OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games

[Fyron]

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

[dogscoff]

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."

[Tnarg]

dogscoff said:
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.
"

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.

[Artaud]

dogscoff said:...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...

I hope we don't go this route. For people who stutter, like me, such games will be a nightmare to play. I simply won't bother with a game that causes me the same degree of stress that daily life does.

But I realize that those of us who stutter are a very tiny minority. What everybody else wants will become the norm.

I'll just stop buying games.

[Phoenix-D]

The fun part about voice recognition is you can program it to ignore things like stutter.

Of course, then no one else will be able to play your copy of the game, because it won't be trained for them.

[Suicide Junkie]

Voice is going to be much slower and less accurate than a mouse. Its fine when there are only a few objects to control, with lots of independence such as other players in a shooter.
But something like SE? Or even just a windows desktop?

IMO, it would be better to have something like a touch sensitive screen, with a button on your thumb. That way you can reach over, and pinch the air to click and drag as if you were picking something up and dropping it somewhere.
Using two hands would make for an obvious way to stretch a window for example.

Still low on the precision, but at least it would be quick and easy to use. And it would be really useful if we ever get hologram type 3D.

[JAFisher44]

Well, in the vein of limited AI interacting with you in a game I think it would be pretty cool if in a 4x type of game you actually had AI officers. It would work kind of like strategies in SE, but instead there is a full AI that follows your orders within the scope of doctrines you set up. So, for example, you tell Fleet Admiral Jelal to take Alpha fleet to the Jubrup System and attack the aliens there. From there on out the AI handles it.

Individual AIs could have different "personalities" as well. For example, Fleet Admiral Jelal tends to be a little flamboyant and is a bit of a risk taker. He is also likely to push further than you tell him to as long as he thinks he can get away with it, where as Fleet Admiral Brix is very conservative and tends to pull back if things don't seem to be going swimmingly.

[dogscoff]

Regarding all that massively multiplayer stuff I was just talking about, take a look at this:
http://www.metaplace.com/

This could be the future of MMO, and I think has the potential to usurp closed worlds like second life.

[Artaud]

Phoenix-D said:
The fun part about voice recognition is you can program it to ignore things like stutter.

But there's no way to eliminate the internal stress that a person with a speech impediment experiences. That's the problem--not the software.

I avoid speaking over the phone or into a microphone whenever possible.

I don't know why people would even want voice capabilities in games. Many older gamers snatch an hour here and there to play--and sometimes the only hours available are when the wife and kids are asleep.

And many people have jobs that require them to wear a headset or talk a lot on the phone. Why such people would want to talk all day at work and then come home and talk talk talk during a game is beyond me.

But hey, some people like to talk. Good for them.

The computer game market has for the most part moved beyond me, so voice technology is just another nail in the coffin.

Everything these days seems to be fast-reflex FPS type games for people less than half my age. Those games that look more like interactive movies than games.

I like deep strategy games like SEIV, and I am not in love with 3D graphics because they take more away from the game experience than they bring. I've played many 3D games and have never encountered one where I thought the game experience would be worse if it was 2D rather than 3D.

I know I'm in the minority. So I just don't spend much money on computer games any more.

[Renegade 13]

Artaud said:
And many people have jobs that require them to wear a headset or talk a lot on the phone. Why such people would want to talk all day at work and then come home and talk talk talk during a game is beyond me.

On the other hand, some people have jobs where they don't need to talk for 8 hours at a time (*raises hand*), so talking during a game wouldn't be a large ordeal