1.  I like the AI (or other players) to be able to negotiate for almost anything, I would love it to notice if a player is just attempting to rip them off constantly, or if one is showing mutual benefits.  I would like to have an AI that could help you out in a war and actually notice there assistance (Such as x player is wiping me out please come to my aid, then you see y player hitting x player hard).  Having an AI notice if you do the last point for them, if you come to their aid have them reward you if they can or if they are calling it quits have them join you.

2.  I love long drawn out games, games that last for weeks or months without getting old.  Something that can adapt and be as interesting to play at turn 10 as it is at turn 1000.  Galactic Civilizations II is this game for the most part, there is some repetitive things that get old at the late turns of the game, however, this is very close to it.   With that being said I also enjoy short basic 4x games that are evenly matched such as moon base commander, not very complex but can fill a half hour of time.  Both examples can be good when need time to fill, I love the long games when I time to sit down and play for hours and then come back to it and continue.  I love the short basic game that can be non-repetitive only last for 30 minutes or so but doesn't get old after you play 50 games, maybe unlocks certain features after x games won or so on.

3.  I kind of pulled #2 into this but, to me the best games out there are games that keep bringing new things into the game, giving you goals to reach for even after a game has lasted for 2000 turns.  The largest killer for any game is a game that you get into and after an hour or two you have reached end game as far as new adventures or new items and the rest of the game, however long it lasts, is just the same thing over and over again.  This is why I love long tech trees in Galactic Civilizations II (wish it was longer or slower to research) or other rewards or special events that exist in other games (none specific).  The largest flaw in games these days is that after a few hours in the game there is nothing new or game play is too small (EA's flop SimCity [2013]).  In my opinion Stardock is thinking large, what can we do and listening to it's players, look at the anticipated mega maps for Galactic Civilizations III and 100 players.  I know a lot of players are very intrigued by this and hope all the bugs get worked out for this to become a reality (which I think you will find a way)  Personally I say why stop there, lets go larger and more players but, I have to be realistic. 

Game types I'd buy jumps outside of the scope of the question and generally adds just games that I'd be interested in...

3a.  4x games that meet the specifications above...

3b.  A tycoon type game similar to Railroad tycoon 2, or Locomotion.  Personally some games in this day have gone away from the basics, keep it simple yet keep the depth, too often (Railroad tycoon 3 or Railroads) try to improve these good games and loose the depth.  Example for those that have played either of these games I would love a tile type game that is huge compared to these games that expand on the depth and game play.  Looking at Railroad Tycoon 2 adding more to the AI, bridges, more depth to the building or city growth or even founding on the map.  Looking at Locomotion and giving you slower city growth and expansion, making it easier to drive the other players bankrupt (as in this game it's nearly impossible)

3c.  A building(tower)/city/planet simulation game (SimTower, SimCity, SimEarth)  EA/Maxis hasn't ever gone back to the basic games that drew the players interest to them with the exception of SimCity.  These three games were great customer builders for Maxis before the merger and EA has lost their focus and depth.  I feel that if a game company out there would revisit these great games they would sell especially if they drew synergy on the other games.  here are some thoughts...  A SimTower type game in a 3D type structure, allow you to build up a tower, very similar to SimTower but allow for one to customize almost anything in the game, such as your condos, offices, hotel rooms, diner's, or any other type of room you could put in the game.  A SimCity type game that takes the great aspects of SimCity4 and expand on it with other ideas such as SimCity2000 network edition, as well as some of the better aspects of the newest SimCity and allowing one to also place the Tower somewhere in your city.  Finally a SimEarth type game where you can build up your planet from a lifeless rock to a thriving planet, again expand on the basic game allow it to grow to a point where you can place your cities into the planet and this gives reward... 

3d.  A tycoon type game similar to Monopoly Tycoon, a more simple game that keeps interest, a game that one can buy properties and build up an empire, looking for more complexity with products and services offered.

All of this being said I'm sure one would have to be very careful not to infringe on copyrights but, these are the games I'm looking for.  I'm very interested in the Trading Company game in which Stardock is associated with in part, however, can't put the budget into it now, and it may need to wait for the release.  Can't wait to see what other adventures Stardock is going to announce in the future.  All the games mentioned above I do have a lot more detail on my thoughts on how these could be great I just painted a basic picture above.  All games I look for are tile based (hex or square) versus free form.

1. Nothing specific just as many options and dialog as posible. Make one thing they are talking to a person.

2. Multiplayer games lasted only a few hundred. Playing alone right now I am at 1000+ and dragging the game out as much as I can.

