An argument for no victory conditions

[balmung60]

Feh, there's only one acceptable victory condition in 4X: Total conquest. Even if the game doesn't literally end and say "A winner is you!" when you conquer everything, the game is functionally over once you've conquered everything, and this also applies in Paradox Grand Strategy games. I mean, how much is there left to do in EU4 after a 1-tag WC, other than start a new game?

"Science victory", "diplomatic victory", and "cultural victory" are basically wuss endings.

 

[Harle]

Yes, victory conditions are not something that Paradox should adopt.

Victory conditions exist to give additional meaning/gravitas to an incomplete feature-set. You will notice that 4X games almost universally do two things pretty well: warfare and technology. And you will also notice that 4X games tend to focus their victory conditions on two things: conquest and science. This is to draw attention away from the lack of good diplomacy, politics, development, etc, and reinforce the player for focusing on the stuff that is there.

Because if you were to try to play Civ 5 and set a personal goal of 'be the best merchant empire in the game,' you would inevitably run into a lack of fun/engaging game mechanics and get bored, because there's just not much meat there. And the game would quietly scold you in the form of a low 'victory score' and eventually a loss because some other AI empire completed the science victory.

It's pure laziness, most of the time. Distant Worlds did it a bit better by having race-specific victory conditions, and different ways of achieving general (economy, military, etc) victory conditions, allowing for different styles of play. But I still can't help but feel like they exist to provide an end to the game and prevent it from getting stale, because like most 4X games, there's just not enough content in the end-game to make it worth playing indefinitely.

 

[Harle]

Just to add to my previous post, victory conditions often lead to strange AI behavior. Nothing bothers me more than having the entire galaxy start to hate me in a game like Endless Space just because I have the highest score. Suddenly other empires are throwing their ships and their lives away because my empire is the biggest and the most advanced. Suddenly trade isn't an option anymore, because nobody is willing to trade with me. The scope of the game narrows and narrows until I am basically punished for not finishing my conquest of the galaxy, even though I am playing as a 'pacifist' empire who has only expanded because other empires wanted my systems and they underestimated me.

Because if there is a score, or victory conditions, it is basically a given that the AI will be playing by the same rules, and have the same goals. Which may provide the AI some direction initially, and may prevent the player from achieving their victory conditions too easily, but it also removes (by necessity) the potential for empires that are more concerned with survival, with prosperity, with culture, with diplomacy, with just concerning themselves with their own empire's longterm stability.

I want to see small, economically powerful empires that have no interest in fighting and cheerfully dump money on their powerful neighbors to fight on their behalf in lopsided alliances against an attacker. I want to see large empires that don't automatically want to gobble up their neighbors merely because they want to work toward some domination victory. I want to see quiet, scientifically advanced empires who don't immediately turn that technology onto their neighbors, but actually share it with others and build up a respectable reputation as peaceful and helpful.

You never see any of that in any 4X game, it's always the same thing. Technology exists to help you crush your enemies. Trade exists to help you crush your enemies. Diplomacy exists to help you crush your enemies. And that is all the AI knows how to do, even the empires whose race-write-ups describe them as peace-loving pacifists are only marginally less likely to turn on you, and that will go away the moment the AI determines you are on a path to win. Because even pacifists want to 'win' the game.

Victory conditions are bad. I don't even like victory scores, let me tell my own story. But if you have to have one, bury it, like CK2 buries it.

 

[Thure]

Just to add to my previous post, victory conditions often lead to strange AI behavior. Nothing bothers me more than having the entire galaxy start to hate me in a game like Endless Space just because I have the highest score. Suddenly other empires are throwing their ships and their lives away because my empire is the biggest and the most advanced. Suddenly trade isn't an option anymore, because nobody is willing to trade with me. The scope of the game narrows and narrows until I am basically punished for not finishing my conquest of the galaxy, even though I am playing as a 'pacifist' empire who has only expanded because other empires wanted my systems and they underestimated me.

Because if there is a score, or victory conditions, it is basically a given that the AI will be playing by the same rules, and have the same goals. Which may provide the AI some direction initially, and may prevent the player from achieving their victory conditions too easily, but it also removes (by necessity) the potential for empires that are more concerned with survival, with prosperity, with culture, with diplomacy, with just concerning themselves with their own empire's longterm stability.

