The Gospel of Strategy Games according to consoles

Could we blame skeptics from saying that “console RTS” won’t work? Real-time strategy (RTS) and its close cousin, real-time tactics (RTT), have always been the domain of the personal computer, with its mouse and keyboard. The traditional console controller is ill-suited for the rigors of battle strategy. And with some disappointing attempts to port PC RTS titles to consoles – including the early Command & Conquer titles to PSOne and StarCraft on the N64 – somehow the cry went up from both sides of the gaming world: stick to the status quo.

This is where Electronic Arts, stubborn EA, comes in. Criticized as they are for a number of gaffes in the past year (alone), we’d always held that sometimes, even they can get some things right, or at least good enough. Backing EALA‘s bold attempts to put RTS into console gaming (starting with The Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-Earth II) might be one of them. And now a bolt from the blue dev, Tiki Games, plans to craft a real-time strategy title for, among others, the handheld PSP.

A crazy effort – ludicrous, even? Or is it finally time some boundaries are breached, some lines blurred? Is the core idea of real-time strategy breaking free (because there’s not a star in heaven that they can’t reach)? Short of beating the 360 Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars out of EALA right now for a review, we try instead to deconstruct the idea behind strategy games, and see where they fit in the matrix of the gaming console.

Short version of the verdict: it can, and it will – if you’re willing to be as wily as Sun Tzu on a coffee high, that is.

Sun Tzu says: Hence it is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results. Intelligence analysis of strategy gaming on consoles after the jump, Commander.

Could we blame skeptics from saying that “console RTS” won’t work? Real-time strategy (RTS) and its close cousin, real-time tactics (RTT), have always been the domain of the personal computer, with its mouse and keyboard. The traditional console controller is ill-suited for the rigors of battle strategy. And with some disappointing attempts to port PC RTS titles to consoles – including the early Command & Conquer titles to PSOne and StarCraft on the N64 – somehow the cry went up from both sides of the gaming world: stick to the status quo.

This is where Electronic Arts, stubborn EA, comes in. Criticized as they are for a number of gaffes in the past year (alone), we’d always held that sometimes, even they can get some things right, or at least good enough. Backing EALA‘s bold attempts to put RTS into console gaming (starting with The Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-Earth II) might be one of them. And now a bolt from the blue dev, Tiki Games, plans to craft a real-time strategy title for, among others, the handheld PSP.

A crazy effort – ludicrous, even? Or is it finally time some boundaries are breached, some lines blurred? Is the core idea of real-time strategy breaking free (because there’s not a star in heaven that they can’t reach)? Short of beating the 360 Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars out of EALA right now for a review, we try instead to deconstruct the idea behind strategy games, and see where they fit in the matrix of the gaming console.

Short version of the verdict: it can, and it will – if you’re willing to be as wily as Sun Tzu on a coffee high, that is.

Sun Tzu says: the mouse is rubber… controllers are grue

Let’s take the experiences of professional gaming using Blizzard Entertainment’s StarCraft as an example. Analysis by the game fans and avid multiplayers (wikied into Wikipedia) break down RTS gameplay into three basic components:

• Micromanagement – fine unit control during battle, being able to maneuver your forces around the other guy for maximum damage;
• Macromanagement – economy management, keeping the money flowing to the banks and pumping out units and infrastructure; also includes technology trees, recon and intel, and knowing how to take advantage of terrain and the map; and
• Multitasking – your mental and psychological ability to handle all of the above, plus whatever your enemy throws at you, without flinching, failing, breaking down, puking, or suddenly speaking in LocoRoco tongues (“pacchonbo- mo-inoinoi chakaretapatton pankorakettonto-n…”)

In all three, the humble two-button mouse reigns supreme, especially when paired with a keyboard. Nothing beats the mouse for its fluid coverage of the field. With it, players can call specific units into and retreat from the heat of battle, to attack the enemy from any point in the compass rose. Over the game’s graphics user interface (GUI), players can order unit/infrastructure production or set battle tactics. Even the military is looking into RTS as a platform for controlling multiple spy and battle drones in the field.

The controller just can’t keep up – and not only because the analog stick is to the mouse as a linebacker is to a ballerina. One key factor in successful RTS multiplay is APM – Actions Per Minute. A high APM means a player can issue a flurry of commands to units and building queues faster than his opponent. The controller can’t lend itself well to high APM. The stick (or nub) is a poor substitute for a mouse in moving an on-screen cursor. Pop-up menus activated by pressing or holding down buttons or triggers add to the time it takes to execute a command, further cutting down APM.

Electronic Arts is so stubborn (sometimes, that’s a good thing)

Battle for Middle-Earth II (Xbox 360) surprised many people. In the key component of strategic control, EALA produced something that still can’t stand toe-to-toe with the mouse/keyboard, yet remained fluid, intuitive, and easy to use, as observed by reviewers. It made smart use of triggers and the D-pad to control construction and production orders.

