|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On May 14 2014 19:52 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 19:31 Incognoto wrote:On May 14 2014 19:17 SatedSC2 wrote:On May 14 2014 19:07 maartendq wrote:On May 14 2014 17:47 SatedSC2 wrote:
Can someone explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche?
I think that if RTS games become more mainstream then they will lose what makes them entertaining for those people who currently play them. Yes, they can be horribly complex. Yes, they can be really difficult to get into. Yes, you will lose lots of games in a row before you start winning. And yes, it's even harder to master than it is to learn. But that's what the people who play RTS games are looking for, something complicated. Because there hasn't been a good new RTS ever since Starcraft 2: WoL came out four years ago. It also doesn't help that Blizzard's main competitors (Redwood, Ensemble Studios, Relic etc.) either went bankrupt, got shut down or suffered financial difficulties. I don't see the problem with that. I asked for someone to explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche; all you've done is point out exactly why it is a niche. In any case, the complexity of RTS games means that you only need a good RTS to come out very rarely. People were still coming up with new things towards the end of WoL, people will still be figuring out HotS by the time LotV rolls around, and then LotV will still carry us for a good few years after that. I'm really not that worried. I think SC2 is in a good place right now (Swarm Hosts aside) so s'all good IMO. No, maartendq hit the nail right on the head. The fact that RTS is becoming a niche compared to video games (remember that until recently video games themselves were niche) means that game devs aren't really inclined to make a good RTS, since making a good MOBA or a good FPS would be way more profitable. So we, the RTS players, are going to have no new titles to work with. That's why RTS games being niche could be a problem, we won't get any good new titles. RTS games are complex to play yes but that doesn't mean it's hard to make a good RTS. All the titles I've mentioned before are excellent RTS (Dawn of War, Brood War, Age of Empires 3, AoC, AoT, etc). We haven't had a new good RTS come out since SC2, that was 4 years ago. Don't tell me that making good RTS is too hard, there are a number of excellent RTS games out there, thing is they're all quite old. You may enjoy SC2 but that doesn't mean everyone does. SC2 is all we've got in terms of RTS and that sucks, you can't just assume that everyone enjoys SC2 so the RTS scene is fine and that's it. That's where the problem is, even if you don't see it, the rest of us can. I'm starting to believe more and more that the RTS scene will be supported by its fanbase. I wish I knew how to code shit but I can't; I'd already be working on a stand alone game. ^^ The games you listed are hardly new, nor where they all produced in close proximity to one another (and certainly not in close proximity to SC2), and most of them are from the same damn series as one other. RTS games have never been a mainstream thing, expecting new games to come out all the time is unrealistic.
You've just answered this question:
I asked for someone to explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche
Gratz
|
On May 14 2014 19:41 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 19:38 agahamsorr0w wrote:On May 14 2014 05:28 plogamer wrote:
I usually watch Starcraft 2. But this one time I was watching Dota 2, someone in my family noted that the casting had improved. So sad.
Starcraft 2 casting is often times like listening to a golf game or test cricket match. Ugh. sc2 casters miss some basic knowledge of the metagame and on top of that they miss small things like gas timings and such. they usually like to overhype and talk about brackets for half the game instead of the match. Wouldn't gas timing be something more important for the player to finish? as observers, we and the casters see perfectly well what tech route any player will be going. Tastosis at very least does a very good job of talking about metagame and not talking about irrelevant details.
the gas timing can determine if a player goes aggro, if he goes tech or if he stays defensive. this obviously doesnt apply to pvp where the more gas the better, but in other matchups players tend to play around with gas a lot. most casual players dont know any of these things and predicting something based on this information makes watching the game a lot more interesting. it doesnt even have to be gas timing. it could be delaying third or making excess overlords but making clear and accurate predictions is an entertaining skill to have as a caster.