I want to see small, economically powerful empires that have no interest in fighting and cheerfully dump money on their powerful neighbors to fight on their behalf in lopsided alliances against an attacker. I want to see large empires that don't automatically want to gobble up their neighbors merely because they want to work toward some domination victory. I want to see quiet, scientifically advanced empires who don't immediately turn that technology onto their neighbors, but actually share it with others and build up a respectable reputation as peaceful and helpful.

You never see any of that in any 4X game, it's always the same thing. Technology exists to help you crush your enemies. Trade exists to help you crush your enemies. Diplomacy exists to help you crush your enemies. And that is all the AI knows how to do, even the empires whose race-write-ups describe them as peace-loving pacifists are only marginally less likely to turn on you, and that will go away the moment the AI determines you are on a path to win. Because even pacifists want to 'win' the game.

Victory conditions are bad. I don't even like victory scores, let me tell my own story. But if you have to have one, bury it, like CK2 buries it.

Eh... who is saying that the AI is working toward victory conditions? Victory conditions only seem to be there to give the player a goal which ends the game. Because the game needs an end. CK2 has an end date. Stella can't have an end date.

 

[TheCard]

Eh... who is saying that the AI is working toward victory conditions? Victory conditions only seem to be there to give the player a goal which ends the game. Because the game needs an end. CK2 has an end date. Stella can't have an end date.

The AI has to work towards the arbitrary victory conditions--otherwise, there's no way to win besides being conquered completely. A game needs arbitrary end goals as much as they need arbitrary end dates (and each make as much sense as the other), which is as much as a snake needs a necktie.
Really, why argue for arbitrary feature "x", and then say that arbitrary feature "y" is too arbitrary?

 

[prismaticmarcus]

The AI has to work towards the arbitrary victory conditions--otherwise, there's no way to win besides being conquered completely. A game needs arbitrary end goals as much as they need arbitrary end dates (and each make as much sense as the other), which is as much as a snake needs a necktie.
Really, why argue for arbitrary feature "x", and then say that arbitrary feature "y" is too arbitrary?

then how is the game to end, in your opinion?

 

[TheCard]

then how is the game to end, in your opinion?

When I get bored. When the people I'm playing decide we've jumped the shark by defeating the alien invasion from another galaxy. When I've killed everyone. When my once mighty empire crumbles at the knees of a rising sun that has taken over. When my species attains nirvana and quits their mortal coil.
Any time I want. But I don't want it to end because the developer tells me "okay, that's it for the game, I'm going to have to cut you off now."
And why does the game have to have an end? So you can say you've beaten it? So you can boast, or brag? So you can race to see how fast it can be done? None of those reasons really seem like aspects most people are going to prefer over a sandbox game.

 

[Nuraihyon]

Eh... who is saying that the AI is working toward victory conditions? Victory conditions only seem to be there to give the player a goal which ends the game. Because the game needs an end. CK2 has an end date. Stella can't have an end date.

CK2 may have an end date, but are you telling me that you have played every campaign until that end date? That no matter how bored you are with a campaign you cannot stop yourself from playing it until you hit that arbitrary "The game is now over!" screen? Because if so, I'd say that the problem lies with you, not Paradox.
I have only ever "Finished" one CK2 game, yet I have played for an obscene amount of time. Why? Because I set my own goals and move on when I'm done with them. CK2 is fairly open and believes that the player can be trusted to have fun on their own. The S.P.Q.R. achievement just says "As the Roman Empire, reclaim the old imperial borders," yet I did it as a Turkish Catholic just because I could. If the developers had implemented arbitrary "win" conditions I doubt I would've enjoyed their games nearly as much as I do; there's a reason I don't have nearly as much time in Civilization V as I do in CK2.

 

[Thure]

When I get bored. When the people I'm playing decide we've jumped the shark by defeating the alien invasion from another galaxy. When I've killed everyone. When my once mighty empire crumbles at the knees of a rising sun that has taken over. When my species attains nirvana and quits their mortal coil.
Any time I want. But I don't want it to end because the developer tells me "okay, that's it for the game, I'm going to have to cut you off now."
And why does the game have to have an end? So you can say you've beaten it? So you can boast, or brag? So you can race to see how fast it can be done? None of those reasons really seem like aspects most people are going to prefer over a sandbox game.

But some people do want an end date! Don't use only your own opinion here...

