Change is essential, we have to keep moving the game forward. We are going to continue to innovate, try new things, some of them will work really well, others you will not care for them quite as much. ~Sid Meier

Gameinformer had a chat with Sid Meier about the current state of strategy gaming and what is Sid’s vision on what we should expect strategy gaming to become in the future.

Sid also talks about his favorite way to work this days, which is “to develop quick and playable prototypes as fast as possible in order to experiment new ideas”.

Asked about if he’s worried about the future of the genre Sid replied that he thinks strategy is fun because “it’s fun to make interesting decisions. That’s really what games are about.”

Sid talks about the constant need to change, to experiment, innovate and always take advantage of the latest technology (UI conventions, graphics detail and better, more elegant and easier to use user interfaces). He says that his formula has been (and continues to be) to always prioritize gameplay and design to art or cinematics for example, that in his opinion take the player out of the game.

Sid states that game design has not really changed much these last years, but before, where technology was much rougher still, he says how he loved the challenge to design games that could challenge the player’s imagination, the ability to use only “a few pixels and 16 colors to convince them that they were truly running an empire that would stand the test of time. Now players are no longer willing to do that kind of investment” – he smiled.

Sid Meier's Civilization (1990)

Asked about what drives him these days, what keeps him motivated to go to work every day, Sid replied that he loves the idea of doing game rapid prototyping, in order to explore and experiment with new ideas. That’s what he said fuels his drive these days.

Asked about Civ Sid says that “the concept is not exhausted yet”. He added that “the challenge is always what not to put in the next Civ rather than what to put”. Asked about what he feels of not being the lead designer of Civ anymore Sid replied that Civ always needs a new lead designer other than himself, so that new ideas and new energies may arise.

Sid Meier's Civilization V (2010)

Asked about Civ5 and the somewhat civ community’ mixed reactions about it Sid replied that “the fans feel they own civ, which is gratifying”. About Civ5′s fans somewhat heavy critique he said that “I can make some lemonade out of those lemons”.

Asked about consoles and how he sees them with respect to strategy gaming Sid replied that for instance he had much fun, and enjoyed the challenge of bringing Civilization to consoles with Civ Revolutions. The challenge he said was to “try to distill the civ experience into an evening since not everybody has 1 week to invest in the game”. He seems to be quite happy with the results.

Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution (2008)

About the new wave of gaming that is already taking shape, mobile tablets, Sid said that he doesn’t approach that market differently.

“Things are changing in a way that favors smaller design teams, more gameplay focused gaming and strategy gaming. That pace of gaming. I think the future will be very interesting, technology is always been one of driving forces of the industry back since we got 16 colors instead of 4 colors” ~Sid Meier

Sid sees now, as he saw before, that technology is always the driving force of gaming and that he expects it to continue to be like that for the future. He sees the mobile gaming interconnectedness, the ability “to have the game with you at all times” as new play paradigms that are just waiting to be explored by new game ideas.

I decided to post about this interview because I found it really interesting, with some nostalgic elements and some interesting points about the future of strategy games. It is always nice to hear what one of the strategy gaming fathers thinks about the genre. I think Gameinformer did a very good job with the questions. Sid answers were also very interesting in my opinion. I hope you enjoyed this little summary I did. You can watch the full interview here.

After years of lurking in game-specific sites and forums finding this site has been a huge call-to-arms for me. Here, instead of criticize other works, it is possible to dream, discuss and sometimes even plan the future of 4X Space Strategy Games, a much more positive approach that has moved me, finally, from lurking to posting.

While a sometimes avid 4X gamer my roots are more in SciFi literature and pen and paper role-playing games that I am collecting for a number of years bigger than I care to share. Project management, software and data analysis knowledge come from my more obscure side: my daily job as a Database Administrator.

While I really love 4X games I always felt that something was missing in the experience and here on Space Sector I’m actively searching what was that.

In this first article I will put under the lens the starships combat system, I hope you will enjoy the view.

About starships, combat and conundrums

In 4X turn-based or real-time grand strategy space games conflicts resolution can be done in various systems ranging from the economical to the diplomatic but, more often than not, it will be decided in the cold space with starships that will use every technological advantages they have in store to erase the competition from the skies.

While this can be a quite gloomy view of our future it is also exciting and very appropriate for a game genre that proposes eXtermination as one of his four salient points.

