Thorst
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2008, 06:32:32 PM » |
|
I don’t think all strategy games suck. I think number-heavy sims fail to deliver the qualitative challenges they advertise, such as diplomacy, and instead provide the tedious, quantitative challenge of deducing their hidden mechanics.
A proper strategy game makes each scenario a riddle for the player to solve and does not expect strategic gameplay to magically emerge from the simulation of mundane detail.
|
|
« Last Edit: July 26, 2008, 06:35:53 PM by Thorst »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2008, 06:41:27 PM » |
|
I'm not sure why you're limiting property strategy games to that category, considering that many people consider these types of games strategic (especially in human vs human play). Alpha Centauri for instance had very good reviews (from Wikipedia): The magazine PC Gamer US awarded Alpha Centauri a score of 98%, which was the highest score ever given by that magazine—Civilization II being the previous holder of this record with 97%. Later, PC Gamer also gave Half-Life 2 and Crysis scores of 98% in 2004 and 2007, respectively, tying each with Alpha Centauri. The magazine also gave Alpha Centauri Editor's choice and Turn-based strategy game of the year awards in 1999.
Alpha Centauri has also won several Game of the Year awards, including those from The Denver Post and Toronto Sun. It won Turn-based Strategy Game of the year award from GameSpot as well. The Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences named Alpha Centauri best strategy game of the year. In 2000 Alpha Centauri won the Origins Award for Best Strategy Computer Game of 1999. If it sucked, why would it be one of the highest rated games ever, and still considered one of the best computer strategy games by so many? Are they all wrong and deluding themselves, or are they seeing something you aren't? I don't think being good at these types of games has to do with hidden mechanics. Simply knowing all the mechanics of a game and reading a guide won't make you good at a game, although it'll probably help. But it won't help much more than reading guides about chess will make you a better chess player. I'm not sure what you mean by "scenario" -- could you elaborate on that? Do you mean pre-built scenarios in the sense of individual campaigns (such as the "scenario" challenges in Sim City), or do you mean contextual scenarios that arise as one plays the game (such as human vs human play)?
|
|
« Last Edit: July 26, 2008, 06:48:15 PM by rinkuhero »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baba Brainchild
|
|
« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2008, 06:46:11 PM » |
|
Thorst, as a strategy fan, I'm a little baffled by your posts in this thread. Could you show me some examples of specific strategy games that you do or don't like?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Thorst
|
|
« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2008, 11:49:39 PM » |
|
Could I be missing something? Probably, and I would like to hear what it is.
I enjoy the Civilization games and would probably enjoy Alpha Centauri. Civilization is like tending a garden as opposed to forming a strategy toward victory. Some people have greener thumbs than others, but that is not the point of gardening.
Heroes of Might and Magic, another favorite, makes you think a little more in that the scenarios (in the sense of the strategy-game equivalent to a level) can have a trick or a riddle to them.
But, both of these games are about making the player work rather than making the player think. That is okay, because the work is fun. The games I dislike are all those in which the work is not fun. I am not sure which games to name, because I play so little of them, but I guess anything deriving from Balance of Power.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
increpare
Guest
|
|
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2008, 12:32:28 AM » |
|
Are Kasparov and Alekine good at chess because the memorized more rules about chess than their opponents?
At least one top chess guy has said 'yes' to that question (his proposed solution being to randomize the starting set-up on the board). And: HOMAM2/3 FTW!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Eclipse
|
|
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2008, 12:49:36 AM » |
|
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?
you are way off base: http://www.sinsofasolarempire.com/
|
|
|
Logged
|
<Powergloved_Andy> I once fapped to Dora the Explorer
|
|
|
synapse
Level 1
|
|
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2008, 08:34:42 AM » |
|
I'm not sure one or two counterexamples makes me way off base. I've heard of this game and it looks quite polished, but that doesn't mean that strategy games haven't become far less popular.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baba Brainchild
|
|
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2008, 09:20:26 AM » |
|
One or two counterexamples show that strategy games aren't dead. I agree with your point about the trends toward making action games and the lowering popularity of strategy games, but dead is too harsh a word. I don't think that strategy games are unpopular, just less popular than action games.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2008, 11:52:03 AM » |
|
Exactly. New editions of the Civilization series sell in the millions each year, and some of the most successful commercial indie games are strategy games like Democracy and Kudos. Even if only 10% of people who play games play strategy games, that's a huge market.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baba Brainchild
|
|
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2008, 12:10:06 PM » |
|
My no-research intuition says that action games have always been more popular than strategy games. They're much easier to pick up and play and can have just as rewarding gameplay as the deepest strategy game (though it offers a different kind of reward). If you check out Wikipedia's list of best-selling video games, the vast vast majority of them are action games. But it's worth noting that most of the strategy games on that list are PC games. Should indie game folks be making more strategy games? Is an abundance of action games a problem?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2008, 12:18:55 PM » |
|
Whether there's a problem depends on what you like to play. I prefer strategy games and I feel they're more valuable to people than action games are, because they usually require more reflection and longer-term thinking, but I still play action games occasionally.
