|
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 20 2014 10:04 deth2munkies wrote:Every other game genre has evolved. Why not? All this nostalgic bullshit (that I, too, engage in from time to time) gives us rose tinted glasses when looking back at old games. Back then, every game had bullshit complexity everywhere, so we just dealt with it (lives systems, 12 unit selection, non-rebindable hotkeys, hidden information, etc.). We played through the pain and it felt amazing when you actually got to the fun part. Now that we have a better knowledge of what makes a good game, we don't HAVE to have the pain, we can go straight to the fun part and still make it just as mentally challenging. The streamlining of old concepts is what the whole indie game movement is about. You can find dozens and dozens of what are objectively better Mario, Castlevania, Tohou, etc. games where the gameplay has been refined and the fun things from the older games are still there, the bullshit things are gone, and the difficulty is usually the same or higher, just in different places. If you take off your nostalgia goggles and play them back to back, apart from your muscle memory for the old games, the newer games just feel better to play. The RTS genre is stuck in the past with an old guard of gamers teaching the new ones the ancient ways instead of the new gamers finding new ways to improve. Hopefully with the indie game revolution and the recent trends in the industry, we'll have the next evolution of the RTS soon.
You don't seem to understand that the "bullshit" might be fun for other people.
Is an ego shooter objectively better cause you regen health instead of medipacks? (you call it evolution, someone else would call it making it boring, who is right?)
|
On May 20 2014 10:08 frajen86 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 10:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why does an RTS need to create a demanding mechanical game before you can explore the strategies involved?
The mechanical aspect of the game only exists because you are probably thinking of the game in a competitive sense. To beat another good player you have to be good at mechanics and strategy. But, you don't actually have to be good at the mechanics to explore the strategy If you want to completely avoid the "click-fest" then you might as well go to turn-based strategy games, no?
It comes from the core concept of what we understand as an RTS.
Step 1: Make army
Step 2: Fight army
A lot of people fail step 1, and hence are never able to perform step 2; this is where the frustration of required mechanics come from.
How much effort does it take for you to gain control of your character in a FPS? How about an RPG? What about a MOBA? If you told a MOBA player that he needs to juggle his economy for 6-10 minutes before he gets his hero character, would he enjoy the MOBA?
People who long RTS games LOVE step 1 as much as step 2, but that doesn't mean it is natural for people to enjoy step 1 while it is culturally taught that we enjoy step 2.
|
On May 20 2014 08:57 deth2munkies wrote:
I'm gonna admit something I shouldn't on these boards: I'm tired of putting up with games' bullshit.
I'm no longer willing to sit through hours and hours of bullshit to get to the "fun part". I want the entire game to be the "fun part". How does this apply to RTSs? Every game you do a build order. Unless it's a rush, it's the same goddamned build order for at least the first 1/4 of the game. The build order/macro is not fun, it's work that allows you to get to the fun part: microing and battling units in a strategic manner. Yes, it makes it harder, but it's not fun hard, it's bullshit hard. It's just remembering a hundred tiny little things you have to do while you're playing a better, more fun game. One concept that this forum never gets (and the reason why I'm going to get flamed) is that hard DOES NOT equal good. Difficulty for difficulty's sake, grind for grind's sake, macro for macro's sake isn't fun, it's a chore that you have to do before you can play the fun part.
...
The more we move away from bullshit complexity (leveling curves, difficulty for the sake of making simple tasks more difficult, etc.) and towards fun complexity (tons of roughly equal strategic options you have to choose from), the more we make the RTS genre better.
Flame away.
See, I completely agree with your general idea but I'm confused by how this applies to Starcraft 2. This is exactly why Blizzard simplified the macro and added in macro abilities (OCs, Queens, and Chrono). Suddenly instead of macro being mindless clicking, almost everything you do macro-wise now is a decision. Do I scan or mule? Do I creep tumor or spawn larva? There's so much less "bullshit hard" in Starcraft 2 than any RTS I've ever played. The only one that had even less was maybe Warcraft 3, but that's mostly because units are bigger.
Is it mechanically demanding? Well, yea, but so are fighting games, and they aren't 'less fun' because of it. You're tired of the same build order? Then jesus use a different build order! Try a different style!
|
On May 20 2014 10:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 10:08 frajen86 wrote:On May 20 2014 10:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why does an RTS need to create a demanding mechanical game before you can explore the strategies involved?
The mechanical aspect of the game only exists because you are probably thinking of the game in a competitive sense. To beat another good player you have to be good at mechanics and strategy. But, you don't actually have to be good at the mechanics to explore the strategy If you want to completely avoid the "click-fest" then you might as well go to turn-based strategy games, no? It comes from the core concept of what we understand as an RTS. Step 1: Make army Step 2: Fight army A lot of people fail step 1, and hence are never able to perform step 2; this is where the frustration of required mechanics come from. How much effort does it take for you to gain control of your character in a FPS? How about an RPG? What about a MOBA? If you told a MOBA player that he needs to juggle his economy for 6-10 minutes before he gets his hero character, would he enjoy the MOBA? People who long RTS games LOVE step 1 as much as step 2, but that doesn't mean it is natural for people to enjoy step 1 while it is culturally taught that we enjoy step 2.
