EPTgames nowadays need for the players to have something to blame when they lose - be it RNG or your teammates. The only way I can see a classic RTS to have something like that is to introduce a heavy randomness element. I think that'd be an interesting thing to try, but surely RTS devotees will hate it.
Guardians of Atlas - Page 45
| Forum Index > General Games |
Development ended, game appears to be dead. https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/911/end-of-development -Jinro | ||
|
AndAgain
United States2621 Posts
games nowadays need for the players to have something to blame when they lose - be it RNG or your teammates. The only way I can see a classic RTS to have something like that is to introduce a heavy randomness element. I think that'd be an interesting thing to try, but surely RTS devotees will hate it. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey442 Posts
On September 09 2016 07:41 Hider wrote: How would I show such a clip when the game is not figured out or not being played at a high level? I can only talk about my experience and that's what I did. There is the potential for more though. The ability of arctic newts for example:Show me a clip where you are rewarded for 400+ EAPM in Atlas. E.g. where someone with 200 EAPM is overwhelmed during an engagement. I have 200 EAPM in most terran bio battles and I constantly feel like I could do so much better if I was faster/had better mouse precision. The next attack slows the movement speeds of enemies in a small area of effect around the target by 65% for 2 seconds. Players usually activate it for all of the units but if you click and activate one by one you can chain stun units that are trying to escape for example and that would take a lot of APM and precision to get it right. Another example, since most people are grouping all their units at once they move all of their army when trying to dodge a skill shot. A player with better micro and/or more practice can only select units that would be affected by the skill shot, move them out of the way and let rest of the army continue fighting. There are a lot of abilities/units that are designed to be micro intensive and more importantly, it looks like the design team want that unlike most of the RTS developers who see micro as a chore so if it turns out that micro skill ceiling is low, then I am sure they will try things to raise it. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17167 Posts
SC has been around 18 years and it still has not hit $1 billion in revenue. And SC is the #1 RTS franchise of all time. Saying MOBA = RTS due to shared art assets is offbase. Game mechanics make a game what it is not the art work. Is Zealot Hockey just like 3-gate robo early pressure in SC2 because both have a lot of Zealots and an Immortal? nah. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On September 09 2016 07:35 Grumbels wrote: Do you have a link to that feedback post? I will have to check, it was put together by a group of us editing a shared google doc on discord. I'm not sure if it's even still around, as NDA was still heavily in effect at that time. On September 09 2016 07:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote: saying that RTS is less popular because every game company sucks is implausible. when there are billions to be made in a genre companies put together an elite team of awesome people and make the billions that are there to be made with great game play. SC has been around 18 years and it still has not hit $1 billion in revenue. And SC is the #1 RTS franchise of all time. Saying MOBA = RTS due to shared art assets is offbase. Game mechanics make a game what it is not the art work. Is Zealot Hockey just like 3-gate robo early pressure in SC2 because both have a lot of Zealots and an Immortal? nah. There are not billions to be made in most genres nowdays. Very few games reach that number at all, I'm not sure why your bringing it up. I did not say RTS is less popular because every game company sucks, I'm saying they are less popular because therehave not been any very good ones. Not one of them has received very well by the public, at best they were mixed. Most of them were cash-grabs with lower development time than even the ones in the 90's had. Racing games are a less popular breed, but still have ones above 9.0 in the last decade. Same with platformers. Same with puzzle games. Same with fighting games. Fighting games are 1v1, highly competitive, and a niche genre. Their peak was in 1990-1995ish. They declined before RTS even was popular. What makes RTS so special? Those genres have been around even longer than RTS, and had their peak far before RTS did. You claim it's the genres popularity - most of those genres are less popular than RTS! Yet they can still pull off games that are well-received by the public. RTS is the only genre (except for maybe flight) that can not pull off a well-received game to the public, even when compared to genres they are more popular than. More people spent money on RTS, and were disappointed. This shows there's a user base and a large target audience, but the product does not mesh with the target audience. Doesn't that show it's not about the popularity, but about the quality & understanding of what the fans actually want? | ||
