Whatever happened to the Triple-A strategy game?

[ZeroFarks]

When it comes to high production value games these days, your choices a shooters or stabbers. You're either a stock issue US solider or a sneaky assassin. That's pretty much it. And while you're not a soldier per se in the "Half Life" series, the point still stands. Shoot, stab, stealth: That is all Triple-A gaming does anymore.

For those who want high quality, big budget strategy games you've got Firaxis, which is to say Sid Meier, and... that's pretty much it. Not that people aren't still making strategy games, but while the depth & complexity is still (mostly) there, it seems that graphics, music, etc, exist only in inverse proportion to the former. You either get shallow games that look pretty, or amazingly deep games that look like crap.

Though, in honesty, I think the real answer is already in front of me: Consoles. Stealth shooter/stabbers (henceforth called "S3") games are console games, and the PC versions are, as we all know, only done as an afterthought. We've all seen our share of console ports crapped out so fast that they don't even bother updating the controllers - they come to the PC still assuming that you're using some kind of game pad. Strategy games have never been the forte of consoles (whether that's the fault of the companies or their audience is another issue); a real keyboard and a lot of RAM is nearly essential for any good strategy game, which is why they've always been almost exclusively been PC fare.

With the accounting departments that run all businesses these days dictating that everything now be made for consoles first and PCs as an afterthought, it's pretty obvious why we're not seeing multimillion dollar efforts to make amazing PC strategy games anymore. Again, unless you're name is Sid Meier, it's just not going to happen. Simply put, the money isn't there. So if you're in it for money, you just need to crank out high-graphics, low-depth S3 games and rake in the bucks. The strategy game has become a tiny niche produced only by the few developers who do it out of sheer love & determination.

I raise this issue because as long as PC strategy gamers are beholden to one guy (Sid) for their top quality stuff, this creates a most precarious situation. What if Sid retires? What if Firaxis goes bust? What if they just decide to start putting out minimal effort games like Starships, Ace Patrol & Beyond Earth in an attempt to cash into the supposedly booming tablet market of pretty looking, yet bland & shallow, "casual" strategy games? Because, as I'm sure you realize, that last scenario looks like exactly what is happening.

Paradox might save us, I guess... but again with Firaxis starting to drop the ball, even Paradox's rise to fill the vacuum that's created still leaves us with only one company making any effort to put out high quality, well produced grand strategy games. The situation for strategy gamers is still no better than it was before Firaxis went soft & sold out.

So how can we fix this? How can we, the market demographic, shape the decisions of those producing the products? Petition? Boycott? Letter to Congress? Take up game development ourselves? Let's hear some ideas.

 

[Hades]

Strategy games has always been a kind of niche and some companies excepted this generation has turned away from niche titles. PC has become more relevant then ever so I believe its only a matter of time before new strategy games come out.

 

[Bad Jim]

There are actually quite a lot of decent strategy games coming out, they just aren't AAA. You could, for example, try Galactic Civilizations 3 or Europa Universalis 4, or Space Empires 4 or AI War: Fleet Command. Or Age of Wonders 3 or Tropico 5 or Divinity: Dragon Commander or Starcraft 2. Or XCOM: Enemy Unknown/Within or Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion.

I think the main reason for the lack of AAA is that strategy games don't really benefit from massive budgets. Also, the market is smaller. But there are still loads of decent games.

 

[Mutant1988]

Has there ever been a triple A strategy game? That is to say, has there ever been an RTS with as bloated a budget and novelty focused design as main stream triple A fare? I don't think so. Most strategy games actually has effort put into their design.

Closest I can think of is something like Starcraft 2, which had insane amounts of efforts put into it's marketing and presentation.

There's still a ton of strategy games being made, but what with them being made for PC they don't get the same attention as games made for consoles where so many large companies have a vested interest in their success (Because they own the very platforms they play on).

PC gamers are hardly limited to Firaxis games, that being just another niche among so many others.

We have Star Craft 2 by Blizzard.
We have the Wargame series by Eugen.
We have the various 4X games (Galactic scale strategy from what I understand) by countless developers.
We have the upcoming Homeworld remake by Gearbox.
We have the squad based strategy by 4C (Men of War and all the others series they've made).
We have the turn based tactics like Xcom Enemy Unknown/Enemy Within (Which isn't an original Firaxis property. so it's incorrect to attribute it to Sid Meier).
We have Planetary Annihilation and Supreme Commander (Both spiritual successors to Total Annihilation from what I understand)
We have the Total War series by Creative Assembly (Which are definitely close to Triple-A, what with being released broken and all).
We have the grand strategy games as codified by Paradox Interactive (But also made by many others).

