Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411620 Posts in 69391 Topics- by 58447 Members - Latest Member: sinsofsven

May 10, 2024, 06:34:19 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperBusinessAre strategy games dead?
Pages: [1] 2 3
Print
Author Topic: Are strategy games dead?  (Read 14567 times)
synapse
Level 1
*



View Profile
« on: July 24, 2008, 02:29:05 PM »

I can't help but notice a big trend in indie gaming towards highly polished, action-oriented gameplay.  [Perhaps it's always been that way - I'm quite new to the indie game scene.]  Games like Defcon (if it's still considered indie), Everyday Shooter, and fl0w are beautiful, but quite simple gameplay-wise.

Not that simple gameplay is a negative- but I haven't seen many strategic indie games lately.  Are wargames and business games mostly dead?  Or am I way off base?
Logged
increpare
Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2008, 02:32:51 PM »

I can't help but notice a big trend in indie gaming towards highly polished, action-oriented gameplay.  [Perhaps it's always been that way - I'm quite new to the indie game scene.] 
It has always been that way in general, I think (very notable exceptions aside).
Logged
joshg
Level 4
****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2008, 04:01:39 PM »

Dwarf Fortress.

Also, tower defense games.
Logged

these are from an actual radio shack in the ghetto
synapse
Level 1
*



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2008, 04:32:16 PM »

Dwarf Fortress is pretty much the ultimate example of a low-polish simulation-heavy game.  But how many other games are there in this genre?  Or does DF really cover the market demand?

And I'd classify tower defense games more as action than strategy, for the most part.
Logged
muku
Level 10
*****


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2008, 05:33:13 PM »

Hm, I'm not sure I agree. There's at least one indie publisher which has specialized in strategy games (http://www.strategyfirst.com/en/games/genre/); I seem to recall there was another one, but can't remember the name right now.
As another example, there's Strategist (http://www.oxeyegames.com/strategist/), and I actually thought that Defcon had pretty deep gameplay, although I only played it only for a few days, IIRC. What made you think it was shallow?
Wikipedia has an entire section devoted to indie TBS games, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_strategy#Indie_PC_games. I'm not sure how representative that is, though.
Logged
Hideous
That's cool.
Level 10
*****


3D models are the best


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2008, 11:53:49 AM »

I hope so.

I don't like strategy.
Logged

ColossusEntertainment
Level 1
*

Royal Leamington Spa, UK


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2008, 01:09:49 PM »

These are great games, and not very action-oriented:
http://www.positech.co.uk/

I think that in the casual market place, action games are dominant, but in the rest of the indie scene, there's quite a few other types of niche games
Logged
Valter
Level 10
*****


kekekekeke


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2008, 01:39:07 PM »

Are you talking indy or just in general? The Fire Emblem and Advance Wars series are about the cornerstone of the commercial strategy market.

Also, strategy games are complicated from a design point of view. Making more generic shmup or platformer games is more appealing to most programmers, I would assume.
Logged
Cymon
Level 9
****


Computer Kid


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2008, 01:52:32 PM »

Strategy games are difficult to do well and have a generally small audience base. Action games are easy to play, easy to get into, and easy to make.
Logged

Cymon's Games, free source code, tutorials, and a new game every week!
Follow me on twitter
Thorst
Level 0
***



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2008, 06:24:29 PM »

If war and business sims are not catching on, I believe it is because they are always poorly made.  It seems that the only challenge in these games, though they are quite difficult, is figuring out how to play.

synapse, can you explain the mechanics that make up your idea of good, non-action gameplay?
Logged
Cymon
Level 9
****


Computer Kid


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2008, 11:37:22 PM »

If war and business sims are not catching on, I believe it is because they are always poorly made.
Why are they poorly made? Because, as I said, they are difficult to do well. Balance, movement, AI, making a strategy game isn't easy.
Logged

Cymon's Games, free source code, tutorials, and a new game every week!
Follow me on twitter
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2008, 03:09:41 AM »

I think this is true but it's true of the mainstream industry as well. Strategy games are more cerebral, they appeal to higher parts of the brain than action games appeal to, which appeal to the twitch and reaction parts of the brain.

Although I think most games contain elements of both. There's some degree of strategy involved in many action games -- for instance, although Mega Man is primarily action, there's strategy involved in deciding which order to take the levels in.

