Weekend Reading: To Innovate or Not in Strategy Gaming

This week I've been partly enjoying and partly hating R.U.S.E., the real time strategy game based in World War II created by Eugen Systems and published by Ubisoft, for reasons which are more thoroughly described in my review.

One of the undeniable strong points of the R.U.S.E. experience has been the way it managed to make World War II, one of the most used settings for video games, feel fresh again by introducing the ruse special powers that change the nature of the battlefield and the very way gamers perceive unit engagements and tactical feints.

The game brings the uncertainties of warfare to the strategy genre and the move makes the tired World War II battlefields feel fresh again, like they have not been since the first Company of Heroes.

And, despite the fact that it tries to bring innovation to the table R.U.S.E. will surely not get anywhere near the sales numbers of Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty, the Blizzard made real time strategy that has a good chance of finishing 2010 as the best sold PC game.

Which brings us to the question: does strategy gaming need reinvention or can it safely thrive by using the same tried and true formula?

My down to Earth thoughts are that Blizzard can keep (and will keep) creating new Starcraft games that have high production values, slick video bits, tight campaigns and click heavy multiplayer moments and will sell millions of them.

Other developers, like the always surprising Relic and maybe Eugen Systems, can't do the same and hope to break sales barriers and survive.

They need to work on something surprising that breaks the normal formula and attracts those gamers who are dissatisfied with the relative blandness of the more middle of the road gaming experiences.

My hope is that Blizzard takes some more chances with Heart of the Swarm, which could come as soon as next year, and that other developers find the resources to create more consistent presentation for their innovating titles.