Welcome to the Home of Game Strategies and Stories
2 April 04
Continuing with our Friday theme of looking for the highlights of games, today we're talking about Culdcept. I mentioned it briefly before as a game of day. It's hard to describe which is probably why most people refer to it as a cross between Magic the Gather card game and Monopoly the board game.
It's nothing quite so simple though. You have a game piece (your cepter), you move him around the board based on a die roll. You also have a hand of game cards. The cards are divided into item cards, spell cards and creature cards. Before you roll the die, you have the option to use any spell cards in your hand. Some spell cards help you, some hurt your enemy and some just apply special conditions. Next you roll. When your cepter lands on a colored space, you can summon a monster from a creature card in your hand to dwell on that space. Like a fairy tale troll, the creature will collect a toll from all passing by except its summoner. If you don't want to pay the toll, you must summon a creature of your own to defeat it. The two creatures battle based on the stats printed on the card. The attacking creature (newly summoned) usually attacks first and does damage based on his strength stat. The damage come off the defenders HP stat. If its HP are reduced to zero, it dies. If it isn't killed, the defender attacks in turn. Item cards in your hand can be used in these battles to affect stats and apply special conditions.
So why are you doing all this. The object is to reach a magic point total for the board and get back to the home castle. Your magic point total is the sum of your ready magic (cash), plus the value of all the property you own plus the value of all the symbols you own. Symbols are sort of like stock in a neighborhood. As property values go up (due to magical improvements), so does the value of their associated symbol. When you mix in element affinity, support abilities, territorial abilities and special creature and item attributes, you can see it's rather complex.
So what are the strong points of Culdcept? Strangely enough part of it is it's very complexity. While keeping track of everything seems overwhelming, you'll soon pick out your favorite creatures, abilities and spells. Those choices will dictate your play style. Also since there are hundreds of cards available but you're only allowed to carry 50 in your book (you draw your hand from your book, usually a card at a time), you have to make many choices before you even start playing the game. You have to tailor your choices to both your play style and the board you're going to play on. You can even customize an AI opponent to help you work on your game's weaknesses. All these options give each game a rich flavor that changes with each match.
Next, there's the luck factor. While usually I like games that reward skillful play over luck, Culdcept manages to reward both. Your skill is how you choose your book and how you play the cards you have. The luck comes into play with the random die rolls and the random card selection. A hand full of items and spells early in the match can be devastatingly bad, but at the end of the game, it might just win for you. You never know what territory you'll land on next (unless you've been playing some special spell cards), so you have to be ready for anything. A couple of bad rolls can turn the tide of the game completely. One game I was in last place (of three) for the first 80% of the game, but my opponents stumbled onto some of my powered up territories (think Boardwalk with a hotel). Eventually I went on to a dominating win. The opposite can happen as well. There's really the feel that a game is never over.
Third, the game rewards you with new cards after every game. Even if you lose, you have the potential to become more powerful than before. You also learn about your opponent so you can tailor your book to exploit their weaknesses.
Finally, the game is well balanced. Luck is balanced with skill. Different play styles can be equally successful. If you build a deck full of only the most powerful monsters, you might find your opponent has a few weaker cards in their deck that negate the attacks of your powerhouses. Since it's more expensive to field powerful monsters, you can come out the loser in the end. If you skillfully buy symbols, you can come out far ahead even with less territory. There's a counter to almost everything. It's fun to see what you thought was a meaningless ability used to full effect to turn a battle. Little things like that make playing rewarding time and again. It's clearly not a game for everyone, but it is worth checking out. If you do get it, just ignore the paper manual. It will just confuse you. It's much easier to learn by playing the game. There is an in game tutorial and an in game manual as well.
Today's game of the day is Galactic Civilizations (official site) from Stardock/Drengin. Galciv, as it's called, is a 4X turn based strategy game. You always play as the humans against the aliens, but you have the choice to play in whatever style you'd like. You can also switch the AI alignment and intelligence around to your liking. One of the interesting features of the game is that the creators have taken a look at large numbers of games uploaded to their server. They've analyzed the play patterns of successful players and used that to improve AI gameplay. Even though it may not be a graphical stunner, it has been called the game that MOO3 wasn't.
Jason
1 April 04
It's April Fools day today. I tried to think up a good joke, but I realized I can't afford to scare anyone away. Just pretend we ran a really cool 'Starcraft 2 Announced' gag or something. Just like I pretend there are people out there who actually laugh at my jokes.
