next »

[godsavant]

Individuality in Strategy Games

   In my most recent game, I've been experimenting with tactical-strategy control schemes, giving the player control over a group of units that each have differing stats, class specializations and appearances (hopefully). Traditionally, such games as StarCraft have handled unit identity very generally, giving each unit of the same class the exact same appearance/personality, and often foregoing names (i.e. 'Terran Marine') and basically making the characters

. Given that my game has a much greater focus on individuality, I want the player to become deeply involved and attached to their characters - particularly in the context of the tactical strategy genre, where the death of a single unit is quite inconsequential.

The obvious solution, of course, is to give the player some stake in the character's welfare, beyond simply another gun; to date, the most popular ways seem to be either character creation or role-playing:

Character Creation

   In such games as X-Com: UFO Defense (pictured), players are given the option to individually name their troops, as well as equip them with unique equipment that differentiated them each; despite the game's low resolution, each unit also had a unique physique and appearance, giving at least the illusion of individuality. That, combined with each unit's ability to level up abilities and receive promotions in rank after successful missions, gave the player a genuine bond with each of their soldiers, as their more humorously named or highly decorated units would become significant time investments. As a consequence, players would be more emotionally affected if these soldiers died in combat (as so easily happens in X-Com) - as so often happens in strategy games.

  However, such a strategy does have its risks. My primary fears lie in the customization of characters paving the way for generalization, as every new customization option makes each possible combination less unique - compare the NPCs in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (the foremost example of this drawback) against the less numerous but far more memorable ones of Fallout 3.

Role-Playing

   Role-playing, on the other hand, attempts to generate emotional attachments from players by presenting them with a set of pre-configured characters, each with their own personalities and backgrounds that often extend far beyond their battlefield relevance; because these 'pre-set' characters require little to no input from the player, this approach affords much greater variety in terms of appearance/function, and is the preferred method for games with focus on story and narrative, since the developer can assume much more about the player's background/appearance/gender (of course, in cases such as Mass Effect, they can also simply develop a myriad of different narratives for each character build). In this, the player is much less in control, and makes decisions solely in the context of their respective persona.

   Yet while this may (and has, for almost the entirety of video game history) work quite well for first-  or third- person games, where the player is tasked only with the role and welfare of a single character, with the death of that character typically entailing a 'Game Over' and restart of the scenario. In tactical strategy games, however, such unique characters have no such failsafe, as they are merely enhanced versions of existing units, and no less expendable. Series like Command & Conquer and StarCraft solve this by making their survival victory conditions, creating artificial concern for their welfare yet discouraging their actual use in combat. Certain games, like Fire Emblem or Valkyria Chronicles (pictured), simply dismiss the death of unique characters (surprising, given the games' completely unique character rosters), theoretically forcing consequences onto the player, but in reality causing multiple mission restarts and significant loss of progress.

   This is where I hesitate: if creating and endearing the player to unique characters provokes protective emotions, can they be reconciled with the unyielding number-crunching deadliness of tactical strategy gameplay (considering those players who strive to keep every character alive for the entirety of the game)? Is there a method of promoting and guarding attachment to player-created or preset characters without breaking the game?

Please help.

[Teddy]

I suppose it would work best in a game with no saving.  Just one straight playthrough.

If you lose a character, you can either start the ENTIRE GAME over again, or just tread on without them.

But I don't know.  I thought Fire Emblem did it pretty well.  Sure, I restarted missions a lot when I lost someone, but if the mission was really hard and long and I just barely made it, I'll sometimes live with the casualty, just for the sake of not repeating the mission.

[s0]

Fire Emblem did the opposite of handling it well, in my opinion.

The problem was (and Valkyria Chronicles had the same issue) that most of the characters dion't have much of a personality, which makes it very hard to care for them on an emotional level. Mostly, when a character died on me in a Fire Emblem game, I didn't restart the mission because I felt bad about the character dying, but because I'd just lost a good unit.

