Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: The ultimate strategy game  (Read 11082 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Micha1701

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 37
    • Show only replies by Micha1701
    • http://www.lanser-online.de.vu
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2003, 08:33:38 AM »
Hi!

Quote
Speaking of graphics for strategy games. Anybody interested in helping me create the units for Realms Of Power? (not related to my strategy design).


For informations about Realms of Power have a look at Realms of Power - Homepage.
-Micha
 

Offline restore2003

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 786
    • Show only replies by restore2003
    • http://www.contrazt.no/records.html
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2003, 08:45:17 AM »
a new remake of mega-lo-mania in 3d would be an awesome strategy beast !  :-o
If you need music for games, demos or are in a need of a studio mastering engineer, just contact me :-)
Check out my project homepages: www.galaxee.no   www.restore.no
 

Offline T_Bone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 5124
    • Show only replies by T_Bone
    • http://www.amiga.org/userinfo.php?uid=1961
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2003, 09:08:00 AM »
Warzone 2100 was an excellent RTS. Same engine as Earth 2150 and Ground Control.

Earth 2150 sucked as an RTS, too simple gameplay, simple tech tree, etc, and Ground Control sucked too, as you just attacked bases, never having one of your own.

I wish they had an "RTS construction kit" based on this engine.
this space for rent
 

Offline r_o_o_s

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2003
  • Posts: 4
    • Show only replies by r_o_o_s
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2003, 10:39:27 AM »
I guess most of us that grew up with strategy games, once or twice has designed a game of our own. I have done that several times, mostly table top battle simulations but also strategic campaign games. The results have been mixed. Those I have liked best and played most have been simple ones with an innovative idea. Those I have scraped are mostly huge projects with less focus on a achievable goal. For example, the largest and most complex game I ever made, a space strategy game with everything from tactical battles to political simulation has never been played while my very simple travel table top game where all troops and terrain are symbolized by lego pieces stuck on a 1x1 foot lego plate is very popular among my friends.

Most of the problems with complexity can be solved by automation when making a computer game, but programming in it self is harder the bigger the system is. So even if a game with very high comlexity level is nice to play on a computer, it isn't that an easy task to make it. The focus must be on the main idéa of the game and the software design have to be modularized so that it will be easy to add on complexity later on.

My own view on what makes a great strategy game is fairly clear to me on some points and very shaded knowledge on others. One of my main objections to many popular non turn based games, such as age of empires and similar, is that they are not a competition of minds but a competition of handling the user interface. As soon as you have learned the basic strategys all are pretty equal on that mather and the one whom is the fastest to use the keyboard and mouse is the winner. Ofcoure skill of handling the outer circumstanses have always been important in real life strategy as well, but it has never been the way of giving orders that has made a general victorius, though the lack of such skills has certainly made a lot of genuises end up as loosers. In the end a great strategy game must give the ones with new ideas and a tactical mind the advantage over the lesser skilled tactitian even though the first one has the quicker hands on the keys. There are ways of handling both turnbased systems and real time ones that does create a continues flow without taking the step from strategy to action to far. For example the real time system of Europa Universalis and the turnbased and time limited system of Alpha Centauri. Another thing I liked is a real-time space game which i forgot the name of that let one player make the strategical decissions while the rest played the tactical simulations in real time action battles. To make the thinking of the game play important that was a nice way since the player in strategical command sometimes had lots of time to make long term plans and sometimes had to give split second orders. Whatever system one chooses it has to be very well thought through.

Lots of computer games have implemented shade of war or other systems to make opponents moves and activities invisible for players. Simple once with unexplored parts of the map black or more advanced systems where lots of things make up what you see of the opponents world. What most games doesn't bother with is what you know of your own troops and resources and the time it takes to get the information and for orders to get through. That is sometimes an even more imortant information to hide. One of the games with the best way of handling that i have ever played is the Amiga game of Waterloo. The player was either Wellington or Napoleon. One could see the parts of the battlefield that was in line of sight from the HQ. If one was on a bad spot for reconing one could move, or send out scouts and read their written reports. One had a limited numer of scouts and riders to send out orders. Sometimes they were intercepted by opponents or delayed or shoot or kept by a field commander as he needed him himself. One had to plan troop movements hours ahead ordering simultaniusly conducted assaults to a certain time. If one was to hasty some of the orders didn't arrive in time and the assault was a failure. The commanders sent back reports of tha battles, and the state of their troops if they could and had the riders available. The whole idéa of the game was wonderfull, but the user interface wasn´t good enough to make it one of the best...

