|
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')
 
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
are you sure you're not drunk again m8
|
Well, looks like now's the time if any. It'll be hard to make a story for SC3 given how SC2 took every aspect of the universe to the max towards the end, and with World of Warcraft continuing to rake in the dough there probably won't be a WC4 anytime soon. And from a business perspective, SC2 is doing well and more moneymaking opportunities are to be had with the Nova campaigns and future episodes. Thus no reason to take away from that with WC4.
So looks like for now, any Blizzard RTS's are off the table.
|
What do you think about the more or less turn based games such as EUIV? Which is RTS but plays more like a turn based game.
|
It is rarely a mysterious technique which drives us to the top, but rather profound mastery of what may well be a basic skill set. -Art of Learning
A major hindrance to RTS hype today and the evolution of its game design moving forward is widespread ignorance about the basic skills involved in the genre. It's clear that army, economy, and technology are important, but people who are not RTS veterans cannot easily intuit what is most important. No matter how great the experiences within the match may be, there is a colossal obstacle for new players learning what to focus on to get better at RTS. People want guides, tutorials, easy-to-access build orders, and memes.
Questions that are not answered within the client but are vital to RTS success:
How does one go about setting up a hotkey layout?
Why is hotkey layout important?
Should I play with default hotkeys, use Grid, TheCore, or just click everything?
How important is worker production? How many workers should I be making?
What are the major differentiating factors of skill across the leagues? (spoiler: it's worker production)
How important is APM? (and why is EPM not shown?)
How do I review my losses in replays?
How do I interpret the score screen information?
Where can I find other players who are interested in working on a matchup in custom games?
What are good streams to learn X race?
Who are the active coaches of X race?
Establishing the first clear step up from the skill floor in StarCraft is a crucial improvement in making the game available to people who want to learn the game within the game, rather than go on a YouTube adventure. There seems to be too much emphasis on how balanced StarCraft is and not enough focus on how well-designed an RTS game StarCraft can be. If we make big design changes, balance will be worse in the short term but make for better player/viewer experiences in the long term. It seems like Legacy of the Void is Blizzard's 'long haul' for the rest of StarCraft 2. With the game dwindling in viewership and active player base, just about everyone in the scene wants to see big changes to shake things up.
|
On May 03 2016 00:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Well, looks like now's the time if any. It'll be hard to make a story for SC3 given how SC2 took every aspect of the universe to the max towards the end, and with World of Warcraft continuing to rake in the dough there probably won't be a WC4 anytime soon. And from a business perspective, SC2 is doing well and more moneymaking opportunities are to be had with the Nova campaigns and future episodes. Thus no reason to take away from that with WC4.
So looks like for now, any Blizzard RTS's are off the table.
they won't fund an RTS because because there is not enough money to be made. Has nothing to do with any of this story stuff or WoW's existence. Sigaty stated nothing coming from Blizz will compete with SC2-mulitplayer for 10+ years.
Ensemble, EALA, and Blizzard are the 3 major studios that made big budget RTS games. They are all done. Big budget RTS games are a thing of the past.
Halo Wars 2 is coming out this year though!
|
|
|
On May 03 2016 00:09 lichter wrote:
are you sure you're not drunk again m8
Bruh, you even read the blog? ^^
|
In all frankness, and not to be rude, but its bad players/frustrated players who reduce Starcrafts complexity just to mechanics and immediate action. Obviously thats a large component of it, but if your playing the game with little to no strategical understanding (or your opponents are, and they're successful against you) its your own fault. Mechanically and strategically.
That said I can understand the desire for a more purely strategical game.
|
On May 03 2016 01:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 00:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Well, looks like now's the time if any. It'll be hard to make a story for SC3 given how SC2 took every aspect of the universe to the max towards the end, and with World of Warcraft continuing to rake in the dough there probably won't be a WC4 anytime soon. And from a business perspective, SC2 is doing well and more moneymaking opportunities are to be had with the Nova campaigns and future episodes. Thus no reason to take away from that with WC4.
So looks like for now, any Blizzard RTS's are off the table. they won't fund an RTS because because there is not enough money to be made. Has nothing to do with any of this story stuff or WoW's existence. Sigaty stated nothing coming from Blizz will compete with SC2-mulitplayer for 10+ years. Ensemble, EALA, and Blizzard are the 3 major studios that made big budget RTS games. They are all done. Big budget RTS games are a thing of the past. Halo Wars 2 is coming out this year though!
Hidden Path made a boatload of money off of AoE2 HD, although admittedly not as much as they made off of CS:GO.
|
On May 03 2016 00:39 Yurie wrote:
What do you think about the more or less turn based games such as EUIV? Which is RTS but plays more like a turn based game.
Maybe the future lies in grand strategy.
The issue is that they can't take over from the perspective of competitive gameplay, for two reasons:
- Either they are forced to run continuously, in which games are long and lack all the decision-making usually made during pausetime
- This can change with custom maps, but the current games, expecially Paradox games, are based on real-world scenarios which makes things purposely unbalanced.
|
I'm the same as you, but for FPS games. Played UT2004 competitively, and while I was utterly terrible at it, level of skill, awareness and countless hours needed to be put into being good was ridiculous. Most FPS games I play now just can't touch it or come near to my experiences with that game.
