Flash of Steel header image 1

Shafer and Stardock

January 5th, 2011 by Troy Goodfellow · Firaxis, Industry, Stardock

When I broke the news that Jon Shafer had left Firaxis, I can honestly say that I had no idea where he would end up. I knew that a deal was in place for him to go somewhere, I knew that he was happy with the move and I knew nothing else. None of my usual sources at Firaxis or Stardock or 2k would spill the beans, even off the record. Shafer himself was was tight lipped until the news broke.

I can also honestly say that I was surprised. I was sure that Shafer would “move up” to a larger developer and publisher – surely EA could find a use for him. Because no matter what you think about Civ 5 or the espionage in Civ 4, there is no doubt that Shafer is a unique and exciting young talent in strategy gaming.

When I expressed my surprise to Shafer, he was surprised I was surprised? “Where else would I go?”

And then it all made sense. Stardock’s games are primarily PC strategy – this is what they do. If you love strategy games (and Shafer genuinely does) you would prefer to go to a studio that values them. That leaves Stardock and Relic. And now there is less chance of your baby’s publicity being drowned out by your publisher’s loud, lame gangster game that no one remembers five months later.

Second, the Elemental experience clearly demonstrated that Stardock needed more game design talent with leadership skills than CEO Brad Wardell. Shafer has led a team under strict deadlines from a big publicly traded publisher – he is proven even if his first major product is still not all it could be.

Third, though Wardell is man of great confidence and strong personality, he also doesn’t stick his name on the games he publishes. Sid Meier is one of the most generous and kind-hearted people in the business, but his name at the front can make it hard for gamers to see that the franchise has moved on with other people at the helm and hard for developers to assume a real ownership of the Civ series. You see this on even hardcore Civ forums where people go after Shafer for breaking “Sid’s game”. (Sid’s game is Civ Revolutions, btw). Though I am confident that Meier wasn’t keeping anyone down, for a young developer like Shafer, the chance to move to someplace where your name and talents have a chance to be up front can’t be taken lightly. No one is in this for the glory, I think, but playing second fiddle to a giant and a genius can be exhausting.

Fourth, and related, is the prospect of making variants of Civilization forever. Stardock’s last three games are a fantasy game, a political game and a sci-fi game. All three are quite different in major design areas and count as unique experiences. Firaxis has a wealth of talent and a rich history beyond Civ to pillage but it doesn’t. As we noted on the podcast a few weeks ago, it could be that they are stuck in an Ensemble situation where other projects are starved to keep the cash cow going.

Fifth, it might be better to be known as the guy that saved Stardock instead of the guy that ruined Civ. (Not that I believe that, but I have read it so many places that I hate the internet more than ever.)

→ 16 CommentsTags:

So When Are You Finished?

January 3rd, 2011 by Troy Goodfellow · Design, Me

I was a guest on this week’s Jumping the Shark podcast, and the topic for the week (once you get past all the “what are you playing?” stuff) was whether we complete the games we play. This was not about whether reviewers have to, but about what makes us finish a game and whether we feel compelled to move on if a game isn’t doing it for us. The whens and the whys are pretty important.

I don’t play games that really have ends. I mean, they have end games, but when can I say that I have finished War in the East or Bronze?

On the show, Todd Brakke boasted about having finished Dawn of War 2, but which he meant he had finished the story based campaign. I commented that, from my perspective, he had only barely started Dawn of War 2. Sure, he had completed the story and had some fun with the squad based tactics stuff, but he only played one race, he never tried the skirmish, he didn’t engage with any of the territorial control games that Relic designs so well.

Some strategy games clearly have end points. Lionheart: King’s Crusade is nothing but two campaigns (one Crusader, one Saracen) and there is no reason to play the game once you have claimed the Holy Land for whatever god your hero worships. A few years ago there was a spate of WW2 real time strategy games that, similarly, had nothing beyond the missions that were strung together.

