:

    Direct competitor to GalCiv? I can’t see it winning that one. Unless it has the heart and soul similar to what SMAC had. GalCiv II is full of technical brilliance and therefore an awesome game, but it lacks soul; if you’re going to try and beat it on a technical level then you can just forget about it.

    Edit: Oh wait, it’s competing with Sins? Well, then I couldn’t care. I never really liked it. I hate RTS games for the most part. Unless of course it’s a TBS game in faux RTS clothing, like the Paradox Grand Strategy games.

    • forsaken1111 says:

      Technical boredom more like. Galciv (1 and 2) are not games you should measure anything by. They are snore-inducing exercises in micromanagement and triviality.

    • Rich says:

      Look (from the limited details) more like a competitor for SotS (2).

    • The Sentinel says:

      Meaning, Forsaken, that the Galciv games are clearly not your thing. To offer a counter opinion, I love them to bits. Deeply rewarding on many levels.

    • Nallen says:

      I like GalCiv, I should break it out again. I made the Amarr in it :)

    • Zenicetus says:

      GalCiv2 (with the last expansion) certainly set a high standard in my book. Very tough AI, good replayability with randomized maps, and different alien races with different tech trees and strategies. I know that’s now being done in other games, but they don’t all have that feel of each race actually acting like its description. And it had that mini-game of crafting the visual look of your fleet, which was purely cosmetic but still fun.

      About the only complaint I had with GalCiv2 was the way the races had that typical cartoonish look of a low-budget game, and the amateurish and inscrutable background story of the universe. That series needed a writer, instead of the lead programmer deciding he was going to write the back story (same thing happened with Elemental). If this new game has good mechanics, I’ll be interested. I like space-based 4X games, and there haven’t been many really great ones.

  4. John Connor says:

    Sins of a Solar Empire did it best. I can’t play this kind of game in turn based anymore.

    I really hope they make a sequel to Sins.

    • Gundrea says:

      Yes but Sins had its own problems, namely that it was an RTS rather than a 4X game and it had no campaign.

    • Richie Shoemaker says:

      It was real-time strategy, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t 4X. Not having a campaign is some evidence of that, surely?

      True story: When I reviewed Sins for a now defunct UK PC gaming magazine, I got a call back the next day from the commissioning editor asking me what 4X was. I was mortified.

    • Gundrea says:

      You’re correct. What meant it wasn’t 4x was the fact that there wasn’t any 4x to it. It was Age of Empires in space.

    • MadMatty says:

      Yeah Sins is Command and Conquer with a space background- purely cosmetic, wheras Star Ruler has some spiffing space physics and actual solar systems- its my fave of the 4X clones at the mo, but i suspect SOTS 2 might be good.

  5. Luringen says:

    Reminds me of Star Ruler…

  6. FionaSarah says:

    “Tactical space combat – featuring a unique mix of turn-based and real-time strategy gameplay”

    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF GOD DAMNIT when will people who make 4x games stop doing this shit. Either make a good RTS or make a good turn-based game, the combination has never felt anything other than both ends being diluted and the RTS element especially being shit.

    And unique? Everyone does it and they shouldn’t.

    • Richie Shoemaker says:

      I’m inclined to agree that the combination of real-time and turn-based often ends up in one half being noticeably weaker, but that shouldn’t stop people giving it a go.

      Sword of the Stars was decent enough. Nice and simple too – although if I think back the real-time battles were pretty flat.

    • Wizardry says:

      @FionaSarah: I agree.

    • jti says:

      I think they use RTS battles so much because its easier to hide bad AI in them. When will we get a proper turn-based game? Whennnnn?

  7. MuscleHorse says:

    Hmm, don’t really see it beating GalCiv2 or AI War for me.

  8. PatrickSwayze says:

    2D Spacegames = BORRRRRING.

    It’s like Homeworld and NEXUS: The Jupiter Incident: Imperium Galactica: 3 never happened.

    I will pass.

    Best of luck to the devs though.

    • Rich says:

      Was a huge argument about 3D space strategies in the forum. I was firmly on the “3D isn’t any harder to understand and certainly better” side of the argument.

      SotS is my favourite in this genre. It did 3D galactic strategy very well.
      I’m definitely looking forward to the layered 3D in the tactical combat in SotS 2.

    • Tomhai says:

      “2D spacegames = boring”??
      I’v always been wondreing why would anybody want “… incredibly detailed 3D universe…” in their 4X game? What does 3D add to a strategy game? for me all it does is force you to constantly manage the camera as if it was some “movie director simulator”.
      And “incredibly detailed” usually means a mess of colors which makes it a chore to try and identify things. When will developers stop striving for realism? Maybe your good old FPS-es will be cooler with photorealistic graphics, but 4x strategy games sure as hell dont need that… or is it just me and everybody just loves them some http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/medium/heic0601a.jpg on their screen

      edit: Rich could you maybe send me the link to the thread that you mentioned. Would be interesting to read why people like the 3D so much

    • Zenicetus says:

      I enjoyed Homeworld. Tactical combat in 3D just feels right for space combat (to me, anyway), instead of looking like a chess game where the pieces are just replaced by space ships.

