Games you are playing

[PLA]

^ Fair enough.

[Reynard-Miri]

[scy]

[Ninten]

Well, anyone planning to pre-order Ys 1&2? I already did. This will be my first playing a modern version of Ys 1&2.

[zamisk]

EOII, with a party of 3. Getting my ass kicked.

[Maxine MagicFox]

[Hong]

Re: Defining of genres.

See, at some point, what you are getting at is being too generously applied.

The use of "puzzle" being implied is basically anything that involves problem solving... which is essentially 90% of a single player gaming experience.

Shooter "Puzzle": You strike an enemy encampment. Taking opening initiative (BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST CHILLAXING AND WAITING FOR YOU), you snipe one, and they all go crazy. If it is a scifi shooter, you probably got some mobile gabbledygook grunt charging at you in a predictable fashion. You might have a second tier grunt that makes 'genius' use of cover and occasionally rolls around. Then you got a third tier of grunt which probably takes more punishment. Things will change in a spec ops or modern-era shooters, but I do not need more examples.

3d action game "puzzle": Enemies will probably circle you and attack one at a time. They will follow you if you back away, lining them well in a narrow file for easier engagement.

Platformer puzzle: About as habitual as AI gets. Not going to talk about it.

Of course any of the above examples are gross oversimplifications, but that is kind of my point. Where as these genres involve a greater level of other ability, like precision or reflexes, strategy games require more thought and continuous reactive thinking.

My point is, applying puzzle here is just trying too hard to apply the word unnecessarily. A puzzle is what you solve in Legend of Zelda to get a key or open a door. There is a very defined set of actions and reward. You push a block into a hole in the floor. It is very hard in its defined lines. Now, if you had to defend the block while it slowly slid towards its location, making use of all your tools and exploiting tactics to overcome unfair odds, then it would bne strategy. Otherwise, there are no complex intricacies in pushing a box or firing an arrow through a candle. You may have to think, but not on the level of an actual strategy game.

You can say, looking at the battlefield and coming up with a plan that works is "solving the puzzle", but again, the level of depth involved in coming up with an approach for a strategy game vs another genre is significant enough to make its own genre. You are coming up with a method that you think is most effective given whatever condition the game has put you in, and as the game gets past its entry chapters you probably have a hundred ways of doing it after you have spent enough time thinking it over.

Manipulating AI is a part of the strategy. It might not be realistic, but the developer counts on the player doing so for the most ideal outcome. Fire Emblem will have things such as criticals, reinforcements and other events (the latter two you cannot see the first time playing a game), which may or may not force the player to alter their formation and approach. This is going to happen basically every chapter ever It is as "strategy" as it is going to get. Yeah, mind games and psychology are certainly a part of strategy, but it is a pretty broad spectrum, and it can still be strategy without them. Fire Emblem may not have mind games, but it certainly has deception, and there are actually many times where you cannot determine where and when the AI will strike. That is enough to force you to make strategic considerations.

When I played FE13 Lunatic Mode and got to Chapter 3, I failed on my first attempt and spent my day at work coming up with a strategy (oh sorry, "solving the puzzle") for how to approach it again. But guess what? That is not enough. Because I still had to constantly react to changes on the battlefield, and there are no blocks just conveniently falling into place. I had to change my strategy continuously, making an aggressive advance to take a position, and then using a phalanx formation mid-field to protect the weak.

We may as well call Halo an RPG because it is a game where you play the role of Master Chief. I am tired of all these boring role-playing games. I swear, I just put up my crosshair and the enemy walks into it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Benkyo]

[Hong]

[Benkyo]

No need to be so rude eh? Maybe this scale will clarify my thinking a bit:

Puzzle game (Sokoban etc.): If X then Y - extrapolate enough turns ahead and you have a challenge
|
Typical Japanese strategy game (FE, Advance Wars): If X then Y, but with a tiny bit of randomisation - extrapolate enough turns ahead and you have a challenge. Scripted events are just another if X then Y condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strategy game (XCOM): If X then maybe Y with a hefty amount of randomisation and often quite a bit of hidden information - Analysing every 'board' configuration every turn is often more important than extrapolating many turns ahead, but still made relatively simple by very basic AI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perfect information abstract game (Chess, Go): If X then Y, but the AI move is near impossible to predict - Analysing every 'board' configuration every turn is more important than extrapolating many turns ahead
|
My ideal strategy game (ie 2 player, nothing comes to mind): If X then maybe Y, with an opponent who's moves are impossible to predict and hidden information and some randomisation


It is perfectly possible for computers to field opponents capable of true strategy so I'd like to see more games down the bottom end of the scale and less cluttering up the top. That's all. Japanese-style (I puzzle-strategy is out I lack a better definition for now) strategy can be fun, puzzle games with good themes can be fun, but I want more from my AI opposition.

[Benkyo]

[SirthOsiris]

Be warned: The obseneness of the text from the link is at levels insurmountable. Except by DotA 2 and WoW.

Oh yeah, got back into League of Legends again.

[scy]

[Hong]

[SirthOsiris]