Another important thing in the days of internet gaming is that co-operation must pay off. And I do not mean just to combine the troops to form the greater army or fleet or to combine the production of two nations. Those things as well as trade and diplomacy are important parts of strategy, but there is another level of co-operation that is all too often overlooked.  Finding peoples skilles and putting them on the right tasks together with people that they work well with has always been crucial in warfare and other forms of competition.

One of the best strategy games I ever played is the card game of bridge. The rules are as simple as the once of chess and the strategies of bidding systems and techniques of play are equally or more analyzed than the first moves of chess. But it is not those things that make bridge wonderfull, it is the unique balance of importance of the structure and knowledge of the bidding system, the skills of playing the cards to make the opponents make misstakes, the possibility to bluff the opponents and the risks involved as your partner is equally fooled and the wonderfull and extreamly important element of communicating and knowing your partner. There are hundreds of systems (strategies) that defines how bridge should be played and knowing a good such one gives you an advantage, but a better player usually beats a worse one even if he doesnt have a good system. But a better player can never be victorius over anyone, regardless of skills and systems, if the opponents are better to communicate and let their resources (cards and bids) work togherer to increase their value. That is such an important part of strategy and forgotten in almost every computer game I have ever played.

If one could design a computer game that has the balance of bridge and takes as much andvantages of the computer as bridge does of the deck of cards one would end up with a compleatly new level of gaming. How it should be done? Well, every idéa, good as bad, is a step toward such a goal...
 

Offline Staticman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Apr 2003
  • Posts: 112
    • Show only replies by Staticman
    • http://www.freewebs.com/staticdrummer
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2003, 11:57:46 AM »
Does anyone remember a game called Balance Of Power from Mindscape I think it was?
I really enjoyed that game I think it was given away on disks with mags in past

You have to take control of a country and prevent nuclear war.
 

Offline PMC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 2616
    • Show only replies by PMC
    • http://www.b3ta.com
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2003, 12:46:22 PM »
Hehe, I've been waiting for one of these....  My ultimate strategy game would be something along the lines of Frontier, but in a much bigger universe.

I'd include plenty of astrological phenomena (ie nebulae, black holes etc) and make the universe dynamic - i.e. constantly evolving.  I'd have many more ships, alien races to interact with - and who also interact with each other, and expand the missions to include exploration as well as conflict.  

Ideally, there would be an option for network gaming - either as a deathmatch in a single arena or a co-operative team effort.

And I'd have to get a little "creative" with the game's interpretation of physics so that combat is much improved......  

Any takers?



 :-D  :-D
Cecilia for President
 

Offline Im>bE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 315
    • Show only replies by Im>bE
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/TotalChaosTheGame
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2003, 01:17:32 PM »

relying to 2 posts:


1st one:
--
The two features I'd like to see in an Amiga game:

1. A campaign editor like in Starcraft, with optional "simple mode" to quickly create a "just kill your enemy" map.
2. Easily replacable graphics for user customization.

Gameplay suggestions:
An army morale counter would add an interesting element as well.
--

I too wish games to have these things,
and I have supported the above in my game
'2Decide'
wich is available as freeware on aminet
and www.flyingpaper.com.



2nd one:
--
My own view on what makes a great strategy game is fairly clear to me on some points and very shaded knowledge on others. One of my main objections to many popular non turn based games, such as age of empires and similar, is that they are not a competition of minds but a competition of handling the user interface. As soon as you have learned the basic strategys all are pretty equal on that mather and the one whom is the fastest to use the keyboard and mouse is the winner.
--


HEAR HEAR!!..
I agree so much!!

in most RTS games
its only about moving your units back and forth as fast as possible,
totally lame, irritating, and boring.

maybe we should stop call these strategy games,
and call them 'click faster' games instead?...

most RTS games do not have much 'strategy'
in its real 'think and plan' form.

I believe it has got so popular because there
are many more ppl that want to take action immediately when in real life, instead of thinking first, and RTS games give them this.
And there is no 'think and plan' challenge
in moving your units back and forth,
so 'click faster' games fits well to those who don't want to think.

Hopelessly addicted to the world\'s best strategy game.
Total Chaos on YouTube
 

Offline NickTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1189
    • Show only replies by Nick
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2003, 07:27:12 PM »
Wow. Some good replies there. I`ve had to open the reply page in a different browser so i can go through all the answers :-)

When I say "Dune" I meant DuneII.

@T_Bone

Warzone 2100 was one of the main inspirations behind this, though not the one that started the original idea off. Its a great game even if I haven`t played it. I`ve watched and helped Cyka_Delik play it enough to know about 80% of what there is to know.