Actually I prefer games that allow you to do both.
As an example, Starcraft is basically a strategy game and you're not going to get very far in it with just action skills. But being fast and quick is important as well (it's called "micro", where you manage individual units as they fight).
So I think what the problem is, is not action itself, it's the lack of a strategic element to most action games. One doesn't have to come at the expense of the other.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
increpare
Guest
|
|
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2008, 12:23:19 PM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
synapse
Level 1
|
|
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2008, 01:28:42 PM » |
|
There've definitely been some good posts. I think one thing that's missing is a more formal description of what exactly makes up a strategy game - there are numerous examples such as Civilization, Starcraft, and even the indie games like Democracy or Kudos. And as RinkuHero mentioned, genres such as real-time strategy merge action with strategic planning. As usual, the line is blurred and we have to make a distinction between mostly-action and mostly-strategy games.
I suppose that the important trend to be observed is that while strategy games are certainly not dead, and probably not even less popular...the successful ones must be much more polished these days. And I think that trend is true for all popular indie-games - the need for a unique, chic artistic style. Older action indie games may have gotten away with just a cool new gameplay mechanic, and older strategy indie games got away with a complex set of interacting rules with a deep simulation. But to be successful, modern games need innovation AND polish.
As for the initial question, you guys have convinced me - strategy games seem to be doing fine.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Thorst
|
|
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2008, 03:22:34 PM » |
|
I spent a little time with the Democracy 2 demo, and if I have taken this thread off topic, this type of game is the reason. It seems as if the only way I can make a mistake in this game is if the simulation behaves differently than I expected. But, this does not feel like a mistake. It feels like a flaw in the simulation. In contrast, when I make a mistake on a crossword puzzle, sometimes I blame the puzzle designer, but most of the time I have to admit that my answer is not as good as the right answer.
I think the difference is that in a crossword hint, the hint writer has a strategy to fool the player, whereas Democracy 2 purports to reverse the situation, so that the player has a strategy to fool the game designer, which is nonsensical because the game designer’s moves have already been made.
More on topic, Synapse, do you think the polish is superficial? Personally, I would take a clever gimmick over polish any day. I think less-polished games are more acceptable with web games and cell phone games than on the desktop.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
synapse
Level 1
|
|
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2008, 05:01:35 PM » |
|
More on topic, Synapse, do you think the polish is superficial? Personally, I would take a clever gimmick over polish any day. I think less-polished games are more acceptable with web games and cell phone games than on the desktop.
Arguably there are a few types of polish - interface tightness, visual effects, and gameplay balancing. I don't think it's controversial to say that gameplay balancing and an elegant interface are more important than a sparkling cursor. In a complicated strategy game, a clean interface may actually be as important as tight gameplay, simply because a user must be able to interact with the game effectively enough to experience the tight gameplay. So no, I don't think these kinds of polish are superfiical. Also, this kind of polish is rarely found in indie games. The ones that have it tend to get recognized very quickly for it. But this is pretty offtrack from the original strategy/simulation market discussion. If we're going to talk polish, we should move this to the game design forum.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Thorst
|
|
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2008, 06:26:42 PM » |
|
I think expectations for graphics and interface quality are higher for desktop games, so I guess you could say the market for web games is more favorable if you want to focus on concept rather than implementation.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2008, 09:02:50 PM » |
|
I spent a little time with the Democracy 2 demo, and if I have taken this thread off topic, this type of game is the reason. It seems as if the only way I can make a mistake in this game is if the simulation behaves differently than I expected. But, this does not feel like a mistake. It feels like a flaw in the simulation. In contrast, when I make a mistake on a crossword puzzle, sometimes I blame the puzzle designer, but most of the time I have to admit that my answer is not as good as the right answer.
