How broadly do you define a "strategy" game?

[Sarkus]

After listening to the most recent Flash of Steel podcast (http://flashofsteel.com/) (which for whatever reason isn't being linked here anymore), I was struck by the rather broad definition of strategy game Troy, Tom, and Julian are using. Outside of pure examples of shooters and such, you can argue that many types of games involve "strategy" of some kind, and in fact that is often a significant part of the appeal. In that sense I don't have a problem with a discussion of Sims 3 or Blood Bowl or even Madden in a strategy podcast.

But at the same time, I guess I prefer a more specific definition when the term is used. RTS, wargames, etc., seem like they are more what I think of when I hear the term. If a game is primarily something else, even if it includes a strong strategy element, I don't think of it as a "strategy" game. Am I alone in this?

[TomChick]

I define it as broadly as I can so I can talk about lots of different games on Troy's podcast. Which I'd been forgetting to link and was figuring Troy would do. Fixed.

Seriously thought, for me, it has to do with games that ask you to allocate limited resources. What goes where and which choices best meet your objectives? I just now invented that, so I'm not sure it's going to hold up. Consider it a trail balloon for you guys to shoot down.

-Tom

[DDB]

I define it pretty narrowly. I think most RTSs are actually action games in disguise for all the "strategy" they offer. I wish the genre had been named "Expand and Clash" because that's basically what you're getting. The amount of strategy in a Company of Heroes match seems basically equivalent, to me anyway, as a Team Deathmatch game of Quake 3. With the exception that you are wrangling more "stuff".

[merryprankster]

I define it as broadly as I can so I can talk about lots of different games on Troy's podcast. -Tom

Haha...love it when you start to describe some fps or something as a strategy game. I can almost see Troy's and Bruce's eyes going back in thier heads.

[merryprankster]

Seriously thought, for me, it has to do with games that ask you to allocate limited resources. What goes where and which choices best meet your objectives? I just now invented that, so I'm not sure it's going to hold up. Consider it a trail balloon for you guys to shoot down.

-Tom

I think that this works, but I think that the game should require the use of strategy to meet the victory conditions. I'll use RE5 as an example.

The Story mode constrains your resources, but does not necassarily require a strategy if you are a proficient enough shot, hand skill not brain power wins the day here.

Mercenaries also constrains your resources, but the victory condition is such that you need to use those resources to set up a system that wll allow you to win. No amount of just being a great shot will win the day in mercenaries, you must have a strategy.

For me I think that a strategy game should be about using limited resources to contrive in-game scenarios.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

For me a strategy game should meet a few criteria:

1) Long range planning with foreseeable consequences. Actions are taken in the present that may not pay off or show returns until much later in the game. (building an extra villager instead of a swordsman, castling in chess, going for a second religion in Civ IV).

2) Resource scarcity. Not enough men, gold, space or time. (Good players in some games may end up with excesses of all these, but the initial scarcity is integral to the game.)

3) Progress can be easily translated into terms of space (territorial control, home expansion, population growth)

Troy

[krayzkrok]

I'm no journalist but years ago I recall that magazines / shops used to classify games primarily into action, strategy, rpg, sim (and possibly one or two others). Those were the genre lines, and I still associate strategy games as anything that's not action or rpg or sim, although after RTS came along I now associate strategy more with old school, turn-based wargames.

I'm sure many remember the flame wars over whether X-Com was a strategy game or a tactical game. Um, anyone? These days we want to be better informed about what type of game it is we're playing. It's as though taxonomists have invaded gaming.

[Lizard_King]

Strategy requires an interactive layer of abstraction superimposed over a tactical layer of implementation. That layer can, however, be contained purely within the player's mind. So, for instance Valkyria Chronicles creates an illusion of strategy, but since all of those decisions are essentially predetermined cutscenes and the pre-fight roster merely a formality in most cases (not to mention the absurd superficiality of what it prioritizes in order to qualify as a well-run mission), it is almost entirely a tactical game. OTOH, most good RTS games (from what I gather) and the vast majority of TBS games require those abstractions to be processed efficiently in order to effectively marshal a series of distinct tactical choices about resource management and the like.

[Cubit]

For me a strategy game should meet a few criteria:

1) Long range planning with foreseeable consequences. Actions are taken in the present that may not pay off or show returns until much later in the game. (building an extra villager instead of a swordsman, castling in chess, going for a second religion in Civ IV).

2) Resource scarcity. Not enough men, gold, space or time. (Good players in some games may end up with excesses of all these, but the initial scarcity is integral to the game.)