3. IMHO a good stratagy game would make you think. Work requires about 2% of brain power so do this to think and relax.

I'm going to mostly answer the question about Diplomacy, because it is something that often gets neglected.

First up I like it when there are multiple states of peace and war.

A lot of games it is either complete peace/alliance or outright war.
I prefer a more scaled approach:

- War: little need for explanation. This is actively seeking your destruction

- 'cold' war: This state automatically starts if a 'neutral' factions territory is trespassed or if their units are attacked in non-owned areas. They won't actively war against you, but they will build up defenses in their owned territory. Some more aggressive factions may skip this and go straight to war.

- neutral: both parties are neither at war nor really at peace. They will avoid each others territory but will attack the others ships if encountered in their own, or disputed territory. AI doesn't go out of it's way to attack and tries to avoid contact where possible.

- Non-Aggression pact/ Peace treaty: a step up from neutral, this is the agreement that each party will stay away from the others territory and won't attack the other parties units/fleets/soldiers. If you enter their territory they will attack and counts as you breaking the deal.

- Defensive Alliance: Both parties will aid each other by going to war against anyone who declares war on either party. If you are the one to declare war, a defensive ally is not obliged to join you.

- Military Alliance: This is the usual alliance, You will join in any wars that the other party is involved in and vice versa.


Then of course you add other treaties like Trade agreements, Open borders, share Intel etc.

Another thing I thought was really cool in Space Empires 4, was you could use diplomacy to create 'Federations' which acted like an alliance bloc like NATO.
Member races could attempt to pass 'bills' with things like sharing tech, restricting the use of certain weapons (like biological etc) and so on. It was a pretty cool feature in my opinion.

1. Traditionally? I like the most human-like(human mean non-npc here) I can find, but traditionally I can't find a lot of that. I'm afraid I can't be specific, the diplomacy has to work within the game balance and add further paths of strategy, it's there to enhance the military and economy aspect, if you have no options left you can always go to diplomacy or spice diplomacy here and there. The lasting aspects of it are the game personalities, I can think of Gandhi for that, strong or humorous leaders.

2. About 600 turns, it sucks when you have to micro too many things, early game every move is critical and exciting, end game there is too many moves and they each have much less effect.

3. A good strategy game never breaks immersion, thus has no game breaking bug with corrupted saves, that's CRUCIAL when you play and suddenly lose all progress. The game also has good balance, if you become too strong, you lose interest, if the enemy is too dumb, you feel you can just exploit it and it will not push your strategy oriented neurons to the task. A strategy game that is good allow multiple ways of playing it, say on the go or planned. "On the go" way is how most newbies will play the game, which is fine, it consist of doing things as the game goes with no plan, it's more emotional, if an enemy attack you, you will have a grudge against it for the rest of the game for example or choosing things because they look cool. "Planned" way to play is when you carefully play every single move according to a greater plan, there is much less emotions involved as you may partner with hated enemies for the sake of the plan, this way of playing is very satisfying and allow higher level of play, when your plan comes to fruition, then the game becomes memorable. I think a good 4X strategy game allows for both those playstyles, bad ones only have the former, good ones have both an attractive surface and a deep inner working that leaves you wondering how you could miss such a subtle aspect.

1. I never liked diplomacy much and that because AI has never been smart enough so far. In CIV 5 like others mentioned AI was a crazy psycho it didn't matter if you were friendly or wary AI had been denouncing me all the time even if we had good relations and he was far away on the map. I'd like either a really smart AI who doesn't act agressively all the time or something very basic for tech trading or other and no spies!

2. 200-300 turns or more and that's because I always play the biggest map I can get even by using mods to get even bigger. Civ strategy games have 2 phases 1st expansion and 2nd domination (with war or any other way).
I want my game to last my empire to grow and I mean really grow controlling many star systems and be really advanced see them becoming something, something I created before I get into a war with some other race.

3. Simply and always MOO2 because it was a game that was taking you really in.. the music was amazing, the starbases, the terraformations, the battles.
I have played countless strategy games good ones and bad ones a good strategy game for me is a good combinations of mechanics and graphics.
When I play a strategy game I don't want to play fast and win, I wanna create something big it will take long time to finnish, ANNO 1503 is a good example it was a great game with nice graphics you had to build and expand your cities something that was taking really long epic long.. but it was rewarding it was live and working machine. Freelancer another game not a strategy one but one of my favs too and that because of the vast universe and freedom of choice to do anything you want and of course a really beautifull space world. Sometimes I wish there was a strategy game that could combine the mechanics of strategy with amazing 3D graphics like in Freelancer or any similar.