I don't think tower defense games are action. Immortal Defense had more action than most, but even that I'd say was primarily a strategy game (and it's listed as such on the sites that classify it). And most tower defense games have very little action involved, the main part of the game is strategically placing towers, not quick reaction times. They're basically offshoots of the RTS genre, or perhaps a subspecies of it.

I'd say that any game which you perform poorly at if you have slow reaction times is in part an action game, and any game which forces you to plan ahead is in part a strategy game. The question is just which one of those is dominant.

I think that as people get older they appreciate strategy games more, even if only because they lose the quick reaction times of their youth, and can't compete with younger people at games like Street Fighter, but can still compete at games like chess. I think this tends to happen in one's 30s -- if you go to online communities of games like Civilization, or other purely turn-based strategy games, the majority of people are much older than the average gamer. So I think that as gaming expands beyond teenage or young adult males we'll begin to see more strategy games.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2008, 03:15:30 AM by rinkuhero » Logged

increpare
Guest
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2008, 04:20:03 AM »

Although I think most games contain elements of both. There's some degree of strategy involved in many action games -- for instance, although Mega Man is primarily action, there's strategy involved in deciding which order to take the levels in.
For me it was always more trial and error...
Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2008, 04:24:27 AM »

Me too, but I think that's the basis of all strategy. I learned how how to play Civilization, Final Fantasy Tactics, Starcraft, chess, etc., well (to the extent that I can play them well) primarily through trial and error. There's still an element of looking ahead, making plans, predicting the course of the game moves in advance, thinking "if I build zealots, what if he gets mutalisks?" and so on, but the basis on which you make those decisions comes from experience.
Logged

policedanceclub
Level 10
*****


POLICEDANCECLUB


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2008, 04:28:11 AM »

If I build Topfez's, what if he gets monocles?


hmmm...

sometimes i worry.
Logged
Thorst
Level 0
***



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2008, 10:31:55 AM »

Rinkuhero: The web seems to amplify the tastes of the youth.  It has for Barack Obama and perhaps for action games as well.

Guesst: What is so difficult about creating balance in a strategy game when you compare it to creating a good feel in an action game, or compare path finding to a physics engine?

The problem with the simulation-strategy genre is the games are all concept and no gameplay.  They are like that satiric rpg where you gain experience by clicking a single button for hours, except there are ninety buttons, two-hundred stats, and graphs.
Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2008, 11:10:26 AM »

The problem with the simulation-strategy genre is the games are all concept and no gameplay.  They are like that satiric rpg where you gain experience by clicking a single button for hours, except there are ninety buttons, two-hundred stats, and graphs.

I think that's pretty ridiculous. Anyone who actually enjoys those games knows there is gameplay. There's a big difference between good players of Civilization or Alpha Centauri and bad ones, and the difference amounts to more than just being better at memorizing the buttons, and a game of that genre can be very riveting and exciting, just not fast-paced.

Here's an excerpt from a guide to strategies to Alpha Centauri (my apologies for the length of the excerpt). Can you really read that and say there's no gameplay? And note that that's just the military aspect of the game, there are many more aspects, war is a fraction of the gameplay involved in a good strategy game. For the rest of the article, it's here: http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/96102/2480

Quote
Specifics: Fighting a Defensive War:

The overriding purpose of fighting a defensive action is to preserve your bases
and make sure they do not fall into enemy hands. Builders, you'll want to read
this. The best way to fight a defensive war is to be ready for it at any moment.
This means prototyping regularly and often. It means making sure that all your
bases have garrisons with the best available armor (and AAA capability, as soon
as you get it). It means making sure that your frontier bases have at least
twice the garrison strength of the bases in your interior, and it means making
damned sure you've got a core of attack-capable troops (probably the guys you
still have hanging around from weapons prototyping). It would also be helpful if
you had some artillery units handy, so as to shell damaged units until your
attackers can get in to finish them off.

To fight a defensive war, about all you need is up to date garrisons, a small
standing army, and some probe teams. If you have those things, your opponent
will need a truly large force to successfully invade.

When faced with an attacking army, here's what you do:

Look at how your enemy is approaching. Try to figure out which bases are most
threatened, and consolidate your defenses there.

Move probe teams up to take advantage of any misstep by your opponent. If you
can find a single unit in a square and subvert it, you've just made yourself
stronger and your opponent weaker, and time is on your side. Your opponent has
to bring reinforcements in from some distance, while yours are arriving right at
the scene of the battle.

Upgrade any formers you have in the area to armored variants and use them to
mess up his Zones of Control. This will stall his advance, and armored formers
in the forest or on rocky terrain are very hard to take out.

Fight from your bases as much as possible, or, barring that, make sure your best
attack-troops can end their turns back inside a base so as to decrease their
exposure.

Defend any Monoliths close to the battleground with the best garrison forces you
can get there, to deny your opponent that resource to heal damaged troops.

Use armored formers and crawlers to envelope or cut off a part of the enemy's
army. Once it's isolated, you can deal with the smaller elements of the force
one at a time, smashing one while the other tries to get through and rescue it.
This will take pressure off of your bases and give them more time to crank out
units.

Attrition is your friend, when you are fighting a defensive action. Your
reinforcements are close at hand, and it's likely that his are not. Grind your
opponent down slowly. Make every square he advances into a very expensive
proposition. If you make the advance expensive enough, he'll either give up and
go home, or you'll wipe out the entire army. Either way, he'll likely find
someone less-prepared to pick on, which is exactly what you want.

If it appears likely that you cannot hold a base, then burn it down. Adopt a
scorched earth policy and retreat back to the next line of your bases. Leave
your opponent nothing to work with. You can rebuild later, once the threat is
gone.

Take note of the composition of your enemy's army: Is he using lots of
artillery? If so, crank out the best attack rovers (no armor) you can get to the
field quickly, and wipe them out. Is he using lots of rovers? Great! Upgrade
your garrisons to Comm-Jammers and laugh at him as he tries in vain to take your
bases. Is he infantry-heavy? Again, build fast-attack rovers and meet him in the
field. (This is the main reason that Momentum Players get beaten. They tend to
focus on very narrow army construction....most often, they make LOTS of rovers
with little to no armor and the best weapons they can afford. That's okay, but
the first time they take their all-rover force into a prepared opponent's
territory will be the last they see of their much cherished army.)

Destroy anything that might be of value if it seems likely that your opponent
will take a given position. Deny him access to your bunkers, sensor arrays, and
even forests. Again, once he is gone, you can rebuild all that.

If your enemy brings a colony pod with him, do everything you can to take it out
before he builds a base. If it's too late to prevent that, try and slip an
armored probe team in to subvert it, or, use a foil probe team, as the base will
often be coastal, and therefore vulnerable to that.

Build one or two transports and drop off some sturdy defenders (and one or two
decent attackers) behind your enemy. This will give him something else to focus
on besides the bases you're trying to defend, and, if he doesn't focus on them,
it will give you a new direction from which to strike. Either way, it will help
your cause. Put probe teams in all your bases, and more than one in your exposed
bases. Count on your opponent trying to infiltrate you, and if he does, he'll
have to contend with one or more probe teams first. Do not make that an easy
thing for him, and if you have technological superiority, you will want to
preserve that at all costs. Probe teams can do that for you.

One final note about fighting a defensive war is this: Best of all is if you can
stop your opponent before he even lands his troops. To that end, when you get
missile techs, build a few and put them on your borders in "patrol mode." Any
unfriendly ships come toward your territory, the missiles will take them out,
saving you a whole lot of time and trouble.

Fighting an Offensive War:

If you want to take the fight to your opponent, there are several things you can
do to make your life easier. First, and by far most important, is to infiltrate
his datalinks (assuming you're not planetary governor). You need to know what
kind of defenses your opponent has at the ready, and what's in his production
queues. Information is the most powerful weapon you have.

When preparing to fight, you need to make sure you don't bite off more than you
can chew. Start small. Select one, maybe two objectives and bring sufficient
force to secure those objectives.

The most important thing you will need in order to fight an extended action on
someone else's soil (outside of an army, of course) is a base of operation. That
could be a coastal monolith, or perhaps an isolated base. Either way, before you
proceed with a general invasion, you will want to make sure you have a place to
bring your battered forces to get them combat ready again.

Your best bet is to subvert one of your opponent's small border outposts and use
that as your staging point. You take the base without fighting, you preserve
that base's garrison, and you give yourself a staging ground.

Second best is to bring a colony pod with you when you land the attack force.
Just be sure your army contains some covert operatives, so your newly founded
base does not get subverted out from under you!