Point taken but at some point you need patience. Even in LoL you don't get your full skillset until some grinding a little bit
|
Or just dont play with build orders like I do for fun in 2s, you know how rewarding it is to spine rush and beat a greedy pair of terrans? Someone mentioned earlier about a casual mode. Just have it like madden where the game macros by itself and you can control what you want or micro when you want. That migh be fun for newer players or just more relaxed gamers
|
On May 20 2014 11:21 Roswell wrote:
Or just dont play with build orders like I do for fun in 2s, you know how rewarding it is to spine rush and beat a greedy pair of terrans? Someone mentioned earlier about a casual mode. Just have it like madden where the game macros by itself and you can control what you want or micro when you want. That migh be fun for newer players or just more relaxed gamers
Uhm. You mean Nexus Wars?
|
On May 20 2014 11:17 frajen86 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 10:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2014 10:08 frajen86 wrote:On May 20 2014 10:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why does an RTS need to create a demanding mechanical game before you can explore the strategies involved?
The mechanical aspect of the game only exists because you are probably thinking of the game in a competitive sense. To beat another good player you have to be good at mechanics and strategy. But, you don't actually have to be good at the mechanics to explore the strategy If you want to completely avoid the "click-fest" then you might as well go to turn-based strategy games, no? It comes from the core concept of what we understand as an RTS. Step 1: Make army Step 2: Fight army A lot of people fail step 1, and hence are never able to perform step 2; this is where the frustration of required mechanics come from. How much effort does it take for you to gain control of your character in a FPS? How about an RPG? What about a MOBA? If you told a MOBA player that he needs to juggle his economy for 6-10 minutes before he gets his hero character, would he enjoy the MOBA? People who long RTS games LOVE step 1 as much as step 2, but that doesn't mean it is natural for people to enjoy step 1 while it is culturally taught that we enjoy step 2. Point taken but at some point you need patience. Even in LoL you don't get your full skillset until some grinding a little bit
No need to convince me, I like Step 1: build army. What do I and most TLers do when a great game happens? We look at the build order, the transitions, expansion timings, etc... We eat that shit up.
We don't ask "during the rally train, do you prioritize stutter step or splits?" we go "so does he get away with the fast 3cc?"
|
On May 20 2014 11:21 Roswell wrote:
Or just dont play with build orders like I do for fun in 2s, you know how rewarding it is to spine rush and beat a greedy pair of terrans? Someone mentioned earlier about a casual mode. Just have it like madden where the game macros by itself and you can control what you want or micro when you want. That migh be fun for newer players or just more relaxed gamers
In fairness to him, thats one of the most popular maps in the Arcade. More people probably play Nexus Wars than ladder. (I'm guessing)
And in truth, if Nexus Wars was a phone app I'd play that shit like it was angry birds.
|
On May 20 2014 11:42 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 11:21 Roswell wrote:
Or just dont play with build orders like I do for fun in 2s, you know how rewarding it is to spine rush and beat a greedy pair of terrans? Someone mentioned earlier about a casual mode. Just have it like madden where the game macros by itself and you can control what you want or micro when you want. That migh be fun for newer players or just more relaxed gamers Uhm. You mean Nexus Wars?
Idk is that what that game is? I stopped caring about the UMSs a year ago. That is the most dissapointing thing about sc2 by far for me. Where is my effing Archery Tactics? or something not a tower D or Hero Quest 2000.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
Sweet post, hopefully will have time to give those links some attention!
|
The thing about RTS games is that no one wants to watch his base being built for 5 minutes while nothing interesting happens. Players nowdays want to see action from the getgo and want a game that feels dynamic. Id say games like DoW2 are the future of RTS, where economy nodes and winning conditions are out on the map and you cant really turtle up. Essentially multitasking and map control takes the role of your "economy".
|
On May 20 2014 19:05 necrimanci wrote:
The thing about RTS games is that no one wants to watch his base being built for 5 minutes while nothing interesting happens. Players nowdays want to see action from the getgo and want a game that feels dynamic. Id say games like DoW2 are the future of RTS, where economy nodes and winning conditions are out on the map and you cant really turtle up. Essentially multitasking and map control takes the role of your "economy".
DoW's and DoW2's economy is way better than Sc and Sc2's economy. Too bad Relic didn't do anything to bring their games to the level of refinement Blizzard does with its games. Imo Sc2 lacks objectives to secures, you either take a new base or jump at your opponent's throat. In DoW you had to roam around the map, go where your ennemy was or wasn't to get new economy nodes. Also, those nodes didn't take as much place as a Sc2 mineral+gas base allowing for more creative maps.
|
OPs suggestion reminds me a lot of a little known game called Arena Wars. Unfortunately that game never really got off the ground and the community quickly died after a couple of attempts to advertise it with tournaments sponsored by Logitech.
|
The more difficult versions of the RTS genre like starcraft, the early age of empires games etc. became less popular. I think it's just because they are too stressful, myself I rarely play starcraft either anymore because I get frustated that I just lose because I play to relaxed. Playing well is too much about being fast and active, not about tactics or strategy. If i want that more I go for a boardgame or something else really nowadays.