How much importance and depth this system should have in relation to the rest of the game? Well the rule of the thumb says that as eXtermination is just one on four goals of a 4X game and there are other way to accomplish that like the even more bloodier planetary invasion (or bombardment) system or the more civil economic buyout system linked to the diplomatic one then it should not take more than one eight of the time.

Well, that happens rarely. It seems that our players really like the sound of the exploding ships in the void (pun intended) or, at the least, the game designers think so.

It is the very same game designers that, when they will work on space combat, will be confronted with some difficult choices:

The 2D vs. 3D conundrum

The problem here lies in the sad fact that a two dimensional map is barely sufficient for the simulation of nautical engagement and space battle are a completely different beasts. Even most SciFi movies who tried to visualize a modern 3D combat had to revert to something at the most similar to in-atmosphere dogfights than what can really happen in space. At the core of the problem is that nobody really know what can really happen in space because for now we managed to keep this kind of activity here at home.

So let’s let fall any realism problem and let’s define the main characteristics that a space combat should have.

While not realistic it should feel credible: the player is staking the future of his civilization on it and a too cartoonish resolution will not cut it.

It should be comprehensible: even accepting a learning curve the player should not need to have a couple of degrees and a jet fighter patent to understand it.

It should be elastic enough to let strategies and technology developments play a visible part in the outcome.

If it is possible to cram all of this in a 2D environment probably this will be the best choice and has been in most of the previous designs. If it is possible to do that in a 3D one that will be a serious breakthrough in the 4X game scene.

The 1,255 Km/h vs 1,080,000,000 Km/h conundrum

This is also known as the 760 mph vs. 671,000,000 mph conundrum. This is an exaggeration: no combat will ever take place at the full speed of light but even 0.5 c is an enormous and more possible speed, especially for an incoming fleet from the deep space.

The problem here lies with the fact that for our day to day experience the Mach speed is already enormous and, unless you are one of the few people who lose time on 4X games and that at the same time had the luck to flight on the Concorde, practically impossible to really experiment.

Even jet fighter pilots are nowadays depending a lot on their computers. That kind of speed is really over the human reactions capability.

In space speeds are much higher, very much higher.

From Wikipedia: time (1.255 sec.) for a light signal to go from Earth to the Moon showed in correct proportion.

This can be safely ignored when you move, let’s say, from one planet to another in a planetary system: extremely high speed is tempered by enormous distances and well defined game time.

It can be much more a chore in space combat: at that kind of speed the fleets of the opposite factions will have fractions of second when they can exchange punishment one to the other.

As you can see I’m carefully avoiding the pesky problem of the relativistic effects that kicks in at a certain speed point. I’m sure that it would be considered overkill for a game.

It is difficult to extract the needed drama from battles that are resolved in fractions of a second.

What we are usually seeing are sluggish battles between practically immobile behemoths with a spat of, relatively, snoringly slow fighters or other light shipping that zips around them.

At this we have to add weapons who, to simulate the much bigger targeting difficulty of a 3D environment, have an atrocious low hit rate.

What all of this means is that the combat system is at best a metaphor of a real space combat and as any metaphor all that it say or in this case display, should have a meaning over the directly visual one.

Will it be possible move all this in a more sensible and speed appropriate direction? Possibly but in any case all the choices made to simplify and made it more playable should have solid explainable foundations and reasons.

The Videogame vs. Newton conundrum

We have already told that Einstein relativity is possibly overkill (at the least for the moment) for a starships combat system so what about poor old Newton?

The guy had spent a good portion of his life to fight against differential calculus to the point that we are all using Leibniz notation even if Newton invented it first. The result of that David vs. Goliath struggle is that all the gravitation and movement equations are simple and clear.

And then we have 4X space combat systems who completely ignore it. No gravity, no inertia, no giant planet slingshots, no catastrophic failure to move from harm way. Somehow I think that taking away Newton from space combat is a little like taking away Shakespeare from the theatre story: a lot of the drama is gone.

The usual question is: why? Mind well: a good answer with its roots in playability, storyline and advanced speculative technology is fine but at the same time an answer like “because that is what my development environment let me to do” it is just not cutting it.

The TBS vs. RTS conundrum

The starship combat phase can have a completely different system than the one of the game: turn based games often revert to real time for the tactical military systems. So, what will be the right way to do it?