IGN, for one, praised EALA (itself comprised of former Westwood Studios employees) for the work done in the control setup. Based on my personal experience with the game, the smart design allowed for a decent APM level. IGN observed, “Nearly every action is one to three steps away, with face buttons and even bumper buttons coming into play with relative ease.”

It still didn’t mean that we could see BFMEII PC-vs-360 player matchups – or, for that matter, the upcoming C&C3, when their respective versions are released. The APM difference between the two, not to mention the approach to controlling the battlefield, is too wide for a fair match. For the strategy game that C&C and StarCraft are representative of, PC control setups are still king of the hill (One of the reasons why gamers are asking for or about keyboard-and-mouse support for Xbox 360 and PS3 gaming, another being shooters).

But what if the idea of computer military strategy games itself is changing?

Full Spectrum Warrior: not all strategy is C&C (e.g., try C4ISR)

Pandemic Studios’ Full Spectrum Warrior is rightly classified as a real-time tactics (RTT) game, because the player commands a limited number of troops, doesn’t have an economy (part of macromanagement) to use to reinforce his units, and thus must use superior unit tactics to defeat the enemy with minimal losses. In FSW you commanded two fireteams of US soldiers battling insurgents and terrorists through the streets of Somethingstan.

What’s unique about FSW is that it didn’t look like the traditional RTS/RTT title. For one thing, the camera isn’t god’s-eye; it’s in-the-mud fireteam level. But perhaps the most pleasant surprise is that FSW was playable on the original Xbox – where it first appeared, before the PC and PS2 versions (in fact, because of the control setup, I found the PS2 and Xbox versions to be more enjoyable than the PC version). Strategy on a console – oh yes, I was enjoying myself.

Sure, Full Spectrum isn’t the APM monster that StarCraft still is. It’s still a real-time strategic/tactical game, nonetheless. Reflexes and fine aiming were less important than unit control, situational awareness, the ability to exploit opportunities and advantages, and use one’s resources wisely to inflict maximum damage for minimal loss. Which is what military strategy and tactics are all about, anyway. Not every RTS/RTT game had to look like C&C.

Sun Tzu sings: This could be the start of something new…

There it is: RTS/RTT didn’t have to fit the mold set by Dune, C&C, and Warcraft. Strategy isn’t just micro, macro, and APM. At its core, and beyond the technical concepts of professional RTS gaming, lies what every military commander has been taught from the first push-up:

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting… If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

Sun Tzu, “The Art of War” III: Attack by Strategem

Even the pro RTS players can tell you that the battle is won and lost in the mind, the heart, and often the put-down, even before the first shot is fired/the first mouse is clicked. APM can be developed; superior strategies and excellent unit guides GameFAQed. They are still no substitutes for broad experience, strategic gameplay, excellent awareness of what’s happening in-game (situational awareness or SI), the eyes of a spy, and sometimes a lion tamer’s courage and a gambler’s luck.

What if you can center a game, not around APM, but around strategic mindsets? Shift the balance of warfare gaming from micro-control to macro-control? Developing unit-level and macro-level AI through history means that one can almost let the computer “play the game itself”. For example, units are smart enough not to rush into suicide matchups (grunt vs. tank, for example), have excellent pathfinding from Point A to Point B, and so on.

Does it sound boring, having the CPU hold your hand all the way? No, and I’ll give you the reason why: Homeworld 2. The sequel to the most stunning space RTS title of the late 20th century also featured smart unit control setups.

Any Homeworld player will tell you that the action between buzzing space fighters and massive capital ships can get so intense, micromagement is not only hell, it’s downright satanic. Homeworld 2 eased it (back to hell, but at least it eased) with relatively smart fleet formations called “strike groups” one can call up at the press of a Function Key.

Unit targeting was also smartly delivered. Entire strike fleets can be commanded to attack other smart fleets, and most of the time, individual units will latch themselves on the enemy it’s designed to deal with: bombers against ships, fighters against other fighters, antifighter ships against fighters, and so on. While the game, in multiplayer, can still be a micromanagement hell, details like these meant that one could “sweat the small stuff” and try to keep his mind on the larger picture (although even the big picture killed me a lot. What can I say, I’m a S’jet groupie).

The mighty Hand in the Sky picks you, Pikachu!

Balancing a console RTS/RTT towards that paradigm or mindset – less micro, more macro, big picture – means that a controller could probably be enough to deliver the gaming experience without compromise or complaint. Let’s call the concept Intervention, because that’s the philosophy behind it.

Instead of giving out minute, unit-level orders, you instead give out a more open command that the AI can smartly execute. The time when you come in, or intervene, is when you need to pull out of a losing battle, reposition troops to a better angle of attack, or send in reinforcement units or even special powers. This is the idea behind Full Spectrum, where you give “fields of fire” orders to your fireteams; this is the paradigm behind the strike fleet-group attack commands of Homeworld 2. Also the mindset behind Peter Molyneux’s Black & White, where the game is driven partly by the times you, god (small g), step in with miracles… or mayhem.