3) Progress can be easily translated into terms of space (territorial control, home expansion, population growth)

Troy

Yeah, I pretty much agree with these points. Madden (and other sports games) aren't usually thought of as strategy games, but they are.

1. Yep. In a football game, a team might run the ball more than they usually would in the first half in order to improve the effectiveness of the play-action plays later on.

2. Yep. Teams have a limited time to drive down the field.

3. Yep. Do anything you can to get those 10 yards and advance into the opponent's territory.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I'm sure many remember the flame wars over whether X-Com was a strategy game or a tactical game. Um, anyone? These days we want to be better informed about what type of game it is we're playing. It's as though taxonomists have invaded gaming.

The distinction between strategy and tactics is immaterial where game genres are concerned. Those few games that are concerned with tactics (usually squad level wargames, parts of the Total War games and some RTSes) are considered strategy games because as far as the player is concerned, he/she is strategizing, not tacticking.

RPGs and shooters often have tactics, rarely have strategy.

Troy

[Equisilus]

1) Long range planning with foreseeable consequences. Actions are taken in the present that may not pay off or show returns until much later in the game. (building an extra villager instead of a swordsman, castling in chess, going for a second religion in Civ IV).

This is really the only key for me. Without it, you don't have strategy, although I'd remove "foreseeable" as that suggests that you'll always know the outcome when that's not necessarily the case. Perhaps using "anticipated" or "desired" consequences with % chance of occurring.

Too, strategy requires that there be multiple outcomes, and multiple paths to the outcomes. Two different players can play entirely different styles of game and have the same result (or play same styles and get different results).

[Troy S Goodfellow]

This is really the only key for me. Without it, you don't have strategy, although I'd remove "foreseeable" as that suggests that you'll always know the outcome when that's not necessarily the case. Perhaps using "anticipated" or "desired" consequences with % chance of occurring.

Too, strategy requires that there be multiple outcomes, and multiple paths to the outcomes. Two different players can play entirely different styles of game and have the same result (or play same styles and get different results).

By foreseeable I don't mean set in stone so much as you take an action with an outcome in mind. Anticipated does work better.

Troy

[Sarkus]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with these points. Madden (and other sports games) aren't usually thought of as strategy games, but they are.

1. Yep. In a football game, a team might run the ball more than they usually would in the first half in order to improve the effectiveness of the play-action plays later on.

2. Yep. Teams have a limited time to drive down the field.

3. Yep. Do anything you can to get those 10 yards and advance into the opponent's territory.

Those are all true, but that's why I suggested above that having a strong strategy element (which Madden certainly does) does not mean it's primarily a strategy game, at least if you play it the way it normally is, where you actually control players on the field. When you are spending your time running the plays, that to me is more of an action game. So to me Madden is an action sports game that has a strong strategy element.

Many games nowdays blur the lines between the traditional categories, but most of them are still primarily one type of game even if they have strong elements of another included.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Those are all true, but that's why I suggested above that having a strong strategy element (which Madden certainly does) does not mean it's primarily a strategy game, at least if you play it the way it normally is, where you actually control players on the field. When you are spending your time running the plays, that to me is more of an action game. So to me Madden is an action sports game that has a strong strategy element.

Many games nowdays blur the lines between the traditional categories, but most of them are still primarily one type of game even if they have strong elements of another included.

I agree with this. Action-Sports games put a heavy emphasis on the action since the best strategy in the world won't save you if you can't make the men move the way you want them to move. It's not like an RTS where moving the men *is* the strategy.

Sports management games, however, are pure strategy though it's hard to conceive of victory in terms of space or growth.

Troy

[Sarkus]

Sports management games, however, are pure strategy though it's hard to conceive of victory in terms of space or growth.

Troy

Agree. My early interest in computer gaming came out of strategy (primarily war) board gaming. Even though I had/have zero interest in hockey, one of my favorite early games was a hockey league simulator that was published as an extension of a popular hockey action game.

[merryprankster]

For me a strategy game should meet a few criteria:

1) Long range planning with foreseeable consequences. Actions are taken in the present that may not pay off or show returns until much later in the game. (building an extra villager instead of a swordsman, castling in chess, going for a second religion in Civ IV).

2) Resource scarcity. Not enough men, gold, space or time. (Good players in some games may end up with excesses of all these, but the initial scarcity is integral to the game.)

3) Progress can be easily translated into terms of space (territorial control, home expansion, population growth)

Troy

I completely agree with one and two, but I feel that three is defined a bit too narrowly. Shouldn't progress be defined in terms of reaching an objective, even if it is not spacial?

