Real Time Strategy Systems: Dawn of War II: Retribution

Retribution is an interesting real time strategy game (RTS) in its execution of resource management, army size, and most notably in the different ways each army plays. In the campaign modes the traditional front end resource gathering phase has been done away with in favor of resource tokens being scattered across the map. Resources aren't ‘harvested’ from the map but picked up along the way as they are dropped from crates and enemies With the  traditional RTS ‘Build Up’ phase gone the overall pace of every mission was sped up. Because of this Retribution has a lot in common with MOBA type games such as League of Legends or Heroes of Newerth.

Of the six faction campaigns the most notable deviation from traditional play style was the Tyranid faction. The Tyranids ravenous and swarming nature was expressed in gameplay by giving the army access to living tanks that tower over the other factions’ mightiest tanks and giving the army commander the ability to call in reinforcements at will. In a way I feel that the Tyranid player is rewarded for losing units. Every skill tree that the Hive Lord, the player character, climbs has powers that have him call in reinforcements to the front lines costing him nothing but supply. There are also a string of upgrades that give the Hive Lord buffs which he passes to nearby troops. Some buffs are basic like increased damage or speed but others are a little more creative such as the one which makes friendly creatures explode upon death.

 Wargear, equipment items, also contribute to this feel particularly the Pheromone Trail which slowly reinforces undermanned squads around the Hive Lord. The Pheromone Trail is also one of the first Wargear items given to the player. I feel that the abilities offered by these items and abilities are encouraging players to throw wave after wave of bugs at an objective. They do this by alleviating the cost of losing units and making losing supply an opportunity for the Hive Lord. To the Tyranid player losing supply means that your troops are literally blowing up in the enemies’ face and once enough supply is lost a squad of even tougher units can be summoned to the battlefield. 

Having to support an economy and constantly throw away units it possible but it also requires a lot of macro skill, like the Zerg from Starcraft 2. But because the traditional RTS economic system was disregarded the Tyranid army was given an opportunity to have a unique play style. In my book this deviation was successful and really gave the Tyranids an identity all their own. 

Game Save Systems Part 2: Limbo

Limbo is an atmospheric indie game with strong melancholy themes. It’s easy to learn but its puzzles can be difficult very obtuse and if judged incorrectly the result is usually a gruesome death. In a game where the player character is assured to be killed graphically and repeatedly a method to ease player frustrations was desperately needed. The checkpoint system was that solution for Limbo.

 This game is very generous with its checkpoints. There’s usually a checkpoint in front of every encounter or puzzle because of the dire consequences failure brings. Once a player inevitably dies all they must do to continue their adventure is press any key or button available to them. All together the time for the graphic set pieces and resetting at a checkpoint is about three to five seconds. It’s very quick to get the player back into the world. More so the graphic deaths and well-toned fade outs/ins that accompany these scenes keep the player immersed in the game. Death isn’t so much incorporated into the game world as much as it doesn’t interfere with the tone and atmosphere being set.

If this sounds too a little obvious then consider a game like Dead Space. Now there is nothing wrong with Dead Space but I’m using its game over screen as an example because of how conceptually similar these games are. (Dead Space also works to eliminate interfaces, incorporate menus into the game world, and keep an immersive atmosphere). In Dead Space upon a player’s demise they are met with a similarly gory death followed by the screen washing out to a crimson splash screen where the player is presented with a Game Over menu. This is a more traditional approach that Limbo’s checkpoint system works around. This setup benefits Dead Space because of the tense horror atmosphere the game presents. The break in atmosphere gives players a chance to catch their breath before they are re-immersed. That choice worked for Dead Space but it’s possible that the halt in gameplay and the drastically different menu would have made too much of a strain on Limbo’s immersion.

The choice to implement a fluid transition from death to re-spawn kept Limbo’s atmosphere solid and allowed an unlikely system contribute to the game’s tone. 

Game Save Systems Part 1: Flotilla - Adventure Mode

Normally Game Save Systems aren’t a prominent part of game design but the two games being examined over the next two posts use their Save Systems to enhance the overall game experience. The games Limbo and Flotilla take different approaches to utilizing this system and both approaches contribute to their respective games differently. This post concerns Flotilla’s Adventure mode which is unique in that the game does not provide any kind of Save System. But somehow this choice works in the game’s favor.

It’s difficult to think of another modern game that doesn’t provide the option to save your progress. However, from my experience Flotilla is a game that favors short bursts of play referred to as ‘snacking’ but can also support hours of continuous play or ‘binging.’ The choices to not include a Save System and to randomize story events in Adventure mode allows players to enjoy the game in short spans of time with no real need to save their progress. Each Adventure as its own confined space means the player is free to explore, make choices, and make mistakes without the worry of long term goals. In my opinion taking away game saves encourages players to make riskier decisions as long term repercussions are no longer a factor. Whether the Captain is defeated or his terminal illness reaches its final stages players can always start up a new adventure. And that new adventure’s randomly determined story events will chain differently than any previous adventures did.

