|
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 15 2014 00:36 ReMinD_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 05:01 urboss wrote:Let's face it, MOBAs are showing huge success and traditional RTS games are barely produced anymore. + Show Spoiler +
Here is a list of all RTS games since 1992 with a metascore of above 80%:
(excluding expansions)
1992 Dune 2
1994 Warcraft
1995 Command & Conquer
1995 Warcraft 2
1996 C&C Red Alert
1996 Z
1997 Age of Empires
1997 Dark Reign
1997 Enemy Nations
1997 Total Annihiliation
1998 StarCraft
1999 Age of Empires 2
1999 Warzone 2100
2001 C&C Red Alert 2
2001 Empire Earth
2001 Stronghold
2001 Cossacks
2002 Age of Mythology
2002 Warcraft 3
2003 C&C Generals
2003 Rise of Nations
2004 LotR: Middle Earth
2004 Dawn of War
2005 Age of Empires 3
2005 Empire Earth 2
2006 Company of Heroes
2006 LotR: Middle Earth 2
2007 C&C 3
2007 Supreme Commander
2007 World in Conflict
2008 C&C: Red Alert 3
2009 Dawn of War 2
2010 StarCraft 2
While I'm sure that the SC2 e-sport scene will continue to stay strong for years to come, the future also depends on the development of new titles. Concerning that, developers are more and more jumping off the RTS wagon. I fear that Legacy of the Void will likely mark the end of an era. So I started thinking, what could be improved on the classical RTS genre to make it more popular again? Don't get me wrong, I love StarCraft and it is without a doubt the best game ever made. The goal is not so much to transform StarCraft into something else, but rather to envision a new type of game that builds on elements from both StarCraft and MOBAs. Something that could lead the way for the future of RTS games. I guess a good approach is to take the best features from both games and merge them into something new. So let's take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of StarCraft and MOBAs: MOBAs:Good stuff: - Heroes - Instant Action - Team play Bad stuff: - Minions - Lack of strategic depth Stopped reading there. Not sure how it is for Lol, but SC2's 'strategic depth' is nonexistent compared to Dota 2.
I would argue that dota has more strategic breadth than strategic depth. There are many more strategic choices to be made (112 heroes and tons of items vs 3 races), but the game is a lot less "figured out" than SC2 is or than BW was. In SC2 you can know the exact timing and order that you build each individual unit and building for a particular build to be optimized, whereas timings in DotA are more approximate, and there is no real way to determine the "optimal" skill or item progression. I like them both for their strategic elements, but I wouldn't say dota is has more strategic depth than Starcraft.
|
On May 15 2014 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 00:31 packrat386 wrote:On May 14 2014 23:51 Hider wrote:On May 14 2014 23:43 Waise wrote:On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding) honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player I disagree as I think rushing is way too big a part of this mode. I think you gotta take the whole "timing"/refined build order aspect of the game away in order to really appeal to casuals. I think the best way to fix this is to make static defense stronger. SC2 is a fun game because you can do a lot with a smaller amount of units than games like AoM or AoE, but its always going to be more fast-paced and build order based because static defense isn't as strong, and you MUST expand in order to not lose. static is weak in SC2 because of cannon/bunker rushes and turtling 3hatch zergs.
I didn't say that static in SC2 should be buffed. I like SC2 the way it is. I was just pointing out that games with stronger static defense tend to be more noob friendly because you're less likely to just get run over early on in the game.
|
On May 15 2014 00:42 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 15 2014 00:31 packrat386 wrote:On May 14 2014 23:51 Hider wrote:On May 14 2014 23:43 Waise wrote:On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding) honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player I disagree as I think rushing is way too big a part of this mode. I think you gotta take the whole "timing"/refined build order aspect of the game away in order to really appeal to casuals. I think the best way to fix this is to make static defense stronger. SC2 is a fun game because you can do a lot with a smaller amount of units than games like AoM or AoE, but its always going to be more fast-paced and build order based because static defense isn't as strong, and you MUST expand in order to not lose. static is weak in SC2 because of cannon/bunker rushes and turtling 3hatch zergs. I didn't say that static in SC2 should be buffed. I like SC2 the way it is. I was just pointing out that games with stronger static defense tend to be more noob friendly because you're less likely to just get run over early on in the game.
No disagreement. The first time I tried swarming pillboxes with infantry in Red Alert made me very very aware of that.
I guess, in my head, I imagine "strong base defense" to also mean no free form base construction. Things have to be near each other, can't build them in the opponent's base, can't proxy, etc....
|
On May 14 2014 23:41 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 23:06 urboss wrote:
Classic RTS game developers are caught in a conundrum:
It's not sustainable anymore to release RTS games with focus on single player.
Yet it's also very hard to sell a build-based RTS game that is only multiplayer. I don't see why its not sustainable to focus on the single player. There was an interview with one of the SC2 devs a while ago in which they said that a majority of the people who play the game play single player exclusively. We don't hear much about them as part of the #esports scene, but there are a lot of people that bought and played SC2 basically for the single player. Also, games like AoM or AoE are the kinds of games that people still play either alone, or with a couple friends, not in a general ladder. I know that I'm hardly the only person who would be willing to shell out some money for a game that I can play casually against the computer. Especially if you have a good enough AI.
single player is not sustainable in terms of revenue flow.
Brood War single player and all the custom single player campaigns and mods have a community that was vibrant for years and years.
Blizzard income from this amazing sub-culture of Brood War: $0
and with F2P on the rise a continuous stream of cash is what investors want to see.
in the area of AI, hell University AI research teams had their creations fight each other in Brood War.
all of this is absolutely incredible in terms of community activity and good will.
the problem is Blizz makes exactly $0 off of it.
|
On May 15 2014 00:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 00:42 packrat386 wrote:On May 15 2014 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 15 2014 00:31 packrat386 wrote:On May 14 2014 23:51 Hider wrote:On May 14 2014 23:43 Waise wrote:On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding) honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player I disagree as I think rushing is way too big a part of this mode. I think you gotta take the whole "timing"/refined build order aspect of the game away in order to really appeal to casuals. I think the best way to fix this is to make static defense stronger. SC2 is a fun game because you can do a lot with a smaller amount of units than games like AoM or AoE, but its always going to be more fast-paced and build order based because static defense isn't as strong, and you MUST expand in order to not lose. static is weak in SC2 because of cannon/bunker rushes and turtling 3hatch zergs. I didn't say that static in SC2 should be buffed. I like SC2 the way it is. I was just pointing out that games with stronger static defense tend to be more noob friendly because you're less likely to just get run over early on in the game. No disagreement. The first time I tried swarming pillboxes with infantry in Red Alert made me very very aware of that. I guess, in my head, I imagine "strong base defense" to also mean no free form base construction. Things have to be near each other, can't build them in the opponent's base, can't proxy, etc....
I don't think it necessarily prevents those things. If you look at AoM for example, nothing prevents you from making offensive buildings per se, its just really difficult to do so. Units move slowly and the maps are larger, so it would take a long time to get villagers in place, and they would be killed easily by any enemy unit while they were building.
I guess its just a function of having strong defenders advantage in general. You need to have a dominating advantage to take on your enemy in games like AoM and AoE because defenders advantage is just so much stronger.
|
Northern Ireland25596 Posts
I don't buy that it's 0 income, the amount of brand loyalty built by these continued efforts has to count for something, although hard to quantify that may be.
I tell you one thing, if it wasn't for the competitive scene in SC2 I wouldn't have got HoTS/plan to get LoTV/any other Blizz products and this coming from someone that up until WoW WoTL had bought everything they'd put out since Diablo 1.
|
Blizzard has quanitfied it. They've run the #s. And the conclusion is the RTS genre can't compete with their other products. Namely, action RPG and MMORPG.
Everyone else has left the space.
EA is gone. MS is gone.
and i think its a good move on their part. i could not justify spending 10s of millions of dollars on a AAA level RTS game.
that said, i personally love Brood War, SC2, Red Alert 3, and Company of Heroes.
There is nothing like going to a LAN Cafe with 3 of your pals and playing 2v2 in any of those games.
the arguing.. the yelling .. the trash talking... its almost as good as playing hockey.
|
Northern Ireland25596 Posts
If that's the case why the investment in WCS and the likes?
|
On May 15 2014 01:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Blizzard has quanitfied it. They've run the #s. And the conclusion is the RTS genre can't compete with their other products. Namely, action RPG and MMORPG.
Everyone else has left the space.
EA is gone. MS is gone.
and i think its a good move on their part. i could not justify spending 10s of millions of dollars on a AAA level RTS game.
I'm just curious, was this an actual statement from Blizzard?
|
On May 15 2014 01:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
If that's the case why the investment in WCS and the likes?
it is not the same cost as developing a whole new AAA level game.
you'll notice Team1 is now working on a MOBA and not on "the next great RTS".
you'll also notice Team1 worked in the RTS genre since 1994. I'm sad to hear this change .. but i understand why Blizz is doing it.
On May 15 2014 01:08 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 01:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Blizzard has quanitfied it. They've run the #s. And the conclusion is the RTS genre can't compete with their other products. Namely, action RPG and MMORPG.
Everyone else has left the space.
EA is gone. MS is gone.
and i think its a good move on their part. i could not justify spending 10s of millions of dollars on a AAA level RTS game.
I'm just curious, was this an actual statement from Blizzard?
Blizzard has spoken with their actions and not their words.
PLEASE see the explanation above.
|
On May 15 2014 01:00 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 00:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 15 2014 00:42 packrat386 wrote:On May 15 2014 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 15 2014 00:31 packrat386 wrote:On May 14 2014 23:51 Hider wrote:On May 14 2014 23:43 Waise wrote:On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding) honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player I disagree as I think rushing is way too big a part of this mode. I think you gotta take the whole "timing"/refined build order aspect of the game away in order to really appeal to casuals. I think the best way to fix this is to make static defense stronger. SC2 is a fun game because you can do a lot with a smaller amount of units than games like AoM or AoE, but its always going to be more fast-paced and build order based because static defense isn't as strong, and you MUST expand in order to not lose. static is weak in SC2 because of cannon/bunker rushes and turtling 3hatch zergs. I didn't say that static in SC2 should be buffed. I like SC2 the way it is. I was just pointing out that games with stronger static defense tend to be more noob friendly because you're less likely to just get run over early on in the game. No disagreement. The first time I tried swarming pillboxes with infantry in Red Alert made me very very aware of that. I guess, in my head, I imagine "strong base defense" to also mean no free form base construction. Things have to be near each other, can't build them in the opponent's base, can't proxy, etc.... I don't think it necessarily prevents those things. If you look at AoM for example, nothing prevents you from making offensive buildings per se, its just really difficult to do so. Units move slowly and the maps are larger, so it would take a long time to get villagers in place, and they would be killed easily by any enemy unit while they were building. I guess its just a function of having strong defenders advantage in general. You need to have a dominating advantage to take on your enemy in games like AoM and AoE because defenders advantage is just so much stronger.
I love AoM, but being the Age of ____ series starts you with a Planetary fortress its not really possible to cannon rush people 
I definitely play lazier when playing an Ao___ game vs playing Starcraft (BW or 2)
|
On May 15 2014 01:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
If that's the case why the investment in WCS and the likes?
Also, when SC2 was released , Frank Pierce, the Exec Producer of SC2 promised that SC2 was a "10 year experiment in esports".
Therefore, expect SC2 to receive full WCS support at approximately the same level we see in 2014 to extend until 2019 or 2020.
it is rare for Blizzard to break a promise.
but, the heart and soul of Blizzard's commitment to RTS, namely, the development team is working full time 24/7/365 on a MOBA.
|
So what your saying is WC3 but with prettier graphics? There will always be RTS, its not dying, the next popular one will probably be like RTS classic top view and the ability to go into first person or some kinda gimmick, or like that Half-Life 2 Mod.
All Mobas mods have been essentially the same since WC3, with some difference in lane importance. LotV hopefully will add some key units to make SC2 more balanced and fun but yeah RTS's aint going anywhere.
|
On May 15 2014 01:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 01:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
If that's the case why the investment in WCS and the likes? it is not the same cost as developing a whole new AAA level game. you'll notice Team1 is now working on a MOBA and not on "the next great RTS". you'll also notice Team1 worked in the RTS genre since 1994. I'm sad to hear this change .. but i understand why Blizz is doing it. Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 01:08 urboss wrote:On May 15 2014 01:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Blizzard has quanitfied it. They've run the #s. And the conclusion is the RTS genre can't compete with their other products. Namely, action RPG and MMORPG.
Everyone else has left the space.
EA is gone. MS is gone.
and i think its a good move on their part. i could not justify spending 10s of millions of dollars on a AAA level RTS game.
I'm just curious, was this an actual statement from Blizzard? Blizzard has spoken with their actions and not their words. PLEASE see the explanation above.
So the team that worked on RTS now works on an ARTS that is close to being done and then will most likely work on LotV which is what? Oh, an RTS.
Oh and before I forget it... Heroes of the Storm is built on the SC2 engine and development started as a mod for WoL as far as I know. Who else would develop it then the guys that made SC2?
|
Northern Ireland174 Posts
Recently picked up Wargame: Red Dragon. Not spent much time on it (as I dont have much atm) but I have faith people are still interesting in playing and making RTS now and in the future. There have been some RTS games which innovated the genre like CoH1 and DoW2 but its shame Relic doesn't really balance their games 
|
On May 15 2014 01:31 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 01:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 15 2014 01:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
If that's the case why the investment in WCS and the likes? it is not the same cost as developing a whole new AAA level game. you'll notice Team1 is now working on a MOBA and not on "the next great RTS". you'll also notice Team1 worked in the RTS genre since 1994. I'm sad to hear this change .. but i understand why Blizz is doing it. On May 15 2014 01:08 urboss wrote:On May 15 2014 01:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Blizzard has quanitfied it. They've run the #s. And the conclusion is the RTS genre can't compete with their other products. Namely, action RPG and MMORPG.
Everyone else has left the space.
EA is gone. MS is gone.
and i think its a good move on their part. i could not justify spending 10s of millions of dollars on a AAA level RTS game.
I'm just curious, was this an actual statement from Blizzard? Blizzard has spoken with their actions and not their words. PLEASE see the explanation above. So the team that worked on RTS now works on an ARTS that is close to being done and then will most likely work on LotV which is what? Oh, an RTS. Oh and before I forget it... Heroes of the Storm is built on the SC2 engine and development started as a mod for WoL as far as I know. Who else would develop it then the guys that made SC2?
Blizzard has slowed its push on RTS development. EA is gone. MS is gone. No one is making AAA cutting edge level RTS games. just accept it and move on.
no one is spending AAA level money on RTS any longer.
This ain't 2001.
Blizzard is pumping out new games and content in MOBAs, MMORPGs, and aRPGs, and now an F2P card game.
and new content for its RTS is no where to be found.
The last investor call where Morhaime talked for 5 minutes about all these things never said the word "Starcraft" or "RTS" even one time. Not once.
Morhaime knows which side his bread is buttered on.
|
On May 14 2014 08:15 Pontius Pirate wrote:
The day RTS games with heroes become the only RTS games on the market is the day I stop playing the RTS genre.
MSC is sort of hero unit. So?
|
On May 15 2014 02:10 Almand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 08:15 Pontius Pirate wrote:
The day RTS games with heroes become the only RTS games on the market is the day I stop playing the RTS genre. MSC is sort of hero unit. So?
C&C has some pretty cool "epic units" and "commando units".
and its an RTS right down to the core of its soul.
|
Tbh, I found the Wings of Liberty single player missions where you had to control the big Thor (Odin) to be a lot of fun.
Also there was one mission where you had to control Raynor and 3 other heroes at the same time.
That was great!
I was always wondering why they didn't include heroes in the multiplayer mode.
But I guess the answer is "Not to piss off the existing Brood War players".
|
BTW people kinda forget AirMech
That's a hyper-modern approach to the RTS genre (or ultra-retro if you played Herzog Zwei).
It's following the free-to-play model and is a "real" action-RTS as it combines twin-stick shooters with RTSs.
It's in open beta since 2012 and should be released this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