Great mechanics that change from detailed to simpler as my empire grows e.g. I control 1 or few planets and I have to control them manually, researching a tech later gives me the option to create a set of rules and things and just choosing what I want for each planet rather building all the same again and again. GC3 perhaps?
Great graphics a big, immersive, vast universe with countless star systems and variety of planets. Incidents big or small unknown possibilities, strange things that can alter the game or not but would definetely enrich the game unlike a set of "random" things.

A game that you create something and you enjoy seeing it becoming really something rather trying to win the game and finnish it.

If I am to go back and recall from my memory which parts of GalCiv2’s diplomacy stand out the most I would have to say it’s First Contact. To me First Contact was the most memorable and anticipated part of the game. To meet the Drengin, or any of the other races, for the first time (regardless of how many different games I play) was always a treat. I always looked forward to seeing them on the viewscreen and beginning the initial relationship. Once First Contact was established in GalCiv2 the interaction with the races then became numbers and menus with very little to motivate me to interact except in matters of wars, alliance and trade (which I know is the point but it would be nice to have a dialog overlay above the numbers and menus that would enhance immersion and make it more fun). Most of the deals I would try to offer would be shot down and after a while I would just close the viewscreen when they tried to contact me. Simply put - I want to talk to my galactic peers. Civ 5 did this a little better (in terms of the presentation/conversation) but there must be a way to do it even better where each new game/interaction is interesting and makes me feel like I am actually dealing with another alien race and not a single template - cookie cutter text assigned to all races.

I know it does not apply, and I know its not 4X strategy game, but the alien encounters in Star Control 2 have always been seared into my memory. Even when I go back and play Ur-Quan Masters,  the interactions with the races are delightful and fun with culture and back story enriching the experience. If this could somehow be married with the 4X strategy numbers and menus it would be a paradigm shift in diplomacy for 4x games. I know diplomacy at its core is Peace, War and Trade but it is also dealing with another culture and learning how to adapt to their way of thinking (or make them adapt to yours). It would be fun to see how all these alien races would act like in a myriad of different situations.

Also, I might add (and I don’t know why), but in GalCiv2 there was something a little magical about encountering the minor races. It was even more magical when these minor races started doing things that were unexpected and outside their normal behavior.

For me – the longer the better BUT once a game became boring and/or too overwhelming to me I would often stop (not a conscious: “I am going to stop this game now” but more of just not getting back to that particular game in a timely manner and then starting a new one the next time I decide to play.

I will note that Civ 5 had me playing for a long time (I cant remember turn numbers – the game isn’t installed on my pc right now) but I would play a game a few hours a day for 1 – 3 weeks with a few of those days being extended chunks of time 4-6 hours. What kept me going in Civ 5 was the ages and wonders. The fact that units and the map ‘evolved’ as you entered new ages/eras and the artwork changed based on which one you were in really gave a sense that the world was changing around you and you were participating in something grand – I will call this ‘era-morphing’. Even though I like GalCiv2 more than Civ5, the progression in GalCiv2 is more scattered and feels the somewhat the same from beginning to end. Well… save the colony rush, this part of the game is distinctly different and exciting to me. But GC2 (for obvious reasons) doesn’t have that carrot on a stick ‘era-morphing’ that Civ5 had. So, where as in Civ5 - I would often stick around and play those extra few moves to get to the next level/era… GalCiv2 was more ‘even’ and I wouldn’t necessarily play as long. That’s not a criticism in any way as I enjoy GalCiv2 more overall but that carrot on a stick dangling in front of me to encourage me progress forward helps Civ5 keep me playing it on the computer. I like some of that dramatic hoopla and it was exciting to enter the next era and see how things/units dramatically changed (and see how others notably stayed behind).

