[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

If you can't say why you're so certain it's a strategy game then maybe that should tell you something.

Of course it does. It tells me I haven't thought about this enough. You never know why anything obvious is the way it is until you think about it.

Icewind Dale ! and II almost entirely consist of RTS battles. Unlike Baldur's Gate and its ilk there are virtually no quests that don't involve monster slaying as their primary component. You could just as well ask what makes these two games RPGs as opposed to strategy games, albeit ones where you have a fixed group of units (the PC party) and greater variety of enhancements (not just improved armour/weapons of Warcraft and the like)

I could and I would. I've never played these games, so I don't know what they are. I have no reason to believe they either are or aren't RPGs. What does make them RPGs? Is there a story?

I think I still don't understand what you're trying to achieve here. You've admitted yourself that no definitions seems to work for games that are "generally considered" to fit into one of your two categories.

Excuse me, but what have I admitted? I don't understand what it is you're saying I said. Not that I think I didn't say whatever it is you're saying I said- I can't say, not understanding it.

[MoriartyL]

By the way, I think a game is only a Role-Playing Game if there's a story to it. (That way you're actually playing the role of a character from a story.) Not necessarily a pre-determined story- it could be a story the player makes up as he goes along, or a story that is created by the DM/computer based on the player's actions. But there has to be a story. A game with all the conventions of RPG gameplay but no story is not Role-Playing. It's a strategy game which just happens to be inspired by RPGs.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Excuse me, but what have I admitted? I don't understand what it is you're saying I said. Not that I think I didn't say whatever it is you're saying I said- I can't say, not understanding it.

I was referring to the way that it seems like you take a definition apart every time you have one, proving that it doesn't really work in some way. Perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

By the way, I think a game is only a Role-Playing Game if there's a story to it. (That way you're actually playing the role of a character from a story.) Not necessarily a pre-determined story- it could be a story the player makes up as he goes along, or a story that is created by the DM/computer based on the player's actions. But there has to be a story. A game with all the conventions of RPG gameplay but no story is not Role-Playing. It's a strategy game which just happens to be inspired by RPGs.

Warcraft 3 has a story. You exclude it from your RPG definition because you feel it's "tacked on" but I don't see how that falls outside your definition here. What about Warcraft's story where you play the role of leader of an army (with hero units representing your on-screen presence) excludes it given it meets your "has a story" criteria?

I'll say again, whilst fighting is the essence of Warcraft missions can involve other things (reach an objective, retrieve an item, etc) which are very RPG type quests.

The boundaries are blurred. I don't believe you can get precise definitions that won't have games falling in these blurry boundaries.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

I was referring to the way that it seems like you take a definition apart every time you have one, proving that it doesn't really work in some way. Perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying.

Could be. The reason that every time I suggest a definition I try to reject it myself is to force myself to find the definition which cannot be rejected. It would probably be better if someone else rejected my definitions since they could be a little more objective. But even if I'm doing it myself, it's a good logical way of thinking. If there are games a definition should be including but isn't, or if there are games it should be excluding but isn't, then the definition isn't good enough.

I think my RPG definition is good enough.

Warcraft 3 has a story. You exclude it from your RPG definition because you feel it's "tacked on" but I don't see how that falls outside your definition here.

On the contrary, I said that "Both Warcraft III and Fire Emblem can be seen to be primarily works of fiction.". In other words, it would be valid to say that Warcraft III's story is even more important to the experience than its gameplay! Or as you put it, it certainly fits the "has a story" criterion. What I felt was tacked-on was the long-term strategy system -that is, the leveling-up and learning spells. As I emphasized in red text, this -and not the story- was the part of my RPG definition Warcraft III didn't fit.

I'll say again, whilst fighting is the essence of Warcraft missions can involve other things (reach an objective, retrieve an item, etc) which are very RPG type quests.

So what? A movie can have comic-book-y elements to it, but that doesn't make it a comic book. A text adventure can let you punch people, but that doesn't make it an action game. And a strategy game can have RPG-type quests without being an RPG. For that matter, even a sports game could theoretically have RPG-type quests without being an RPG! So even if the goals you're mentioning were intrinsic to RPGs (and I don't see how they are), why would it have any impact on classification?

The boundaries are blurred. I don't believe you can get precise definitions that won't have games falling in these blurry boundaries.

