Will Wright | Cofounder, Maxis
GameSpot: Let's start with Spore. What were you looking to accomplish with it? Where do you think Spore falls in the realm of strategy games, and what does it add to the world of strategy?
Will Wright: I think one of our primary goals with Spore was to make it accessible to a broad group of people. Because Spore spans so many different gaming genres, it was important to consider how someone not familiar with a particular game style would deal with it on the first play-through. Strategy gaming is perhaps the most broad genre in gaming when you consider what is typically considered in that category. In some sense you might think of Spore as a strategy game that's bookended with action on the front end (cell and creature stages) and something more of an MMO/RPG style on the backend (space).
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?
WW: I try not to think too much in terms of genre: I prefer to focus more on theme and subject. When I work on a game I immerse myself in the subject and then work my way trying to figure out how to make that subject into a fun toy. I think some would consider my games to be more on the simulation side of things since they tend to represent real-world systems. The strategy feel I think is more of a player view of the game, it's the verb that players are approaching the simulation with.
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.
WW: Whenever I get a question like this I'm at something of a loss. I really don't think there is an "ultimate" strategy game, just like I don't think there's an ultimate movie or book. What makes these forms interesting to me is their potential diversity. I think there many "great" strategy games and I find that to me they share some aspects. One of the aspects I've always found interesting is that my favorite strategy games (like Civilization and Advance Wars) are games that I continue to play even when I step away from the screen. When I'm in the middle of an especially involved battle I find that I'm still thinking through possible moves and strategies in my imagination and simulating possible outcomes. To me that's one of the signs of a great strategy game.
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?
WW: Strategy games have had an interesting trajectory over the years. When I first got into gaming (early '80s, Apple II) most of the games were either very deep, turn-based strategy (Avalon Hill conversions and such) or very simplistic action/arcade. As more gaming genres appeared strategy games became something more of a niche market. The in the early '90s there was something of a renaissance of strategy with games like Populous, SimCity, and Civilization. These games weren't just conversions of previous military history board games and appealed to a much broader group of players. Over the next decade, gaming got really into the graphics arms race and 3D became the norm. Over the last few years we've seen an even greater broadening in the demographics of our customers as well as a diverse set of new platforms (Wii, iPhone, DS). I think we're in the process now of seeing the next step in the evolution of strategy games as they move onto these new platforms and target more casual players.
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?
WW: One of the trends in gaming that interests me moving forward is what you might call interstitial gaming. That is, games that are played in small, bite-sized chunks (many times on a mobile device such as a DS or iPhone, or perhaps over the Web) of a few minutes at a time. One thing I've found is that this tends to favor turn-based games. I find it hard to jump in and out of a quick action experience but for a turn-based game it has a natural fit (the length of a turn, usually). When RTS games came out I remember many thinking it was the death knell for what was previously a turn-based landscape of strategy games. I'm glad to seeing them making a comeback.
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?
WW: As I said previously, I think handhelds are fertile new ground for strategy games into the future. Console games still seem to me to be driven primarily by graphics and action (which plays to their strengths). I do think strategy games now have a golden opportunity to diversify into both more casual and deeper directions. Ideally I'd like to see a ramp of complexity so that casual players can get into strategy gaming with simple experiences but over time graduate to deeper 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?
WW: Since I was a kid strategy games have always been my favorite form (starting with the board game Go). It's been really fun watching (and playing) them through the last 25 years because they've advanced so much once computers showed up (compared to the previous four years or so). I can't wait to see where they go next.
Are handheld strategy games the future? And will the genre become more accessible, more complex, or both? You've heard what four great designers think, now have your say!
Feature Navigation
rotnem posted Nov 27, 2008 12:14 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)