I'm going to continue on the reality theme today. Actually I'm proposing a theory. My theory is that the more realistic the game is the less story you need. The more fantastic the setting, the more story people will put up with.
Now I'm not saying that stories are bad. I love a game that includes a compelling story along with good gameplay. I'm just saying that if 3 lines of text are my entire story I better be in Europe in World War II or something. A minimalistic story can succeed in a familiar setting. We already have enough background information to fill in the gaps. If I'm sitting in the world of Xasa playing as a snake bard, I'm going to need more information.
There's nothing too impressive about Silent Storm's story. It gives you a basic sense of purpose and moves you from mission to mission. In a lesser game or with a more unfamiliar setting, this might fail. Here there's less stopping you from getting knee deep into the action. If the story were completely lost, you'd still have a great game.
In the middle we might have something like Red Alert 2. It set in a similar world to our own, but full of over the top characters and events. It probably resembles a comic book more than anything. It uses that type of story to propel you forward. It's written well enough that you don't even mind the in mission cut scenes. Here if the story were lost, you'd still have a good game, but it would be somewhat disjointed and confusing.
At the far end, we might have something like the original Homeworld. The heart of the story (returning home) is universal, but actual story is deep, alien, and involving. The story creates a living, breathing universe for you to explore. You're not just engaging in a series of combat missions; you're on a epic quest to lead your people out of exile. You meet helpful, harmful and indifferent characters along the way. You realize who your enemy is. You can be so drawn in to this fantastic universe that even events that interrupt the game flow are embraced because you are pulled into the flow of the story. Now if you lost the story, the game wouldn't stack up nearly as well. In fact, I'm quite sure it wouldn't have won nearly as many awards as it did.
So that's my advice to game designers. If you don't want to focus on the story, bring the setting close to home. If you want to go all out on story, put it some place fantastic. You could certainly do worse than Planescape: Torment for an example.
Today, we're pleased to be the first site to officially announce Starcraft 2. No, sorry. Actually we going realistic in a sim sort of way. Today's game is Sid Meier's SimGolf (official site). While there are no dinosaurs, there is a lot more fun than you'd expect from a golf course design game. Like any other sim or tycoon game, the key to success is making people happy. You try to balance designing a course that can challenge the pros while still be accessible to the beginner. You also get to manage the career of your local golf pro. It can suck you away for hours at a time while you try to perfect that hole. The demo is only 39 MB if you want to check it out.
Jason
31 Mar 04
Back to gaming and reality today. I'm going to give today's game right off the start because it's really the focus today. It's Kuma War (official site) from Kuma Reality Games. Kuma war is an interesting idea. They take the military headlines and turn them into tactical combat scenarios. The example they originally gave was the death of Saddam's sons. You could play the team that took them out.
Each mission will start out with a news report and intelligence briefing to fill you in on the nature of the problem and likely opposition. Then you can play the mission either in single player or multiplayer (coop or red vs. blue). On the one hand, this is as realistic as a tactical combat game can get. On the other hand, we usually try to have some space between events and their recreation in games.
On the positive, this game could help you empathize with the troops in harm's way. You can experience some of what they did. If you're from a coalition country, you can take pride in the exploits of your troops. If the news section is well done, you can learn more about current events in a way that makes you involved thus more likely to understand and remember.
On the negative side, there's a reason we like time between our experiences and the games. Real war is ugly. To make it into a fun game, the experience has to be "sexed up" to borrow an overexposed recent expression. Then there's the fact that those are not nameless, faceless grunts out there. They're brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. I don't think anyone would want to see a father or a friend constantly replaying a mission to save their real son or friend who died in that battle.
Time and history also grant perspective. For instance, Senator Kerry, the presidential candidate, once claimed that American soldiers in Vietnam were murderers, rapists, torturers and baby killers. In time, he learned more and separated his hatred of the war from the soldiers and then championed veteran's causes and now respects all veterans' service. If we're too close to the fire, we might still be burned.
To Kuma's credit, they are donating part of their proceeds from subscriptions to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (official site). Time will tell if this turns out to be a good idea and if gamers will embrace it.
Jason
30 Mar 04
What does it take to build a community around a game? Or rather what does it take to maintain it? It seem that most major games these days build a community of some sort at least in the excitement building up to release. I'm sitting here trying to build this community (with a lot of help), so the topic is on my mind. I think a thriving fan base really makes a difference when it comes to the longevity of a title.
