Critique: Europa Universalis III

The problem with westernization.

Hello there! Games have many problems these days. I recently came across a great game that is ruined by such a problem and thought I would elaborate upon it here. Let us start the story from the beginning!

In celebration of having half a million registered forum users, Paradox gifted each of their forum users an activation key for the steam version of Europa Universalis III: Chronicles.

"For starters, to thank you for being one of our half-million forum fans, Paradox Interactive and Paradox Development have got you a little present: A copy of Europa Universalis III: Chronicles for Steam! Look below for a unique code that you can redeem on Steam, and add this iconic Paradox strategy title to your library, (If you already have EUIII Chronicles, you can share your love of Paradox with a friend by letting them have the code!)." - Mail sent to registered forum members

A good friend of mine gifted me his spare key and I, being a fan of strategy games, gleefully leaped right into the game. I have had some fun times with Paradox's games in the past, particularly with Hearts of Iron III so I was expecting this game to be of the same level of quality. Since this is not a review as such but rather a critique of a specific feature of the game I will simply state that Europa Universalis III: Chronicles is a well made game that will appeal to many fans of the 4X genre.

Each of those little color blobs is a country you can play as. Glorious isn't it?

DISCLAIMER: Before I move on I must state clearly that I have not seen this kind of message implemented via a feature in other Paradox games and as such I am not criticising their company or any specific person working there. This is merely me pointing out a bad design decision so that we can all learn to avoid making the same mistake in the future.

The feature that made me turn off down the game and will probably prevent me from playing it again is the westernization mechanic, in order to explain why we must start with understanding the mechanic itself.

Each country in EUIII belongs to a technology group, of which there are several. Each tech group has a certain modifier to research efficiency and begins the game at different technology levels. Westernization is the process by which a country advances to a more efficient tech group. This does not affect a country's current technology level but only affects the research speed modifier and slow limit. Countries researching technology below the slow limit receive less of a penalty to research speed.

The different technology groups are as follows, arranged in order to efficiency:

1. Western: 100% research speed, begins at level 3.
2. Eastern: 85% research speed, begins at level 3, slows down at level 6.
3. Ottoman: 80% research speed, begins at level 5.
4. Muslim: 75% research speed, begins at level 5.
5. Indian: 50% research speed, begins at level 3, slows down at level 7.
6. Chinese: 40% research speed, begins at level 3. slows down at level 7.
7. Sub-Saharan: 20% research speed, begins at level 3, slows down at level 6.
8. Nomads: 10% research speed, begins at level 3, slows down at level 6.
9. New World: 10% research speed, begins at level 0, slows down at level 4.

Why would I have a problem with this? At first glance it seems like a valid long term goal for certain countries to improve their research efficiency to be competitive in the end-game.

The problem lies with the research speed modifier and slow down limits. Europeans will always be the most efficient researchers in the world with this system, the only thing the other countries can do is try and catch up by abandoning their own culture in favor of the western European one. Note that only the western, ottoman and Muslim technology groups can research high level technology without penalty.

According to this mechanic it takes five sub-Saharan scientists to match one European scientist, or ten (!) American Indian scientists to match one European scientist. This is not related to form of government or access to natural resources since almost all countries share the same form of government at the beginning of the game (in 1399) and the countries of the lower technology groups have access to great natural wealth. The mechanic also states, via the slow down limit, that the lower technology groups are unable to wrap their heads around more complex research.

There is one word that adequately describes the message this mechanic sends to the player. Racism.

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." - The Oxford dictionary

What makes it even worse is that this mechanic will affect the way players play the game. Research is immensely important in EUIII since it unlocks bonuses for all aspects of your country. Games are teachers, and what this teaches the player is that other cultures than the western European one are inferior by default. I have not read any credible research that concludes that western Europeans are smarter and more gifted in the art of science than anyone else. 

I find this mechanic to be distasteful. It is one thing to have countries begin at different technology levels, since this was probably was the case in 1399 (the American Indians did actually possess technology at this time though and should probably not start at level zero, how else could they construct Machu Picchu), and quite another to make a blatantly racist statement. This is by no means limited to EUIII. It is a visible problem in many games where the glorious western hero mows down hordes of the uncivilized barbaric brown people. 

Racism is as big a problem as sexism in games. Both are serious problems that need addressing. We can start by becoming aware of the mechanics in games, analyzing what message they send and by doing so learning how to avoid this all to familiar trap.

A better way of implementing this would to simply let countries start at different technology levels based on their actual situation in 1399 and base research speed on funding instead of inherent cultural modifiers. I understand that this will take a lot more research (pun intended) on the part of the developers but if you are going to make such a distinction in your game you would do well to do it properly instead of falling back on racist stereotypes.

I hope that you found this post interesting and perhaps even learned something. I stress again that this is not an attack on Paradox or any of their employees. It is simply a very clear implementation of racism in games and as such should be held up as an example. 

Leave a comment down below if you wish to participate in this discussion, have another point of view or simply does no agree with me.

I wish you all a pleasant day.