A game that handled character permadeath a bit better was Valkyrie Profile: Covenant Of The Plume. Despite being a fundamentally flawed and unnecessarily punishing game, the characters (there are far less of them than in FE or VC) are rather fleshed-out with unique backstories and personalities, which is why I often felt genuinely sad when a character died. Also, and that's even more important, permadeath is a player choice. You can "sacrifice" a character to turn the tide of battle, which adds even more emotional impact because it's your responsibility.

[SirNiko]

Two things to be wary of:

Too much customization distracts the player from other aspects of the game. Be wary of overwhelming the player with too many options. If you add in customization to Star Craft, it might be wise to back off on other aspects, such as reducing the number of troops to move, automating some movements, or simplifying tech trees. Otherwise the game gets positively unwieldy.

Permanent death in a tactical RPG is pretty poorly handled most of the time, I think. If you're on hour 39 of a 40 hour game, you're unlikely to simply accept the death. You brought them this far! You deserve the best ending. If the game's only 3 hours, but you expect to replay it several times (maybe to try for a higher score for a better ending?) then the death is no big issue. You accept it, see where it gets you, and resolve to do better and not let them die next time.

-SirNiko

[Lucaz]

A good way to prevent the player from putting too much effort in characters not dying, is to not kill them. Penalise the player from having a unit defeated in a less brutal way, like reducing the earnings from the mission, or slightly weakening the unit.

You can also make unit die against some attacks, or make it random, only dying sometimes. Even if you go with these, you must reduce the effect of leveling. X-Com shows what happens when leveling is too important, as sometimes you just can't go on with the game after losing certain soldiers. Say, if you have 3-5 soldiers with 90+ aim, you can't afford the death of more than one, as they are too important, and you need them constatly.

[droqen]

I suppose it would work best in a game with no saving.  Just one straight playthrough.

If you lose a character, you can either start the ENTIRE GAME over again, or just tread on without them.

Do this! This!

Either that, or something like what Lucaz says; perhaps consider a special stat that represents long-term health? Every time a character "dies", this special life stat drops. If it reaches zero, then the character dies for real, and permanently.

But really, it might be interesting to have a game where you start out with, say, 30 unique characters and you just keep playing until every last one of them is dead.
 

[gimymblert]

Customisation is not necesserly the Graal to create attachement, relationship is i think...
Make the player important not only in their character survival but their growth as "character" and toss conflicting stake. Here is some silly exemple, if you use one particular character too much it may impact his relationship with his wife and may drive him bad, but of course he is a crucial element in fight, Maybe that would involve an event where you take a risky decision to bring his wife near the battlefield putting her at risk but giving him a moral boost while it put you in cold with another character... Event would be triggered according to their mental state and relationship evolution.

Of course that mean less unit and building a social system to balance with fight. Multiple stake keep pressure on the player as he must cover his character aspiration, need and fear VS being efficient on not only a battle but the entire war.

[droqen]

Neoshaman is right to start out, I think.

If you put too much focus on customization of things like stats and skills, you grow attached to characters (for the most part) only because of the numbers, not because of the character.

However, there's a difference between making characters attached to one another and seem like real people, and making characters attached to the player.

I found myself growing attached to characters in Etrian Odyssey ( i was sad to retire them ;_; ), and I attribute that to the fact that their growth was something I was a strong part of. I believe it might be the same in X-Com, except I sucked so hard at that game that I never got far.


But, really: I don't think you need a complicated intercharacter social system. You need something to make the player feel attached to the character, and attached to more than just the numbers that make up the character.

[Soulliard]

I don't generally like strategy games with permadeath. They encourage very defensive play, which IMO is not as much fun as aggressive play. Defensive play takes longer and doesn't have as much tension.

If grinding is possible in the game, permadeath only makes it more important.

Plus, restarting the mission every time a single character dies is no fun.

I prefer games where fallen characters get better after the combat is over (many RPGs), or there is at least some buffer between characters falling and dying (Final Fantasy Tactics).


Regarding the original topic, I think the best way to make players attached to characters is to make each character unique. In Majesty, for example, you had no direct control over characters. So every once in a while, when an exceptional hero would appear (such as a barbarian smart enough to buy healing potions, or a cultist who reaches a high enough level to turn into a bear), I would get very protective about that character's well-being. I wouldn't want to lose these characters, because they would be very difficult to replace.