Also big-ups for mentioning Total Annihilation, my fave game of all time!
|
ugh I did buy every rts game I saw around the Warcraft2/C&C era. God I wasted so much money that time. Didn't help that magazines gave everything a 80%+ ... little did I know that 80% is basically a 0%. Just happy I learned it then and didn't went shopping crazy after Warcraft3 success made everyone crank out rts games.
Its funny how Blizzard releases/announcements seems to trigger stuff like this.
As for Sc3. Blizzard did a pretty good job actually at making that a possibility. Almost everyone is gone from Sc1. Side Characters we don't know alot of rule over the factions now. Some fantasy authors employ this mechanic of resetting their world so they can create new stories.
Now Blizzard can use things like Nova Covert ops, to expand on the characters. And whenever they want to create Sc3 they just send in a really big threat.
But Sc3 is very var in the future, no reason to get your hopes up heh.
Warcraft 4 is also super easy to do despite Wow, throw in a new World with a new Factions, that gets attacked by the burning legion, Alliance and Horde come to help and to recruit new allies. And well they can do whatever to the new faction.
We are still far away from going the Marvel route of alternate dimensions.
|
|
|
The main problem with the RTS genre is the barrier of entry for companies. Simply put if you want to produce an RTS on the level of Starcraft II, you need to sink millions into the game engine before you can even really get started. So most companies aren't interested in investing that much up front into a genre that isn't the most popular, when you could produce a different game for a much reduced cost.
|
I don't agree. Have you ever gone outside and talked to your friends about RTS games?
They're way too fucking casual to ever enjoy them. That's the barrier, there's not a big enough audience for hardcore RTS games like brood war.
People like to think they're playing a skilled game such as league of legends where you can even put the blame on your allies instead of having to come to the realization that you're awful.
|
On May 02 2016 23:16 BEARDiaguz wrote:
After you've seen The Wire it's difficult to go back to CSI.
<3
|
On May 03 2016 02:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 01:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 03 2016 00:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Well, looks like now's the time if any. It'll be hard to make a story for SC3 given how SC2 took every aspect of the universe to the max towards the end, and with World of Warcraft continuing to rake in the dough there probably won't be a WC4 anytime soon. And from a business perspective, SC2 is doing well and more moneymaking opportunities are to be had with the Nova campaigns and future episodes. Thus no reason to take away from that with WC4.
So looks like for now, any Blizzard RTS's are off the table. they won't fund an RTS because because there is not enough money to be made. Has nothing to do with any of this story stuff or WoW's existence. Sigaty stated nothing coming from Blizz will compete with SC2-mulitplayer for 10+ years. Ensemble, EALA, and Blizzard are the 3 major studios that made big budget RTS games. They are all done. Big budget RTS games are a thing of the past. Halo Wars 2 is coming out this year though! Hidden Path made a boatload of money off of AoE2 HD, although admittedly not as much as they made off of CS:GO.
boatload? how many billions in a boatload? is that the metric system or somethin' ?
wake me up when the Age of Empires franchise enters the billion dollar revenue club... the franchise is almost 20 years old now.
AoE is a great franchise and so is Halo Wars.. its a cryin' shame Ensemble got shut down... but just because a game is good doesn't mean you'll make the kind of ROI the money men expect... they'd rather make Skylanders and sell stupid plastic figures to 10 year kids who lose them and force their parents to buy them and 2nd 3rd and 4th time.
the SC franchise is great as well.. and its going down too.
|
Anyone tried 8bit armies ?
|
Now I need to get an Xbox 1 for HW2...
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
Was hoping for a memorial about Has, but this is good too.
|
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?
|
I'd be happy to make a new RTS suitable to OP's tastes if paid for it :D
|
On May 03 2016 07:34 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Wait can you? Holy fuck get hype!
|
I thought grey goo was supposed to be pretty close to starcraft in terms of the unit responsiveness/game speed. (have only seen a little) Its definitely true that most RTS has very clunky/slow unit control which drives me bananas after playing starcraft.
|
On May 03 2016 05:29 ionONE wrote:
Anyone tried 8bit armies ?
I have. It's terrible.
|
On May 03 2016 12:06 BEARDiaguz wrote:I have. It's terrible.
Is it worse than Starcraft N64?
|
No.... Nothing is worse than that lol.
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.
|
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.
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.
|
Worse, i hate most games :/
|
warcraft 3. nothing else compares 
|
Try Battlefield Gothic: Armada. Lots of micro to do there, especially if you play fast factions like Eldar or Chaos.
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
What marteen said. That's why when i want to play a strategy game, i don't play a RTS anymore.
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.
|
I agree Iaguz, wc3 and especially sc2 have killed any other RTS for me. I have not come across any other game where the controls feel as good and every action and my speed gets rewarded.
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.
|
Great post. Spent many empty nights looking for a good RTS on Steam.
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.
|
On May 03 2016 13:39 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 12:06 BEARDiaguz wrote:On May 03 2016 05:29 ionONE wrote:
Anyone tried 8bit armies ? I have. It's terrible. Is it worse than Starcraft N64?
