作者：Michel Mony

前言

（你也可以略过这部分内容）

在前言中我想说明的是，我发现我们所遵循的许多事都是基于猜想和主观推测。但不管怎样我还是相信存在足够的真理值得我们去编写。

本文的主要目的是推广关于早前游戏的临界分析并决定该如何面对它们才能对现代游戏开发起到帮助作用。并试图去识别未被复制的有趣的设计决策或者作为一些更广泛使用的原点这样的存在。在更好地理解事情的发展后，我们便能够更轻松地明确值得探究的关键元素。

介绍

Retrogaming“是收集早前个人计算机，主机和街机电子游戏”的活动。这样的活动在过去十年里受到了人们的欢迎，甚至有一些现代游戏是基于这种态势进行开发的。我们经常能够看到一系列游戏回归到最初的形态，或执行一些有趣的改变而与早前的游戏联系在一起。

几年前当与一家大型发行商一起开发一款AAA级游戏时，我是走在这类型试验的前线。最终《Insodoing》这款游戏呈现出了短暂的2D游戏玩法以作为对于其起源的尊重。

现代观察者会惊讶于10至20年前游戏开发所受到的技术限制，但也是这些限制推动着那时候的开发者更具有创造性。

在那时，我们现在所知道的一些类型还未出现，如MOBA，RTS，4X等等。有些带有远见的人粗略勾勒出了自己想要传达的游戏体验，游戏类型也是由此诞生的。

现代玩家和初级设计师对于这些先驱的常见误解便是，他们认为那只是一些缺乏深度的简单体验。根据我的经验，这并不正确，通常情况下，我甚至经常被这些先驱们所击败。

让我举个例子来说吧，早前游戏《Spacewar!》（游戏邦注：官方发行于1962年，但是早在1953年就开始开发了）便是一款非常复杂的街机游戏。首先这是一款实时多人游戏，拥有两艘互相对抗的舰船，它们会使用推进器去避免碰撞，与重力斗争，并尝试着击败敌人。它引进了关于发射导弹和激光并消灭敌人的所有基本概念。它还带有生命值，防护物点数以及更复杂的控制等等概念。

但是比起关于《Spacewar!》的一些随机元素，对于复古游戏我们还有更多可分析的内容。我们似乎已经忘了那些早前的内容，特别是在它们面临着存在危机且未能重新复苏的情况下。而很多时候我们可以从早前的设置中找到答案。

今天我想要讨论其中的一种游戏类型，即RTS（实施策略游戏）。

环境

有很多游戏成就了现代的RTS，但在今天得到最多认可的现代RTS的跳板应该是《沙丘2》。这也引出了《沙丘1》是关于什么的问题，但这其实是一款冒险游戏。

《沙丘2》是1992年至1998年年间Westwood Studios（现在已经不在了）与暴雪娱乐公司对抗时所诞生的众多游戏中的第一款。

在某种程度上，今天许多所谓的RTS都是受到《沙丘2》的推动。因为这个市场的竞争非常激烈（需求也非常高），所以开发者不得不压缩制作成本，从而导致功能呈现大大受限。

考虑到市场份额的历史和激烈的竞争，对于像《星际争霸2》（2010年）这样受欢迎的游戏与20年前的游戏具有明显的区别这点让人很困惑。RTS之战深受这场战争的毒害：即追求更出色的视觉效果的战争。很长一段时间我们都未曾看到RTS场景的变化。虽然有些游戏的执行更为突出，但是大多数游戏还是基于同样的模式。

多亏了这场“战争”，RTS成为今天大多数游戏开发的主要依靠，但是更有效的观察应该是理解整个过程中我们得到了什么或失去了什么，以及如何将其运用于今天的开发中。

这也是为何我们会说《沙丘2》创造了RTS游戏类型。这不只是因为它呈现了RTS的核心，而且它还提供了一个完整的体验和很棒的范围。从很多方面看来这是需要我们分层理解的复杂体验。甚至连Westwood都需要对其进行分解才能识别出自己一开始所创造的内容。

在《沙丘》诞生期间出现了许多常量，但也存在一些与之相联系的概念。在某种程度上这不只是个MVP，在大多数程度上它具有很棒的表现。

收集资源

《沙丘2》通过呈现了资源基础并让玩家通过进行军事单位生产去收获这些资源而创造了RTS类型的核心。这一机制非常适合这类型游戏，对于《沙丘2》来说这更是必要的存在：“沙丘”这一品牌（小说，游戏，电影）是围绕着收获香料的理念进行创造。与大多数RTS游戏不同的是，收获这些珍贵的香料是优先考虑的内容，比一般战斗更重要。武装冲突只是收获香料比赛中的“调味品”。

