Welcome to the Home of Game Strategies and Stories
26 Mar 04
I want to try something new for Fridays. I want to go over some of the games in my collection and give some of their strengths. These are things that I think are good ideas or ideas that were well implemented in the game. I'd like to point out innovations. It's important to note that I'm not doing reviews. Reviews do a good job of nitpicking all the negatives of a game, but what I'd like to do is only focus on these games as examples of things done well. I'm kind of rambling, but what I'm trying to say is that if you were a strategy developer, you could look at these articles and find strengths you could try to use in your next project. I'm intentionally ignoring the downside of these games because you can determine whether or not you want to buy them based on reviews. The purpose here is help developers and gamers clarify what they want in a "good" strategy or tactical game.
Obviously, this is all my opinion and people are free to disagree with it. Feel free to do so in the forums. However, please concentrate on the idea of how to make better games in the future instead of 'why game X sucks' arguments. As they say, even on a dunghill one might find a rose or two. Fortunately, we're not starting on a dunghill.
You might be familiar with Silicon Knights. They've recently been working on the Gamecube and have released Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. The former was an original survival horror game with some amazing insanity effects while the latter is a remake (or perhaps a reimagining) of the original Playstation hit, Metal Gear Solid. If I had my way, the next remake they did would be one of their earlier games, Fantasy Empires (FE). I kind of drool to think of what they could do with modern technology.
FE was a follow up to Cyber Empires (aka Steel Empires). In many ways this game blew me away at the time. Here was a game set in the D&D world, but it was a grand strategy game. Your goal was to conquer the world. This game came out shortly after Dune II threw real time strategy on the map. FE was more ambitious than Dune II. In fact, it's hard to describe how much was crammed into this game, but I'll try.
First, even though it's a strategy game, you had to create a player character to be your avatar in the world. While that character didn't actually appear on the battlefield, his stats affected everything you did. Your armies are lead by heroes. Heroes stats are affected by your player character's stats. Higher strength, constitution and dexterity made your heroes a greater threat on the battlefield. Lower stats could weaken them. Your spell casting was affected by your intelligence and wisdom while your income was affected by charisma. Additionally your characters level went up with successful campaigns which in turn added to your strength in the next campaign. This avatar gave you a real sense of immersion and connection to the progress you made in the game. You were even encouraged to play your alignment when it came to things like honoring treaties or sending aid.
Second, just because it was an ambitious game, it still didn't skimp on the strategic depth. You controlled territorial construction, army movements, hero movements and questing, keep/castle size and spell casting. In fact hero questing and spell casting added a great deal of strategic depth. On the one hand you needed to quest to get higher level heroes and the magic items they'd find on those quests. On the other hand, a powerful hero on the border could deter invasion. Spells used magic from the pool generated by the number of spell casting heroes you had each turn. Spells could soften up a territory or even summon undead armies or just to scout out a territory's defenses. I also liked that you could send strike forces by sea to attack behind the front lines even though it was often quite expensive.
Third, the tactical game was important to success. You had control of initial troop dispositions. You could lead groups personally. If you attacked a fortification without siege equipment, you'd lose badly. You still had the option to ignore it completely, but your losses would almost always be higher. If you effectively used your heroes and kept your archers, catapults and ballista protected, you could win even though outnumbered. While the battle AI might not have been stellar, it did well conveying the sense that you were in the middle of a pitched battle. Even your line units that survived the battle gained experience. Veteran and elite units were worth their weight in gold.
Finally, they effectively used the Dungeons and Dragons license. They used a D&D map, character types, spells, alignments and magical items. There was even a 'Dungeon Master' that commented on your play. Everything about the game made you feel like a power player in the D&D universe. You know your opponent means business when you front line territory is attacked with insect plagues, earthquakes and meteor storms. Then your high level hero with his ring of regeneration is sucked into a mirror of life trapping. I hope you had a back up plan.
Today's game is available on PC, but also the three big consoles. It's Worms 3D (official site) from Team 17. Yes, the crazy worms are back killing each other with sheep and cows and holy hand grenades. While 3D does alter some of the challenges, it also opens up some neat dirty tricks. Basically you know if you're a worms fan or not. If you're not sure, there is a demo available.
