Rob Zacny

Episode 176: We're Building a Better World

Recommended Posts

Cory Banks

joins Julian, Troy, and Rob to talk about fiction and world-building in strategy games. They talk a lot about Endless Space and whether or not its fiction is undercooked, and how it affects the rest of the game. Does having an interesting world make for a better strategy game? Is Civilization just abstracting human history, or is it doing world-building of its own? The gang considers Alpha Centauri, and what its fiction added to the game, and what the poor fiction of Rise of Legends and Kohan took away. Julian explains why Warhammer’s fiction works so brilliantly.

Rob’s Endless Space

review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an avid strategy gamer and a lover of 4x strategy games since I first played the original Master of Orion I have to take issue with the way Cory Banks insisted on claiming that Endless Space's lack of any world building is not a fault. I have not played Endless Space yet, I am hoping it will be on sale during the Steam summer sale. That being said when you look at a game like Master of Orion (I still play MOO2 every now and then) the world building really adds richness to the game. If you get rid of that stuff you are not playing a game, you are manipulating a system.

Are comments ever going to go back to Flash of Steel? I hate listening to the show at Flash of Steel, reading the articles at Flash of Steel, then having to come over to this site for the sole purpose of signing in and writing comments. I realize now this is part of the Idle Thumbs thing, making sure some of your listeners come to the site and discover the other podcasts. It is still annoying.

EDIT: Something really funny, when Cory was admitting to "defending Endless Space again" I was thinking wow, he sounds like the people ripping Tom Chick's review of Secret World. Then five seconds later he is called a fanboy! Its like Cory just doesn't understand this podcast is about serious critism, not blind defenses of games you think are "fun". I don't want this to sound like I am critiscing Cory, but I kind of am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are comments ever going to go back to Flash of Steel? I hate listening to the show at Flash of Steel, reading the articles at Flash of Steel, then having to come over to this site for the sole purpose of signing in and writing comments. I realize now this is part of the Idle Thumbs thing, making sure some of your listeners come to the site and discover the other podcasts. It is still annoying.

This will be addressed in the other way; when we've set up our new site, the podcast will be hosted here and there will be a really straightforward page for the show and for each individual episode. We know it's kind of fractured right now and it's not ideal yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an avid strategy gamer and a lover of 4x strategy games since I first played the original Master of Orion I have to take issue with the way Cory Banks insisted on claiming that Endless Space's lack of any world building is not a fault. I have not played Endless Space yet, I am hoping it will be on sale during the Steam summer sale. That being said when you look at a game like Master of Orion (I still play MOO2 every now and then) the world building really adds richness to the game. If you get rid of that stuff you are not playing a game, you are manipulating a system.

EDIT: Something really funny, when Cory was admitting to "defending Endless Space again" I was thinking wow, he sounds like the people ripping Tom Chick's review of Secret World. Then five seconds later he is called a fanboy! Its like Cory just doesn't understand this podcast is about serious critism, not blind defenses of games you think are "fun". I don't want this to sound like I am critiscing Cory, but I kind of am.

I found myself agreeing with Mr. Banks on many of his points. To me, 4X games are not hindered by a lack of flavor text or plot; that's not what I am always personally looking for in those games. I suppose it can be nice to have, but in my mind it's criticizing a race car for not having cup holders.

Having dropped more time into GalCiv2 than almost any other strategy game, I can say that I'm comfortable with: "Laser I -> Laser II -> Laser III". I don't believe my enjoyment of the game would change if they were to instead say: "Flognosticator -> Antimatter Beams -> SuperiYority Ray" and offered some flavor text about how they scammed the tech from a drunken Iconian scientist. I just want more powerful lasers, dammit. I recently put about 10 hours into Sins: Rebellion, and honestly I wish their tech tree had a little less flavor as it's sometimes hard to find what I'd like to build when moving from race to race.

