Game Career Guide is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.


Get the latest Education e-news
 
  • Fixing Endgame Design In Grand Strategy Games

    [09.21.21]
    - Anton Petrushenkov
  • An idea for this piece came to me after reading this great lineup of the endgame "problems and solutions" used in the modern Grand Strategy games. Indeed, power snowballing and stale endings are serious issues to be dealt with and I agree with the author that something radical is in order to resolve this galore of problems.

    Here is my take.

    Reversed Chess

    I would go as far as to claim that the whole endgame approach in such games is inherently flawed.
    I really enjoy Grand Strategies. My personal choice currently is Civ V. The player journey it provides, is very enjoyable. But still, it shares the same problem as all of them: it makes you play chess in reverse.

    What are we, as players, looking for in an endgame? High stakes, clear winner, and a fast enough resolution I would say. Exactly how a good book or a movie would end. Unfortunately, the endgame in most Grand Strategy games is more often just a boring grind than a dynamic and breath-taking finale. Chess, on the other hand, is doing it very differently.


    Just compare how differently the endgame in these two great games looks like

    Why Chess?

    The history of chess can be traced back nearly 1500 years. The fact that the game is still well and alive proves that it can teach us a lot of game design goodness. One game quality that is important for this discussion is Elegance.

    An elegant game is always finding ways to reuse its elements in a multitude of ways. Each element of such a game serves multiple purposes at once. The rules are easy to learn and the game more or less lives its own life (nerds among us would call it emergent behavior).

    We can see that chess is masterfully using its own rules to bring us a "crispy and hot" endgame, which often feels like it's being directed by a pro. Well... at least as far as turn-based deep strategy games go.

    The balance shifts so fast and the stakes are getting so high that, sometimes, sacrificing your rook to stop a pawn is a genius move, not a stupid mistake. This is exactly how I would love a game of Civilization to end!

    The root of the problem, in my opinion, is the expansion mechanics overused by strategies. They work very well in the early and middle game stages but stop working once a certain amount of units under your control is reached.

Comments

comments powered by Disqus