TBSs need a shot in the arm, here's how.

[livid imp]

Talk of TBS graphics (or lack there of) in the Musings thread got me thinking. There are always a load of complaints about the graphics in TBS games, which I always have seen as silly. The TBS is the epitome of game play. The way I always saw it, graphics were the polar opposite of game play. But why does that have to be so with the level of technology today.

So my mind wandered to other TBS style games and I remember the old classic Battle Chess (a legit, freebie download here). Why can't TBSs be more like this? Give us a little show, even if you have to run the combat in another screen. Then I thought "why stop there?" and I remembered and even older game called "Varloc". Varloc was basically chess, except instead of just capturing a square, you had to fight for it. So when your piece captured a square you would go into a battle view in which you'd duke it out with primitive wire frame chess pieces for control of the square. It turned chess into a strategy/action game! Loads of fun.

Natural progression leads us to a SMAC strategy style game with an action component when you contest for a tile. So if two jets meet in combat, you switch into a battle screen and have a dogfight. Or if two armies meet, you go into a FPS style interface and shoot each other down. Combat of course would be modified by the quality of your troops, facilities, terrain, etc.
This would certainly bring more people and breathe new life into the TBS genre.

[Darsnan]

Re: TBSs need a shot in the arm, here's how.

Originally posted by livid imp
The TBS is the epitome of game play. The way I always saw it, graphics were the polar opposite of game play.

I agree whole-heartedly. I don't play chess for the graphics - I play it for the cerebral challenge of what was presented by the "pieces" on the board.

Originally posted by livid imp
But why does that have to be so with the level of technology today.

So my mind wandered to other TBS style games and I remember the old classic Battle Chess Why can't TBSs be more like this? Give us a little show, even if you have to run the combat in another screen.

I used to play a TBS game called "Deadlock" which placed several human and alien civ's on a planet, and everyone would try to conquer the planet much like in SMAC(X). The difference was when you attacked an enemy city, you designated which of your military units (infantry, aircraft, missiles, etc.) attacked which of the enemies defenses. Then, when you were finished with this phase you then weer taken to a screen which showed you the battle as it progressed.

Originally posted by livid imp
Natural progression leads us to a SMAC strategy style game with an action component when you contest for a tile. So if two jets meet in combat, you switch into a battle screen and have a dogfight. Or if two armies meet, you go into a FPS style interface and shoot each other down. Combat of course would be modified by the quality of your troops, facilities, terrain, etc.
This would certainly bring more people and breathe new life into the TBS genre.

I agree it would give more life to our genre, as a lot of people really like that "eye candy". However, personally I'd rather see a better, enhanced AI. My $0.02.


D

[smacksim]

I agree that TBS needs a shot in the arm. Graphics are definately the way to do that. Even the blockhead crowd would try to learn a game that had real eye-appeal, and the blockhead crowd is what pays for the games in the end. Unfortunately for developers, the mass-market also tends to pay for game development in the beginning; Moreso with the publishers all being gobbled up by the evil empires of big-business. The publishers sponsor the development of a game (thinking of Troika and ToEE right now), and if they say "Dumb it down", it gets dumbed down, or no money for the developers.

The issue right now, I think, is that the big publishers have only looked at what sells the most games: FPS, RTS, and of course, the Sims. These dwarf even Civilization. So they say to themselves: "There isn't as much money in strategy games, so we won't put as much into them", which is perfectly reasonable on their part. But these big companies own all the resources, all the publishing houses, etc., so high-quality graphics hardly ever make it into TBS games. Until this pyramid/monopoly scheme is broken, I don't think we'll see any more games of the quality of SMAC, sad to say. Let alone of a better quality.

But you are right. If the publishers took a chance and invested lots of money in adding high quality graphics to a more complex strategy game, they'd make money just as well as they do in RTS or FPS games. But we're in a downward spiral, and none of the big companies have the courage to take this 'risk' very often. Look what happens to most of the strategy games the big-guns do sponsor: They get watered down and made into pre-school level crud, all because the publishers are pressuring the developers to dumb it down. My guess is that the next great TBS will be from a start-up developer with independent money, and the muscle to get published somehow.

The real stumper is the need for any game to be simple enough that the general public buy it, not just us die-hard TBS fans. They have to make money. While this doesn't preclude a company from making a game deep, with a simpler superficial level for the blockheads, and a complex level for the die-hards, it seems the most development money goes towards mass-market appeal as a game is dictated by the big spenders to the development team. It would drive me crazy to have to dumb down a game I'd been developing, especially knowing I'd be losing my best fans by doing it.