i agree talking about the metagame is better. but tasteless and artosis and maybe tod are the only ones with metagame knowledge. the rest, as i said, rather talk 10 minutes about how much of a struggle it has been for the player to get to where they are and are stuck in the wol meta.
i dont know though. i am not a casual player so maybe it doesnt bother the rest. most of the times i dont even listen to the casters. miniraser and catz have provided the best casting ive ever heard in the eu mlg qualifiers to give you an example of which casters i like to watch.
|
On May 14 2014 06:00 SlammerIV wrote:
We just need c&c generals 2.
nuff said.
hahahaha this would be good...and the main plot is USA vs CHINA in a battle of communist vs democracy battle. Cold war part 2
|
On May 14 2014 19:52 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 19:31 Incognoto wrote:On May 14 2014 19:17 SatedSC2 wrote:On May 14 2014 19:07 maartendq wrote:On May 14 2014 17:47 SatedSC2 wrote:
Can someone explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche?
I think that if RTS games become more mainstream then they will lose what makes them entertaining for those people who currently play them. Yes, they can be horribly complex. Yes, they can be really difficult to get into. Yes, you will lose lots of games in a row before you start winning. And yes, it's even harder to master than it is to learn. But that's what the people who play RTS games are looking for, something complicated. Because there hasn't been a good new RTS ever since Starcraft 2: WoL came out four years ago. It also doesn't help that Blizzard's main competitors (Redwood, Ensemble Studios, Relic etc.) either went bankrupt, got shut down or suffered financial difficulties. I don't see the problem with that. I asked for someone to explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche; all you've done is point out exactly why it is a niche. In any case, the complexity of RTS games means that you only need a good RTS to come out very rarely. People were still coming up with new things towards the end of WoL, people will still be figuring out HotS by the time LotV rolls around, and then LotV will still carry us for a good few years after that. I'm really not that worried. I think SC2 is in a good place right now (Swarm Hosts aside) so s'all good IMO. No, maartendq hit the nail right on the head. The fact that RTS is becoming a niche compared to video games (remember that until recently video games themselves were niche) means that game devs aren't really inclined to make a good RTS, since making a good MOBA or a good FPS would be way more profitable. So we, the RTS players, are going to have no new titles to work with. That's why RTS games being niche could be a problem, we won't get any good new titles. RTS games are complex to play yes but that doesn't mean it's hard to make a good RTS. All the titles I've mentioned before are excellent RTS (Dawn of War, Brood War, Age of Empires 3, AoC, AoT, etc). We haven't had a new good RTS come out since SC2, that was 4 years ago. Don't tell me that making good RTS is too hard, there are a number of excellent RTS games out there, thing is they're all quite old. You may enjoy SC2 but that doesn't mean everyone does. SC2 is all we've got in terms of RTS and that sucks, you can't just assume that everyone enjoys SC2 so the RTS scene is fine and that's it. That's where the problem is, even if you don't see it, the rest of us can. I'm starting to believe more and more that the RTS scene will be supported by its fanbase. I wish I knew how to code shit but I can't; I'd already be working on a stand alone game. ^^ The games you listed are hardly new, nor where they all produced in close proximity to one another (and certainly not in close proximity to SC2), and most of them are from the same damn series as one other. RTS games have never been a mainstream thing, expecting new games to come out all the time is unrealistic.
It used to be pretty mainstream during the nineties and early 2000s though. Command and Conquer, Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires/mythology, Cossacks, Suppreme Commander, Total Annihilation ... Even non-real time strategy games like Civilisation and Sim City were mainstream successes.
|
On May 14 2014 19:53 shin ken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 19:31 Incognoto wrote:On May 14 2014 19:17 SatedSC2 wrote:On May 14 2014 19:07 maartendq wrote:On May 14 2014 17:47 SatedSC2 wrote:
Can someone explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche?
I think that if RTS games become more mainstream then they will lose what makes them entertaining for those people who currently play them. Yes, they can be horribly complex. Yes, they can be really difficult to get into. Yes, you will lose lots of games in a row before you start winning. And yes, it's even harder to master than it is to learn. But that's what the people who play RTS games are looking for, something complicated. Because there hasn't been a good new RTS ever since Starcraft 2: WoL came out four years ago. It also doesn't help that Blizzard's main competitors (Redwood, Ensemble Studios, Relic etc.) either went bankrupt, got shut down or suffered financial difficulties. I don't see the problem with that. I asked for someone to explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche; all you've done is point out exactly why it is a niche. In any case, the complexity of RTS games means that you only need a good RTS to come out very rarely. People were still coming up with new things towards the end of WoL, people will still be figuring out HotS by the time LotV rolls around, and then LotV will still carry us for a good few years after that. I'm really not that worried. I think SC2 is in a good place right now (Swarm Hosts aside) so s'all good IMO. [...] I'm starting to believe more and more that the RTS scene will be supported by its fanbase. I wish I knew how to code shit but I can't; I'd already be working on a stand alone game. ^^ Yeah! I would love to make my own RTS as well. I already have a hundred ideas for a new little one which would probably my favourite game of all time (but not much loved by everyone else - or would it? sometimes you have to make unpopular und weird design decisions outside of the general comfort zone to make a truly remarkable game). But it's completely impossible to do something so huge all alone. In recent years single or very small indie developers have done incredible deeds (Super Meat Boy, FTL, Papers Please etc. etc.) but a RTS would be way out of proportion.
You can check the StarCraft II credits if you wanna know what it takes to make an RTS game of that scale:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/starcraft-ii-wings-of-liberty/credits
Blizzard had allocated 17 artists, 11 game designers and 18 programmers for the core game alone!
For Battle.net they had 30 programmers.
|
On May 14 2014 20:04 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 19:52 SatedSC2 wrote:On May 14 2014 19:31 Incognoto wrote:On May 14 2014 19:17 SatedSC2 wrote:On May 14 2014 19:07 maartendq wrote:On May 14 2014 17:47 SatedSC2 wrote:
Can someone explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche?
I think that if RTS games become more mainstream then they will lose what makes them entertaining for those people who currently play them. Yes, they can be horribly complex. Yes, they can be really difficult to get into. Yes, you will lose lots of games in a row before you start winning. And yes, it's even harder to master than it is to learn. But that's what the people who play RTS games are looking for, something complicated. Because there hasn't been a good new RTS ever since Starcraft 2: WoL came out four years ago. It also doesn't help that Blizzard's main competitors (Redwood, Ensemble Studios, Relic etc.) either went bankrupt, got shut down or suffered financial difficulties. I don't see the problem with that. I asked for someone to explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche; all you've done is point out exactly why it is a niche. In any case, the complexity of RTS games means that you only need a good RTS to come out very rarely. People were still coming up with new things towards the end of WoL, people will still be figuring out HotS by the time LotV rolls around, and then LotV will still carry us for a good few years after that. I'm really not that worried. I think SC2 is in a good place right now (Swarm Hosts aside) so s'all good IMO. No, maartendq hit the nail right on the head. The fact that RTS is becoming a niche compared to video games (remember that until recently video games themselves were niche) means that game devs aren't really inclined to make a good RTS, since making a good MOBA or a good FPS would be way more profitable. So we, the RTS players, are going to have no new titles to work with. That's why RTS games being niche could be a problem, we won't get any good new titles. RTS games are complex to play yes but that doesn't mean it's hard to make a good RTS. All the titles I've mentioned before are excellent RTS (Dawn of War, Brood War, Age of Empires 3, AoC, AoT, etc). We haven't had a new good RTS come out since SC2, that was 4 years ago. Don't tell me that making good RTS is too hard, there are a number of excellent RTS games out there, thing is they're all quite old. You may enjoy SC2 but that doesn't mean everyone does. SC2 is all we've got in terms of RTS and that sucks, you can't just assume that everyone enjoys SC2 so the RTS scene is fine and that's it. That's where the problem is, even if you don't see it, the rest of us can. I'm starting to believe more and more that the RTS scene will be supported by its fanbase. I wish I knew how to code shit but I can't; I'd already be working on a stand alone game. ^^ The games you listed are hardly new, nor where they all produced in close proximity to one another (and certainly not in close proximity to SC2), and most of them are from the same damn series as one other. RTS games have never been a mainstream thing, expecting new games to come out all the time is unrealistic. It used to be pretty mainstream during the nineties and early 2000s though. Command and Conquer, Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires/mythology, Cossacks, Suppreme Commander, Total Annihilation ... Even non-real time strategy games like Civilisation and Sim City were mainstream successes.
Just to add to this, my general point is that in 2006 ish, you had several active RTS communities. Off the top of my head: DoW, BW, Aoe3/T, AoC, WC3 and Supreme Commander all had active communities. Now we're really down to just one active RTS community, we're down to only SC2. RTS went from being an "arguably niche" genre to a truly niche genre with only active game.
E: Well not only one active game, I'm pretty sure that both BW and AoC are still alive and kicking, but both games are over 10 years old and they're still kicking because they're legendary games.
|
To the people complain about SC2 casting.
It's pretty hard to cast a game where most of the time nothing is happening. Even when a battle occurs, little micro is required as everything is just automated.
The problem is not with the casting but the fundamental flaws in the game design. I don;t know how David Kim hasn't been sacked yet.
|
During the alpha versions of SC2, Blizzard presented some version with units, artwork and gameplay mechanics which did not made it in the final game. There is a lot stuff created which was not used. All zerg units und buildings artwork was remade shortly before the release of the beta. And there were countless gameplay changes.
If another company would be willing to invest so much time and effort, their product could probably rival SC2.
|
|
|
I can see the little pirouette you're doing, it's kind of stupid really. You say not a lot of RTS games get released, which is why RTS is niche. I'm saying that since RTS is niche (it's only got like 3 active communities atm?), not a lot of RTS games get released.
If you can't wrap your head around the difference then we don't have much to discuss.
|
|
|
Stop mucking up an otherwise interesting discussion
|
On May 14 2014 13:18 levelping wrote:
But why a need to change?
I mean just because say monopoly is more popular does not mean chess should be more like monopoly. Both have their own appeal. The rts genre might be less popular now, but there's no need for it tonecome more moba like (which is kinda funny since rts is the parent of moba, which would make mobas technically a sub genre)
You probably already know the reason.
Things move fast in technology.
Chessboard => chess pieces
Computer => SC2
The chessboard will always stay the same. The computer will not.
Technology constantly evolves, that's why games need to constantly evolve.
|
|
|
On May 14 2014 21:29 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 13:18 levelping wrote:
But why a need to change?
I mean just because say monopoly is more popular does not mean chess should be more like monopoly. Both have their own appeal. The rts genre might be less popular now, but there's no need for it tonecome more moba like (which is kinda funny since rts is the parent of moba, which would make mobas technically a sub genre) You probably already know the reason. Things move fast in technology. Chessboard => chess pieces Computer => SC2 The chessboard will always stay the same. The computer will not. Technology constantly evolves, that's why games need to constantly evolve.
The funny part is that games in fact don't really evolve in gameplay. This generation is all about games with nearly no depth but great graphics. Ok, there are exceptions, but overall games get more mainstream and thus less complex.
|
I think the general thing I felt was lost in SC2 and what I keep finding in Dota 2 for example is the feel that I'm playing the game my way and finding my own solutions to things.
In SC2 you pretty much have to be a complete gamer. There are very rare situations where you really think a player stands out in some particular area or falls apart in another. There are pretty clear responses to a lot of the enemy moves and so on.
