OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Just pondering how far we have come in such a short time with computer processing. I can remember my first strategy game which involved inputing numbers and an icon represented by: <-- would shoot across the screen at a moving: \--^-/ which represent an aircraft carrier or: \^/ destroyer. I used to go to the libray every day after school and spend 15 to 20 minutes anxiously waiting for the cassette tape to load onto the computer to finally play the game.

There are a great deal of computer experts and visionaries on this forum so I am curious to know what everyone predicts what might be commonplace for some of my favorites in 4X and other types of Strategy style games in the next 5, 10, and 20 years.

5 years from now I am guessing that games like SEV will be pretty much the same, perhaps polished 3D graphics and the ability to handle larger games (20 - 30 AI players, 500 - 600 systems in a galaxy or quadrant, maybe more detail with indivdual planets, the ability to micro manage a bit more. I am seeing a great deal of free webbased games like CyberNation and many others, but mostly based off of simple numbers. Maybe something a bit more complex is around the corner.

10 years from now I would like to finally see an adaptive AI that either learns or borrows from a collective database of player strategies that is updated everytime one plays or from a massive online database with thousands of other players strategies and ideas. I don't beleive that an AI will truly be able to think for itself in 10 years but more or less be able to determine that if that player does this, I (the AI) need to look into this line of strategy to counter the strategy these players use while keeping in mind that this other player or AI is utilizing this style of a strategy and I the (AI) need to keep this in mind. If my train of strategy ideas don't pan out I the (AI) need to try the next one in line listed in the database. We already have dual and quad processors, I am not sure if we have started to level out on processing speed, so perhaps computer will be based off of the amount of processers it has to do multiple tasks all at once. I would also like to think that we will finally get to a somewhat more realistic level of detail with either map sizes (1000 to a million count stars in a galaxy, planets with indvidual continents and major cities to manage ala "Civilization" style game engines added) or the ability to micro manage down to a single unit's perspective in a theatre sized strategy game. Of course Monitors and UI will be much more efficiant to handle these larger sizes. Perhaps a standard computer moniter will be a wall mounted 60 inch HD Screen, and a mouse will be a thing of the past. Voice activation, Eye movement sensing goggles, those nintendo WII thingies might be the next big thing. Web based games against real players with perhaps around 50 players.

20 years from now, I still don't think we will have a completely self-thinking AI capable of challenging even the best minds. Perhaps an AI with the ability to take thousands of variables into consideration and choose from a variety of options (real person strategies that have been recorded and applied as in the 10 year plan above) that possibly would best suit its needs to with a certain percentage parameter. Perhaps instead of using one strategy from the database it would be able to add and combine and subtract to best suit its needs. Massively large games with almost real world numbers: millions of stars, planets broken all the way down to "SimCity" style engines that you would have the option to manage or have the AI help out with, tactical warfare that can be broken down all the way down to individual soliers perspective ala First Person Shooter and Flight simulator engines all in one game. Kind of god's eye view of everything. One would have a powerfull AI to help manages all of this but if one CHOSE to they could break it all the way down if they wanted too. The UI I hope by then would be something that is completely immersive, I don't beleive Holograms or decent Holograms will be commonplace yet, but "Operations Room" style full wall sized monitors capaple of being one large monitor or hundred of mini monitors. Web based games that operate in real time against thousands of players and an AI that takes charge in your absence following a macro or micro managed doctrine that it has learned from your playing style. I would like to beleive that we would be able to plug in to our minds to do everything, but maybe 50 years we could look into that.

What are your ideas, wishes, or expectations?

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Just going out the door and I'll post later but I noticed you mention eye controlling the computer. I recently read an article about a password system that reads your eye, not just to verify your ID (and we know how that worked in Demolition man) but you move your eye in a few directions as a password, so to speak.

Back: I found this video on a hologram system today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF1vF...%2Findex%2Ephp

There's also the table top system Microsoft is making.

