Is the design in turn based strategy games getting worse?

[Right E O]

First off, I could have made this a poll, but I felt like I wanted a little bit more than a yes/no answer.

Alright, so lets talk turn based strategy.

Recently, we have seen the return of many prolific strategy gaming series. Xcom made a big return, Fire Emblem was saved as a series by its latest installment, and the most recent expansion of Civilization 5 has made the game more popular than before. With these games has come a lot of favorable critical praise. Civ 5 is said to have been fixed after all, Xcom: Enemy Unknown made many game of the year lists and finding a dissenting opinion about Fire Emblem Awakening is like a needle in the proverbial haystack. So it would seem like strategy games are doing just fine.

But...

All of these games have major design problems. Civ 5 is horribly skewed towards expansionist players, to the point where attempting to play any other style is just a waste of time. Not only that, but the fact that the game took expansions to reach the point where it would comparable to Civ 4 is a sign of some poorly thought out choices. Xcom: Enemy Unknown, is a mess. Not only does it feel rushed in general, what with the graphical fuckups and many cutscene errors, but the game itself relies on putting the player in situations with no escape. The idea of strategy is presenting all obstacles and having the player work around them. But Xcom goes against the most basic tenant of design. Turn a corner, find some aliens? They get the first move, good cover, your turn is up, and if they are those Crhyissloid things, don't even bother. The darkness stops you from having the ability to make good choices and adds an unneeded aspect of randomness to a game that already thrives on giving you shit chances of succeeding.

And Fire Emblem: Awakening. Don't even get me started. To sum that one up in a nutshell, one of the difficulty modes, Lunatic, is so unplayable and poorly designed that the only way that numerous internet walkthroughs, both fan made and professional, can advise you to beat it is to pay $2.50 for a DLC that allows you to grind levels so you can actually get past some of the worst designed, poorly planned unbalanced levels I've ever played. And this from a series that prides itself on well designed difficulty.

Now, these are just three examples, and there are signs of improvement from recent games (see Bravely Default demo). But help me out Escapist. Did I just dream this, or did numerous major releases just get by with some absolute bollocks for game design? And do you think that the title of the thread is true?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

All of these games have major design problems. Civ 5 is horribly skewed towards expansionist players, to the point where attempting to play any other style is just a waste of time. Not only that, but the fact that the game took expansions to reach the point where it would comparable to Civ 4 is a sign of some poorly thought out choices.

Post Brave New World Civ V is actually biased towards tall empires, and wide empires have been pretty heavily punished. The series has also suffered from Infinite City Sprawl issues as far back as Civ 2, and Civ 3 was probably the worst offender in that regard, so "expansionist" bias was hardly unique to V. V's problem is just bad AI, full stop. The loss of stacks of doom means the game can't cheat as extravagantly as it did in the past.

Turn a corner, find some aliens? They get the first move, good cover, your turn is up, and if they are those Crhyissloid things, don't even bother. The darkness stops you from having the ability to make good choices and adds an unneeded aspect of randomness to a game that already thrives on giving you shit chances of succeeding.

Ugh. I feel like there needs to be a sticky for all XCOM related topics. The game isn't "random". The "first move" aliens get is actually a liability for the aliens. There is plenty of room for tactics/strategy. XCOM's problem is a lack of depth in the strategic model (one Skyranger, one base), poor difficulty scaling (Normal a ludicrous cakewalk, Classic too unforgiving of failure), and terrible difficulty pacing (game can be hard as balls through two months and then gets increasingly easy until you are sleepwalking).

Now, these are just three examples, and there are signs of improvement from recent games (see Bravely Default demo). But help me out Escapist. Did I just dream this, or did numerous major releases just get by with some absolute bollocks for game design? And do you think that the title of the thread is true?

Nah. They're fine. Yes they have some issues, but so did the originals. They're just all firmly in rose colored glasses land, so we tend to forget.