One specific point you made "If you get rid of that stuff you are not playing a game, you are manipulating a system." - I'm okay with that. I'm not looking for the Platonic ideal in every strategy game I play, and I'll usually glom onto the main conceit or core concept that a game is pushing even if it's lacking elsewhere. If I'm looking for rich plot, stirring narrative, and plenty of flavor I look to other games and other genres. Let's call a spade a spade, I say - it's okay to have a game that's about pushing sliders and making numbers go up and down. Sometimes that's all I'm looking for.

Finally, I think it's somewhat presumptuous to claim that Cory "just doesn't understand" what the podcast is about. His points were well made, and in my opinion it's great when someone really enjoys a game and is enthusiastic about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to say almost any 4X strategy game is about manipulating a system. Combat perhaps doesn't fall within that categorization. Developing resources, building buildings, research - they are all done to manipulate the system to support the way you are trying to win. I suppose people can play in other ways - like basing decisions on roleplaying, but I guess I never play that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great episode. Frankly, I found myself agreeing with . . . everyone. On every point. That's schizophrenic, I know, but this topic is a real head-scratcher. Why the hell can we be so charmed by the "world" in one game, indifferent to it in the next, and completely thrown off by it in another? And why do I think MOO and MOO2 were so flavorful, when really they weren't? Great topic, great discussion.

And I think Cory was an excellent addition to this podcast. His contributions kept the pot stirring, which makes for a good discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I come down on Cory's side of the arguement. I like games where the factions, and their associated stratgies, aren't all preset. There should be scope within the game for me to pave my own path. In a 4x game, a civilisations strengths and weaknesses should be emergent properties, depending on geography, interactions with neighbours, and the success of failure of my actions.

For example, the English didn't have a great navy because they were English. They had one cause they were on an island (plus a load of other contributing factors).

Having too much backstory forces the game into having to play out in a certain way. Which is fine for some games (scenario based games). but hardly ideal if you're wanting "sim-space faring empire" 4x type of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still digesting this podcast but people are already saying some interesting things

In a 4x game, a civilisations strengths and weaknesses should be emergent properties, depending on geography, interactions with neighbours, and the success of failure of my actions.

For example, the English didn't have a great navy because they were English. They had one cause they were on an island (plus a load of other contributing factors).

I think your bang on about this riadsala BUT i also think that that statement only really works when all your protagonists are human. Unlike Civ most 4x's do not start from the prehistoric beginings of each race(Now of course there is one game which did do this & indeed did it to a even more extreme extent and that's Spore, which received a decidedly mixed reception.), instead each race appears on the galactic scene already having reached a high level of evolution and technology. I think i would be strange to assume that multiple entirely different races could develop over millions of year and end up identical.

Now I've read, watched, and played a crap load of Hard Sci-Fi & Space Opera's, and one of the most interesting conceits that get used is the idea that your evolution changes they way you think. That a species evolved from carnivores will think completely differently from a species developed from herbivores for example. Mass Effect despite it's many flaws did a pretty good job with this as do Starcraft and DoW.

Which leads me to my own little hunch about 40k's success, I think Julian was very close but would differ slightly. It's not quite that they build the game they want to play, its that they build races to fit tactics that their players want to use.

A minor difference i know but i think it's one which has served them incredibly well over the years. Every single 40k race doesn't just convey theme through meaning it does it through the way it fights.

As Troy brings up just like music that resonance between theme and mechanics is key (which is why Ork's are totally punk rock :D).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree with Banks on this. I've always thought of games like this as me being the omniscient influence in the course of action, it's my story to weave. In fact, I think having to incorporate some type of lore of established fiction would inhibit my ability to get absorbed in the game. I walked away from this podcast quite awed by how important it seems to be to Rob, Troy and Julian.

I'm now going to read the review, if it's available, of Zacny's.. and I'm almost certain his angle is going to piss me off a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was a frustrating episode to listen to for a number of reasons. Perhaps the fundamental reason is I felt the whole idea of world building was never clearly defined. It was distinguished from back story, it was decided that flavor text had something to do with it, but it was never really established what was at issue here.