I think the difference is that in a crossword hint, the hint writer has a strategy to fool the player, whereas Democracy 2 purports to reverse the situation, so that the player has a strategy to fool the game designer, which is nonsensical because the game designer’s moves have already been made. I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. Could you say it in simpler language? Do you mean that strategy games in which you can't make "mistakes" in the way you can make mistakes in a crossword puzzle are bad? I would disagree with that -- not all games have to have clear goals and clear failure conditions. Another thing to consider is that making it easy to fail in a demo of a game is a bad idea, and generally the full version of an indie game is much harder than the demo. For instance, the demo version of Immortal Defense contains very few difficult levels (I can think of only one tricky level in the whole demo, and it has 32 levels) whereas the latter levels are much trickier. Do you mean that it's easier to disagree with the way a strategy or simulation game designer did something than it is to disagree with the way a puzzle game designer or an action game designer did something? I think that's true, but it's a necessary part of those games being more complex. If your game is about how cities are run or how civilization works or how supply lines work in war, there will be parts that people disagree with you about, because you may have strong opinions on civilizations and cities and even supply lines, whereas if your game is about a fox and other animals flying a ship shooting other ships, there won't be much you disagree with the designer about because you probably don't have strong opinions about foxes flying ships. So I don't see this as a flaw of strategy or simulation games, but a necessary consequence of them being more relevant to life. I also don't see it as important if a simulation doesn't behave differently than I expect. I prefer it to behave as I expect. Chess is a strategy game, and its rules work exactly as I expect them to, the game doesn't surprise me with new rules for new situations, and yet it's still strategic and fulfilling despite that the rules don't surprise me.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Thorst
|
|
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2008, 10:57:32 PM » |
|
I am not sure what I was trying to say either. I believe my point about Democracy 2 can be put into a simple question: Does this game make me think, or does it make me work? If it is going to make me think, then it has to try to trick me. Think of the way chess opponents set traps for each other. Otherwise, tending all of these stats for influence chains and interest groups is just work. I never have to figure out anything. I just follow the rules of the game (thankfully Democracy 2 makes its rules fairly explicit), and I guess I am supposed to enjoy watching my approval rating go up.
So, if a game is going to challenge the intellect, I think it does have to have clear goals and failure conditions. Of course, a game could focus on the imagination instead of the intellect, and still be a great game.
I definitely see your point about strategy games and real life. Strategy games should try to be relevant to life, but in more creative ways than simply mimicking it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2008, 11:37:58 PM » |
|
Democracy 2 didn't make me think exactly, but it did give me a better idea about how trying to please everybody is impossible, and that if you want to be a successful politician you need to try to satisfy specific important interest groups. So in other words, it didn't require much thought to be successful at, but it did make me think about the outside world. The same was true of Sim City. Building a successful city is relatively easy in that game, but it still makes you think about how cities work. So I think a strategy game can be valuable and successful even when it's not challenging, and that challenge isn't the only reason to play a game. The enjoyment comes not from watching your approval rating go up, but from stepping back and thinking about the election process, using the game as a tool to help you understand it.
There are strategy games which are challenging, but those typically involve human vs human play. For instance, Civilization and Alpha Centauri are very easy when you're playing against the computer, but much more difficult when playing against other people. Same with Starcraft and the like. Typically when you're learning the rules of a strategy game AI can be challenging, but after you learn them the AI is a pushover, and you have to proceed to human players for a challenge.
So in other words, appealing to the intellect can include more than defined goals and set challenges, it can include player vs player play, or it can involve thinking about how the game works from a detached vantage point.
I don't think any strategy game simply mimics life, there's always selectivity and focus going on. Sim City isn't just mimicking how cities work, Sim Earth isn't just mimicking how the earth works, Civilization isn't must mimicking how civilizations work, they pick and choose important parts to present. They can't present everything, so they simplify, abstract, and present what they feel are the most essential things involved. E.g. the factors that go into real wars are hundreds of thousands of times more complex than the factors that go into wars in strategy games, and each strategy game that depicts war can make it feel very different by choosing different parts to portray, and by abstracting it in a different way. Some focus on the importance of having well-trained troops, others focus on the importance of having well-fed troops, others focus on the importance of transportation, or on technological superiority, or on loyalty and morale, and so on, there are thousands of things that they can choose to include or not include.
|
|
« Last Edit: July 27, 2008, 11:46:20 PM by rinkuhero »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Eclipse
|
|
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2008, 01:07:05 AM » |
|
I'm not sure one or two counterexamples makes me way off base. I've heard of this game and it looks quite polished, but that doesn't mean that strategy games haven't become far less popular.
it's only that indie developers care much about platformers and shooters, like you said, simpler mechanichs to appeal a wider range of people... i think there's still plenty of space for a good strategy game, even a turn based one. Also, RTS are the most common genre after FPS on the pc so no, i don't think they're less popular than before in the mass market... Talking about consoles, they were never so popular, maybe only some weird stuff like "tactics" games in japan
|
|
|
Logged
|
<Powergloved_Andy> I once fapped to Dora the Explorer
|
|
|
|