Bringing Home The Bacon: Victory In Strategy Games

May 25th, 2009 Zen

While on the topic of Twilight Imperium, a game much played by my friends recently, I got to thinking about victory.

I have to thank Mr Ford though, as through failing to achieve many objectives towards the game’s victory, it made me wonder why. In Twilight Imperium, at least, most of the objectives you have to complete in order to gain victory points are economic or technological - a facet of the game that doesn’t appeal to anyone. Some people just like to blow stuff up. In the interests of science, and because I like making lists, he’s a few motives for play and endgame objectives I can think of. Try to work out which one you like best.

• Conquest: Wipe out the other players. Very popular in computer games and best used in games that don’t last that long. It is a tug-of-war type game, in that players will push back and forth until one wins. Because players can be eliminated, its best not to use this in a game like Twilight Imperium unless you’re prepared to have players pack up, walk out the door and go home many hours before the game ends. One important aspect of the conquest objective is balancing your resources between warfare and development, using developed territory or technology to fuel your war machine. Players who fail to balance this could be left with a destroyed fleet and no income. This option is more commonly used in Real-Time Strategy games on computer and rarely in board games.

• Attrition: An alternative to conquest, wherein players just try to deal damage or take territory to gain victory. It doesn’t involve the complete elimination of any player, though it’s certainly not discounted as an option. This is the type of victory used in games like Defcon, and in the alternative objective deck provided with the Twilight Imperium expansion.

• Economic: Victory usually occurs after a player has amassed enough stuff. It is, in essence, a race to a victory point, with which one player can suddenly and unexpectedly emerge the victor. This can put emphasis on budget, management of purchases and the occasional aggressive action to get the job done. This is the type of objective I prefer, as I don’t like being forced into conflict if I can avoid it. The economic victory requires the player to leverage diplomacy in their favour, which can be hard against a heavy-handed conquest player. This is the option used in the base Twilight Imperium game and in games like Settlers of Catan.

• Build Up: Victory is achieved through establishing a certain level of infrastructure or technological advance, and appeals to the type of gamer who likes the economical victory. Similar to the economical victory, it is a race gametype. Unlike economical though, it requires the player to invest in something other than warfare, while still maintaining a formidable defense force - in case things go south. It requires a little more tactics than economical, as the money or gains are not immediately available for use in warfare whenever you need it. Therefore, players who like to build upwards are going to have a lot more invested in static defenses such as minefields, forts or cannons. This is partly used by Twilight Imperium in the base game.

• Precision Strike: Victory is gained by acquiring one particular location or thing, and is favoured by players who prefer underhanded tactics and negotiation. This type of strategy is frequently only available in games with alliances, or variations of them. This objective is definitely for people who like action, as it doesn’t require much investment in infrastructure or forces, but rather careful foreplanning, an opportunity - and luck. However, lack of power usually leads to fatal backlash from the person you backstabbed, and is frequently the downfall of the precision player. Additional planning can lead this sort of player to defend against a backlash, causing further damage to the intended target. The precision player needs to use threats more than any other negotiation, which doesn’t win you friends.

Posted in Board Games, Card Games, Console Gaming, Game Concepts, PC Gaming, Player Satisfaction | 1 Comment »

A Complaining-To-English Translation Guide For Valve Shooters

March 16th, 2009 Zen

Considering how many people I have seen online who whine constantly, I estimate that 70% of all players speak fluent Complainese, and have little knowledge of plain English. These players issue complicated statements, in which the subtle meanings are lost. Due to syntax errors in an English-speaker’s understanding of these players, I have decided to create a simple guide - a phrasebook, if you will - to help the few of us still acquainted with punctuation outside of Shift-1.

Complainese: “What a shit team” or “You guys all suck” or “Fail team”.  Translation: “I have played this game with teams that operate well together, and this is not one of them. However, rather than adapting my own tactics to suit the team, I continued doing what I usually do in the hopes that brute force would suffice, which it did not. In the future, every one of you should do something different in the hopes of all being as good as me.”

Complainese: “<Player> sucks” followed by “<Player> should have <performed tactic> at <specific time>”. Translation: “You should have performed my suggested tactic because all of my precisely calculated conditions were in effect. I find it unacceptable that you should have done anything that I wouldn’t have done were I in your position. This game would be so much better if played by dozens of clones of me.”

Complainese: “Damn closet campers” (Left4Dead). Translation: “I see that the opposing team has adopted a tactic the puts them in a highly defendable position, thereby rendering my attacks useless until they inevitably move on. I deem this to be unacceptable. The appropriate thing to do would be for this team to stand at a junction of corridors, allowing us multiple angles of attack, so that the playing fields be fair. In the event of a real zombie apocalypse, I expect that any survivors would do the same.”