And the devs don't tell you when the game ends. They give you multiple victory conditions and you can choose. And I'm sure you also can choose 'Open End' or 'No Victory Condition' etc. Most likely there is even a time condition 'most points after x years' etc.

CK2 may have an end date, but are you telling me that you have played every campaign until that end date? That no matter how bored you are with a campaign you cannot stop yourself from playing it until you hit that arbitrary "The game is now over!" screen? Because if so, I'd say that the problem lies with you, not Paradox.
I have only ever "Finished" one CK2 game, yet I have played for an obscene amount of time. Why? Because I set my own goals and move on when I'm done with them. CK2 is fairly open and believes that the player can be trusted to have fun on their own. The S.P.Q.R. achievement just says "As the Roman Empire, reclaim the old imperial borders," yet I did it as a Turkish Catholic just because I could. If the developers had implemented arbitrary "win" conditions I doubt I would've enjoyed their games nearly as much as I do; there's a reason I don't have nearly as much time in Civilization V as I do in CK2.

Let's go away from CK2. I don't play CK2 to the end dates because it got too slow. But I play nearly all EU and Vicky games untill the end date. And really... the 'problem'? Which problem? It's not a problem if people want to play untill the reach the end. Even with Victory Conditions you can make your own goals. And I really doubt that the AI will change depending on the victory condition. We are still talking about Paradox here.

 

[kettch]

And the devs don't tell you when the game ends. They give you multiple victory conditions and you can choose. And I'm sure you also can choose 'Open End' or 'No Victory Condition' etc. Most likely there is even a time condition 'most points after x years' etc.

Not the devs, but the game. Victory conditions are a big game changer. This is not just a minor matter of opinion, but has great impact on how the game would be viewed and experienced by most people. Why has been stated multiple times already. There is a huge difference between choosing your own goals for yourself and setting actual victory conditions: The latter cannot be tweaked, bent or broken at will as your game evolves.
You want to punish those despicable lizards for raiding your convois? Forget it, the 500-year-game ends in just few more rounds. You want to befriend and support those fellow Ewoks you managed to convert to your believe? Forget it, they are gonna complete their 3rd Dyson Sphere soon. You will have to go to war with them or loose.

I guess the point is quite clear. A game usually evolves from the initial idea you had when you started. Victory Conditions are too restricting to always take account of that.

I agree with you on the point of that a good game should have some kind of 'closure'. I doubt that the game necessarily needs to provide that itself, though. If you are completely free to decide, what you want to do and how, you are also free to decide, when you are finished with a playthrough.

 

[Kuschelflummi]

I thought there is a "GAME OVER" screen? After you lost

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I don't mind if there are optional "victory conditions" as long as the AI is not hard coded to some weird behavior because of it.

I want to tell my own story and if the game is designed properly then even total conquest can be achieved and continue playing since all empires fall eventually into new factions. There could be a mechanic that make sure of that, or simply make total conquest almost impossible is another way.

As I said before... victory condition are just arbitrary rules that govern a certain behavior and really is not needed to have fun with a game of this sort. If you need the game to end at a certain point you can just decide when that point is and having the possibility to set those arbitrary rules can be one way so you don't forget about it. But don't destroy the AI to behave out of character because of it. I'm tired of always having to conquer the galaxy or research some tech to win the game, it really is boring. I just want to tell my own story and play the game until I get bored and want to start a new game.

I have never finished a single 4x game or even any Paradox game even once in over 20 years or so... I always quit when I know the challenge is over or my set goals are met... why go that extra mile and all that work just to see the end screen and a pointless score screen. Some people like scores so keep it in for them to brag about... it is not important to one who don't care about it because you set completely different goals that are in complete odds with any scoring mechanism.
I might not crave others territory but live to create friends and share my technology with those I trust. I want to oppose those I view as evil but I don't want to exterminate them, I want to change them. If that is not possible I will have to live with mutual respect to leave each other alone. The mere fact there is a victory condition not suitable to me is always irritating, especially if the AI is hard coded to "win", that make all AI exactly like each other in behavior.

I do understand if a historical game like EU or CK has end dates, they must end sometime because they are historical games and only function within a certain period. But if you don't have that restriction and you can create an endless number of technology there are no reason to actually end the game, most players will quit once they feel like it anyway and you can get your precious end screen if you do.

