|
what makes a good strategy game??
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
What makes a strategy game?
North American release of Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance has occurred, and the rest of us are waiting with ebay accounts desperate to get into the action before the worldwide release on the 22nd November. Forged Alliance is the game that supcom should have been, and here I will discuss a few of the BIG reasons FA is the single greatest RTS currently available.
tactical and strategic depth
The most important criteria for ANY strategy game. How many ways are there to win? How many different strategies does the game allow for and reward? With the scope of the game and the sheer number of versatile and diverse units, FA offers more depth than any other RTS. Include in this all the different strategic buildings and you have a wealth of play styles, and a wealth of tactical options.
For instance:
Let's say you are being harassed by a Tier (T) 1 bomber. What can you use to counter it?
You have: T1/T2/T2 fighters. T1/T2 Anti Air (AA) ground units. T1/T2/T3 static AA defenses. And 2-4 naval units that come equipped with AA defenses. that's 10-14 different units to combat that particular unit. No other game allows for such versatility. Sure some are better than others (as you would want and expect) but that's the strategy- what are your goals going into the mission and how do you achieve that goal with the units you have at your disposal? there are simply a million different ways to play with the combination of units. No other RTS has the same freedom, especially since they all use "hard counters" of 1 or 2 units.
simulation
It is rare to find an RTS that is a simulation, indeed the only other big name is total annihilation (I know there is one other but I do not know the name of it). never EVER underestimate the gains in gameplay dynamics that you receive from playing a simulation. If someone doubts the veracity of the argument that a simulation improves gameplay, they simply do not understand how much of a difference it really makes. If your aircraft flies too close to artillery, there is a (small) chance it could get taken out by a shell intended for somewhere else on the map. I saw an amusing video recently where a player flew his fighters too close to his flying experimental unit, and when the experimental fired, it managed to hit half his supporting fighters- you simply cannot get this type of dynamic in the purely maths-based rules you find in all other games. If units walk in front of other units they will get hit instead of the unit that is now behind.
What does this all mean?
DYNAMIC battles. They are unpredictable. There is no more "oh I have 5 footmen he has 4 grunts, im going to lose". A unit might simply be microed behind a legde so that unit X cannot fire on it. Not because there's an arbitrary rule stating "units in area of X get +50% to armour bonus" -unit X cannot be hit simply because there is something in the way. This allows for real strategy when placing buildings too. Put your static defenses in a "ditch" and artillery will have a harder time hitting it, again, not because of any bull rules. Bubble shields are great for protecting those IN the bubble, but ALSO those that are stationed BEHIND the bubble, because enemies firing at them will hit the bubble first. You cant get that kind of dynamic without a simulation.
This also changes balance. Any unit that can hit any other unit will hit that unit, no penalty! There are no silly rules to remember "oh, magic does extra damage to heavy armour". What this means is that you don't get ridiculous things happening, like in empire at war where an ATAT had been coded to be useless against ground troops. I mean, we all saw them tear humans up in empire strikes back didn’t we? It means enough of unit X will beat unit Y, no matter how powerful. This adds to tactical variety "oh, he's got that super duper unit, but if I mass enough of my average unit I might just get over the top of him".
It allows for artillery to be useless against units, as well as being AWESOME againt units AND buildings. How? Simple. Artillery projectiles are relatively slow, meaning a good player can micro his troops out of the way. BUT, if the artillery still manages to hit, then it does its full, regular damage. No need for bonus damage against buildings and reduced damage to units. It just happened NATURALLY and fluidly, and again, makes sense!!!
It means real tactics come into play and you get real rewards- forcing a well-executed pincer on an opponent works because dynamically. Again, there are no "if you execute a pincer you get +50% to attack rolls", it works because you have come into behind (or to the side) of an opponent, and it takes valuable time for the unit's TURRET and/or DIRECTION to shift to face the new threat. It means that if a group of units such as aircraft retreat, they can no longer fire on you because their turret's rotation is limited.
Again, all of this rewards a player that can use their troops well, and makes it more of a its how you use your units rather than what units you have moreso than any other RTS available.
freedom
This kind of ties in with the other two topics, but what the hell. Because of its rich tactical nature and the fact that it is a simulation, there are no hard and fast rules to victory. In many other RTS's its all about buildings heaps of troops and sending them to your opponents base. Repeat. But in FA you really need to be aware and prepared for anything. Tactical missile strikes, hidden bases behind your lines of defense, troop drops behind enemy lines, stealthed fighter-bombers, mobile bombs, navy bombardment, having your bases captured and used against you, amphibious units sneaking up on you unprotected etc etc etc. I have watched dozens of replays and I rarely see the same tactics twice. Thus intel plays more of a role than any other game that has come before, which is cool because you then have to worry about jamming, stealth, and cloaking! If you lose the information war you'll probably lose the game. Again, this really rewards sound strategy.
