EPTI hate RTS games now. - Page 2
| Blogs > BEARDiaguz |
stuchiu
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11665 Posts
On May 03 2016 06:55 Cricketer12 wrote: Now I need to get an Xbox 1 for HW2... Can't you play Homeworld 2 and Halo Wars 2 on PC? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13959 Posts
On May 03 2016 07:34 Yurie wrote: Can't you play Homeworld 2 and Halo Wars 2 on PC? Wait can you? Holy fuck get hype! | ||
|
BreakfastBurrito
United States893 Posts
| ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
On May 03 2016 05:29 ionONE wrote: Anyone tried 8bit armies ? I have. It's terrible. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13959 Posts
Is it worse than Starcraft N64? | ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4330 Posts
SC1 has spoiled me as well. Deserts of Kharak scratched the itch for awhile but the Devs never want to listen to competitive feedback and the game is still broken as fuck for multiplayer. single player is AMAZING though. | ||
|
nimbim
Germany983 Posts
There is a reason a lot of people here kept playing BW for 10+years and while SC2 has its flaws, it's still miles ahead of any other RTS on the market. Blizzard basically has a monopoly on worthwhile RTS, doesn't seem like a smart move for a business to try and take that away. You can't compete with Apple by building a new pc in your garage. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
| ||
|
KalWarkov
Germany4126 Posts
 | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
Also Dawn of War 3 should be announced today, maybe that one will work. And of course I will always suggest to play Act of Aggression Reboot :D | ||
|
Yurie
11665 Posts
On May 03 2016 18:13 nimbim wrote: The gaming market is simply changing a lot. Increasingly more "casuals" start playing games, which diminishes the hardcore crowd from a major part of players to a marginalized group. Businesses everywhere have always made decisions based on what turns out the highest profit, making a game for noobs will simply sell better now and requires fewer ressources to satisfy their demands. I have seen this argument a lot and while it is true it is also flawed. There are plenty of studios that are niched and release game after game in their niche without regard to the fact that a larger demographic ignores them. The reason being that they make a profit. You don't make a profit as a small company by competing with Blizzard, EA or similar companies. You make money by selling games that sell enough copies to cover costs. Often this means costs have to be kept low since you will not sell 1 million copies. A good example (outside of RTS) is Spiderweb Software that is a small team that makes turn based RPGs with a roughly 1,5 year release schedule and a team smaller than 3 people for most of 2 decades. As the owner says, that requires 6000 sales at full $20 price. They could keep doing this at a profit for a very long time even with what major publishers would consider dismal sales due to costs being so low. I think that is where the RTS genre will see most of its games made. Things like Eufloria and AI war will make up the majority of releases with a high profile release a year that takes in all the casual RTS money. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On May 02 2016 23:16 BEARDiaguz wrote: I got a problem. It's not alcohol (yet), it's RTS games. You see, even as a wee kiddie I was playing Real Time Strategy, Dune 2, Warcraft 1, Command and Conquer's and such. I Aged them Empires, I Total them Annihilations, I did all that shit. My red blood cells are the shape of Marines at this point. My problem is that I can't help but buy every RTS game I see on Steam, and the reason this is a problem is that they're all complete shit. This is partly Starcraft's fault. It's the hardest game in the world and now I've gone a fair ways into mastering it everything else pales in comparison. My first multiplayer RTS loves were games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes but I can't go back now. They're too simplistic. After you've seen The Wire it's difficult to go back to CSI. But it's really the fault of developers and what I'd argue is the principle issue with RTS games at the moment. I can sum it up with a single word: mechanics. APM requirements are so low these days, you can almost play with just the mouse. Not to mention the unit control itself tends to be unresponsive or simplistic. What I've come to realise these past few decades (clearly a slow learner) is that an RTS isn't a game about Strategy in Real Time. It's an action game. A very complicated action game where the player is represented by every unit and structure they control. There's a reason why the most successful and beloved multiplayer RTS games have been designed around a considerable physical requirement. It's exciting to confound your opponent with multiple small forces around the map. It's thrilling to overwhelm them with large well controlled armies. But it also keeps the game challenging. In a game