[s0]

I attribute that to the fact that their growth was something I was a strong part of.

This.

Dwarf Fortress has that effect on me more than any other game. The fact that each dwarf accumulates a bit of "history" over their lifetime makes you feel connected to some of them in a weird "we've been through a lot together" way. The Sims does this really well too.

[Inanimate]

The Sims does this really well too.

Until you decide you are fed up with playing the game 'correctly' and kill them.

[jwk5]

I've always found "permadeath" is more annoying than dramatic (notable exceptions are games like the aforementioned Valkyrie Profile which makes permadeath a tactical choice rather than a harsh punishment for sending your mage down the wrong path). In the end it inspires more resetting of the game than somber regret.

Anyways, even though it is not a tactical/strategy game I think Radiata Stories (PS2) is a good example of how to create attachment when there are tons of characters. In Radiata Stories time progresses in real time (on a minutes to hours scale, I think) and all the NPCs in the game have places to go and things to do at any given hour. They say different things to you depending on what they are doing at the time and it can be a lot of fun to just stalk random citizens.

The beauty to the game is that you have 177 party members which aren't all magnificent heroes, some are just lowly townspeople. It takes a lot of careful study of most NPCs to recruit them because you have to catch them at the right time, and have met certain requirements. For instance, one of the mages in the game needs money to finance her studies so every day at around 3pm you can find her in her class room talking about it and during that time period you can offer to give her money. After the third day of doing so she'll offer to help you any time you need (joins your party).

What really set it off is that there are no "palette swaps" and no cookie-cutter dialogue, every towns person has a unique look, a unique schedule, and unique dialogue so the whole game world feels very alive. They all have their own battle behaviors (their AI constantly switches between three reactive states, for example Brave-Brave-Timid, that controls how they behave on the field) and unique attacks and a special skill the main character can learn from them. During battle they will even talk and say things relevant to you and the fight, even the random ones. To top it all off they even have a bio (complete with a pose-pic) stored in your "My Friends and Me" album. When you finally recruit a party member (especially one you've been stalking for days trying to figure out what will get them to join you) you have a lot more consideration for them.

Really I can see this setup working well for a game like Shining Force, which allows you to wander around towns and explore RPG style but all the battles are tactical RPG style.



EDIT: Thinking about it now, it is kind of ironic that for all the hype surrounding Elder Scrolls: Oblivion prior to its release about the depth of its NPCs and their daily schedules the NPCs were still really bland. I think Radiata Stories really illustrates why that is.

Part of the charm is that any given character is going from one specific action to another, they don't just stand there. One of the monks in the Olacian order gets up at the butt crack of dawn to head to the church where you can follow him to watch him take a seat on the pew and listen intently and the head priest's sermon. Later he gets up and he heads to his chambers to meditate. After that he goes outside to practice his martial arts training. After that he running various errands around the town. Towards the evening you'll find him on a bridge near your apartment in town training his strikes. Finally he heads home and goes to sleep. During each stage of his schedule he has something completely different to say, and often you can talk to him multiple times to get new commentary.

It is a hell of a lot more interesting than "Oh, I think I'll stand here for a while. Okay, now I will walk over there and stand. Okay now I'll stand over here." And it is nice to hear relevant dialogue, not just "Seen any elves lately? Hahahah!"

Oh, and if you can't tell Radiata Stories is my favorite game ever (and if you like stalking people, you'll love it... ...not that I stalk people, or anything... )

[gimymblert]

Note to myself...
Pay attention, when possible, to radiata stories
 

[Inanimate]

Wow, Radiata Stories sounds AWESOME

[jwk5]

It's a really underrated game. You can actually recruit Lenneth (the Valkyrie from Valkyrie Profiles) in it, as it's made by the same team. Also, it has two separate paths (human and non-human) and you can recruit different members on each path (and like Crono Cross you keep recruits between playthroughs). It has a lot of comedy to it too (for example you examine things by kicking them, and you can kick random people to piss them off and fight with them). Definitely worth playing, especially in light of this topic because it puts heavy emphasis on character attachment (if not setting attachment even).

[gimymblert]

Sounds? what about the look  ? It will not age!