GalCiv is a nice company model for putting out a game aimed (in hindsight though I think ) at the die-hards for game-play sake. It's not a great game, but imagine if it were really big buget. It would have been as good as MOO II, or better. Certainly MOO II made money, just not in the league of the RTS games, so no more money. Damn.

[#endgame]

Ah, Deadlock. I remember that game. Only ever had the demo though and Accolade seems to have vanished into the aether. Funny that I used to play the Ch'Cht but now I'm a money-grubbing Morganite.

Ah, Battlechess. The rook eating the queen is classic.

The thing is though, wasn't Civ3 mostly graphics? The real trouble is finding the balance.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by smacksim
Look what happens to most of the strategy games the big-guns do sponsor: They get watered down and made into pre-school level crud

**cough** Civ3 **cough**

[livid imp]

Originally posted by #endgame
Ah, Battlechess. The rook eating the queen is classic.

And pawn takes knight with a knee to the groin It was rather irreverent for its day. Then there was king takes queen. The queen starts to attack the king and the king whips out a pistol and guns her down in Indiana Jones casual style. Loved that game....til I saw all the animations anyway.

Originally posted by #endgame
The thing is though, wasn't Civ3 mostly graphics? The real trouble is finding the balance.

No the real problem with Civ3 wasn't the graphics. Civ3 was dumbed down to appeal to a simpler gamer, your Starcraft/Diablo/Quake3 types. I remember a lot of old Civ2 players would complain about SMAC being too complex.

[fender]

I know what you're saying about the graphics, and adding some FPS to dog fights etc. ....but I'd bet that in a short time you/we'd all skip them, for the turn would be very long. We'd end up playing the game much as is is now.

Having said that, I'm all for better graphics in this game. I just don't any good ideas at this time.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by fender
I know what you're saying about the graphics, and adding some FPS to dog fights etc. ....but I'd bet that in a short time you/we'd all skip them

You wouldn't skip them anymore than people skip the stockpile engergy bug. I am not simply talking about a cut scene of a dog fight. I am talking you are in control of the one of the jets/soliders, doing the fighting, as is your opponet. Skipping the fighting would give your opponent an advantage.

Of course this would be an option which could be turned off for those that don't want an action element added to the game.

[girlfight_club]

Originally posted by livid imp


I am not simply talking about a cut scene of a dog fight. I am talking you are in control of the one of the jets/soliders, doing the fighting, as is your opponet. Skipping the fighting would give your opponent an advantage.

Of course this would be an option which could be turned off for those that don't want an action element added to the game.

So... would this be an optional tactical detail screen, like in Imperialism?

'Cause if its an option to turn it off, that would eliminate the AI's "advantage." Plus what fender said about turn length.

I have to be in a certain mood for FPS. Give me god's-eye divine rule any day of the week!!

GFC

[livid imp]

Originally posted by girlfight_club
So... would this be an optional tactical detail screen, like in Imperialism?

I assume so. I must confess, I have never played Imperialism.

Originally posted by girlfight_club
'Cause if its an option to turn it off, that would eliminate the AI's "advantage." Plus what fender said about turn length.

Sure the turn length might increase, but so what. I am less concerned about total time to play a game (after all I have an Everquest character) and more concerned about the quality of that time spent. Who cares if it takes more time to play if you are loving every minute of it. Besides, there is a option to turn it off. No harm, no foul.

Originally posted by girlfight_club
I have to be in a certain mood for FPS. Give me god's-eye divine rule any day of the week!!

If you ask me (which you have implictly be reading this thread), immersion is the one thing sorely missing from TBSs. This was one of the greatest parts of SMAC. The SP cut scenes, the quotes/voice-overs on the new technologies, the help and info windows being presented as the "datalinks". Well, it is time to push the boundries even further.

I bought SMAC almost the day it was released (something I normally never do), played it until I got sucked in to Everquest. A few years later I emerged from the NeverRest blackhole and began playing SMAC again. The first thing I thought of was, "They need to make this a MMOG." I thought this because EverCrack was so immersive and addicting, and a game of SMAC's quality deserves that kind of a feeling.

Eventually, FPSs will develop the stratgey elements of TBSs. Eventually RTS fans will realise that the guy with the fastest wrist always wins and get bored. Until all of this, I hope to see TBSs take a step forward and add some RPG and FPS elements to their genre.