There were a lot of potentially interesting questions that were sort of danced around instead of being addressed head on.

We understand that world building is valuable because it gets players invested in the game, but we never understand how that happens. We almost get to the heart of the issue when the discussion turns to fanboyism - and how if you like something, it's easier to get invested in the game's mythology and... world building I guess? But just when you think the discussion will delve deeper into the question of how and why that process happens we shift gears to something else. Maybe that's just as well. I think, if we're being honest, why our preferences are what they are will always end up being something of a mystery, but I can't help but feel like a pretty fundamental question was ignored.

A possible thesis haunts my mind as I listen to this episode: world building, and our attachment to that process is merely a result of the passage of time. Thus games like Master of Orion, Alpha Centauri, Warhammer 40k, Starcraft, games based on older IP like Dune, etc. have an unfair advantage over a game like Endless Space. We've spent more time with those games, and they have had more time to develop and unfold in our brains. They form a legacy that leaves an impression on us, and as such their worlds seem richer compared to a brand new IP... one that doesn't have the advantage of expansions, novelizations, the memory of that one crazy game we played against our friends, and the simple joy of nostalgia.

I'd like to think that what counts as good world building isn't this simple bias towards the older experiences we've had, but there isn't anything in this episode that suggests otherwise.

So I'd like to give a shout out to Cory for offering what I saw as a much needed counter-point in this discussion. Like Troy, I haven't played Endless Space, so I'll reserve judgment about the merits or demerits of the game, but also as a neutral observer, some of the critiques of the game sounded like they were coming from a slightly unfair place (on the other hand, I think the conclusion of that source of criticism is nonetheless correct... who wouldn't want to see the 4X space genre step up its game???).

On that note: I'd like to see a podcast talk about the game Eclipse: good God is that some satisfying 4X space action with elegant board game mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still digesting this podcast but people are already saying some interesting things

I think your bang on about this riadsala BUT i also think that that statement only really works when all your protagonists are human. Unlike Civ most 4x's do not start from the prehistoric beginings of each race(Now of course there is one game which did do this & indeed did it to a even more extreme extent and that's Spore, which received a decidedly mixed reception.), instead each race appears on the galactic scene already having reached a high level of evolution and technology. I think i would be strange to assume that multiple entirely different races could develop over millions of year and end up identical.

True, but I do think there is a tendancy to go too far making in 4x games. My idle is when the races are different from each other in interesting (game mechanical) ways, but there's still scope to play the races in different ways. The race of robotic AIs can either be warmongering Reapers in one game, and completely pacifist in an another. Maybe some of this is randomly determined when you click "new game" and maybe some of it is determined by how the game plays out. But it leaves far more scope for discovery, and weaving your own story.

I'm glad AI War was mentioned. I also think Sword of the Stars (1) made a good attempt at this. I haven't played it enough to suss out all of the differences between the races, but the impression I got was that the developers made an effort to make the races play differently based on their FTL tech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a great episode and I found it an interesting discussion even though I haven't played Endless Space.

My favorite games are Master of Magic, X-Com, and Master of Orion 2, and I think that those games are a good example of how I relate to worldbuilding. I don't need a narrative or a story really, I just need cool toys to play with and an immersive atmosphere. I guess its sort of like playing with action figures or Legos. I should point out that I don't like other people's stories anyways, I usually skip through dialogue and cut scenes when I play games.

So good game design really helps if you want to give ingredients for a memorable and vivid experience. I personally am appalled at the plague of genericitis in video games these days. Whenever I see something like +5% damage or +10% gold production I cringe and wish that people were more creative.