 

[duwenbasden]

Coming from Civ2, the only thing I noticed during my 30 min play on Civ5 is warriors do not die. In Civ2, if you engage, there will be only 1 that remains. Now it seems it is easy to grind to a halt early game.

Another one is Pokemon. It feels like the AI still RNG cheats (more hits on multishot, more criticals, less likely to status halt)

 

[Right E O]

Post Brave New World Civ V is actually biased towards tall empires, and wide empires have been pretty heavily punished. The series has also suffered from Infinite City Sprawl issues as far back as Civ 2, and Civ 3 was probably the worst offender in that regard, so "expansionist" bias was hardly unique to V. V's problem is just bad AI, full stop. The loss of stacks of doom means the game can't cheat as extravagantly as it did in the past.

Actually, I totally agree with this quote. It definitely got better but yeah the AI is the real problem.

Ugh. I feel like there needs to be a sticky for all XCOM related topics. The game isn't "random". The "first move" aliens get is actually a liability for the aliens. There is plenty of room for tactics/strategy. XCOM's problem is a lack of depth in the strategic model (one Skyranger, one base), poor difficulty scaling (Normal a ludicrous cakewalk, Classic too unforgiving of failure), and terrible difficulty pacing (game can be hard as balls through two months and then gets increasingly easy until you are sleepwalking).

Xcom lives and breathes RNG. We dont like to define games with percentage chances as random, but when used poorly, random is a good way to put it. Xcom is a game that doesn't want you to know what to do next. No indicator of range, no tutorial for how to see stats, unclear use of some stats (the game barely mentions what willpower does), and randomly generated levels meaning that the experience isnt going to improve. Not only that, they only define difficult as lower chance of hitting. The reason Impossible is so hard is because a basic shot is a forty percent chance. It removes the certainty from moves and thereby punishes the player for trying to act when inaction can be more effective. This causes long stalemates, and lets be honest, the hardest games still allow for certainty. Not only that, the aliens having first move just causes more stalemates, when better placement and a little less fog of war could put them on even terms without that.

those are 3 examples of popular releases but there are still plenty of developers making turn based strategy games that are just like the old school ones. hell HPS simulations hasnt changed their graphics since the mid 80's and they are still going strong

These three games weren't just popular, they were also unanimously well reviewed. This sets a standard for what we think good strategy gaming is and also shows developers that they can continue putting out games with poorly thought out systems, or reuse the system from one of these games in the all but ensured sequel.

These are clear cases of bad design. They become more obvious the more you look and they often conflict with the ideas of games that came before them. But when critcism comes around...

Nah. They're fine. Yes they have some issues, but so did the originals. They're just all firmly in rose colored glasses land, so we tend to forget.

Just saying, we should probably look at them a little harder.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Xcom lives and breathes RNG.

No. It doesn't. There is a very, very mild random influence on the game. If it was entirely without random elements it would be more puzzle game than strategy/tactics game. You are given more than ample tools for risk mitigation. People who complain about the game being "too random" are invariably either not using them, or using them incorrectly.

Xcom is a game that doesn't want you to know what to do next. No indicator of range, no tutorial for how to see stats, unclear use of some stats (the game barely mentions what willpower does)

That's insufficient documentation, not "randomness". And the game is simple/intuitive enough that the learning curve even without the tutorial is pretty gentle.

and randomly generated levels

I wish. Levels are static. Even alien spawn locations are largely static. There is no element of randomness there whatsoever.

Not only that, they only define difficult as lower chance of hitting. The reason Impossible is so hard is because a basic shot is a forty percent chance. It removes the certainty from moves and thereby punishes the player for trying to act when inaction can be more effective.

Why is the only "action" taking a shot? There are plenty of forms of guaranteed damage in game, particularly post Enemy Within. There are also plenty of ways to disengage/change the angles/improve your shot, as well as mitigating the risk of shots against. Anyone who stands there taking 40% shots and complaining that the game is too random is just *bad at the game*.

This causes long stalemates, and lets be honest, the hardest games still allow for certainty.

As does XCOM.

Not only that, the aliens having first move just causes more stalemates, when better placement and a little less fog of war could put them on even terms without that.

Whether a different movement system/redesign of the game from the ground up would've lead to a better experience is just empty conjecture, frankly. It is what it is. In the system we have, aliens taking a non lethal turn and allowing the player to open hostilities is a huge advantage for the player. Every time I hear it described as some form of AI cheat or alien bonus I get a huge headache.

 

[deathmothon]

So 3 strategy games aren't perfect? Civ 5 is a great game, albeit not perfect. Haven't tried the others. I've yet to play a perfect game of any genre in my 28 years though. Maybe you're just getting tired of the genre. Either branch out, or go more specific if you're interested in history. So many good games available from Matrix/Slitherine. Or something from Paradox like Crusader Kings 2 (though I guess thats technically real time strategy)

 

[Foolery]

And do you think that the title of the thread is true?

No.

And Fire Emblem: Awakening. Don't even get me started. To sum that one up in a nutshell, one of the difficulty modes, Lunatic, is so unplayable and poorly designed that the only way that numerous internet walkthroughs, both fan made and professional, can advise you to beat it is to pay $2.50 for a DLC that allows you to grind levels so you can actually get past some of the worst designed, poorly planned unbalanced levels I've ever played. And this from a series that prides itself on well designed difficulty.

Awakening is probably the easiest title in the series. Or the most accessible/palatable to newcomers.
Lunatic mode does provide a decent challenge if you take the time to play around with the mechanics. There's also no need to buy the DLCs, unless you want a change of scenery for maps. You can grind using Reeking boxes or fight phantom teams from the extras menu.

 

[tippy2k2]

Ugh. I feel like there needs to be a sticky for all XCOM related topics. The game isn't "random". The "first move" aliens get is actually a liability for the aliens. There is plenty of room for tactics/strategy. XCOM's problem is a lack of depth in the strategic model (one Skyranger, one base), poor difficulty scaling (Normal a ludicrous cakewalk, Classic too unforgiving of failure), and terrible difficulty pacing (game can be hard as balls through two months and then gets increasingly easy until you are sleepwalking).

Normally I'd be against adding a "Like" button but...

OT: I haven't played Civ but I have played XCOM and Fire Emblem and I'll give my two cents.

I 100% disagree with your XCOM analysis (if that hasn't been made clear by my first LIKE). I ran into zero graphical/glitchy issues (though sometimes instead of firing over a piece of cover, they'd fire through it so I suppose that kind of counts).

Funny enough, I do agree with you but not for the reasons you stated. I think that both Fire Emblem (ESPECIALLY FE:A) and XCOM suffer from the same problem; A.I.

Both games are ridiculously easy to cheat the system. In both cases, I could send one guy forward until an enemy notices him (FE:A is a certain point and XCOM is the "Active" animation). Once I have activated an enemy, I run like hell backwards and force them to come to me a handful at a time. Everything in the group dies, rinse, repeat until everyone is dead.

FE:A especially had atrocious AI. For the vast majority of the game, you could just send Frederick forward and enemies would literally just throw themselves onto his lance. They had 0% hit rate for 0 damage and they would swing away at him like a conga line of dead people. Honestly, it was depressingly pathetic how bad it got.

XCOM does a bit better since once they are active, the enemies are relatively smart (they fight when they have the upper hand with flanking and they will retreat if necessary). However, it is still pretty easy to get someone's attention and then back away. They don't always but I would say that more times than not, the enemy will charge at you and you can cut them down from fixed positions.

 

[mokes310]

Well, the only strategy game I play is the Civ series, and I found Civ 5 to be rather poor. So much so that I've stuck with 4. To me, it just felt, well, I don't know how to describe it other than, I prefer Civ 4 to Civ 5. Sure, not really logical or reasoned, but dammit, I don't like Civ 5.