尽管大多数RTS游戏继承了这一机制，但是它们却不能有效地将这一机制整合到环境中（游戏邦注：包括公然模仿《沙丘》的《Tiberian Sun》）。例如在《魔兽争霸：人类与兽人》中，玩家知道自己需要收获当地资源（木头和金子）去建立自己的哨站。对于第一个哨站，因为这是一个全新的落脚点所以它具有很大的意义，但随着冲突的发展，玩家最终创造了许多不同的哨站。尽管这很好理解，因为使用木材更有效能，但是玩家却因为不能获得货币而感到困惑，并且游戏也未进行说明。相反地在《沙丘2》中，所有的香料会在任务之间回到故乡，在每个任务期间会出现新的殖民地/采矿区，如果换成是在其它环境可能就会显得有点造作。

这便是《沙丘2》的突出之处。它不仅创造了有趣的资源获取机制，同时也将其变成是游戏的核心部分。在《沙丘2》中，资源获取是MVP的一部分而不是支持它的一种设计机制，这点非常重要。

例如早前游戏中的一种任务便是收集资源。玩家需要意识到创造军事单位只会耽误自己实现这一目标的能力。尽管有许多其它RTS游戏使用这一机制作为引导任务，但没有一款游戏像《沙丘2》这样突出，因为这款游戏从第一个过场动画便清楚地告诉玩家这是他们的主要目标。在之后的战斗中这将变成更加全局的冲突，玩家知道这点，所以为了获得资源，单单快速收获它还不够，他们还需要消灭其他人的家园。因此战斗被游戏诠释成一种经济决策。

许多游戏继承了这种资源系统。并且在很多情况下它也得到了进化，我们将在之后的文章进行进一步讨论。而在此，《沙丘2》突出了创造香草概念的唯一优势，这是作为一个以主题为核心的游戏的必要元素。

能量系统

成为这类型游戏主题的另一大机制便是能量理念。与我们在下一款游戏中将讨论的“食物”概念不同的是，《沙丘2》也使用了能量机制去限制快速的基地建造，引进了后勤概念并提供了战略劣势。

Windtrap被认为是“另一种构建”，但它的作用不止如此。它要求资源进行建造，这反过来也会降低玩家快速构建建筑的能力。这种投入方式可能会导致玩家最终投入建造单位而不再是建筑。

此外，这也呈现出了基地不再自给自足的感觉，并提供给玩家一些可替代的内容。他们需要决定自己是否想要冗余或者承担缺少能量的风险。

更重要的是它引进了基地劣势概念。即在游戏中敌人AI并不突出，但它清楚能量是关键。结果便是，如果Windtrap位于基地边缘，并且是毫无防备的，它们便会遭遇攻击并从经济上削弱玩家的能力。这时候，鉴于所涉及的经济损失，失去一些单位还是善可接受的。

因为Windtrap的能量生成会伴随着建筑的生命值发生变化，所以它们并不需要完全将其摧毁，只需要将基地置于其要求水平之下便可。

尽管玩家最终以少量代价修复了损伤，但这足以补偿失去的单位了（游戏邦注：修复成本+时间消耗是在能量水平之下）。

《C&C》便带有这一系统，直到今天也有不少RTS未做过多修改而使用了这一系统。尽管这一的执行不是最“有趣和吸引人的”机制，但它却呈现出了管理基地后勤的潜能。

雇佣兵

《沙丘2》便是从这里开始区别于之后的大多数游戏。尽管游戏拥有直接的单位获取系统（所有单位都有其自身的成本和所需时间），它同时还使用了一个“股票市场”雇佣兵系统去补充它，在这里单位可用性和价格都是会出现变动的，交付ETA则是个常量。

这让玩家能够获取不固定数量的香料（基于全局需求）进行快速加固。因为对于所有单位来说ETA是固定的，所以这让玩家能够在同样的交付中使用1个以上的单位，如此玩家有可能派遣4至5辆坦克。在这里最大的劣势是玩家事先不知道它们的成本，尽管在“非常激烈的”战斗中，他们也有可能购买大量的Quads或Trikes（这是一些最脆弱的单位）。

这一系统是很棒的战略补充，它能够提供给玩家备用资源以迅速补充军队，且无需创造复杂的基础设施。它也带来了许多未知的风险。价格会出现变动，单位可用性也是如此。

更重要的是这些雇佣兵是独特的，他们让每个玩家能够偶尔使用一些限制性的单位，这也给了他们存在的特别理由。

因为交付时间是确定的，这能够加速“高技术”单位或经济单位的制作。例如创造一个收割机是一项漫长且繁琐的任务，会阻碍到玩家建造坦克。如果Starport存在收割机，你便可以快速运输它们从而留出更多时间去创造更多军事单位。