Along with the eye control thing I mentioned they are also making bionic control feasible. That might be useful to control things. The thing is that you can increase the number of palyers and the number of systems but past a certain point it slows down the game. I believe we are already at a fair level. Any more and you will have long periods between turns waiting for everyone to do their turn, and with many more systems it'll be longer before you meet anyone and longer for things to develop as empires expand until they conflict with others.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Wow, I guess I might take back my thoughts on Hologram technology. Pretty impressive demonstration.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Damn, I would really love an strategy game that lets you do everything. Imagine Rome Total War, with real cities and towns of the period, every little tribe, and the player being capable of controlling as much or as little of the game as he wanted to, from First person combat to grand strategy.
In a game like Space Empires, I would love to let the AI control the game, and dive in and take operational command of the little colonial war going on against an sneaky race of pre-space flight creatures that inhabited a planet in the outskirts of my empire before my 100 000 civilian colonists setted up shop. And then go back and resume control of the empire's rule. Or maybe take control of a scout ship and explore the next star system. The posibilities are limitless.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

You can. Just put everything else under minister control.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Narf:
Not really; there isn't very much to do on an individual planet...

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Firstly, you'll be looking at massively multiplayer. Purpose-built strategy MMOGs will happen, but the really interesting ones will be the ones where you are giving orders to real people, not computer agents. Of course, this means that for every person who wants to play the game as a general, there will have to be a couple hundred other players willing to take on the role of footsoldier/ pilot/ tank commander/ whatever and follow orders. That's just fine though, those numbers are probably fairly representative of the sales of strategy games vs FPS/ flight sims etc. This means that a game won't be classed as a MMOrole plyer or MMOshooter any more, it will just be a game world with different roles and different gaming experiences within it.

We're already seeing things like this emerge on some of the MMORPGs. Thousands of people converge on servers to carry out huge battles. For the bulk of these plyers the gaming is strictly FPS-type action, but there are leaders who act as generals and direct the combat. I suppose this counts more as tactical than strategic, but there's no reason why these games and conflicts shouldn't extend to the strategic level in future.

Also, VR seems to be making a bit of a comeback. That could be really atmospheric, imagine commanding a battlefield in VR, viewing progress from a hilltop or swooping over your units to see how the action is going, issuing orders as you go.

However the one thing I think will take off hugely is voice control. Serious gamers already use VOIP systems alongside their games to communicate with other players, it's only a matter of time before someone starts coding virtual players (bots) that respond to voice commands. Of course the technical obstacle is not so much the voice recognition but reliable machine-parsing of natural language. People have been working on this for years, with varying levels of success. However gaming systems now have the spare storage and processing power available for this kind of trickery, and I think games will be the arena where it actually happens. They will be crude at first, but you know how technology snowballs, especially when it has money behind it. Maybe one day we'll hit the point where you aren't sure whether that guy on your team is human or AI. Again, this technology will be driven by the FPS experience (since that's where most of the gamers are) but once developped it will soon slosh over into strategy.

Just imagine SE if you could issue natural language commands to fleet commanders, ship captains and planetary governors:

"Governor, I need you to emergency build weapons platforms to defend against a seeker-biased opponent until sixth fleet arrives. Then you can go back to normal production."

"Commander, that wounded battlecruiser is in one of these three systems. Your mission is to hunt it down. If any of its null-space weapons are still intact, try to capture it. If not, blow it away. Be careful."

"Governor James, commandeer any transports that come into your system and start moving your oxy-breathing population to the Buratis system."

"Captain Gruk, I want you to catch up with Maelstrom fleet and resupply it. Avoid enemy-controlled systems unless you can get fleet protection. Our Krill allies may be travelling through the Primadara system shortly, so maybe you could ride with them."

"Commander, sit your fleet on that warp point and attack any Phong ships that try to warp through, but allow the Jraenar to pass. If any Cue Cappa warp through, tell them to turn around and go back but don't fire on them unless they disobey you or attack you. Don't engage any fleet that significantly outnumbers you."

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

That's already been going on in Eve Online for years.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I think turn-based 4X games are going to continue to fall farther behind other genres in terms of taking advantage of increased computing capabilities. The market for such games is small, so nobody will invest the resources it takes to bring such a thing to market. I think the SE series is probably the only long-term viable business model - a joint labor of love between a programmer of the basic game engine and talented modders. There is probably enough money in selling the game engine to keep a one-man-band operation like MM going, and the modders do their thing for free as a personal creative outlet.

I'd love to be proven wrong and see a return to the era where several of the big game software houses had an active big-budget turn-based 4Xer series. I'd also love to see Bill Gates name me his sole heir. I just don't expect either one to happen.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

What's wrong with not needing huge horsepower?
Turn based games are more about thinking than action, anyways.

When you go beyond conveying information, the flashy, fluffy graphics used to drag your computer's performance down only distract from the thinking game.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I think that this would be an interesting approach to a Real Time Grand Strategy game. As you start out as your tiny insignificant planet empire in a realm of millions of planets and thousand of Empires it would pretty much be a single person game in the beggining, easy to control. As you expand, other players (if they do not want to start their own empire and wish to take on certain tasks) can opt to join your game and take charge of certain tasks, jurisdictions ie, Director of the Orange Sector of the Gorkon Federation on the outer fringes of the 10 system Federation. This person would then be in control of everything that takes place in those 3 outer fringe systems. This person could opt to have subordinates as well. Of course the overal director of the Gorkon Federation (Original player) has his/her say and guides this other player, or they get the boot. For the first person shooter aspect, players can logon and play as a mercenaries for your empire, if they are doing a smashing good job, they can be offered permant membership to your empire and gain rank and prestige, ask the player for specific research, more forces, ect. If one wants to logon into your empire and do the "Sim City" micromanage thing, kudos, perhaps they can be hired to clean up some mired and redundant cities, make them more efficient, turn them into gems that stand out and gain recognition in the galaxy.

Basically as you empire grows and grows and instead of having AI's to manage all of your various aspects you can post job openings for real people Within your empire one could even try to oust another person in charge, just like corrupt politics in the real world. Or if the original player finally decides to retire after a successful 4 year run at it, he/she could turn it over to the 2nd in charge.

One would not need to worry about not always being online, because you could possibly have dozens of other people assisting the running of your empire at any given time that could make command decisions in your absence and provide a sitrep when you return.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I disagree. In fact, I could argue the opposite, as long as by "increased computing abilities" you don't just mean "better graphics cards".
How long does it take to process a turn in SE4 on a pentium-II 350? How long would it take to process the same turn on a top-of-the-line quad-code whatever-the-hell-they're-selling-these-days? How's that for tkaing advantage of increased computing abilities?

Something to consider here is that even though we occupy a niche, and that niche probably isn't gaining more market share, the market is a part of is getting bigger, so the customer base for this kind of game is expanding:

Suppose 4X fans represent 0.5% of all gamers.[1] Suppose that in 2001 there were 1 billion gamers worldwide. 0.5% of 1 billion gives 5 million potential customers for Malfador. Now suppose that by 2008 the number of gamers has risen to 1.5billion worldwide. The proportion of 4X fans hasn't risen- it's still 0.5% of all gamers, but 0.5% of 1.5billion is 7.5million- a much larger potential customer base for any 4X product, meaning more moeny for development than before. Now whether that extra money will all go to Malfador, or will be shared between other, competing 4X games is another issue, but the point is, even if we remain a tiny niche within the gamoverse, there will always be plenty of cash to fund future 4X development.

[1] All numbers plucked magically out of my arse, for demonstration purposes only.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I don't think the amount of development funding is as big an obstacle as the fact that the best software designers can make so much more money outside the game industry. The "labor of love" part is the main thing that keeps people in game design.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Sadly I believe that all aspects of computer gaming are doomed.

I firmly believe that the gaming market will continue to grow and expand more toward consul games and away from PC games as consul technology continues to improve.

I think the development of new PC type games, especially 4x and similar, has been back burnered for sometime now in favor of the development of new consul games. Regrettably, I don't see this ever changing for the betterment of PC games. In fact I think it is a safe assumption to say that the PC game market share is going to continue to dwindle and funds for development of new games are going to dry up to the point where we might, if we are lucky, see one or two new PC games every few years or so.

Everything runs it's course and there is no exception for PC games. Just look at what is being developed now and you can see that many PC game genera's have been retired in favor of twitch and shoot low brow type games of little to know imagination with absurdly stupid story lines geared toward the ever stupidly growing teenage gamer market and high school drop out 20 somethings who still live in their mothers basement playing games all day. Sadly the era of great PC gaming, and indeed great PC strategy games, have long since passed, replaced by sub-par imitations and countless remakes of old games.

When the bulk of the mmorpg market moves away from PC toward consul the final nails in the PC gaming industry will be driven in and the coffin lid of inspired and revolutionary personal computer games will be feared as closed for good.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

People have been saying PCs are dying for years. Until consoles get keyboards, hard drives, data access, internet and etc. equal to PCs, I do not see that happening...

...And hey, in that case, you're right back to PCs!

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Congratulations Narf, you just described an XBox 360.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Which, as Narf said, is basicly a PC (except with more limitations).

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

But its not a PC. Its a consul.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

A console.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Ya.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I can't play Company of Heroes or Supreme Commander on a console. At the moment, there's actually no console that's even remotely powerful enough to run either. That, and consoles do not have adequate controls for true RTS players.

Ditto for FPS. They can kludge it with analog controllers, but most FPS players I know who have touched a keyboard and mouse setup can never go back.

People have been lamenting the end of PC gaming since the days of the PS1. So far, it hasn't happened. I have a feeling that eventually consoles and PCs will eventually become so similar, the lines will be blurred to the point of nonexistance, but there will always be customizable, do-it-yourself PCs to be bought and built...and that's really the only difference between consoles and PCs in the context being described here.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I will always prefer a PC over a console system. I just think it is a better gaming platform.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

A lot of my friends (and I) would agree with you, Atrocities. But I also know some people who can't be bothered with the hassle of installing/configuring new hardware, and dealing with various incompatability issues and the usual maintenance that goes with having a computer, so for them a console is better.

I think there will always be a market for both types of user, and the big difference is that the OS platforms will eventually become compatible. I personally don't see why that hasn't already happened, save for the licensing-for-profit aspect of keeping certain titles exclusive to a platform like the X-Box.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I like to call that "Kindergarten", and the games that require a brain to use "Collegiate"

Well put AT, the games now a day do seem a bit boring, flashy yes, but I can stand about five minutes before I am bored to tears after I pick up on the pattern.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Hmm...Care to elaborate on what games you've played that had a pattern one could discern within 5 minutes of playing them? I'm sure they're out there, but I doubt they are what I'd describe as one of the better FPS or RTS games I've enjoyed.

Maybe I could even give you a recommendation or two for some "twitchy" games that please the eye and the gray matter at the same time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Sudoku: That's a game isn't it. It's certainly not a puzzle. I got bored after 5 seconds, when I figured out the "solution".

Starcraft: Isn't the idea just to quickly make a swarm and then annihilate the enemy. I don't really like RTS.

I read some fighing games just need you to press the same button over and over to win.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Just about any game where one can go online and read a walkthrough on how to do a certain mission or campaign. It all seems like it is a pretty much straight line path to reach your objectives with the exception to some RPGS.

It just seems with many FPS there is no personal investment. I can hop into a game shoot a couple people, maybe accomplish the mission, possibly die, and hmm.. no big deal, I just start over again. 15 minutes of my life spent looking at eye candy. Not a big loss.