Jason
25 Mar 04
I don't know if I had good 'plays well with others' grades in kindergarten, but I do know I'm a big fan of cooperative play. I don't even mind 'taking one for the team' if it helps us win. Kind of like the final mission in Warcraft III. All the others are just delaying tactics, sacrificing themselves to give the good guys more time to complete the last desperate effort. I don't even mind having to change my play style to do it.
I know some people who like team play, but only if it's on their terms. They're not going to change how they play. They'll spare some units for you only if they have some spares. To them, you really only there to be a better ally than the usual poor AI. The strategy to win is either their strategy or just luck that things work out. People like that can play with almost a complete lack of communication. I'm not like that.
I don't need anyone shouting out build orders to me, but I like to have a feel about how we're going to play this. Are we all turtling? Do we have one player doing nothing but sending out skirmishing parties to slow down the opponent while the others build a large, advanced army? If the game allow you to control allied troops, are we just feeding troops to the forward commander?
On my own, I'd never be that guy that constantly sends attack parties from the get go. I don't mind doing that to help the team though. The problem with being that guy is that usually you fall behind in the tech tree and you're a prime nuisance that bumps you up on the enemies priority list. Usually you'll get annihilated about the time both sides of the massive pincer close on your enemies. Still, I get just as much joy watching the plan work after I'm wiped out as if I were one of the attackers.
It's just a game. It's not that much of a sacrifice, but you'd never know that from the reactions of some people. You ask them to take a risky role, you'd think you were actually asking them to risk their life. Maybe I'm not really hardcore. I just enjoy a good game. My record doesn't worry me any more than my old kindergarten grades. Perhaps that just me.
Today, surprise, surprise, we've got a PC strategy game. It's Spartan (official site) by Slitherine Strategies, the people who brought you Legion. Yes, we're going back to ancient Greece for some turn based empire building. Your job is to unite the city states of Greece to be able to oppose the might of Persia. You can tell this a dedicated strategy game group. Though they've lovingly designed everything in 3D including the battles, you can lower it to 2D if you machine can't handle the number crunching. It's releasing right now in the UK, conquering the rest of the world soon.
Jason
24 Mar 04
Outside of clans, are there actually team players any more? I ask because it seems like there are many games out there that could be good online tactical games, but if the game design doesn't force it, it's rare to see players effectively working together. Considering I resent design decisions that force a particular play style on the player, that doesn't leave much.
The problem is that team play is so fun. When you get a good group together that can coordinate actions and communicate with each other, the game can transcend what you thought was the limit of enjoyment it could bring. One of the good things about Xbox Live is that the standard forces all games to provide voice support. With good voice support, communication is easy. That still doesn't get people to work together.
Perhaps my problem is my lack of twitch FPS skills. I'm ok, but a good player will smoke me every time. I'm also bad at doing silly things. I see people jump and flip and do all kinds of weird things to avoid fire. Since they're good players I presume that works. However it takes away from my sense of immersion. I have a really hard time bringing myself to do that. I have problems with people jumping on the wings of my bomber to do some sky surfing to the enemy. Some of the crazy stuff is fun to see once, but I don't enjoy making a living exploiting the system.
I like playing in an organized four man fire team. I like using good tactics to take out enemies. I like working together to keep everyone alive. If our team needs air cover, it's nice to think that a call for help might actually be answered. I don't mind being a role player such as an engineer or medic if we're working together. I don't want to be a fire and forget tool that other players only recognize when needed. Oh well, I'll keep trying.
Today's game might be a stretch. I miss the space shooter genre. It pretty much peaked with Freespace 2 and we haven't seen much since then (although Independence War 2 was impressive). Today we're looking at Project Freedom (official site) the follow up to Project Earth. You're an ever popular pilot for hire working for a large corporation. Once off Earth, you enter the lawless regions of space where you'd best be able to defend yourself.
I'm not sure if there will be much strategy or tactics in the game. They do promise a research model for ship upgrades. It's unclear if there will be a multiplayer component. It's good to see people venturing back into the depths of space. Look for it around the beginning of May.
Jason
23 Mar 04
How do you like your tech tree? Do you like it simple, straight forward and symmetrical? Do you like it very wide, but short? Do you want long, wide with multiple interdependencies? Do you prefer your strategy without tech trees (i.e. unit become available over time or are all available at the start)? I tend to to look at the Alpha Centauri tech tree and just shake my head. That's beyond what I'm able to memorize for a game. But that doesn't mean I don't like it.