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.
|
On May 04 2016 10:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 13:39 Cricketer12 wrote:On May 03 2016 12:06 BEARDiaguz wrote:On May 03 2016 05:29 ionONE wrote:
Anyone tried 8bit armies ? I have. It's terrible. Is it worse than Starcraft N64? 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.
|
Bored of RTS? Go play planetary annihilation. Good luck.
|
On May 04 2016 03:22 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, although I fully share iaguz's opinion on RTS, and what a good RTS should have. Myself, in SC2 I just enjoy controlling the units because everything feels so smooth and you can go as fast as you can think, basically (maybe faster even). I'm not really in it for the strategy (because let's face it, it's quite rudimentary). And anything with a worse engine would be a drag for me.
So maybe the whole problem is that the audience for hardcore RTS, as small as it already is, is also split in what it wants from a game?
Reading the thread, as a game designer/developer, I certainly wouldn't throw myself into the making of a top-tier RTS right now :D.
|
yeah that's a pretty tough thing to do..
For me i'd happily play a starcraft-like game with a much more user friendly interface (like the one of supreme commander) that can take away part of the hassle of spamming buttons.
On another hand, a good game type that worked around difficult inputs is of course fighting games. They are very hard, but the matches are so quick. So at least players aren't stuck 10 or 15 mins in intense mental focus mode to keep up with the game.
And new fighting games aren't that much easier than old ones (ex : blazblue).
Lastly, fighting games have a training mode + little challenges (like masters of starcraft but with more scenarii), another point to make the game more accessible as said NeuroSwarm.
|
I do blame the developers.
There are plenty of great strategy games out there, just not in real time.
If someone makes an RTS that has rich strategy i don't mind a slow pace, but they are shallow strategy games with no mechanical requirement, thats frickin boring.
|
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro.
|
On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro.
Better than Broodwar? Wtf does that even mean?
|
On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro.
better for who? For you, probably not, for someone else, most likely yes.
|
"I have a subjective opinion and state that it is objective fact." ~OP
If I wanted to read about real RTS design I think I would read Razzia of Blizzsters or Depth of Micro. theDwf and Lalush both put an incredibly amount of thought and energy writing those up, those are excellent reads.
Sorry but to me, this thread says "i like high apm and all other rts are too slow 4 me, i'm a hardcore progamer". There seems to be a lack of actual thinking here and this is just ripping on other games because you don't like them.
A good RTS should be playable and fun at 60 apm but can be taken to 400 APM in high level games. Just because some other RTS don't ramp it up in terms of mechanics doesn't make them shit.
That said, the frustration of not having high end, competitive RTS games akin to LoL, Dota, CS, Rocket League, etc. is understandable. I would agree to that sentiment. I don't agree with "games i don't like are shit".
|
I've never been able to fully enjoy a rts game after starcraft 1. The game is just so good that everything else feels like a waste and I could just go back to it instead of learning a new game. I know might have missed some great games because of this, but I will echo what that dude said about the units in the other rts games feeling clunky and slow, and yeah I agree with that and it makes me feel like I don't have fun controlling the individual units as much as I would have in other games. Hell, even in aoe games (which are also very fun) I get annoyed by the fact that there are no "attack-move". I'm picky I guess. I wish I could enjoy more games than I do now
|
France9034 Posts
Nowadays when I want a good RTS (and I imply strategic here, not just fast-clicking game), I often turn to Eugen Systems' games. The Wargame series was pretty good if you want """"strategy"""". It does need a fair amount of APM to be pretty efficient, but overall it's more about knowing the types of units and how to play them in a very complex rock-paper-scissors + control game, with a very very heavy scouting component. I'd reserve it to hardcore wargame fans though, it's by no mean easy to pick up, and favors good positioning and thinking over ultra-fast micro.
Then, if you want a faster paced RTS, I'd take a look at Act Of Aggression, which was kind of an attempt at rebooting that genre of FPS that kinda died with Red Alert 2 (or maybe 3, haven't played it but got negative echoes about it...).
I can't help but feel, when I read you post, that you just want SC economy, with SC control, in a game that is not SC. It's not that there hasn't been good RTS for a while, it's just that you don't like their style. I mean, all the Total Wars, the Dawn of Wars, the Company of Heroes, Planetary Annihilation, etc. These have been good games. Good RTS even I might say. Just not the type you want. And Starcraft has been quite different from these (which are by no mean the same...) and at this point, you might just want SC3.
So yeah, maybe not a lot of good fast-paced, micro-centric RTS. Which is just a sub-genre of the RTS genre.
|
On May 06 2016 03:41 Incognoto wrote:
[...]
A good RTS should be playable and fun at 60 apm but can be taken to 400 APM in high level games. Just because some other RTS don't ramp it up in terms of mechanics doesn't make them shit.
[...]
"I have a subjective opinion and state that it is objective fact."?
Don't be too hung up on form, or you'll be called out for it as well. I thought we were past the point of retorting to anything with "it's just, like, your opinion man!". Obviously, if OP says "it's shit", it probably means "I don't like it", not "this game must be some animal's excrement".
