I don't know why I always find it so entertaining to read people's explanations of why they dislike RTS's or Starcraft specifically for it's speed requirement and lack of "real strategy." Lots of game designers in particular seem to be guilty of being noobs in this respect.
The basic problem with RTS is that you can build units in real-time. This means that strategic thinking isn't what is rewarded but fast "micro". The faster you can input commands, the better you do. What does that have to do with strategy? It's a broken gameplay model, in my view. They should return to some more classic wargames to figure out what works.
To me the RTS genre died a while ago. It think it stems from the fact I hate the multiplayer aspects of it and the single player AI is just horrible to play against. It is rarely about what you build and instead about how fast you build it, then you can add in the strategy of building the most effective unit for the job. But you usually only know what to build by trail and error and memorizing what the AI is going to do.
I love the 'fast clicking' argument. Because I imagine a dinosauresque 70 year old man slowly pressing one key distinctly at a time, and then raging when losing to a 16-month infant slamming the keyboard as hard and fast as he can.
I think they don't understand that StarCraft II is a combination between mechanics and strategy. It's not just how well you can think of a strategy, but how well you execute it as well. Somehow, the superfast clicking and tapping is what further engrosses us into the game, but not everyone can get on to that interest.
Also they're just bitter that StarCraft is the only RTS worth playing =P
Well to be fair, it's just an attack on the premise of a genre, that real-time strategy games should not exist because non-real-time strategy is inherently better and/or more strategical.
On a slightly less extreme end, there are game designers out there that understand RTS mechanics, time management, and game flow, and still think that execution should be lowered where possible (to create a better competitive game, not just to be noob-friendly).
Oh my god... Those comments. Like, imo FPS are pretty redundant (like how is one CoD different form the rest? I sure have no clue, or how are they different from counterstrike for that matter?)
I don't diss them, I just choose not to play them because I don't find them that fun.
lol they have a point while missing a point...the reason why starcraft is so great is because both the strategy and timing(building fast) need to be executed perfectly to be efficient. If rts is focused only on strategy...why don't we just play strategical board games like...umm i cannot remember any..fuck..
The basic problem with flight simulators is that they simulate flight, and I don't like that so it's a problem with the genre.
The basic problem with platform games is that you have to jump, and I don't like that so it's a problem with the genre.
The basic problem with shooting games is that you shoot things, and I don't like that so it's a problem genre.
...
When will people realize that Starcraft is in a separate RTS sub-genre. You don't see Burnout fans screaming: "I need to change gears and tweak my car in Forza? So new players need to learn all this stuff just to compete? It would be so much better if they took that stuff out so we could just focus on the racing aspect without having to grind out learning all these complicated things. A racing line? That's just muscle memory and memorization! Where's the skill in that? It just takes the fun out of it all, what a lame game."
The game is designed in the exact opposite way that you would have liked? Could that possibly mean that you're not their target audience?
Tim, you don't believe that thinking quickly is one aspect of strategy? That's like saying that timed chess games have no strategy.
In real combat, victory doesn't just go to the person who can think of the best tactics but the one that can think of them the most quickly. Yes, super-fast click skill is highly valuable in an RTS, and you need it to some degree to handle an initial rush, but if you have no strategy, you'll only get so far. There's enormous tactical depth for somebody who really takes the time to learn the game.
Besides, whether you like the genre or not, it's hard to make a case that a game that sold over 10 million copies and is still heavily played 11 years later has a "broken gameplay model".
The problem with the internet is that the person giving their dumbass opinion can't see everyone's eyes rolling.
Might as well be reading what people think of certain flavours of jello. Actually a better comparison is to look up reviews of your favourite alcoholic drink and read opinions of people who didn't like it, then analyse your reaction.