RTS, and I have to stress that the R for real is quite the misnomer here, have on its side the immediateness feeling, the sport watcher feeling: the stakes are made more real and close. I object the R for real just because it is rarely one to one with real time. I would have called it CTS: continuous time system.

TBS is more for the chess players, the strategy perfectionists. Adrenaline is substitute by dopamine and the pleasure here is to devise and execute the perfect plan. In reality there is always a lot of time to devise a plan, unfortunately the poor baby almost never survive the encounter with the enemy and then there no more time to spare.

Against intuition probably TBS system are in this case more realistic than RTS ones. In space the combat will be a series of manoeuvres to get the best possible passage in the combat envelope with long wait interval between each other and a final, violent and flashing quick moment of real combat.

As usual the choice will fall more on what system is conveying more the point that the designer want to make than realism. Sometimes (let’s say often) spectacularity is more important, its results are more poignant and that is all that count.

The ZFSM vs. DWCM conundrum

OK, I just created a couple of acronym on the flight, so sue me. ZFSM stand for ‘Zoomable From the Star Map’ and DWCM stand for ‘Dedicated Window Combat Map’. Both systems have been used in 4X space games with more or less success.

One of the most visible problems of the ZFSM system is the starships to astronomical objects proportion. Even a tiny planet like Earth is massively bigger than any starship will be put in operation during the game.

The reverse problem is the empty space feeling: in a DWCM often the starship are alone in a depressing dark environment with maybe a planet and a couple of satellite.

The consequence is that ZFSM can be more cartoonish, a little like the giant archer that is defending the Civilization city from a giant war chariot. After a while the metaphor become clear but it will always be worth a joke.

The consequence of a DWCM system is that combat seems to happen in a different place, a parallel universe dedicated to kill and destroy (now that I think about it quite a sad place) and a limited, claustrophobic one to boot.

How to compromise between the two? Is it just a problem to be able to invest a lot of time and money to become able to render an enormous space and number of planetary systems needed in a Grand Strategy game at such zoom level that ships become in scale? Or better and simpler answers are out there?

The ship to ship vs. fleet to fleet conundrum

Can the same system bring justice to engagement of such different order of magnitude? If the system is designed to bring justice to the details of single ship to ship engagements that will be prevalent at the start of the game will it scale correctly to the end-game fleets to fleets levels?

I have serious doubts about that.

What will be the choice the designer will make?

A usual one will see something that will sadly solve the one to one in a non-satisfactory way, will shine in the group vs. group to one big fleet vs. one big fleet and will fall again trying to manage more, possibly putting hard-coded limit to escape crashes.

Another solution can be to have more than one system but the development costs will become probably prohibitive.

Moving the not well managed type to engagements to the automatic resolution (see immediately later for more on this) can also be an expedient but…

When the player fleet is composed by just one colony ship armed with just a multifunction laser communicator and on the other side there is a pirate patchwork courier it is quite a pity to leave the quite important resolution (a new colony established or not?) to a couple of flashes and a result message.

When the player Joint Fleets Task Force will finally arrive in the Bad Guys planetary system for the Final Confrontation will he want to follow the momentous struggle in all his nuances?

The automatic resolution conundrum

While the resolution of the first engagements will be probably something that a player want to see and influence closely after a while it will become boring and time consuming. When the player is at the head of a sprawling interstellar empire it is doubtful that he will have the patience to follow and direct every little engagements that are going on. More probably he will follow the bigger and/or more strategic ones and leave the rest to automatic resolution.

Here comes the real problem: will the presence of the driving hand of the player change the outcome radically?

If the answer is yes then the automation system will be seen as broken and ineffectual, the player will try to follow as many combat as he can and a huge amount of time will be dedicated to this activity.

If the answer is no the interaction capability will be seen as weak and pointless. The space combat system will become just a button to press.

There are already experimented middle of the road choices like to strongly link the combat with the character system. The player will not manage directly the fleets but he will manage the admirals who will command them, their inherent bonuses and their combat philosophy.

Fleet postures are another way to let the player pre-interact with the engagements and also the starship design system can be a way to externally influence the final outcome of a battle.