 

[Milten]

4x Victory Conditions are just a patch for it's usually flawed civilization development model. They give player a choice: which technology should all scientists in dozens world wide empire research next? Better hull or new type of of soil fertilizer? But still both empires should have equal chances to "win", so they introduce "scientific victory" when you discover some uber-mega-technology and all other races just drop their weapons and fall on their knees before your superior scientists.
You can win battle or war, but you can't win history as it always happens in 4x games. That's why Paradox strategies are my favorites and I trust them to finally make 4x right.

 

[Ragnerov]

i dont think people understand that the game NEEDS an end, its not optional or up to preference or want, if they let you play past the end date in eu4, you could not progress technologically, or economically outside of pure randomness, all the game features and mechanics would break down and become unbalanced and the only thing that you could do other then sitting and waiting to be able to make it happen, would be to go to war.

many people have made great arguments specifically at the fact that it would be an arbitrary game ending which is stupid and annoying and i don't want it either, however without a end date theirs no other way to properly balance tech, economical development or progression of any kind in the game, the game time span is what they use to balance mechanics. usually most decisions in grand strategy games and 4x games are... long term and short term benefits or become stronger in this mechanic/segment of the game or this other mechanic/segment (eg diplomacy or trade), this would make the short term benefit option obsolete every time because you can simply go "well wait 5 years or 50 years for this huge bonus, it doesn't matter because i have all the time in the world". when the only thing that could impair that decision is whether or not another player does something to you will be stupid, especially considering that we cant expect the ai to be that competitive.

to put it simply, when time looses its value, everything breaks and becomes unbalanced, because everything uses times value to become balanced.

 

[Kuschelflummi]

I don't think this game will need more than a "Game Over" Screen.

Its quiet simple. The game progress is not meassured in time, but in technologies and colonisation. So, there is acutally a end to the scince part of the game as well as to the colonisation part. BUT Paradox already said, there would be end game disasters. Wich means, even when Tech and Colonisation looses theier value, the game will still be interessting. Also there is a huge pool of techs, so I don't think you will see all of the in 100 hours of gameplay.

 

[Nuraihyon]

i dont think people understand that the game NEEDS an end, its not optional or up to preference or want, if they let you play past the end date in eu4, you could not progress technologically, or economically outside of pure randomness, all the game features and mechanics would break down and become unbalanced and the only thing that you could do other then sitting and waiting to be able to make it happen, would be to go to war.

many people have made great arguments specifically at the fact that it would be an arbitrary game ending which is stupid and annoying and i don't want it either, however without a end date theirs no other way to properly balance tech, economical development or progression of any kind in the game, the game time span is what they use to balance mechanics. usually most decisions in grand strategy games and 4x games are... long term and short term benefits or become stronger in this mechanic/segment of the game or this other mechanic/segment (eg diplomacy or trade), this would make the short term benefit option obsolete every time because you can simply go "well wait 5 years or 50 years for this huge bonus, it doesn't matter because i have all the time in the world". when the only thing that could impair that decision is whether or not another player does something to you will be stupid, especially considering that we cant expect the ai to be that competitive.

to put it simply, when time looses its value, everything breaks and becomes unbalanced, because everything uses times value to become balanced.

Maybe we just play games differently, but I tend to judge these things by my own time used, not an arbitrary number the developers attached to it. Sure, it doesn't matter whether the in-game timer says 5 year or 50 years, but if that's the difference between 10 minutes and 10 hours of waiting, then I would just stop playing because it wouldn't be fun to sit around doing nothing. A game doesn't need to have a screen that says "You are now required to stop playing. You 'won,' aren't you happy?"

 

[prismaticmarcus]

4x Victory Conditions are just a patch for it's usually flawed civilization development model. They give player a choice: which technology should all scientists in dozens world wide empire research next? Better hull or new type of of soil fertilizer? But still both empires should have equal chances to "win", so they introduce "scientific victory" when you discover some uber-mega-technology and all other races just drop their weapons and fall on their knees before your superior scientists.
You can win battle or war, but you can't win history as it always happens in 4x games. That's why Paradox strategies are my favorites and I trust them to finally make 4x right.

i think you hit the nail on the head when you said, 'you can't win history.' i think standard 'victory conditions' are not what everyone wants, but the disagreement is around whether the game should have an End. i think it should. films have an End. so do books. no reason why games shouldn't either.