此外玩家还可以通过在制作中心创造默认的单位而储存“升级”，从而利用这些雇佣兵去补充自己的军力。

能够通过Starport创造单位的玩家只能确保他们的敌人不能使用这些单位。如果一些攻城坦克被出售，玩家便能够选择购买所有的这些坦克去阻碍敌人变强的可能性，并确保他们能够毫无阻碍地持续发动攻击。

这是很少得到利用的一种机制，但它最终却成为了之后一些RTS游戏中的主要功能。例如在《Ground Control》中，获取单位的唯一方法便是向航母发出命令并等待交付。结果便是所有单位拥有固定的ETA，并且单位制作只能由资源所决定。尽管价格并不会基于需求发生改变，并且是由玩家独享，但是雇佣兵子系统背后的核心原则仍然是这一方法的主要影响力量。

地形

《沙丘2》大量使用了地形。与大多数RTS不同的是，它非常强调地形对于选择的影响：

一方面，不能到处建造基地。它们需要建在“多岩石”地区（游戏邦注：最理想的情况是建在混凝土之上）。这大大限制了可能性并让关卡设计师能够控制基地建造。有些关卡因为玩家被局限于有限的空间中（如建筑物内部）而显得更加复杂。这里所存在的挑战便是以少谋多，这也是确保玩家理解有效的基地建造概念的一种有效方式。

此外，还存在不同类型的沙子。单位将对不同地形做出不同反应。有些单位在“较硬的”沙子中比在普通的沙子上滚动得更快，而其它沙子也有可能不受任何影响。当发动攻击时你最好能够同步你的军队，如果不能正确判断地形，你的军队便不能对敌人的基地做出有效反应从而可能快速被击退。

地势较高的地方也有可能引出策略深度。因为大多数步兵都可能被车辆碾压，所以他们很少会提供可靠的攻击力，除非他们是唯一能够前往更高处的单位，如此他们便能够躲开坦克的进攻。再加上大多数步兵能够抵御较大子弹的攻击（除了来自攻城坦克的进攻），所以玩家可以将骑兵设置在较高处以预防坦克和空中武装。需要注意的是，如果没有任何高地，步兵也就没什么用了。

尽管各种RTS游戏都使用了高地概念，但它们通常是作为调节器去赋予单位在高地上的优势（更精准的射击，可见性或防止敌方的反击）。在《星际争霸》中，低处的单位与高处单位相比较可以发现前者拥有较弱的精准度，而在《星际争霸：自由之翼》中，他们甚至不能朝高处射击，除非他们能够在地图上找到那部分。在《战锤40000》中，地形调整器还被应用于地图的一些特定部分去提高或降低单位遭遇敌人攻击后的存活能力。

大多数RTS在执行有趣的地形功能或减缓单位速度的地形方面都做的不是很好。

不对称

《沙丘2》引进了一些派别不对称性。尽管大多单位都是一样的，但也出现了一些调整以及每个派别具有两个独特的单位。

Atreidis是唯一带有攻击性空中支援的机构，如此敌人将需要重新思考他们的防御措施（使用更多火箭炮塔和骑兵，并减少坦克的使用）。他们同时还拥有一艘Sonar坦克，能够造成范围攻击效果，这在对抗敌人集中攻击的时候特别有效，但同时也有可能引来友军的误射炮火。

Ordos拥有能够让敌人军队感到混乱的坦克，并能够暂时控制他们的心智。它同时也能够派遣一个名为Saboteur的潜行单位对地方结构造成巨大的伤害。

Harkonnen拥有破坏型坦克，也就是坦克的强壮且非常昂贵的一个版本。它同时也能够发射原子导弹而重击对方。

尽管许多武装力量都是一样的，但是这些不对称性却真正改变了我们基于敌人的基地接近他们的方式。就像玩Ordos vs. Atreidis与玩Ordos vs.Harkonnen是完全不同的。

之后的游戏也使用了这一概念，虽然最初是基于一些好看的样式，但最终也出现了像《星际争霸1》那样出名的设计，即每个派别都是完全不同的。这不过是《沙丘2》所带来的其中一个潜在的概念（最终取得了大成功！）。

沙虫

沙虫可能是最重要但也经常被低估的游戏功能。

沙虫通常是沉寂于地图上直到被玩家发现为止。这是一种随机的自然之力，它会捕捉任何自己觉得是食物的东西。通常情况下它会吃一些最大，最强壮同时也是能看到的最近距离的东西。而这便是收割机（经济单位）或大型坦克般的存在。

