It’s the motto of Dwarf Fortress: Losing is Fun. And it’s one you need to take to heart with that game, because until you get the hang of it (And even after you do) you’re going to lose, a lot. But that’s not quite what I’m aiming at here. In conventional games you may often die a lot as well, but you’ll come back at the last checkpoint or save and carry on.
What I am thinking of, however, is something fairly unique to strategy gaming, which is to say, losses that don’t end the game, but rather that are just a part of the game, a thing you endure, carry on from, and ultimately recover from.
But does that happen? See, in a ‘regular’ game like, say, Halo, when you die you just come back from it. You try again. You succeed, or not, and that’s that. In a game like DF you may lose a lot of work, but in these cases the loss is indeed part of the fun. It comes about because of a silly mistake, or because of hubris, or because you just got bored and wanted to watch the world burn. But in a strategy game losses are different.
In the real world of course no country is in permanent ascendance. Not even Rome enjoyed uninterrupted growth, and Rome eventually fell, as all powers do. So a strategy game must surely account for this as well. Yet in my experience, when you lose a city in Civilization or are forced to cede provinces in Europa Universalis III, it doesn’t feel good. It does’t feel like it’s part of the proper flow of the game. In a strategy game you do expect to be in permanent ascendance, and to not be is irritating and may well turn one off playing. I recall reading an interview with Sid Meier years ago where he said his original intention with Civ had been for your civ to go through periods of contraction and decline, but he found it was far from enjoyable to have it work like that.
Partly I think this is a case of momentum. In a strategy game, when you gain something, that something goes towards helping your empire grow. Overextension and the like are rarely simulated, and almost never simulated well, and in fact when that is attempted (As in the Magna Mundi mod for EU3) it often comes off as very arbitrary and pointlessly constricting.
How about you? Am I alone here, or do others feel the same and dislike accepting losses? Are there examples of games which do this well, and don’t make it feel arbitrary or unfair?
“Yet in my experience, when you lose a city in Civilization or are forced to cede provinces in Europa Universalis III, it doesn’t feel good.”
I imagine the 5th Century felt pretty crappy to the Romans too. Who would want to spend their recreation time faithfully simulating that? Actually, back in the day, there was a Yaquinto game about the fall of the Roman Empire that my friend Rolf and I played. However, you had to play it twice, switching who played the Romans and who got to be the Barbarians, and the winner was whoever captured Rome faster.
I remeber one play in EU3.
It was one of my first play in this game.
I lead Poland and start small victorius war.
It soon become clear that tis war isnt small.
I was fightng coalition of Bohemia Silesia Pomerania and Mazovia and winning.
Then Lithuania backstab me and I lose my army(I separated from alliance with them before). I try hard to resist but I lost a war.
I must surrender then and cede many prowinces.
It wasnt fun. But fun was starting from position of underdog and taking all waht was lost(and more) back.
Losing isnt fun. Lost fights can. Comebacks are much funnier thought.