One problem I did not see solved in any of the 4X games that I know is what happens when an automatic resolved engagement has a much unexpected result. Be it good or bad the player will need to know why and in the real world that, except extreme cases, should not be a problem.

Conclusions

I have introduced here a lot of non-answered questions.

I think that every game will have its solutions but my point was that all these questions are on the table when their designer will start his work and I am positive that a personal, being it original or not, answer is needed for each of them.

My personal preference is always toward realism but at a certain point, perhaps ironically, reality strikes and simplifications are needed to have a playable game that can be developed in this decade.

The race is open to find the most evocative, original ‘simplifications’ and to be part of the evolution of the 4X space gaming field.

bertipa is a frequent poster in the Game Design forum here on Space Sector. This is his first foray in real article writing but he is already looking ahead for a Nobel Prize in literature in few years. He is a voracious reader of Science Fiction and has a vast collection of pen and paper role playing games. Being allergic to ever finish any serious work not linked to databases he is now considering a carrier as biographic blurbs writer. Come to read and comment his posts here.

Since my progression post, I have received two requests for articles: story line’s in 4X games and UI. I have decided to go with the story line for 4X’s request first. I have been thinking and discussing with my testers the story line for my 4X game. Now, we all have preferences, ideas and opinions on what makes a good story so keep that in mind when you read the following. Not all games require a story line.

Stories in Games

A story in a game is an important tool for the developer. It gives the developer the means to create emotion (through events, characters, settings, history, etc), a way to share the lore of their game universe and a way to present a point(ie: moral). Emotion can be used to draw and keep the player engaged with the game. Humans are emotional creatures and by “exploiting” (pun intended) this, the developer can really capture their audience. Interest in the lore will keep player’s involved in game – even when they aren’t playing.

I feel that a well fleshed out game universe and lore really help with the story line. The lore of the game gives the story line a solid back bone. It makes the story more believable: a world exists outside of the story. If the world seems believable to the player, they will be able to become drawn more into the story. And this is good because they keep playing!

Bioware and Blizzard are well known for their ability to make games with good stories. How many times have we hit the internet to try and find more information for that particular game/story line? How much additional background of the world did we try to find? I’ve spent hours pouring over the internet for various games trying, yearning, and looking for more information because I felt the story and universe in a game was so engaging – I couldn’t help myself. Or while reading a good book, it just wasn’t possible to stop until that last page was read?

It isn’t Easy Being Green…

Unfortunately, most game developer’s aren’t world renowned authors. As mentioned in my first post: What makes a good game - Immersion, there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes in making a game that is strictly technical work. The challenges of technically designing and implementing a game are great. The challenges of integrating a polished story line complete with well written dialog (which is not trivial to write well), character graphics and animations, maybe some voice overs for those special moments, and…well I hope you get the point. It isn’t easy and it isn’t cheap.

Stories in 4X Games

So I’m not surprised that 4X games usually don’t have the story line the focal point. Examining 4X games in more detail presents another problem. The general nature of 4X games is a complex sandbox (or openness) atmosphere.

Most of the 4X game is built on giving the player freedom to do whatever they want and move in whatever direction they please. This causes major issues with the traditional (RPG: linear, tightly controlled) story telling mechanism because the player just has simply too much freedom. It is harder to design a system that allows a player to do as they please while still keeping the story moving.

The main issue is accurately keeping track of the state of the player. Is what should happen the right thing for the current state the player is in? RPGs use a combination of a leveling system and world access control (can only access certain parts of the world at a certain time). These ensure the player is in the right spot for the story.

But for 4X games, as a developer, how do you truly know what state the player is in? How many star systems do they have? How many ships? What technologies? And so on and so forth. The more complex systems that are present, the more questions that must be answered. Thus, the difficulty increases.

4X games are usually much more complex than RPGs in terms of their systems and as one can imagine, that complicates the matter even further. Yes, a system can be written to determine the state of the player and then act accordingly, but that is certainty no trivial task to complete. In addition, the story itself has to make sense with this scaling system, which also isn’t easy as indicated above. As you can see, I don’t really have the answers but I will try to find them. I’ll let you know how I end up :)

Is Story Essential in 4X Games?

Is a story essential? I would have to say no, as the previous 4X games have generally done quite well with some solid background lore (Master of Orion 2 for example) and some general and basic story lines. On top of that, many of the reasons why some of us play these games is not particularly for the story. However, I feel that the next 4X game that does a very nice job in incorporating a solid story, but keeps the sand box atmosphere, will have a pretty darned successful game on their hands. I know I’ll be playing it.

