Strategy games turn our leisure time into wartime, our keyboards into command centers, and our imaginations into machinations. They've made us generals in history's best battles, warlords over fantasy land conflicts, fleet commanders in outer space, and mayors of sprawling cities. Sometimes they go small, giving us just a few units; other times they go big, giving us a few hundred. Some have complex goals and resources to manage, others only deal in death and destruction. So where will they go next?
We put that very question in front of four very prominent strategy game designers. Louis Castle is one of the cofounders of Command & Conquer creator Westwood Studios, and joined EALA to work on later editions. Sid Meier is the mastermind behind one of the most successful strategy series of all time, Civilization. Chris Taylor designed the award-winning massive real-time strategy game Total Annihilation, and his studio, Gas Powered Games, built some of the largest battles the genre has ever seen in Supreme Commander. And Will Wright is responsible for one of the most popular (and least violent) strategy games of all time in SimCity, then pitted us against the trials and tribulations of running a household in The Sims.
Each designer has either released a new strategy game in 2008, or is working on a soon-to-be-released one. Each was asked to contribute his thoughts on the state of strategy games—where they are now, and where they are going.
Louis Castle | Vice President, EALA
GameSpot: Let's start with Command & Conquer. What were you looking to accomplish with this franchise? Where do you think C&C falls in the realm of strategy games, and what has it added to the world of strategy?
Louis Castle: Command & Conquer was Brett [Sperry]'s effort to build on the great game mechanics invented with Dune II with a universe that was very accessible. The decision to choose a near-future setting instead of the original fantasy setting, allowed for the world politics, technology, and weaponry to be just beyond the known world but easily imaginable as an extension of what was happening at the time. The truly epic storyline was intended to immerse the player into the world as an active participant on the world stage from the comfort of their computer screen. From the moment the player installed Command & Conquer, they were in our universe. CD-ROMs had just arrived so we worked hard to deliver full-screen AV from a single-speed CD-ROM to further support the idea that the game was just a portal into the world.
Over time Command & Conquer has evolved into the real-time strategy brand of sport with fast and furious gameplay. The fans continue to ask us for a fair gaming framework that focuses on skill and quick decision making. The pacing and heightened sense of action are hallmarks of great Command & Conquer games and I know people aren't going to be disappointed when they play Red Alert 3.
GS: You and your team have made a name for yourselves creating strategy games. Why have you focused on this genre of games? What do they offer that other genres don't?
LC: The Command & Conquer team at Westwood essentially invented what we think of as RTS games with the creation of Dune II. The continued focus on the various fictions within the Command & Conquer universe has been a labor of love as the franchise has moved from Las Vegas to Westwood Pacific in Irvine, California, and now to EALA. The teams that build these games love the genre and genuinely try to bring something new to every title to help evolve the experience and bring in new players while delighting the existing fans. I strongly feel that the emotional experience a player has when playing a great RTS game is one that every consumer would enjoy. Making long-term, short-term, and immediate decisions while skillfully executing your plans exercises many of a player's abilities simultaneously and ought to be universally appealing.
I do think the genre suffers from an inaccessibility problem that happens as all gaming genres evolve. To keep longtime players engaged and challenged new features, strategies and tactics are added. The sum of those evolutions creates an environment which is very intimidating. One of our chief goals on the console RTS efforts was to tap into the well-accepted FPS control schemes to lower the barrier to entry while still offering a full-featured RTS experience for the well-versed fans. With Command & Conquer 3, Kane's Wrath, and now Red Alert 3, I feel the team has done a great job of continuing to lower the threshold while expanding the depth and scope.
GS: Let's imagine you had unlimited resources, manpower, time, and maybe a magic wand or two to create your idea of the perfect strategy game, the ideal game that's always been at the back of your mind. Tell us about this strategy game and how it would work.
LC: I would use the player's gaming device as a convincing portal into a very believable conflict that purports to be happening in real time with their world. Thinking of the monitor and audio-plus-video as simply windows into a real conflict would be the ultimate in immersion for me. I imagine an experience similar to the one Ripley has in the command vehicle of Aliens, but with even better com technology. That would give me the ultimate strategy fantasy of both coordinating the big decisions while participating in the action.
GS: Give us your thoughts on the current state of strategy games. How have they grown, developed, or otherwise changed? How have they stayed the same?
LC: I answered a bit of this above, but overall I think the state of strategy games is that the genre has drifted back toward the turn-based strategy games of the 1990s. I feel fans need to be forgiving of new ideas that might not have all the hotkeys or features of the last game if the genre is to take another evolutionary step. I still find it is hard to describe the thrill of RTS to people who have not played one. That needs to change in my opinion. In summary, RTS games have developed more complexity, kept the same base mechanics, and have become burdened by incremental evolution. The genre needs a discontinuous event.
GS: Are there new directions you see strategy games headed in? What trends do you see in the genre, and in gaming in general, as being crucial to strategy games now, and influential to future strategy games? What do strategy games need to do in order to survive, and to thrive?
LC: I see most strategy games heading in the same direction they have for years. I'm concerned that some attempts at "lower barrier to entry" games are simply dumbed-down, basic RTSes with a big license attached. To truly reach a new audience the essence of the entertainment offering needs to evolve. Clear concepts that are intuitive to play and reveal complexity over time will eventually take the genre to another level in the way open-world design have evolved shooters and adventure games. To thrive, more people have to see strategy games as ways to enjoy incidental gaming without an upfront massive commitment to dedicated time and learning.
GS: In terms of accessibility, do you think strategy games will become more user-friendly or increasingly complex? Will the PC continue to be a stronghold for the genre or will strategy become more popular on consoles and handhelds?
LC: Yes, more user-friendly and more complex. Until we reinvigorate the genre the PC is likely to remain the stronghold for perpetuating the existing style of the entertainment experience we call strategy games.
GS: Finally, do you have anything else to add about strategy games, or any other general thoughts you'd like to share about games or anything else?
LC: That's a pretty open question! I would add that all games, regardless of genre, need to consider the exciting reality that almost everyone capable of buying them now plays video games of some type. That both allows for great new opportunities to reach very large audiences and, simultaneously, allows for very specific niche-based products. The real key will be reaching the economic balance that allows for both to exist. It is a bit odd that games which have the capacity to reach the largest audiences are often the most poorly funded, relying heavily on massive marketing budgets or very expensive existing brands to make their offering known. Conversely, games which continue to target ever-narrowing audiences are committing more and more resources to try and be the one product that takes most of that narrow consumer base. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but if you're reading this you probably play games, so go and find a friend or relative who doesn't and introduce them to your entertainment of choice. And in the meantime, please support your favorite games and gamemakers by buying the original game instead of renting or buying used. I know it's expensive, but believe me when I say that all the people who work hard in this industry truly appreciate your patronage and sincerely want to make products that are worthy of your support and investment.
And while I haven't been personally involved in the day-to-day development of Red Alert 3, I have been definitely checking in from time to time and have been lucky enough to be able to play it. The team at EALA under the leadership of Mike Verdu and Chris Corry have really done a tremendous job in living up to a series that is so beloved and holds a special place with me personally.
Feature Navigation
spyder_pk posted Nov 27, 2008 12:46 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)
rotnem posted Nov 27, 2008 12:14 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)