OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games

[Randallw]

BudgetMessiah said:
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.

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 , 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.

[capnq]

Randallw said: 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

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.

[Atrocities]

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.

[Suicide Junkie]

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.

[Fyron]

Atrocities said:
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.

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...

[Renegade 13]

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

[Tnarg]

Renegade 13 said:
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

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.
Heck maybe video games are safer than days of past

[Tnarg]

BudgetMessiah said:
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.

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.

[BudgetMessiah]

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.

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...

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.

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.

Now a grand epic strategy game

Yeah...we're not editorializing here at all...

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.

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.

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.

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.