[Quaro]

What about social games, like Vampire? Tons of different strategies and tactics in those games but the concepts in the thread don't map to it very easily.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I completely agree with one and two, but I feel that three is defined a bit too narrowly. Shouldn't progress be defined in terms of reaching an objective, even if it is not spacial?

Maybe, but then RPGs would fit easily.

Troy

[Troy S Goodfellow]

What about social games, like Vampire? Tons of different strategies and tactics in those games but the concepts in the thread don't map to it very easily.

A game can have strategies and tactics and not be a strategy game.

Go Fish for example.

Troy

[merryprankster]

Maybe, but then RPGs would fit easily.

Troy

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of Tom's take on Sims 3, where the 'goal' is happiness not territory. I can't remeber how on board you were with the idea of Sims 3 being a strategy game, but your list seems to preclude it.

Or even something like Burn Zombie Burn, wher the goal of your strategy is score.

[John Many Jars]

A strategy game is the fragrance of a violet, clinging to the heel that has crushed it.

[Kael]

A game has objectives and goals. The players ability to achieve those goals is determined by his ability to play the game (good play is rewarded, bad play is punished).

A strategy game doesn't rely on any physical ability of the player. There is no reflexes, no twitch, no skillful play outside of making appropriate decisions.

I disagree with Troy's and Tom's ideas of what a strategy game is. Those are particular implmentations and it isnt hard to imagine a game that doesnt comply with those criteria and are still strategy games.

[Sarkus]

A strategy game doesn't rely on any physical ability of the player. There is no reflexes, no twitch, no skillful play outside of making appropriate decisions.


By that definition any turn based or pausable game would qualify, including RPGs.

Seems too broad to me.

[Kael]

By that definition any turn based or pausable game would qualify, including RPGs.

Seems too broad to me.

Yes, it does place most role playing games in the strategy genre. Of course Tom and Troy definitions also cover RPG's as well.

I tend to think RPG's are a type of strategy game. Even the more actiony RPG's like Diablo II are very similar to Civ4 at their heart. You have an avatar (be it an empire or a character). You grow that avatar, pick things to specialize in, gain abilities, gain objects (be they cities or equipment).

And I think that both types appeal to the same type of gamer. Those of us that enjoy building, creating something, seeing it grow.

The big difference between RPG's and more classic strategy games is the role of story in the game. Traditionally strategy places gameplay at the heart, its about the growth of your "avatar" while RPG's place story at the heart, so you play through their script and your "avatar" is secondary. But that is a difference of implementation, you as a player are doing very similar processes, it just has a very different candy coating on it.

[lesslucid]

This is something I was thinking about yesterday, and I came up with a little taxonomy of games defined by their goals and how you reach them. Since it's only a new little idea then I may not like it any more by tomorrow, but for now I'm quite pleased with it. So, the short version:

1. Puzzle games. You move toward a pre-determined goal by finding pre-determined solutions to designed problems.
2. Strategy games. You move toward a pre-determined goal by making decisions in response to a dynamic environment. Typically much of that dynamism is supplied by an enemy player or players who is/are also trying to achieve the same goal as you, in a way that is exclusive of your own victory.
3. Skill games. You move toward a pre-determined goal by honing some kind of physical reflex or skill and surmounting increasingly difficult challenges through their use. In a way, much like a puzzle game, except that the "problems" are solved by physical skill rather than patient analysis (or guesswork).
4. Open games. There is no pre-determined goal. The enjoyment of the game primarily comes from exploring its particular environment or discovering unusual characteristics of its "world".
5. Other. Nearly all games would fit in the first 4 categories, I think, but "Visual Novel" games have a predetermined end but nothing preventing you from reaching it except button-clicking, and some art-games might fit uncomfortably or not at all in the above categories.

Of course there are hybrids, and cases where you have to stretch the meaning of "goal" to get these to work. But I think it's a helpful taxonomy in separating out what makes a strategy game different from other kinds of games. If you say that strategy is about making decisions and every game that you make decisions in is a strategy game then it turns out that a) EVERY game is a strategy game and b) the category is therefore totally meaningless.

I think the other thing is that it helps mark out for me why a really good strategy game is such a unique and fun experience, and why good strategy games are so rare. We enjoy puzzle games when they have fun, interesting, well-designed puzzles in them. We enjoy skill games when the challenges are well-designed or the exercise of the skill is inherently pleasurable. Open games are fun if their world is in some way a compelling or engaging place to be. But a good strategy game has to have a good opponent - in some sense, at least, of that word "good". Most don't. Many popular "strategy" games are really puzzle games that have been designed in such a way that figuring out the single dominant strategy is an interesting and satisfying problem, or the implementation of that dominant strategy requires the development of a skill which is pleasurable or satisfying to exercise. But if a game has a dominant strategy, then having worked it out leaves you with no real decisions to make, and then it is no longer a strategy game.

[TomChick]

Awesome, Derek! I would expect no less from the guy who introduced a hefty dose of RPGing into Civilization IV! I am now going to use your definition to start incorporating RPG discussions into the podcast. Particularly discussions of Lord of the Rings Online!

To your point about the role of story, it's worth noting that there is a whole subgenre of RPGs where they pretty much dispense with story, shoving it into tiny gaps between battles. SRPGs (strategy RPGs, if I'm not mistaken) like Joan d'Arc, Disgaea, and those Flame Ember or whatever things are clearly strategy games.

-Tom

[Naeblis]

By that definition any turn based or pausable game would qualify, including RPGs.

Seems too broad to me.

Sadly, a lot of RPG includes only a bit of proper role playing, and a lot of tactical combat. So yeah, they are more strategy games. It's becase their roots are mixed in history, of course.
Pity, because there are already a good amount of strategy games in the market, but not a lot of true rpg games.

[Wisbechlad]

For an sRPG - tactics = how you position your party in combat. Strategy = how you min max level up to get to the awesome.

[Harkonis]

Regarding Blood Bowl, it's a turn based strategy game that happens to be sports related so I definitely think it fits in even the more strict sense of the term

[triggercut]

Since I'm a fan of most genres of games out there, I'm not hidebound to any particular definition of "strategy", which is nice. I know Troy has editors and readers who'll probably think differently and play a more narrowly defined definition, and I'm ok with that for 3 Moves Ahead...

...but I will point out that you can kind of shoehorn a lot of games into both Troy's and especially Tom's definition of "strategy game". Using those parameters, I think I could posit a game like Fatal Frame 3 as a strategy game:

1. Scarce resources (You have to choose which film to use, when to use the more powerful films and when you can afford to use you "anytime" films on less powerful/less dangerous ghosts)

2. Resource allocation has consequences (Use up your best film too soon and you're ina world of hurt on some of the bigger, badder ghosties)

3. Troy's third parameter (space) is a toughie to shoehorn FF 3 into...although I suppose you could bring out the idea that as you clear areas of ghosts you make them "safer" to walk through, part of the game's ability to scare you is the youneverknow aspect of "surprise! story requires us to spawn a new ghost in an area you cleared already"

[Troy S Goodfellow]

RPGs have one feature that you don't have in most strategy games that separates them - characters usually defined by statistics that are regularly upgraded or improved based on accumulation of experience or completion of tasks.

Do some strategy games have this? Sure. None of these lines are Chinese Walls. But you pretty much can't have an RPG without them. (There are, I'm sure, a few exceptions. But these are likely item based improvements to a character, or would be closer to adventure games.)

Troy

[Kael]

RPGs have one feature that you don't have in most strategy games that separates them - characters usually defined by statistics that are regularly upgraded or improved based on accumulation of experience or completion of tasks.

Do some strategy games have this? Sure. None of these lines are Chinese Walls. But you pretty much can't have an RPG without them. (There are, I'm sure, a few exceptions. But these are likely item based improvements to a character, or would be closer to adventure games.)

Troy

Put more simply, your entity in an RPG is typically a character or set of characters. Your entity in war games is typically a country or a base.

But everything you have said about characters can also be used to describe the cities or bases in war games; "characters(/cities) usually defined by statistics that are regularly upgraded or improved based on accumulation of experience or completion of tasks". Statistics apply, upgrades apply, experience and completion of tasks just turns into resource gathering and scenario accomplishment. In one you get experience from defeating the monster that allows you to level up and learn a new spell that allows you to call a pillar of fire down on your opponents. In another you accomplish a scenario that gives you have access to a new building that allows you to call a pillar of fire down on your opponents.

They are dramatically different focuses and themes. But under the covers I think they are very similar designs. Much like Tetris and Diner Dash are the same type of game.

[Zak Gordon]

I'm sure many remember the flame wars over whether X-Com was a strategy game or a tactical game. Um, anyone? These days we want to be better informed about what type of game it is we're playing. It's as though taxonomists have invaded gaming.

Xcom(1+2) were definately strategic games with tactical battle engines. But the over riding arc of the gameplay was one of strategic decisions(resources/base placement+design/research lines etc), thus they are strategy games.