OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games

[BudgetMessiah]

Tnarg said:
I think that you are missing the point of the topic of this discussion.

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 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.

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.

[Tnarg]

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.