Plot in strategy games

[darcy]

It seems the designers of Moo3 are very concerned about the background story and the plot of the game. I've just read the Antaran history stuff, which is quite extensive for a strategy game, in my opinion.

Apparently the story is even actively influencing game design decisions. IIRC some races were cut because they don't "fit in" this sophisticated universe. I wonder, wasn't it part of the appeal that these races were simple? The Mrrshans were the fierce warriors, the Bulrathi were the tough and slow grunts. Of course they were cliché... but the cliché *worked*.

Reading some of the new race descriptions, it feels like I'm in a high-brow sci-fi movie. Is that necessary for a strategy game or is it too much? I still haven't made up my mind; after all, Alpha Centauri didn't suffer from the rich background story, but then again it was much easier to connect to.

I was surprised that plot gimmicks are supposed to be part of the Moo3 experience. But plot twists like discovering the 5 Xs or learning about the Harvesters, both acively guarded secrets, will work one time only, the first time we play. Being a game that is supposed to be played over and over again, on random maps, won't this stuff become annoying and predictable in all subsequent games?

Summing up, I wonder if it is a smart choice to invest so much into the story of what is in its essence an abstract strategy game.

[Alexfrog]

I think that fleshing out the background story makes the different races more exciting. I certainly dont think the game loses anything from including all the storyline...

After a few plays it wont be new, but its cool at first....so its a plus.

[Wainamoinen]

I voted "no" - because I don't think a strategy game "needs" a plot. Strategy games from chess through Risk to MoO1 (which was pretty much a plot-free zone) have succeeded by being fun to play, rather than spinning an involving story.

Talking specifically about MoO3 however, a good story could add a lot to a game, as players become more involved in the action, identifying with certain actors. No-one here cheers the NOs, do they? They're uncaring, congenitally paranoid despots, and I'll have fun kicking over their sandcastles. Great, we've everyone's bad guys already. He likes Psilons, Gasbags float my boat, and she always plays Ithkul.

The danger with including a story is that gameplay gets bent out of shape to fit it in. A worry I have is that the Ithkul will play so differently from the other races, that as time goes by and players learn the quirks of the different races they are either always played, or always ignored.

The Harvester secrets will be a one off, as will the Antaran X's, but there are always new things to learn in a new game, that's part of the fun. I'm optimistic that the story will add to my enjoyment, and the extra surprises will mean extra fun learning the game, but I won't know until I've played it a few times.

[Main_Brain]

Mhh not essentially a Plot but a Background really is Important like in Smac?

[kalbear]

Is it essential? Nope. I'll happily enjoy a game without a rich backstory and role-playing elements.

Does it make a game better? When done right, abso-friggin-lutely. SMAC tops my list of great games partially because the world captivated me and interested me, drew me in.

Civ worked similarly - at least early on, I loved reading the historical documents about the various wonders, units, and improvements. I found that fascinating why, say, monotheism was considered such a historically significant invention in their eyes, or what it produced.

Deux Ex was a totally similar vein. None of the plot elements were really necessary, but all the little sub-elements were what made me want to play it - and play it again.

Same goes for System Shock.

Same goes for StarCraft and Warcraft 3. WC3 I actually don't like all that much - that much super-fast micromanagement doesn't interest me, especially when it's compensating for poor AI - but I kept playing because I wanted to see how the game ended. SC was a great mix of all worlds.

So yeah, hearing that new sound clip from the intro really interested me. It set the game up in my mind, and dropped me into a world where the Ithkul could exist and I could actually root for them in some way.

It isn't necessary for a good game, but at least for me it's necessary for a great game.

[Kc7mxo]

The problem with a strategy game having an intricate plot is that it will very quickly become repetitive. A backstory is a tottally different matter of course.

But I've always made my own plot with the Moo and Civ.

Anyone play IG2? Not a bad game, and it had a bit of a plot as well. I imagine Moo3's plot will be of a similiar vein.

Speaking of IG2, I don't think I ever played a game which had such a humongous jump in difficulty level from easy to normal.

[vee4473]

If what you mean by plot is the literal meaning of the word, a pre-conceived sequence of events, then a plot is bad for most TBS games, because the very nature of games like civ are to let the player guide his own way, not be led in directions in order to advance the game.

I mean "plot" in the sense of games like baldurs gate or other rpgs where the story IS the whole game.



but i think a "backstory" for a game like moo is needed..just a short introduction of the various races and how they all mingle in the universe.

[viciouscycle]

Plot and even simple background information are things not critical to a good TBS, IMHO. IIRC Empire, one of the best strategy games ever, didn't have any background at all.

I do believe though that background makes for a better gaming experience. SMAC is also one of the best strategy games I have ever played and I love the background and plot elements to it. I think this becomes more important in fantasy settings where you have fanciful technologies and characters and such because it gives you a good frame of referrence for what you're doing. The Civ games don't need this because they already have the whole of human history to draw upon which is (or should be) common to every gamer.

[vee4473]

thats what i was thinking, civ doesn't need it because we all know about the various Earth civs...at least have some idea anyway..

i still think that background info really is needed for a sci-fi TBS game. Otherwise all of the different races would
probably seem very similar except for the different funny alien faces and players who don't know the races from earlier releases would look at them all and wonder which suits there play style or personality.

At least until you have played long enough to sense the differences.

A background is needed to tell you the differences up front i think.

of course, you could put all that in the manual too i guess, although i guess it's cheaper to put it in a movie on the cd instead of printing a bigger manual.

[vee4473]

I was confused when I first tried moo2, not being familiar with moo1.

i loaded it up and when time to choose my race i saw all of these abstract names and had no idea of the differences.

The brief description of each race in the manual was great.

[Jamski]

The question was if a plot is needed for a strataigy game. I'd say no. On the other hand if a plot is wanted is a different question, and I'd say yes in that case. As long as the plot doesn't stop me doing what I wnat to, I'm happy, and it adds a bit of depth to a game.

-Jam

[Arnelos]

You can always make up your own plot and backstory

That said, I think one of the things that made SMAC phenomenal was its development of an interesting backstory.

[darcy]

One potential problem I see with stories/plots is that they often make me play the game like a roleplaying game.

Instead of taking everything as pieces in a complex game of strategy, I start roleplaying an Emperor. When an AI betrays an alliance, I get disappointed, because I want the (roleplaying) experience of joining forces with a trusted friend, although it might mean that the AI would value my interests more than its own, which would be stupid for a player.

Or I dislike a certain part of the fiction and allow my decisions to be influenced by that. For example I despised Morgan Industries' philosophy, and was inclined to ally against them, even if that wasn't the best strategic choice. Moo3 will probably make me prejudiced against the Ithkul and New Orions, as they are institutionalized as the "Bad Guys".

Yes, a game gains a lot from a background story which gives it depth, a theme, a meaning. But I believe it comes at a cost. It draws you in and you aren't an objective player anymore. Then you must actively separate yourself from the theme again in order to employ a pure "play-to-win" strategy.

[Jamski]

How could you despise Morgan's philosophy? Everyone likes to make money and be rich On the other hand, I could never bring myself to play as Miriam. I could never identify with the faction's Christianity and stupidty (I'm not implying a relation here !) This is a shame, as her attack bonus was very nice, but I never will use it, because of the backstory.

-Jam

[Grumbold]

A plot is not essential to make a good strategy game. Just look at chess. However a good plot can complement and further enhance the playing experience. Alien Legacy without a good plot would have been mediocre and overly micromanaged game. The plot helped make it a really great game imo but i won't be replaying it every month now that I have experienced the story and "won" the game twice.