Specifically for 4x games, I think factions have a big part of the personality in the game. Ideally the factions would behave differently in a diplomatic role, just look at the Gandhi complaints for Civ 5. Most games don't really tread that area though, as AI is generally crappy. Faction perks/traits though are an easy way to inject life into your world. Moo2 had a few traits that really stood out like Lithervore, Telepathic, and Creative. Unfortunately, most of the stats you picked were pretty bland. Ship customization had a similar problem, where all the really cool features and weapons basically boil down to Attack, Defense, and Hitpoints.

So to really make a game stand out, the designer needs to throw out all the generic stats, bonuses, and perks and replace them with unique meaningful ones. Make one faction so aggressive that they always have to be at war with one nation. Another faction can be cannibalistic, where they get food and happiness from defeating foes in battle. One faction can be Nomadic, where every 50 turns they have to get up and leave, looking for a new home. Space ships could have similar changes, where instead of Missle level 1, missile level 2, you can have Homing Missiles which never miss unless shot down, scatter missles which unless you shoot it really early they can't be shot down and are hard to evade, EMP missiles which shutdown systems but don't do damage, and Bio-weapon missiles which actually penetrate the hull and shoot poison gas to kill the crew inside. Uniqueness is important too, like one faction's ships can cloak, and nobody else can cloak. Maybe there could be a faction that is just an Artificial Intelligence and instead of sending marines to capture an enemy ship it just checks to see who's computers technology is the most advanced.

So having all this interesting stuff helps with the worldbuilding, but also I think the interactions are important. You have to design it so that there are conflicts, like one faction wanting a planet for its minerals and another person wanting it because its atmosphere is habitable. That sort of conflict forces a story to happen, either you try to make friends and offer a deal, or you go into war over the issue. However, if every planet is habitable, and every planet provides minerals... then its not a big deal. If the enemy got there first, and you don't want a conflict, you can go find a less desirable planet. Now, if you make each planet have a unique resource that can be exploited, suddenly things get interesting. Since its not a decision made at the start screen but an evolving struggle to get things you need before someone else does, you start personifying the AI and imprinting your problems upon your people. Thats my experience anyways.

I can come up with this kind of stuff all day (actually its a hobby). I realize that it probably is much harder to make a game where everything is awesome and every choice you make has an impact on the gameplay, but I think that makes for a much richer gameplay experience as well as a deeper strategy game. I suppose there is a fear that its overkill, and that you want some bland or generic items to make the player feel comfortable and make the cool stuff seem special by comparison. I think thats B.S. though, and how many games have failed because they were too rich and varied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sword of the Stars 2 was mentioned a couple of times during this episode. I would really like to hear a 3MA with someone from the SOTS2 developer team similar to Episode 81: Elemental Post Mortem with Brad Wardell. I would imagine there are interesting stories to be told about SOTS2 from release to today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good episode that I enjoyed listening too. I find myself agreeing with everyone to some extent (and I know that's contradictory) in that backstory or game mechanics don't have to both be present to create a good game. However I think Troy hit the nail on the head when he was talking about getting a synergy between backstory / lore and game mechanics lifting a good game to greatness, and I think this is what all games should really be aiming for.

When it goes wrong it's a disaster (we all know about Elemental), but when a game gets it right it can really make something fantastic, like Alpha Centuari, Sword of the Stars or Fall from Heaven, which I'm surprised you guys didn't talk about more.

Specifically with regard to space based 4x games I think some of the problem is the prism of human experience, where we all want interesting aliens in the game, but we also want them to have the same goals and aims as we would - basically build tin cans wih big guns to fly off and shoot each other with. I think all space games suffer from this, with the possible exception of SotS but even here that comes from a direction the gamer(s) have no influence over.

In SotS the best emergent storytelling/gameplay comes from the galactic menaces, not from the other playable races. These are probably the only true Aliens I've ever encountered in a game, 'races' with aims and goals that are not 'colonise the galaxy and shoot anyone who gets in your way'. From the self replicating Von Nuemann machines to the locust swarms, it would be fantastic. To see a game where the aliens are really alien with different goals other than galactic domination and conquest. Why can't you play as a sentient planet like Alpha Centauri or Solaris, who's aim is to get enough of the other races to worshIp you? Or some sort of organic space algae who's aim is to spread far enough and colonise enough planets to achieve sentience?