Yet Another Example…

I’d like to provide another example how I achieved the above, once more, with my MUD: A Tempest Season. The setting was high fantasy and I developed, with my partner, extensive lore, which was available to the players. One of the players was a magic user. He became so involved in the lore and story of the game, he was able to use it to publish essays on magic. I was astounded when I read them as they were so accurate and made sense with the lore. In addition, he was able to solve many staff ran quests that were based on a magical nature. This is a great example of drawing in a player and having them become emotionally attached and engaged in the lore and story of the game.

The End

Thanks for reading my article. I look forward to reading the comments and seeing what thoughts you all have on story lines. For my next article, I am planning to talk about the UI and this will be a more technical pieces than my previous ones.

dayrinni has been a Space Sector contributor since October 2011. This is his first foray into writing articles for any review site. He is an avid gamer in the genres of 4X, Strategy, MMO’s and RPGs. Finally, he has been the implementor of several MUDs and is currently working on a 4X space game that offers large scope and complexity. See all dayrinni’s posts here.

Progression exists in many different forms so I will talk about it generally. It is important because the players can see the reward for their time spent in the game. It can keep people engaged in the game and longevity in games is always a good thing to have.

Progression

Progression is having goals and how the player achieves them. What is their purpose(s) in the game? How do they fulfill their purpose(s)? By having good progression, it keeps players involved in the game. People, especially gamers, like to strive towards something. They like to set themselves a goal in a game and then achieve it. Put simply, this can be seen as the “carrot on the end of the stick”.

4X games for example offer several different forms of progression (more on this below): empire expansion, ship design, and technology/research to name a few. To me, one of the greatest joys in playing a space 4X is watching my empire spread out amongst the stars. I love building massive fleets and “incorporating” lesser civilizations into my own. MMORPGs generally have a lot of progression: gear based, skills, encounter based and so on.

As mentioned above, most gamers like to improve themselves and do better. They want to gain that next level, or that next technology for their ships. They strive to achieve these goals. It creates an environment that makes the player’s time well spent and encourages them to play longer. The excitement level and desire of getting something keeps them interested.

Progression rewards the players. That is why the typical experience and leveling system in MMORPGs hasn’t gone away (TOR is reported to have a very strong and lengthy leveling experience). It is very easy to understand and gives great results. “Hey I gained a level and got some new abilities!”. You now have something you didn’t before. In 4X games, technology is a great example of this. Researching a new plasma cannon that can be placed on your ships: the excitement level grows with each click that increases the number of plasma cannons. Imagine the damage it will deal to your enemies!  Or acquiring shields for the first time and knowing (hoping) that the enemy would not be able to deal with them.

Even though the developer may place progression in a game, it does not discount the fact that players make their own progression (sometimes unknowingly). In a 4X game, there could be an instance where a particular planet is “ultra-rich” in ore and it would be vital for the player to acquire that. Perhaps this planet is controlled by an enemy empire with a strong defensive presence. This situation can set off an entire chain of small goals leading up to the eventual attack on the planet. The player just created a small progression system.

Next, I would like to provide a humorous real life example. In MoO1/2, I always played as the Psilons. I enjoyed having a large tech edge (plasma cannons, anyone?). I always got very displeased with the Darloks stealing my technology. So, I made it my mission to show them what eXterminate really means in 4X.

Other forms such as victory conditions and achievements helps too. The boundaries are really endless and each game can have their own progression and be unique. That is the beauty of games. I want to throw out one warning: do not make the progression overly difficult or time consuming. A fine balance must be done to ensure that the players do not feel the time spent is not worth what is earned (or will be).

Example

As with the previous article, I want to give an example of how I achieved progression. I will again use the MUD for my example (I’ll use my own 4X game when it gets farther along). During character creation, a player could choose one of two skill paths to travel down. Each path had 10 skills. They then could select 7 of the 10 skills and these would be gained in 5 level increments. This was a good system because it allowed the player to set their own goals with gaining skills at certain levels. Then they wanted to use them and so the player had to work to attain them. This created a small progression system that encouraged people to play more.