There is enough variance in the story sections to warrant multiple adventures. The “choose your own adventure” style of interaction with these story sections will keep players coming back to try all the different options available. The simple combat controls and steep difficulty also provide incentive to play and remove barriers from coming back after a long break. All in all I’d say Flotilla’s Adventure mode is about creating unique stories between the two fixed points of the Captain being diagnosed with his illness and then going off to die in space.

Not including saves was a risky decision. The lead designer and one man development team Brendon Chung said in an interview that players didn’t understand the concept during play testing. He went ahead regardless of these concerns and published Flotilla on Steam. For what it’s worth I believe he made the right choice.

Movement and Combat: Flotilla

Flotilla is a turn based strategy game available on Steam and XBLA that boasts a unique full 3-Dimensional space combat system. The naval space combat systems emphasize flanking and maneuvering. The combat is both fun and balanced between the different types of ships available and optional upgrades but overall the game is very unforgiving. Neither the story mode nor the skirmish mode provides an advanced combat tutorial. This really is a shame because the game can be very engaging.

Flotilla’s basic rule of combat is “Flank the enemy!” Ships only take damage from basic projectiles when struck on their rear or bottom armor. A space ship’s front and side armor ignore most attacks so the challenge lies in getting a good angle of attack without leaving your ships vulnerable to counter maneuvering.  There are weapon types which ignore the rule of flanking and armor but they’re limited by range. To the point: larger vessels with more effective guns move a lot slower. The limitations of range and speed further emphasizes movement in this system. I’ve won battles against Capitol ships and Artillery Laser Frigates because my tiny fighter would quickly fly around them, find a weak spot, and attack with missiles. And some of my more intense battles have been between evenly matched forces of those tiny fighters.

This type of system requires turn based combat. In Flotilla the combat movement functions in the X, Y, and Z axes. This allows for new and interesting tactics that would be more difficult to accomplish in a Real Time Strategy game. Maneuvering the position and facing of multiple ships in real time would prove a very daunting task. The turn based approach Flotilla took allows players to succeed in this complex movement system. This is also where the initial difficulty problem arises as the AI enemies demonstrate a lot of skill in hiding their weak spots while new players struggle to navigate in a full 3D space. While the provided tutorial does teach the basics of space combat it does not teach the players the intricacies of the 'Orientation' part of moving. However, once I learned those skills on my own winning battles became all the more satisfying for it. I had to learn by watching the AI ships and then trying to imitate them in the skirmish mode.

Some game reviewers and critics are of the opinion that Turn Based Strategy games are out-dated but I believe Flotilla shows otherwise. If the required complexity of a system is too great a hurdle in real time then choosing a turn based format is much more preferable.

Weapon Load-out: Mass Effect 3

The Mass Effect series has been the target of both criticism and praise for its narrative focused approach to game-play. So much so that we've lost focus on the great systems at play in the most recent title: Mass Effect 3. New and refined options in the character weapon loadout and skill tree systems create a balance that encourages players to experiment with the different options available to them.

Trying to find the balance between Biotics, Tech powers, and the Weapons System has been an ongoing effort for Bioware. Much like Square Enix, Bioware has greatly changed its designs between the games in its star franchise. But the solutions to these issues implemented in Mass Effect 3 were based around the cooldown timers of the Biotic and Tech abilities. Every weapon has a weight value which affects the recharge time for that character’s powers. Characters carrying too much weight will have their cooldown times extended. Conversely players that opt for lighter weapons, which usually do less damage, will have their cooldowns shortened. This tug and pull between weapon diversity and ability cooldowns makes players consider what they really want out of their Mass Effect experience.

Another noticeable change from the previous games is the removal of class based weapon restrictions for Commander Shepherd. Players have access to every weapon type in the game but this is balanced through the weight system. Players can choose to run a balancing act between firepower and abilities or entirely disregard one for the other. For my play-through this resulted in me picking a set of weapons and powers to test in each mission. I spent a lot of the early game figuring out how I wanted to play my Commander Shepherd.

Once I knew what I wanted to do the weight system allowed me to succeed in that choice. The avenues it opened up by granting me access to every weapon type being balanced by how often I could use my super powers really made me think about my approach to the game. This system when combined with the diversity afforded by branching power trees brought a feeling of individuality to my Commander Shepherd. More than that I now have another reason to go back and play Mass Effect 3, because I can still run my Vanguard Shepherd and have a different experience by changing up how I played in combat. Which I did.

I played Vanguard two ways: first by prioritizing Pull and then prioritizing Biotic Charge on the next play through. When I used the Pull focused build my Shepherd relied on cover, combining powers for chain reactions, and sharp shooting. This changed dramatically when I switched to the Biotic Charge build. I allocated points on my skill tree to allow Shepherd to recharge his shield and increase weapon damage when he used Charge. This resulted in me bouncing around the battlefield with a super charged shotgun. Which is just as silly as it sounds. But the variance in options and tone was made possible through the Weight system. My cooldown for charge was about 1.5 seconds. This allowed me to succeed with a silly character and power set.

I believe that this system truly allows players to make their own Commander Shepherd and use him or her in a style that works for them. The Weight system and branching skill trees work together to get players thinking. Overall I'd say these system contribute to Mass Effect 3 being a successful game.