Now a grand epic strategy game, you build yourself up, even if you opt to join a game as a subordinate and go into a FPS style mission for the empire owner. You do a good job, you could get an actual promotion and work you way up into the hiearchy of that empire if you wanted to. Submit a request to the empire to research a particlar technology to help you on the front lines, or would benefit a citie's fluctuating obsolete power supply. You find yourself not liking ranking officials that are starting to give you the shaft, shorting you on supplies, or providing you with ancient weaponry, you could sabotage one of your missions, jump ship, scheme with the other empire owners, act as a spy and gather real intel, in effect actually hurt the empire. Try doing that with any FPS out on the market today.

Being able to hop into a massive online strategy game that incorporates a FPS engine, or Flight Simulator engine, or even a "Sim City" or "Civ" world building style engine would give a sense of endless possibilities. Heck there could be an internal design engine for those that just like to tinker with designing things, modding from within the game in a sense. Another bonus to this would be that one would actually be rewarded in a fulfilling sense if they accomplished a mission, brought a city or planet to it fullest capacity, or desinged some real eye catching, architecture or ships. The battles you win or the cities you design would actually possibly change the outcome of the bigger picture. Plus one would get the fulfilment that all of their time invested into the game means something rather than dying every 5 minutes (usually my case) and restarting thinking nothing of it.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Sudoku is kind of third grade math homework mixed with elements of a crossword puzzle. It's not exciting, but like most pasttimes, it passes time. Not really my thing, but I see people doing it on the subway, probably because it's easy to get into or put down, and requires very little overhead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Sounds like you've got about enough experience with fighting games and RTS that I can say you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I could just as easily trivialize 4X games as "make a bunch of colonies, research the whole tech tree, and win". It would probably be about as fitting and apt as your descriptions of either of these two genres.

Try mashing one button against a player of my skill in Tekken. It'll be funny and educational.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

First off, reading a cheat book online doesn't mean you sat down and figured out a pattern in 5 seconds, so this doesn't qualify.

I haven't really played any RPGs like that since the 90's, so I really couldn't say. Then again, most RPGs are basically scripted, interactive books or movies. Get back to that in a minute...

Played Half-Life 2? Bioshock? STALKER? Again, they're FPS, but they have a lot of backstory and atmosphere, and besides being excellent games, they're extremely entertaining. Also, they aren't solved in any fashion in 5 seconds, and require a fair amount of thought, and problems can be solved in various ways, offering diverging paths depending on what you've done.

Yeah...we're not editorializing here at all...
What "epic grand strategy" game is this where you're going through so many situational, scripted events? A full blown FPS inside the game? Are you kidding? It sure as hell isn't Space Empires. The only strategy games that offer that level of detail (promotions, spying, loyalty and bribes, developing technologies/armies, treaties and diplomacy) are some of the titles from Koei, at least that I've played.

Anyway, it sounds like you play "epic grand strategy" for almost exactly the same reason that people play RPGs...for the narrative elements. It seems odd, then, that you criticize people who enjoy these sort of games. Or at least rather short-sighted.

Hmm...I think this may be the problem. You haven't invested much time in FPS, and therefore aren't very good at them, so you dismiss all FPS as unworthy of note, and further defame them as games for the unintellectual.

Sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.

Try picking up any of the FPS titles I mentioned above, they're not all of them very new and are probably even in the bargain bin. You might be surprised at how good some of them are.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I think that you are missing the point of the topic of this discussion. I like a good FPS just like any other joe that has some time to kill and wants a little action. What I am suggesting is that I think it would be great to see a grand strategy game in the future incorporating many of these other engines into them to make a truly emersive experience. For those that enjoy FPS they could hop on in and do that take control of a grunt or pilot a fighter or patrol ship and actually contribute to the success of a mission which contributes to the success of the empire. For those that enjoy RTS like "Hearts of Iron II", "C and C" Those players can hop in and take control of whole squad, platoon, company, brigade, division, corp, army, planetary group, planetary defense force, system defense force, a whole fleet. For those that just like to come up with great designs or ideas, they enter the game, work for a particular empire and possibly even mod a change to the tech tree, or display their ships proudly as the new flagship for a particular empire.