This finishes up my second article about the two aspects I feel are that important to me: Immersion and Progression. I hope you enjoyed reading it and thinking about games and their development in slightly different ways. As with the post on Immersion, I would like to hear your thoughts and comments (I’ll try to reply faster this time). Finally, if anyone has a request for a future topic on an article, let me know and I’ll consider it.

dayrinni has been a Space Sector contributor since October 2011. This is his first foray into writing articles for any review site. He is an avid gamer in the genres of 4X, Strategy, MMO’s and RPGs. Finally, he has been the implementor of several MUDs and is currently working on a 4X space game that offers large scope and complexity. See all dayrinni’s posts here.

I’m a long time gamer like the rest of you. I like many types of games: RPGs, FPS, strategy and 4X. I also like to make games (I have a small game company). My desire to make games and bring people together started when I was in high school. It was then that I created some paper and pencil games with my best friend. Also, I had some message board games. As I started college, I started to program games. I programmed a few MUDs (text-based RPGs), a 2D graphical game and I am now working on my secret 4X game.

One thing I can say is that making a game is not easy and is really a labor of love. It is not something that a programmer can wave their hands at and suddenly, the game appears. It really is a classic case of “easier said than done.”. Software development is a very intensive and lengthy process.

Regardless of the type, there are a few key points that make a good game. Two of them are immersion and progression. I would like to talk about them in my first few posts.  There are other aspects of good games, but I want to touch on these two points first.

Immersion

Immersion is essentially making the player believe they are where (or what) the game says they are. In RPGs, it is what makes the player feel as if they are their character (a powerful mage for example). That they are really saving the world or slaying the dragon. In FPS’s, it is that the in-game character holding the gun is really the player. In 4X games, the player is really the Supreme Ruler of their Empire (or whatever role the story line says they should be).

Immersion suspends reality and time for the player. It is how the person loses track of the time they play. They are so engrossed in the game that they don’t even know what time it is. It is the moments where when you finally look at the clock and 5 (or more) hours have gone by. Immersion is something that game developers want to achieve because it draws people in and keeps them captivated.

It can be difficult to create immersion because as developers, we are swamped with non-immersive activities. You have to attend that meeting at 2 PM. You have to come up with a mathematical model to simulate trade across an empire. You have to program that GUI Window for the Diplomacy screen. You have to modify this, or that. You have a code review. These tasks don’t really deal with anything about the soul of the game. These non-soul aspects make it hard to concentrate on the soul and what really will go into the game.

Even for writers on a project distractions come easy. There are still deadlines, discussions and a manner of other issues to deal with. There is a never ending stream of tasks and hurdles to jump over. Reviewing and editing work is an intensive process. Change is hard and difficult. Writing 50 pages and then having to re-writing it is no easy task. Generally, time is at a luxury and oftentimes, impossible to get more of.

All of these factors contribute to the challenges of making a game immersive (and a game in general!!).

As a personal example, when I wrote my networking code for my 2D game, I spent weeks on it. I got so deep into the code, which became so abstract, that I sort of lost where I was in my own project. I had to take a break after wards and get my bearings.

With all of the above aside, let’s ask a simple question: How do you achieve immersion? I cannot say for sure. I don’t think any one really can give a precise and concrete answer. But like everyone else, I have some ideas and thoughts on how to create it. I will use examples from the Master of Orion series.

How to achieve immersion

The first point is, the setting and story has to be believable. Things have to make sense. Not so much as 100% logical sense, but it has to all fit in with everything else. Random or out of place things will kill the immersion. The pieces of the game must fit together to provide a finished puzzle that equals the vision of the game. The lore and setting in MoO universe fit well together. It was coherent and easy to determine what and why things happened. The guardian ship concept was a great tie in as well. The guardian ship bridged the gap from the history to the game. This concrete connection made the game seem more believable.

The second point is, the UI has to have a theme that fits into the game and be easy to use. Imagine playing a CIV game with an outer space themed UI. The artistic side of the UI has to be correct. Then, the functionality within must be easy and simple to use. If a user gets burdened down by trying to use the UI then immersion will be not be achieved. A classic case is the MoO3 UI. It was very cumbersome and difficult to use. It is hard to get involved in a game when it is difficult to use.