I admit that would be difficult to build a good game out of, but I bet it would lead to some terrific emergent storytelling/gameplay!

Lastly, just about Warhammer. It doesn't really matter in context to the podcast but I think it's worth pointing out I think you got it backwards...

Games Workshop created Warhammer back in the late 70s early 80s (the fantasy world first) as an alternative to Dungeons and Dragons. They just decided to give you the world in which to play rather than let you imagine it like DnD does. The two guys who set it up - Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson were (I think) established journalists and writers first, rather than game designers who needed to learn how to write. If you look up the Fighting Fantasy books they wrote in the 80s (which were huge over here in the UK at the time) you'll probably get a feel for their background.

Anyway of you manage to track down the original back stories to Warhammer fantasy battle (the collapse of the Slann warpgates letting chaos into the world) or the 40K universe (God Emperor arises to save humanity and the Horus Heresey) I think you'd follow that they wrote the world first and then created the games to play those characters. 40K certainly started with the Emperor, not the space marine although he wasn't far behind!

Obviously there has been a lot of synergy since then between the games and the world to lead to where it is today (influenced by some pretty hard nosed commercial decisions it must be said)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the comments, it looks like it was a topic that a lot of people had opinions on. I'll try and keep mine brief.

For me, and I emphasize "for me", it's personality, not world-building. The in-game moment that highlighted this for me was the first time I encountered other factions. Their ship stopped by my planet for a turn, but nothing happened. They didn't fire on me. They didn't run away. They didn't probe me. They eventually just flew off in another turn. And when I opened the diplomacy panel to say "hi", the only option really open to me was to declare war. I thought at first that it was maybe just the way this specific faction responded to other life forms, and I built a place for them in the fiction I was constructing. But a few turns later the same thing happened with another faction. That's when I started developing some ambivalence about going to the next turn.

Rob touched on this when he mentioned wasted opportunities. I'm pretty sure Alpha Centauri popped up a screen when you encountered another faction with maybe just a couple sentences from them. But that's all I needed. Taunt me, or extend a peace offering, or wave your tentacles and grin. I don't need an elaborate backstory or a plot to follow. I'll do most of that heavy lifting in my head. But give me something on which to construct it. The different planet types and their unique bonuses/minuses are a start. The unique techs help, although they don't really feel unique enough. The ark ship that the Pilgrims start with is definitely a step in the right direction. The universe, itself, just feels a little flat.

I must have spent 20 minutes carefully choosing my faction for my first game. The default faction was listed as "Evil", and I was imagining all the trouble that might cause for me in the game. I kept clicking around and reading the flavor text of each race, salivating a little about how that story might unfold over the turns. But as soon as I started the game, the faction I chose just boiled down to the stat buffs they started with. Cory was right that maybe it's unfair to judge the game on story if it wasn't one of the game's goals. But the game gave me that expectation when the first thing it presented me with was my choice of unique races, each with their own bit of fiction.

Like other commenters said, I agreed with just about everyone at different points in the show. People want different things from their 4X games and that's just fine. I'm glad to hear Endless Space is delivering exactly what some people are looking for if that means we'll get more entries into the genre. Thanks for the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I felt the whole idea of world building was never clearly defined. It was distinguished from back story, it was decided that flavor text had something to do with it, but it was never really established what was at issue here.

There were a lot of potentially interesting questions that were sort of danced around instead of being addressed head on.

world building, and our attachment to that process is merely a result of the passage of time.

They form a legacy that leaves an impression on us, and as such their worlds seem richer compared to a brand new IP... one that doesn't have the advantage of expansions, novelizations, the memory of that one crazy game we played against our friends, and the simple joy of nostalgia.

I think these two points are most likely connected sclpls.

In my experience the most successful environmental storytelling tends to be in games that give me slow drip drip of information, rather than in those that throw big chunks story and exposition at a me in one go.

To paraphrase a couple of famous screen writing maxims: I think the best games show me how their world works, not tell me about it with big chunks of text. Equally the actions of a race's units define the character I perceive them to have.

I think this style of storytelling's main advantage is it makes me feel smart, because of instead of being told “this is what happened” it allows me to slowly (perhaps even subconsciously) piece together a story until the eureka moment when everything clicks.

I think if you looking at what some of the other guys say you can see some of that sentiment reflected:

I don't need a narrative or a story really, I just need cool toys to play with and an immersive atmosphere. I guess its sort of like playing with action figures or Legos. I should point out that I don't like other people's stories anyways, I usually skip through dialogue and cut scenes when I play games.

I must have spent 20 minutes carefully choosing my faction for my first game. The default faction was listed as "Evil", and I was imagining all the trouble that might cause for me in the game. I kept clicking around and reading the flavor text of each race, salivating a little about how that story might unfold over the turns. But as soon as I started the game, the faction I chose just boiled down to the stat buffs they started with.

In SotS the best emergent storytelling/gameplay comes from the galactic menaces, not from the other playable races. These are probably the only true Aliens I've ever encountered in a game, 'races' with aims and goals that are not 'colonise the galaxy and shoot anyone who gets in your way'.

Obviously though this can makes it difficult for people talking about it to pinpoint one specific thing that caused a impression, and equally gives a advantage to longer running series since there's often enough information out with older franchises for players to make connections and draw conclusion that the designers didn't foresee but still reinforce the richness of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was a frustrating episode to listen to for a number of reasons. Perhaps the fundamental reason is I felt the whole idea of world building was never clearly defined. It was distinguished from back story, it was decided that flavor text had something to do with it, but it was never really established what was at issue here.

I understand that 3MA has delved too far into the minutia of defining terms (especially when Bruce is on the panel) but I agree with sclps that we could have used a little more level-setting here. Troy's revelation 3/4ths of the way through the podcast that world-building =/= backstory was brilliant but should have had more discussion at the early stages of the 'cast.

Great discussion overall. Really enjoying the podcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, grand strategy games, whether turn-based or real-time, require two elements for an engaging and successful theme: context and direction. I think of context as what we consider backstory, the canvas upon which a player projects their own narrative. Direction is more along the lines of world-building, an understanding of the processes at work and how they affect the player's narrative. The landscape and ecology, if you will.

Most games start out with a little of both already, because any setting has some real-world analogue and game mechanics invariably accomplish some world-building. Authored touches like flavor text and art are necessary to engage the player beyond that basic level though, otherwise we get experiences like the release versions of Europa Universalis III and EU: Rome, where a historical point of departure and abstracted but verisimilitudinous mechanics achieved an experience just about as engrossing as drawing borders on a dry-erase world map.

I wonder if the reason we keep sticking on space games is that there's no real analogue to provide even the barest ready-made context. History is self-evident and fantasy has Tolkien & Renn faires, but the popular understanding of space settings is the WWII Pacific theatre. The empty ocean doesn't have much in the way of character, and even if it did it's so far removed from what actually is depicted in space 4x games that there's no signposts for developers to follow. Unless there's a strong authored vision preexisting and able to provide a framework, we inevitably get large, amorphous empires, the sole purpose of which is to fuel war machines (read: the US and Japan during the Second World War). Like Cory insists, that doesn't sink a game or even preclude it from having an engaging theme (the first Sword of the Stars is a great example), but I'm hard pressed to think of a video game with a weak or superficial theme that is acknowledged to be qualitatively better than one with a strong theme in the same genre. Theme and atmosphere are what computers do best anyway, board games handle abstraction better and novels/movies produce stronger authored narratives.

I don't know, every strategy game I've ever grown cold on too quickly (Galactic Civilizations II, the newer Europa Universalis games, early Sins of a Solar Empire) were ones that felt directionless and contextless. I conquer Planet A from the Blue People using my fleet of Ships Mk. V, that gives me X more units of resource Y and a Z% increase to production? Give me a hook to hang my narrative on and I'll play it all day, but mechanics and setting can't create atmosphere on their own. I know it seems like a lot of work to build something intangible like that, especially for games set in space, but look how glowingly games like Alpha Centauri and Masters of Orion 2 are spoken of fifteen years down the line. Clearly, it's worth it, and I feel well within my rights to criticize games that merely pay lip service to it.

Good show though, everyone said really smart things at some point or another. Also, does anyone else remember Emperor of the Fading Suns? That game felt like living Dune, even with the clueless AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say this is one of those TMA podcasts that has really stood out, and one I told my friends about. Although I feel that there was one thing missing from the discussion which is the effects that the world place on your game. You can see this best in historical games. Why are Germany and Poland fighting in 1939? Well that's history. The problem is that if you took it as a pure game design problem then you would have Germany versus Poland in 1939 as a balanced fight where it is down to player skill to win, but history demands that Germany wins, and wins quickly so is ready to move on to it's next conquest. Thus a game that is missing the world underneath can leave the player lacking immersion, the same is also true in the case where the story and the game don't match. The classic Civ one, I just got nuked by Gandhi is my person favourite of this occurrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally prefer game-specific episodes to concept-specific ones, but I thoroughly enjoyed this ep because I could see both sides of the issue. The best games have flavor along with everything else you're looking for in a strategy game, but I feel that missing or weak flavor is a far lesser offense than poor AI, poor UI, non-situational decisions, etc. This is especially true in the current gaming ecosystem since flavor can be amped up later with patches or DLC, whereas very few companies will admit that they launched their game with terrible core gameplay and completely rebuild it, yet anything less (in some cases) is just rearranging the deck chairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally listened to this episode. The drought here made it so I haven't been mowing my lawn and listening to the podcasts. I immediately found myself agreeing with Cory about flavor text in strategy games. I just need to know what game play effect something is going to have so I know how and when to use it. In an effort to make the world more flavorful, space games typically give techs and weapons names that don't really give a good indication of the details of that item. In space games I prefer names like Laser 1, Laser 2, etc..., instead of Ultra High Intensity Laser, Plasma Carbide Laser, etc... With the latter, which is better? SciFi games frequently have names that just make things confusing. I am one of the only humans that love Civ games that didn't like Alpha Centauri for this very reason. The names made it difficult to figure out what the heck I wanted to do. When I want story and an involving world, I look to RPGs and story-based FPSs. I don't make choices in strategy games unless I think it brings me closer to winning.

After feeling self righteous in the correctness of my view, I started to feel a little empty inside. I think in my competitiveness to want to 'beat' the game I've lost part of my gaming soul. Over the past several years I think I have been having a hard time just 'enjoying' a game, taking my time to appreciate the experience. This is worsened by the glut of games I accumulate via Steam sales. I want to get through one so I can get to the next one. So Rob Z, Troy, Julian - can you please do a show on reclaiming your gaming soul? Teach us who have fallen to slow down and appreciate each game we play. Maybe, just maybe I can then enjoy a game like Crusader Kings 2 (which by the way I picked up during the Steam Summer Sale).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In space games I prefer names like Laser 1, Laser 2, etc..., instead of Ultra High Intensity Laser, Plasma Carbide Laser, etc... With the latter, which is better? SciFi games frequently have names that just make things confusing.

I agree if the only difference between the technologies or weapons is a simple improvement in numerical stats. SotS 1 and 2 spectrum coded their incremental laser upgrades (Red, Green, UV, X-Ray) and explosion types for warheads (Fission, Fusion, Anti-Matter) which I thought was better than a simple 1 vs. 2 but was colorful enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now