There's really a ton of strategy games out there.

Strategy games has always been a kind of niche and some companies excepted this generation has turned away from niche titles. PC has become more relevant then ever so I believe its only a matter of time before new strategy games come out.

I'd say that Strategy games fell out the mainstream sometime around the shut down of Westwood studios and in the time between the release of Starcraft 1 and 2. I don't know how popular Warcraft 3 was back then, but I felt that it gave rise to a new genre (The hero focused action strategy that would become MOBAs) rather than extend the mainstream life of Strategy games.

It's definitely still going strong these days, but with the increased focus on consoles (Because money), they have fallen by the wayside a bit, in terms of marketing.

 

[Zhukov]

Just to be clear, when you say "strategy", are we talking about RTS, TBS or both?

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

There is a fair point about the console aspect. It's kind of hard to do a strategy game on console... Well I take that back. It's hard to do RTS on console. If you can't market to one of the larger segments of gamers, then you don't want to spend AAA money on it.

We still do get a lot of strategy though. Lots on PC, and a fair ammout has jumped to handheld and tablet.

 

[SweetShark]

I would agree with you, but you must not forget how many different kind of strategy games there are which most of the times don't know about them.
Also consoles have strategy games, but not the kind you like. Disgaea series is a fine example.

 

[ExDeath730]

Like most people said here already, consoles just can't handle most strategy games, not because of horsepower, but because of the necessity of the mouse+keyboard.

If we're going to the RTS genre, where build orders and just, your speed of macro and micro is usually really important to success, in a console it would be pretty hard to make it possible, and of course, be as complex as in the PC version.

If it's about the turn-based, that where i think it's possible to adapt to consoles without problems. Things like X-COM or Civilization V could work on consoles because of the slow pace, there's no urgency that a mouse would be really necessary. That's why in consoles series like Disgaea, Fire Emblem and other Tactical RPGs existed for so long.

But yes, strategy is a niche genre, i think it always was, but it's like...I could say that it's the niche genre that is closest to the core, because of some games that are really blockbusters, like Starcraft 2, some Total War games like Shogun 2, etc...

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

They did try to do RTS on console for awhile and that ended up with a few neat bits. Like end war where you used a mic, or halo wars where you had characters you could take over and control directly.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

1. Strategy games don't really work on console (due to controller being a poor input for them ).
2. AAA developers almost exclusively make console/cross platform games.
3. Therefore AAA developers do not make strategy games.

 

[L. Declis]

I think that the Royal Family of the Real Time Strategy is Starcraft, with a dead branch off being the much loved and published Dawn of War series.

Age of Empires was once a great line as well.

I suppose the reason is that an RTS just doesn't lend itself to needing to be AAA. RTS requires a good design idea and innovative and tight gameplay; not large explosions. If you can make an RTS, I doubt you'll sell extra because of the explosions, rather than a good look but amazing gameplay.

Why waste extra money?

 

[tilmoph]

If I had to bet, I put money on "why would a strategy game need a AAA budget?" You can only do so much to make AI smarter, can add only so much complexity before it overwhelms too many players, really the only thing you can get is prettier graphics, and most strategy games don't really benefit too much from super HD graphics. They're nice if you can get them, but the player base sees it as neat at most; they're more interested in the gameplay mechanics, so in most cases, it really wouldn't be worth dropping that kind of cash on dolling up the game.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

There are actually quite a lot of decent strategy games coming out, they just aren't AAA. You could, for example, try Galactic Civilizations 3 or Europa Universalis 4, or Space Empires 4 or AI War: Fleet Command. Or Age of Wonders 3 or Tropico 5 or Divinity: Dragon Commander or Starcraft 2. Or XCOM: Enemy Unknown/Within or Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion.

Not a great selection is it? I picked up AoW3 recently and it's incredibly ordinary. Strategy used to be great, remember stuff like Colonization, Imperialism, Caesar 2, Transport Tycoon, Dune, Master of Orion? We've forgotten all that, no one knows how to do it anymore. It's incredibly hard to bring a sense of balance and entertain at the same time, and the effort going in to doing that now goes to presentation.

If I had to bet, I put money on "why would a strategy game need a AAA budget?" You can only do so much to make AI smarter, can add only so much complexity before it overwhelms too many players, really the only thing you can get is prettier graphics, and most strategy games don't really benefit too much from super HD graphics. They're nice if you can get them, but the player base sees it as neat at most; they're more interested in the gameplay mechanics, so in most cases, it really wouldn't be worth dropping that kind of cash on dolling up the game.