In addition, the presentation of the contents in the UI need to be in the theme. The contents can use elements from the setting and story.  If getting a report on battle losses is presented, some flavor text could be used to make it more believable. If it was a disastrous loss for the player, that can be indicated in a way that makes sense too. In other words, the player shouldn’t think that they are looking at a spreadsheet, they should think they are looking a real battle loss report. These small aspects can tie the UI into the setting of story of the game. Sounds can be useful in achieving this. The research discovery screen is a good example of having good presentation. A scientist from your empire with a graphical display of what was successfully researched is present in the screen.

A third point is, streamlined game play. If things are annoying to the player for the wrong reasons (time sinks, etc), then that will kill immersion. If a player has to grind out 10 grueling levels before they reach a point where they feel useful, then that really isn’t streamlined game play. If  playing the game is just plain difficult to do in a gameplay aspect (not UI related), then it will be hard to achieve immersion. Sometimes, a UI can hide non-streamlined game (or even streamlined game play), but it should not be relied on to do so.

There are three points that could assist in creating immersion. The game and display should not detract from the player’s ability to believe they are in the game. Often times it is hard to do because software development and game design is very challenging. It is easy to get caught up with the technical aspects. Stop and think every so often. Watch the grass grow and look at what was done. Were they the right choices?

Example

Finally, I want to give an example of how I achieved some of these in my MUD (text-based RPG), A Tempest Season. Usually in MUDs, combat automatically happens and gives a very generic description. This isn’t really immersive. You are sitting there watching the text go by. Instead, I created a system that had different attacks (slash, jab, thrust, etc). With each attack I had long descriptions that explained in detail what the attack did. The system was very nicely done and received a lot of complements on it. Even though the player had to type commands, they still fit as if they were actually in the battle due to the choice they had and the descriptions received from combat.

Well, I hope that you have enjoyed my first post. My second post, on Progression, will be coming up soon. I know that we have different opinions on what makes a good game. With that said, I’d like to hear what makes a good game for you. Feel free to reply to this post with your thoughts.

dayrinni has been a Space Sector contributor since October 2011. This is his first foray into writing articles for any review site. He is an avid gamer in the genres of 4X, Strategy, MMO’s and RPGs. Finally, he has been the implementor of several MUDs and is currently working on a 4X space game that offers large scope and complexity. See all dayrinni’s posts here.

Lately I’ve been quite interested in understanding how games work and so I’m reading the book: “The Art of Game Design: A book of Lenses” (excellent book by the way for anyone interested in designing games of any kind). And it seems that we like to play games, in general, because they provide a problem solving activity that is ultimately fun to play. Sure, now this seems obvious right? (after being read and said) but what is “Fun” anyway? Now this is something really not so easy to grasp. I mean we know when we are having fun but we cannot really explain why. But I will not disclose in this post what is “Fun” and why it is such an important factor for making good games, for that you will need to read the book, otherwise I will uncover a key aspect of the Author’s work :)

But getting back to the point, why do we like to play space strategy games in specific (being those 4x, RTS or TBS, or a mix of these)?  Well after thinking about it for a while I came to the conclusion that we like to play them due to 4 main reasons. It’s not that there are not more, sure there are and possibly even equally important and more important reasons, but in my conclusion we like to play these type of games because:

1. We like to be in control, to feel a sense of being powerful
2. We have a natural disposition to be curious
3. Because we like surprises
4. Because we love sci-fi

We like to be in control, to be powerful

This  is probably the main reason why we like to play this kind of games. Strategy games normally gives us the building blocks, the power and the motivation to work in behalf of an Empire, a Tribe, a Race, or whatever society form the game provides. It is then up to us to manage all the empire resources to protect, nurture and evolve our Tribe. In space strategy games normally we manage a Race or a Species and are given the full responsibility to be in charge of developing a space faring civilization. Now what more stimulating job could there be than that right?

Now this seems to be kind of non-sensical because normally people are not really keen on taking great amounts of responsibility in real life, and would probably find overwhelming and way too complex of task to be in command of millions of people in hundreds of solar systems with thousands of spaceships right? Well the trick is that in games you can have these experiences in a decent controlled environment. The game only gives you the good and entertaining side of the coin. As it is only a simulation so the boring and painful parts this type of  “job” would require are not present.  So you have it. Being in control, to feel powerful without having the burden to worry too much about it and only take pleasure for that. Now this is a dream come true to all strategists right?