Cooperation and competition

A few pillars to keep in mind

Welcome! Today I will muse about the difference between games themed for cooperation and competition. In this post I will attempt to provide you with a few pillars to keep in mind when designing such games. I will be discussing how these themes impact the gameplay, how they change the players' interaction with each other and how game mechanics should be adapted to work well withing their respective themes. Let us get started!

There are basically three ways to implement cooperation and competition, either stick purely to one of the themes or mix them to create a team based competition. I will discuss each of these implementations in the following order:

1. Cooperation. In this theme the players cooperate to defeat the game.
2. Competition. This is a purely competitive theme, free for all and every player for herself. The objective is to defeat all other players and end up as King of the hill.
3. Team competition. This mixed theme is based on two team competing against each other and as such contains elements of both cooperation and competition.

Cooperation

The objective in a cooperative game is for the players to work together in order to defeat a challenge posed by the game itself. The trick to this theme is to actually encourage the players to work together. Some games manage this better while some seem to miss the mark. Interesting cooperation is harder to achieve than one might think, in some ways it is more difficult than to create a great competitive environment in a game. Whereas competition is based on balance, cooperation is based on synergies. What I mean by this is that several players working together should be more powerful than any player could possibly be alone. Synergies combined with a difficult challenge will force the players to cooperate or face inevitable defeat.

• The mechanics must allow players to create synergies between them. An example of this would be to let players move further if they begin their turn in the same place as another player or let them heal each other after difficult encounters.
• The challenge must be so great that it is impossible to win by oneself. This can be achieved by, for instance, having several objectives that must be achieved in a short amount of time or by designing difficult encounters that can only be completed by working together.

Cooperative games usually have the players control specific avatars with unique abilities. This is a great way of creating synergies and ensures that all players have their niche. If one would like to go one step further it is possible to give each player a limitation as well as an ability. 

Regular challenges include time limits that forces players to divide themselves into small teams suited to the particular objective they aim to achieve within said time limit. An example from Forbidden Island might be that two players go after the underwater artifact since they are the only ones equipped with diving gear while two other players secure the helicopter landing site against oncoming tidal waves. Another type of regular challenge is to create really menacing enemies that players will need to combat together, using various attack synergies and combinations that can only be executed together.

A properly designed cooperative game rewards the players with a sense of community. The players will assist each other, discuss the next course of action, make sacrifices for the group and build a sense of trust. Cooperative games are usually beginner friendly since it is in the other players' best interests to help the beginner since it is required for winning the game.

Borderlands is based on cooperation, as such it has plenty of player synergies and powerful enemies.
Source.

Competition

The objective in a competitive game is to defeat the other players. This is done by mastering the game mechanics to a higher degree than the other players. It is therefore of the outmost importance that competitive games primarily based on player skill and not random chance. Random chance is a great equalizer mechanic implemented when the game's creator wish to ensure that players of different skill levels can play together and have an enjoyable time. Chance will have a very detrimental effect on a competitive game since the more skillful player will feel cheated when chance robs her of her victory against a less skilled opponent. Such events are enough to make players stop playing your game and moving on to something more rewarding.

The most important core pillars to keep in mind when designing a competitive game are as follows:

• None or very little random chance. Chance removes much of the element of mastery in the game. It is far better to design a complex set of rules that can be mastered and predicted.
• The game must be well balanced in order to avoid dominant strategies. Dominant strategies are the bane of any game as they severely reduce the enjoyment and replay value of the game.

Competition is superb motivation for learning a rule set since everyone wants to win. This means that as long as the competition is fair and there is still more to learn, the players will be entertained because learning is fun. Competitive games can surely be great fun and an awesome learning experience. The player will feel a sense of achievement as she consistently learns the tricks of the game and employs them to out think her competitors. 

Not all players will be equally good at these kinds of games and that is perhaps the greatest problem with purely competitive games. Sore losers are sure to appear and spoil the mood after the game. People generally do not like to lose and will use any number of excuses to place blame on anything but themselves, this is called psychological projection and is a real problem in many gaming communities. One need look no further than players rage quitting in various games to observe the truth of this statement.

Competitive games are both a blessing and a curse since they draw out the best and worst of the players. As a designer you need to be well aware of this in order to maximize the positives and minimize the negatives.

Chess is perhaps the most successful competitive game of all time. It requires large amounts of player skill and experience to succeed at.
Source.

Team competition

The objective in team competitive games is to cooperate in order to defeat the opposing team. This kind of game is usually very hard to implement in a game since it requires the designer to balance both previous themes at the same time. 

Team competitions easily falls into the trap where players do not cooperate and instead go about their own business. The game then rapidly degenerates into a mass of one versus one duels until a single player is left standing. That is hardly the purpose of a team game now is it. There are two primary reasons why this might happen:

1. The game does not encourage cooperation in a mechanical way due to lacking synergies between players. Each player is self-sufficient and does not need to rely on their teammates in order to be effective.
2. The game does not include any efficient manner in which to organize so any attempt to cooperate falls apart due to lack of leadership.

The first point is simple to avoid if the designer managed to incorporate the most important element of cooperative games into her game. The second point is more difficult and requires a certain finesse to succeed. What organization methods that are required will largely depend on the game and is something the designer will need to consider. 