[jwk5]

Yes, yesss... Look at the game! Marvel at the game! Long for the game! PLAY the game... Soon you'll be one of us! By the end of the year you'll be drinking the sacred Radiata kool-aid and ascending to Radiata heaven with us!** It will be GLORIOUS!!!! *cue dramatic music*

Oh, and the game has awesome music too. It is really upbeat and jazzy, not your typical RPG fare.

...

It will be GLORIOUS!!!! MWHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!! 





** If you don't get that, read.

[Blaster]

Re: permadeath of significant/individualized characters in strategy games/games in general. I really enjoy it as a concept. It's one of my favourites. However, I admit it ends up being an annoyance when it isn't implemented well.

In games which you categorize as role-playing, with the characters written directly by the developers, the problem for me isn't so much that I develop protective emotions and thus want to keep them alive... but, that I feel like I'm missing out on content in the game if they die. It's as if by having a character die I'm not playing it right, and will resort to restarting (which isn't very fun).
(Mind you, despite that, I really love Fire Emblem for still having the guts to have it. But it could simply be a better game if it didn't even allow you the option of save-scumming.. well, maybe it isn't as simple as that)

Basically, it annoys me as the (regrettably) completionist sort of gamer.

By its nature, it seems to fit much more naturally with procedural/dynamic stories (like dwarf fortress, but not necessarily like dwarf fortress) where a character's death isn't so regrettable simply because it provides a good plot device on a variety of different scales instead of a game over or voluntary-restart.

But... well... anyway... There seem to be a bunch of different ways to make it feasible. Ways make up for the loss of an cherished character /could/ be as simple as tracking stats and creating a hall of fame of sorts, so that you can remember and compare your fallen heroes, or can be as elaborate and far-fetched as some of dwarf fortress's goals (where characters create an actual history of sorts, and potentially have lasting effects on the world). Other more simple compensations include the immediate death causing those who were fond of them to gain motivational stat benefits to exact revenge and the like.

guess most of my thoughts seem to relate to giving characters a sort of persistance in what-ever form, even post-death, so maybe I'm missing the point altogether when it comes to the appeal of permanent death in games.

Regarding character development (er, statistical character development) and its involvement in attachment, some sort of sweet-spot would be ideal for a tactical strategy. Having a character improve over time enough to make them personable, but not so much that makes replacing them with a rookie causes the game to be impossible.  The sweet spot will probably depend on how fixed the story is, and whether losing a mission is a 'game over' or a set back in-game. Not all achievements need to give statistical benefits though, superficial rewards like giving characters medals and promotions in rank and the like are neat ways to make them individual without compromising the gameplay with super-soldiers.

I hope I'm not being too airy-fairy with these thoughts. I really want to play more games that experiment with this. Looking forward to your game!

[droqen]

Pita, what you said made perfect sense to me. In the context of a game where it's possible to keep everyone alive and there's nothing to be gained through failing to uphold that quality of survival, it's the worst feeling to give up -- not quite so much because of caring for the character, but simply because there is future content you might be missing out on.

I think Dwarf Fortress strikes an interesting balance, at least for me: the characters who are legendary are really much more powerful or useful than the rookies, so losing them is a big deal in that way -- but at the same time, the really amazing dwarves are the ones I take the time to get to know, for the most part.

... Well, and then there are the other interesting stories. But the important dwarves, when they're lost, for the most part, are missed both because they made great contributions and because their importance led to familiarity.


I don't feel like post-death persistence is important, though, unless the characters (and not just their stats) are made important to the player.


[ On another note, I really want to play Dwarf Fortress again ]

[Parthon]

The strange thing about Dwarf Fortress is that the dwarves are valuable, individual and when they die they are missed, but the game itself fosters such a sense of challenge that when a Dwarf is lost, it's not game over. Somehow the game manages to make every Dwarf invaluable and when killed, a crippling loss, but still playable and winnable even if that happens.

On the flip side: In UFO(XCOM1), losing even a mud rookie can be devastating as he and his equipment need to be replaced, you lose points at the end of the mission AND the governments involved don't like it when people die. Even having a massive 26 soldiers in a mission, losing just 8 can mean restarting the mission.