The future of course, possibly what could be coming next as computers and interfaces become more and more powerful.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Actually, I'm quite certain that you were responding to my direct question regarding games that one becomes bored with after 5 seconds and the discovery of a "pattern" in said games. I believe that was evidenced by your having quoted that question immediately prior to your response.

However, as you seem willing to drop the subject in response to my rebuttal, we can certainly move on. I'm not much interested in hijacking this thread.

I agree, such a game would be a wonder to behold, and I think we're definitely moving towards systems that can provide the muscle necessary to make such a game work. The trick would then be developing a game so that it's of even enough quality to appeal across the board, and designed in such a way as to be accessible and avoid feature creep.

The most (in)famous attempt to develop such a game, and fail spectacularly, that I can think of would have to be the Battlecruiser series of games (and, yeah, I actually bought and played a few of them). They are a stunning example of what can go wrong if your game doesn't have a streamlined interface, and is not a quality production in nearly every sense. It tries to do just about everything, and fails to be a good strategy game, squad tactical game, space simulator, flight simulator, or FPS. I could go into great detail about their failings, but why bother? Suffice it to say that it's better to do one thing well than do everything poorly.

I would actually be very content if Space Empires incorporated a Deadlock-style ground engagement style game in place of what exists now. Tactics that can be assigned to squads, a handful of meaningful unit types and upgrades that are appropriate for them, and have the computer run the numbers. I'd probably lose my mind if Space Empires incorporated a full-fledged RTS that was well done, but as I said, sometimes trying to spread oneself too thin detracts from the total package.

Adding a Battlefield style FPS, with vehicles and squad roles and weapon upgrades to this, would probably be so far into the realm of fantasy, we'd essentially be talking about a different game.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

A few examples of a FPS that one can easily recognize a pattern within five minutes. Ghost Recon, Medal of Honor 2. Play five minutes die, restart play another five minutes and the same people that killed you the first time are right where they should be. Heck I love flight simulators, but even highly accurate ones like IL-2 46, the missions and campaigns are pretty scripted except for the dynamic campaing generator which does an ok job with leaving the player with actually not knowing where an enemy will show up.

I didn't want to turn this post into an argument, but an example was wanted.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Well I'm glad to hear someone is less than impressed by its intellectual investment. I worried I was being elitist. I can understand people might see it as a way to pass the time, but I lose interest in anything once I understand the method, after that it's just mundane work applying the method. Personally I pass time when I have nothing else to do by considering philosophy, oh and the other week I considered in my mind a rubiks cube with the colours replaced by numerals, sort of like Sudoku I guess but in 3D with 6 faces, and if you'll believe it determining the base for the force of gravity to be exactly 10 (Boy did I laugh when I suddenly realised the intrinsic simplicity http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif, well I would of if it hadn't be in church). When I used to deliver papers I'd pass the time by calculating binary progression.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I've seen these in the toys section of my local pharmacy.

I'm not sure how feasible this theoretical monster hybrid game would be. What happens when you can't find enough players interested in a particular subsystem to run that aspect effectively? You're back to letting AI ministers handle those things, with all the problems that brings.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I discovered today one thing that is going to seriously hamper the PC gaming industry. Bio-shock. Have you seen the system requirements for this game? Trust me if your not sporting the latest 500.00 video card with a top of the line system your not going to be able to play this game.