Some people like a little bite. Some people are pansies
meh, you can see their arguments from a casual perspective. Seems kind of a silly thing to do though, passing judgement on something you know nothing about.
i sorta hope this is a wakeup call to some people who dont realize just how fucking hardcore RTSs are nowadays. even the simpler ones are far too complicated for your average joe videogame buyer. I really dont think SC2 will be quite as big as some people think it will.
They don't seem to get that Starcraft strategies are crafted first then executed. It's like complaining that playing the piano is too hard because you have to hit all the notes correctly in REAL TIME (holy crap) and make it stylistically good too. You learn the build orders and general strategies first so you can execute them in real time, then you add modifications according to the situation.
Yes, I just compared playing the piano to playing Starcraft.
On March 06 2010 07:48 Jibba wrote: I wonder what they think about timed chess.
I think this is a brilliant analogy. I hadn't thought of using timed chess as an analogy for RTS games, which is strange because StarCraft is often jokingly referred to as "Korean chess."
On March 06 2010 09:58 LunarC wrote: They don't seem to get that Starcraft strategies are crafted first then executed. It's like complaining that playing the piano is too hard because you have to hit all the notes correctly in REAL TIME (holy crap) and make it stylistically good too. You learn the build orders and general strategies first so you can execute them in real time, then you add modifications according to the situation.
Yes, I just compared playing the piano to playing Starcraft.
It is actually somewhat accurate of an analogy.
Except that sometimes you'll be in the middle of your Rachmaninoff 3 and suddenly have to switch to playing the Mephisto Waltz based on what the other guy is doing. The level of refinement though is certainly comparable.
I think you're all misunderstanding the sin of these game designers.
Their sin is not disliking RTS's. It isn't disliking RTS's for specious reasons like being real-time. As silly as it sounds, I can understand that point. Their sin isn't even not understanding RTS games; not everyone should understand every genre of games.
Their sin is pride, pure and simple. The sin from which all others flow.
If you see a group of people who are playing a particular genre of game, and you look upon that genre with disdain, that's your right. That's fine. However, if you're a game designer, who's job it is to understand gameplay, it is your duty to understand gameplay in all its myriad shapes and splendor. Even the ones you don't like. Especially those.
It is the very height of arrogance for a game designer to say that your gameplay is objectively wrong without being able to back that up with facts. For a game designer to conclude that some gameplay is wrong, they will need evidence. Facts and reasonable conclusions and inferences based on those facts. This body of evidence must include a detailed understanding of what it is that people actually like about that gameplay. Without this, you simply cannot draw that kind of conclusion and be intellectually honest.
See, it isn't that they want to take the real-time out of RTS games that's the problem. And it isn't that they're stupid enough to even say that that is the problem. The problem is that they simply put do not care to find out if their preconceived notions are actually congruent with the facts or not.
And this is an epidemic in the game designing community. They lack any systematic and objective way of understanding game design, so they jump from subjective impression ("I don't like X") to objectivity ("X is bad gameplay") without even noticing they've crossed an important line.
I personally hate rhythm games. They're awful. I can't stand them. They're basically Simon while playing music.
But I understand rhythm games. And if you strapped me down and forced me to sit down and design one, I would probably do a halfway decent job. And most important of all, if I had to design one, I would ask people about what they like. You know, collect actual information, rather than what I think I know.
It absolutely disgusts me to see game designers slacking off like this. So tied up in their own preconceived biases that they can't possibly fathom that there is more to RTS gameplay than they think.
The most important wisdom is knowing what you don't know. And these guys don't have that. Even worse, they believe that they do know, which means they make stupid statements like this.
I can only imagine how bad of a game C&C4 is if the people who made it think of RTS this way.
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing more RTS-style games with off-board unit production. Pure real-time tactics.