As for the easier RTS focussing more on squad movement or just micromanagement, they kind of just evolved into MOBA's.
I am a bit surprised though a bit of a middle ground isn't popular anymore, like warcraft 3. Minimal focus on economy and build orders but still some of it and mostly army management during the game. It isn't as stressful as you don't have the constant pressure of optimizing your macro and you only have peak pressure during fights mostly.
|
On May 20 2014 10:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 10:08 frajen86 wrote:On May 20 2014 10:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why does an RTS need to create a demanding mechanical game before you can explore the strategies involved?
The mechanical aspect of the game only exists because you are probably thinking of the game in a competitive sense. To beat another good player you have to be good at mechanics and strategy. But, you don't actually have to be good at the mechanics to explore the strategy If you want to completely avoid the "click-fest" then you might as well go to turn-based strategy games, no? It comes from the core concept of what we understand as an RTS. Step 1: Make army Step 2: Fight army A lot of people fail step 1, and hence are never able to perform step 2; this is where the frustration of required mechanics come from. How much effort does it take for you to gain control of your character in a FPS? How about an RPG? What about a MOBA? If you told a MOBA player that he needs to juggle his economy for 6-10 minutes before he gets his hero character, would he enjoy the MOBA? People who long RTS games LOVE step 1 as much as step 2, but that doesn't mean it is natural for people to enjoy step 1 while it is culturally taught that we enjoy step 2.
There are games that skip step 1 but people generally refer to those games as "Real Time Tactics". Like Dawn of War 2 for example
|
In my opinion a problem is that games like SC are treated as the "gold standard". Companies don't want to innovate anymore.
I for one believe that Netstorm: Islands At War is an incredible RTS and a very different experience. While it definitely has its share of flaws and the UI leaves plenty to be desired(lack of hotkeys, drag selection etc), those aren't really important things in the long run as the heart of the game is so good that I'd love to see a remake. The game potentially has extremely high APM requirements and it has constant-non-stop action. It also is based almost entirely around macro and strategy and none of it is about fooling your opponent(There's no fog of far and you see everything they do). There also is actual decisionmaking involved in practically everything you do and choices are mostly permanent(You cannot just move a misplaced unit back after you move it in the wrong place). The strategy is much, much more deep than "oh he has those units, better counter with these units."
Guess an example video:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
One of the reasons Brood War is so oft-praised as a high point is not just that it's a damn good game, but that it was explored to its utmost by people playing it professionally for many years. While it did establish certain ideals of what constitutes good RTS play at a fundamental level that are transferable to games in a similar vein, who knows what other interesting concepts would emerge if other, different titles were as deeply explored ?
|
On May 20 2014 22:19 MattBarry wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 10:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2014 10:08 frajen86 wrote:On May 20 2014 10:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why does an RTS need to create a demanding mechanical game before you can explore the strategies involved?
The mechanical aspect of the game only exists because you are probably thinking of the game in a competitive sense. To beat another good player you have to be good at mechanics and strategy. But, you don't actually have to be good at the mechanics to explore the strategy If you want to completely avoid the "click-fest" then you might as well go to turn-based strategy games, no? It comes from the core concept of what we understand as an RTS. Step 1: Make army Step 2: Fight army A lot of people fail step 1, and hence are never able to perform step 2; this is where the frustration of required mechanics come from. How much effort does it take for you to gain control of your character in a FPS? How about an RPG? What about a MOBA? If you told a MOBA player that he needs to juggle his economy for 6-10 minutes before he gets his hero character, would he enjoy the MOBA? People who long RTS games LOVE step 1 as much as step 2, but that doesn't mean it is natural for people to enjoy step 1 while it is culturally taught that we enjoy step 2. There are games that skip step 1 but people generally refer to those games as "Real Time Tactics". Like Dawn of War 2 for example
Yes, I know that genre. I was just clarifying a point about *why* people complain about mechanical requirements in an RTS when I rarely if ever hear about mechanical requirements of a Fighting Game.
|
I play pretty much only strategy games and right now there seem to be more quality games out there than ever before. You get SC2 for 'oldschool' RTS needs, EU4 for your grand strategy, Total War for a middle ground, Wargame for a 'true' tactics game, XCOM for more of a RPG/strategy experience. These are all pretty much AAA titles. I'm perfectly happy with the amount of games there are and while the SC/TA niche might have declined, I think overall, as a fan of strategy games, there are many more titles with much more variety to choose from than ever before.
I'd like to see a new DoW game and some truly new things I can't even think of yet, but I can't say I'd be truly hyped for more SC style games to play myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