As games become more heavily focused on higher end technology most folks are going to be priced right out of contention. I would have to invest 1500 into a new system just to play some of the new games coming out. In a year or two I would have to dump another 400 to 800 dollars into upgrades just to keep semi current. I think that is what is going to really hurt the market as the attrition rate to more affordable console systems increases.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

As games become more heavily focussed on higher end technology...
they tend to lose focus on what actually makes games fun.

I think outfits like Shrapnel, where the game seems to take precedence over excessive fluff should do well.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I assure you, that isn't the case with BioShock. It's actually quite a bit of fun, and also worth noting a friend of mine has reported that it's quite playable on a 3 ghz P3 with a Radeon 1950 (which would be about as expensive as an Xbox 360, and can outperform it graphically).

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Bioshock appears to just be the latest mass-market fluff game, kind of like Oblivion...

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

That has always been the case, though. There have always been a few titles pushing the bleeding edge... Of course, in modern times games tend to be a lot better with running on lower-spec PCs than they used to be in the past. Much work has gone into making very scalable rendering engines. Sure you can't play Bioschock on a PC from 1995, but it doesn't require $2000 of PC to play it. The only reason to spend so much money on hardware is if you just have to run games with every setting turned up to the max. Very few, if any, games ever actually require such expensive PCs to play. Its just bad business on the part of the developers to restrict their target market so much...

Consoles have almost always been a pseudo "low cost alternative." They always start out near the cutting edge of PC technology (though generally a bit behind the curve), then fall quickly behind. The modern industry is hardly any different than it was 10, 15 years ago. Hopefully the Wii will shake things up and bring the game industry out of the graphics-fetish slump it has been stuck in for a while...

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Compare with say, Star Control on a 4-8Mhz PC4i, or SE3/4 on 40-75 Mhz 486es. Starcraft on 400Mhz Pentiums.
3Ghz...nothing yet...

Three orders of CPU magnitude, with no obvious trend in Fun Factor (IMO)...
My conclusion is that Fun is in the hearts of the programmers, and hardware just adds fluff.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

To quote, 'You don't stop playing games when you grow old, you grow old when you stop playing games'.

Fuzzy Wuzzy Wazza Bear,
Fuzzy Wuzzy Hadno Hair.
Fuzzy Wuzzy Wasn't Very Fuzzy,
Wuzzy?

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

But isn't that the case with all media? There are very clever websites with amateur web design whose conent is brilliant, and commercial websites with excellent design and graphics but very banal material. Hollywood puts out big budget FX movies where the story or subject matter isn't as intriguing to many people as some low budget indie flicks. Smaller newspapers have better, more attentive local coverage than big ones.

On the other hand, from time to time you have projects that marry the two. The LotR trilogy in movies is probably a good example of this, where you had state of the art CGI and blockbuster movie production values, but it remained faithful to the story and were just great to watch. The only complaints I've heard about these movies are from people who reject sword-and-sorcery stories because they don't like the genre.

Despite our apparent differences in video game tastes, I think we can all agree that Master of Orion or its sequel(s), MOO2:BAA (and MoM), were great games that offered up many (probably countless) hours of fun and replayability. They also had high production values for their given eras. I don't know how many of you played Fallout, but that game stands out as one of the greatest RPGs of all time, and it was a quality game in all respects from a major publisher. Star Control 2, which has been mentioned as a good game by many here (and I'll definitely agree with) had great music, great presentation, great graphics (for its time) and probably the best storyline I've ever seen in a computer game. Starcraft (and all of Blizzard's games) while they may not be your preferred fare, offer up excellent production values, albeit traditionally aimed at lower-end specs for their time to be available to as many people as possible. They make up for low system requirements with great artwork, voice acting, presentation, and game/interface design. They're a mainstream company that makes very fun games.

I don't think games necessarily lose their quality when you add good graphics or major studio-level production values. It's just that there's so much crap out there in general, finding the few games that offer both great presentation and great content can be difficult. The overabundance of mediocre games with multi-million dollar development pricetags can make it seem like only crap games get the flash, but that's not always the case.