Posted in Console Gaming, PC Gaming, Rant | No Comments »

Why You Should Never Read Game Guides

March 16th, 2009 Zen

I’ve recently become infatuated with Empire: Total War. I bought it three days ago and somehow I’ve played it for 22 hours already. To compare, I have played Team Fortress 2 for 72 hours and I’ve owned that for one and a half years. It is also one of my favouritiest games.

Today, in a bored moment, I asked myself “how can I improve my game?” and immediately dived for Google to find some game guides. Don’t do this. They will ruin your game. I found myself in a pit of exploits and bugs, surrounded not only by immersion-ruining tactics, but thirteen year olds asking for the “developer cheats”.

My eyes wandered to a short comment on the website telling me how to defeat an enemy in a naval battle with a single inferior ship using a shortcoming in the enemy AI. Why this person thought that any Total War fan could derive pleasure from winning in such a cheap way, I have no idea. But now that tactic is stuck in my brain - I can never get rid of it. The next time I find myself on the losing side of a naval engagement, it will cross my mind, and in the moment I consider using that tactic, all game immersion is lost.

These exploits range to other genres of games, too. Not even multiplayer games are exempt - there have been countless Team Fortress 2 guides on how to use small gaps in level design to snipe the other team before the round has started, or how to fall underneath the entire level and become a deadly landshark.

When I want to better my game, I don’t want to read about it online. Not anymore. The Internet has ruined my fun.

Posted in Console Gaming, Metagaming, PC Gaming, Player Satisfaction | No Comments »

Common Complaints About Left4Dead

December 17th, 2008 Zen

I’m going to talk about player satisfaction and rewards in Left4Dead, the latest game to use Valve’s Source Engine. First, if you don’t know what it is, dart over to the Left4Dead website and find out what the game’s about. Then dip your feet in its Steam Community Forum, but don’t stay too long or you’ll be corrupted.

The vast majority of users posting there have their own gripe with the game, ranging from game play to technical issues. I’m just going to talk about game play, because that’s where we’re talking about player rewards. Most of the forum topics there are pleading the L4D developers to improve or degrade aspects of some player abilities. These changes are frequently only suggested for the direct competition value in L4D’s versus mode (where a team of Infected are tasked with stopping the Survivors from making it through the level). So it always will be with any game.

What makes this game particularly unique is the degree by which one team wins or fails. I’m not talking about the scoring system (which is itself a subject of complaint). I’m talking about the simple act of surviving the level. Because of the unique way in which the Infected attack, dividing the Survivors and picking on the weakest or slowest is the objective. Infected players cannot survive more than a few rounds from any weapon fired by the Survivors, and deal damaging by pinning a Survivor with their special ability, before they deal continuous damage. The pinned Survivor cannot save themselves, but must rely on a teammate to kill the Infected player pinning them first.

L4D places its emphasis on team work, which it relies on heavily. A team with one good twitch gamer cannot survive the level if one player meanders behind the rest of the group. 3 of the Infected team have pinning attacks, so a Survivor team less one man can be pinned simultaneously and end the game. The game can be decided in the time it takes between the second-last and the last player rounding a corner.

Because of this reliance on teamwork, especially moving together (not lagging behind or rushing ahead), the correlation between a small difference in skill and a small victory is completely destroyed. A team is made or broken on the skill of all its members. Goodbye player satisfaction.

A symptom of this larger make-or-break system is the constant blaming of aspects of the game. The AI Director, for example, which is primarily used to make the game more exciting, is often blamed for favouring one team. The Automatic Shotgun is another, with people complaining that it gives Survivors too much of an advantage. Here’s something I’m just gonna throw out there - how does the L4D team fix balance issues with such a make-or-break team play? How do you test the fairness of weapons or abilities?

My solution? You don’t. Try to balance, by all means, but don’t fret. It’s not going to be possible to get this game resembling perfect. The game is hard. Harder if the enemy know what they’re doing. But when you play both sides of the confrontation, does it really matter? You get your chance to do exactly what the opposition did to you.

I can understand why people complain about this game. I personally love it. I don’t mind getting my face ripped off by a Hunter. It’s cool. There are zombies. I’m a manly man for playing this game. But it doesn’t reward individuals, or let them compensate for the lack of new players or the inexperienced. Frankly, I’m not surprised that L4D has a smaller following than Team Fortress 2. The type of players who will not get frustrated at the game, like me, are the ones who can laugh with their team and say “oh well, we tried”.

Posted in Console Gaming, Game Balance, PC Gaming, Player Satisfaction | 1 Comment »