 

[kettch]

usually most decisions in grand strategy games and 4x games are... long term and short term benefits or become stronger in this mechanic/segment of the game or this other mechanic/segment (eg diplomacy or trade), this would make the short term benefit option obsolete every time because you can simply go "well wait 5 years or 50 years for this huge bonus, it doesn't matter because i have all the time in the world".

Decisions between little advantage now vs bigger advantage later are very common, yes. But usually they do not have anything to do with how the game is limited time-wise.
The hard question is, how much not having the short-term advantage costs you while rivaling someone who does. If you skip those improved mass-drivers and go straight for the BFB, you might lose territory or even get overrun because the enemy has an advantage to you.

Apart from that: Usual 4x-balancing breaks down the moment you leave the timeframe the game was intended for, because the balancing is tailored for that timeframe. I do not see any reason why you cannot balacne a more 'liberal' timeframe.

but the disagreement is around whether the game should have an End.

I do not think anyone here is doubting that a game should have an end. The question is, how it gets decided that a game ended.

 

[Harle]

i dont think people understand that the game NEEDS an end, its not optional or up to preference or want, if they let you play past the end date in eu4, you could not progress technologically, or economically outside of pure randomness, all the game features and mechanics would break down and become unbalanced and the only thing that you could do other then sitting and waiting to be able to make it happen, would be to go to war.

Actually you have it backwards, here. The game would actually trend toward perfect balance, as everyone would eventually have the same technologies (at least in traditional 4X games. Stellaris is doing tech a bit differently so that remains to be seen). And there are some reasonably interesting solutions to these problems anyway, one being iterative technologies, where you can continually research the same technologies in order to improve them over time. Not as exciting as discovering something new, but it does preserve a 'tech lead' and thus keeps things imbalanced (symmetry in the end-game is bad).

I feel like you are using the same 4X game tropes that people are arguing against, in order to justify them.

Pretty much every 4X space game I have ever played has not had an end-date, though many do allow you to set the game to end after X number of turns. An option which has briskly been ignored by me every time I have played. Somehow this has not prevented me from enjoying 4X space games, which I very rarely play to conclusion as according to the victory conditions. Usually I play until I like the look of the map and things have stabilized into peace, because I know the game is going to keep pushing me (and the AI) toward war and I feel like that is disruptive. Or I play until the game becomes a rote 'select next overpowered planetary/system upgrade to build to increase some numbers that have largely grown meaningless.' At which point I consider that to be a victory, much of the time. And I start over.

I don't have a problem with end-points and victory-conditions as long as A) they are optional, and B) the AI is not designed to pursue them in conflict with more rational motivations. I actually do kind of trust Paradox to, if they do victory conditions, do them in a way that isn't terribly disruptive. Which I wouldn't say about many other developers, but Paradox has a history of ignoring conventional win conditions. But I do think that victory conditions provide a framework for how the game ought to be played, and my argument is that the best 4X games don't tell you how you ought to play at all, but provide you with the tools and mechanics to figure out what is entertaining for you, rather than what is entertaining for someone else.

 

[Thure]

Not the devs, but the game. Victory conditions are a big game changer. This is not just a minor matter of opinion, but has great impact on how the game would be viewed and experienced by most people. Why has been stated multiple times already. There is a huge difference between choosing your own goals for yourself and setting actual victory conditions: The latter cannot be tweaked, bent or broken at will as your game evolves.
You want to punish those despicable lizards for raiding your convois? Forget it, the 500-year-game ends in just few more rounds. You want to befriend and support those fellow Ewoks you managed to convert to your believe? Forget it, they are gonna complete their 3rd Dyson Sphere soon. You will have to go to war with them or loose.

I guess the point is quite clear. A game usually evolves from the initial idea you had when you started. Victory Conditions are too restricting to always take account of that.

I agree with you on the point of that a good game should have some kind of 'closure'. I doubt that the game necessarily needs to provide that itself, though. If you are completely free to decide, what you want to do and how, you are also free to decide, when you are finished with a playthrough.

And if one of the victory conditions is 'No End'/'No Victory Condition'? Where is the problem if this is optional? The game needs an end. And different victory conditions are the best way for this. Again... how do you want the game to end without victory conditions...?