Forums → Games → What makes a strategy game good?
| 43 | 7894 |
Well, my main question is pretty much exactly what the topic says, but I'll give you a quick explanation of why I'm asking first. If you don't care, just skip ahead to the questions below. I'm asking this because I've got a project in school, and my group decided to design a game. What we're thinking is a turn-based strategy game, with some elements of a RPG, such as soldiers gaining experience from battles. I'm not going to share the details, as I don't want it to influence your comments, but we've got a pretty good idea of we want the game to be like. Now we want to know what others like too.
Now, to the questions.
You don't have to answer every question, or any of them, as long as you try to keep your comments relevant. We just want to know what people like, and these questions are just examples of information we'd find interesting.
What do you like in your strategy games?
What is your favorite strategy game? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it?
Are there any features or aspects of a game which you've thought was great, or awful?
Do you prefer strategy games which are realistic, or do you prefer strategy games which include fantasy races and magic?
Any comments you have on this would be appreciated as long as it is relevant.
Thanks in advance.
- 43 Replies
@Highfire: Apparently Total Annhilation.
Don't know for sure--I read it one day on a lot of reasons "why total annhilation was better than starcraft".
a strategy game is good when it needs a good strategy
Umm... "Haha"?
...
Oh, and yeah, I'll look up Total Annihilation.
- H
Um...strategy skills requirement?
To me, the more a game needs thinking and strategy, the more it can be qualified a ''Good'' strategy game. Fire emblem is a good one since you can't get back the units you've lost on the battlefield for example; you need to be very cautious.
I think one of the best strategy games I've played is Vandal Heart, the first and the second for the Ps1. The second was one of the most frighteningly hard games ever.
I'm talking about ''tactics'' here because I think they can be qualified as ''strategy games''; I'm not a big fan of games such as age of empires and star craft.
Fire emblem is a good one since you can't get back the units you've lost on the battlefield for example; you need to be very cautious.
I'll have to disagree.
Having a limit on units means barely as much as having to replenish them.
If you're on the field with those soldiers and yet you can't get them back, you can put all your time and effort into the fight they are currently in. If however you've an economy to look after and even have to replenish certain things (units, trading resources, reseeding farms, etc), then you cannot stay focused on your army.
Oh, and you can build stuff.
- H
I like my strategy games with a lot thought put into them...I like games that are kind of like chess, as in they have a similar idea. Like Warefare 1944 is a good game. or whatever its called..
I like my strategy games with a lot thought put into them...I like games that are kind of like chess
O.o
Okay I don't like you on other threads but putting this bluntly would look bad.
But.
Wouldn't all games be very simple and (eventually) boring if they were developed like Chess?
- H
O.o
Okay I don't like you on other threads but putting this bluntly would look bad.
But.
Wouldn't all games be very simple and (eventually) boring if they were developed like Chess?
I think he means, specifically, the tile layout and how units are able to move over them, which is uncommon in real time strategies (and why chess is turn based). I can't think of a good example unless I take chess, because it did it first but take Civilization:
You have a square grid. Some tiles are inaccessible to early naval units, as you progress and develop your unit to modernised boats (like choosing a "better" chess piece) these tiles become accessible (with your Bishop your now moving in the necessary diagonal direction, something impossible with a pawn).
Maybe there's a mountain in the way, a tile none of your units can get passed, in chess maybe there's a square where none of your units, regardless of tiles moved or direction will sit on in one go, and in Civilization, you take two gos to circumnavigate the mountain.
I think he means games were you have to take the terrain into account and thus make thoughtful movements, another thing real time strategies seriously lack. Turn based strategies, like chess, are full of these sneaky titbits of terrain that are simply a nuisance to bypass.
Wouldn't all games be very simple and (eventually) boring if they were developed like Chess?
Chess has strategies to winning. When you have video games with different AI making different decisions, a random map generator, differences in the speed of the game and thus alterations to how you have to think and how you act seriously affect the outcome. Taking the barebone template of chess and then bolting on all these extra, only easily created using programming, creates a game that cannot be won every single time without fail using a repeated strategy.
Taking the barebone template of chess and then bolting on all these extra, only easily created using programming, creates a game that cannot be won every single time without fail using a repeated strategy.
No offense Elitemagical, but can you reiterate that in a more simple manner as the extensive vocabulary in which elaborates your intentions is not comprehended among my cranium functions.
In other words, I don't get it
I think he means games were you have to take the terrain into account and thus make thoughtful movements, another thing real time strategies seriously lack.
Okay this is a fair flaw. I will argue a little against it but I do agree with you aswell.
Time is spent to make different types of units which different bonuses and different functions, this also allows more variety in
strategies to winning, they could make more types of ground but it becomes sophisticated and sometimes very restrictive - all this is bad for RTS if it is too restrictive. If it has the simplicity of SCII terran but the variety of civilization and the accessibility of a website, it would be a great game. Probably.
It will be complex and the simple 2 words I am worrying about with it (which shall be overcome, I hope) is:
Too restrictive.
I say you split it into 6 tiles, maximum:
Shallow Water.
Deep Water.
Medium Water.
Cliffs
Ground
High / Low Ground
These can be the general ones, depending on the game, all that water may not be necessary (I'm thinking about Submarines when I thought of that, honestly).
Low Ground may just be a way of saying "Trenches" or something, where only Infantry can pass.
Or it could be like Cliff where it can only be flown over because it is that far down.
Highground could be something with more grip (think about those big robotic humans in those funny in-the-future-RTS games) to actually get up, that would be very neat. Or a jetpack or transport.
That isn't completely simple and possible too restrictive for any one map, but it could be nice for some!
SCII has High Ground Advantage, normal ground, Creep, and Cliff Ground.
Cliff Ground is flown over
Creep is built over (by Zerg).
Normal Ground is accessable to anything (so is Creep for moving units, however I don't think other races buildings can be built on Creep).
High Ground Advantage is simply a damage and Line of Sight bonus.
Oh and 2 units can go over some High Ground where there isn't an entrance (ground units, the only ones I know of that can do it):
Collossus - Very big 4 legged machine that can climb up easily
Reaper - Jetpack - enough said
Anyway. I'm getting tired.
Cya!
- H
Well High, I think that a game where you can get back the units you lose make the fights less strategic since you don't have to care as much about having their hp reach zero.
Of course, what goes on aside from fighting is a whole other story. I was talking about in fight strategy ^^.
Well High, I think that a game where you can get back the units you lose make the fights less strategic since you don't have to care as much about having their hp reach zero.
Of course, what goes on aside from fighting is a whole other story. I was talking about in fight strategy ^^.
This is a disagreement which I won't argue, I love both styles of play and prefering something over another is stupid when neither is bad
I'd actually love it if I found myself without 'nourishment' as it were and I had to be exceptionally careful (or ruthless) to beat my enemy!
It's also good when you have different strategic units like a healer or flying transport
Oh my god.... I wanna play one now... :O
- H
You must be logged in to post a reply!