PC Gamer - February 2012

I’ve hit a patch of bad strategy gaming lately, which is probably inevitable when you cover any genre in depth. But why are so many games bad in the exact same way? Why are PC strategists subjected to unfinished games destined to be patched into forgettable mediocrity, interfaces and designs that only make sense to the people making the game, and missions designed to trick you into failure? If developers want their games to be enjoyed rather than endured, and hope to avoid getting lambasted during review season, they should keep some basic rules in mind.

system. But I did not understand just how arcane they were until a few friends bought them. Five years of playing that series had blinded me to a first-timer’s experience. Through my friends’ eyes, I realized these games use an interface and a game design that’s built for people who already know what they’re looking for.

It’s understandable why developers would create games for committed customers, rather than alter a winning formula. But we end up with better games when developers seek outside views. Not every game should be accessible to every gamer, but developers must be aware of who they are excluding, and how. Someone needs to ask, “Why?” That’s how games get better.

Rule 1: Puzzles are not strategy

The best strategy games allow improvisation and creativity in the face of challenging problems. The road to victory should never be so narrow that it becomes a tightrope.

Playing A Game of Thrones: Genesis back-to-back with Stronghold 3, I got more than my fill of “tightrope” mission design. Each game used punishing twists in most of its missions. Surviving them requires figuring out the exact right response to each thing that is going

advantage
People need to ask
‘Why?’ if games are
going to get better.

tac tic al

to happen. Completing some missions might require dozens of attempts, doing the same thing over and over until I knew the mission script down to the second, and the precise responses required at each step.

This is a wasted opportunity. Campaigns are a great place to teach players how a game works. They can also create memorable narrative moments and dramatic scenarios that would never crop up in a multiplayer match or a skirmish. Unlike adventure games, where the goal is to solve a puzzle with a single solution by using careful clues and limited tools, a strategy game scenario should be collaborative. A challenge is set for players, who use the tools available to craft varying solutions that reflect their own play style.

Rule 3: Finish the damn game

After a disastrous launch, the Sword of the Stars II forums were full of die-hard fans treating each patch like a gift from a benevolent god. It was an expression of faith in Kerberos, the game’s developer, and its ability to patch greatness into a broken game.

The broken launch, to me, obscured other, deeper problems with that game. It explained itself badly. The interface hid important commands, and a lack of tooltips meant they were undiscoverable. Worse yet, very little about the game made me want to discover anything more than the exit.

I’m increasingly skeptical of the idea that patches can
ever really fix a game. When a broken game comes
out, the first several weeks of its life are consumed
with restoring basic functionality. And that means that
the most important question—is this
actually fun?—has already been lost.
When I went back to Elemental
several months after its release, I was
surprised at how little my views had
actually changed. It worked better, but
it was not a better game. Stardock had
fixed a lot of bugs and poor perfor-
mance, but something was rotten at the
core. Elemental was only mildly enjoy-
able. Playable, but not intuitive or
smooth. When developers are fixing
major technical issues with basic game-
play even as they launch the game, how
can they recognize the deeper problems of design that
will ultimately ruin the game for players, no matter
how “stable” the program? Customers should not have
to buy broken software and hope that patches can turn
it into a game. n

Rule 2: Look outside your fanbase Last year, I really enjoyed Revolution Under Siege and Pride of Nations, two turn-based strategy games that use the five-year-old AGE wargaming

Is Stronghold 3 bad, or is it just that the interface doesn’t work and the missions are unfair? OK, trick question.

Rob Zacny hosts the Three Moves Ahead strategy podcast. He’s recently been disliking Sword of the Stars II and Stronghold 3. Skyrim is cool, however. Email him at tacticaladvantage@ pcgamer.com.