Really cool article. This is something I haven't thought about in a looonng while.
Imagination is something that is easily lost in video games, even though there's so many avenues to use it. Sandbox, make-your-own-fun games like Minecraft or Terraria lack the nitty-gritty details players may want, while more text- & detail-driven games like Sunless Sea or even Dwarf Fortress lack the opposite--an operational freedom to do whatever you want. And it all comes down to rules; tabletop can break them and video games cannot, which makes it an issue of interaction/control.
...I don't actually know that video games can solve the imagination issue. There's no way to script for every possibility and I really doubt there ever will be. The closest I've seen were custom maps on StarCraft: Brood War and Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne of the "Roleplaying" (That's RP, not RPG) genre; it was basically a primitive form of tabletop that had players pretending and imagining what was happening, with someone else hosting, GM-style. Neverwinter Nights was another amazing attempt at it, with players and GMs interacting on pre-made levels with a host of resources available (they even made proto-MMOs with it). In both Blizzard's games and Bioware's, it's a case of giving players tools and letting them loose.
This is why I'm really curious to see what a technology like hololens (probably not actually hololens) does for tabletop-esque gaming. During that Minecraft demo last year, all I could think of was, "what if that was a tabletop RPG, visualised for the player?" There's just so much potential for it. Letting players handle the rules, essentially tabletop video games, would be the only way to even approach this gap in imagination.
To be clear, I'm not saying all video games should become this or anything. Just that I'd like to see some more genres brought out into the world.
Everything about this phrase is awesome. I salute you for making it.
Great article!
Now, as much as I instinctually want to look down on skinship mechanics, I do enjoy relationship mechanics in video games--generally Bioware's stuff (see also: my post in the guilty pleasures article.) though it exists far beyond their stuff. So while I'm not really looking for skinship in games, I'm keen to see where it goes down the road while I keep an open mind.
The thing I'm curious to about, beyond just "like meters" are a more nuanced relationship dynamic, which Dragon Age 2, of all games, tried to tackle. The "like meter" suddenly became a friendship/rivalry indication, and though I don't think it was used well at all, the concept continues to intrigue me. I'd really like to move away from such binary systems and into something a little more... not real, but weighty.
Never thought I'd see the day that Giant Bomb mentioned Thea: The Awakening. It's a lot of fun, and yeah, it's bogged down by a lot of UI and poor presentation. But the sheer vision of it is hard to deny. It's getting a free expansion/update thing soon, focused on giants.
There's three strategy things I'm excited for in 2016 are as follows (it'd be 4 if XCOM 2 wasn't out yet):
Stellaris - The Next Generation of strategy games, without a doubt. If it's even half as good as it sounds, it will be the new Crusader Kings II in terms of how much play I get out of it. (Lots!)
Age of Wonders 3 - whatever expansion they come up with. The first two xpacs have added a lot, and by all accounts whatever's on the horizon will be very promising. For instance, they still haven't added the Shadows... but I think they're going to, and this excites me.
Expeditions: Vikings - a unique mix of roguelike, RPG, and strategy, that should be great if Expeditions: Conquistador is anything to go by. There's also a real focus on historical accuracy/alternate history stuff that makes these games so cool.
So 3/4 (including XCOM 2) of my 2016 list are iterative additions. But Stellaris is definitely the most anticipated, for the sheer potential it has. However, I'd be disappointed if the others weren't on the horizon.
I suppose, for strategy, the mechanics of these games plays such a huge role that changing anything practically makes it a different genre. Like a real-time 4X just becomes Grand Strategy, or the space 4X / fantasy 4X split (with the former leaning heavy on ship designing, and the latter with tactical combat) and Civ being its own unique beast. Together, this leads to the apparent sameness in these genres. So development becomes a game of iterating and outdoing competitors to get at these established crowds, rather than striking out into the unknown and gets who-knows-what.
And thinking about it, how many sites do you even see covering unconventional strategy games? Especially if it's from a small developer. (i.e. Thea. I've seen almost nothing about it; one review, one site giving it game of the year, and this article.) So this further encourages remaining in the Strategy Establishment.
The Strategy Establishment is both great and horrible.
noblenerf's comments