A few of you are getting at the point I`am. Its just too easy for people to get through games without using a massive amount of strategy. I won`t go into all of my idea of how to get around this, as thats the core behind all this. I thought I`d try and put even more ideas in the pile while I thinking about it.

@iamaboringperson

Do you like treading on people`s dreams? or is it your job? :-) No I haven`t made a game before. I`ve been involved (and still are) in making a few games. I`am sure I said I`m not a programmer, so I`m obviously not going to program it. I know 3D is more difficult than 2D. It has another dimension for a start. :-) I don`t know why I bother sometimes.

24bit would be good, but I think 16bit would be good enough. 8bit is too old now. This is supposed to be a modern game. How can you create the ultimate strategy game with bad graphics!?

@Matt

Cool. I already want each untit to have pretty decent damage. It has to be done really. I always like getting damage in games. Losing bits of your plane in B17:Flying Fortress was the best part!

@Micha1701

Your right. How did you know that? :-D

@r_o_o_s

Wow, nice reply. I think thats my point exactly, though we`ll have to see if we`re on exactly the same wavelength later. Oh yeah.....Welcome to this place. :-)

@PMC

I`ve been desiging a game like that for even longer, but that is truly a HUGE peroject. I`ll stick with this one.

@Im>bE

"Click faster" indeed. :-D

Thanks people, though I`ll ignore Odin`s answer
:-D

Keep the ideas coming. I`ve got a list of new ideas already.

Thanks
 

Offline Hardboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 248
    • Show only replies by Hardboy
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2003, 08:33:42 PM »
Somebody allready said it, but trade really makes a stragegy game more fun. Most games lacks the feature of trading with other players..
 

Offline Im>bE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 315
    • Show only replies by Im>bE
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/TotalChaosTheGame
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2003, 11:35:02 PM »

>How can you create the ultimate strategy game >with bad graphics!?


a common trap to fall into...


"Finally, all gfx complete, and it looks marvellous!!... ... but... where the heck is the playability?!???  is it behind that overly glamorously drawn castle, or did we bury it under the 782 meg 24bit gfx directory!????..."


no wonder todays games have so low playability when people think graphic matters much.

gfx are ment to present the game to the player,
not to confuse with detailed
and unrelevant art.

Gfx can also be used to bring out comedy to the user, but artistic gfx should be restricted to adventure or movie parts of a game, and not when the game requires varied user interaction,
like in strategy games.

So im not against beatiful art
if that is what you think.


Bridge was mentioned as a game with playability.
 Its playability came from all the various mind and personality elements around the game, and thus has nothing to do with how nice the cards look, or how much makeup the opponent wear, or how much artistic art there is carved into the table...

It would certainly add atmosphere to it,
but the bridge gameplay would not be changed by that.


...Hope you all get my message.

I know certain gamedeveloping companies use;
"gameplay first, then graphics."

and that is with good reason.

Hopelessly addicted to the world\'s best strategy game.
Total Chaos on YouTube
 

Offline NickTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1189
    • Show only replies by Nick
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2003, 09:02:02 PM »
Hehe when I said you can`t have the ultimate strategy game without good graphics I didn`t mean sacrificing gameplay. I`m fully aware that thats important. Almost all of my ideas are in that area, but the best ever can`t be spoilt with substandard graphics. Just imagine the best strategy game. It would have incredible payability AND very good graphics. It would in my mind anyway.
 

Offline PMC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 2616
    • Show only replies by PMC
    • http://www.b3ta.com
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2003, 09:36:59 PM »
Well I totally agree about the RTS aspect being more about "who can click the fastest".  That completely ruins the whole point of a strategy game.

My fave strategy games have always had plenty of places to explore, tons of variety and not too complex puzzles to solve.  

Cecilia for President
 

Offline jeffimix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Posts: 853
    • Show only replies by jeffimix
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2003, 09:42:52 PM »
I agree, graphics don't really matter. Hear Hear to Nethack, and all roguelike games (nothing beats ASCII mono gfx).But really tis a great game (if ot, its rpg sorta)

I say one thing that be good in RTS games is a good varied amount of units, and units that are actually different (not like orcs and humans in Warcraft 2, no dif. between them really) I like being able to play as hordes, Or as elite few unit army, cause it adds replayability. just my thoughts..
\\"The only benchmarks that matter is my impression of the system while using the apps I use. Everything else is opinion.\\" - FooGoo
 

Offline iamaboringperson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 5744
    • Show only replies by iamaboringperson
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2003, 12:08:38 AM »
Nick

Quote

Do you like treading on people`s dreams? or is it your job? No I haven`t made a game before. I`ve been involved (and still are) in making a few games. I`am sure I said I`m not a programmer, so I`m obviously not going to program it. I know 3D is more difficult than 2D. It has another dimension for a start. I don`t know why I bother sometimes.