First, obviously, you need a place to meet. While normally a website these days, it could be a chat room or an IRC channel or usenet. There has to be a place for people to go to get the latest information. While game engine info, screenshots, links to previews and progress updates are good, I think people really come looking for the bragging point. Those are the things that set this game apart. It might be engine stats, AI, lighting engine or anything that might surprise someone who has only just heard of the title. This is the red meat you can bring back to your gaming circle to try to drum up interest in the game. Conversely if the game doesn't have anything to separate it from the crowd, it's unlikely a community will form.
Second, you need a way for fans to talk to each other. They need to be able to discuss the latest info. They can dissect the screenshots. They can argue where the game might rank in the hierarchy of the genre. They can build that positive feedback loop known as hype. Excitement is contagious, but only if you can make contact with each other.
Finally, I really believe you need development team involvement with the community. Great teams recognize that the community has become part of the game. Even before release, they know that these fans are the ones that are going to spread the word about the game. They can help the team succeed. This is where the most motivated beta testers come from. They can voice gamer's expectations. By providing that link the team moves the community from outsiders to insiders. The fans, in turn, feel like they have a stake in the outcome. That's what I think you need to build a fan community.
As you can see, I've tried to mirror some of these things here. I want the same kind of community here that the great fan sites have. I want you to feel like an insider here. This place only works when we have people working together to talk strategy. Get on the forum, tell us your stories, post a news item about a game that has you excited. Build a little positive feedback here and let's get this community off the ground.
Sometimes you try to avoid a game, not because it's not good but because it might be too good. I've tried to avoid today's game, but after positive comments in Penny Arcade and an editor's choice from Computer Gaming World, I've got to give Star Chamber (official site) its props. Star Chamber is a combination of a 4X space strategy game with a collectible card game. You start out with a planet and some resources and set out to conquer the map militarily, culturally or politically. The cards can modify events around the map.
The reason I've avoided it is the card model. While this game sounds particularly well balanced, I can see myself getting out of control with purchasing the cards. The starter pack is about $20 and you can get another 45 cards for around $6. You can download the game to try out for free. There's also a subscription plan if you want regular pack updates as well as the ability to participate in tournaments. If you've gotten over your YuGiOh or Culdcept addiction, check it out.
Jason
29 Mar 04
I'm beginning to think that online plans are more difficult than first thought. I'm going to use Capcom as an example, but it's hardly unique to them. I should point out that I've liked Capcom for a long time. Ever since Street Fighter 2 in the arcades you could count me as a fan. That doesn't stop me from criticizing them.
I see a couple of problems in the online arena. The first is that unless the game is online only few games get the online component attention they deserve. Even online only games sometimes don't. To get people up to speed, Steel Battalion was a niche experiment by Capcom to see if people would support a complex simulation on consoles with the accompanying price tag. In this case it was a Mech (read giant robot) Simulator. Line of Contact was the online only expansion to this game. Unfortunately it's been a month since release and most North American customers are still struggling with a poorly running product. Since it was a niche product and had already been released in Japan, Capcom ran a small beta test. Some of the same issues that are troubling people now showed up in the beta, but apparently weren't regarded as significant enough to warrant a major change. While some of the problems appear to be related to the different net infrastructure in North America as opposed to Japan, some of it clearly comes back to the net and server code. This is all the more frustrating as the game itself is brilliant and deserves better.
The next problem is the idea that game design rules can be thrown out the window when it comes to online. While it's true that some people seem to revert to an early childhood state as soon as they're anonymously online, most people still want to play a game. The rules that separate good games from bad don't really change that much online. Capcom's strategy on Resident Evil Outbreak confuses me here. This is a team based game where you have to work together to escape Raccoon City before it's destroyed to try to contain the zombie plague. If I understand correctly, Capcom decided not to go with voice communication through the USB headset because it would make coordination too easy. Now we get the announcement that the game will be released without an online component in Europe. I had to read that several times myself to make sure I was reading it correctly. In fact, I even looked it up again just now to make sure. That sort of leads to my final point. If the game is just as good with the online component as without, what's the point of spending the effort to go online. Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow is now showing that new and unique modes can be added to truly complement the single player experience.
Today's game is Strength and Honour (official site) from Magitech. It tries to be a lot of things. It's a city building empire game. It's got a complex 3D realtime battle system that uses a chain of command to filter orders down to battalion level. There are 50 unit types across 8 civilizations with officer units that can add bonuses to combat or break morale if killed. Some interesting tactics are available including destroying the enemy's flags to break down their communication. There are even 10 philosophies you can adopt to ensure your nation reflects your ambitions. Strength and Honour should be out by summer.
Jason
© Talk Strategy 2004
