One of the fascinating things about studying English literature, or any other literature for that matter, is how the literary conventions used by an earlier author are “used and abused” by later writers. Stories of heroic knights in shining armor fighting one another or monsters pervade the Middle Ages; however, by the time Shakespeare writes plays such as 1 Henry IV, characters such as Falstaff denounce such heroism and valor as foolish even as various other characters in the play speak in the language of chivalry. The fact that in the 21st century we gamers find ourselves playing CRPGs which further mutate the tradition of the questing romantic hero indicates that the form and structure of such literature never really goes away. It just gets subverted and used in new ways. I can only imagine what Chaucer or Malory would think of CRPGs such as Oblivion and Neverwinter Nights. The number of magic items even a single character equips would probably flabbergast them.

As it is with great literature, so it is with gaming. It is inevitable that new titles will cross the lines of genre and utilize a wide range of gaming conventions in new and interesting ways. Surprisingly, it has become apparent that a crux of CRPGs has found a new and enthusiastic home in strategy titles: the persistent and improving character. Let me say that again: strategy games are incorporating persistent and improving characters in their gameplay. No, I’m not talking about heroes or leader units, nor am I referring to persistent stats posted online. I’m talking about the countries/nations/factions/colonies themselves.

No, I’m not insane, and I don’t need any medication, but thanks for asking.

Yes, it might seem a bit odd that I refer to persistent and improving characters in strategy titles, but the moniker is certainly apt. Let us examine two very different, but fairly new, strategy games: Age of Empires III and Europa Universalis.

Age of Empires III, among its many changes from Age of Mythology and Age of Empires II, has a new concept: the home city. When playing on a map, you, as the éminence grise, do not play as the entire country. Instead, you command a colony and its economic and military forces. As you play, you gain…. wait for it… experience. Whether you win or lose a particular map, your home city gains levels, granting you cards that you can play. These cards grant you more upgrades and military forces. As your home city gains levels, your strategy can change. Furthermore, because you can only have a finite number of cards in play for any particular game, you must pick and choose the set with which you play. For example, when playing multiplayer online, my good friend and I have both played Britain; however, I take cards that allow me to upgrade long bowmen and use them even in the Imperial Age, while my friend takes musketeer and grenadier cards. We may both be playing Britain, but our home cities and their respective cards are not the same.

Europa Universalis III takes a radically different approach to gameplay. In this game, you command the destiny of your entire country for a period of over 300 years, not just some two-bit colony in the New World. There are also no cards, home cities, and rather than commanding individual musketeers, you command armies composed of regiments numbering 1,000 men each. Yet, as the game progresses, countries get the opportunity to gain National Ideas. National Ideas allow the country to gain some sort of advantage over countries that lack them. For example, anyone wishing to explore the New World and colonize it ahead of other countries needs to take “Quest for the New World,” whereas a country wanting to wage religious wars should take “Deus Vult.” By the end of the game, which may take 20 hours to play, your country may have 12 different National Ideas, and it would be a bizarre coincidence if your selection of National Ideas matches any other country in the world.

While Age of Empires III is more explicit with its use of terminology of “experience” and “levels,” both games utilize that core game mechanic of CRPGs: persistent and improving characters. In the case of these strategy games, the “character” in question is a whole country. National Ideas and cards might as well be feats from Neverwinter Nights or perks from Oblivion. Like any good CRPG, in both strategy games, it’s unfeasible or impossible to use all cards or National Ideas at once; thus, you must pick and choose which you use. This is not unlike the endless discussion of “builds” on the forums of various CRPGs.

Such similarities can also be found in FPSs. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars has an experience point system where new abilities are unlocked in various categories based on your actions while on a mission. Shooting well, escaping death and injury, and using your abilities all improve your “character’s” abilities over time. The game is nowhere near a CRPG, but it utilizes this element.

I wonder if these examples signal a general trend in gaming. Are we coming to a place where we want most games to have some sort of persistent and improving element? Does such an element, irrespective of whether it is part of a larger CRPG framework, make gamers feel they have more invested in a title? Is it possible that the inclusion of such elements will turn off casual gamers from more expensive titles, or is that even possible?

What do you think?