While obviously the tech tree must be linked to what you're trying to accomplish in the game, I think the level of complexity must be tied to the pacing and scope of the game. Pacing is fairly straight forward. The more time you have to ponder decisions, the more complex the tech tree can become. If the game is real time with constant skirmishes that you need to baby sit, the tech tree better be bloody simple. If it's turn based or phased where you have time to consider, it can be much deeper. More time also allows for more interdependencies. If I'm crunched on the front lines, I'm not going to have the time to find out that I need both improved citrus tech and streamlined bottling for the kiwi extractor.
Scope is a little more complex. It doesn't make sense to have a huge tech tree if your game is supposed to be a series of border skirmishes over a month. The converse is not so easy. While if you're covering the whole of human history, you could have a very long, complicated tech tree. On the other hand, you could just as easily just go to the high points.
I like a few things in a tech tree. Primarily I like logic. You should be able to look at the tech tree and say, well, of course you couldn't build an atom smasher until you've got particle acceleration down. Also units should be logically tied to the technology. Next, within the above constraints, I like it to look like a tree. Each option opens more options. Then I like the tree to be balanced. There shouldn't be an optimal path through the tree. There should be differences for taking a particular branch, but the plusses and minuses should measure out. The reason I like balance is that it won't penalize you for choosing the path that suits your play style. Finally, if a tech tree is complex, I like to find a few pleasant surprises. I don't want hidden super units, but rather little rewards for having a plan in mind. Maybe on a resource poor map you'll do better if you know the path to the techs that increase efficiency. So how do you like yours?
Today's game is a recent announcement. Monte Cristo Games has announced D-Day (official site) for the PC. They're planning to release it on, . . . wait for it . . . , June 6th. Yes, the 60th anniversary of the invasion of Europe. You'll never guess what it's about. Sorry, I'm a bit punchy from the allergy medicine. It's a real time strategy game (with pause) that starts off with the resistance doing reconnaissance missions and builds to the invasion and continues through August 1944. There will be 12 campaign missions and 4 multiplayer modes. They're also planning to include a wealth of historical information for those interested.
Jason
22 Mar 04
Anyone remember GURPS? It stood for Generic Universal Role Playing System. It was a pen and paper role playing system that let you create your own games and game world. It seemed like a great idea. If you make the system flexible enough people could create the game of their dreams.
The problem turned out to be that most people wanted the same game with minor tweaks. There wasn't a rash of new, creative game styles or types. There were a few official RPG's made with GURPS, but it never took off like some people dreamed.
I think there's always a tension between creativity and accepted standards. Black and White stands out as an example of this. Here was a game that went far out on the creativity side. You had a powerful creature to train and build up, you had god powers and worshipers, you could even directly affect the game world with few limits. The problem was that the gameplay didn't really adhere to any of the accepted standards. This made seemingly simple tasks hard to do. The emphasis on the mouse more often left the user fight the controls than feeling totally in control.
All this lead to an interesting problem. The initial fascination with the game world lead to some hugely positive reviews. Once that wore off, reviewers and gamers realized how much frustration lay in the "playing." After much back pedaling, Black and White went from hit to flop. Black and White could have been a new paradigm, a toy with limited gameplay. In the end, gamers rejected largely that in favor of more gameplay.
I think this is also reflected in the mod community. While most games that allow mods get some, the ones that really take off with the modding community seem to have two things in common. One is robust support for mods; the other is a solid core gameplay. While there have been some total conversion mods that made a game into something else entirely, most build on the core gameplay to add new flavors to the mix.
So what do you think? I've tried to cover a broad range of topics related to gaming. I'm surprised I haven't been called to the carpet much in the forums or email. I was in the military, I know how to take criticism.
I'm heading back to Strategy RPGs for today's game. It's Growlanser Generations (official site) from Working Designs. Generations is the two part story told over Growlanser II and III. Growlanser II should be coming out soon. It tells the story of a world where rings become weapons (kind of like Spaceballs). It also has three eyed wolf characters. They even have a deluxe edition coming out that comes with a watch, a soundtrack CD, a deck of playing cards and a ring & chain. I guess I can't complain about lack of extras for a while.
Jason
© Talk Strategy 2004