It's good that you believe that, because it means that (if you're willing) you would be the perfect sort of objective person to shoot down my definitions, as I said at the beginning of this reply. Point out a game which is clearly not an RPG but fits my RPG definition ("a work of fiction with a long-term strategy system and either a system to deal with immediate confrontations OR a short-term strategy system") or a game which is clearly an RPG but does not fit. Then I need to demonstrate (as I did with Warcraft III) why there is no problem, or else replace my definition with something stronger.

But that's a pretty solid definition now, so maybe it would be easier to shoot down my idea that a strategy game is one where "the player's actions shape the progression of the game". That's just full of holes to point out.

Have fun.

[MoriartyL]

Let me expand that a little bit: A strategy game is "a game where the player uses set rules to move, alter, create or remove objects to shape the progression of the game."

It still stinks, but at least now it's got a semblance of integrity.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Could be. The reason that every time I suggest a definition I try to reject it myself is to force myself to find the definition which cannot be rejected.

I see. Still curious as to the why (if you have said then I apologise) but I understand what you're aiming for now.

What I felt was tacked-on was the long-term strategy system -that is, the leveling-up and learning spells. As I emphasized in red text, this -and not the story- was the part of my RPG definition Warcraft III didn't fit.

I could argue that you get more advanced units available the further you progress but, since that is imposed by the game rather than through your own choice, I'm guessing that is invalid (i.e. it is implied in the definition that the long-term strategy is entirely your own. Not that you're thinking "in the next mission I'll get better units so will modify my battle tactics accordingly") At a stretch you could argue that you'd take forward items (with the heroes) that would help in specific expected situations (e.g. having played a mission with limited troops you might be more inclined to take forward healing items to make those troops last longer in anticipation of another such mission) but that's not much of a long-term strategy.

So what? A movie can have comic-book-y elements to it, but that doesn't make it a comic book. A text adventure can let you punch people, but that doesn't make it an action game. And a strategy game can have RPG-type quests without being an RPG. For that matter, even a sports game could theoretically have RPG-type quests without being an RPG! So even if the goals you're mentioning were intrinsic to RPGs (and I don't see how they are), why would it have any impact on classification?

A few problems with your analogies (comic books and movies are different media whereas computer games are the same media regardless of genre) but I get the general idea. Basically you are saying that you think something has to have ALL the elements of the definition to fall into the category. I do see one problem with this in relation to games I would consider RPGs where leveling up just creates a fixed enhancement to your abilities (i.e. outside your control) Would such a game fall short of your RPG definition by removing your ability to direct the long-term strategy (I'm at my office so I can't really look up an example of what I mean)

It's good that you believe that, because it means that (if you're willing) you would be the perfect sort of objective person to shoot down my definitions, as I said at the beginning of this reply.

I'll give it a try.

Point out a game which is clearly not an RPG but fits my RPG definition ("a work of fiction with a long-term strategy system and either a system to deal with immediate confrontations OR a short-term strategy system") or a game which is clearly an RPG but does not fit. Then I need to demonstrate (as I did with Warcraft III) why there is no problem, or else replace my definition with something stronger.

Are Robot fighting games RPGs? (I'm thinking Battletech here but I'm sure there are others) You have short-term strategy for the immediate confrontation but long-term strategy as to how you upgrade your fighting robot. Provided such a game had a story (possibly similar to the Warcraft 3 one) to link the battles together would that make it an RPG?

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Let me expand that a little bit: A strategy game is "a game where the player uses set rules to move, alter, create or remove objects to shape the progression of the game."

It still stinks, but at least now it's got a semblance of integrity.

This comes back to whether simulation and strategy are the same thing (which I recall you addressing earlier) Under this definition SimCity is a strategy game but is not the sort of game most would think of as strategy.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

Basically you are saying that you think something has to have ALL the elements of the definition to fall into the category.

Exactly.

I do see one problem with this in relation to games I would consider RPGs where leveling up just creates a fixed enhancement to your abilities (i.e. outside your control) Would such a game fall short of your RPG definition by removing your ability to direct the long-term strategy (I'm at my office so I can't really look up an example of what I mean)

I'm guessing you're talking about a game along similar lines to Warcraft III, but where the story is interactive and detached from the battle. (It doesn't really make any difference to the discussion whether the battles are real-time or turn-based.) Is that an RPG? Hmm.

I say no. If you can't customize anything, then it's not an RPG. So what is it? It's either an adventure game with battles, or a strategy game (or whatever other type of confrontations they are) with a story. But regardless, it's not an RPG.

This might seem like an arbitrary classification, so I'll try to justify it. If I may get overly literal for a moment, role-playing games are about playing the role of a character or group of characters. Other types of games do this too, but not as comprehensively. Many games let you experience the moment-to-moment actions of a character- aiming a gun, moving around, making small decisions. Some games show you the character and the world around the character. And some games let you decide for yourself what the character's going to be like. (The Sims, for instance.) They all give us a perspective of the character. But only a limited perspective, because we're only perceiving the character in one (or at most two) way(s). When you let a player experience the character's life from all three approaches, that's already full-fledged Role-Playing.

So it might not be a big deal to take away the long-term planning from a game, but it does mean the game isn't a complete RPG.

Are Robot fighting games RPGs? (I'm thinking Battletech here but I'm sure there are others) You have short-term strategy for the immediate confrontation but long-term strategy as to how you upgrade your fighting robot. Provided such a game had a story (possibly similar to the Warcraft 3 one) to link the battles together would that make it an RPG?

Yes.

I mean, I'm not so familiar with games like this but it sure sounds like it. The robot is the main character, right? You're seeing the character in its appropriate context, you're playing the character in battles, and you're deciding how the character should progress. It's not a typical role-playing game, but it's a role-playing game.


(Apologies for introducing the idea of "the purpose of role-playing games" so late in the discussion. I only just thought of it, and it seems to make sense.)

This comes back to whether simulation and strategy are the same thing (which I recall you addressing earlier) Under this definition SimCity is a strategy game but is not the sort of game most would think of as strategy.

As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, similar games are commonly thought of as strategy games when they're board games. Why should videogames be any different?

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, similar games are commonly thought of as strategy games when they're board games. Why should videogames be any different?

Actually this touches on the reason I asked why you are trying to come up with a definition.

Most computer gamers won't recognise SimCity as a strategy game (regardless of how similar games may be perceived when they're board games) If you're writing a defintion for computer gamers then you'd really need to exclude SimCity. If you're writing a definition for board gamers then you don't. The target audience makes a difference to how the definition needs to be framed or it won't be accepted.

I'll address your other points later. I'm out of time now.

[MoriartyL]

I don't care if the way I see things isn't widely accepted. I mean, it would be nice if it were, but if it isn't I'm okay with that. But I'm not okay with double-standards. If something's a strategy game, it's a strategy game. I don't see why it should make any difference whether it's a board game or a card game or a videogame.

You keep coming back to the question of why I'm worrying about all this, which thus far I have evaded. I'm thinking about definitions because I like for everything to make sense to me, or at least a semblance of sense. That's all.

[MoriartyL]

What's the difference between a strategy game and a puzzle game? I really don't get it.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

If something's a strategy game, it's a strategy game. I don't see why it should make any difference whether it's a board game or a card game or a videogame.

Actually I've thought of an additional consideration but first.

You keep coming back to the question of why I'm worrying about all this, which thus far I have evaded. I'm thinking about definitions because I like for everything to make sense to me, or at least a semblance of sense. That's all.

The reason I kept asking is because it can sort of make a difference to the answer. It's all to do with frames of reference. Any definition has to be in terms the target audience understands (or using words in a way the target audience understands them anyway) There were some specific points I wanted to address in that context but I need some references I have at home for that. In the mean time back to your original point about a strategy game being a strategy game regardless of format and also

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

What's the difference between a strategy game and a puzzle game? I really don't get it.

I think I've come up with a factor that does distinguish them in all media.

Opponents you must beat.

By this I mean that a strategy game has to incorporate some form of opposition that you have to prove superior to (destroy army, control more of the board, score more points, etc) . With this in mind almost any board game will swing towards the strategy arena because you'll be playing it against other people.

To take Sim City as an example (I don't know of a board game version but imagine one operating on broadly the same mechanics)

In a board game version you would be competing against other players to build a superior city. Since the game is open-ended the board game would presumably have some limiting factor (first player to build a city with a score above 800. Certain number of turns. Something like that) At some point one of the players would achieve the victory conditions and come out the winner.

Contrast this to the computer version. The game is open-ended and has no specific goals. Any goals are entirely of the players choice. (I want to build a city with an 800 score. I want a city with a population of 10,000 etc) You can have aims but they aren't imposed by the mechanics of the game.

You do have borderline cases like Transport Tycoon (where the computer runs competing businesses) but even then there is no "win" criteria. You can beat your opponents businesses into the ground and even buy them out but the computer just starts a new computer business to replace any you completely eliminate. Thus, eliminating the computer competition (which just make building your own transport business harder) is, again, a personal choice of the player rather than a game-defined goal.

Of course, ocassionally Warcraft and it's ilk stroll into this territory (not all missions are eliminate the enemy missions) but you have a lot less choice in the matter. In Transport Tycoon ignoring the opposition doesn't have any direct bad effects (in fact, it could save you from a distraction of building up your own company) In Warcraft ignoring the enemy is never an option. Direct conflict is unavoidable.

[MoriartyL]

So what you're saying is that a strategy game is a game involving brain-work with both competition and an end-goal, yes? So a multiplayer SimCity would not be a strategy game, while a multiplayer SimTower would. (Since it has an end-goal.) And a multiplayer SimCity where there's a goal to reach a certain population size would be a strategy game. I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying.

A few thoughts:

I've always thought of Freecell as a strategy game. But what this suggests is that's a puzzle game, and I guess that makes sense. It would fit neatly alongside Sudoku and the like.

If two people race each other to solve a Sudoku puzzle, is that a strategy game? There's brain-work, competition, and a clear end-goal.

You seem to have a similar position to the one I presented when starting this thread. That is, a simulation with competition is a strategy game. (Though you've made the addition that a strategy game must have an end-goal.) So you're faced with the same question I started this thread with: What's a simulation? But I guess (based on your past comments) you wouldn't want a clear-cut definition.

Edit: Oh, and one last thing. Would you call a strategy game a "sub-genre" of the simulation game? (Being the type of simulation which has competition and an end-goal.) Or are there strategy games which would not meet your criteria for a simulation game?

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

If two people race each other to solve a Sudoku puzzle, is that a strategy game? There's brain-work, competition, and a clear end-goal.

I guess I'd have to add in that, for a game to be a strategy game, your actions must have some influence on those of other players.

In the Sudoku game the actual activity is no different from playing solo. To return to the hypothetical Sim City board game it would presumably be possible to build in an area solely to prevent an opponent doing so, even if it didn't advance your own cause (e.g. building industrial areas near a waterfront section neighbouring your opponent's city where they'd score a lot for building residential)

You seem to have a similar position to the one I presented when starting this thread. That is, a simulation with competition is a strategy game. (Though you've made the addition that a strategy game must have an end-goal.) So you're faced with the same question I started this thread with: What's a simulation? But I guess (based on your past comments) you wouldn't want a clear-cut definition.

It's not so much that I don't want a clear-cut defintion as that I think games have developed to a point where a clear-cut defintion is impossible to form. Your gut feeling is that the RPG elements of Warcraft 3 are tacked on but they are undeniably there. Maybe it's just impossible to put games in a particular category any more.

The "end goal" I sort of tie in with the having opponents thing. I'm not saying there has to be a target, just that, however the game ends, your aim is to be better than your opponents in some measurable criteria.

Edit: Oh, and one last thing. Would you call a strategy game a "sub-genre" of the simulation game? (Being the type of simulation which has competition and an end-goal.) Or are there strategy games which would not meet your criteria for a simulation game?

That's a very good question.

Arguably all games are, to some extent, a simulation, in that they put you into a potential situation that isn't real. Even AGs could be considered simulations of situations it would (in a lot of cases) be possible to have in real life.

But to look at the simulation/strategy distinction I w2ould say how the goals are set is the key difference. A strategy game gives you predefined goals which you are rewarded (usually by advancement to the next mission) for achieving. A simulation game has no set goals. To return to the Sim City example, you could opt to create a city with a low score that people leave in droves and the game would'nt behave any differently. Such an action would be considered failure in most other games.

Unfortunately, this comes unstuck in games like Theme Hospital and Theme Park (which have levels and set criteria for advancement) I guess I have to think a bit more about how these games (which I tend to consider more as simulations than strategy games) fit in.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

It's not so much that I don't want a clear-cut defintion as that I think games have developed to a point where a clear-cut defintion is impossible to form. Your gut feeling is that the RPG elements of Warcraft 3 are tacked on but they are undeniably there. Maybe it's just impossible to put games in a particular category any more.

Just because classification is subjective doesn't mean it's impossible. It's quite possible on a subjective level. For instance, if a person felt the long-term strategy elements of Warcraft III were substantial (which is a valid position), for him the game would be an RPG (albeit an RPG whose style was inspired by RTS games).

Also, I don't really ignore elements taken from other types of games. I just assign that a lower priority than what the game actually is. For instance, if I were describing Warcraft III to someone I'd first say that it's a Real-Time Strategy game. But after I said that I'd definitely mention that it's got some RPG elements. So just because I'm putting games in neat little boxes doesn't mean I won't acknowledge their connections to other little boxes.

The "end goal" I sort of tie in with the having opponents thing. I'm not saying there has to be a target, just that, however the game ends, your aim is to be better than your opponents in some measurable criteria.

Makes sense. So the end-goal shouldn't really be part of the definition - it's just nice to have when you're competing. Though from what you write next, you are defining strategy by it. I'll address that in a moment.

But to look at the simulation/strategy distinction I would say how the goals are set is the key difference. A strategy game gives you predefined goals which you are rewarded (usually by advancement to the next mission) for achieving. A simulation game has no set goals. To return to the Sim City example, you could opt to create a city with a low score that people leave in droves and the game would'nt behave any differently. Such an action would be considered failure in most other games.

Unfortunately, this comes unstuck in games like Theme Hospital and Theme Park (which have levels and set criteria for advancement) I guess I have to think a bit more about how these games (which I tend to consider more as simulations than strategy games) fit in.

The console version of The Sims had set goals. When you reached those goals it'd jump to the next level. Otherwise it was the same exact gameplay as the PC game, though not as good. When I play the PC game, I set goals for myself -and when I reach those goals I move on. I don't see any substantial difference here. I think the question of set goals is a matter of different styles rather than different types of games.


But let's move on. I'm still puzzled by the difference between strategy and puzzles. For you, the equivalent problem might be the distinction between puzzles and simulations. Neither has multiple players competing and messing up each other's progress. You could point to end-goals as the difference (puzzles seem to always have 'em), but we both know simulations can sometimes have them too.

So why is Armadillo Run a puzzle game rather than a simulation? It's certainly simulating physics and the act of building things. You're managing materials and money and stuff. There's no element of competition. There isn't one set way to win. Which part of this isn't what you'd call a simulation? Or is it a simulation? And the equivalent question for myself is: Why is it not a strategy game? It's all about moving, altering, creating and removing objects with set (if straightforward) rules to shape the course of the game!

And from the other side, why is the console version of The Sims not a puzzle game? You've got clear goals, you've got clear rules and you're trying to figure out how to use the pieces you've got to get there. Not the most intellectually challenging puzzle game ever made, to be sure. But still!

And how are clear-cut strategy games different from puzzles? You know all those chess puzzles where you're given a specific board layout and you have to get to a checkmate from there? Why don't we look at a full chess game as the same thing, just starting from a standardized layout?

Is it not a puzzle game unless it's perfectly predictable?

[MoriartyL]

I was just introduced to The Ur-Quan Masters (Star Control II). It's obviously derived from space simulation strategy games, but it's story-focused, it's got a separate battle system, and it's got extensive long-term strategy laid out neatly into a system of rules. It doesn't have EXP points or leveling-up, so I would have expected this to be a case where the general public disagrees with me on classification. But both Wikipedia and Gamespot call it Role-Playing, so I guess my view of RPGs isn't quite as unpopular as I thought.

(It's not unanimous, of course: IGN called it a turn-based strategy game, which is flat-out wrong, and Moby Games said it had action and strategy - which is true. Also, it's worth pointing out that Gamespot calls the 3DO version of the game a strategy game, even though it's just a port.)

But that's more than enough analyzing popular sites' opinions. It's not like these people put any thought into classification anyway.

[Davies]

Wow, I missed a lot of discussion here. Let me just add a bit more to the simmering pot. Rather than go back to wordy definitions, here are my thoughts for the key concepts surrounding the game types.

Puzzle game: The manipulation of abstract elements (such as words, numbers, colours, shapes) to attain an arbitrarily defined goal or "solved" condition. No characters or storyline -- a story may be included as window-dressing, but its absence would not affect play. Gameplay consists of a series of separate puzzles solved one by one, with no links from one to the next.

Role-playing game: Player assumes the role of a character within a storyline. Gameplay consists of overcoming challenges in order to improve the character so that still greater challenges can be faced, climaxing in the toughest challenge of all. Random chance plays a large part, and character development means improving the character's probability of overcoming the challenges, either by improving the character's intrinsic attributes or acquiring better-quality possessions.

Adventure game: Player assumes the role of a character within a storyline. Gameplay consists of using logical deduction to solve a series of puzzle-like problems in order to cause the storyline to progress. There are few or no random elements. Character "development" means acquiring specific possessions or traits which are needed at specific points in the plot.

Strategy game: Player competes directly against one or more equal opponents, either other humans or AI simulations. Each player controls certain "units" (anything from simple pawns to complex simulated troops), and may be able to gain more units or increase their capabilities as the game progresses. Gameplay consists of each player attempting to deploy and use his units in order to defeat the opposing units.

Simulation game: The computer program attempts to simulate some element of the real world, or a fantasy world, in a realistic way. Gameplay consists of controlling this simulation, with or without specific goals in mind, in the absence of strategic opposition.

-------

Given these definitions, I would classify business-type games as simulations. Even if the computer provides competition, the main goal is for you to do well in your own business, not to defeat the opponents. As Stepurhan pointed out, often in such games if a competitor is eliminated, a replacement is generated, proving that beating them is not the aim of the game. If there is a business game in which the aim is to crush all opposition, then it would be a strategy game with a business setting. Monopoly comes to mind.

In fact, real-world board games must be strategy games by definition. You are competing head-to-head against other players who are equivalent to you. The only board games I would hesitate to call strategy are the very simple ones based entirely on luck (e.g. Snakes and Ladders). I would be happy to define these as not games at all, but some other sort of group pastime.

Many "god games" would be simulations (e.g. Sim City, Creatures), but others would be strategy -- the Civilisation series, for instance, in which you compete directly against other civilisations to rule the world. Black and White starts out apparently a simulation, but soon reveals itself to be a strategy game in which you must compete for power against other gods.

I'm not very experienced in robot battle games either, but I think they come under either strategy or action. If you control the robot's moves directly, it's an action game, essentially a fighting game, with breaks between the fights to make repairs, buy upgrades, etc. If you "stand off" and plan the robot's moves as if it were a board game, then it's a strategy game where the robot is your unit manipulated to defeat other units.

Chess would be a straightforward strategy game. A chess problem such as "mate in four moves" is really the end fragment of a complete chess game, a sort of mini-scenario. A chess puzzle such as "position eight queens so they don't attack each other" is simply an abstract puzzle that happens to use the rules of chess as a sort of shorthand -- you could just as easily replace the queens by spaceships that emit rays, or cactuses with long spines in all directions, and the puzzle itself would be the same.

Card games against other opponents would be strategy games. Your units are the cards in your hand, which you deploy as best you can against the opposition. Solitaire card games are harder to pin down, but I would call them puzzles because you are manipulating abstract elements in an attempt to reach a goal condition. The elements might be all known to you from the start (as in Freecell), making the challenge a straight logic problem. Or most of the elements might be hidden (as in most solitaire games, e.g. Klondike), so you have to consider probabilities.

[Davies]

The thought strikes me, as a biologist, that what we're trying to do here is thrash out a taxonomy of computer games. And anyone who studies taxonomy knows that the whole thing is a messy business, and gets messier the harder you look.

As a biological example, we all know the difference between a mammal and a reptile. But as you examine specific species, the distinction blurs. Monitor lizards are semi-warm-blooded. Some mammals are virtually hairless. Platypuses and echidnas are mammals that lay eggs.

As you go back in time, nearer to the point where mammals diverged from reptiles, the distinction is even blurrier. At the extreme were some small warm-blooded animals that had hair, complex teeth, a flexible spine, and probably bore live young and perhaps produced milk. If you saw one in your garden, you'd call it a mammal without hesitation. But it's technically classed as a reptile, purely because of the arrangement of its inner ear bones.

The point I'm making is that, in any natural taxonomy, there are inconvenient grey areas. If you want to make absolutely airtight, clearly defined categories, then there are going to be times when you have to be arbitrary about where the lines are drawn, and there are going to be cases that fit the definitions but don't feel right. And every now and then you have to rip up whole chunks of your definition tree and start from scratch.

Like species, computer games have evolved and developed over the years by competing within an "environment" of game-playing consumers. A successful game fills its ecological niche by satisfying some desire that players have. Sometimes a game merely replaces its ancestor in a sort of straight-line evolution. Other times there has been divergent evolution: Colossal Cave was an early simulation which is ancestral to both adventures and RPGs. Perhaps in recent years we have also been seeing convergent evolution, in which it's becoming harder to distinguish between action, RPG, and adventure games.

Darn, I wish I'd thought of this idea ten years ago when I had an ecology project to do.

[MoriartyL]

Puzzle games and strategy games seem to be very similar. So similar, in fact, that you could say they're both sub-Forms of the same basic type of game. "Mind challenges" or something like that.

And what's that basic type of game made of? Rules. Other types of games have rules just to hold the content, but I'd argue that in a mind challenge the rules are the content. The play environment is the setting, the rules are the game, and the rest is embellishment.

[Note: For the rest of this post I'll talk about "mind challenges", which I am defining now. This is just for convenience's sake- once I know what that is I'll be able to figure out what puzzle games and strategy games are more easily. Then I can discard this new term.]

The player is expected to analyze the effects the rules have on the play environment. He can do this either before using them, or during using them. And once he has done this bit of learning, he can apply the principles he's learned to see the effects of his actions before he does them. So the greater his appreciation of the rules and their combinations, the greater his ultimate control over the environment.

A mind challenge doesn't have to be completely motionless. It can have some speed, with an emphasis on "some". But if the game's going too fast for the player to analyze the rules and their effects, then it's no longer challenging the mind as much as it's challenging reflexes. When that point is doesn't just depend on the complexity of the rule system, it also depends on the speed of the individual player's mind. If a player is quick-witted enough to analyze the rules of a fighting game as he's playing it, then for him it doubles as a strategy game!

So what's a mind challenge? It's a system of rules whose effects on the play environment (on their own, and combined with other rules in sequence) the player can observe and anticipate, though it need not be easy for him to do either. And what of the game's goal? Well, if the goal given to the player does not require him to use the principles he's learned, it's still a mind challenge. Just a bad one. (Good design is to make the player's effort feel worthwhile and useful.)



What's the difference between the two sub-Forms of the mind challenge, puzzle games and strategy games? The difference is in the degree of predictability.

A puzzle game is perfectly predictable at all times, provided the player understands the rules. That means no luck, no hidden surprises, no extra player (whose actions would be unpredictable), and a slow enough pace to give the player a fair shot at understanding everything that's going on. In a puzzle game the rules have precise and consistent effects, so the player needs to act on logical analyses.

A strategy game has some unpredictability to its progression, but not too much. It has at least one of the following: luck, surprising twists, or extra players. In a strategy game the rules have imprecise and/or inconsistent effects, so the player needs to act on statistical analyses. The question isn't "Which sequence of moves will win?" but "Which sequence of moves is most likely to win?". If proper statistical and logical analysis can't improve the player's chances of winning significantly, then it's not a strategy game.

[MoriartyL]

Everything I've said here so far is pretty rough around the edges, so let's see if it makes sense with practical examples.

Sudoku is a system of rules, none of them hidden from the player's observation. The player knows ahead of time that if he puts a 3 in that box there, he won't be able to put a 3 in any of these boxes, or any of those boxes. He can even go a step further and see that if he can't put a 3 in that other box, then the only option left to him there is a 5. And he can figure this all out without writing anything down. In other words, he can "anticipate the effects" of the rules on the play environment. So it's clearly a mind challenge. And because it's got no unpredictability, it's a puzzle game.

Freecell's rules are similarly understood. Since all the cards are laid out face-up in front of you, you know exactly what's going to happen if you put that ten-nine on that Jack. You know it'll let you get an Ace up on top in five moves. You can observe, you can anticipate, no unpredictability. Another puzzle game.

Klondike is very closely related to Freecell. (Klondike is the most popular solitaire card game, which you might know as just "Solitaire".) It's got some of the same rules: a card can be moved onto a card one value higher of the other color, a card at the bottom of a stack can be moved to the top if its suit has reached the card before it. But most of the cards are face-down, which means that there's more you can't predict than what you can. You can only observe the effects of your actions on the simplest level- what the very next card to be turned over is. You don't even know what the card after that will be. So you can't learn to anticipate the effects of the game rules. It's not a game of strategy, it's a game of luck.

Just one more card game and I move on. Poker. To most people who play poker, it's a luck game. You don't know what you're going to get next, you don't know how your betting has impacted the other players' play, you can't guess what the other players have. But to a professional player, maybe it's not like that. If a player can see what's going on by watching the other players' faces, and he can think of the exact chances he has of getting a full house versus a four-of-a-kind, then it's a strategy game.

The Sims has a ridiculous number of rules. General rules that can be applied to almost any objects, and specific rules for specific objects. Rules saying how fast those mood meters fall, and what happens when they get all the way to the bottom (or the top). Rules saying when you'll get a promotion, and when you'll be fired. The Sims has almost too many rules to keep track of! (This is probably how it always works for simulation games, since they're trying to depict the complicated real world realistically.) But all the rules -and this is the key point- are laid out clearly in front of the player. So you know that if you tell Bob a joke, their friendship will increase. You know that if you eat a slice of pizza, the "Hunger" meter will go up. You know that if there's no window on the side of the house, the "Room" meter will be low there. And so on. And you know all this even though there's luck, and NPCs you can't predict, and factors you don't completely understand. That's a strategy game.

Is a crossword a puzzle? When you put a word, you can observe how it screws you up for other words. If you've got a good enough vocabulary (Personally, I don't.), you can even anticipate that only one possible answer here will leave you with an option there. If you understand the (twisted) rules well enough, there's no luck involved- just logical eliminations. It's a puzzle. Similarly, Scrabble is a strategy game if you know all the words in the English dictionary.

Is Bejeweled a puzzle game? Well, going in you don't understand all the rules so clearly. Why? Because a lot of your time is spent looking for places where the rules are even valid. But that's not different from a crossword puzzle, where you don't understand the rules until you think about the clues some. The difference is, this is time-based. Weighing one option over another, and seeing what the effects are, means sitting around and looking for all your possibilities. You can't win like that. You need to take your option as soon as you see it, or you'll run out of time. So it's not a puzzle game. What is it? I'd say it's a game of observation, like the " Where's Wally?" books or the card game Set. These are games where just identifying moves, without anticipating their effects, is the game. It's certainly a related Form to puzzles, though!

What about Tetris? You're trying to make spaces for pieces that will come later- this sounds like anticipating effects of rules. But you don't know for sure if those pieces will come! If you did, you could make precise plans for how you'd clear all your lines away, and that would be a puzzle game (albeit a fast-paced one). But it's too unpredictable. So I've got to call it a strategy game, which on reflection makes sense. You need to account not only for the possibility that a Tetromino will come, but also for the possibility that it won't. That's strategy.

After that classification, you might think this way of looking at things is broken (though I will stand by my classification of Tetris), so let's go for an obvious one. Warcraft is a bunch of clear rules: your fighters can move and lower an enemy's HP, you can create those fighters if you've got such-and-such building, you can create that building if you've got X resources, you can add to your collection of resources by using workers on these types of objects, etc. Each action has a consistent effect, and while those effects are not always spelled out, they can be observed through trial and error. You can learn from those observations, seeing what works and what doesn't, to anticipate what will happen. It's not a puzzle game because it's got something unpredictable: an opponent. So it's a strategy game.

Why isn't a platformer a puzzle game? You've got rules of what kinds of jumps you can do, and you know almost exactly where you're going to end up when you make them. Well, I did say almost- it's not perfectly predictable. So why isn't it a strategy game? Because jumps don't really have any significant effects to observe, beside the momentary thrills. A jump perfectly straight is in most cases no different than a jump slightly to the left.

So what about a typical action game? Your actions sure have an effect on the other characters. So why is that not a strategy game? Because it's too unpredictable. The progression of the game is determined more by the movements of the AI than by which enemy you choose to shoot first. (Apologies if I am horribly misrepresenting action games.) When the entire play environment can change in an instant based on the whims of an opponent (either computer or human), you can't really anticipate anything.

If you want to throw some more examples of games which are clearly not strategy or puzzles at me, happy hunting. But for now (this post) I'm going to wind down a little bit. So, some simpler stuff.

A Rubik's Cube really only has one rule- you can rotate a side. It has a pretty simple effect. But combinations of rules- that gets complicated. You can do a few moves in sequence to see what happens- this is the observing part of the equation. Once you've done that, you can anticipate that doing it in an equivalent situation will do the same thing. You string together a lot of these short sequences you've seen, and you reach the end-goal. No luck, no other player. It's a puzzle game.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned chess puzzles. Let's go back to that. Chess itself is obviously a strategy game. From seeing how the game shifts around based on your moves, you can learn tactics and anticipate not only what your moves will get to but also what your opponent is likely to do. The opponent makes it strategy rather than a puzzle. Why is it any different when you're trying to get to a checkmate from a specific point? Because the goal is to force a checkmate, to make a sequence of moves which guarantee a checkmate. So you're canceling out the human unpredictability.

And I think that's enough of that.



Here, then, are my definitions of puzzle games and strategy games:

A puzzle game is a system of rules which change the play environment in ways the player can observe and perfectly predict to more than one move ahead.
A strategy game is a system of rules which change the play environment in ways the player can observe and vaguely predict to more than one move ahead.

Now by all means, show me why those definitions don't work.

[MoriartyL]

Davies, I see you wrote a lot in the time it took me to finish all that. I hope you'll forgive me for not reading it right now- my brain is exhausted.