This is also the idea behind Koei’s Kessen for the PS2, which can be described as a “part-time RTT.” Legions of samurai are commanded to go-to-location, and engage enemy units when they meet them until ordered to retreat. To turn the tide of battle, the player also has special abilities in each military force he can employ, from musket fire and cavalry charges to cannon barrages and deadly ninja companies. It’s certainly not the exhilaration of StarCraft uber-micro, but it was strategy (albeit bluntly applied, and still favoring superior numbers over actual strategy).

There we have it. Stripping off APM, micro, and macro from the description of RTS, we are left with what we can say is the “loose” or “general” approach to strategy gaming: smart AI to leave you with the big picture (sweat the micro out), intuitive and fluid controls to command the field (no need for a mouse), and the perfect model, philosophy, or mindset in designing the best strategy gameplay (depends on the IP being developed). Surely, any console can handle that.

Hey, what about handhelds?!

Did you really think I forgot, PSP Updates? The moment I saw the story that Tiki Games was planning to dev its RTS title for the PSP, I collapsed swearing “o-ra poruketthi-no poporattantanso-“, while another QJ staffer simply said “no (expletive deleted) way that can happen!” And our PSP readers had a small field day with the comments, many claiming “it can’t work, period.”

Gameplay-wise, it could – BFMEII serves as a good model for future games of the type. Additionally, after what you’ve just read, PSP strategy doesn’t have to be a point-and-click paradise. The real obstacle is firepower: the PSP’s and NDS’ own “ceiling” of processing resources.

Fortunately, eggwonder (Unregistered)‘s comment to that article helped clear our thoughts some. “Warcraft II Battle.net runs on 60mhz,16mb RAM, and uses 80mb of hd space… so a decent rts should be able to run on the psp with its 333mhz,32mb RAM and large amounts of space on UMDs and memory sticks.”

Of course, Warcraft II certainly isn’t a graphics powerhouse, but let’s set aside the graphics angle for a moment and concentrate on the gameplay (besides, the old-school Dune was also ported to, would you believe it, the SEGA GENESIS). It can be done – remember, there is a homebrew RTS title for the NDS, and there was that Lua project for the PSP. Not to mention Tiki Games’ little (needs-a-publisher) dream.

The important thing is to remember the important qualities of a non-PC strategy title, which are AI, controls, and gameplay, and a game may do well on that platform. The challenge is to code a decent AI (and for an RTS/RTT, it better be devilishly decent) that will (a) fit within the parameters of the PSP or NDS and (b) will not take an ungodly amount of time to load (hopefully enough). The NDS has the advantage of faster loading; the PSP the greater resources it can pump into the game. Then there’s Wi-Fi multiplayer to consider – another challenge of allocating resources.

The smart dev who manages to crack these challenges, and develop a smart “burst-RTS/RTT” title that can be played in short bursts (much like Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops is structured for short gameplay), and will hold up in multiplayer, won’t just have done what many have thought could not be done. He might also crack open a new market for handhelds.

And the Wii?

Oh, that’s almost a no-brainer. Remember they brought StarCraft to the 64. The Wiimote and Nunchuck means that the Wii can merge the point-and-click simplicity of PC strategy with the push-button popup menus and hotkeys of console strategy (the Nunchuck somewhat standing in for the keyboard).

Compared to the PS3 and Xbox 360, the Wii doesn’t carry that much processing firepower, so graphics will take a hit. Again, though, so long as AI, control, and gameplay are met within decent parameters, graphics can be tolerated. Besides, a little imagination in the graphics department can be useful, too. Strategy doesn’t have to literally look like super-real, G80, D3D10 Vista-powered PC titles, either.

We tried it once your way, Khan. Are you game for a rematch?
I’m… laughing at the superior intellect.

I’ve been hooked to RTS/RTT since playing Dune on a friend’s PC, back when Tom Cruise was more Top Gun than Top Couch. Seeing the evolution of strategy wargaming from those humble beginnings, to the powerhouses that Supreme Commander and Tiberium Wars are, I can safely say that the brain certainly overpowers the brawn in this century and PC generation, too.

Still, I was eager to see strategy grow in more than one direction, too. The first generation of console RTS titles, such as Dune II on the Genesis, was a hesitant step forward, certainly compromised to fit the limitations of consoles handling strategy gaming. Like any good general, though, the key is to have the mind see different avenues of attack, the power and resources to execute your attack, and the occasional guts to try it when everyone else says it can’t work.

The PC crowd might not warm to the idea of “hand-holding” through an RTS, levelling accusations of “dumbing down” the game. True, and that’s why StarCraft will always still be around as the ruler by which RTS is still measured (not to mention by which bad RTS n00boys are still whipped). But the idea that “consoles can’t do RTS” is as broken as the idea that “rabbids can’t dance”.

A group of intelligent titles have shown that with excellent control layouts, proper balancing and well thought-out AI, and the right guiding philosophy behind the game, military strategy games can be developed for the console, too.

Besides… I can’t afford a G80, D3D10, Vista-ready PC gaming rig. My own PC struggles to play C&C: Generals. Of course I want alternatives, (expletive deleted). Doesn’t any good commander always have a Plan B?