|
|
|
Calgary26001 Posts
Not sure what the aim was, but I answered. It was pretty well-written, I rarely found I wanted an answer that wasn't on the list.
|
Oh, thank you for the kind words, glad the answers made sense!
It's true there isn't really a goal with this survey, it's something I wrote some time ago. I guess I'm just very curious on how people regard the RTS genre, there are plenty of titles out there which people enjoy.
|
I agree with Chill and I think you did about as good a job as you could, but I still felt like there was a lot of room for people to answer, in the words of Blizzard, what they think they like as opposed to what they actually like.
|
A very well written survey! Based on all answers it looks like you have played sc2 and wc3 over 90% of your RTS playtime.
|
Nice survey, I did have to think quite hard about RTS design features, perhaps it could be helpful to list some examples yourself since I wasn't sure what precisely qualifies as a RTS design feature.
|
On May 10 2016 01:40 Jerubaal wrote:
I agree with Chill and I think you did about as good a job as you could, but I still felt like there was a lot of room for people to answer, in the words of Blizzard, what they think they like as opposed to what they actually like.
I agree, sometimes people just have more things to say. If I get around to making another survey, then I'll try to give people more room to give their thoughts in that regard.
@Dingodile, I've never played WC3, for me it's mostly Starcraft 2 and Age of Empires 3.
On May 10 2016 02:10 B-royal wrote:
Nice survey, I did have to think quite hard about RTS design features, perhaps it could be helpful to list some examples yourself since I wasn't sure what precisely qualifies as a RTS design feature.
You can edit your answer I think, not sure. Design features can be anything, from the stuff I've gotten so far, here are a few examples:
- high-ground advantage (starcraft),
- warcraft 3 upkeep,
- company of heroes true sight,
- age of empires random map scripts,
- dynamic cover (COH, C&C),
- positional play (people like siege tanks), etc.
|
Aoe3 is pretty cool; a friend of mine hooked me up on it as i didn t want to give up the 2;
I really can' t wait to see the 4 made and released
|
I know this is "done" but I just wanted to ask why no "multiple choice" was used?
On May 10 2016 03:31 Incognoto wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 10 2016 01:40 Jerubaal wrote:
I agree with Chill and I think you did about as good a job as you could, but I still felt like there was a lot of room for people to answer, in the words of Blizzard, what they think they like as opposed to what they actually like. I agree, sometimes people just have more things to say. If I get around to making another survey, then I'll try to give people more room to give their thoughts in that regard. @Dingodile, I've never played WC3, for me it's mostly Starcraft 2 and Age of Empires 3. On May 10 2016 02:10 B-royal wrote:
Nice survey, I did have to think quite hard about RTS design features, perhaps it could be helpful to list some examples yourself since I wasn't sure what precisely qualifies as a RTS design feature. You can edit your answer I think, not sure. Design features can be anything, from the stuff I've gotten so far, here are a few examples: - high-ground advantage (starcraft), - warcraft 3 upkeep, - company of heroes true sight, - age of empires random map scripts, - dynamic cover (COH, C&C), - positional play (people like siege tanks), etc.
Also, this list seems very short 
There are a lot more features/gameplays that are being incorporated within rts canvas`...
|
It was just a short list off the top of my head, to give a few examples of what I meant with "design features". That list is indeed very short.
Otherwise, I agree some questions weren't allowing people to nuance their views, something to maybe look into for a subsequent survey.
|
I find it interesting that the answers are homogenous when it comes to prioritizing the key aspects of the game. The majority wants a balance between macro and micro, but I doubt it really shows what people think. I distinctively remember heated arguments with W3/AoE fans against BW veterans in the SCII beta. The AoE people generally liked the game as it was, the BW people flamed the shit out of the seemingly automated macro system, whereas the W3 people complained on the poor focus on micro. However, all of them agreed the mix should be more balanced.
It might be nice to add scales next time, e.g. rating how hard you find a special task and how important you think it is - from 0 to 5 or something. This might put some of the answers given into a different perspective.
|
Yeah for sure, I think that's a bit better, allows people to nuance what they say!
I'm also really liking that there is consensus on a lot of stuff, across all communities. Everyone seems to agree for example, that RTS games should not be "one-dimensional". It shouldn't be only strategy or only mechanics, or stuff like that.
The idea behind an RTS is that strategy, mechanics, micro and macro need to blend together in an interesting way.
|
The weird thing is that these stats reflect what people voted for.. not their actual preferences.
I really wish blizzard grew balls again and published the real stats, ergo
WHAT PEOPLE REALLY PLAY!
.. but to them this info is both gold and quagmire (a darkness they fear would destroy all (squadron supreme reference))...
They should be made to give us that information, the time of secretiveness and behind the scene has long past.. but you kids can't be bothered to lobby properly for it apparently.
[insert illegal sadness themed emote in your mind here]
|
"dark templar invisible"
"is the dark templar invisible?"
Is this Bisu?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