Example: Battlefield 2 uses in game voice communication channels, allows players to organize into squads and lets one player take up the role of commander of the team. Each squad has a squad leader that can communicate with the commander. The commander plays a different game than the other players. While most of the players are experiencing a fast paced FPS game, the commander is largely looking at a map, issuing orders and deploying resources for his team.

Classical team competition. Soccer requires massive amounts of coordination in order to win.
Source.

Summary

These themes all present their unique challenges and it is important to always keep in mind what kind of game you are designing. Each theme differs vastly from the others and this should be reflected in the game mechanics. 

• Cooperative games are based on synergies between players and great challenges that cannot be conquered alone.
• Competitive games are based on rules balance and mastery of the game's mechanics.
• Team competitive games need to balance the elements of both cooperation and competition but also need to incorporate methods that allow for a team to organize itself.

I hope you found this rather lengthy post enlightening or at least useful during your own design or analytical work. As always do not hesitate to leave a comment if you disagree or otherwise wish to share your thoughts.

My Story

Why do I design games and how did I get here?

Hello there! We have a whole new year ahead of us friends. The world did not end this time either but I am inclined to believe that the Mayans are the most successful trolls in recorded history. Anyways, back to the purpose of this post. Since it is the beginning of a new year I feel it is time for a little introspection. In this post I am going to explain and speak of my motivations for being a game designer, how I got here and what I ultimately aim to achieve.

I have always enjoyed games. Not only digital games, but also board games, pen and paper roleplaying and sports. When I was younger I played a lot of soccer, won the title of national champion in sharpshooting and I have dabbled in martial arts (aikido). To tell the truth I was not really into the whole digital games thing until I was around 12 (way back in -97) years old, that was when Final Fantasy 7 and Metal Gear Solid were released for the PSX in Europe. I have been stuck among digital games since then. I rapidly expanded my collection of games among RTS, RPG, FPS and the adventure game genres. I remember some digital games fondly from my childhood and teenage years, including but not limited to:

• Close Combat
• Deus Ex
• Tie Fighter
• Wing Commander
• Command and Conquer
• Myth - The Fallen Lords
• Sonic the Hedgehog (Yes, I am a Sega person at heart)
• Baldur's Gate
• Full Throttle
• Myst

This glorious game has been crowned best PC game ever several time, well deserved in my nostalgic opinion

I have never really had a favourite genre of platform. I feel that this is due to the fact that I have never been completely locked into only digital games, they have always been another game beside more physical gaming. 

This profound interest in gaming.is one of the core pillars that define me as a person. At first glance it might therefore not be a surprise that I entered the professional game development scene, but I assure you dear reader that it was quite unexpected. Until I noticed that the local university had an education in game design I was dead set on other possibilities, either joining the family business (fairs, sign making, screen printing and general visual communication) or going for military officer (I thoroughly enjoyed my military service). 

If it is one thing my close friends and family can safely say about me it is that I sometimes make decisions in the blink of an eye and stick with it through any hardship. Some might call this stubbornness and they would be somewhat correct. In reality this happens when something instantly just clicks with me, I know that this decisions is the right one, every single part of me is in total agreement and it shall be so. These decisions can range between something so mundane as to what pair of glasses to buy to what career I should dedicate my life towards. And so I noticed the education, made the decision and fought my way it despite not having the best grades and being denied entry after technical difficulties with the national university enrollment authorities. 

That is how I became a game designer and where I come from.

My constant goal when designing games is to create focused experiences for players, like the ones I had when I grew up and remember fondly. Those experiences can be anything from complete immersion into a fictional world to adrenaline pumping action to ghastly horror. The experience itself does not matter, nor does the platform via which the player partakes in the experience. What is important is the player and what they feel and learn when they play. 

I always strive towards designing a pure playing experience. A game is meant to do one thing and one thing only, games that try to do everything at once always stumble and fall short of their potential. This means that I always start with the player when designing a game: 

• What do I want my player to experience?
• What do I want my player to learn?

Only after answering these questions do I start designing game mechanics suited to the purpose.

My ultimate goal is to create experiences so intense, so immersive and interesting that players are changed after playing my game. I do not view games as art in their present state, with a few exceptions (Journey being the latest example), but I feel and believe that they have the potential to become art.

Journey, this three hour game leaves an impression that is still with me and probably will be for years to come.

I define art as something that makes you question and reevaluate current beliefs and aesthetic preferences. 

This is a lofty goal to be sure, bordering on delusions of grandeur, but in my mind it is the only meaningful way to design games. Entertainment is all well and good but entertainment with a deeper meaning (beyond making money) is even better and something I think we should all strive towards. I have no illusions that I am currently capable of reaching my goal, I am at the start of my career and I know that the road will be long and tough. But I also know that I am stubborn and will soon be skilled enough to see it through.

This is my story. Hopefully it gives you some insight into my view on game design, where I come from and where I am going. I can heartily recommend all of you to take a quick look inside yourselves, to summarize how you reached this point and where you are going. It gives you a singular purpose, ambition and something to strive towards.