like Starcraft, your strategy is only as good as your ability to execute it, and execution is a strategy in itself. Mechanics appeal to a hardcore crowd and once you have enough of them the rest can follow. Even something like Dark Souls or DotA, difficult challenging games, managed to connect with a wide audience over time simply because that hardcore crowd draws other people in. It mystifies me that there is not a single RTS developer on the planet that can look at Starcraft and not think "Let's make something like that, but better". I can understand the reluctance, RTS is difficult enough to get into before you demand players quintuple their APM, but the alternative is boring. A slow paced game about Strategy? Big fucking deal, every game has strategy. Strategy just means you have a plan and contingencies in place if certain things occur. Card and board games are perfectly designed for thinking, RTS is not. That's why Poker, Chess, Magic and Go are great, and why Grey Goo or Ashes of the Singularity can eat my balls. Starcraft's a wonderful game. Both of them, fucking great, I love 'em. But you can make something better. RTS as a genre has grown stagnant over the years and I pin the blame solely on the best ones having already been made and no-one capable enough to top it, or brave enough to even attempt. (Outside of Blizzard of course, who basically 'get it') I think you neatly summarise the problem: RTS fans nowadays see RTS games as high-skill action games in which the strategy part takes a backseat to the mechanical requirements. Back in 1997 I used to be a huge AOE fan. I was still a kid, but I managed to reliably defeat the AI on hardest in random maps. Not because I was crazy good mechanically, but because I managed to strategise a way around the AI. The campaign also required strategic thinking, not just clicking stuff at 300 APM. One of the reasons I got totally burned out with SC2 around HOTS was the fact that Blizzard increasingly thought that every single unit needed a spell or special ability, taking away from the simplicity that WOL had. They took it even further in LOTV, which I didn't even bother buying. Nowadays most of my time playing video games is devoted to the Dark Souls series (and Bloodborne) because it is mechanically challenging while at the same time not exhausting me after half an hour of playing (unlike SC2). I also still haven't finished the Witcher 3, which is a masterclass in open-world RPGs, and the open-world RPG Bethesda wished they could make but can't because of how outdated and rigid the Gamebryo engine is in terms of mechanics. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10107 Posts
Hots and WoL wasn't the first time i saw expansions removing the enjoyment from the game for me. C&C generals and its expansion zero hour with its thousand faction's clusterfuck... fuck i hate EA. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23570 Posts
Of course I can enjoy AoE and other games with my friends for some casual fun, but they can't hook me and make me want to play them for years, trying to improve every game. Lots of publishers are trying to appeal to the old RTS fans and bring out games that feel like the old C&Cs and they all fail after the initial hype. The multiplayer for those games is dead. I am still waiting for another RTS that is just as hard as Starcraft and will be just as respected as an esport, due to the sheer skill that will be required to master it. Make it 1v1 (3v3 killed all the hype I had for Day9's game), f2p, just as hard , fast and action packed as Starcraft and patch the game a lot more aggressively than Blizzard. That's the RTS that will get me excited. | ||
|
Hexe
United States332 Posts
I would much rather play a smaller scale RTS than StarCraft if there was a good one. Something like a survival RTS, command a few buildings/vehicles and company of people, scouting and trading would be more important than straight up micro and macro. Instead of ping-ponging economy vs army between opponents, you would balance moving to new resources or just waiting it out, preying upon opponents who make the long journey. Harsh environments, microing fragile units and structures etc. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16355 Posts
that Arcturus Mengsk speech at the end of the Hammer Falls was the greatest speech in the history of the N64. For several years the used SC64 cartridge was the highest priced standard english game in the N64 library. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13959 Posts
On May 04 2016 10:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: that Arcturus Mengsk speech at the end of the Hammer Falls was the greatest speech in the history of the N64. For several years the used SC64 cartridge was the highest priced standard english game in the N64 library. Thats not fair, the speech originated on pc. Pretty unfair to compare it to n64 titles. Of course the speech is amazing but i consider it a gem of pc games. | ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
| ||
| ||