For me (so yeah, again, another opinion), the "Real time" part in RTS kinda implies to be pressured by time in the course of the game. You have a limited amount of things you can do in a second, so you have to prioritize. Games that fail to confront gamers with this need for prioritization, and allow them to push their skills to the limit in this aspect, from low to the highest level, make for bland RTS. I wouldn't be as harsh as OP to judge other RTS, I think there are quite a bit of games outside of the Blizzard ones which are good RTS, but for me, no other modern engine compares to SC2's. Which is a shame really, because I wouldn't say it's perfect either :D.
What's unfortunate is that the "Strategy" part of RTS is very difficult to combine effectively with its "Real time" part. SC2 has a frantic pace, which is good, real time stuff, but it lacks strategy, maybe as a result.
And I can't think of a single RTS that is considered highly strategic without overwhelming the player with options (like hundred of different units and techs and ameliorations). When the game's content itself overwhelms you with options, it becomes really hard to make meaningful choices (like, why pick tech 37 instead of tech 121?), let alone making them in a limited time.
Broodwar looks like a beautiful game, as close to an ideal RTS as I can think of, but every time I play it, I can't help but feel like it's just too old. It looks fun "on TV", but not when I play it, because it just lacks too much of what makes a modern game enjoyable. Not being able to rebind hotkeys? Eh. I hope Blizzard is able to conjure some of that BW magic one more time for SC3, but they probably got lucky :D.
|
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 feel the same way. It seems to me that every developer think the way to make an RTS game is to have slow-moving and unresponsive units and/or have players control a low number of units.
What makes Sc2 interesting is controlling a large number of relatively responsive units spread out all over the map. Aside from that I think Sc2 has a ton of flaws that could and should be adressed by a different developer. The genre has so much potential!
I wonder how long it will take for developers to realize this though. Atm. it seems that most game-developers are focussed on creating team-games w/ low skill-caps as they (mistakenly) think that will create succesful games. On the other hand, I think that the MOBA-genre got succesful despite of the teamelement, not because of it. Coordinating and relying on random teammates is - for the most part - a terrible experience.
The main problem with the RTS genre is the barrier of entry for companies. Simply put if you want to produce an RTS on the level of Starcraft II, you need to sink millions into the game engine before you can even really get started. So most companies aren't interested in investing that much up front into a genre that isn't the most popular, when you could produce a different game for a much reduced cost.
Then why do they spend time making bad games with slow moving units? It took me 2 seconds to look at Grey Goo and conclude that the game would flop despite relatively large investments.
"I have a subjective opinion and state that it is objective fact." ~OP
With the exception that it is a fact that every single RTS slowmotion game has failed. Maybe its time for a change?
And yes I think it probably is a fact that games that move in slowmotion have a much lower skillcap and cannot be popular as competitive games. And a competitive game is what gives the game sustainibility.
|
Although it falls right in line with the "slow strategy games" you decry... I've put over 300 hours into Sins of a Solar Empire. I really enjoy that game because sometimes, I'm just not in the mood (or the mental state, lets be real) to dive into the fierce cognitive competition that is SC2
After a long day's work... the last thing I want to do is try and out think some 15 year old who's entire hobby is nothing but playing SC2. It's one thing to lose, it's another to get your @$$ handed to you.
|
Maybe change it from RTS to RTT=Real time Tactic.
To me, the real time stands for "I face the opponent at the same time". You should dance with your opponent, interact with him ALOT of the time in your matches.
From min1 this should be RLY relevant. If we look at sc2, it feels very none-relevant. Just make enough units so you can defend and BAM. No interaction for a long time.
That is the opposite of dancing with your opponent.
Tactic matters more to me than strategy. If somehow a REALLY GOOD RTS which doesnt exist today happens, i am not sure theoratically how to make it strategic enough so its not about "going meta" or "copy" other strategies.
Tactic part is what can last and which can be different from game to game even with the same type of units.
The starcraft games have the macro inside your base like 99%. Sure, it exapnds to your natural and third. But it stays there. And it doesnt have much variation either.
That is one thing that could and should change to. Get rid of "build pylons frequently" and instead have it more of "active macro". You can make relevant structures outside of your opening base and things that really effects things to.
And not simple structures such as "make 5cannons here", more advanced structures which involves the dancing part.
If you want to attack your opponent and you see 5cannons. You cant do anything, if you attack you might evne lose the game.
This is crap.
Instead,
If you want to attack your opponent and you see a "pole" in the ground and you get close to it, it dont damage your enemies.
Instead if increases the movement speed of the opponents units by 5-10% within a close radius.
What this pole do is it makes it possible for him to have his units around his pole to defend this area, or to dance around this pole. Its not suicide doing it nor is it cost ineffective. Deponds on the micro from both sides.
Note your units might have been melee units in this scenario while his units were ranged.
Where do you want this pole? Maybe inbetween your natural base and third. Or maybe on your third while on your natural you put something else up..
Imagine this, you want to tech to tier2 and it goes pretty fast. Now your opponent goes tier 1 and he scouts you, sees you go tier 2.
How should the game progress here? If you in this scenario needs to make "5 cannons" to be safe, and at the same time neglecting everything your opponent can do instead it should be very different.
Instead of those cannons. There could be a larger building. In this game, if you are behind a building and you face a range opponent unit, it can not shoot through it. Meaning, you need to be in Line of sight of each other.