In Dota 2 you have roles you're good at, heroes within the role you love or hate, item builds you prefer. Some people are really versatile at their hero pools, others are really good at a few specific heroes. Some people are monsters at laning, others do something else well. Some people are aggressive, some do crazy stuff, others are more careful and positional or so. When watching high level games, you find your favourite teams and favourite players easily. The matches are filled with characteristic picks like S4 Magnus or Dendi Pudge or Burning Antimage.
Basically RTS games need back the personality. People need to be able to be amazing at one thing and horrible at other and still play exciting back and forth games and so on. People need to have clear preferences, favourite units and characteristic playstyles. Back in BW you could sometimes look at a replay for a minute without seeing the player names and recognize a certain trait and think "Yup, that's Jaedong right there!". That's the kind of stuff RTS games need.
|
On May 14 2014 21:31 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 21:20 Incognoto wrote:
Stop mucking up an otherwise interesting discussion Then don't get into a semantics argument with someone who actually understands the language you're arguing in. All you've done is go on about what niche actually means when I couldn't care less; you still haven't given me any reasons why RTS games being in a niche is a bad thing... 
I actually don't understand your point. Being a niche is bad if you want diversity, this should be pretty self-explanatory if you ask me.
It is fine that you are totally pleased with sc2 and don't even want other options, but it in itself (no other options) is a bad thing.
|
|
|
On May 14 2014 21:40 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 21:31 SatedSC2 wrote:On May 14 2014 21:20 Incognoto wrote:
Stop mucking up an otherwise interesting discussion Then don't get into a semantics argument with someone who actually understands the language you're arguing in. All you've done is go on about what niche actually means when I couldn't care less; you still haven't given me any reasons why RTS games being in a niche is a bad thing... I actually don't understand your point. Being a niche is bad if you want diversity, this should be pretty self-explanatory if you ask me. It is fine that you are totally pleased with sc2 and don't even want other options, but it in itself (no other options) is a bad thing.
Why are people stretching what the word "niche" means? RTS games have plenty of diversity, both in terms of players and strategies, but people get all kinds of butt rustled when they see another game with 3x the viewer count. I don't see why that matters. I always think of American sports, some are just more popular than others, but that doesn't mean the less popular sports are any less complicated.
|
On May 14 2014 21:40 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 21:31 SatedSC2 wrote:On May 14 2014 21:20 Incognoto wrote:
Stop mucking up an otherwise interesting discussion Then don't get into a semantics argument with someone who actually understands the language you're arguing in. All you've done is go on about what niche actually means when I couldn't care less; you still haven't given me any reasons why RTS games being in a niche is a bad thing... I actually don't understand your point. Being a niche is bad if you want diversity, this should be pretty self-explanatory if you ask me. It is fine that you are totally pleased with sc2 and don't even want other options, but it in itself (no other options) is a bad thing.
The most annoying part is that you had great old titles were far from being niche when they were released. A lot of my friends in high school had played RTS games when they were released. I had friends irl who had played Aoe3, Lotr battle for middle earth, AoC, AoM. If people like my friends irl (who were all terrible at rts), who aren't really into video games as much as I am, picked up RTS titles in the past (admittedly, only the most mainstream RTS), I'm fairly certain the RTS was more mainstream than niche when those titles were published.
I highly doubt any 13-18 year olds play RTS anymore as of today, or if they do they play SC2. Nowadays when I go to uni, it's very easy to find people discussing LoL (don't hear much about dota 2, which is surprising, doubtlessly those people are there somewhere). RTS has become a niche with the advent of MOBAs. Only SC2 resists and it's doing a swell job of it. It's pretty much the saving grace for RTS. But it's pretty much the only active RTS which isn't 10 years old and this game is like 4 years old.
E: Just so we're clear, I don't care about large viewer counts. I'm arguing that RTS is in a pickle right now because there are only 3 active RTS games atm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
