You guys (Mark and Tom) are both right once again about FOT. It just seems to me that most strategy game developers lack any understanding of actual game design. These people need to take classes, or learn to play some "old-school" boardgames or something -- I mean, it boggles the mind that such resources and technology can be squandered on such wretched excuses for entertainment. Sure, it's par for the course, but it still bugs the hell out of me.

Lacking any sort of overarching plan or organizing notion, FOT's game system is just a loose collection of inconsistent rules piled one on top of another. Overwatch mode is just tacked on because users demanded it. A character running seems no different than a character walking. A character with a Sneak skill of 25% can move unnoticed in broad daylight. The list goes on and on. And the AI... oh my Lord...

I dream of the day when a sensible, well-designed squad-level game will be produced. Between FOT and Squad Leader, I'm stupefied by the lack of understanding or critical thinking on the part of the people who made these games. Where's the vision, for crying out loud? How many people in this wealthy industry got where they are because they have an understanding of GAMES?

I can count three: Sid Meier, Phil Steinmeyer, and Kevin Perry. Any other nominees?

I dunno. Will Wright has done something right. Completely different style of games, but I'd say he understands games. Richard Garriott did too, until he left Origin.

Still, you make a good point. Of the countless people involved, we should be able to name more than just a small handful.

I don't think it's any surprise that the best games of any year all start from the foundations of a great plan for the gameplay. The reason Sid Meier, Phil Steinmeyer, Ensemble Studios, Blizzard and more can succeed consistently is because they seem to start with gameplay and refine that first. Most of these other teams seem to be committed to getting the graphics and looks of the game to be right with some general gameplay idea in mind. Unfortunately that leads to the graphical aspects ending up as the focal point instead of the actual gameplay. What's the first thing someone who actually PLAYS the game notices? The gameplay...

You'd think that companies would look at the approach of an Ensemble and realize that there's really no magic to it other than hard work, testing and trial and error. But all that stuff is done with focus on gameplay and not on looks. Instead they go through all kinds of trial and error, testing and hard work to make it look pretty. Duh...what do you think you'll end up with then?

Now obviously, there's no blanket statement here, all developers are different, but the successful ones all seem to work in the same ways.

--Dave

Yeah Dave, well put -- That definitely seems to be the issue with the FOT team. They obviously spent an enormous amount of time and effort on the art side of the game, and gameplay seems to have been an afterthought. I guess this describes the main problem with the industry these days.

I haven't had a chance to spend any time with the retail version, but I did follow the development cycle via the Interplay forums. From what I gather, the original concept was to develop a tactical game based on the "combat" portion of the cRPG games. Based on comments I've read, the designers thought for the longest time that it would be a turn-based game. The addition of the continous-time mode was in response to multiplayer taking an inordinate amount of time. My general impression is that the fundamental focus of the game was lost right then and there. Don't get me wrong; I think they did a good job implementing the game. I just think the design was flawed.

- Alan