Now its possible to dance around this building with your own units. Imagine if your tier 2 unit has 10range while the opponents tier 1 units has 5range.
If you face them headon the tier1 units win.
But if you dance around here, you have a real chance of surviving and then get ahead with your tier 2.
Now we dance.
|
I'm not sure why anyone would say that Starcraft 2 lacks strategy. On the contrary, at a high level, strategy and decision making count in enormous amounts when it comes to the game's outcome.
|
I've watched few games of SC2 that have blown me away from the sole strategy on display. Strategy obviously often determines the outcome of the game, but it has a very "obvious" feel to it. It amounts to someone taking a technological or economical risk and the other guy not being aware of it. Players make very little use of space and map features, because maps for various reasons are quite bland, let's face it. Unit compositions are often the same within the same matchup. So yeah, "take risk, make units while defending, attack there, the end".
I was able to reach a decent master level without thinking about strategy at all (not even that "take risks" part). Obviously, that's not high level, but it's still quite abnormal that you don't see "strategy" until the top 2% (maybe top 0.01%? :D) of the ladder...
|
You don't see strategy until top 2% of the ladder (outside of a few players who win more off strategy) because they designed the game wrong.
They failed to properly balance one of the most important resources in a game: player attention.
|
Starcraft 2 has a ton and ton of flaws on multiple levels. One of those is the lack of viable unit compositions.
But the charm of controlling a large army is what saves it. Imagne a game that fixes some of the leaks of Starcraft while maintaining (or improving upon) its charm.
|
The question developers ask themselves is what's the easiest game we can make and generate most money with it?
RTS is not doing the answer. Good RTS has to have many things done right. There's no proper company besides blizzard interested in complex rts games, and I think they are done with it as well. Look at blizzard's last few games. Overwatch is noob friendly and the game is 95% team skill based game, same with hots.
Today's gamers are lazy to invest time in being good at rts games nowadays, when they can spend 30 minutes learning LoL, and its free yay. Just seeing that Grubby is playing heroes of the storm makes me wanna cry.
Then you start to realize that going back to wc3 is not such a bad idea. I can say that I'm still enjoying the game just like I did 10 years ago. Combine that with sc2, and there you go.
|
On May 02 2016 23:16 BEARDiaguz wrote:
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.
Starcraft isnt even a particularly great game. Its difficult because there is a giant artificial structure around it that makes a lot of people play it.
Also, I recommend The Americans and Fargo, they're not as good as The Wire, but they're pretty good. FX has been killing it lately.
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.
Note: DotA is also not a difficult, challenging game. DotA was literally created by and for people who couldn't handle Warcraft III but liked the hero system. (Ad yes, I know that Aeon of Strife was first a starcraft map.)
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".
This is a good point. The question that the community should ask itself is why Blizzard itself didn't think this, instead making something like that, but in a new engine that would fix the very quirks and bugs that made Broodwar so competitive.I haven't been playing any games lately, but i'd suggest anything with a higher foodcap than SCII, e.g. Planetary Annihilation, or even SupCom.
(Outside of Blizzard of course, who basically 'get it')
Clearly they get it, hence why Diablo III has been such a revolutionary sequel. And why their last three games have been 1) a free to play card game that was more or less designed to give pro streamers something to do while they look for a match in another game 2) a dumbed down version of Dotalikes (that is, a dumbed down version of a dumbed down minigenre!) whose sole appeal seems to be that the Dominion mode was removed from League of Legends and 3) a free to play shooter that is, if I remember the release date of Team Fortress 2 correctly, only 9 years too late.
You guys all worship Blizzard like they are the kings of video game development, but they haven't had an inspiring idea in decades. I mean, they literally wanted to make a warhammer game with warcraft, and you can still see numerous traces of wh40k in starcraft. They haven't created a new universe since 1998, instead producing about fifty add-ons for World of Warcraft (which I have never played, but as far as I know, half of them have made the game worse), two sequels that did not add anything to old formulas (I mean, there's a reason why all the streams on the right bar here are Brood War again, right?) and a bunch of f2p crap.
Now Iaguz, since you actually have played a bunch of other games (something that most others on this forum seem to not even think about in their ridiculous devotion to Blizzard) - if you like sc2, good on you! I quite like it to. In fact, I still play it every now and then. But that is solely so because I can still queue up a game. If Ground Control 2 still had servers and, say, a community of thirty players, I'd go back to it. And If I had a PC that could handle it, you can bet your ass I'd play something released in 2015 or 2016.
