Episode 166 - Strategic Tee Ball

[Rob Zacny]

Jon Shafer joins Rob, Troy, and Julian to talk about challenge in strategy games. What kind of challenges do we want from strategy games, and how does it get botched? Why are people still surprised when AI opponents aren't very clever? Why are they so hesitant to take on multiplayer? What's the difference between good scenario design and unfair scenario design? How amazing is Unity of Command? Seriously, you guys.

Download here

[RoutineMachine]

Raph Koster was the guy who said that Single Player games are an aberration.

http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/10/are-single-player-games-doomed/

[Lu]

The headline of that article made me laugh out loud due to the recent bit on Idle Thumbs (where it was pointed out that the answer to a headline in the form of a question is almost always 'no').

I wonder if the low percentage of online multiplayer players is due to the fact that online games (1 on 1 strategy especially) can be very stressful? Starcraft is a good personal example; I've played against a stranger maybe a handful of times and each time the amount of stress it induces makes my heart pound and gives me soaky sweaty palms. It makes me so uncomfortable that I'd rather not do it at all. Playing against AI completely alleviates that for me.

The 'cast was enjoyed, even if one of you apparently hates the Dutch. * Why not Belgium, since that actually borders France? Everyone is fine with hating Belgium, even the Belgians!

*The thumbs up is for the cast, not the racism.

[JoanneCadaver]

alright. listening now. just to let everyone know.

The headline of that article made me laugh out loud due to the recent bit on Idle Thumbs (where it was pointed out that the answer to a headline in the form of a question is almost always 'no').

yeah, haha.

[Sway]

Enjoyed the discussion even if it wandered hither and thither. I especially identified with the point Jon made about games being an illusion. I've loved city builder games like the Caesar series, but there was always a turning point where the games would suddenly lose all of their magic. It was the point at which I figured out the optimal (or at least optimal enough) building placement.

As soon as that happened, and I could predict the routes the citizens would take and maximize whatever bonuses the buildings provided, the living city I was building just became a series of algorithms. It was essentially game over at that point for me.

With regards to the fairness or difficulty level of strategy games, I'm fine with not reloading game saves if the game remains interesting while losing. But will developers invest time in making losing interesting if the majority of the players reload saves? Maybe not. Bit of a chicken-and-egg problem there.

Which games do y'all think are entertaining to lose? I know it's sort of the de facto credo of Dwarf Fortress. What else? I've never enjoyed losing Civ because it just takes too long for that misery to play out. Crusader Kings 2 seems to sidestep the winning/losing thing because your playing a string of characters, any of whom may just choke on a pheasant bone and kick the bucket at any time.

[Procyon Lotor]

Troy asked what the difference was between loading a saved game versus playing a losing game until the end, implying that the latter was a mere exercise in frustration, which could be avoided by simply reloading a save.

First, if you reload every time your plans are frustrated, you are not so much playing a game as experiencing a predetermined outcome. Second, how can you feel like a superstud if you go crying to mommy-savedgame every time something bad happens? Badasses do not behave in such a fashion.

Finally, playing through adversity is where the best stories and experiences come from. Simply blasting straight through to Victory is no fun at all. (I'm MUCH more likely to play a game of Civ4 to the end if I'm losing) Making a comeback, erasing a deficit, etc. -- THAT is where the real fun is. What if the US reloaded a save after Pearl Harbor? What if the British reloaded the save after Dunkirk? What if Grant reloaded the save after the first day of the Battle of Shiloh? History would be pretty boring if that were the case.

Of course, only CK2 and Dwarf Fortress have had mechanics or philosophies that consistently make losing fun. For most Grand Strategy Games the death spiral is just as un-fun as the victory spiral.

[Troy Goodfellow]

First, if you reload every time your plans are frustrated, you are not so much playing a game as experiencing a predetermined outcome. Second, how can you feel like a superstud if you go crying to mommy-savedgame every time something bad happens? Badasses do not behave in such a fashion.

Finally, playing through adversity is where the best stories and experiences come from. Simply blasting straight through to Victory is no fun at all. (I'm MUCH more likely to play a game of Civ4 to the end if I'm losing) Making a comeback, erasing a deficit, etc. -- THAT is where the real fun is. What if the US reloaded a save after Pearl Harbor? What if the British reloaded the save after Dunkirk? What if Grant reloaded the save after the first day of the Battle of Shiloh? History would be pretty boring if that were the case.

Sure, but note that none of us are suggesting that you keep playing games when they stop being fun. Yes, my best stories are when I struggle through adversity (note, these may not be everybody's preferred story), but these are also rare because, with the snowball mechanic in so many 4x games, it can be hard to come back from a truly dismal position, and, as Rob pointed out in his column, if you already know that you will finish in the middle of the pack and there are no great stories to tell, why slug it out?

My point was not meant to discourage people from being badasses, but just that the discussion seemed to be very down on people that were reloading saves so that they were in a better position and not so down on the idea of simply giving up and starting again with a clean slate. "Ethically" (in game terms) both avoid the loss and wipe the slate clean of defeat. They are, in fact, the same in many ways and condemning one means that sometimes we must condemn the other.

