Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Friday, January 16, 2009
I am totally excited...
There aren't many games slated for 2008 that I am genuinely excited about, much less interested in. However, Dawn of War II is very promising, given Relic's promised integration and updating of the CoH engine. The public beta goes up via steam in a couple of weeks!
Also, for folks who love TBS (that would be turn-based strategy, not the TV channel), Stardock is at it again with a new IP covering the fantasy arena. More info here. Galactic Civilizations II (and the myriad expansions and updates) really was quite incredible and the info I've seen on Elemental looks delicious!
I am also really excited to find some time to play some of the titles that have been lingering in the back catalogue:
On the table-top games front, the computer-board hybrid Star Saga One has been calling me. What a great narrative experience there; and I have never played through Star Saga Two. Somewhere in there I would love to get in a game of Battlestations!
Also, for folks who love TBS (that would be turn-based strategy, not the TV channel), Stardock is at it again with a new IP covering the fantasy arena. More info here. Galactic Civilizations II (and the myriad expansions and updates) really was quite incredible and the info I've seen on Elemental looks delicious!
I am also really excited to find some time to play some of the titles that have been lingering in the back catalogue:
- Fable II - hadn't gotten very far in the main quest
- Fallout 3 - likewise
- Sins of a Solar Empire - I've been hankering to dive back into this
- Space Rangers 2 - horizon's broadening project for me, and possible springboard for Starquest design material.
On the table-top games front, the computer-board hybrid Star Saga One has been calling me. What a great narrative experience there; and I have never played through Star Saga Two. Somewhere in there I would love to get in a game of Battlestations!
Monday, January 5, 2009
Never Leave a Man Behind...
...Unless you are within spitting distance of a safehouse, you're the last man, and there's a smoker out there. Somewhere.
Monday, December 29, 2008
How many times have I visited Wellmet?
I have been having the dreams again.
The first time occurred almost twenty years ago. They are no less vivid now than they were then, though the frequency has changed. Initially they lasted weeks. When they reappeared, it was months. Now I suspect, it might take years for the cycle to complete, before they resume their dormancy.
While the dreams are never exactly the same; there are always variations, the core truth behind them is constant. Somewhere beyond the galactic fringe is a force bent on devouring the core. In order for me to reveal this foe, I must track down the myths and legends surrounding the great explorer Vanessa Chang.
In my journeys beyond the boundary, I encounter a myriad of sights and experiences: green aliens dancing around what appear to be coconut trees along a pink lake; a mysterious cult whose ancient secrets can tap into the vast potential of the mind; a planet that unfolds itself into the shape of a man. With every new encounter, I move closer to the answers.
Each time the dream comes I inhabit the mantle of an other: a brash pilot who violates the orders of his superiors; a xenobiologist renowned for his work and admired for his intellectual curiosity; the youngest in a syndicate family; an acolyte bound by his order to test his faith. Each time I have lived out full lives deep in the vastness of space.
This time is no exception. I am now the newest in a long line of ancestors who have ventured out, far from their home. Searching for the stone. Searching for the answers.
My ship is ready. And like every time before, my first stop is the planet Wellmet.
The first time occurred almost twenty years ago. They are no less vivid now than they were then, though the frequency has changed. Initially they lasted weeks. When they reappeared, it was months. Now I suspect, it might take years for the cycle to complete, before they resume their dormancy.
While the dreams are never exactly the same; there are always variations, the core truth behind them is constant. Somewhere beyond the galactic fringe is a force bent on devouring the core. In order for me to reveal this foe, I must track down the myths and legends surrounding the great explorer Vanessa Chang.
In my journeys beyond the boundary, I encounter a myriad of sights and experiences: green aliens dancing around what appear to be coconut trees along a pink lake; a mysterious cult whose ancient secrets can tap into the vast potential of the mind; a planet that unfolds itself into the shape of a man. With every new encounter, I move closer to the answers.
Each time the dream comes I inhabit the mantle of an other: a brash pilot who violates the orders of his superiors; a xenobiologist renowned for his work and admired for his intellectual curiosity; the youngest in a syndicate family; an acolyte bound by his order to test his faith. Each time I have lived out full lives deep in the vastness of space.
This time is no exception. I am now the newest in a long line of ancestors who have ventured out, far from their home. Searching for the stone. Searching for the answers.
My ship is ready. And like every time before, my first stop is the planet Wellmet.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Company of Heroes + The Big Picture
Here's what I want... a strategy layer bolted on top of Company of Heroes. Something between Rome: Total War, Rise of Nations and Star Wars: Empire at War.
Overland map of some region in Europe; detailed train routes and roads will help connect up supply lines, regions offer the materials (ammunition, fuel, manpower, etc.) You build your units on the main strategy map, and those are what you bring into the battlefield. This would probably be managed in a turn-based environment.
You can support your RTS battles with reinforcements that are drawn from bordering territories, and/or through a reinforcement mechanism akin to Sudden Strike (you own a certain portion of control points on the map which allow you to call in reinforcements on a timed schedule). Better still is have the reinforcement capability enabled or enhanced by your supply lines. If they're cut just before a battle, you lose or have degraded reinforcement abilities.
Units carry experience over from battle to battle - and thus you should be able to retreat from an entire region/map.
This would be a strictly two player affair, so there would have to be an increase in those style maps for the RT battles. The overland map wouldn't have to be overly complex - I am thinking of something contained - perhaps 12-20 areas which equates to perhaps 25-30 2v2 region maps.
You build directly on the strategic map - but such building follows the SW: Empire at War - you have the option of building certain specific buildings (defensive emplacements, AT batteries, etc.) which appear in standard plug-in locations on the map. The defender has the bonus of inhabiting those fortifications at the start, while the other player must assault a fixed emplacement. This requires use of different tactics. In cases where both sides attempt to take a region in the same turn, it would result in a more standard rts format.
You could open up the specialty options and make them more like the card system in Rise of Nations. You have a certain number of cards for artillery, airborne, and all the various special powers which you purchase via supply control and then can deploy on the strategic map. Some regions may improve those powers, give powers, enable naval bombardments, etc.
How's that for a start? There are a thousand ideas percolating on this...
Overland map of some region in Europe; detailed train routes and roads will help connect up supply lines, regions offer the materials (ammunition, fuel, manpower, etc.) You build your units on the main strategy map, and those are what you bring into the battlefield. This would probably be managed in a turn-based environment.
You can support your RTS battles with reinforcements that are drawn from bordering territories, and/or through a reinforcement mechanism akin to Sudden Strike (you own a certain portion of control points on the map which allow you to call in reinforcements on a timed schedule). Better still is have the reinforcement capability enabled or enhanced by your supply lines. If they're cut just before a battle, you lose or have degraded reinforcement abilities.
Units carry experience over from battle to battle - and thus you should be able to retreat from an entire region/map.
This would be a strictly two player affair, so there would have to be an increase in those style maps for the RT battles. The overland map wouldn't have to be overly complex - I am thinking of something contained - perhaps 12-20 areas which equates to perhaps 25-30 2v2 region maps.
You build directly on the strategic map - but such building follows the SW: Empire at War - you have the option of building certain specific buildings (defensive emplacements, AT batteries, etc.) which appear in standard plug-in locations on the map. The defender has the bonus of inhabiting those fortifications at the start, while the other player must assault a fixed emplacement. This requires use of different tactics. In cases where both sides attempt to take a region in the same turn, it would result in a more standard rts format.
You could open up the specialty options and make them more like the card system in Rise of Nations. You have a certain number of cards for artillery, airborne, and all the various special powers which you purchase via supply control and then can deploy on the strategic map. Some regions may improve those powers, give powers, enable naval bombardments, etc.
How's that for a start? There are a thousand ideas percolating on this...
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Planning and Executing Tactical Operations in RTS Games
I have a confession to make: I love real-time strategy games. I have another confession: I suck at real-time strategy games. I attribute my underwhelming performances to a combination of 1: not wanting to memorize the perfect build-order, and 2: although my brain can multi-task the hell out of the game, the ability to actually micromanage the units to the necessary extent escapes me.
It is a common enough reality in the RTS genre that the player who micromanages his units the most wins the battle or game, that one could be excused in thinking that this is by design. Certainly the problem is compounded when units have on-demand special powers which can significantly alter the outcome for players who use them in the appropriate instance or time. Some players obviously relish this, particularly those that suffer from some wild combination of ADD and schizophrenia and who can click mouse buttons at speeds hitherto unseen by all but God himself.
Many developer studios have recognized this and throw in a variety of features and AI designs that promise to mitigate the click-festivity of the game to a greater or lesser degree. And yes, I just made up that word, but it's apt. I particularly applaud the work done in games like Kohan and Company of Heroes where attention is paid to bringing out greater tactical fidelity (flanking attacks, terrain and environmental modifiers, etc) without adding needlessly complex processes to engage in them. CoH deserves special attention too, because your squads perform with a greater sense of autonomy than in most any other RTS (though sometimes I am saddened by their propensity for diving for cover in open spaces when there is a nice green-cover obstacle like a tractor six more pixels away.) Still, it's not enough.
When I play these games, I want to feel like an armchair general (or commander, or lieutenant, sergeant, or what have you). I want to coordinate a frontal assault while simultaneously sending a squad in to flank the enemy. I want to bring my armies down to the doors of hell for a concentrated attack, without having to baby-sit my bomber. What I want are queues.
Queuing orders isn't a totally new idea. My own best exposure was in the less-than-premier title Earth 2150. You could select units, record a queue of actions for them to take, and then select a next set of units and record their queue, and so on. You would then unleash that queue with the single push of a button. Imagine coupling something like that with the function in Supreme Commander whereby units of differing speeds would coordinate pace to arrive at the same time.
In a game like CoH, I could queue up my assault; bringing my tanks in to breach the southern wall and grab the enemy's attention, while having my foot squads move-in from the East to reign fire down on the back lines. Meanwhile, I could babysit my sniper, moving him stealthily into position to take out soft targets when the assault begins. Once he's in position, I hit the "go" command, and voila! Instant carnage!
With queueing, instead of micro-ing my units into position and losing the view of the battlefield as I frantically try to bring all of the appropriate units into line, I can focus on using those special powers to better conduct my operations. I am free to address the contingencies that come up en-route to execution without losing site of the plan.
Another bonus: you're on a minor defensive action, but want to move to the offense. Instead of trying to lasso a bunch of units in the firefight and possibly grabbing squads/units you don't want and then having to sort them out, you've already set your plan and only those units in the plan will move out, and the remaining units will continue their present orders.
I am not sure why more developers haven't (pardon the pun) cued-in on this feature; it seems a natural extension for the genre, and provides real planning power to the player. Certainly it beats the old mass-em-up-and-go tactic that frenetic games tend to devolve into. Of course, those hyper-aware uber-clickers will still be ruling the roost. After all, they can record plans that much quicker in the heat of the battle. But at least, the coordinating and babysitting requirements are reduced when you can plan/record at any time for any groups of units.
Thoughts? What other features do you think will put more power in the hands of the RTS player?
It is a common enough reality in the RTS genre that the player who micromanages his units the most wins the battle or game, that one could be excused in thinking that this is by design. Certainly the problem is compounded when units have on-demand special powers which can significantly alter the outcome for players who use them in the appropriate instance or time. Some players obviously relish this, particularly those that suffer from some wild combination of ADD and schizophrenia and who can click mouse buttons at speeds hitherto unseen by all but God himself.
Many developer studios have recognized this and throw in a variety of features and AI designs that promise to mitigate the click-festivity of the game to a greater or lesser degree. And yes, I just made up that word, but it's apt. I particularly applaud the work done in games like Kohan and Company of Heroes where attention is paid to bringing out greater tactical fidelity (flanking attacks, terrain and environmental modifiers, etc) without adding needlessly complex processes to engage in them. CoH deserves special attention too, because your squads perform with a greater sense of autonomy than in most any other RTS (though sometimes I am saddened by their propensity for diving for cover in open spaces when there is a nice green-cover obstacle like a tractor six more pixels away.) Still, it's not enough.
When I play these games, I want to feel like an armchair general (or commander, or lieutenant, sergeant, or what have you). I want to coordinate a frontal assault while simultaneously sending a squad in to flank the enemy. I want to bring my armies down to the doors of hell for a concentrated attack, without having to baby-sit my bomber. What I want are queues.
Queuing orders isn't a totally new idea. My own best exposure was in the less-than-premier title Earth 2150. You could select units, record a queue of actions for them to take, and then select a next set of units and record their queue, and so on. You would then unleash that queue with the single push of a button. Imagine coupling something like that with the function in Supreme Commander whereby units of differing speeds would coordinate pace to arrive at the same time.
In a game like CoH, I could queue up my assault; bringing my tanks in to breach the southern wall and grab the enemy's attention, while having my foot squads move-in from the East to reign fire down on the back lines. Meanwhile, I could babysit my sniper, moving him stealthily into position to take out soft targets when the assault begins. Once he's in position, I hit the "go" command, and voila! Instant carnage!
With queueing, instead of micro-ing my units into position and losing the view of the battlefield as I frantically try to bring all of the appropriate units into line, I can focus on using those special powers to better conduct my operations. I am free to address the contingencies that come up en-route to execution without losing site of the plan.
Another bonus: you're on a minor defensive action, but want to move to the offense. Instead of trying to lasso a bunch of units in the firefight and possibly grabbing squads/units you don't want and then having to sort them out, you've already set your plan and only those units in the plan will move out, and the remaining units will continue their present orders.
I am not sure why more developers haven't (pardon the pun) cued-in on this feature; it seems a natural extension for the genre, and provides real planning power to the player. Certainly it beats the old mass-em-up-and-go tactic that frenetic games tend to devolve into. Of course, those hyper-aware uber-clickers will still be ruling the roost. After all, they can record plans that much quicker in the heat of the battle. But at least, the coordinating and babysitting requirements are reduced when you can plan/record at any time for any groups of units.
Thoughts? What other features do you think will put more power in the hands of the RTS player?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Gaming in the Coming Economy
Given the turmoil in the markets, folks are eyeing their pocketbooks and thinking about ways to conserve money. Certainly my family has become a little more cautious about how we spend our money, and we're looking to tighten further. Following on the heels of Elysium's article concerning his majestic gaming spending-sprees, I started to wonder how folks are eyeing the coming financial storm, and whether it would influence their purchasing habits.
Outside of my teens and early 20's, I've considered myself a discriminating purchaser of games. Perhaps not to other's eyes, but the games I've laid cash down for were only those that I had vetted in some way. Usually this meant scouring the interwebs for juicy demos (thanks Fileplanet!) or doing a modicum of research. Ultimately I played a lot of demos.
In recent years, however, I've realized that I really didn't have the time to play through half of the games I was interested in. So I began confining myself to a more narrow set of games. And now, as someone working hard in the middle of a transition career who is also a new father, I have even less time.
Couple that reality with the fact that our income has dropped considerably (the wife is in Grad School), I am beginning to eye the coming nuclear (pronounced new-clear) disaster of an economy with a judicious eye. We have to reign in spending. Cut back. Weed out the unnecessary. But... aren't games necessary?
Damn tootin' they are!
In the last year, I've purchased ten games for my Mac, PC and Xbox 360 combined. I have two more on order: Fable II and Fallout 3. Looking at the budget, I am thinking of dropping Fable. Further, I am going to narrow that ten down to something on the order of four games for 2009. Throw in one boardgame, and potentially one or two RPG books (very likely the Game of Thrones RPG from Green Ronin), and that adumbrates the extent of my gaming acquisitions for 2009.
Granted, some of the games I purchased this last year were on the order of $9.99 to $20.00, more than a few fell in the $50 - $60 range. My savings will be on the order of $300 dollars for the year. Added to my reduction in board gaming, and to a lesser extent, RPG resources and accessories, and my gaming reduction should be much closer to $500-600 dollars. Again, throw in peripherals and the other myriad gaming tidbits we enjoy acquiring and that savings increases further.
Yes, that means no Ion drum kits for RBII. No new guitar or drum kit for RB II either. Add to the fact that, as Elysium mentions in his article, we are at the yearly apex of delicious gaming, and that prospect becomes tougher to swallow. I am debating ponying up for a Gamefly subscription, but to be honest, given my decreased free-gaming time, I find it more appealing to limit myself to games I really want and that I know I will then complete.
So - how about you? How does your perception of the new economy affect your game purchasing habits? And if you are planning on cutting back, how will you decide which games qualify?
Outside of my teens and early 20's, I've considered myself a discriminating purchaser of games. Perhaps not to other's eyes, but the games I've laid cash down for were only those that I had vetted in some way. Usually this meant scouring the interwebs for juicy demos (thanks Fileplanet!) or doing a modicum of research. Ultimately I played a lot of demos.
In recent years, however, I've realized that I really didn't have the time to play through half of the games I was interested in. So I began confining myself to a more narrow set of games. And now, as someone working hard in the middle of a transition career who is also a new father, I have even less time.
Couple that reality with the fact that our income has dropped considerably (the wife is in Grad School), I am beginning to eye the coming nuclear (pronounced new-clear) disaster of an economy with a judicious eye. We have to reign in spending. Cut back. Weed out the unnecessary. But... aren't games necessary?
Damn tootin' they are!
In the last year, I've purchased ten games for my Mac, PC and Xbox 360 combined. I have two more on order: Fable II and Fallout 3. Looking at the budget, I am thinking of dropping Fable. Further, I am going to narrow that ten down to something on the order of four games for 2009. Throw in one boardgame, and potentially one or two RPG books (very likely the Game of Thrones RPG from Green Ronin), and that adumbrates the extent of my gaming acquisitions for 2009.
Granted, some of the games I purchased this last year were on the order of $9.99 to $20.00, more than a few fell in the $50 - $60 range. My savings will be on the order of $300 dollars for the year. Added to my reduction in board gaming, and to a lesser extent, RPG resources and accessories, and my gaming reduction should be much closer to $500-600 dollars. Again, throw in peripherals and the other myriad gaming tidbits we enjoy acquiring and that savings increases further.
Yes, that means no Ion drum kits for RBII. No new guitar or drum kit for RB II either. Add to the fact that, as Elysium mentions in his article, we are at the yearly apex of delicious gaming, and that prospect becomes tougher to swallow. I am debating ponying up for a Gamefly subscription, but to be honest, given my decreased free-gaming time, I find it more appealing to limit myself to games I really want and that I know I will then complete.
So - how about you? How does your perception of the new economy affect your game purchasing habits? And if you are planning on cutting back, how will you decide which games qualify?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)