The diversity of all the new units makes play really interesting, and adds more to the tactical depth and the freedom of how you choose to play. If you found map control unimportant in supcom, you will be VERY pleased with how important map control is in forged alliance. It means you are fighting over the entire map for the majority of the game! The action is better than anything ive played or seen. Hundreds and hundreds of versatile, diverse units all shooting the out of each other. And because there's no bull hard-counter rules, it is MUCH more satisfying.
build templates
Ok, this might not appeal to some but I think it is fantastic.
Load a sandbox game (testing to just play with yourself).
Build any combination of structures. Save.
Load a multiplayer game and BINGO! There's your saved group of structures ready to be built in the order you originally built them. no more ing around in your base building economy or defenses. You simply load a saved template and you're away! I love this because it really allows for some creative, sexy & functional base designs and forward firebases without you having to spend the time designing them!! It saves SO much time! And that's more time you get for moving your troops around.
Nobody says you have to like FA more than other titles in the RTS genre, but I am simply stating that FA is easily the best in the categories I have briefly outlined. Tactical/strategic depth, simulation & freedom are the most important aspects of a strategy title however, and there can be no argument that FA wins hands down in these departments. Make no mistake, FA is the strategy title for adults that want as much freedom from their gameplay as possible. And gameplay > all.
Pick up the standalone expansion for about $30US and try it for yourself.
 |
|
|
| babablacksheep |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
The most important criteria for ANY strategy game. How many ways are there to win? |
how is that the most important criteria? your statement is a mere opinion, not fact. the important criteria would change from person to person.
supcom or fa or whatever, is a game for those who want to roleplay and pretend like they're brilliant strategist, sitting in their comfy ass computer chairs listening to DI.fm. and i have no problem with that, cause sometimes we all gotta dream.
it seems to me that you think a good strategy game requires a complete simulation of the battlefield. every nuance and detail of real life has to be incorporated into the game, so that it feels real. that there has to be a "wealth of options".
they should make a new genre just for supcom called: RTSS, real time strategy simulation.
that way, we wouldnt get games like supcom mixed in with ty RTS games like warcraft or generals, right?
that way, we wouldnt keep having these rants about how supcom is the best RTS game ever. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Too bad the game takes 50+ hours to learn everything, lol
I think most people who buy it expecting to have quick, fun RTS battles will be sorely disappointed. The pace is slow and detail is excruciating (not in graphics, but in sheer number of statistics you need to know about all of the units). You could probably memorize an entire A-Z encyclopedia set in the time it takes to master the game.
It's just too damn complicated...unnecessarily so. Sorry to poop on this thread. If you have the patience for it, SupCom probably will be a fun game, but I must recommend people download the demo and watch lots of actual gameplay videos before buying. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by babablacksheep
how is that the most important criteria? your statement is a mere opinion, not fact. the important criteria would change from person to person. |
um yeah. the most important part of a strategy game isnt how good the strategy is :rolleyes: nobody plays strategy games for the tactics and strategy! so, what is the most important?
why bother reviewing games at all (or any art for that matter) if it just boils down to personal preference? a strategy game challenges you to strategise; therefore the depth and number of strategies available to you through gameplay is easily the most important part of a strategy title.
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
It's just too damn complicated...unnecessarily so. |
well, that's why people have consoles. for easy games they dont have to think about. and youre simply wrong about "unnecessarily so". there is nothing in FA that is needlessly complicated, and in fact it has an elegant simplicity to it, meaning the game is as deep as the player wishes it to be.
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Too bad the game takes 50+ hours to learn everything, lol |
why is that a bad thing? why is having more freedom and depth and more to learn than your average RTS a weakness? i dont understand you! :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I think most people who buy it expecting to have quick, fun RTS battles will be sorely disappointed. The pace is slow and detail is excruciating (not in graphics, but in sheer number of statistics you need to know about all of the units). You could probably memorize an entire A-Z encyclopedia set in the time it takes to master the game. |
you gotta stop making posts that are incorrect re FA! ;) first off, how quick a game is depends entirely on the map. my fave map games rarely last more than 20 mins. that's pretty quick imo. the pace is ANYTHING but slow. indeed its the fastest RTS ive ever played. what are you smoking? and again, i still dont see why having a plethora of rich, versatile and diverse units is a weakness?
since when did gaming have to be really simplistic? we have those titles already, there's nothing wrong with doing it a bit differently!
i dunno about you but i enjoy difficult games, but then again i grew up on the stupidly hard titles from the C64 era :) |
|
|
| DJ UD |
I dont agree with the build templates at all. Some games like star craft didnt really rely much on structure placement you just spammed buldings everywhere.
However games like Rise of Nations or Age Of empires require a little more planning on the structure part, you need to build defenses to suit your opponent and a set template cannot protect you from obvious weak points becuase you dont know what they are yet. Knowing\reading your opponents play style allows you to build a defensive or offensive building structure against certin types of armies. Set templates would never work in the long run and they would hurt the game in my opionion. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ UD
I dont agree with the build templates at all. Some games like star craft didnt really rely much on structure placement you just spammed buldings everywhere.
However games like Rise of Nations or Age Of empires require a little more planning on the structure part, you need to build defenses to suit your opponent and a set template cannot protect you from obvious weak points becuase you dont know what they are yet. Knowing\reading your opponents play style allows you to build a defensive or offensive building structure against certin types of armies. Set templates would never work in the long run and they would hurt the game in my opionion. |
that's why you use them wisely ;) forward firebases + economy matrices. no one is saying there is "one size fits all" or that you should treat the templates in that way. but, the option is there if you choose to use it.
i really just threw that in there coz i know people really didnt like the building aspect of supcom, so now there is an alternative :) |
|
|
| babablacksheep |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
um yeah. the most important part of a strategy game isnt how good the strategy is :rolleyes: nobody plays strategy games for the tactics and strategy! so, what is the most important?
why bother reviewing games at all (or any art for that matter) if it just boils down to personal preference? a strategy game challenges you to strategise; therefore the depth and number of strategies available to you through gameplay is easily the most important part of a strategy title.
|
you didnt say that strategy was the most important criteria for a strategy game, you said "how many different ways there are too win," which may imply strategy, but i didnt take it that way.
but i guess since that is what you were trying to say, it's still a redundant and obvious fact, of course a rts game needs to have strategy. and still, the most important criteria IS opinion based, we all look for something different in games.
obviously, we are disagreeing here on what the most important criteria is, which kinda proves my point.
anyway, i never said you shouldnt write reviews, i just find it funny that you're all over supcom like it IS the best rts. a good game is the best in it's field when it stands the test of time, and when it creates a strong following. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by babablacksheep
you didnt say that strategy was the most important criteria for a strategy game, you said "how many different ways there are too win," which may imply strategy, but i didnt take it that way. |
yeah, well i thought that was pretty evident, but yes, that's what i meant.
| quote: |
but i guess since that is what you were trying to say, it's still a redundant and obvious fact, of course a rts game needs to have strategy. and still, the most important criteria IS opinion based, we all look for something different in games. |
perhaps, but given that some of the best-selling RTS titles have had very limited ways of playing, i thought it needed to be pointed out that what makes a strategy game is well, actual strategy ;) not the prettiest graphics (tho i think FA looks great) or the nth version of pretty much the same game (hello starcraft 2). yes, the most important criteria might be individual, but if it really is you can't criticise me for being redundant then :p
| quote: |
anyway, i never said you shouldnt write reviews, i just find it funny that you're all over supcom like it IS the best rts. |
oh, it is. ive played almost every major (traditional) RTS since herzog zwei and FA is the crowning glory thus far.
| quote: |
a good game is the best in it's field when it stands the test of time, and when it creates a strong following. |
i really do not equate art or brilliance with notoriety or popularity. indeed, the fact that not every person would love FA is testimony to its superior quality imo. if something is loved by everybody chances are its .
but yes, we'll see how it stands the test of time.
FA still represents the deepest strategic RTS experience to date though :p |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
I admit SupCom probably is the best game of it's genre...I'm just trying to prepare people for what to expect. I expected a strategy game when I bought it, but nothing near as deep or complex as the game actually is. If you have the patience for it, spend many many many hours practicing and learning to fight properly, it is probably a huge rush when going against another skilled opponent.
I'm just saying it takes time, LOTS OF IT to learn the game...many many hours. It's not a simple/quick/satisfying strategy game like Company of Heroes that you can learn in an hour or two..
People should play the demo and watch a few complete fights with skilled players before buying so they know what to expect. |
|
|
| Breeze |
| What makes a good strategy game? not Supreme Commander. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| Fantastic rundown. Warcraft 3 got old to me pretty quick because it was like playing the same game over and over again. With upkeep, expensive town halls, and slow upgrade times, it made the number of actual successful strategies pretty damn low. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I admit SupCom probably is the best game of it's genre...I'm just trying to prepare people for what to expect. I expected a strategy game when I bought it, but nothing near as deep or complex as the game actually is. |
well, at least you appreciated its depth! but really, i think what's great about the game is that its as simple or complex as you want it to be. hell, its only got 3 troop-building buildings!
| quote: |
If you have the patience for it, spend many many many hours practicing and learning to fight properly, it is probably a huge rush when going against another skilled opponent.
I'm just saying it takes time, LOTS OF IT to learn the game...many many hours. It's not a simple/quick/satisfying strategy game like Company of Heroes that you can learn in an hour or two.. |
true. but once you work out the dynamics you can make sweet sweet love to the game for the next decade! :D haha, ok, maybe that's just me...
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
Fantastic rundown. Warcraft 3 got old to me pretty quick because it was like playing the same game over and over again. With upkeep, expensive town halls, and slow upgrade times, it made the number of actual successful strategies pretty damn low. |
i loved WC3, but supcom made me stop playing it, hehe. but that's whats so great about FA- the sheer number of tactics and strategies that can win you the war. and because there are so many options, it never gets old! |
|
|
|
|