Which is not to say that you are totally incorrect. RTS has been in a malaise. It's because games have become a mainstream form of art, and multiplayer games have as a result turned mostly into ridiculously simplistic games like Dota. (I have an old, ugly Team Dignitas jacket that used to just look like an incredibly trashy jacket. If I wore it now, people would think I'd be into LoL. Sigh.) But look, there's never been a "refined" RTS game, ever. Again, Broodwar was mostly interesting because of its ridiculous mechanical limitations (no auto-mining etc.); without it, Flash wouldn't be as impressive as he is. Red Alert 2 was one of the most hilarious games ever, but true pro games, for all intents and purposes, devolve into fights of tanks and dogs (which is also hilarious, in a way). Warcraft 3 wasn't even good until The Frozen Throne came along, and its basically a slowmo version of RTS games that should have been played in team modes and not in 1vs1 (In fact, a lot of games should have been played in team modes - hey, like Ground Control 2!). Don't expect new games that come out to be perfect. But a few of them do surely surpass Starcraft 2 in all number of ways. Again, Planetary Annihilation comes to mind. Numerous problems notwithstanding, that game is so far ahead of 200-food-limit, 1vs1-only, small-ass-maps Starcraft II just by virtue of actually going somewhere with the genre
Y'all are too focused on this dumb esports shit. Esports fucking suck.
|
It's all individual I feel. While most players prefer team games, there is a nice amount of players who prefer to play solo, where you don't have to depend on other 4 players in any way. All you have to care about is to get better and fix your own mistakes. It's all about improving and "blaming" yourself when you loose. Therefore, that's the reason we're missing good esport rts games like wc3 or bw. Anyway, at the end it all comes down to money, sponsors and viewers so we can whine as long as we want, that won't change 
I've seen a lot of players going back to bw/wc3 lately, and I think sc2 will stay strong for years to come. Maybe smaller, but stronger, because there are no alternatives for these type of gamers. Seeing all these newbie-friendly new games leaves you no choice. Gaming is fun because of it's challenge, atleast for me 
|
On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro.
WC3.
but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too.
|
On May 07 2016 21:56 SnowfaLL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro. WC3. but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too.
Well WC3 has unresponsive slow units + its not about controlling a large army, so doesn't really relate to OP. Day9's new game is also more comparable to WC3, so I don't put any faith in that game.
|
On May 07 2016 21:56 SnowfaLL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro. WC3. but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too.
if you only play wc3 1vs1, youre missing out 
|
On May 07 2016 23:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 21:56 SnowfaLL wrote:On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro. WC3. but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too. Well WC3 has unresponsive slow units + its not about controlling a large army, so doesn't really relate to OP. Day9's new game is also more comparable to WC3, so I don't put any faith in that game.
slower units, maybe, but definitely not unresponsive. WC3 is all about micro, if you prefer playing a game thats more about macro and less about micro, sure BW is for you, but if you want intense micro, WC3 is the game to play. But of course, I know having the opinion of liking WC3 more than BW is not allowed on a forum like this.
|
On May 08 2016 05:41 SnowfaLL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 23:54 Hider wrote:On May 07 2016 21:56 SnowfaLL wrote:On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro. WC3. but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too. Well WC3 has unresponsive slow units + its not about controlling a large army, so doesn't really relate to OP. Day9's new game is also more comparable to WC3, so I don't put any faith in that game. slower units, maybe, but definitely not unresponsive. WC3 is all about micro, if you prefer playing a game thats more about macro and less about micro, sure BW is for you, but if you want intense micro, WC3 is the game to play. But of course, I know having the opinion of liking WC3 more than BW is not allowed on a forum like this.
IIRC The dota-concept of turn-rates came from WC3. But sure that doesn't prevent micro as long as the TTK (time to kill) ratio is high enouh. But personally I heavily prefer faster-paced (lower TTK) and very responsive units. There is nothing like controlling Marines and Medivacs in Sc2.
|
I've been having quite a lot of fun with AoE2 Lately. I'd recommend looking into it.
The macro and micro both have incredible intricacies and every click and action has significant importance.
Even in BW/SC2 there is a lot of 'fill' time with idle apm spam while you wait for whatever. In AoE2 There is always something that can be done (i.e Resource optimization and scouting [not making sure a villager is attacking the closest/best tree without causing pathing conflict could easily cost you the game at a certain level])
|
On May 09 2016 19:53 Agh wrote:
I've been having quite a lot of fun with AoE2 Lately. I'd recommend looking into it.
The macro and micro both have incredible intricacies and every click and action has significant importance.
Even in BW/SC2 there is a lot of 'fill' time with idle apm spam while you wait for whatever. In AoE2 There is always something that can be done (i.e Resource optimization and scouting [not making sure a villager is attacking the closest/best tree without causing pathing conflict could easily cost you the game at a certain level])
Maybe.. if fighting with spears, bows and swords could be considered fun. Tnx, but I would rather fight with cool explosions in modern/sci fi themed RTS.
|
There's nothing wrong with fighting with archaic units. I actually prefer that time setting.
|
On May 10 2016 00:08 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 19:53 Agh wrote:
I've been having quite a lot of fun with AoE2 Lately. I'd recommend looking into it.
The macro and micro both have incredible intricacies and every click and action has significant importance.
Even in BW/SC2 there is a lot of 'fill' time with idle apm spam while you wait for whatever. In AoE2 There is always something that can be done (i.e Resource optimization and scouting [not making sure a villager is attacking the closest/best tree without causing pathing conflict could easily cost you the game at a certain level]) Maybe.. if fighting with spears, bows and swords could be considered fun. Tnx, but I would rather fight with cool explosions in modern/sci fi themed RTS.