And, as you note, giving a player a mechanic or goal that lets them define winning on their own, like CK2 or DF, means that this you are much more likely to soldier on. Most strategy and wargames, however, have clear victory states.

I can't imagine playing through an entire losing game of War on the Eastern Front just because Hitler screwed it up too. Games aren't supposed to be punishment, though I do concur with the general point that we should expect players to not be so ready to have everything run smoothly.

[vyshka]

Raph Koster was the guy who said that Single Player games are an aberration.

http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/10/are-single-player-games-doomed/

It also sounds like something Bunten would have said as well. He was a big believer in games as a social experience.

[robc]

Forgive me, I'm cross posting this here and on TMA because I'm not sure what is the more used one yet. If you read my comment there, no need to read it here.

I haven't listened to the whole episode yet because my dog didn't crap enough in the yard to keep my busy for a whole episode. As far as the AI and providing a challenge and getting bonuses...

Obviously if a computer opponent can provide a challenge without cheating it is preferable to one needing to cheat. Beating Unity of Command was satisfying because the AI put up a good fight. When the AI needs bonuses to be competitive, beating it is less satisfying. It highlights how dumb the AI really is. Beating my 4 year old in a race isn't satisfying even if I give him a big head start. Beating up on a dumb AI falls into the same category.

Also, giving the AI large bonuses can negate the fun that some of the systems in the game provides. In Civilization, I love building wonders. It's my favorite part of the game. If I give the AI large bonuses, they get an unfair advantage and are able to build my wonders without giving me a chance. I'm not an elite Civ player. I can win a level or two above the even difficulty level, but that is it. I get cranky when the AI gets my wonder not because it played better, but because it cheated me out of it.

Like others have mentioned on the show, historical games can provide a challenge by letting you play the underdog. I think it hurts historical games when the game thinks it needs to balance the sides. If one had a big advantage in real life, that should be modeled. What I enjoy is when a game can score you to show whether you over or under performed compared to real life. You can play the underdog or the favorite, and get scored. Playing the favorite doesn't have to make it easier to get a good score, because you must still outperform history. This can be applied to non historical games to with leader boards. I enjoy seeing what percentile I rank in games. The hard part is for the game designers making a scoring system that is fair and rewards good play without exploiting the system to get a good score.

[Gormongous]

My biggest problem with cheating AI in games of system mastery like most strategy titles is that it has the tendency of undermining or totally negating a player's accomplishments, breaking the flow of learning and enjoyment that forms the basis of a gameplay experience.

If I work hard and gain the skills necessary to annihilate an enemy's entire army in combat, I shouldn't find another one ready-made when I move on to conquer his capital. If I spend time and money building up an infrastructure that can successfully bid for projects in the big leagues, I shouldn't be trumped by money just handed out for free in order to give me a challenge. That's rewarding accomplishment with further punishments, in my opinion. If the player can only be competed with by blatantly breaking the rules for AI opponents, doesn't that suggest that this game hasn't been designed properly with singleplayer dynamics in mind?

[Hell-Mikey]

I can't imagine playing through an entire losing game of War on the Eastern Front just because Hitler screwed it up too. Games aren't supposed to be punishment, though I do concur with the general point that we should expect players to not be so ready to have everything run smoothly.

I beg to differ with Mr. Goodfellow's failing memory - STAVKA-OKH. Which, yes, is not precisely War on the Eastern Front, but which some might call a reasonable first-order approximation. OK, perhaps not. But give Mr. Humble's game a play, and Mr. Goodfellow's article a read, and then let's carry on.

Because OMG!!1! does the AI cheat in this one! Not only the opfor AI, but the buddy AI as well. Stalin's happy to take credit for your successes, which is so non-badass. You are reduced to the staff functionary that you truly are as a near-historical commander, so this is clearly the most realistic wargame ever made. The fact that your buddies cheat you ramps the realism even higher.

And yet, the game is no-reservations recommended for the audience that listens to this podcast. It's short duration is significant, that, after all, is the core of Mr. Goodfellow's reticence to suffer defeat in, say, WitE just to have a historical lesson beaten into him over the course of 50 hours. But it also captures Mr. Murdoch's reminder of the attraction of "Can you do better than history?" games. It even involves the civ-franchise's multiple paths to victory mechanic. It may do that franchise one better, because you can pick what victory (or more appropriately mitigated tragedy) means to you.

I do hope STAVKA-OKH isn't the model for how cheating-AI is handled in the future. It was a neat distraction, a pleasing mind-nugget to mull while commuting to work or washing the dishes. But it provides a great reminder that we get to explore ideas in today's surpassingly rich strategy game ecosystem.

[Troy Goodfellow]

I beg to differ with Mr. Goodfellow's failing memory - STAVKA-OKH. Which, yes, is not precisely War on the Eastern Front, but which some might call a reasonable first-order approximation. OK, perhaps not. But give Mr. Humble's game a play, and Mr. Goodfellow's article a read, and then let's carry on.

STAVKA-OKH is another beast - each game is very short, unlike Grigsby's War on the East which takes many, many hours. Short games, like RTSes, are much more palatable when you are losing.