Last, would be to make use of a Monolith in the area as your staging ground. If
you can take one easily, it gives you a place to repair your units quickly, but
it still does not solve the reinforcement problem if things get dicey. Still,
it's better than nothing, and if it's what you have to work with, then it's what
you have to work with.

Construct a well-balanced attack force. Mix it up to confuse your opponent.
Don't rely exclusively on infantry or rovers, because there's an easy counter to
that. A mixed force is significantly harder to defend against.

Make sure you have enough cash to support the war. Nothing is worse than going
off to fight only to find out you can't support your army with covert ops
because you're strapped for cash. You must balance your rush building program
with saving cash if you know you will be going to war soon, because it's an
expensive proposition. You need funds to rush build garrison troops in conquered
bases, and rebuild infrastructure (especially anti-drone facilities). You'll
also need funds for troop subversions and such, so make sure you have the
bankroll to support your war effort (I'd recommend at least 1500 energy credits
per base on your "hit list.")

Create a diversion. If your plan is to take two coastal bases on the eastern
side of your enemy's empire, then start your war by subverting a base on the
western side to get his army off balance (or, land some troops on the western
side to start making trouble). If you're really devious, create a number of
diversions so that your opponent will pull himself apart trying to deal with the
various threats you've created (additionally, the more diversions you set up,
the more difficult it will be for your opponent to discern your true objective).

Make use of artillery to take out sensor arrays and to hammer beleaguered
defenders in the base you're after. Never give your enemy the chance to rest his
troops. If your goal is conquest, do as little damage to the infrastructure as
you can get away with. If your goal is to simply hurt your opponent for some
larger purpose (i.e., an ally of yours is on the way with the real invasion
force), then do as much damage as you can before your forces get whacked.

If you're not at technological parity, use your probe teams to get you there. If
you already are, use them (your probe teams) to stall his production or destroy
infrastructure. Anything to give you an edge.

The quicker you can secure your objectives, the better off you will be. You
don't have a ready supply of reinforcements (unless you've planned very far
ahead), and even if you do, your opponent can get reinforcements more quickly
than you can, so win your initial battles quickly, then drop to a defensive
stance to protect your newly acquired holdings. Once you are entrenched on your
opponent's land, you are MUCH harder to deal with than if you're simply a
marauding force.

Never miss an opportunity to subvert enemy troops, formers, crawlers, or
whathaveyou. Every unit you subvert can be put to some kind of use (even if all
you do is upgrade the former to an armored variant and use it to make sure your
units are at least double-stacked).

To Psi, or not to Psi?:

Lots of people love the mindworms, and I have to admit, I'm a pretty big fan of
them, but there's a time and a place for their use.

Specifically, if you know your opponent has a negative planet rating (which you
can keep track of after you've infiltrated his datalinks), by all means, bring
out the worms. Likewise, if you are weaker in technology than your opponent,
switch to Green and go with a worm-force. But, if you have technological
superiority, you're probably better off making use of it than using native life
forms. Still, adding a few worms to your attack force (for balance sake) is
probably not a bad idea, just don't go overboard unless you know it will net you
a big advantage (like if your opponent is fighting on the defensive and
maintaining his Market Economy, or again, if you're down in the tech race).

Advanced Combat Tips and Strategies:

Combat is the epitome of chaos and unpredictability. When armies clash, even if
differences in technology make it clear from the outset who the eventual victor
will be, there is absolutely no accounting or predicting what will occur between
here and there. If you think you can predict the subtle nuances, ebbs and flows
of a combat situation with any degree of certainty at all, my recommendation
would be to open up your own psychic hotline.

Having said that, let me stress from the beginning that this article will not
even attempt to cover every conceivable combat situation you might find yourself
in. Simply put, I'm not that good. Not even close. What I **DO** hope to
accomplish with the writing of this article is to stretch your mind a bit. To
perhaps change the way you look at both tactical and strategic situations and
provide some tools for judging the overall effects of choices made by both you
and your opponent. If these tools are applied correctly, then you need not worry
if you encounter an unexpected situation in combat, as you will feel more than
comfortable improvising your way out of it.