Now, they wouldn't be C&C or StarCraft or anything. But it would be interesting to see more of this style of play.
i hate when noobs always try to make it sound like they are these genius master minds of combat/warfare strategy but the only limiting factor is their low apm.
this is such bullshit because real wars only happen ONCE and then it's over. there are a lot more other factors that affect a war like army morale, army size, weapons technology, training, positioning, access to supplies... etc.
this is a computer game where the game can be analyzed over and over again, where both players start off with the same resources (a few workers and a building) so of course "strategy" will be pretty much already decided for any serious player and most focus is on execution. in the real world, wars are RARELY fought by two parties of such similar strength. mostly it's one attacking and one defending.
if someone really wanted to compare their strategic abilities with someone else then they should 1) agree on a game 2) agree on maps to play 3) have a set amount of time to study the game (like a week) and both have access to the same amount of information
this way the players will both go into the game with no previous experience of the game and are playing on their ability to analyze the game and make some sort of a plan. play the games, and then switch to another RTS game with the same rules. THIS would be a much better way to compare strategic ability because they don't know what "the correct way to play" is and they don't know which units they are supposed to get etc.
UNTIL THEN any of this RTS talk "HURR DURR IM AN AMAZING STRATEGY GUY BUT HAS LOW APM LOL" is just pissing in the wind.
I think you're all misunderstanding the sin of these game designers.
Their sin is not disliking RTS's. It isn't disliking RTS's for specious reasons like being real-time. As silly as it sounds, I can understand that point. Their sin isn't even not understanding RTS games; not everyone should understand every genre of games.
Their sin is pride, pure and simple. The sin from which all others flow.
If you see a group of people who are playing a particular genre of game, and you look upon that genre with disdain, that's your right. That's fine. However, if you're a game designer, who's job it is to understand gameplay, it is your duty to understand gameplay in all its myriad shapes and splendor. Even the ones you don't like. Especially those.
It is the very height of arrogance for a game designer to say that your gameplay is objectively wrong without being able to back that up with facts. For a game designer to conclude that some gameplay is wrong, they will need evidence. Facts and reasonable conclusions and inferences based on those facts. This body of evidence must include a detailed understanding of what it is that people actually like about that gameplay. Without this, you simply cannot draw that kind of conclusion and be intellectually honest.
See, it isn't that they want to take the real-time out of RTS games that's the problem. And it isn't that they're stupid enough to even say that that is the problem. The problem is that they simply put do not care to find out if their preconceived notions are actually congruent with the facts or not.
And this is an epidemic in the game designing community. They lack any systematic and objective way of understanding game design, so they jump from subjective impression ("I don't like X") to objectivity ("X is bad gameplay") without even noticing they've crossed an important line.
I personally hate rhythm games. They're awful. I can't stand them. They're basically Simon while playing music.
But I understand rhythm games. And if you strapped me down and forced me to sit down and design one, I would probably do a halfway decent job. And most important of all, if I had to design one, I would ask people about what they like. You know, collect actual information, rather than what I think I know.
It absolutely disgusts me to see game designers slacking off like this. So tied up in their own preconceived biases that they can't possibly fathom that there is more to RTS gameplay than they think.
The most important wisdom is knowing what you don't know. And these guys don't have that. Even worse, they believe that they do know, which means they make stupid statements like this.
I can only imagine how bad of a game C&C4 is if the people who made it think of RTS this way.
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing more RTS-style games with off-board unit production. Pure real-time tactics.
Now, they wouldn't be C&C or StarCraft or anything. But it would be interesting to see more of this style of play.
On March 06 2010 11:12 Mastermind wrote: I can only imagine how bad of a game C&C4 is if the people who made it think of RTS this way. lol
Except C&C isn't so much about the strategy aspect of the game, its about lmfao wtf imba units, corny storylines, and hiring really good looking ladies and bad ass guys to act out the characters in teh game.
On March 06 2010 11:44 NicolBolas wrote: I think you're all misunderstanding the sin of these game designers.
Their sin is not disliking RTS's. It isn't disliking RTS's for specious reasons like being real-time. As silly as it sounds, I can understand that point. Their sin isn't even not understanding RTS games; not everyone should understand every genre of games.