No matter how many times you play Mass Effect 2, though, you can speak of having “finished it” so long as you see the story to a resolution. No matter how many times I conquer the world in Civilization or beat back the Zerg in Starcraft, I never feel like the game is finished. Playing a new skirmish whether online or alone feels like a new beginning in a way that restarting Dragon Age doesn’t. As one of the Gameshark panelists noted, I already took my guy through that story. The first time is what really happened – everything else after that is just exploring new plot points or grinding for achievements.

There is a world of difference between “I finished Starcraft 2” and “I am finished with Starcraft 2.” Does the first even make sense?

→ 8 CommentsTags:

Wargame UI

December 31st, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Wargames

Over on his blog, my sometimes wargame opponent Peter Berger has written what he calls a “rant” about the problems with UI in wargames. Well worth a read.

If you want to comment, do it over there – it’s his argument, not mine.

Comments Off on Wargame UITags:

Three Moves Ahead Episode 97: Bronze with Alex Kutsenok

December 30th, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Podcast, Shrapnel, Three Moves Ahead

ThreeMovesAhead
 

If you chat with me about strategy or board games, I have mentioned Bronze to you. Alex Kutsenok is the lead designer of Bronze and he sits down with me and Julian to talk about the development and inspirations for this deep but easy to learn computer/board/strategy game. Prepare for a love fest.

I also give shout outs to all the people who helped make Three Moves Ahead in the past year.

Listen here.
RSS here.
Subscribe on iTunes.

→ 8 CommentsTags:

2010 End of Year Strategy Wrap Up

December 29th, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Awards

In general, it was a good year for strategy gamers. A lot of variety. If you are reading this expecting to see Starcraft 2 or Civilization 5 win strategy game of the year, sorry. When the year started, I expected one of them to be the odds on favorite. In fact, I bet every other website will pick one of those games as their strategy game of the year. And they might be right.

But not for me. Read on to see how 2010 stacked up for me.

I Wish I Had Played This When It Came Out and Had More Time: Greed Corp: You could really put any console strategy game here, but Greed Corp was also on the PC. It has a central strategy gaming mechanic going for it – short term gain vs long term costs – and sounds like just my type of light gaming experience. But life and other things, etc.

Best Trend: Board Games and their influence: From the introduction of exclusive bonuses and hard victory counters to the city builder Settlers 7 to the very obviously board gamey Bronze to the rise of the iPad as a board game device, the influence of cardboard and plastic on strategy game design is testimony to how a new generation of game devs and programmers are looking at how to keep things simple but challenging. The one great advantage of board games is that your status is often obvious and transparent. Though I love my fog of war and trying to determine how strong my opponent is, transparency and simplicity are good. Throw in a clever card based system like RUSE that uses fog of war, though and you can still see how measure/countermeasure work like in any good card game.

Worst Trend: More DLC: The new way to keep a franchise profitable is to sell add-ons, be they unimportant tweaks like sprite packs for Hearts of Iron 3, interesting chrome like unique units and troops for Napoleon: Total War, or truly important game things like new nations for Civilization 5. I get why publishers want to do it, but how far can we be from a world where publishers make you mix and match from an a la carte menu of factions and designs and options? Strategy games are the one genre that is both easiest to break into component parts and the one most easily undermined by having so many different core experiences based on who owns what.

Most Disappointing Game: Elemental: War of Magic: Is there anything really left to say here? Elemental was anticipated as a pseudo-sequel to Simtex classic Master of Magic and ended up being nothing of the sort. Stardock’s reputation for quality products took another kick the teeth after 2009’s Demigod multiplayer debacle. To their credit, Stardock has worked overtime to fix it, but Elemental is still – even after a big patch – a dull and uninteresting place to visit with less magic than the name implies. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and Elemental turned off many buyers. They are making progress – for their sake I hope it helps.

Worst Strategy Game: Command and Conquer 4: I don’t care how amazing and World in Conflict-esque your skirmish game becomes once you have unlocked every unit and power and ability. It’s an RTS and I shouldn’t have to play your game for dozens of hours before I see the cool stuff. That’s just not how it is done. Does the game get interesting once you have more to play with and you can assume different roles online, just like an MMO? Absolutely. But it is not an MMO and most RTS players don’t have the patience or interest in slogging away with crap units so they can earn experience to build a tank. Stop it.

