Strategy Games? Not in the U-S-of-A.
Nov. 10th, 2002 01:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shannon_aLast night some friends and I finished up our roleplaying evening by playing the Settlers of Cheops boards game, one of the many Settlers of Catan variants produced by Kosmos in Germany. Like the rest of the Catan games, this one is about building settlements, cities, and roads in a newly discovered land. This time around, though, there's an angry Pharaoh demanding that you build him a pyramid and grave shortages of wood and ore on the Nile.
The game was fun, as I've found most of the Catan games to be. When it was over DP, one of my fellow gamers, mentioned that he liked the Catan games, and asked if there were other good German games. I told him that yes, there were quite a few good German strategy games. Actually, there were good strategy games produced throughout Europe.
And, it got me to thinking. I remembered that back in High School I used to play a Chinese tile game called Mah Jongg with my father and my (Chinese) step-mother. She mentioned one night, while we were playing, that you could walk out on the streets on Taiwan on a Saturday night and here the clicking of Mah Jongg tiles being shuffled on every single block.
I think things are somewhat similar in Europe, where strategy games are much more accepted as main stream. Some of the European games that I quite enjoy, for example the German Setters of Catan and the French Formula De, are relatively big deals in their respective countries, not just entertainments enjoyed by a few gaming geeks, as they are here in the United States. And thus it's not that surprising that the really good strategic game designs are coming from Europe now, because they're much more big business there, and thus the companies can afford to hire very competent designers and give them lots of time to ... play.
I find the situation in the United States very sad in this respect. Strategic games are tremendously marginalized. There are only a few socially acceptable types (chess, cards, word games). Beyond that, strategy games are the province of children, nerds, and parties. And, the games being produced for party entertainment rarely if ever approach the European game ideals of actually requiring cogitation and thought. Instead you have game largely centering upon rote memorization (any number of trivial games) and breaking the ice (any number of party games). Overall, it sounds like a pretty accurate depiction of our society.
Instead of encouraging intellectual thought, America seems to center its entertainment around two main axes: physical interaction (football, golf, basketball) or non-interaction (television). It's how our culture has developed, but it seems like a sad environment to be trying to raise the leaders of tomorrow.
And that's about all I have to say on the different ways entertainment, and strategy games, are approached in the United States and in Europe.
I've also been doing a little bit of thought about the design of strategy games, for use in an article I'll probably write in January. If you aren't interested in pontification about strategy game types, move on now ...
Classification of strategy games can be made by examining three different axes: components, interaction, and goals.
Components describe what pieces are used to play the game. Primary types include:
Interaction describes the core gameplay of the game, and is what's most often meant when someone describes what you do in a game.
Finally comes the question of goal. Very frequently, goals are tied directly to gameplay, but this isn't a necessity. For example, Monopoly is a Movement game with Building aspects who's goal is the Acquisition of Commodities (a frequent Trading Goal).
That, I suspect, is a theory of game design in a nut shell, though it needs a lot of expansion.
Any obvious categories I left out? Types of components, gameplay, and victory? Additional examples? Comments quite welcome as this is all still brewing in my head.
The game was fun, as I've found most of the Catan games to be. When it was over DP, one of my fellow gamers, mentioned that he liked the Catan games, and asked if there were other good German games. I told him that yes, there were quite a few good German strategy games. Actually, there were good strategy games produced throughout Europe.
And, it got me to thinking. I remembered that back in High School I used to play a Chinese tile game called Mah Jongg with my father and my (Chinese) step-mother. She mentioned one night, while we were playing, that you could walk out on the streets on Taiwan on a Saturday night and here the clicking of Mah Jongg tiles being shuffled on every single block.
I think things are somewhat similar in Europe, where strategy games are much more accepted as main stream. Some of the European games that I quite enjoy, for example the German Setters of Catan and the French Formula De, are relatively big deals in their respective countries, not just entertainments enjoyed by a few gaming geeks, as they are here in the United States. And thus it's not that surprising that the really good strategic game designs are coming from Europe now, because they're much more big business there, and thus the companies can afford to hire very competent designers and give them lots of time to ... play.
I find the situation in the United States very sad in this respect. Strategic games are tremendously marginalized. There are only a few socially acceptable types (chess, cards, word games). Beyond that, strategy games are the province of children, nerds, and parties. And, the games being produced for party entertainment rarely if ever approach the European game ideals of actually requiring cogitation and thought. Instead you have game largely centering upon rote memorization (any number of trivial games) and breaking the ice (any number of party games). Overall, it sounds like a pretty accurate depiction of our society.
Instead of encouraging intellectual thought, America seems to center its entertainment around two main axes: physical interaction (football, golf, basketball) or non-interaction (television). It's how our culture has developed, but it seems like a sad environment to be trying to raise the leaders of tomorrow.
And that's about all I have to say on the different ways entertainment, and strategy games, are approached in the United States and in Europe.
I've also been doing a little bit of thought about the design of strategy games, for use in an article I'll probably write in January. If you aren't interested in pontification about strategy game types, move on now ...
Classification of strategy games can be made by examining three different axes: components, interaction, and goals.
Components describe what pieces are used to play the game. Primary types include:
- Board Games: The game is played upon some set, possibly abstract, map. Tokens of some type are placed upon the board. (It might be worth noting that there are two major variants of board games; in the one each player has a singular token representing himself, and in the other he manages a large number of components on the board.) Examples: Monopoly, Risk.
- Card Games: Players draw and hold different components, which may be played to each have a different effect. Examples: Bridge, Scrabble.
- Dice games. Players use randomizing components with many different values as the main element in game play. Examples: Yahtzee, Boggle.
Interaction describes the core gameplay of the game, and is what's most often meant when someone describes what you do in a game.
- War Games. Players have components representing some sort of military troop and try to destroy components representing other players' military troops (or try to destroy components representing the game system). Examples: Chess, Risk.
- Trading Games. Players interact with each other (or the game rules) to exchange trade goods of less value to themselves for trade goods of more value for themselves. Examples: Settlers of Catan.
- Movement Games. Players move across a set board via a pre-defined method, usually encountering arbitrary events along the way. Examples: Monopoly, Life, Chutes & Ladders, Formula De.
- Exploration Games. Players are dynamically expanding the game board in exchange for some reward. Examples: The Source of the Nile.
- Building Games. Players are attempting to build something--be it civilization, city, or wonders of the world. This type of gameplay is very frequently used in conjunction with other gameplay. Examples: Monopoly, Settlers of Catan
Finally comes the question of goal. Very frequently, goals are tied directly to gameplay, but this isn't a necessity. For example, Monopoly is a Movement game with Building aspects who's goal is the Acquisition of Commodities (a frequent Trading Goal).
- Acquisition of Territory (Empire Building). The winner controls the most "land" at the end. Frequently tied to War Games. Examples: Risk.
- Destruction of the Enemies. The winner has destroyed all of the losers' troops. Frequently tied to War Games. Examples: Checkers.
- Acquisition of Commodities. The winner controls the most of a commodity, usually money. Frequently tied to Trading Games. Examples: Monopoly.
- Arrival at The End. The winner is the first to arrive at a pre-designated ending spot. Frequently tied to Movement Games. Examples: Chutes & Ladders.
- Best Exploration. The winner has explored the most lands. Frequently tied to Exploration Games. Examples: ?.
- Best Building. The winner has built the most of the required civilizations/cities/wonders-of-the-world. Examples: Settlers of Catan.
That, I suspect, is a theory of game design in a nut shell, though it needs a lot of expansion.
Any obvious categories I left out? Types of components, gameplay, and victory? Additional examples? Comments quite welcome as this is all still brewing in my head.