BAD:

• Busy graphics/UI
• too many numbers littering the screen in an unorganized manner
• uninteresting lore
• oversimplification of map resources
• no tooltips
• boring advisors that repeat the same thing over and over
• unfair AI
• inconsistent AI
• cookie cutter and/or lack of interesting civs/opponents
• bad mouse/camera controls and or lack of hotkeys
• out of sync music that disrupts immersion
• overly repetitive music

GOOD:

• Crisp, polished graphics and memorable cinematics
• clean UI and colorful maps
• freedom of camera movement
• intuitive mouse control
• engaging interaction with opponents
• numerous types of different map resources to mine/find the more the better
• special units and structures for specific civs is always awesome
• making a BIG deal out of important events (dramatic cinematics for unique wonders as an example)
• the more civs to choose from and play against the better
• sense of advancement
• news ticker/event indicators always on screen
• clean charts and graphics showing the relationships between key numbers with tooltips revealing the raw data
• intuitive UI with subtle indicators making complex systems obvious.
• Unique sound effects for different units and structures when you click on them
• Catchy music themes you like to hear (and don’t realize your hearing it most of the time)

Then there is the big one for me:

Immersion, immersion, immersion… I hear A LOT of people talking about immersion on these boards. It seems like we have two types of players here. The numbers folk and the immersion folk.

The numbers folk don’t really care (or care less) about immersion as long as the games calculations perform well and the strategy is sound. They want to know the math and use it with precision to dominate the game. Bells and whistles can be superfluous and detract from the strategy of the game. After all, it is a strategy game so why bog it down with things that are not necessary.

The immersion people want to play space emperor or be the Starship Enterprise - They depend on the numbers as they are essential to the game and they do use them when available but they don’t want to be tripped up in a lot of gobbledygook that overcomplicates their ability to manage their empire. The overall experience is key to these players. Bells and whistles (and fireworks) enhance the play time. I, as an immersion player, quite simply get swept up in the game – anything to hold me in and enhance the drama and realism keeps me playing longer – even if I am being crushed by my opponent.

Even though there will be a lot of advancement in the technical evolution of GalCiv3 (which is a great thing) - the way I look at it is:

If GalCiv2 was the perfect 4X strategy game (which will and is being replicated with GalCiv3), the next obvious move is to start delving into the ‘experience’ sphere of the franchise. Making diplomacy, wars, exploration and espionage an ‘experience’ that hooks you and takes you into turn 900 without batting an eye.

Anyway this may or may not have helped answer your question the way you were looking for but I really like what you guys are doing with GalCiv3 and I am playing a lot more than I expected I would be. I am proud to be a Founder and have been spreading the word on how good the game is coming along to my friends and friendly acquaintances (who play games) at my job.

Keep up the good work and I can’t wait to see what is coming next!

1. I like diplomacy when it allows for effective short term negotiations, such as tech trading, as well as enduring and mutually beneficial relationships with other factions. However, this requires that there be more options for long term alliances than just a mutual defense pact and open borders: trade and research agreements, for example. It also requires that your allies not break any agreement within a few turns of making it, despite nothing being done to antagonize them. If these conditions are not met then long-term diplomacy simply isn't worth the time and effort.

2. I'm not sure how many turns my favorite games last, because I almost always quit before they are over. I love playing long-term games on massive maps, but I inevitably hit a point where managing my huge empire becomes too sluggish and inefficient to be fun. By this point I often have a massive advantage over the other factions anyway, so much so that I've essentially already won. Playing out the game and getting the formal victory screen just isn't worth the frustration and boredom. Dealing with this problem would require a method to efficiently manage my empire no matter how large it is (the new "Commands" system seems promising) and AI that can provide a viable threat throughout the entire game.

3. For me, whether or not a 4X game is good or bad is a matter of complexity, efficiency, and personality. Complexity is basically the amount of unique and interesting stuff in the game: factions, techs, armies, spaceships, planets, etc. Without this, the game feels simplistic and boring. Efficiency is how well the complexity is managed: how effectively you can manage your empire and respond to the events of the rest of the game universe. Without efficient UI, the game feels more bureaucratic than fun. Personality is how well the game conveys the atmosphere and style of the its universe, usually done through clever writing and unique design. Without personality, the game feels dry and unremarkable. Having complexity, efficiency, and personality makes for a great game; lacking one or more elements results in a weaker product. Stardock games usually excel in complexity and personality, but, like most 4X games, they struggle with efficiency.

AIs should be consistent. If the description says they are a good races or a cautious/neutral races, they shouldn't be coming out attacking as soon as you meet them. As time progresses, if you have been friendly, have made trades and maybe trade routes, they should become even friendlier, not stabbing you in the back. Small, non-major races should be looking for friends/protectors and trade partners.

I enjoy humorous and sarcastic responses/comments from AIs when appropriate. A big disappointment has always been that when the human player has a chance to make such a comment, the offerings that show up on the screen are anything but.