Biggest Surprise: Supreme Commander 2: My admiration for Supreme Commander 2 grows with every day. The patches made the skirmish AI more interesting, but even in its original version SupCom 2 was a very good game. In some ways it is the anti-Starcraft 2. Like that other good RTS, SupCom 2 had a poorly written story based campaign that was filled with unique puzzle maps and challenges. Game journalists who love zombies were naturally thrilled about the Outbreak mission in StarcraftSupCom 2 has missions equally interesting with naval invasions, robots gone crazy, and platform sieges. But unlike Starcraft, it turned its back on what the first game was to make a more modern and streamlined RTS. The research trees let you plan how you will focus your economy, the giant robots get out faster and the army management is easier. A lot of the core Total Annihilation/SupCom 1 fan base felt betrayed, and I understand that – the original games were grand and obtuse and had a certain majesty because of that. I prefer the new one. A lot.

Best Independent Game: Distant Worlds: In a year full of good and great sci-fi games, Distant Worlds stands out with both its immense size and its innovative approach to virtual viceroys and AI governors. I wish I had more time to visit this game before the expansion, but Code Force and Matrix deserve credit for making science fiction 4x a little more interesting for me.

Best Wargame: Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943: OK, it’s not Combat Mission. But Graviteam’s WW2 real time wargame stands out in a year with very few really great new wargames. I still haven’t decided how I feel about War in the East, but it would have to be really special to trump the sight of my troops trudging behind their tanks, slowly executing a strategy that I had made in the turn based planning phases. It makes great use of sound and tactics to create a world that I have absolutely no interest in ever visiting because it almost feels like a war.

Strategy Game of the Year: R.U.S.E: I’m as surprised as your are, since I was not at all excited about the game when the year started. RUSE is that careful blend of familiar and unique that just calls out to me. I wrote before that the fact it is World War 2 is almost irrelevant, and I stand by that. This design of cards and seizing supply points could really be set anywhere. World War 2 was chosen for its shorthand signal to strategy gamers that they won’t have to learn much new stuff – just like Memoir 44‘s card play system can be stuck anywhere in history. RUSE encourages lying and deceit as military tactics in a way that no strategy game has in a long time. It’s not just about gaining intelligence, but about undermining your opponents. And it works as well on the 360 as it does on the PC. I am not very good at RUSE, and it does have pacing problems, but the game is fast and exciting and never really fails to surprise you in multiplayer. The campaign isn’t half bad either, which is more than I can say for just about any RTS story based campaign in history.

→ 15 CommentsTags:

The Egyptian National Character

December 28th, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Feature:Nations, History

What this is about, including full list.

Like China, Egypt has a long history. Unlike China, it had a sustained near consecutive period of glory that makes it easy to stereotype and pigeonhole. Egypt’s greatest monument – the Great Pyramid of Giza – is synonymous with Egyptian glory and majesty.

Egypt is the nation of builders.

You see this everywhere in historical strategy games about Egypt. Though the pyramid builders of Egypt were hundreds of years before Ramses turned Egypt into an imperial nation that would project its power beyond the Nile valley, the greatest of the pyramids set the standard for Egyptian construction teams. Temples and statues and obelisks and carved friezes – all are well beyond human scale because they were constructed to honor a god – the Pharaoh himself.

What most people think they know about Egypt is similar to what they think they know about Rome. It’s a bit of a blur and there is an assumption that things were almost always the same. The Egypt of Khufu, however, was not the Egypt of Tutankhamen. There were no great chariot armies for Khufu, for example; they were introduced by Hyksos invaders. But the misunderstandings and mistakes still capture something very true about ancient Egypt. It was a society that was centered on its religion, the Pharaoh was the incarnation of the sun god, and if the sun god wanted a big ass temple complex, it got built.