尽管它被当成是随机的（它的AI带有一些随机性），但它其实是一种平衡工具。尽管它主要是用于支持主题，但从游戏玩法的角度来看它其实扮演着两种重要的角色：

1.平衡：尽管AI是随机的，但是触发器却不是。无论玩家先发现哪个都会触发它。最有可能的是玩家发现表现“更好的”那个。玩家可能基于两种方式发现这些沙虫：

–玩家发动攻击并偶然发现沙虫

或者

–玩家在寻找基地附近以外的资源。

不管是什么情况，这都意味着玩家做得很好：处于进攻状态或寻找更多资源意味着你比敌人做得更好，否则你将只是应对着他们的攻击，或者他们已经守护着新资源场所并找到了沙虫。

因为做得更好的玩家更有可能失去第一个单位，这便会导致占有优势的玩家失去动力，而将这两种类型玩家置于一切皆有可能的情况下：从而使游戏变得更有趣。

2.威胁：它提供了一种威胁感。环境是危险的，你不能只是分散单位去获得更好的视图和覆盖面。你想要提高防御并将军队集中在一个稳定的区域。当你发现沙虫时，你会希望你的军队处于安全地带，你希望能够保护你的收割机并密切注视着它。如果你足够狡猾，你甚至会引诱沙虫到敌人的基地中。

沙虫不只是一个随机的NPC。尽管《魔兽争霸3》重新使用了这一核心概念，但它主要是作为减缓进程并提升英雄能力的方法。它并未利用最初沙虫所具有的深度。在今天，我甚至未能察觉到与之前沙虫扮演同样角色的任何概念，即以中立对手的形式确保对抗变成一种势均力敌的状态从而让玩家始终保持警惕。

战略地图

在战略之间，玩家获得地图提示，即他们需要选择下一个作战区。这不只是一种表面姿态，同时也具有很大的影响。在大多数情况下，敌人都是一样的，但是关卡设计却具有很大的不同。

这具有很多重玩价值，这也是真正的决策制定。如果你在特定地图上表现不怎样，你便可以选择尝试其它地图并在那获得成功。

这同时也会让你觉得还有其他军官与自己一起战斗。不管何时当你完成一个任务，你的团队并不会只霸占一个区域，而是会霸占二至三个区域，但你同时也会失去一些领土。看到地图因为你的行动而发生变化是件有趣的事。

某些时候，在之后的关卡中，你甚至能够做出一个关键的决定：你是否想要与这个机构对抗还是其它机构？如果你觉得你可能顶得住原子弹头，你便能够选择前者。不管怎样你最终都将与对立的机构和Emperor战斗。

这一机制需要花费许多时间进行重整，但它在《Dark Crusade》的战斗系统中却表现不错。设计师们可能会惊讶地发现它们花了14年时间重新接触这一机制并完善它，但最终却只看到《沙丘2》单凭这一功能就能呈现出的潜能。

《战争迷雾》

对于《战争迷雾》我们没什么可说的，除了它是源自《沙丘2》以外。对于一款带有较高重玩性和风险管理的战略游戏来说非常重要的隐藏信息概念出现在首次安装中。在游戏早前阶段探索具有价值性。尝试侦查敌人基地并搞清楚之后会出现什么是每个优秀玩家的计划的一大组成部分。

尽管探索地图很重要，但是当玩家不再关注于地图的时候再次壮大的shroud的概念将不再出现。随着多人玩家元素的出现，玩家对于shroud的需求也将不断提升，并最终取代对于地形走向的需求。就像在《星际争霸2》中，当所有玩家对所有梯形图非常熟悉时，竞争将到达家最高点。有人可能会说shroud在几乎所有方面都将凌驾于《战争迷雾》之上，但这一概念其实只是对于《沙丘2》中隐藏信息概念的执行的回应罢了。

结论

总之，《沙丘2》是这类型游戏的强大先驱。它的许多理念被重复使用，有些甚至被当成主要元素存在着。

虽然收集资源的方法可能已经过时了（很多游戏做得更好），但这却是最切合主题的。

它的许多核心机制（雇佣兵，能量，地形以及沙虫）仍然是现在游戏有趣的灵感来源，并且为现代设计注入了活力。

我们需要牢记的是，《沙丘2》是自上而下设计的结果，这是通过已有的媒体（如书籍/电影）创造游戏并利用其知识而呈现具有创造性且影响力的游戏玩法的稀有案例。

另一方面，《沙丘2》遭受到了有限时间的约束，特别是在UX方面。许多创造性未能在开发期间进行呈现，像多个单位选择，拖曳选择单位，快速右击行动等等简单的概念也未添加进去。然而一些简单的完善也让这款游戏能够在保持完整的同时执行简单的UX调整。

考虑到其师祖般的角色，我们很难在RTS讨论范围内将《沙丘2》与其祖先在进行比较。希望我们的下次讨论能够对这些概念的进化进行更深入的分析。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转发，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Retro Mortis: RTS (Part 1) – It was found in a Desert…

By Michel Mony

Preface

(You may freely skip this Preface without risk)

Let me preface this by saying that I realize a lot of what is to follow will be built upon conjectures and subjective observations. Regardless, I believe there is sufficient truth or at least food for thought that it warrants being written (and read).

The primary objective of this article is to promote a critical analysis of old “dusty” games and determine the mindset in which they need to be approched in order to be relevant to modern development. It seeks to identify interesting design decisions that have not been replicated since or served as the origin to a more widespread usage. In better understanding how things have become, or the path not taken, it is easier to identify key elements that could be worth (re) visiting.

It is to be noted that, while this article is written in the mindset of establishing a series, it could end up being an orphan. I’d like for this article to stand on its own, but it would greatly benefit from others.

Introduction

Retrogaming, “is the playing or collecting of older personal computer, console, and arcade video games.” Such activity has gained in popularity over the last decade to the point where several modern games are developed leveraging this mindset. It is not uncommon to see a series reboot by going back to their roots, or implement interesting twists that link back to earlier titles.

I was at the front seat of one such experiment a few years back, when developing a AAA game with a major publisher. Insodoing, the game ended up showcasing short 2D gameplay segments as a reverence to its own origins.

Retrogaming is often taxed with being a phenomenon anchored in the player’s sense of nostalgia, arguing that these games have been idolised based on the memories of childhood that come with. While I agree there is truth to that, I believe this would be grossly underestimating the value of older games.

It is true that games developed 10-20 years ago were limited in scope by technical limitations that could be unconceivable to the modern observer, but such limitations also forced developers to be more creative.

Back then, several of the genres we now know (MOBA, RTS, 4X) simply did not exist. Some visionaries had a rough idea of what gaming experience they wanted to achieve, and it so happened that a game genre would be born from this.

The most common misconception I’ve seen modern players and junior designers exhibit about these precursors is the belief that they were barebone/simple experiences without much depth. From my experience, this could not be anywhere further from the truth, and oftentimes, I have come to realize that having a look at one of these “ancestors” humbles me.

As an example, one of the earliest games, Spacewar! (Released officially in 1962, but in development as early as 1953) was actually a very complex arcade game. For starters, it was a multiplayer real-time game where two ships would fight one another while using their thrusters to prevent collisions, fight against gravity, and attempt to out-maneuver their opponent. It introduced all basic concepts of firing missiles and lasers (projectiles) and damaging the opponent. It had a concept of health points, shield points, and rather complex controls.

But there’s more to an analysis of retrogames than merely tossing random facts about Spacewar! There is actionnable knowledge that has been forgotten, especially in decade-long genres that appear to have an existential crisis and are unable to reinvent themselves. Oftentimes, this answer lies in their early installments.

Today, I’d like to discuss one of these genres: the “RTS” (Real-Time Strategy Game).

Context

There were a number of games that led to the modern appelation of “RTS”, but most agree nowadays that the first stepping stone towards the modern RTS was “Dune 2″. This begs to question what Dune 1 was really about, but it was actually an adventure game (turns out there’s an origin to mismanaging brands earlier than the 21st century!).

Dune 2 would be the first title of many during the “conflict” that opposed Westwood Studios (Now defunct, formerly under EA leadership) and Blizzard Entertainment (now part of Activision Blizzard) between 1992 and 1998.

In a way, a lot of what RTS games are and are not today was forged by Dune 2, and the war that followed. Since the competition for this market was severe (and the demand quite high), production costs had to be minimized and feature creep restricted.

Given the history and ferocious competition for that market share, it is somewhat puzzling that a very popular game such as Starcraft II (2010) would hardly differ from a game made almost 20 years prior. The “RTS War” fell prey to the greater conflict: the war for the best visuals. And for the longest time, we haven’t seen much movement on the RTS scene. Some titles have had better execution than others, but most were cast from the same mold.

Though RTS is a mainstay of game development nowadays thanks to that “war”, a more educated observation is warranted to understand what was earned or lost along the way, and how it can be used today.

There’s a reason why Dune II coined the RTS genre. It was not only because it presented the core of what an RTS should be, but rather because it provided a complete experience and terrific scope. It was, in many ways, a complex experience that needed to be broken down to understand. It even took a while for Westwood itself to break it down to its essence (C&C) before realizing what they had created in the first place.

A number of constants were designed during Dune II, but there were also several concepts that were grafted to it. In a way, it was much more than a MVP, and for the most part, it worked brilliantly.

Resource Gathering

Dune II established the core of the RTS genre by laying resources on the ground and asking the player to harvest them to fuel military unit production. While this mechanic feels natural to the genre, in the case of Dune II, it is actually there out of necessity: the Dune brand (novels, series and movie) is based around the concept of harvesting spice. Unlike most RTS games, harvesting this precious spice is the primary focus, much moreso than actual combat. Armed conflict is only a byproduct of that race for the spice melange.

While most RTS titles have inherited this mechanic, they’ve all done a relatively poor job at putting this mechanic in context (including Tiberian Sun that blatantly mimicked Dune in that regard). For example, in Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, the player is taught that he needs to harvest from local resources (wood and gold) to erect their outpost. For the first outpost, it makes a lot of sense as this is a new settlement, but as the conflict proceeds, the player ends up building various outposts. While it is fairly understandable that it is more efficient to use lumbers where they are available (than say, bring them from another outpost a few leagues away), it is a bit puzzling that the player can’t bring along currency and is never explained. While in Dune 2, all spice is sent back to the motherland in-between mission, and a new colony/mining site is erected during each mission, this feels artificial in any other context.
Several offenders have simply imported the gameplay “as is” because it was proven to work, but never managed to make it stick with the theme (Command and Conquer, Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires, Empire Earth, and the list goes on).

This is where Dune II excels. Not only has it created an interesting resource acquisition mechanic, but it has actually made it a core part of the game. In Dune II, resource acquisition IS part of the MVP and is not a design mechanic that supports it, and this is a big deal.

As an example, one of the early missions is to simply gather up resources. The player has to realize that creating military units only delays his ability to reach this objective. While many other RTS games have used this as an introductory mission, Dune II comes on top here because the game has made it clear from the very first cutscene that this was to be the primary objective. Only much later in the campaign does this turn into a more global conflict, and the player is told that, in order to secure the resource, it will not suffice to try and harvest it faster, but that elimination of other houses is necessary. Thus, the war is explained as an economic decision.

The legacy of this resource system can be found in various games (namely the C&C series). It has evolved in most cases however, as we’ll be able to cover in a future article. Here, Dune II has only the merit of creating the vanilla concept, as a theme-centric necessity.

Energy System

Another mechanic that became a staple of the genre (C&C and its derivatives mainly) is the concept of energy. Unlike the concept of “food” which we’ll discuss with our next game, the energy mechanic was used as early as Dune II to limit rapid base building, introduce a concept of logistics, and provide strategic weaknesses.

The Windtrap can be perceived as just “another building to build”, but it achieves a lot more than that. It requires resources to build, which in turn reduces the player’s ability to construct buildings quickly. This form of investment may lead the player to end up investing in units instead of buildings as a result.

Furthermore, it gives a sense that the base is not self-sufficient “as is” and gives the player something to keep watch over. They need to determine for themselves whether they want redundancy or can live with the risk of being short on energy (and the consequences of that can be quite drastic).

More importantly yet, it introduces the concept of base weakness. The enemy AI in this game is not great, but it understands that power is key. As a result, if a Windtrap is located on the edge of a base, and relatively undefended, they will risk a dedicated attack on it just to cripple the player economically. At this point, losing a few units is deemed an acceptable loss given the economic damage involved.

Since Windtraps’ energy generation scales with the building’s health, they don’t need to destroy it completely, just damage it enough to put the base below its requirement level.

Though the player can end up repairing the damage for a fraction of the cost, it’s often enough to compensate for losing units (cost of repairs + time spent under power level).

C&C carried this system along for a bit, and quite a few RTS have revisited it without much improvement to this day. While this implementation wasn’t the most “fun and engaging” mechanic, it showed the potential of having to manage base logistics.

Mercenaries

This is where Dune II starts to differ from most of the titles that followed. While the game had a straightforward unit acquisition system (all units have their own individual cost and time to train), it also boasted a “stock-market” mercenary system to supplement it where unit availability and price would vary, and ETA to delivery (shipping) would be a constant.

It allowed players to pay a variable amount of spice (depending on global demand) to field quick reinforcements in numbers. Because the ETA was fixed for all units (marginally lower than actually training units) and that it allowed to field more than one unit in the same delivery, it would be possible for a player to field 4-5 tanks in the time they’d normally produce only 1. The big downside was not knowing how much it would cost them ahead of time, though in “very heated” combat, one may resort to paying a hefty amount for Quads or Trikes (some of the weakest units).

This system was a great tactical addition as it provided players with resources to spare with a means to quickly replenish their armies without having to build very complex infrastructures. It did introduce however a bit of unknown (risk) without it being random (based on player demand). Prices would shift, unit availability would differ, etc.

Even more importantly, these mercenaries were unique in that they allowed every player access to some faction-restricted units on occasion, which gave them a unique reason to exist.

As the time to delivery was fixed, it also allowed to hasten production of “high tech” units or economic ones. Building a harvester, for example, was a long and tedious task that would prevent building tanks. If harvesters were available from the Starport however, they would quickly be shipped and free your production centers for more military units.

In addition, players could save up on “upgrades” by creating defaut units from their production centers, and supplementing their forces through these mercenaries (missile tanks for example, which were generally required in fewer numbers).

Furthermore, the player could build units from the Starport only to ensure that their enemy would not have access to those. For example, if several siege tanks were being sold, the player could choose to buy all of them to deny their opponent a chance to reinforce quickly, and ensure that their ongoing attack would not be met with surprise resistance.

This is a mechanic that has scarcely come into usage, but ended up appearing as a prominent feature in some RTS games much later. In Ground Control, for example, the only means to acquire units is to send out an order to your mothership and await delivery. As a result, all units have a fixed ETA, and unit production is determined only by resources (not actual infrastructure capabilities). While prices do not vary based on demand and remain exclusive to the player, the core principle behind the mecenaries sub-system is still a chief influence of this approach.

Landscaping

Dune II made extensive use of terrain. Unlike most RTS that would follow, it was critical to understand how terrain affected options:

On the one hand, bases could not be built anywhere. They needed to be built upon “rocky” foundations (and ideally, be built upon concrete). This greatly limited the possibilities and allowed the level designers to control base construction. Some levels were harder simply because the player was limited in the amount of space (thus, buildings) they were allowed. The challenge was to make more with less, which was a good means to ensure players understood key concepts of efficient base building.

Furthermore, there were different types of sand. Units would react differently to different terrain types. Some units would roll faster on “hard” sand than they would on regular sand, while others were unaffected. It was important to sync your forces when attacking, and misjudging terrain could result in forces reaching the enemy base out-of-line only to die very quickly.

The inclusion of higher ground also introduced strategic depth. Since most infantry could be rolled over by most vehicles, they would rarely provide reliable firepower, except that they were the only units that could go on higher ground, and then became immune to instant-kill from tanks.
That, coupled with the fact that most infantry would resist big bullets (aside from the anti-personel siege tank) allowed players to put troopers (rocket launchers) on higher ground to guard against tanks and air units, making them a potent addition to any army. It is to be noted that, without higher ground, infantry would’ve been close to useless.

Though the concept of high ground has been used in a variety of RTS games, it was usually mostly employed as a modifier to give advantage to units on the higher ground (better shot accuracy, visibility, or preventing counter-attack). In Starcraft (1), units on the lower ground had a negative accuracy modifier against units on the upper ground, whereas in Starcraft: Wings of Liberty, they simply could not shoot to higher ground unless they had vision to that part of the map (flying unit, or another ground unit in proximity of the target). In the Warhammer 40k franchise, there were terrain modifiers applied to specific chunks of the map that would increase or decrease a unit’s survivability to enemy fire (cover).

Most RTS have however done a relatively poor job at implementing interesting terrain features or modifiers beyond damaging terrain (C&C Tiberian Sun) or terrain that slows down units (C&C: Red Alert (ore fields)).

Asymetry

Dune II introduced some faction asymetry. While the bulk of the units were the same, a few “tweaks” were introduced (namely, a faster/weaker version of the trike for the Ordos, a tougher quad for the Harkonnen, stronger infantry for the Harkonnen, etc.) as well as two unique units per faction.

The Atreidis were the only house with offensive air support which forced their enemies to drastically re-think their defenses (more rocket turrets and troopers, less tanks). They also had a Sonar tank which did AoE damage which was particularly efficient vs enemy concentration of forces (such as infantry) but could also cause friendly fire.

The Ordos had a terrific tank that could confuse enemy troops and temporarily mind-control them. It could also field a stealth unit called the Saboteur to cause critical damage to structures (later re-used as the engineer in the C&C series).

The Harkonnen had a devastator tank which was simply a buffed and extremely costly version of the tanks. It also fielded atomic missiles which allowed it to strike without fear of retaliation.

Though the bulk of the forces were the same, these slight asymetries really changed the way one would approach an enemy depending on their house. Playing Ordos vs. Atreidis was nothing like playing Ordos vs. Harkonnen.

This was leveraged by later titles, originally only under a cosmetic form, but eventually led to the much acclaimed design of Starcraft 1, where each faction was entirely different. It is but one of the latent concepts brought forward in Dune II that eventually saw the light of day (with resounding success!).

Sandworms

Possibly the single most significant yet often misunderstood feature of the game is the Sandworm.

The Sandworm generally lays dormant on the map until it is discovered by either player. It is a random force of nature that will hunt down whatever it considers food. Generally, it tends to eat whatever is the biggest, strongest yet nearest unit it can see. Oftentimes, this is a harvester (Economic unit) or a big big tank.

While it could be perceived as random (its AI actually has some randomness involved), it is actually a balancing tool. Despite the fact it was mainly added to support the theme and that it is an important aspect of the lore, it actually plays two important roles from a gameplay standpoint:

1 – Balancing: While the AI is random, the trigger is not. Whichever player discovers it first triggers it. The most likely player to discover it is – generally – the one that’s doing “better” (economically). There are two main ways this worm will get discovered:

- either a player mounts an offensive and stumbles across the worm by accident

or

- a player is looking for resources beyond the ones that were available close to their base.

In both cases, this means this player is doing well: being on the offensive, or looking for more resources means you’re doing better than your opponent, otherwise you’d be dealing with their attack, or they’d have already secured this new resource location and met with the Worm.

Since the player that’s doing better is more likely to end up losing the first unit, it can lead to a dominant player losing its momentum, putting both players back in a situation where everything is possible: it keeps it interesting.

2 – Threat: It gives a sense of threat. The environment is dangerous, and you can’t just scatter units around to get a better view and coverage. You want to pack tight defenses and mobilize your forces only on solid ground. When you do find a worm, you want your formations out of harm’s way, and you’ll want to protect your harvesters and keep a close watch on them. If you’re crafty, you might even attempt to lure the worm to your enemy’s base (I sure did!).

The Sandworm is much more than a random NPC. While the core concept was somewhat recycled in Warcraft 3, it was mostly used as a means to slow progression and level up your heroes. It didn’t quite capture the depth of the original sandworm. To this day, I am unaware of any concept that plays the same role the Sandworm did, as a form of neutral adversary that keeps the match closer to an even-force fight to keep the players on their toes.

Campaign Map

Between missions, the player was prompted with a map where they would need to choose the next theater of operations. It was more than a mere cosmetic gesture, it actually changed a lot. In most cases, the enemy would be the same (given the choice to strike at 3 different Ordos territories for example) but the level design would greatly differ.

This allowed for a lot of replayability, and actual decision-making. If you did poorly on a specific map, you could try another and get away with the victory there because it worked better with your mindset.

It also gave you an impression that there were other military officers working with you. Whenever you completed a mission, your team did not claim 1 but 2 or 3 territories instead, but you could also lose some. It was interesting to see the map progression differ depending on your actions.

On a few occasions, in later levels, you were even provided with a key decision: do you want to fight this house or the other? If you felt you had a better chance against atomic warheads than deviators, you could pick the former (House Harkonnen) at your convenience. Although ultimately, you’d end up fighting both opposing houses AND the Emperor.

This mechanic took a fair bit of time to resurface, but it was well executed in the campaign system introduced by Dark Crusade (an expansion of the Warhammer 40,000 RTS). It was successfully supplanted in 2006. It may be surprising that it took 14 years to revisit this mechanice and improve it, but it goes to show how much unexploited potential Dune II has generated with this feature alone.

There is not much to be said of the Fog of War except that it first originated in Dune 2. The concept of hidden information, critical to a good tactical game with high replayability and risk management, was present in this first installment. Exploration had value early in the game. To try and scout the enemy base and get an idea of what would be coming your way was a big part of every good player’s plan.

While exploring the map was critical, the concept of a shroud that regrows when the player does not have “eyes on” a part of the map was not present then. With the advent of multiplayer (which we’ll discuss later) the need for shroud that regrows became prominent, and ultimately supplanted the need for a lay of the land. In Starcraft II for example, competitions reached a climax where all players were familiar with all ladder maps to the point where the original Fog of War was merely a nuisance to inexperienced players alone. One could argue that the Shroud (that regrows) surpassed the Fog of War in almost every regards, but its concept was only brought forth as a response to Dune II’s implementation of the concept of hidden information.

Conclusion

All in all, Dune II was a very strong precursor of the genre. Many of its ideas were re-used, and the few that lay dormant still have a lot of potential.

Its approach to resource gathering is probably out-dated (a bunch of games did better) but it was the most on-theme.

Many of its core mechanics (Mercenaries, Energy, Landscaping and Worms) are still interesting sources of inspiration to introduce a bit of “crazy” in modern designs.

A key element to bear in mind is that Dune II was the result of top-down design, a rare case where building a game from an established media (books / movie) and leveraging from its lore resulted in creative and effective gameplay.

On the other hand, Dune II suffered from the limitations of its time, particularly in terms of UX. A number of innovations that were yet to come were simply not present at the time Dune II was made, and simple concepts such as multiple unit selection, dragging to select unit, and quick right-click action did not make it in. However a number of remakes have allowed to keep the game intact all the while implementing simple UX improvements. (I believe my favorite was Dune Legacy).

Given its Patriarch role, it is hard to compare Dune II with its own ancestors all the while staying within scope of a RTS discussion. Hopefully our next stop will allow me to bridge a more in-depth analysis of the evolution of these concepts.(source:gamedev)