      On the other hand, I think an argument can be made that it’s easier to get a good AI opponent if it’s restricted to 2D. That’s one less dimension to plot potential moves, so theoretically the AI should be better at it. I’d still prefer the look of 3D, but the AI is better in 2D, then I prefer that version.

      As for “striving for realism”….. you have to be kidding. :)

      There’s a lot more to realism than 3D. I’ve never seen anything close to a realistic space combat game, either strategic or cockpit-level. A realistic game wouldn’t have magic ways to dismiss inertia and the lightspeed limit. Ships more than a few light-seconds away would be hard to hit, effectively “cloaked.” And it wouldn’t place all the combat in a tiny area to make it faster-paced and easier for the player. Someone needs to make THAT game, instead of constantly re-hashing all these early game designs that play out like a close-range, WWII air combat game. Grumble, grumble…

    • FriendlyFire says:

      The third dimension doesn’t actually make it any more difficult for an AI. If anything, it makes it easier; most pathfinding algorithms would become insanely fast if you were almost guaranteed to find a path and didn’t have terrain to think about, which is what 3D space is. Homeworld’s pathfinding was never an issue, and the AI was relatively good for navigation. An AI doesn’t really mind the third dimension when most data is kept in abstract data structures that do not figure locations (apart from, sometimes, distance, which isn’t any harder to plot).
      The big reasons put forward are that it’s harder for new players to grasp it, and it’s harder to make a good UI for it (you can make a 1:1 projection from screen space to game space in 2D or 2.5D games like Age of Empires, but you can’t do that in 3D games like Homeworld, so you need “complex” UI designs like movement rings). However, the real reason is that the market for it is way too small; you wouldn’t see competitive Homeworld 2 tournaments.

  9. Ginger Yellow says:

    Last surviving humans in space? Pegasus? Are they sure this isn’t a BSG game?

  10. westyfield says:

    Why is it 4X and not 4E?

  11. NauravaNakki says:

    Can’t really see this beating SotS 2 (only few months b4 release!!) but we shall see. Always nice to have a 4X game though.

    • huw says:

      “Can’t really see this beating SotS 2″

      How can you possibly know?

    • NauravaNakki says:

      Obviously can’t know, just a guess based on the fact that SotS 1 is a great game, and I don’t think they will mess it up in sequel. Also this Legends-thingy is a game from a studio that hasn’t made any games yet, first ones aren’t always the best ones.

  12. BurningPet says:

    When was the last time kalypso published something half good?

    • Hensler says:

      Patrician IV and Tropico spring to mind. And GalCiv and Sins have already been mentioned plenty of times in this thread.

    • Hematite says:

      Threadjacking!

      There’s a big Kalypso sale on steam right now, but which ones are any good? Patrician IV looks nice, but metacritic was unimpressed. Patrician III looks a bit old-school, but it’s under two quid.

      What say you, people of RPS?

    • BurningPet says:

      Both Patrician and Tropico are really, to my eyes, subpar games in their genres. GalCiv and SIns were published/developed by Stardock.

    • Zeewolf says:

      Actually, Kalypso published Sins for Stardock in Europe (and I believe they did something with GalCiv 2 too). So you’re both right.

  13. jalf says:

    “Pegasus”… “Last surviving humans”…?

    And I suppose in the expansion you’ll encounter Galactica, and it turns out you weren’t the last surviving humans after all?

    • MisterT says:

      Given how I generally treat underlings and non-militairy stuff in 4x games, I suppose I would be admiral Cain.

  14. mr.doo says:

    I couldn’t think of a more generic story, they basically ripped off the story of every 4x game since moo1. Fucking lame.

    • The Sentinel says:

      I find the idea of giving a 4X a story quite bizarre. Surely that flies in the face of what a 4X is, a turn-based sandbox for building your own stories in? Maybe that explains how generic it all sounds? Why go to all the troubel of building as universe and plot if the game lets you do all that anyway?

  15. Maxheadroom says:

    While it does indeed sound like every other 4x in the history of 4x there’s something about that screenshot that makes me want watch The Black Hole again.

    I Wonder why

    *Cough* http://liveforfilms.wordpress.com/tag/the-black-hole/ *cough*

  16. Baconberries says:

    All that’s missing from that caption is the ‘sad trombone.’

  17. Nenad says:

    Maybe something like AI War?

  18. Chauvigny says:

    Oh come on… RTS AND turn-based mechanics?

    Just give me the space shooter with co-op multiplayer that I want so bad!

  19. Wozzle says:

    Sounds like Total War in space with some 4X sensabilities.

    Do want.

  20. RegisteredUser says:

    Kalypso: Buggier than Paradox, but without any of the followup support.

    Fail publisher, avoid at all costs(sadly, for many, sunk and lost costs).

  21. Araxiel says:

    Why is it called 4X? Shouldn’t it be X4? As was X3: Terran Something? And X2? And X?

    Are we taking even about this series or is this a new game? Because customising your ships sound awesome! (If you’re really able to customise them, and not just pop in some weapons and modules that are not the least bit seen on the ship itself)

    I beg them to have some decent controls this time. X3 and X2 always annoyed me because it was quite a pain in the a..afterburner to manage all your ships and stations and whanot.