When the game is really good at providing enough complexity and elegant design the player can have wonderful experiences will being in control of huge fleets, of technology research, full scale invasions and epic space battles. It feels really good to have the feeling of power and to feel that all the empire hopes and dreams depend on your well judged decisions.

Being in control and being powerful (in a controlled way) managing a space faring civilization is our first reason why we like to play space strategy games. Now, one next reason.

We have a natural predisposition to be curious

Now, this one does not seem so obvious. What does curiosity has to do with playing space strategy games? In a sense this reason is more broad than the first one since it applies to many game styles but particularly it is very powerful in space strategy. Curiosity is what leads us forward, is what makes us look behind a wall, makes us want to peak at something … And this is in my opinion closely related to the sense of Exploration.

Explorers may be driven by many things but one thing probably they all share is an acute sense of curiosity. And in general all of us Humans feel this curiosity intensely, to the point of finding completely unbearable not to know, or understand the unknown and the mystery out there. And so we are almost obsessed with the need to reach the stars and to touch and see them with our own hands and eyes, like in the past our ancestors did when making the navigation discoveries five centuries ago.

So exploration, discovery and curiosity are very much related in a sense. It’s not surprising that the most significant sub category of space strategy games are 4x games (for which you can find a definition here), eXploration is right the first “X”. And curiosity is a major factor that drives you to explore.

That said, when playing space strategy games we have the opportunity to experience curiosity and more important to satisfy this curiosity in wondering what’s out there in the stars. What wonderful planetary systems may be there, what riches and knowledge may be there waiting, what new beings can I find, will they be friendly? or will they be hostile? What is that species planning? What spaceship armadas may be out there waiting in that particular sector?

Another key aspect of space strategy games is that almost all of them provide the player with the ability to conduct research and uncover new technologies. And with respect to technology curiosity also plays a major role in intriguing the player with questions like “what new powers will I have at my disposal after this research?”, “what benefits can I gain to help my race grow”, “what new toys (spaceships, weapons, shields, etc) will I get if I run in this research path?”. Normally technology research trees (the path of technologies) are know from the start but it’s always fun and curious when playing the games the first times. And that is why I defend “Innovative Tech Trees in Space Strategy Games”, a post I wrote some time ago that addresses this issue.

Curiosity is our second reason why we play these games. Now the third reason.

Because we like to be surprised

Now this one is probably more general that the previous two in the sense that it probably more a human quality than a space strategy specific experience but anyway this is another strong reason why we like to play space strategy games.

It is common sense to accept that we like to be surprised positively, but what about negatively? Many people often even say, “I don’t like surprises of any kind”. But guess what, surprises is what breaks the monotony, is what makes you interested and focused in doing something. And when playing a space strategy game we would not want to keep pressing that “end-turn” button or wandering around from place to place, or building stuff continuously without being surprised once in a while right?

Is it not wonderful when we are surprised with a new discovery? What about an unexpected event? Maybe a system has found an ancient artifact buried somewhere that will unlock some ultimate power, Wow! What about if a planet reports that a plague has stroked the population, would not this be a “bad surprise”?, wouldn’t this be bad and make you feel down? Not really, what happens is that the level of stress of the player may rise a bit “NOOoo my best colony has a huge plague, I’ll loose thousands of people and incredible amounts of tax income” and the player may became a bit nervous but guess what this “bad surprise” at least didn’t got him bored.

What I’m trying to say here is that surprises in games, and space strategy games is no exception, makes us feel more engaged, more focused and less bored, which ultimately is what we are looking forward in games right? Now, the final reason.

Because we love Science Fiction

Ok, now this one is easy and pretty obvious you may say. Well I didn’t said all of them would be hidden secrets did I? :) Yes, SCI-Fi love is perhaps the most objective reason why we like to play space strategy games. I don’t say this is a requirement, I’ll just state that it is one reason.

Now the odds are that if you’re a sci-fi fan and you like to play strategy games you probably can’t help it but enjoy space strategy games. Now, Sci-Fi again is a thing you know you like but it is not so obvious why you like it. I will not debate in this post though why some people like Sci-Fi, that would be another subject to address :)

I hope you enjoyed my little essay about why we like to play space strategy games. Now I’d love to ear your comments and your experiences about this topic.