|
goswser
United States3548 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9411 Posts
saying that RTS is less popular because every game company sucks is implausible. when there are billions to be made in a genre companies put together an elite team of awesome people and make the billions that are there to be made with great game play. That's not how the world works. | ||
|
AndAgain
United States2621 Posts
On September 09 2016 09:38 goswser wrote: I don't think any RTS games have learned enough lessons from WC3 and broodwar. These two games are, at least in terms of esports, the most successful RTS games of all time imo. And I don't think any major RTS since has actually successfully taken or improved upon the elements that make them such good games. Maybe I'll make a list later of every characteristic that I think those two have that are head and shoulders above every other RTS since idk. In my opinion, it is definitely possible to make a very successful RTS game in this day and age, it's just that everyone who has tried has made very poor ones. 1. Just because something worked in 2004 doesn't mean it will work today. Today's competition is very different. Like I said, the days of highly skill-based 1v1 games having broad appeal are over. Unfortunately, the success of BW and WC3 creates false hope that the glory days of classic RTS can be revived. This will prevent game devs from trying to make something fresh like an RTS games with a large element of luck (which is the only way an RTS can succeed now.) 2. For the kind of people who post a lot on TL, there are big and very important differences between BWs and SC2s game design. For the great majority of gamers, these differences are practically insignificant. They see SC2 as BW with better graphics and easier controls, not much more. Things like expansion timings, how fast battles last, and even the ability to come back from behind are very low on the reasons why SC2 (and RTS) has been declining. These things only seem all-important because people on TL tell each other they're all-important. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17167 Posts
On September 09 2016 08:56 Spyridon wrote: There are not billions to be made in most genres nowdays. Very few games reach that number at all, I'm not sure why your bringing it up. lots and lots of multibillion dollar franchises. http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Best_selling_game_franchises I'm talking about getting ATVI to commit resources to RTS. Their best guys are not going to work on RTS. They've got bigger fish to fry. Where oh where is Rob Pardo now? check the role call on ATVI's investor page and you'll see a line up of multi-billion dollar franchises and Overwatch is not included in that list. Overwatch is well on its way to becoming another multibillion dollar ATVI franchise. and after 18 years SC can't even compile $1 billion in cumulative all time sales. Overwatch already blew every Blizz RTS release ever out of the water with both guns. | ||
|
goswser
United States3548 Posts
On September 09 2016 10:22 AndAgain wrote: 1. Just because something worked in 2004 doesn't mean it will work today. Today's competition is very different. Like I said, the days of highly skill-based 1v1 games having broad appeal are over. Unfortunately, the success of BW and WC3 creates false hope that the glory days of classic RTS can be revived. This will prevent game devs from trying to make something fresh like an RTS games with a large element of luck (which is the only way an RTS can succeed now.) 2. For the kind of people who post a lot on TL, there are big and very important differences between BWs and SC2s game design. For the great majority of gamers, these differences are practically insignificant. They see SC2 as BW with better graphics and easier controls, not much more. Things like expansion timings, how fast battles last, and even the ability to come back from behind are very low on the reasons why SC2 (and RTS) has been declining. These things only seem all-important because people on TL tell each other they're all-important. Obviously lots of things that worked in 2004 wouldn't work today. But I think quite a bit of it does work. Sc2 is the best rts in years and it's flawed in many ways. I definitely think that there is room for innovation as well in the genre. For instance if you wanted to add a large element of luck into an RTS, I definitely think you can do this. You can have tons of luck in a game and still have just as high of a skillcap. What the RTS genre desperately needs is a studio with a large enough budget to create a good game, and the right designer to design it. Please get Rob Pardo to design games again blizzard, he's light years better at it then the guys you have doing it these days. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17167 Posts
On September 09 2016 10:48 goswser wrote: Please get Rob Pardo to design games again blizzard, he's light years better at it then the guys you have doing it these days. the genre does not generate enough money to buy his interest. if Pardo designs another game you can be damn sure it won't be an RTS. that said, DK is really, really good. He is just not a once in a generation type of talent. we're lucky to have DK designing SC2. in 5 years the RTS genre won't generate enough income to continue to buy his interest and he'll move on to bigger and better things. I've heard many know-it-all game designers claim DK should be fired. In a few years DK will fire us... because we don't spend enough money to buy his interest. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On September 09 2016 07:41 AndAgain wrote: I agree with JimmyJRaynor that RTS is a dying genre. I'll go further and say that skill-heavy 1v1 games are reserved for niche audiences from now on. As I explain here, https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/51invn/why_rng_is_crucial_to_hearthstones_success/ games nowadays need for the players to have something to blame when they lose - be it RNG or your teammates. The only way I can see a classic RTS to have something like that is to introduce a heavy randomness element. I think that'd be an interesting thing to try, but surely RTS devotees will hate it. I don't really agree. People don't play games specifically because they're OK with blaming their losses on outside factors. I'd agree if you said "people don't mind losing games due to outside factors". People just play fun games, that's all. Starcraft is a great game in many ways, it's fun, but it's a hardcore type of fun. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On September 09 2016 07:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote: saying that RTS is less popular because every game company sucks is implausible. when there are billions to be made in a genre companies put together an elite team of awesome people and make the billions that are there to be made with great game play. SC has been around 18 years and it still has not hit $1 billion in revenue. And SC is the #1 RTS franchise of all time. Saying MOBA = RTS due to shared art assets is offbase. Game mechanics make a game what it is not the art work. Is Zealot Hockey just like 3-gate robo early pressure in SC2 because both have a lot of Zealots and an Immortal? nah. I don't know if "sucks" is the right word... but I don't think that the majority of games are very good conceptually i regularly come up with ideas for games in the shower that I think are better than the things we have but most of the people in charge of the actual development of games, from the conceptual side, didn't grow up as serious gamers! then you have guys who actually did and they put out stuff like path of exile - a game for gamers I just think that making a game is hard business and blizzard was very special | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
I would say the genre is growing again, after what happened during the days of Warcraft 3s reign, before sc2 was announced. I expected the word rts would be banned for all eternity after that. Most people play rts games for the singleplayer. And people can blame enough in 1v1 games so thats not an argument. It is actually the genre itself that allows for a better singleplayer experience then a multiplayer experience. Which just leaves competitive people that enjoy the game for the multiplayer part. Which is not much usually. | ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
And yes I've spent time on dozens of RTS games throughout my youth (Dune 2000, Dune 2, Red alert (2/3), Tiberium sun, star wars galactic battlegrounds, Rise of Nations, age of mythology, age of empires, warcraft 2, empire earth, warlords battlecry II, supreme commander total annihilation,...) | ||
|
ahw
Canada1099 Posts
On September 09 2016 22:01 B-royal wrote: Wc3 TFT was the last good RTS. Sc brood war was the first good RTS. There has never been anything else even worth playing if you've played either of these two. Sc2 was a complete failure losing my interest after a mere 2 months in favor of Heroes Of Newerth (which I then ended up playing for almost 5 years). No other RTS has the depth of these two games, in fact wc3 TFT (the love of my life) is truthfully less complex than starcraft brood war is, a game I started playing about 1 year ago before people start claiming I'm wearing nostalgia glasses. And yes I've spent time on dozens of RTS games throughout my youth (Dune 2000, Dune 2, Red alert (2/3), Tiberium sun, star wars galactic battlegrounds, Rise of Nations, age of mythology, age of empires, warcraft 2, empire earth, warlords battlecry II, supreme commander total annihilation,...) Ive always been of the opinion that a re-imagined Warcraft 3 with less emphasis on rng item drops, slightly weaker scaling heroes, and modern matchmaking would be ideal for the rts scene. Wc3 team games were a ton of fun. Likely the best team rts ever made. I hoped atlas was going that route Anyone want to start a company? :-/ | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On September 09 2016 21:34 FeyFey wrote: It is actually the genre itself that allows for a better singleplayer experience then a multiplayer experience. Which just leaves competitive people that enjoy the game for the multiplayer part. Which is not much usually. Internet always surprises me by how incredibly different views there are than my. This is something I couldn't disagree more with. I also agree here with everyone who said that there hasn't been a worthwile RTS game in the last 10 years. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 09 2016 22:47 ahw wrote: Ive always been of the opinion that a re-imagined Warcraft 3 with less emphasis on rng item drops, slightly weaker scaling heroes, and modern matchmaking would be ideal for the rts scene. Wc3 team games were a ton of fun. Likely the best team rts ever made. I hoped atlas was going that route Anyone want to start a company? :-/ 2v2 in WC3 was/is ridiculously fun indeed... SC2's 2v2 never came close. Also, Armies of Exigo was a great RTS, though I guess by now it's over 10 years old too. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17167 Posts
On September 09 2016 20:09 travis wrote: I don't know if "sucks" is the right word... but I don't think that the majority of games are very good conceptually i regularly come up with ideas for games in the shower that I think are better than the things we have but most of the people in charge of the actual development of games, from the conceptual side, didn't grow up as serious gamers! then you have guys who actually did and they put out stuff like path of exile - a game for gamers I just think that making a game is hard business and blizzard was very special and they still are.. and they continue to make piles of cash with everything they do except RTS. the company has greatly scaled back its output of RTS games... we are scheduled to go 22 years with 1 full release and 2 expansion packs. Legion and Overwatch are doing great. With the giant piles of cash these games are making why should Blizzard bother with RTS fans? Day9 had his shot. Is he still dedicated to the RTS genre? it doesn't look like it to me. And I don't blame the guy one bit. We RTS fans do not spend enough money to buy his continued interest. Same with Pardo. He has bigger fish to fry. On September 09 2016 22:47 ahw wrote: Anyone want to start a company? :-/ as an RTS fan i'm letting you know that no one will fund an RTS game. i wish this were not the case. Best thing to do is to go crazy with the MOD kit and try to pull off something like icefrog did a decade ago. At this point the SC2 MOD kit is the genre's only hope. RTS will continue with new games. However, the production budgets for these games will be low and the teams making them small. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey442 Posts
On September 09 2016 22:47 ahw wrote: Why don't you think Atlas isn't going that route anymore? It looks to me like it a very close to the game you are describing. Granted, it doesn't have base building but that wasn't a big part of WC3 anyway.Ive always been of the opinion that a re-imagined Warcraft 3 with less emphasis on rng item drops, slightly weaker scaling heroes, and modern matchmaking would be ideal for the rts scene. Wc3 team games were a ton of fun. Likely the best team rts ever made. I hoped atlas was going that route Anyone want to start a company? :-/ | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On September 09 2016 22:01 B-royal wrote: Wc3 TFT was the last good RTS. Sc brood war was the first good RTS. There has never been anything else even worth playing if you've played either of these two. Sc2 was a complete failure losing my interest after a mere 2 months in favor of Heroes Of Newerth (which I then ended up playing for almost 5 years). No other RTS has the depth of these two games, in fact wc3 TFT (the love of my life) is truthfully less complex than starcraft brood war is, a game I started playing about 1 year ago before people start claiming I'm wearing nostalgia glasses. And yes I've spent time on dozens of RTS games throughout my youth (Dune 2000, Dune 2, Red alert (2/3), Tiberium sun, star wars galactic battlegrounds, Rise of Nations, age of mythology, age of empires, warcraft 2, empire earth, warlords battlecry II, supreme commander total annihilation,...) Yeah, well, that's totally like, your opinion, man. | ||
| ||