I agree with the immersion comments. I have no desire to sit down an crunch a bunch of numbers to do anything. I am getting too old for that. I have immutable faith in those that love that sort of thing and know they will let us all know what is what. I play for the flavor and fun. I play for hours, hundreds of turns, over many days, until I get bored. With the beta, I admit I start a new game with each update to see how it has changed.

I don't like AIs that cheat, I do like different difficulties offered in the same game, as that can allow someone who has never played a GC to learn at his/her own pace without getting slaughtered right out the gate. I guess this last kind of wandered off topic a little.

1)  I really like the war score system of Europa Universalis 4....if you are unfamiliar with it, I highly suggest checking it out...basically, a variety of factors (holding the "war goal", winning/losing battles, blockading ports, occupying provinces, etc.) contribute to the warscore (which ranges from -100% to +100%), which in turn affects what you can bargain for at the peace table...

It makes wars a lot more meaningful in many ways...for starters, the reason you went to war determines the war goal, which allows for the possibility that all wars are not the same (a trade war just won't play out the same way as a conquest war)...along this line, what each item costs at the peace table depends on the cause for war -- if you went to war over trade, it's going to be harder to ask for territory vs. asking for trade power...the system also makes it harder to pick on smaller nations who have big allies, since you have to work your peace through the big ally (and that will require you make headway against them, not just the minor you attacked)...without playing the game, it's hard to appreciate all the qualities of this system but overall I have found it highly enjoyable...

The only thing missing is the ability for both sides to give concessions simultaneously, which I find highly important...

2) The strategy games I have loved the most (Civilization, Total War, Alpha Centauri) tend to have around 200-400 turns...however, a turn in Civ V is a lot shorter than a turn in a Total War game (which may have real time battles during it)....I usually finish my Civ V games (which usually require that you go all the way into the modern era), but not always my Total War games....

3)  Some things that make strategy games good:

• Depth -- Alpha Centauri was the real master here, the quotes and philosophy and ideology in the game gave a sense of depth that was phenomenal -- you felt attached to the faction leaders, and every single item in the game felt in some way part of a specific ideological order
• Strong late-game -- Many games become boring once you know that you are going to win...Civ V I think did a really good job at making the mid and late games more interesting through its expansion packs...specifically, 3 of the 4 victory options in Civ V became viable around the same time, and it was really hard to be in a position to win through all of the different ways...if you were going for a space race victory, you weren't really competing against other nations in terms of tech -- you were having to make sure you tech faster than the culture civ was getting influence so that you went to Alpha Centauri before their culture dominated everyone else...it kept you on your toes through out the whole game and made it fun until the very end...
• Balance & Diversity -- It's really important to me that all factions are equally viable...sure, some may be better at some things or slightly stronger/weaker on certain maps, but on average they should all be equally capable of winning...on the same note, each faction should play different, should feel different, and should not in any way resemble a carbon copy of another faction but with different graphics...this is the primary difference between GC2 before and GC2 after Twilight of the Arnor...before, all the factions basically played the same, but once ToA came out, most of them felt radically different and that was an important element...

1). The more ways of diplomacy in the game the better.

2). Number of turns? As long as a game stays interesting the longer I can play a game. 1000 turns? 10,000 turns? 100,000 turns? Sure, as long as it doesn't reach a point of obvious conclusion until near the last few turns, and the difficulty of play is relatively constant throughout the game.

3). Bad? fixed story lines, like Star Craft, Ages of Empires, etc. Simple games like one person shooters,

     Good? Turn based games (for me, since I'm not fast enough to keep up with RTS games). Strategy games, like Civ, Alpha Centauri, GalCiv, Moo II (not I or III).

     Bad features? Games that finish quickly. I loved Sid Meier's Civ II, but Civ III originally allowed only small civs on small maps, After getting beaten up he added larger maps but failed to scale the gameplay to the map size being played, This made large maps almost impossible to play, Civ 4 made some improvements in scaling game play to maps, and Civ 5 made some more improvements. -- Games that start hard and become gradually easier as you play. -- Games that blindside you with completion, even when you win (this is the biggest reason that I turn off some of the optional victory conditions in games).

I like deals with some creativity. With me doing something clever.   My favorite in GC2 is an early trade where I get the faction's original space miner.  I am sure it represents me being able to exploit the AI, but it feels good.

Number of turns is 500 to 1000.

The goodness in Civ4, my favorite, is in how the different sub-systems/mini-games create synergies that can be exploited.  It provides that "depth" feeling that there are even more interactions avaibible even deeper.

