Is it incredible difficult to make a complete strategy game today?

By joasoze on January 4, 2010 10:00:02 AM from

joasoze

Join Date 02/2006

It seems that most strategy games being developed these days are failures due to low budget or too high complexity in the development phase.

1. Disciples III is getting negative reviews and is being patched like it was a beta (russian version)

2. King Arthur in strong need of a patch according to reviews. Great concept, but not not implemented well

3. Armada 2556 (or whatever the number) the MOO revival is the same. Half baked.

All these games should have great potential but seem to be made too fast on a too low budget. This is a bad cycle where the games gets worse, the sales gets worse and the bugdet/games get even worse again.

4. Empire Total War. High budget game, with low budget AI. Steam required. Nuff said.

Is there a silver lining? Well. Kings Bounty Armored Princess is TOP CLASS in my opinion. But such games are few and very far between.

Armored Princess is, indeed, a terrific game

To answer your question, yes, I would imagine that complex, in depth strategy games are difficult to make. I think a great part of the difficulty comes from the design aspects, though. Buggy games can be patched, fixed, and tweaked, but gameplay and the "soul" of the game.. that's either there or it's not.

The trouble is, what's "fun"? I don't know. Why do I like the Civ4 mod Fall From Heaven 2 so much? Why can I play that game over and over and over and not get sick of it? I could list a bunch of features, but then there's other games that share some of those features that I find abysmal.

There needs to be challenging gameplay, a variety of available strategies and playstyles, and a lot of depth (to allow you to keep playing and fine-tuning your game) coupled with a game approach that doesn't overwhelm the majority of people before they learn the game. I think the last part is the real stickler for a lot of strategy games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Randomness -- The key for any game. It needs to stay fresh.

The only game I feel that were terrific without randomness was Dragon Age, but then again, I stopped bored halfway through my second playthrough. First playthrough was a blast though.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Preach on Brother Tater...

Single player games need Randomness in all details (map, AI, tech, quests, hit and damage calculations, etc.)

Multiplayer needs static parameters and extreme balance. Player skill must reign supreme.

For this reason, I hope that Stardock either drop multiplayer (unlikely) or understand they'll need to decouple the two play modes. *fingers crossed*

Successfully updated karma reason!

In fact, you have two problems... the guys who make the game and the guys who use it...

The guy who made game try to release it the more fast is possible for earn some money... sometime, too fast... to be honest, i like the Stardock way who is similar... they have release Entrenchment and Diplomacy in their beta fase... people KNOW that they have a WIP... and help the devs for reach a high quality level final release... a lot of other game are in fact almost beta game... but they are not enough honest to say that it is a beta... more bad, some publicer/devs never make any upgrade for correct problem in game...

Second problem is game user... you cannot imagine how much people wish more but keep a old crapy computer from the previous millenium... by example, some people have complain about memory problem and lag in sins... sins was build for work on the max system is possible... i have a old top system ( 2 quad core and 16 gib ram ) but i have sometime lag in sins too due to code being compatible with low end system... are the devs responsible ? No !!! The numerous people responsible are these who keep computer who are more that 10 year old... today, you can find in your usual supermarket, between vegetable and bread, at a cheap price, computer who support 64 bits, who have multicore, and 4 gb ram or more.... but until mister joe begin to upgrade his computer from the previous millenium, devs will continue to release game who are compatible with old computer...

Now, you hit somethig when you speak about AI in strategy game... AI is something very very difficult to fine tune... it is really something complex and need real expert for try to have a good one... i have a old game who is more that 20 year old... in the last 20 year, nothing have change at the level of the game itself... but almost each year, along the database upgrade, i have a AI upgrade too... it have become a real chalenging game but yet, for some detail, the AI is not yet perfect...

Anyway, almost all game have great potential... will be better that devs say that it is a beta in place of a final release... that devs make the needed upgrade in a timely fashion... and for gamer, if you have a single core 32 bits, think about upgrade your computer... it will motivate devs to use the last technology...

Successfully updated karma reason!

You know what those games have in common? Either the dev team is too new and inexperienced, or the game's graphics took up a huge amount of development time, or both.

E:TW was one of my biggest disappointments ever, and you can tell that they spent too much time and money simulating water and making cool ship death animations.

Disciples III looks fantastic, and like HoMM 5 (without expansions), it seems like way too much time was spend making appealing graphics.

King Arthur? Same story. Although I haven't played it, its dev team does not have the resources to pull such an ambitious game off. They're trying to do the same thing as creative assembly: have enormous, graphically stunning battles with top-notch gameplay and AI. It's just too much.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And that's the way things will continue for the forseeable future. Why? Graphics sell games. Until AI starts becoming as big a consideration for consumers as graphics engines are, nothing is going to change.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just wish some russian billionare would put money into a strategy game studio instead of wasting it on Chelsea or other soccer/football teams

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would be happy if anyone here on the forum would report if King Arthur, Armada or Disciples are greatly improved by patching in the future

I have money to spend on games, but they have to meet certain standards

And now I am busy with Kings Bounty Armored Princess, so I can wait for quite a while

Successfully updated karma reason!

Apparently, King Arthur was patched not long after release and this fixed every issue except for over-powered archers and an excessively difficult campaign even on easy. A small number of people still experience crashes but this is rare.

Although I haven't played it, its dev team does not have the resources to pull such an ambitious game off. They're trying to do the same thing as creative assembly: have enormous, graphically stunning battles with top-notch gameplay and AI. It's just too much.

I know people who have played it and King Arthur does pull it off. I have never heard anyone who has played it claim otherwise.

Rather then reading reviews that can be unreliable, I find that it is much better to read the opinions of customers on official forums. The King Arthur forum is full of praise for King Arthur. In fact, some people complain that King Arthur's reputation is not as high as it should be.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think that for a game not set in history (sci-fi, fantasy, near-future, modern), a backstory/lore should/needs to be provided.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting JuleTron,

reply 9

I know people who have played it and King Arthur does pull it off. I have never heard anyone who has played it claim otherwise.

Rather then reading reviews that can be unreliable, I find that it is much better to read the opinions of customers on official forums. The King Arthur forum is full of praise for King Arthur. In fact, some people complain that King Arthur's reputation is not as high as it should be.

I have played it (and finished it once with christian-good) and I agree it doesn't pull it off, the devs tried doing too many things and the game ended as a half-backed TW clone that has nice ideas here and there, but doesn't work well overall.

Successfully updated karma reason!

No, I was saying that it does pull it off, so you disagree with me. Whatever floats your boat.

I find it very odd that you claim that it is a TW clone when it has text-based quests, morality and RPG elements that are nothing like TW campaigns. KA is very similiar, but saying its a clone is an exageration.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting JuleTron,

reply 12

No, I was saying that it does pull it off, so you disagree with me. Whatever floats your boat.

You said that you knew no one that has played it that said it doesn't pull it off

Quoting JuleTron,

reply 12

Been very similar is enough to be called a clone in my book.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've heard good things about Europe Universalis III series. Did anyone play that game? Perhaps that's something you could give a try?

Otherwise there are still GalcivII and Civ4 to play with. Try one of the good mods around there.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Is it incredible difficult to make a complete strategy game today?

joasoze