OT: The Future of Computer Strategy Games

[BudgetMessiah]

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

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.

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.

[Atrocities]

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

[BudgetMessiah]

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.

[Tnarg]

Atrocities said: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.

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.

[BudgetMessiah]

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.

[Randallw]

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.

[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]

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.

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.

[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.

[Tnarg]

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.