A lot of good ideas already, I'll just recap what I personally like.

1) Diplomacy: I love being able to sell almost/trade almost any resources. Being able to become an arms dealer is tons of fun. The dialog should be unique and witty for each race.  They should be able to tell if a trade is good or bad, and compare that to how badly they need it, as well as remember if I try to consistently rip them off, or shower them with gifts.   First Contact with dialog and video in GalCivII was always a blast, it must make a return.   I should be able to keep a trade agreement at a certain level without ruining every single relationship (some races getting pissed I don't want to invest further is understandable).  The longer the alliance, the worse the breakup, but I should be able to slowly decouple from the alliance.  Espionage (stealing tech, damaging cities, protecting cities, setting up roits, overthrows, etc).  After enough options to really create some interesting galactic scenarios, there is one other very important aspect.

Each race must be unique with a unique personality, though this personality should either be able to be set to random, or to a specific race (Ie: Humans that behave just like Drengin, Drengins like Iridium). I believe GalCiv2 had this capability either through UI or modding. 

2) Turns:  It all depends, honestly I felt that GalCiv2 was setup perfectly as far as turns go. When I wanted a shorter game, I'd pick a smaller galaxy. Some of my favorite games though took weeks to complete in full. Sorry, guessing at a number of turns would be like guessing at a jar full of jelly beans, but at times 500+.

3) Good Strategy Games: All good games had: Lots of customization/randomization. Specifically when it came to deciding how another race/culture would act. Random and multiple sized maps.  The game threw curve balls from time to time, but not enough to be excessive. Learning to late that another species has been behind the recent hostility of another race is an interesting scenario to come across. Being able to sell arms to two races on game and insight a war between the two is always fun. However, I shouldn't be able to do that every single game when I see those two races.  I had to have the ability to play a random game that felt like it had it's own unique story taking place. That means the AI had to be intelligent enough to vary it's approach. not always do the same play, no matter how stupid or powerful that play maybe. 

1. I can't nail down any diplomatic features that have stood out to me, but would like to see maybe the ability to sell information and intelligence what other races. Maybe, you find out one race is planning an attack on another race, you should be able to sell that to the other race for some money. or maybe you made it up to get them to join the fight on your side. Just a thought.

2. around 1000 turns, in GalCiv 2. maybe 400 in Civ 5, the AI normally wins if you don't by that time. Total War, whenever the campaign ends

3. A Strong Creative AI that can put up a fight, but don't just always outright attacks you for no reason. Clean UI, that is easy to navigate

There's so much potential with diplomacy, what was in GalCiv2 could only be the beginning. I like being able to persuade them to do things that are not in their best long-term interests, but are in mine. Persuade a civ to focus research and/or pursue (avoid) specific research trees. Open border treaties so I gain some influence and/or citizens for soldiering on planets I don't own. Maybe I can influence local social issues on a per planet basis (environmentalism to reduce manufacturing focus, help overthrow leadership so the planets or the whole civ changes their strategies, help quell revolts). And my persuasion ability should be affected by not only diplomacy but might (military, wealth, production, influence, approval, ideology, etc.) too And other relationships (friend of my friend).

1. Some of the cooler aspects of diplomacy involve friendships and adaptive, dynamic reactions. Meaning that everyone reacts realistically when you start to align yourself with one faction over another. But secondarily, it's important that those repercussions don't completely lock you in to alliances for the whole game. The player should be able to change friendships somewhat easily as events play out. Civ 5 is pretty good with the former, but when it comes to the latter, it's nigh-impossible to turn the aircraft carrier that is your reputation.

2. I'm always one that plays games on the longest or next-to-longest turn settings. I like a game where you stick with your civ for dozens of hours. Related: I love serialized TV while 2-hour movies rarely impact me

3.  Using Civ 5 as a reference point again, I would say that games that feel like "games" totally kill the experience for me. I often tell people that are playing Civ for the first time not to view it as a strategy game (which may conjure images of commanding tank battalions at all times), and instead view the game as a "nation RPG". Meaning, to truly enjoy a 4X game, one should role play their faction, try to get inside the mind of their leader and treat the AI opponents not as gaming obstacles but as characters in their own right. The games that truly foster this sense of "role playing mindset", are, for me, the standouts. Civ 5 launched with statuses such as "He thinks you are trying to win the game in the same way he is", which completely torpedoes the immersion. Never do that

More of my thoughts on the importance of role playing mindset (in all gaming genres):  http://objectivistgamer.com/?p=1145