next »

[Thorst]

I’m stopping by here because I’m interested in strategy games.  I categorize games as either reflex/precision tests, like Mario, or puzzle-solving games like the crossword, or rpg kinds of things where you are just given a world and its toys to play with, or finally, strategy games, where you have to outwit your opponent or situation.

Now, I’ve thought about it, and I’m afraid I cannot think of any games that involve strategy in the way I’ve described it, that is where it is up to the player to figure out the best move to make.  Instead, the game designers come up with rules and victory conditions in which the best strategy is always the strategy that they had in mind when they made the game.

The result is that once you figure out how the game works and what it expects of you, the gameplay is that of an RPG.  You explore the map and develop your empire the same way you would develop your RPG character.

So, what ever happened to true strategy games in the vein of chess or even tic-tac-toe, where players have full knowledge of the game’s mechanics from the beginning and have to fool or outwit their opponents?  Is online poker the only place for this sort of gameplay?

If I’m just sounding cynical when I say warcraft or civilization are rpgs, consider a couple of things.  First, rpgs are a legitimate genre.  I bet I’ve enjoyed Heroes of Might and Magic, unarguably an rpg, at least as much as any other game I’ve played.

Secondly, so-called strategy games may not feel like rpgs, because they involve lots of thinking ahead.  When you’re playing most rpgs, you are pretty much living (vicariously) in the moment.  What sort of creature will I encounter around the next corridor?  What sorts of items can I acquire in the next room?  Strategy games, in contrast, involve more planning.  I can’t wait until I have enough gold to build a coliseum.  After that I think I’ll need more archers.

But all this planning is still an rpg-like exercise of the imagination rather than a challenge to the intellect.  It is the same as planning how to use your experience points on your next level up.  Clearly though, letting players make plans is an effective way to keep them playing.  One so rarely reaches a good stopping point in well-written novels and well-designed games.

I’m not sure how much sense I’m making to you good folks here on tigsource.  But, I hope I can start some discussion about strategy game design.  If you have a better way to do this, feel free to take this thread away from the empire rpg theory and into something else.  Thanks for your time.

[Lukas]

It depends on wether it's a singleplayer- or a multiplayer-strategy-game.

In a SPSG(single-player-strategy-game) the game-design-goal is to make the player win in the end. The computer should take up a good fight but loose in the end. Since most players are fascinated in feeling smart but the target audience of today's mass-market SPSGs certainly doesn't entirely consist of really smart people, there was found another way to make the player feel professional:
It's no longer the "being smarter" but rather the "having spent more time and nowing more tricks"-gameplay.
Do you remember the "Settlers"-games or titles like "1503A.D."/"1701A.D."?
None of this games really requires an utterly smart mind but both have lots of different units, buildings, production-cycles so it takes a very long time really understanding the gameplay entirely but once you've spend enough time learning all the tricks and combinations you'll win the game every time you play it.

If you are searching for "true strategy games" you should look out for multiplayer-strategy-games (MPSG) like C&C3, Warcraft 3 or Starcraft.
People who compete in those games all know every single unit, building, action and trick of the game. The one who analyzes the situation best (based on his knowledge of the game) is able to outsmart his enemy and win the game.

Anyway, those games aren't perfect in that respect. Chess, Go or Backgammon all have one thing in common, they are "easy to learn yet hard to master".
Each of those games has rules that can be learned in... maybe 30 minutes. From there on the player can improve his play playing lots of games or reading theory books. Still... If two players play one of those games the stronger player will always win. And there is always a stronger player.
If you know look at Starcraft, Warcraft III or C&C3... I never felt the urge to memorize all those stupid units, abilities, buildings. There are hundrets of them in each game. It takes days and weeks to even know every unit. It takes months and years to understand every unit. So it often happens that casual players play against each other and the one with superior knowledge of the game's contents wins. Which is not good, from a game design perspective.

Well, after I thought about that I started designing the game I'm currently developing:
http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=1332.0

Facts about c0re:
- 1 resource
- 5 different unit-types
- 5 different abilities (which include movement...)

Still, we're aiming at making a game in which the better player always wins.
We'll make sure that both players participating in a match have the same knowledge over the game's contents.

All in all: I think it's not a bad idea to call SPSGs "RPGs" in some way.
            MPSGs have to change it's philosophy from "hard to learn, even harder
            to master" to "easy to learn, hard to master" to be as interesting as
            games like Go, Chess etc...


BaronCid

[Baltirow]

I do think its a bit comparing apples to pears when you take Chess, Go etc and comparing it to an RTS game. The fact one is turn-based while the other is real time has a huge influence on gameplay and thus on design-decisions when making this game.

I think it would make more sense to compare it with games like Advance Wars, Ogre Battle, Battle for Wesnoth and perhaps even RPGs such as Wizardry, which are all turn based and involve strategy based on various elements rather than 'just resource management'.

Advance Wars even comes quite close to Chess, in the point that units have various moving patterns (although be it a lot more simple than Chess), while building upon it by introducing land types (with speed and defense values such as with Civilization), vision shrouding and vulnerabilities.

But, if you seek outwitting your opponent as the main strategic element, it only makes sense that you play a game with little to no rules:
- If the amount of strategies one can employ is very wide,  why would anyone need to bluff (Poker)?
- How can a specific strategy go unseen other than when a certain move can be interpreted in over 20 ways (Chess)?

Maybe you should try playing a CCG like Magic: the Gathering or something such? I belief you can even play it online for free these days (limited decks)...

[Thorst]

BaronCid, let’s replace strategy vs. role-playing with competition vs. imagination.  We play chess because we are competitive, not to let our imaginations run wild in a monochromatic, fantasy world inhabited by identical-twin bishops and lots of squares.  On the other hand, we do play video games for the way they stimulate the imagination as well as the intellect.

Looking at your game and gathering that it is multiplayer only, I think you have balanced things in favor of competition over exploring the map, building a city, and other gameplay elements that involve the imagination.  Can a game effectively balance competition and imagination, or is imagination best left to rpgs, and competition best left to chess, go, and the like?

I see your point about the big strategy titles being too complicated.  I like that your game has lots of style instead of lots of units.

Baltirow, I have heard of, but never played any “j-strategy” games.  Sounds like something to look into.  Would you call the games you mention primarily competitive?

Here is a question for fellow game designers.  Would you approve of purposefully designing a game that was just a strategy façade on an rpg?   It could be interesting to play an rpg that replaced single characters or small parties with entire races or empires.

On the other hand, compare this idea to if a band just came out and admitted that they were not about the music at all.  They just sell t-shirts, not albums, and their concerts consist of blasting the sound of a small, gas-powered generator over the loudspeakers, while they strut around with fake instruments saying, “are you ready to rock, Toledo?”

If you are going to be all about the image and not the music, then you ought to be a model, not a musician.  Likewise, if you really want to make an rpg, not a strategy game, then you should just make an rpg.

I am playing devil’s advocate here.  I enjoy the games we are criticizing and want to create something similar.  But first I want to know everything that is wrong with the genre.

[oahda]

Neither.

[jgrams]

What is it with people dredging up ancient posts for no particular reason lately? Actually this one looks like it might be spam...?

[s0]

ya it was spam. deleted post, banned spammer and locked thread.