Their sin is pride, pure and simple. The sin from which all others flow.
If you see a group of people who are playing a particular genre of game, and you look upon that genre with disdain, that's your right. That's fine. However, if you're a game designer, who's job it is to understand gameplay, it is your duty to understand gameplay in all its myriad shapes and splendor. Even the ones you don't like. Especially those.
It is the very height of arrogance for a game designer to say that your gameplay is objectively wrong without being able to back that up with facts. For a game designer to conclude that some gameplay is wrong, they will need evidence. Facts and reasonable conclusions and inferences based on those facts. This body of evidence must include a detailed understanding of what it is that people actually like about that gameplay. Without this, you simply cannot draw that kind of conclusion and be intellectually honest.
This is really important. There is no process to game design like there is a process for other kinds of products, it's just a hit and miss system. Brilliant people can score a hit much more often than a miss but for most designers, there's no process they can follow to make a good game; they put out games based on their preferences and hope the market takes to it rather than designing the game starting from the customer's interests. It's called product out vs market in thinking. It's like the difference between Miyamoto and Molyneux. Molyneux has scored some hits trying to guess what people want, but he also comes up short a lot because he listens to what he thinks people want, not to the market itself.
As an artist, that's obviously ok. As someone trying to make a fun game, it isn't.
I think you're all misunderstanding the sin of these game designers.
Their sin is not disliking RTS's. It isn't disliking RTS's for specious reasons like being real-time. As silly as it sounds, I can understand that point. Their sin isn't even not understanding RTS games; not everyone should understand every genre of games.
Their sin is pride, pure and simple. The sin from which all others flow.
If you see a group of people who are playing a particular genre of game, and you look upon that genre with disdain, that's your right. That's fine. However, if you're a game designer, who's job it is to understand gameplay, it is your duty to understand gameplay in all its myriad shapes and splendor. Even the ones you don't like. Especially those.
It is the very height of arrogance for a game designer to say that your gameplay is objectively wrong without being able to back that up with facts. For a game designer to conclude that some gameplay is wrong, they will need evidence. Facts and reasonable conclusions and inferences based on those facts. This body of evidence must include a detailed understanding of what it is that people actually like about that gameplay. Without this, you simply cannot draw that kind of conclusion and be intellectually honest.
See, it isn't that they want to take the real-time out of RTS games that's the problem. And it isn't that they're stupid enough to even say that that is the problem. The problem is that they simply put do not care to find out if their preconceived notions are actually congruent with the facts or not.
And this is an epidemic in the game designing community. They lack any systematic and objective way of understanding game design, so they jump from subjective impression ("I don't like X") to objectivity ("X is bad gameplay") without even noticing they've crossed an important line.
I personally hate rhythm games. They're awful. I can't stand them. They're basically Simon while playing music.
But I understand rhythm games. And if you strapped me down and forced me to sit down and design one, I would probably do a halfway decent job. And most important of all, if I had to design one, I would ask people about what they like. You know, collect actual information, rather than what I think I know.
It absolutely disgusts me to see game designers slacking off like this. So tied up in their own preconceived biases that they can't possibly fathom that there is more to RTS gameplay than they think.
The most important wisdom is knowing what you don't know. And these guys don't have that. Even worse, they believe that they do know, which means they make stupid statements like this.
I can only imagine how bad of a game C&C4 is if the people who made it think of RTS this way.
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing more RTS-style games with off-board unit production. Pure real-time tactics.
Now, they wouldn't be C&C or StarCraft or anything. But it would be interesting to see more of this style of play.
On March 06 2010 11:12 Mastermind wrote: I can only imagine how bad of a game C&C4 is if the people who made it think of RTS this way. lol
Except C&C isn't so much about the strategy aspect of the game, its about lmfao wtf imba units, corny storylines, and hiring really good looking ladies and bad ass guys to act out the characters in teh game.
EPT