Egypt, of course, has over a hundred pyramids – not just the Great Ones. (This, by the way, is why we know aliens didn’t build them – we can see Egyptian engineers perfecting their technique). And even the post pyramid tomb phase, when they pretty much dug holes and stuck kings in them, is full of grandeur in the burials. The monuments both reminded the average Egyptian just how powerful his god-king was and served as propaganda for visiting foreigners. The glory of Egypt was renowned both long before it became a regional power and long after it could really do anything.

The consistent uniformity of making Egypt a monument civilization in strategy games is obvious, but also striking. Both the rulers in Civ 4 had the Industrious trait, which meant wonders got built faster. Civ 5’s Egypt gets a similar 20% bonus to wonder building; play Egypt with some marble and the Aristocracy policy (another 33%) and you will be a wonder machine. Rise of Nations also gives Egypt construction bonuses – wonders are cheaper, you can build two per city instead of one and you can build them an age earlier than other factions. This plus the farming bonuses makes Egypt an early powerhouse in that game. In Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War and Age of Mythology, Egypt can build monuments that contribute to, respectively, the nation’s glory and religious power.

RoNEgypt
 

Age of Empires is the outlier, for obvious reasons. Since building a wonder is a victory condition, it probably makes no sense to give Egypt a bonus here, and none of the factions in Age of Empires get major building bonuses except for those related to towers and walls. Egypt gets a gold harvesting bonus and stronger chariots – which are more than enough.

Still, the running theme for Egypt in strategy games is clear: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.

The pull of Pharaonic Egypt is so strong that both games and popular culture tend to see ancient Egypt as one long procession of pyramids and kings wielding the flail and crook of the great Nile kings. That is why you end up with historically ludicrous chariot armies in Rome: Total War. In the name of variety (After all, do we want yet another pike and horse army?), the entire Hellenistic period of Egypt – a time of Greek rule – is tossed aside, even though some of the most famous Egyptian wonders (the Library of Alexandria, the Great Lighthouse) were built by Greeks. Ancient Egypt has become so identified with the Egypt of “The Ten Commandments” that the fact over a thousand years separates Hatshepsut and Cleopatra is conveniently elided in favor of giving people the gloriously alien culture of the former, and not the eccentric hybrid culture (Egyptian and Greek) of the latter.

It’s appropriate that a nation of builders comes most alive in those games that emphasize the scale of Egypt’s accomplishments in the world of construction and engineering. Two of the very best city builders every made – Pharaoh and Children of the Nile – take Egypt as their focus and do it credit.

I’ve probably written more about Children of the Nile on this blog than any other city builder. I reviewed it for Computer Games Magazine five years ago (Has it been that long? I still miss that mag…) and it remains my favorite historical city builder by a mile. It and Pharaoh both tied things to the Nile, whose live giving floods made Egyptian civilization possible. What I did not really appreciate in my review, but which I do now is how Children of the Nile captured the national scale of the monument building.

cotn
 

In both games you could quarry the stone and marble you needed or trade for it. The difference is that in CotN, you had to pay for expeditions to find the resources. So your city planning was tied to a rough type of empire building. Emissaries would go to Lebanon and negotiate cedar deals so you could build yachts for your nobles. Your army existed to clear the way for more granite or basalt to find its way to your city. You had to plan your docks to receive these goods. Every historical city builder makes your city the centre of the universe; Tilted Mill forced you to go out and gather what you needed from the periphery before the goods would show up on your docks.

This was the true nature of Egypt. Thutmose III’s great campaigns and Ramses the Great’s punitive expeditions notwithstanding, ancient Egypt summoned the wealth of the world to its doorsteps and made its glories there. There were no great monuments built in her vassal or tributary states, no large trophies to commemorate squashing the little guy, no Egyptian colonies or settlements or even governors. Egypt consumed the wealth of the Near East so it could build statues and temples and tombs worth of the conceits of a god king at home, where the Nile gave life and marked the seasons and whose failure would mean months of earnest prayers.

It remains one of the most exciting and interesting of ancient cultures and one that has been mostly well served by game designers.

But if you want to talk real empire, you have to turn to the next entry. Coming up, jolly old England.

→ 6 CommentsTags: