August 27, 2009
Where has the
innovation gone?
By Michael Lafferty
RTS and turn-based gaming seems to be stuck in a rut but is that
a bad thing?
More than
likely, everyone reading this is familiar with the cliché that “Rome wasn’t
built in a day.” The foundations of that ancient city of the Holy Roman Empire
ran deep, so deep that even a visit to that grand city will reveal pockets
throughout it where ancient ruins are still visible. … Ok, there are pockets
where ancient columns still stand as well as the more obvious ruins like the
towering and quite impressive Coliseum.
If you have ever
visited Rome, you know that the city does what it can to immortalize the past,
to pay homage to its roots, but on the whole, the city of Rome has evolved; it
has moved beyond the confines of history and is a vibrant and alive modern city.
So what does
that have to do with gaming? Wait for it …
So while there
is definitely a city built on the foundations of its past, Rome is anything but
stagnant. The same, though, cannot be said for certain genres in the video-game
industry that have taken the philosophy of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,”
and have amended that almost to the point of ‘if it still works, don’t change
it.’
Sure, turn-based
and real-time strategy games are not broken but aside from some graphical
upgrades, so very little has changed in the strategy and gameplay mechanics that
it could almost be said that the games released in the past six months are, more
or less, graphically upgrades to games releases five years ago. Sure, a recent
Tom Clancy console release moved the control activation from a controller to
voice commands and that was really cool, but everything else was more or less
the same.
Ok, Ok, you are
right; chess was introduced in the second half of the 15th century and is still
a great game. But come on – do you really want to watch a couple of grandmasters
silently working through a match? Without an insight into what they are
thinking, what they are seeing, it’s less exciting than watching paint dry.
Whoa
there, buckaroo, strategy games are one of the top-selling genres, well ahead of
your precious RPGs!
Sure it is, but
the point I am trying to make is that unless the genre is willing to explore new
avenues of strategy gaming, to think outside the well-used box, there may well
be a time when it stagnates to the point that it falters and falls from grace.
That innovation might mean deeper stories that engage the mind, or better
evolution of the AI that creates an environment where nothing is sane or
reasonable and forces deeper thinking on the part of the gamer.
Sure, strategy
games have something that most other genres would kill to have –
player-to-player gaming that keeps games fresh and exciting. The human factor
does make thinking on deeper levels a necessity. It is that same element that
makes playing chess against another player so intriguing.
And if you wish,
look at another strategy genre that masks itself with reflexive gameplay –
online sports games. Take Madden football, for example. If you go online against
another player, yes, you have to have some dexterity with the controller to make
the plays, but part of that is calling the right formation, and evolving
strategies to exploit what opportunities the other player is giving you. The
same can be said about any sports game – there is a strategic element that if
employed correctly, can make the difference between winning and losing. In that
way, those games evolve because of the AI. Little changes in the base element in
terms of gameplay mechanics, but what live players bring in is fresh and rarely
the same. Strategy games can and have done that. The video-game industry,
though, is a revolving and evolving door of innovation and unless genres, like
strategy gaming, and even racing titles, move beyond what has been established
and well used, they may find that door does not revolve quite as fast anymore
and actually starts to close.
It might not be
“broken” but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be fixed.