24bit would be good, but I think 16bit would be good enough. 8bit is too old now. This is supposed to be a modern game. How can you create the ultimate strategy game with bad graphics!?



NO! i dont wish to discourage you from doing a new game! just what the amiga needs(especially on aos4.0 and mos) are some more quality new games!! if anything i will only encourage people to write new software for it, what ever that software may be!
i have plenty of great ideas for new games! 3 REALLY good ones!! including 1 RTS game with a difference!
im not bad at programming games, if you are good at graphics perhaps we(and some others) should get to gether to work on one

i really want to to a proper professional job
and produce somthing that is really marketable
i would like to put a lot of work into my games and sell them(on CD, shrinkwrapped, somthing that can be sold)

i have plenty of ideas - but little time, so i would certainly be interested in working on such an idea ;-)

:-) :-)

 

Offline NickTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1189
    • Show only replies by Nick
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2003, 09:21:46 PM »
@Jeffimix

Isn`t anybody listening to me. I said the ULTIMATE! My definition of Ultimate means the best of everything. Best playability AND graphics. I don`t mean think more about graphics than playability as yes that is the biggest part of it, but graphics are still important to a certain extent. I`m not arguing that graphics are more important. I`ve been saying that a lot of new games seem to have better graphics than anything else. I agree with that fully.
 

Offline Im>bE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 315
    • Show only replies by Im>bE
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/TotalChaosTheGame
Re: The ultimate strategy game
« Reply #29 from previous page: June 05, 2003, 05:38:34 PM »

Then we mostly agree.


IMO playability matters 90%


>Best playability AND graphics.

If one make beatiful gfx,
then one must also see to that
the player wont be confused and mislead by it,
or unwantedly drawn to it.
for example that a background of a game
seems so real that it looks like it is a part of the foreground.
or forexample if the game character looks like he has more weapons, due to that (s)he is so graphically detailed.
or forexample that the gameworld looks so detailed that virtually all players are mislead to places that has no meaning in the game.

there are many problems that could occur from using good/detailed gfx.

but it would be positive for ppl that like art.

all such problems occuring from detailed gfx
can be solved by using simpler gfx.
 The playability will then automatically rise,
unless the playability sucks, and it is more enjoyable to look at all the gfx,
wich I have actually experienced on some games.


but I better (finally) get to the threads topic:

An ultimate strategy game should:

-Be easy to use.
Don't present alot of features to the player at once, but better give them further into the game.
The user will then also enjoy the given features more than if (s)he had got them all at once.

-Have little or no stress factors.
but if required, not for a long time, and big pauses between the stress situations,
as humans will not feel good after longer amounts of stress.

-Start easy, then get harder, possibly also be able to get harder by request from the player.

-Have gfx that is meaningfull to the game
and lets the player know what is going on easily.
if the gametype allows it, then always add humouristic gfx, cause its always pleasant for the player whether its bad or good humour.

-Have sounds that are perfect at telling you if a good or bad thing happened, and wich sounds cool, not lame. And NEVER EVER use sounds that sound annoying.
Like in gfx, humoristic sounds never hurt.
Forexample a high pitched human voice is always funny.

-Have different subgames,
either long term total change in gametype or short small games within the main game.
This because the human brain likes variation
and will tire if the same elements are present over roughly 15 minutes or more time.

-Never make the player wait unneccesary.
unless it is something relaxing,
like a story sequence.

-Have as many options as possible,
but not an option that clearly only has one good choice and everybody always use it.
But if there are too many options,
the user might not want to bother change any of them.
In that case, eliminate the least important options.

-Have many many elements that interfere with eachother. and also add random events.
Don't close the game away from the player, but make it interact as much as possible.
If there is a catapult in the game, then the player will ofcourse want to try it, so make it available to be used.

-support ppl that like to be creative,
in terms of making maps or similar.

-Avoid situations where the player can get stuck or does not know what to do at all.

-Be friendly to the player, not wanting to kill the player in a hostile way.
Also, if possible, have a beginner mode.


Realtime or Turn based, 2D or 3D:

They have little effect on gameplay,
Other than that realtime adds a sense of a an alive world, but increases stress on the player.
Turn based adds time to think, and more control to the player.

2D gives a better overview,
while 3D can be annoying because the monitor is 2D so one cannot move the head to see what is behind an object.


But a final conclution is that different ppl like different games, so an 'ultimate' strategy game will probably never be.
The points above is probably more in my liking than in any others.
Hopelessly addicted to the world\'s best strategy game.
Total Chaos on YouTube