I thought AAA refers to more than just graphics. None of the modern strategy titles that I've played would get an "A" in their gameplay. Compared with the oldies, that is. They just don't stand up.

 

[Las7]

Most Strategy games are on PC and studios choose to spend the majority of their efforts in development as opposed to marketing

 

[Smooth Operator]

Can you sell it on console? No... then you are looking at 1/4 the market tops.
And on PC where you do have the opportunity you are facing ActiBlizzn with a fanatic following, if your box doesn't say Starcraft people don't want to see any more then the cover.

So sadly you either make it cheap and cash in what little is left or you got money to burn.

 

[Bad Jim]

There are actually quite a lot of decent strategy games coming out, they just aren't AAA. You could, for example, try Galactic Civilizations 3 or Europa Universalis 4, or Space Empires 4 or AI War: Fleet Command. Or Age of Wonders 3 or Tropico 5 or Divinity: Dragon Commander or Starcraft 2. Or XCOM: Enemy Unknown/Within or Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion.

Not a great selection is it? I picked up AoW3 recently and it's incredibly ordinary. Strategy used to be great, remember stuff like Colonization, Imperialism, Caesar 2, Transport Tycoon, Dune, Master of Orion? We've forgotten all that, no one knows how to do it anymore. It's incredibly hard to bring a sense of balance and entertain at the same time, and the effort going in to doing that now goes to presentation.

It has gone downhill a bit, and I shouldn't have put Space Empires 4 on the list (released in 2000, doh!) but it's still an overreaction to say that it's Firaxis and no-one else making strategy games these days.

It would help if there was some appreciation for good strategy titles released after 2000, like Total War Series, GalCiv 2, Supreme Commander, etc. Because you know how industry suits will react to seeing a post like yours? They'll say "looks like this guy wouldn't notice a good new strategy game if it slapped him in the face. Why bother trying to cater to him? He won't buy it."

And totally look at the indie stuff. Look hard. Every indie is potentially an AAA developer if they get enough money. And they will usually make at least one AAA version of the game that made them rich. Start with AI War.

 

[veloper]

It's a small market and we don't need fancy gfx to enjoy our strategy games, so triple-A budgets would make no sense here.

There's still good stuff coming out. Strategy fans don't have it so bad.

 

[Inglorious891]

I'd say there are two major reasons. One:

1. Strategy games don't really work on console (due to controller being a poor input for them ).
2. AAA developers almost exclusively make console/cross platform games.
3. Therefore AAA developers do not make strategy games.

And two:

Same thing that happened to survival horror. Strategy games "don't sell well" (i.e. don't sell as well as Call of Duty), so it publishers decided to stop funding the development of them.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

There are actually quite a lot of decent strategy games coming out, they just aren't AAA. You could, for example, try Galactic Civilizations 3 or Europa Universalis 4, or Space Empires 4 or AI War: Fleet Command. Or Age of Wonders 3 or Tropico 5 or Divinity: Dragon Commander or Starcraft 2. Or XCOM: Enemy Unknown/Within or Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion.

Not a great selection is it? I picked up AoW3 recently and it's incredibly ordinary. Strategy used to be great, remember stuff like Colonization, Imperialism, Caesar 2, Transport Tycoon, Dune, Master of Orion? We've forgotten all that, no one knows how to do it anymore. It's incredibly hard to bring a sense of balance and entertain at the same time, and the effort going in to doing that now goes to presentation.

It has gone downhill a bit, and I shouldn't have put Space Empires 4 on the list (released in 2000, doh!) but it's still an overreaction to say that it's Firaxis and no-one else making strategy games these days.

It would help if there was some appreciation for good strategy titles released after 2000, like Total War Series, GalCiv 2, Supreme Commander, etc. Because you know how industry suits will react to seeing a post like yours? They'll say "looks like this guy wouldn't notice a good new strategy game if it slapped him in the face. Why bother trying to cater to him? He won't buy it."

The problem is that i DO notice a good strategy game, and I notice that most of them were from back in the 90s. The list you made of post-2000 titles wouldn't make the top 25 titles of all time. I mean compare Civ: Beyond Earth to Alpha Centauri - the quality just isn't there. Total War? It's alright, but nothing compared to the classics. The X-Com remake is probably the only strategy title of the last decade I could call great, and that's a remake.

To any developer reading this - look to the classics for inspiration, make something great and I'll shell out the $.

 

[Riotguards]

well i think it has more to do with how red alert tiberium twilight was a colossus failure (and the fact it can't be made into call of duty) which has lead to a very dry spell by triple A titles