[gbrut]

I can live with less than stellar graphics, but SMAC was way behind the curve when it was released. This was by a company with a creative force that almost single handedly created the genre. Had any other company come out with the game, they would have been torn apart by reviewers and the buying public alike. Make no mistake, SMAC is a great game, but I feel that it suffered from the passable graphics. They don't need to try to look like RTS games, that's not the idead, but they could look much better. They need to be more accessable to the public at large and better visuals is one way to do it. They need to be easier to play, right out of the box. If I have to spend hours just to figure out how to move on the board, I'll put the game away and take out a tried and true title. They need to try something other than every what every other game is presently doing, or has done in the past.
Overall, there is a lack of originality in games, TBG included. I try to pick up every one that comes out, HOMM, Age of Wonders, Disciples, Civ, SMAC, Galciv, LOM, LOTR2, even some wargames and a few of the offbeat titles like EU2. The thing which irks me the most is that some companies like to release an unfinished game in the hopes that we'll buy enough copies to justify a second iteration, patching it along the way. How many sequels have you seen advertised that promise to be, "All that the original should have been." It isn't too much to ask that they get it right the firtst time. Since the marked for TBG is small, it needs to take more creative risks and publish a game, when it's ready. The concept of SMAC was one which hooked me from the beginning. It put a twist on the space race theme that no one else had done in quite the same way. That's what makes it a great game, and keeps it on my hard drive. The list of wants for TBG could go on, but if companies don't make them, then all of our arguments are futile. If there are any new ones on the horizon, I'll be sure to find them and grab them while I can. I just wish that more could be those jewels that we all love and five years later will still be commenting on.

[Straybow]

Eventually RTS fans will realise that the guy with the fastest wrist always wins and get bored. Until all of this, I hope to see TBSs take a step forward and add some RPG and FPS elements to their genre.

Nope, there is an infinite supply of RTS mouth-breathers.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by gbrut
They need to be easier to play, right out of the box. If I have to spend hours just to figure out how to move on the board, I'll put the game away and take out a tried and true title.

I thought SMAC (if you used the tutorial) was both fast and easy to learn even for a TBS novice.

Originally posted by gbrut
They need to try something other than every what every other game is presently doing, or has done in the past. Overall, there is a lack of originality in games, TBG included.

Amen brother! Now that the game industry has become big money (more income than even movies make in the US) they have adopted typical business conservativism. Taking no chances, just ripping off whatever is the hot game right this second. Then completely abandoning support once the money slows to a trickle.

Originally posted by gbrut
I try to pick up every one that comes out, HOMM, Age of Wonders, Disciples, Civ, SMAC, Galciv, LOM, LOTR2, even some wargames and a few of the offbeat titles like EU2.

Since you brought it up, I loved Age of Wonders, but AoW2 kinda sucked. Since AoW2, has there been good AoW equivelent?

Originally posted by gbrut
The thing which irks me the most is that some companies like to release an unfinished game in the hopes that we'll buy enough copies to justify a second iteration, patching it along the way. How many sequels have you seen advertised that promise to be, "All that the original should have been." It isn't too much to ask that they get it right the firtst time.

We have only ourselves to blame. I make it a policy not to purchase software when it is first released on the grounds that I don't pay to be a beta tester, you pay me.

[Dry]

Re: TBSs need a shot in the arm, here's how.

Originally posted by livid imp
Natural progression leads us to a SMAC strategy style game with an action component when you contest for a tile. So if two jets meet in combat, you switch into a battle screen and have a dogfight. Or if two armies meet, you go into a FPS style interface and shoot each other down. Combat of course would be modified by the quality of your troops, facilities, terrain, etc.
This would certainly bring more people and breathe new life into the TBS genre.

I don't like the FPS solution.
I much more prefer the MOO2 solution: Combat on the strategic map resolved on a tactical maps.
My dream game is a CIV game with combats resolved ala PanzerGeneral.
It of course need to be simple and fastly resolved (as simple, but faster than the real PG). Don't forget the MP games. Players not involved should not wait ages for combat resolution.

[livid imp]

Re: Re: TBSs need a shot in the arm, here's how.

Originally posted by Dry

I don't like the FPS solution.
I much more prefer the MOO2 solution:......

Basically the same idea with a slightly different execution. This is also similar to the Hero's of Might and Magic games.

Oh, if you don't like the FPS solution, then don't buy my game
We are talking about expanding the genre. I have no doubt there will be purists that will reject anything that is not pure TBS, that is their problem.