Actually is a lot of fun, but enjoy what you want.
|
You might look into Homeworld: Remastered and Deserts of Kharak. Slower and more strategic feel in each than SC2 -- and even BW, in my opinion. Homeworld Remastered is really neat in terms of its 3D space combat, and Deserts of Kharak has a lot of tactical tools.
|
4713 Posts
The success of the Soul Series proves that games which purposefully and masterfully embrace their identity of difficulty can still be wildly successful. I have never understood why no game designer was willing to ever embrace this concept for an RTS game. I can maybe understand the PoV of people believing that, to a certain extent, mechanics beat strategy, but when mechanics are equal than strategy rules again, and its always entertaining watching a less mechanically gifted (Mvp past his prime) outwit and defeat much stronger opponents.
I could maybe see more of an appeal in WC3, since that was more action and micro orientated, but there isn't a reason why SC and WC can't be two sides of the same coin, with Warcraft focused on the mechanical aspects of micro and hero control while Starcraft focuses on the mechanical aspects of army and base managements. I wish Blizzard could fully embrace this aspect and design units more with control in mind (like the marine) and less around concepts they feel are cool (like the colossus, roach, or cyclone).
And yes, I wish there was a strong competitor to Blizzard so they could stop resting on their asses, and so we could also get some damn innovation.
|
On May 15 2016 11:30 Destructicon wrote:
The success of the Soul Series proves that games which purposefully and masterfully embrace their identity of difficulty can still be wildly successful. I have never understood why no game designer was willing to ever embrace this concept for an RTS game. I can maybe understand the PoV of people believing that, to a certain extent, mechanics beat strategy, but when mechanics are equal than strategy rules again, and its always entertaining watching a less mechanically gifted (Mvp past his prime) outwit and defeat much stronger opponents.
I could maybe see more of an appeal in WC3, since that was more action and micro orientated, but there isn't a reason why SC and WC can't be two sides of the same coin, with Warcraft focused on the mechanical aspects of micro and hero control while Starcraft focuses on the mechanical aspects of army and base managements. I wish Blizzard could fully embrace this aspect and design units more with control in mind (like the marine) and less around concepts they feel are cool (like the colossus, roach, or cyclone).
And yes, I wish there was a strong competitor to Blizzard so they could stop resting on their asses, and so we could also get some damn innovation.
You confuse overall difficulty with mechanical difficulty.
Dark souls isn't hard to play mechanically at all, a few buttons and you are good to go.
A pvp game always has this "overall difficulty" aspect because in the days of matchmaking you will win 50% and lose 50%.
At the end of the day rts games are mechanically too demanding and i don't think making controlls easier is a real solution either because general "multitasking" aspect will always be there which make the genre mechanically harder than any other genre by default. (and if we remove that we don't really have a rts game anymore)
|
Starcraft spoiled me and makes me feel that every game should be as smooth and intuitively controlled. Anything short of that feels bad. It's turned me into something of a power gamer, sometimes has me completely neglecting the original reason why I'm playing a game, fun. I have mixed feelings about this.
Company of Heroes 2 seems like it could be a great game and don't really understand why it's clumped in the category it is. It's very responsive and has a decently high mechanical level. 250 apm on starcraft and I'm failing to keep up with CoH.Micro is more impactful in this game than starcraft, with grenades being able to completely take out a squad that would otherwise survive a firefight for 2 minutes. I love the goal of multiplayer in how it has you constantly fighting over territory which produce resources, it keeps the game from lulling into macro fests. I agree with what someone said a few pages back in that the genre should probably be called real time tactic. There's not much strategy in this game other than unit compositions. Base layout and expansion timings offer starcraft an interesting build order system. My biggest gripe with the game is the developers are hellbent on their lord and savior RNGesus ruling the playing field. This just makes it frustrating across the board to outmaneuver your opponent and lose both of your tanks because 3 shots bounced.
As for RTS as a whole? We need something with a much lower skill floor. Picture starcraft with bigger scope and on screen interfaces for your production. Not making your players hit 4sss5eeaaa6ss7dd every 40 seconds is a good start to making a game feel fun and not work. I would like to see something using the resource node system of starcraft with much bigger maps and a matching camera. Slow buildling but functional static defense, turtling can work but the player who expands without excessive defense gains a resource advantage. Trying to establish mid map static defense would shut off your opponent from the rest of the map and would be potentially game ending. This enforces the vision control and unit interaction that makes combat in starcraft dynamic.
Just some ideas there, but I would buy that game twice if it was designed with the same competitive focus that Starcraft has.
|
On May 15 2016 11:30 Destructicon wrote:
The success of the Soul Series proves that games which purposefully and masterfully embrace their identity of difficulty can still be wildly successful. I have never understood why no game designer was willing to ever embrace this concept for an RTS game. I can maybe understand the PoV of people believing that, to a certain extent, mechanics beat strategy, but when mechanics are equal than strategy rules again, and its always entertaining watching a less mechanically gifted (Mvp past his prime) outwit and defeat much stronger opponents.
I could maybe see more of an appeal in WC3, since that was more action and micro orientated, but there isn't a reason why SC and WC can't be two sides of the same coin, with Warcraft focused on the mechanical aspects of micro and hero control while Starcraft focuses on the mechanical aspects of army and base managements. I wish Blizzard could fully embrace this aspect and design units more with control in mind (like the marine) and less around concepts they feel are cool (like the colossus, roach, or cyclone).
