The early turns in PBEM Civilization are murder. You’ve given your workers orders, have your cities producing and decided what to research. Next turn.
And it will be “next turn” for the next little while, too.
World War I and Game Design
April 16th, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · Design, History, WW1
My homeland is going through another spasm of celebration of its grand nation building moment. For Canada, this isn’t the 1867 Confederation or even the completion of the transcontinental railway that linked East and West. Instead, the First World War is oft cited as the point when a Dominion with no independent foreign policy took its place alongside the powers of the world.
The 90th anniversary of Canada’s victory at Vimy Ridge is the occasion for this celebration. For Canada – a nation largely free of military adventures – Vimy is sort of Valley Forge, Tours and Marathon all wrapped up in one glorious package. A German outpost that resisted both British and French attacks succumbed to a Canadian assault. Victoria Crosses were passed out and Canada had a clear victory to balance the Pyrrhic moments of Passchendaele and the Somme. At Versailles, Prime Minister Borden could point to Canada’s role in the Great War and demand a seat at the peace table, joined by the other Dominions who had paid so much to support the Empire. By 1931, Canada was freed from British control over its own territory and foreign policy. Future triumphs on Juno Beach or liberating The Netherlands have much less weight in the Canadian consciousness than the Vimy victory, mostly forgotten by the rest of the world.
The Western Front of World War I has resisted good game design, for a couple of reasons. First, the front [Read more →]
→ 12 CommentsTags:
Making Tough Choices
April 15th, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · WW2
I started playing Making History: The Calm and the Storm yesterday, and I’ll hold off on too detailed commentary until the review is done and published. These comments are based on a few starts and one extended play. But the game makes me appreciate the tough calls that grand strategy game developers have to make in game design.
Making History is billed as a World War II game, but if you play from the 1936 start date, nothing resembling World War II arises. I like to push systems early, so, playing as America in one game, I conquered Mexico. No one seemed to mind. Except for China, which allied with the Mexicans and proceeded to invade the Philippines. Which, naturally, provoked Venezuela and Brazil to jump in on my side. Things got more ridiculous from thereon out.
Compare this to Paradox’s Hearts of Iron games, which push a confrontation between Germany and the world through events, disputed territory and ideological restrictions. In the second HoI game, democracies can’t declare war unless certain conditions are met. If you start from the earliest campaign date, you might not get “the” World War II, but you will get a recognizable global conflict.
In this, of course, Hearts of Iron is closer to what it claims to be- a World War II game. Knowing that a confrontation between Germany and the Soviet Union is almost inevitable, players of either nation must [Read more →]
→ 1 CommentTags:
RTS Year Already Over
April 14th, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · RTS
Or at least that’s the impression I get from Jason Ocampo’s feature on 2007 real time strategy games. Supreme Commander
Yes, we have the Medieval 2 and Company of Heroes expansions, but they don’t really count, do they? And it’s much too early to have any firm opinions on Empire Earth III – I’m sort of looking forward to it, but the series has let me down in the past so I’m hedging my bets.
I have no real knowledge of Universe at War or World in Conflict, both of which have titles straight out of a real time strategy title generator. Sins of a Solar Empire has a great title, but I’m equally unexcited, in spite of the Stardock name behind it.
There will surely be a dozen smaller Euro-RTS games this year, but it’s odd that really no high profile RTS is on tap for the 2007 holiday months. I can’t remember the last year that had the real time strategy season end so quickly.
→ 9 CommentsTags:
Command and Conquer 3 Online
April 13th, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · Electronic Arts, Me, Multiplayer
I’m not very good.
This shouldn’t be surprising. I’ve noted before that I don’t play many games often enough to actually excel at them. But I usually fail even against standard newbies who just have a better sense of the ebb and flow of a RTS. Part of it is my inability or unwillingness to stick to a standard build order. In CnC 3 I’m trying (factory + outpost, power plant + refinery, refinery + refinery, + barracks + power plant…and then I get lost) but it never seems to work out as well as I’d planned. I guess I’ll need to watch some replays of my defeats.
One problem is my mousy nature. Not personality wise, but my heavy reliance on the mouse pointer instead of hotkeys. Someone as old as me should be able to remember hotkeys; I still recall many of the key inputs for F-19 Stealth Fighter. But no, it’s the mouse for me and this slows me down a little.
That said, I really enjoy CnC3 in multiplayer in spite of EA’s execrable lobby interface. As I noted in my review, the three factions are both very similar and very different at the same time, making the transition from one to another relatively smooth but keeping the experience relatively fresh. I have a hard time keying on more than one opponent at a time, especially if they have different factions, since what works against one might not work so well against another.
I have a clear tendency to focus on one enemy at a time, meaning that I always end up leaving a back door open. I often have soft underbellies all over the place. It would blame it on my obessive/compulsive issues if I had any. It’s most likely just plain old tunnel vision.
In the meantime, I’ve been invited into a Civ 4 PBEM game, which should be fun since, a) Civ 4 is still the best game on my hard drive, and (b) I haven’t played a multiplayer Civ game in over six months. The group has chosen the Chinese Unification scenario from Warlords, probably one of the most interesting scenarios in the lot. It could be hard to get those unification votes from human opponents, but it does make it more worthwhile to cultivate any powers left beyond human control.
I’ll let you know if I’m any better at that.
→ 3 CommentsTags:
And the winners are…
April 13th, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · Media
Kyle Orland has some details and opinions on the freshly announced Games Media Awards, a new initiative from British publisher Intent Media. Industry people (maybe some press) will vote on which games reporters are the best in Britain and honor the proper publications. Expect lots of prizes for the good (but often overpraised) Edge. Orland and Kieron Gillen both correctly note the potential absurdity of the industry deciding who covers it best. Where is the International Games Journalist Association in this? If we need awards shouldn’t there be greater recognition from people who actually do the work?
I have no idea how this awards ceremony will be broken down. Best review? Best interview? Best original reporting? Most effective use of nicknames? Fewest gratuitous bikini pictures? Though I still wait for the day when a game journalist earns the Pulitzer for Criticism, this is a fair half-step providing they actually honor good work.
Not that there’s anything wrong with prizes. I haven’t won a trophy since high school and the mantle is a little empty. Vote for Goodfellow in ’08.
Orland goes on to suggest that, in any case, the real winners are people whose work gets linked to and commented on.
[M]ore than money, the greatest award a journalist can receive is the positive attentions of his peers and readers, and the Internet provides the ultimate democratic form of recognition in this regard. Every link from a blog or comment from a reader is a form of recognition that’s worth more than some artificially constructed award. While the correct credit for a piece can sometimes get lost in the tangle of the web, the most interesting pieces tend to get the attention they deserve through the unorganized system of linking and commenting.
Orland is absolutely correct when he says that peer recognition is the big thing. But I tend to get that recognition and affirmation in emails or AIM chats with colleagues more than in the link-o-rama of the net. It’s certainly cool when a reader emails me to say “Good job on X” or even when a publisher/developer thanks me (though I usually feel icky afterwards.) But when a writer I respect says “Good on you” that means something different. But this is almost never in the comments.
I still love comments and links. They are usually positive attention from peers and readers, and I’ve only had to delete two or three comments in the couple of years I’ve done this. (No, it’s not a democracy. Call me a “douche” in a content-fee comment and away it goes.) They are recognition that I write this stuff for somebody or a handful of somebodies.
But I’m not going to pretend that they are democratic. People comment on and link to what they find interesting to them more than on what they find good. The most linked stories on Flash of Steel are my eulogy to CGM and my thoughts on the 2006 policy on booth babes at E3. The first has 18 comments, the second has none. Neither is especially good journalism – one is a wail at the loss of a friend and the other is a “what does this mean?” type commentary.
One of the problems with the Internet as democracy is that people can only vote for you if they know about you. Just ask Bill Richardson. Not that I think this small blog deserves more recognition – traffic is growing at just the right speed thank you very much – and my niche is a comfy one.
And look at the blogs, forums and websites you visit. Played out top ten lists get passed around and commented on more than good interviews. The console horse race is covered more seriously than the design implications of the horse race, and comments reflect that. And the print media is completely screwed in all of this unless the content ends up online where someone can read it for free. This month’s Games for Windows magazine has a very good interview with John Carmack and another story on the creators of Facade. Have you seen these talked about anywhere? Even the GFW forum is devoid of solid commentary on these pieces beyond one guy saying “I liked Facade a lot. Thanks for the story.” I have little faith in the Internet democracy to recognize good work that’s more than a link away. Judging from the comments on many of the larger newsblogs, many don’t even click the link.
The MCV Game Media Awards will be announced on October 11. Tune in then to see who the industry thinks are the best gaming journalists in the UK.
Comments Off on And the winners are…Tags: