You are viewing an archived version of the site which is no longer maintained.
Go to the current live site or the Adventure Gamers forums
Adventure Gamers

Home Adventure Forums Gaming General Definitions - strategy, simulation


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-11-2007, 11:47 PM   #1
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default Definitions - strategy, simulation

How would you define a simulation game, or a strategy game?
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-12-2007, 04:08 AM   #2
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

See, I'm trying to see if there's a connection between strategy games and simulations. I was just introduced to more elaborate strategy board games, and more than anything else they remind me of simulation videogames. They're all about managing complex systems, which is how I'd define a simulation game. So can a strategy game be defined as "a competitive simulation"?
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-12-2007, 04:39 AM   #3
Dungeon Master
 
AFGNCAAP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,152
Default

I wouldn't say so. IMO, if elaborate strategies tend to feel simulation-ish, it's precisely because they are elaborate rather than because they are strategies. I suppose adding enough layers and complexities to the gameplay could "simulationize" a game of any genre.
__________________
What's happening? Wh... Where am I?
AFGNCAAP is offline  
Old 08-12-2007, 11:52 AM   #4
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

So what's a strategy game?

And can't there be a simple simulation game? Or is that a contradiction in terms?
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-12-2007, 12:13 PM   #5
Aj_
Beyond Belief
 
Aj_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,186
Default

A simulation is an effort to simulate real life activities. A simulation doesn't have to be elaborate, a simple activity, would require a simple game. It's like the difference between factual and fiction books, factual books can be wrong, or simplifications, but their is an effort to represent reality. Where fiction might incorporate some reality, but it's not a goal.

Stategy games are concerned with management of multiple troops, resources, or something else, which generally involves more strategic thinking and multitasking than regular games. There are strategy games that are simulations, the Total War series for instance.
Aj_ is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 12:38 AM   #6
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

But there's plenty of "multitasking" and "strategic thinking" in a typical simulation, too! And anything but the most abstract strategy game is simulating something in reality, whether that's warfare or something else.

And do simulations really have to be tied to reality? I once played a demo for "Evil Genius", an evil lair simulation. That was factual in no way, shape or form. And there are science-fiction simulations, where you travel through space trading things. These games are not efforts to capture reality, so they're not at all similar to non-fictional books. And yet we call them simulation games!

By the way, the way Wikipedia describes Total War (I've never played it.) makes it sound an awful lot like strategy board games. So your suggestion that it's part-simulation just reinforces the idea that strategy board games and simulation videogames are identical except for the element of competition.

Last edited by Melanie68; 08-13-2007 at 11:13 AM. Reason: merged
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 04:29 AM   #7
Aj_
Beyond Belief
 
Aj_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,186
Default

Total War is a strategy game, so of course it's going to seem like strategy board games. The difference between Total War and Total Annihilation, one being a simulation and one not, is obvious.

Simulators can be first person shooters, strategy, or another genre. Simulators can have competition, flight simulators usually have multiplayer. Operation Flashpoint, Ghost Recon, and Total War could be argued to be simulators.

There's a difference between the genre and common usage of words. Strategy games are limited to a kind of strategy found in traditional boardgames like chess and checkers. In one sense all games are simulating something, but not all games belong to the simulation genre. "Evil Genius" could be an "an evil lair simulation" but I don't know anyone who would say it was part of the simulation genre.

Last edited by Aj_; 08-13-2007 at 06:55 AM.
Aj_ is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 05:30 AM   #8
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

Umm.. I would. In format, it's exactly like every other simulation game I've played. I wouldn't consider flight games the same medium, even though they're called simulation, so them having multiplayer says nothing. First-person shooters aren't about managing systems, they're about aiming and shooting. So those aren't simulations either.

So far, I see no reason to not define a strategy game, as I said earlier, as a competitive simulation. Let me illustrate what I mean. Have any of you played SimTower? You're managing a tower, where you build the tower and set prices on offices and condos and you provide security and restaurants and other services, trying to get a five-star rating. Now say the game were modified only slightly, such that there are two towers, each controlled by a different player. The two towers are competing with each other, so one getting a lot of business means less business for the other. What I am suggesting is that this is now a strategy game, because by introducing the element of competition it becomes no different from German-style strategy board games!

Conversely, if you were to take checkers and take out the other player, it would suddenly become a simulation game. You are managing a group of pieces, trying to turn them all into kings. An abstract simulation, to be sure, and boring because there is no challenge, but it is essentially the same as a simulation videogame and should be classified as such. You're managing a fairly open-ended system with set rules, trying to improve your status. That's what a simulation game is, is it not?

Last edited by Melanie68; 08-13-2007 at 11:12 AM. Reason: merged
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 07:06 AM   #9
Aj_
Beyond Belief
 
Aj_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,186
Default

The Sim games, Sim City etc... were always called strategy games in places where I went. Flight games, sports games, and some first person shooters are called simulators, and this has nothing to do with whether they're about shooting or not. This is also true of strategy games, Sim City and Total War games are called simulators, and others are not. It is not about the gameplay, it's about what the game is trying to simulate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_g...mulation_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_game
Aj_ is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 07:48 AM   #10
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

Gotcha. So the reason I'm seeing a parallel between what I call "simulation games" and strategy board games is that Sim-*, *-Tycoon, and so on are actually strategy games to begin with. And "simulation games" aren't a medium, they're a genre -like "science fiction" or "horror". An important distinction.

So can strategy games be defined as "games in which the player manages complex systems"?

Last edited by Melanie68; 08-13-2007 at 11:12 AM. Reason: merged
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-20-2007, 04:51 AM   #11
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

I've internalized what Aj_ said a little bit, and I have two further thoughts.

First, "games in which the player manages systems of clear rules and many objects" is a pretty good definition for the strategy game. (It could maybe use some tweaking, but the general idea is there.) How can I have a definition for the strategy game which doesn't have any reference to actual strategy in it? Quite simply. The more complex a predictable system becomes, the more benefit there is to planning ahead. (Strategizing.) And you don't really need to plan ahead in order to play these games, you just need to follow the rules. But strategy is the key to victory.

Secondly, if turn-based strategy battles and simulation strategy are two types of the same general form, then the role-playing game can be defined very simply: "Fiction plus both short-term and long-term strategy systems." Not only does this definition apply to all types of role-playing games, on the computer or otherwise, but it points to lots of potential that's not being tapped into. Why does the long-term strategy always have to deal only with individual characters? Couldn't there be a big, epic story where you're planning out the entire war, rather than just individual battles? Why does the long-term strategy need to involve "leveling up"? There are many other possible ways to indicate progress. And if the definition of role-playing doesn't require that the strategy be battle-related, then where are the RPGs without fighting?
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-21-2007, 11:52 PM   #12
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

Why is no one here correcting me? These are terrible definitions I've come up with! Soccer is a system of clear rules and many objects. (I am referring to soccer simulation videogames, not the real sport. Real soccer wouldn't qualify because you're not controlling enough objects.) I don't think it's a strategy game. And what about most card games? Just because you don't see all the objects (as you don't in, say, Stratego) doesn't mean it's not a system of clear rules and many objects.

And the RPG definition's got an omission: action-RPGs where the battles don't have strategy. I'm not talking about action games like Castlevania or Diablo, which clearly aren't RPGs. I'm talking about games which follow all the RPG conventions except having any form of strategy in their battles.

On second thought, that's not much of a problem. Can I say that those games aren't really RPGs?

But there's still the definition of strategy. Pesky, pesky.

I can't say that it's a game that requires strategy, because you can play any strategy game without strategy. You just won't be good at it. And if you say that it "requires strategy to excel", then so many other types of games have to be brought up (like action games), in which advanced strategies can be useful.

I can't say that it's a game that allows strategy, because almost everything allows you to plan ahead, whether or not it has any impact on gameplay.

Come to think of it, are team sports games just really fast-paced strategy games? I've never played any for a significant amount of time, so I wouldn't know exactly how it works. But aren't you moving all your players around the map? How is it not Real-Time Strategy?
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-22-2007, 12:04 AM   #13
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

Maybe an RPG is "fiction with a long-term strategy system and a short-term system for confrontations". That way, there could even be battles played out as rounds of Pong and still it qualifies as an RPG. But it closes off the possibility of non-confrontational RPGs.

You know what, I think I'll have it both ways. An RPG is "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.". I can eat my cake and still have it!

Or can't I?
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-25-2007, 04:34 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Davies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 403
Default

No game categories are mutually exclusive, and there's a lot of grey areas between simulation and strategy, and between strategy and RPG, and RPG and adventure, and so on.

These are the categories I use to sort out my games, with rough working definitions:

(Arcade) Action - Emphasis is on movement and/or shooting. A straight test of reflexes, with no real brain work required beyond remembering what moves to make when. Examples: Space Invaders, Blockout, most platform games, simple fighting and racing games.

Action Strategy - A mixture of movement/shooting with a strong element of puzzle solving or similar brain work. Examples: Tomb Raider, The Chaos Engine, D-Generation.

Board and Card Games - Simulated play with board games or playing cards, e.g. chess, poker, Monopoly. These could come under strategy games or simulations, but they feel so different in gameplay that I prefer to keep them separate.

Puzzle Games - Pure puzzle solving with no important storyline and no arcade-type skills required (though there may be time limits). Examples: Sokoban, Tetris, jigsaws, crosswords.

Educational Games - Games of any type which are intended to teach as well as entertain. Usually aimed at children.

Adventure - The player controls a character through a clearly defined storyline with few or no random elements. The player character usually acquires possessions and may acquire new skills or attributes, but these are directly related to points in the storyline where they are needed. The player may change character during the game, but controls only one character at a time.

Role-Playing - Similar to adventure, but with stronger emphasis on random elements. The player character acquires possessions and improves his skills or attributes, but in order to improve his overall odds of survival rather than because they are needed at specific moments. The player typically controls a party of several characters at the same time.

Simulation - An attempt to model a realistic (or fantasy-realistic) situation. The amount of detail in the program is irrelevant, as long as an attempt is made to incorporate realistic "rules".
Includes (but is not limited to) the following sub-categories:
Sports Simulation - Model of any real-world sport. Also includes fantasy sports, e.g. Brutal Football, Caveman Ugh-Lympics.
Vehicle Simulation - Model of driving, flying, sailing, etc. any real-world or fantasy vehicle. I count racing games under this heading, though they could just as easily be called sports simulations.
Life Simulation - Model of caring for and perhaps breeding or training living things. Examples: Creatures, Dogz, Tamagotchi, The Sims.

Strategy - A game based on complex brain work rather than reflexes, in which you usually compete directly against another human player or human-simulation AI opponent.
The most common sub-category is:
Wargames - Recreations of real wars or battles, or pure "what-if" or fantasy battles. Gameplay typically based around manoeuvring troops, and often including some resource management.
There's no reason why strategy games have to be limited to war scenarios, but "head-to-head competition" implies that there's going to be some sort of battling for limited resources, even if that means just occupying the most space.

These next three sub-categories are squarely in the grey area between simulation and strategy. For each individual game, you could argue which side of the borderline it's on.

Business and Resource Management - Model of running a business or otherwise managing limited resources to achieve a goal. Examples: the various Tycoon games, trading games, games where you build up and run a small colony (going back to the very old days of Hammurabi).

God Games - Similar to resource management, but on a larger scale and with greater powers to make drastic changes in the game world. Examples: Populous, Black and White, Civilisation, Sim City.

Elite-Type Games - Games that combine vehicle simulation with trading and resource management, usually incorporating action elements (combat), and possibly including an overarching storyline. Examples: Elite, Starglider, Federation of Free Traders.
__________________
"You are amusing, in a 'what the hell is wrong with you' sort of way."
--Jaheira, Baldur's Gate
Davies is offline  
Old 08-25-2007, 11:37 PM   #15
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

Well, these definitions are sort of awkward. For instance, the definition of a strategy game: "A game based on complex brain work rather than reflexes, in which you usually compete directly against another human player or human-simulation AI opponent."

Strategy board games fit that description perfectly, but you've put them in a separate category because you think they "feel" different. For that matter, some card games fit your definition of strategy games. And if a strategy game usually but not always involves competition, then why aren't you calling puzzle games a type of strategy game? Puzzle games are what I'd naturally think of when told that a game requires "complex brain work"!

Why can't a game be both a simulation and a strategy game? It seems to me that Sim City encourages "complex brain work" at least as much as most of the RTS games I've played! And it attempts to model a realistic situation. (I do like how you said "realistic" rather than "real"- it answers my Evil Genius question.) So by your own definitions, it ought to be both! And when you start thinking along those lines, all the Sim games, all the Tycoon games, all the Civilization games are both simulations and strategy games.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Content and format are two separate things. So if you define one type of game by format, and another by content, then the two descriptors can overlap! For example, you can define the horror game by its content, but then its format can be action or adventure or even (theoretically) RPG! Similarly, "simulation" describes not the format of the game but the content- that it deals with a realistic subject matter. So even if you don't distinguish between "forms" and "genres" -which is admittedly just a personal quirk of mine- we still shouldn't be in disagreement that many simulation games -including German-style board games- are actually strategy games.
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-26-2007, 12:28 AM   #16
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

By the way, the way I play strategy games (I stink at them.) there's no "complex brain work" going on. Create workers, get resources, build armies, build defenses, send army, get annihilated, repeat until victory. Now, this is certainly not the correct way to play a strategy game, but when I play like this, is it no longer a strategy game? I'm not planning ahead, I'm not thinking about what I'm doing in the moment, and yet with easy missions these simple actions are sometimes enough. With more complex missions I start out like that, then when I fail several times make a simple change to the formula and repeat. Eventually I make it through.

Again, I know this is the wrong way to play. But still, how can strategy games be defined by skills that aren't always even necessary?
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-26-2007, 01:06 PM   #17
Freeware Co-ordinator
 
stepurhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: South East England.
Posts: 7,309
Default

Perhaps the question you should be asking is, is it necessary to have these things closely defined?

Let's take Warcraft 3 for example.

Is it an RPG? The hero units advance in levels gaining more abilities and can pick up items to improve their stats.

Is it an adventure? You have to overcome a series of obstacles (most of them involving eradicating opposing forces admittedly) to advance a storyline. Whilst fighting is usually the best or only solution some missions benefit from a bit of lateral thinking to achieve the stated mission goals.

Is it a simulation? You have to manage resources (gold and wood) and build a functioning city (military camp) Lot of similarities ot Sim City for that part.

Is it a strategy game? This is undoubtedly the category that most people would fit it into but, as I've demonstrated above, you could fit bits of it into different genres.

Trying to say a game fits a rigid specific pigeonhole means lopping bits off the edges that don't fit. Far better to judge a game on its individual merits than to try to decide what other games it should sit beside.
__________________
No Nonsense Nonsonnets #43

Cold Topic

A thread most controversial, that’s what I want to start
Full of impassioned arguments, of posting from the heart
And for this stimulation all will be thankful to me
On come on everybody it won’t work if you agree
stepurhan is offline  
Old 08-26-2007, 02:20 PM   #18
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

Look, Warcraft III is clearly a strategy game. It's clearly not an RPG, even though it took some RPG elements. It's also clearly not an adventure. (I do think it's the same form as Sim City, though.) But the question remains, why am I so certain that it's a strategy game, as opposed to those other types of games? And to that I still have no satisfactory answer. That's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm trying to validate my gut feeling with reason, and I can only do that with clear definitions.

Now, I like that you've brought up Warcraft III, because it raises an interesting question. Let me frame it in the clearest way I can:

Warcraft III has a completely non-interactive and elaborate narrative, it has leveling-up and inventories and other such RPG elements, and almost the entirety of the game takes place in the fairly typical RTS battles. When I played it, I was certain it was a strategy game, and not an RPG.

Fire Emblem has a completely non-interactive and elaborate narrative, it has leveling-up and inventories and other such RPG elements, and almost the entirety of the game takes place in the fairly typical turn-based battles. When I played it, I was certain it was an RPG.

So now I've got to demonstrate the boundary between the strategy game and the RPG clearly enough to explain the distinction between these two games. If I can't, I've got to rethink at least one of my gut feelings.

So I'm thinking back to when I played Warcraft III, and I remember what my impression was. My (personal) impression was that the RPG elements felt tacked-on to the RTS gameplay. There were still ordinary soldiers fighting the war, who did not grow or even stick around from battle to battle. And on the other side of the rules, the base-building didn't have any long-term elements either.

My definition of role-playing right now is: "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.".

Both Warcraft III and Fire Emblem can be seen to be primarily works of fiction. Both have short-term strategy systems (following tried-and-true conventions of strategy games) dealing with immediate confrontations. The difference is in the long-term strategy system.

In Fire Emblem, you decide who is going to get EXP points. You decide what weapons those characters will get and which types of weapons they should get good at. You even decide which relationships should be built up. All these decisions are long-term strategies because they're going to shape the rest of the game. These are the guys who will be fighting later, after all, so these decisions matter.

In Warcraft III, you decide when your one Hero character should fight and get EXP points. And you decide which spells he should learn. I don't remember any other decisions. Anyway, both rules have a small impact on the progression of the game. But very small.

If, on the other hand, Warcraft III gave EXP points to all the soldiers, and you kept the soldiers from mission to mission, then there would be more long-term repercussions from your decisions. The leveling-up could then be classified as a long-term strategy system, meaning that the overall game would be classified as a tactical RPG.


Now, what this intellectual exercise shows me is that the definition of a strategy game has to stipulate that the decisions of the player have repercussions. A strategy game is a game where the player's actions shape the progression of the game. This can't be the entire definition, since that doesn't exclude puzzle games, but it might be a start.

What do you think?
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-26-2007, 02:22 PM   #19
Not like them!
 
MoriartyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,570
Send a message via AIM to MoriartyL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stepurhan View Post
Is it a simulation? You have to manage resources (gold and wood) and build a functioning city (military camp) Lot of similarities ot Sim City for that part.
As noted earlier, "simulation" is a classification of theme and content, not format. So I think Sim City is a simulation strategy game.
MoriartyL is offline  
Old 08-26-2007, 02:33 PM   #20
Freeware Co-ordinator
 
stepurhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: South East England.
Posts: 7,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoriartyL View Post
Look, Warcraft III is clearly a strategy game. It's clearly not an RPG, even though it took some RPG elements. It's also clearly not an adventure. (I do think it's the same form as Sim City, though.) But the question remains, why am I so certain that it's a strategy game, as opposed to those other types of games?
If you can't say why you're so certain it's a strategy game then maybe that should tell you something.
Quote:
Warcraft III has a completely non-interactive and elaborate narrative, it has leveling-up and inventories and other such RPG elements, and almost the entirety of the game takes place in the fairly typical RTS battles. When I played it, I was certain it was a strategy game, and not an RPG.
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)
Quote:
What do you think?
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. Maybe the reason is that actual games are more complex than that and no definition can perfectly fit any game "believed" to belong in either of these two genres as a result. Maybe there just isn't an answer.
__________________
No Nonsense Nonsonnets #43

Cold Topic

A thread most controversial, that’s what I want to start
Full of impassioned arguments, of posting from the heart
And for this stimulation all will be thankful to me
On come on everybody it won’t work if you agree
stepurhan is offline  
 



Thread Tools

 


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.