Early on in the Strategy Guide, we touched on the first two principles of battle
are:

Know Thyself, And Know Thine Enemy

That is the foundation for what lies ahead, and you can rely on those principles
with absolute certainty. If you do not know yourself, you have no way of
assessing your own capabilities, and if you do not know your enemy, you have no
way of understanding what you are up against. If you have neither of these, how
can you hope to fight a war?

If you're fairly new to the game of warfare, you might ask: "How exactly, do you
"know yourself?"" Specifically, you should know things such as:


How big is your army, including garrison forces?
If you were to launch an attack right now, this turn, how many units would you
have available, and what would they be?
Do you have a means of getting your forces to an enemy's homeland (transports,
landbridge, psi-gates, drops, or some combination of all of the above)
How many bases can you afford to commit to the war effort to replace lost
troops?
How long can you afford to fight a war?
What is my level of technology, relative to my opponent?
How many total bases do I have, relative to my opponent?
What are you hoping to accomplish by entering into this war?
If you cannot answer at least these questions, then you're probably not yet
ready to fight, and if you DO fight, you will likely be fighting an uphill
battle.

Likewise, initiates to the arts of war might ask "How exactly, do you know your
enemy?" And I would say, specifically, you should know or do these things at a
minimum:


INFILTRATE YOUR OPPONENT!!! (Nothing is more important than this!)
How many bases does my enemy have? Is it more bases than I have?
How large of an army can my opponent bring to bear on me? If he is attacking,
how will they be arriving (drop, psi-gate, transport, as above), if he is
defending, how good is his infrastructure?
How long can my opponent afford to fight a war?
What is my opponent hoping to accomplish by going to war with me, or, how will
my opponent likely react to my attack? (is he likely to hit back hard, or does
he have a tendency to shrivel up and surrender quickly)
Again, if you can't answer all of these questions at a minimum (and there are
plenty of others), then you're not ready yet.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2008, 11:17:11 AM by rinkuhero » Logged

Thorst
Level 0
***



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2008, 01:10:15 PM »

Strategy guides like this exist because the games obscure their own rules.  You have to read a guide just to learn how to play.  If you know the rules, then the gameplay is little more than selecting one of the pre-set paths, such as war or diplomacy, and riding along.

I have played Civilization, and dabbled in Dwarf Fortress, and I understand the caring and cultivation these games require, but I think someone looking for a challenge to the intellect will have better luck with Sudoku.
Logged
increpare
Guest
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2008, 02:33:12 PM »

There's a big difference between good players of Civilization or Alpha Centauri and bad ones, and the difference amounts to more than just being better at memorizing the buttons, and a game of that genre can be very riveting and exciting, just not fast-paced.
I don't know about that.  I've had a couple of pretty fast-paced, nail-biting games of alpha-centuri.
Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2008, 05:15:46 PM »

Strategy guides like this exist because the games obscure their own rules.  You have to read a guide just to learn how to play.  If you know the rules, then the gameplay is little more than selecting one of the pre-set paths, such as war or diplomacy, and riding along.

I have played Civilization, and dabbled in Dwarf Fortress, and I understand the caring and cultivation these games require, but I think someone looking for a challenge to the intellect will have better luck with Sudoku.

I think you're just inventing excuses not to like them now -- most strategy games have an in-game tutorial and teach you how to play as you go along, you hardly need a guide in order to learn how to play.

One could also say that if you know how to play an action game, there's no selection at all -- take a look at some speedruns of action games. They all tend to look the same for th esame game, because there's one best way to get through a game fast. There's no one best way to win a strategy game, fast or otherwise. Which is why you can't do speedruns of games like Alpha Centauri.

Strategy games require creativity and thought to play, because you have to think about general principles of good strategy and make decisions about particular cases of applying those principles.

One might as well say that living a real life isn't an intellectual challenge, because all you have to do is decide on one of several pre-set paths (such as honest firefighter, or evil businessman) and riding along. But that'd be insane. You can no more ride along with a path in a strategy game than you can in real life, reading a guide gives you some principles, but recognizing them and applying them always depends on the context.

It's ridiculous to claim that the difference between skill in strategy games amounts to differences in memorizing rules. Are Kasparov and Alekine good at chess because the memorized more rules about chess than their opponents? Are Boxer and Bisu good at Starcraft because they memorized more rules about Starcraft than their opponents? No, it's because they apply incredible amounts of creativity and intelligence and attention to their games. If strategy games aren't intellectual challenges, nothing is an intellectual challenge.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic