Flash of Steel header image 1

The Tropico Side Quest

September 29th, 2011 by Troy Goodfellow · City Builder, Haemimont

One of the great things about the Bioware RPG model was the side quest design. There was a single epic main quest and a bunch of major quests that would take you along that path, but also alternate quests that really had nothing to do with anything, were entirely optional and you could take ’em or leave ’em. If you accepted the quest and never got around to finishing it, no one really cared because you had a world to save anyway. Now, Bioware almost certainly did not invent this, but I first really learned to love this design playing through the Baldur’s Gate games with my wife.

Side quests are good because they give you a break from the main path (which might be boring you right now with repetitive monsters) but also give you a chance to gain experience against usually lesser foes and bosses, making yourself better prepared for what awaits you on the main plotline. Complete as many side quests as you can, and you will find decent loot, more gold and maybe that extra level or two you need to make the main quest a little bit easier. Side quests aren’t necessary, but are good to have around.

Tropico 4 is full of side quests, only they are called optional objectives.

Each mission in the campaign has a chain leading to single clear goal – accumulate money, export goods, suck up to whomever – and the goal is usually something that you can achieve by following very clear lines of action. But then it tempts you with side quests. Sometimes these are important things – the Communists hate you because there aren’t enough places for workers to live, so you need to placate them or face revolution. Sometimes they are shortcuts – you need to make money selling ore, and you can raise the price of ore if you do this other little thing first.

In both cases, things get quite complicated quite quickly.

Since Tropico 4 is a city builder, any progress to a major goal will require a rudimentary infrastructure, but the more little side quests you take on, whether to keep unrest down or hasten success, the less rudimentary this infrastructure becomes. The flood of immigrants meant higher wages than you could afford, plus you couldn’t leave them in shacks, and now you are finding yourself in a cycle of boom and bust as you wait for the freighter to haul your bauxite away. Then the Russian gives you the side quest of selling rum, with a cash prize for exporting enough. Perfect! Only now you find you need a power plant. And more college educated workers.

Which pushes you further into the red. Unless you accept a mission from the Americans to let them exploit your lumber resources, and they will pay you now. Though this will wipe out any bonus from relations with the Russians.

Even the optional missions that aren’t really optional (your money or your life, El Presidente?) push you along a path that might not make you stronger more quickly, but could force you wait longer than you otherwise might to meet your primary objective, because debt piles on debt. Now, just like RPG side quests, you do not need to complete these optional objectives in order to complete the mission; the important thing is the primary objective.

But you never know how long it will take to get to that primary objective, see? Rebellion, earthquakes, labor unrest, and a host of other things can interfere so the optional objectives are a sort of insurance against total meltdown. Or they seem that way. You have to choose wisely, and not take everything that is offered to you, because the wrong optional objective could be the one that distracts you or breaks you – your finances are your biggest concern here.

With a hard limit on the number of optional objectives you can take at one time, eventually you could find yourself full of shortcut tasks of financial promise but minor political importance and then suddenly the religious faction wants a cathedral or else. It’s not really about doing too much at once, since a city builder is always more fun when you are doing something than when you are waiting, literally, for your ship to come in. It’s about remembering that some side quests may make it easier to get to your main goal, but others are crucial for surviving the mission at all.

The more I play Tropico 4, by the way, the more I like it. The humor is forced and the stereotypical faction/nation leaders are just on the line between silly and “what the hell?”. But under the goofy exterior and lame jokes is a solid city builder that asks you to make decisions that aren’t math problems. This is not an Impressions game where you had to count off the number of squares you had before plopping down a market; it does feel organic, it does feel like you are responding to pressures that are evolving out of your city’s requirements and the mission demands and you have the power to say no, so long as you are aware of the price you might have to pay for it. (We talked about Tropico 4, of course, on the podcast a few weeks ago.)

→ 1 CommentTags:

Three Moves Ahead Episode 136 – Franchises and Fumbles

September 29th, 2011 by Rob Zacny · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead

ThreeMovesAhead

Soren Johnson quits in a huff and leaves podcasting so he can try his hand at making games. But first, Soren, Rob, Julian, and Troy talk about franchises and how they develop, or don’t. Rob tries to make the case for considering Paradox-developed games as a single franchise, but Troy explains why that doesn’t work. Soren talks about the Civilization series, and why it has evolved the way it has. The panel considers franchise exploitation, and the Blizzard model.

Listen here.
RSS here.
Subscribe on iTunes.

→ 11 CommentsTags:

Three Moves Ahead Episode 135 – Board Game Lessons

September 22nd, 2011 by Rob Zacny · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead

ThreeMovesAhead

Computer and boardgame designer Paul Sottosanti joins up Soren, Julian, and Rob to discuss how board games are evolving, and how their design philosophies differ from computer games. Is the popular success of games like Catan something that will lead to wider acceptance of board games in general? Why do Julian and Paul love drafting mechanics so much? How does the transparency of board games change our relationship to them in comparison to computer games?

Listen here.
RSS here.
Subscribe on iTunes.

→ 20 CommentsTags:

One If By Sea. And Maybe Another Later.

September 21st, 2011 by Troy Goodfellow · Design, Firaxis

Unlike Champ over here, I don’t have F1 2011 yet. So, I decompressed last night with Civilization V, a game I haven’t really spent a lot of time with lately because its tactical military issues were never quite resolved to my satisfaction. Re-reading Todd Brakke’s thoughtful (and frustrating) game diaries over at No High Scores made me want to go back and see what has improved, so I loaded up and luckily drew one of my favorite nations – the Persians. Hello, 30 turn Golden Ages.

There is one large continent, but this continent has an arm that jutted prominently over my nation’s northwest. Across this narrow channel lay the Danes – the Vikings. Their great strength is amphibious raiding because their units can land and move at the same time. A great and useful power in the hands of a real Viking leader. Harald Bluetooth, alas, must have been suffering from some interference, though, because his idea of an amphibious assault was to land one pikeman by one city, a swordsman by another and a horse guy roaming around empty space.

I fended off these weak efforts, waited a bit, got some riflemen and took Copenhagen when I landed with four of them plus two cannon. And the single Viking trireme was no match for my impressive navy of caravels. (Yeah, my naval tech lagged. Didn’t need it, really.)

The amphibious attack is one of those things that paralyzes grand strategy games. Civilization IV wasn’t really great at it for one or four patches, either, since by the time it learned mass movement of troops on transports it still hadn’t learned the importance of escorts. But eventually it did and Shaka’s galleons were something to be feared. Scouting naval units on your sea borders were crucial early warning systems.

Empire: Total War was infamous for not being active at all in cross channel shipping, so England was impervious to attack. The Hearts of Iron series would have AI build more transports than it had troops and then nothing to defend them with – and might not even have the transports. Even your typical real time strategy game from the classic late 90s era would often struggle to understand how to get that beachhead set up, but with fog of war the AI could at least be depended on to land its forces out of sight and then bum rush your villagers.

It was, when you think about it, an abstraction that we wouldn’t tolerate today, but the Imperialism games let you move troops across sea zones based on how many ship guns were targeting the enemy territory. There were never questions of transports or landing too few troops – you landed as many as you wanted depending on how big your navy was, with an assumption that a large navy would have an equally large transport fleet.

The problem with water is that strategy games treat it as partly passable. With a clear goal and a limited map (like in an RTS) you can usually do OK even without resorting to extreme measures like “row your own damn self” in Rise of Nations, in which ever unit became a weak self-transport as it crossed ocean.

But with a larger map and variable goals, a partly passable zone becomes an AI nightmare. Is the water route the optimal path to the target? Which target? If I need transports, how do I mix the units on them? How many escorts will I need? What is the ratio of distance to transports needed? If I don’t need transports (like in Civ V), when and where do I hit first? Frankly, it’s amazing Civ IV ever got it right, considering issues like bombardment.

On a land map, you don’t really need any of this since land zones are either passable or impassable. Get your army or armies or units together and eliminate things in a path to your high priority/proximity targets. It’s not that path finding is easy; early RTS reviews would inevitably compare pathfinding as a major element of game design. But when there are fewer things to worry about movement wise for an AI, then the pathfinding seems to be clearer.

Now, keep in mind that this is mostly speculation on my part. It could also be that developers and programmers don’t care about naval movement all that much. I have argued that naval warfare in and of itself is tactically boring beyond the hide-and-seek part of the game, you are dealing with smaller numbers than the thousands of men you mobilize in your stacks in Total War or Hearts of Iron, and we really haven’t had a great naval/amphibious rivalry in history where two roughly equal powers were landing on each other’s shore and doing great feats of war. If we had a Sea Lion that failed and then a D-Day, maybe developers would look at amphibious raids more seriously.

At any rate, Harald is no more, Copenhagen is part of the Persian Empire and the French are getting uppity.

→ 2 CommentsTags:

UPDATE: Fall Meetup in Toronto

September 20th, 2011 by Troy Goodfellow · Me

EDIT: Lack of interest and my own schedule means we’ll have to postpone this to later in the year. If someone has some space, we can do a proper board game afternoon.

While Rob and Julian scramble to have a Boston meeting that doesn’t involve the two of them joining with Chris Remo and Ken Levine in a plot to undermine my glorious figurehead position, the time has come for a seasonal gathering in my old/new hometown of Toronto. The last turnout was small but energetic, so I’ll have more lead time now.

If I had a house, I’d suggest board games and beer, but trust me – my apartment isn’t that big.

So on Saturday, September 24th, I would love to meet as many South Ontario, Great Lakes people as I can. I’ll see how many peers I can drag into this mess, but my site traffic suggests a solid community here, which means we can all play Starcraft 2 together and conquer South Korea.

Location to be determined. All invited. More information as I get it. Please post in the comments if you’re interested.

→ 4 CommentsTags:

Why We Don’t Do Transcripts

September 20th, 2011 by Troy Goodfellow · Me, Podcast, Three Moves Ahead

Whenever we do a very popular podcast, it’s inevitable that there will be email or forum comments asking for transcripts of the podcast. This is especially true if the game we are talking about is one with a global audience.

And it’s understandable to an extent. If English is not your first language, then reading usually comes easier than listening – especially to three or four very different voices. And before the glory days of excellent podcast sound quality, I could feel the pain.

But we don’t do transcripts.

I know why people want them. They can read faster than they can listen, and our shows are an hour long in most cases and sometimes longer. The Alpha Centauri show – which has signs of becoming one of our top shows ever – was eighty minutes. If you are not a regular listener, you think your time is valuable and don’t want to waste it listening to people you don’t really care about except for now.

Thing is, our time is valuable, too, and transcribing is very difficult, time consuming, boring and expensive. For every hour of audio it takes close to three to get it into a good text form. Not to mention we need to have a standard format and a public FTP to host the files permanently. (One listener did transcribe my E3 conversation with Jon Shafer back in 2010, but it was a fifteen minute interview and just the two of us.) And we aren’t paid to do the podcasts, each of which takes longer to prepare for than the hour or so you listen to each week. Planning, playing, pre-game, scheduling multiplayer if necessary, wrangling developer guests…not small tasks and each can an hour or three in a week (playing much more) if things go wrong. Adding transcription time is cruel.

I have nothing against transcripts. But a podcast is a conversation, ideally. If you are a regular listener, then you know how much we like and appreciate each other and our audience, and that the words themselves are only a part of what is going on. It’s not ask and answer – it is true exchange and there will be talking over and the tone of voice is so, so important.

Mere text really can’t capture Bruce Geryk.

Paying someone to transcribe would be prohibitive. And I would never ask or accept a community volunteer to do it because it is really onerous and once we start doing it, we really can’t stop. I started doing show notes last summer, and though it was fun to listen to old episodes again, it was difficult to stay consistent.

Transcripts wouldn’t have that problem, at least, but they would take longer and, I think, diminish the connection between us and our audience. The temptation to just read what was said and move on is there and we would never be able to build.

In the best of all possible worlds, we would have a super server, theme music, costumes and could bookmark our podcasts so that people could jump to parts that we thought were worth highlighting. (30:00 – Reynolds rejects proposal, 15:32 – Murdoch mentions ASL, 22:47 – Geryk rant begins, 1:45 – Chick offers coffee), but we’re not there. Rob’s done great to find an excellent producer in Michael Hermes, and I hope he gets a little something from next month’s pledge drive.

So no transcripts, and I’m sorry but they aren’t coming soon.

Do other podcasts get requests for transcripts by the way?

→ 10 CommentsTags: