The strategy genre has for the last couple of years been on the back burner, sure we have had a few solid titles come out, but really the genre was falling behind the more popular types like shooters or action games. However this year is a rare year, we’re getting a new Total War game, a new Supreme Commander, a new Command & Conquer, a new Starcraft, AND a new civilization. As such I was inspired to talk about a growing divide between Strategy games. On one side we have the classic titles that base their systems on building a base, gathering resources, and building armies. On the other side we have the smaller scale strategy game that only allows you so many units and tasks you to use those units to defeat your enemy. The question rises up though, which one is better and which one will become the norm in the future?
So let’s start with a little history lesson for those who aren’t strategy history buffs like myself. Dune 2, a game created by the now defunct WestWood studios helped to forever shape what strategy games would be for the next 15 years. They introduced the concept of a base, of gathering resources, and then using those resources to build your army. The idea was so great that another studio called Blizzard Entertainment thought the concept was so cool they wanted to make their own title and Warcraft was born. This arms race continued between the two companies for years with titles like Command and Conquer and Starcraft adding to the frey, others also got in on the fun with the likes of the Age of Empire series and Homeworld. All of these title added some fresh aspect to the formula, but still followed the very entrenched rules of resources and base management.
In the Blue Starcraft in the Red Dawn of War!Blizzard can be blamed with brining about change in the genre with the release of Warcraft 3. While the title still followed the resource based gameplay, the amount of units was reduced and the balance of the game was built around Heroes, powerful units that would level up and gain new abilities. Relic the creators of the Homeworld series jumped on this feature and threw away the idea that all strategy games needed to follow this entrenched rule set and instead focuses more on creating a game more about the management of a smaller army.
This new design was first seen in the Dawn of War and Company of Hero titles. In the case of Company of Heroes, you would have units that could level up if they stayed alive and it was about successfully using a few squads to win a match. Since the initial success of this formula more and more titles began to emulate, leaving behind the tried and true method that had launched the genre into the hearts of gamers. There was even a shift in culture perspective, games that remained true to the resource gathering gameplay were now labelled as using an older mechanic. It was clear that a shift was happening, people had gotten a taste for the more lean and personal gameplay that this new type of Strategy game presented and they liked it.
This leads to the reason for this editorial, as we see such titles like Command and Conquer 4 leave behind the style of gameplay they helped create and take the more unit focussed route. A division has arose between the powerhouses of the genre. On one side you have the traditional RTS, Starcraft II and Supreme Commander 2 acting as the figureheads and on the other you have Dawn of War II and Command and Conquer 4.
It is my deep belief that while the more squad based strategy game has a place in the genre, is it by no means the evolution that all future games should follow. In fact I think in examples like Command and Conquer 4 the switch in gameplay has all but ruined what made Command and Conquer such a fan favourite. I remember playing the beta for the first time and coming out of the first match completely bummed out. The magic, the fun, the chaos that made Command and Conquer 3 so much fun was gone, sure there were still some really unique units, but the differences between GDI and NOD were now more of a coat of paint then two armies who worked based on completely different personalities. In this new version there is no real build up, GDI can’t turtle and survive till they have overly powerful units, NOD is no longer the king of rushing, it’s merely a game of moving troops in when you know you can beat the other team and leaving before their buddies come to save them.
Again this isn’t to say that this type of gameplay is bad, I loved Dawn of War II, I think this style works amazingly in that series because the game and its world is built around it, it felt natural, it was fun and intense, but in Command and Conquer 4 it was hollow and boring.
No Mammoth tanks? No Pyro Tanks? Not Command and Conquer!Then on the other side of the coin is resource and base building strategy games. This is the type of game that most people think of whenever you say RTS. I firmly believe that the evolution of this type of gameplay is what the genre needs, games like Sins of Solar Empire show us what’s possible, massive empires and armies built and maintained by following these traditional gameplay functions. Supreme Commander 2 is for all intensive purposes what a “Next Gen” Resource Strategy game should look like. Massive armies, great battles, battlefields the size of Texas, while Starcraft 2 is more of an old school title that has been modernized but focuses more on completive and balanced combat between players. It’s these types of games that have had the longest appeal to gamers because they are a lot like chess. You have a very set list of rules, you must gather resources, you must build a base, and you must produce your army at said base, but beyond that the limit of what you can do is nearly boundless, it’s always different but is always within the realm of what the rules allow and as such allows for players to be able to properly counter what another player is trying to do.
It’s something that you don’t see often in the more squad based games, Command and Conquer 4 was already showing that a few set strategies and units were all that was needed to beat the other team, it didn’t leave a lot of room for creativity in how you approached a problem. That’s the reason why I believe that while it’s a nice addition to the genre it should stay a sub genre, and not become the new figurehead of what all strategy games should become.