And yes, I wish there was a strong competitor to Blizzard so they could stop resting on their asses, and so we could also get some damn innovation.
Actually, the identity of difficulty is mainly something that's used for marketing purposes. Once you get a grab of the mechanics and the rules Dark Souls is not all that hard, at least not the first two games which still allowed players to hide behind their shields.
Dark Souls is also decidedly not about APM. On the contrary, button mashing is the surest way to a quick death and being sent back to the latest bonfire. The difficulty in StarCraft is mainly artificial: give players an insane amount of things they have to babysit, and dial the game speed up to 11. Dark Souls, in comparison, is incredibly methodical and emphasises decision making and spacing, but does not artificially make the game more difficult by speeding it up. Quite on the contrary, Dark Souls (minus Dark Souls 3) is very slow-paced.
The sense of satisfaction I get after having beaten a boss in Dark Souls is completely different from having beaten another player in StarCraft 2, largely because in the lower leagues of SC2, beating someone is more about outmacroing someone rather than outthinking and outmanoeuvring someone (i.e. the larger army usually wins). Beating a boss in Dark Souls requires you to figure out when to block, when to attack, when to dodge and when to heal. You have to outsmart an A.I. opponent who can kill you in three hits by making the right decision time and again. APM has no bearing in how successful you'll be in defeating a boss.
|
Why the hell are we talking about Dark Souls inside a RTS thread? A game which bases its entire gameplay around trial and error of when to dodge and block. Shit level design too.
On May 10 2016 00:20 Incognoto wrote:
There's nothing wrong with fighting with archaic units. I actually prefer that time setting.
I would like to see a modern game with those aesthetics. No magic, just good old fashioned tactics and strategy.
|
This blog post touches on something I just ran in to. The short of it is that I found myself wanting to play an RTS, but all my friends are either gunshy of playing me in RTS games because 6+ years ago I played Starcraft competitively (I was bad in the grand scheme, C rated on ICCup). Or they say RTS games are too stressful; when they play a game they want it to be cathartic and not stressful at all.
I eventually convince one of them to play Age of Empires HD with me, because he grew up playing it and I have never played it. So I go into it blind, having literally never played the game before but with some explanations of how it works, and beat him. Two games of winning later, he gives up. Not because I was too good (I was terrible), but because RTS games are too hard for him now. After many years of League of Legends being his main game remembering to constantly build workers and balance his economy while also scouting and dealing with a military is just too much for him.
After having talked to a bunch of friends I swear modern games have totally ruined most people on mechanically hard games. They don't want to juggle their time between scouting, worker production, teching and microing whatever the AI is bad at. They want a slow paced strategy game with a ton of comeback mechanics built in so they won't lose if they screw up badly once or twice in a clutch situation. It is just... Frustrating for me.
|
After having talked to a bunch of friends I swear modern games have totally ruined most people on mechanically hard games. They don't want to juggle their time between scouting, worker production, teching and microing whatever the AI is bad at. They want a slow paced strategy game with a ton of comeback mechanics built in so they won't lose if they screw up badly once or twice in a clutch situation. It is just... Frustrating for me.
But MOBA's aren't slowpaced. They are easier and more forgiving, but not slowpaced. Heroes usually move and respond quickly + very focussed on the PvP engagements.
It's just all of the B-class RTS games that are slow-packed
|
On May 18 2016 10:12 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +After having talked to a bunch of friends I swear modern games have totally ruined most people on mechanically hard games. They don't want to juggle their time between scouting, worker production, teching and microing whatever the AI is bad at. They want a slow paced strategy game with a ton of comeback mechanics built in so they won't lose if they screw up badly once or twice in a clutch situation. It is just... Frustrating for me. But MOBA's aren't slowpaced. They are easier and more forgiving, but not slowpaced. Heroes usually move and respond quickly + very focussed on the PvP engagements. It's just all of the B-class RTS games that are slow-packed
It isn't that they want a slow game, really. But that they kind of need a slow RTS. They want to be able to play an RTS with the same amount of multi tasking and APM they use playing at a mid tier skill bracket in a moba. They don't want to have to keep track of many things; they want to be able to control their army without being punished for not simultaneously building their economy and scouting and teching.
For example, they like Sins of a Solar Empire because everything is slow enough that they don't need to be carefully watching. There are no workers to build, when they cap a planet they just queue up the resource asteroids and whenever they happen to remember to they might upgrade a planet. If they accidentally blunder into a bad fight they can turn around and jump out without automatically losing the game. If they don't notice they are in a fight, they have plenty of time to realize it and send reinforcements before the battle is decided. If they screw up their economy they can just trade resources to get what they need. If they are failed to macro, they can just use that money to send pirates at their enemy to give them some catch-up time. And above all losing/winning takes FOREVER.
Of course, doing all those things properly in Sins gives you an advantage. But in Sins there is rarely a single moment you can point to and say "I lost because ____." There is no accidentally moving your army too far forward and exploding on a bunch of siege tanks while you are macroing. There is no losing a ZvT because you looked away for a moment and stimmed marines exploded your muta ball. It is so much more forgiving that even if they lose every game, they feel better about it? I dunno, it is kinda hard to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