Off the top of my head for semi-recent offerings: Supreme Commander, Company of Heroes (and its younger cousin Dawn of War), anything Valve's released (or soon will release) on the Source engine, and Will Wright's upcoming Spore (provided it does what they claim it will do).

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

The overabundance of mediocre games with multi-million dollar development pricetags can make it seem like only crap games get the flash, but that's not always the case.

The really big pricetag games come from big faceless corporations... but unfortunately Flash & Fluff is more quantifiable for beancounters than Fun.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Actually its not. Any one remember system shock II? This game is a lot like that made by the same guys who made System Shock II. The game bucks the trend of low brow story lines in favor of a more in depth story with environmental appeal much like a good horror movie.

Far Cry was the last great fun to play, good FPS in my opinion and I hope Crisis will be just as fun. Its story kicked the crap out of HL2 and its open ended maps made the scripted corridor feel of HL2 feel very old and claustrophobic.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I'm really looking forward to Crysis, and also picking up Bioshock when I next make it into a gaming store. FPS's can be quite enjoyable, though usually just when I want to relax and not think for a while! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Scott had a blog entry recently about how formulaic FPS games are.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Bioshock *is* another Oblivion, in my opinion. Yeah sure, it's better than most games out there right now, but that's because of the lousy quality of today's games in general, not because Bioshock is anything special. It's a shoot-em-up with some more variation than usual in how you can kill things.

Personally I don't think it gets anywhere near System Shock 2, the 'spriritual' predecessor. And as with just about all sequels now a days, it's been very much dumbed down and <made for consoles>. Away is the neat skill system of SS2, away is the Inventory system, away is the chemicals-needed-for-research( now you just spam the fire button while holding a camera ), say hello to another magical quest compass, etc.

Fun for a few hours, but nowhere near the classic that is System Shock 2, and the changes very much show that it's made first and foremost for consoles. Another Oblivion.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I just saw a commercial for the Wii and I think it was Metroid, looked like a point and shoot type of deal. So does this Wii thing vibrate too to simulate recoil? That would pretty cool it did.

Anyways back game interface development and the future. I think if this Wii thing takes off I would like to see the ability to have kits one could purchase or a shell that they could place around their Wii type controler to simulate an actual pistol, SMG, assault rifle sized weapons and weights. Machine gun sized weapons too, no more Rambo games of players running around with M60s toting them like SMG's could be a good thing.

Also a recoil system to simulate an accurate recoil for those that love realism and a weight kit to replicate that actual weight of a specific weapon to add how quickly fatigue can set in after lugging around an assault rifle at the aiming position for 10 or 15 minutes. To reload, one would actually have to take out the magazine and put it back in and charge the weapon. For those that realy want to immerse in realism, highly realistic shells or kits could be purchased of their favorite weapon.

I think for $50 -80 for each size, $100 - $200 for highly accurate replicas, I would buy one in each size or ($150-for a pistol, SMG, and assualt rifle), just for the realism approach. That might even be high considering that they are just plasic shells with a recoil motor, a weight kit to simulate the appropriate weight, and replaceable magazine and charging mechanism.

How does one move around one might ask. Those little running pads of course. No more critism of the video game generation having weight problems. You can get in shape and shoot your buddies all at once.

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

Heh imagine the controversy that'd cause. You think critics who claim video games cause violent crime now are bad...wait till you can accurately simulate holding a weapon, reloading, etc. Then you'll *really* see moronic politicians trying to ban video games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games
 

I suppose they could have those little red caps at the end of the barrel so a police officer doesn't mistake someone pointing a rifle at a t.v. as a threat.

Wow, times really are different, I remember as a kid running around the neighborhood with water guns that looked real and even made real sounds.

I won't describe the neighborhood pellet gun wars we used to have as kids for fear of being grounded by my father twenty years too late.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif Heck maybe video games are safer than days of past http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/Injured.gif