 

[Fireaxe]

Civ V is pretty good once the first expansion came out, I think they tried some stuff with Civ V vanilla that didn't really work. Civ 4 was mediocre even compared to the vanilla Civ V though, unit stacking was just horrible design don't even argue about it.

Can't comment on XCOM, but I have been playing Eador: Masters of the Broken World which if not for a couple of really frustrating bugs would be the best TBS I've played.

 

[gizmo2300]

having recently replayed Civilization III, I was reminded that Sid Meier had mentioned how flight simulators killed their popularity by becoming more and more complicated with each following release. And to a certain degree Civ as a series seems to be slowly heading down that path, the most obvious example is how roadbuilding is a feature workers are just able to do off the bat in Civ 3, while in Civ V you have to discover the wheel to build them. With Civ IV we got the religion and spy systems, which also only work to make the game more complicated than ever in Civ 5 with the addition of social policies and trade caravans and.. gosh dang it, there's just too much crap to keep track of now.

 

[Coakle]

No.


After BNW, I won diplomatic and cultural victories on Emperor difficulty with only three cities because I determined, based on my positioning, that those victories offered the path of least resistance. I prefer to play Expansionist games because there are more things to do in between turns. My problem with Civ 5 is the same problem I've had with all grand strategy games since Risk. There is always a tipping point where it's obvious who will win and the only thing left to do is mash the 'next turn' button until the game ends.

I don't find this to be too much of a problem, since there is still the challenge of being the player who gets to that tipping point first.

As for turn-based combat. Agerast: Generations at War is the most recent one I've played. The combat was fought on a grid and it possible, and advantageous to 'link' party members together based on positioning. If a fast, weak guy remains linked with a slow, powerful fellow, that slow guy will always be able to attack after the fast one.

It was an interesting mechanic informed strategy and party management in the game. The game on the whole was a mess, but its turn based mechanics where inventive and well designed.

I'm interested in learning about the unique mechanic designs that turn based strategy games offered in the past that have been abandoned.

 

[Zarkov]

I don't agree at all.

Turn based strategy doesn't always have to be about the strategy. Sure, that's an important feature of these games, but all three you mention have other types influences on them.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown's mechanics and design choices were focused around two or three specific player experiences. For example, fear of the unknown. The game wants you to take your time and think out choices. It punishes you for acting quickly, and rewards being paranoid. The game designers wanted to instill a feeling of worry and paranoia, kinda similar to what a horror game tries to do. But obviously XCOM is no where near horror. The feeling of being a tactician is also one of those experiences, thus there are many choices of varying effectiveness to be made, some of which can be obvious, but others not so much. I think the game balances all of its core player experiences well. And yes, there are graphical problems. That part of the game isn't polished as much.

And why does everyone hate Civ V and think Civ IV is the best strategy game ever? I've played both. Civ IV has aged, a lot. I personally enjoy Civ V because I feel as though there are many more valuable decisions, as opposed to a bunch of decisions. And with the expansions, there is no doubt that Civ V is a great title. I'm not saying Civ IV is bad. It's an amazing game. I just don't get all of the hate for Civ V, especially since it did its own thing. Civ IV 2 would not have been an enjoyable game to play, nor would it have sold as well. The developers knew this.

 

[dyre]

meh, Civ IV and Civ V were both mediocre (though Civ V was below mediocre before the expansions). Fall from Heaven is the only thing about the Civ series worth playing! It's really too bad that the developer/modder got recruited to a mediocre company like Stardock. I wish Firaxis hired him and had him design a FFH3 module for Civ V.

Also IIRC XCom's RNG was no worse than most other turn based tactics games and the shadows weren't much of a problem at all thanks to the radar beacon grenade. If anything it allowed the team to get into an ambush position before engaging. In any case I'm pretty sure they weren't the first guys to use fog of war.

And from what I hear about Fire Emblem from my friends there have been plenty of bad titles in the past, so the devs are apparently hit or miss.

I really can't see where you're coming from on this issue. Granted I haven't played anything as good as Jagged Alliance 2 in a long time, but that's really a truly rare gem (also, let's not forget that it had a ton of problems before the amazing modding community fixed it up).

 

[infinity_turtles]

I feel like there's less turn based strategy games in the style I prefer, but I wouldn't say they're all horribly designed now.

Also, agreed with others in this thread about X-Com. X-Com, especially on impossible, is all about risk management. Do what you can to give yourself the best odds of safety as you position and plan to give yourself the best odds of taking out the enemy. Generally you'll want to focus almost entirely on defense with the entire squad until you have a decent chance of killing all or most of the enemies that have been uncovered all during the same turn. Full cover and hunkering down primarily, with smoke grenade if you only have half-cover, on defense. Grenades, rockets, and run&gun point-blank flanking when you attack. Snipers with Squad-Sight can let you do some damage while you're on defense if they're positioned right.

 

[Veylon]

And why does everyone hate Civ V and think Civ IV is the best strategy game ever? I've played both. Civ IV has aged, a lot. I personally enjoy Civ V because I feel as though there are many more valuable decisions, as opposed to a bunch of decisions. And with the expansions, there is no doubt that Civ V is a great title. I'm not saying Civ IV is bad. It's an amazing game. I just don't get all of the hate for Civ V, especially since it did its own thing. Civ IV 2 would not have been an enjoyable game to play, nor would it have sold as well. The developers knew this.

It gets a lot of hate because it does it's own thing. Changing things around makes old players feel incompetent. It's easier to just layer features on top and leave the familiar core gameplay the same. Civ V didn't do that and went for a very boardgame-style one-piece-per-tile that's completely alien to the Stack of Doom that goes back to the very first Civ. It's far more satisfying to the ego to blame the game for being bad than admitting that you've got some things to learn.

That said, the AI turns were interminable (five minutes for the calculations that my DOS machine did in ten seconds!?), the diplomacy was bad (admittedly, good diplomacy is rare), and the AI players were both bipolar and incompetent. At least, those where the things that bothered me the most.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I really can't see where you're coming from on this issue. Granted I haven't played anything as good as Jagged Alliance 2 in a long time, but that's really a truly rare gem (also, let's not forget that it had a ton of problems before the amazing modding community fixed it up).

JA2 is still the crown prince of turn based tactics, there's been nothing to match its depth on the tactical level (the original XCOM surpassed it strategically). That said, even post mods it's still a fussy, cranky game with a hideous difficulty curve. There's never been a perfect anything, and TBS games are no exception.

 

[Robert Kalmar]

And Fire Emblem: Awakening. Don't even get me started. To sum that one up in a nutshell, one of the difficulty modes, Lunatic, is so unplayable and poorly designed that the only way that numerous internet walkthroughs, both fan made and professional, can advise you to beat it is to pay $2.50 for a DLC that allows you to grind levels so you can actually get past some of the worst designed, poorly planned unbalanced levels I've ever played. And this from a series that prides itself on well designed difficulty.

I'm playing Fire Emblem on Lunatic and you DON'T need the DLC to beat it, just good strategy and a bit a luck. Much less, than XCOM, luck is a friend, not a requierement. I didn't used a guide, didn't used the DLC, not even done random encounters (because they were impossible to beat) and I'm at chapter 9 and the game is getting easier by every chapter. You just need to use the game's tactical options. Without using "transfer" and Frederick smartly (not allowing him to kill the enemies) the game is a hell, but as soon as you realize, that tactics that worked on hard, doesn't work on lunatic you can beat the game. Seriously, people saying you NEED the DLC are lacking in tactical prowess.