EPTThe future of RTS games - Page 48
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. | ||
|
LittleRagey
United States24 Posts
| ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
It's not like the terms "RTS and "MOBA" are protected trademarks or holy grails that cannot be touched. If you ask the average person on TL how to improve the RTS genre, he will suggest you some tiny tweaks on the existing game SC2. If you want to create a new game that transforms the genre, most people on TL do have a view that is too narrow, because they only know the reality of their own game. | ||
|
ETisME
12734 Posts
On May 28 2014 19:27 urboss wrote: We are talking about creating a new game here. It's not like the terms "RTS and "MOBA" are protected trademarks or holy grails that cannot be touched. If you ask the average person on TL how to improve the RTS genre, he will suggest you some tiny tweaks on the existing game SC2. If you want to create a new game that transforms the genre, most people on TL do have a view that is too narrow, because they only know the reality of their own game. I believe the genre is poorly defined, similar to rpg and arpg. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26975 Posts
1. Some kind of economy management and production. 2. Some kind of teching progression. 3. Some way to manually control your forces. Sub-genres include Real-Time Tactical games which remove 1+2 in favour of 3, like Bungie's fantastic Myth series. | ||
|
ETisME
12734 Posts
On May 28 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: It's pretty clear what defines an RTS I thought, or to draw a distinction for clarity's sake 'classic RTS'. 1. Some kind of economy management and production. 2. Some kind of teching progression. 3. Some way to manually control your forces. Sub-genres include Real-Time Tactical games which remove 1+2 in favour of 3, like Bungie's fantastic Myth series. I don't think so. Economy management itself is a vague concept. In sc2 we learnt that attention, apm and energy are resources. What about moba? Creep gold, energy, cooldown and mana control, time spent ganking, experience gain/loss Teching is another vague concept. Development? What about heros in wc3, their skill sets are also tech as they provide benefits for your army. That goes for moba heros too. What qualifies as development and teching? Your army forces? How much is an army? Meepo is like 4 units. Visage etc | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 28 2014 22:55 ETisME wrote: I don't think so. Economy management itself is a vague concept. In sc2 we learnt that attention, apm and energy are resources. What about moba? Creep gold, energy, cooldown and mana control, time spent ganking, experience gain/loss Teching is another vague concept. Development? What about heros in wc3, their skill sets are also tech as they provide benefits for your army. That goes for moba heros too. What qualifies as development and teching? Your army forces? How much is an army? Meepo is like 4 units. Visage etc well, that's why MOBA was originally called ARTS and is actually a subgenre of RTS. So yeah, MOBAs are RTS games by the usual broad definitions of RTS. Attention and apm however aren't resources per se, since the game does not limit them. That's rather the e-sports/comptetitive part of the game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26975 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 28 2014 18:55 urboss wrote: Yes, and who gives a shit if it is a MOBA with RTS elements? It is only a handful of hardcore players like on TL that really care. Let the casuals decide! For the same reason you don't introduce the rules of Go into chess just to make it harder for computers to beat it. It was my understanding that the goal of the thread was to make the RTS more appealing to casuals, and not to simply remove the RTS genre altogether. Case in point, as an RTS fan, I am 100% more excited playing Red Alert and Age of Empires than I will ever be playing Dota or LoL. Not because Red Alert and Age of Empires are better games, but because I'm an RTS fan. The goal should not be the removal of aspects of an RTS that make it an RTS but a change in either its presentation or explanation so that newer players can grok it more easily. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 28 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: It's pretty clear what defines an RTS I thought, or to draw a distinction for clarity's sake 'classic RTS'. 1. Some kind of economy management and production. 2. Some kind of teching progression. 3. Some way to manually control your forces. Sub-genres include Real-Time Tactical games which remove 1+2 in favour of 3, like Bungie's fantastic Myth series. When I think of an RTS, to me the baseline that makes it different from other genres is most specifically the Production => Controlling of mass forces. Or, to put it simply, to me an RTS is where you first make an army, and then use that army to achieve a goal. Starting with an army or having an army given to you contradicts that base description to me. Those sub-genres exists of course, but they are tangents from the main goal of an RTS which building and army and then using that army. Economy management is normally the stopgap to production while tech progression is usually the stopgap to army strength. Both are not required, per se, but its usually bad to ignore them. When that baseline descriptor gets too diluted, that's when things get weird. MOBAs produce the army for you, and they attack with the army for you. Your responsibilities are distilled to purely the small arms tactics that give your army an edge similar to reaver micro in BW or drop play in SC2. By remove the means of production from the player along with the control of the total mass of troops, we lose the RTS feel that is wanted by RTS fans. No one played war games so they could micro general Patton. They played war games so that they could *be* general Patton. The amount of micro is not as important as the feeling of production transitioning to army control. Nexus Wars is the opposite of the MOBA, for example. Wherein they simply give you control of production and tech, but not the army control. MOBAs take away production and army control for pure dictation of tech and micro. Neither feel like an RTS despite having aspects of an RTS because it removes the basic fundamentals of what an RTS fan wants in an RTS. Which is the ability to make shit and then use that shit against someone else's shit. Shitception. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
RTS games don't need to have an economy nor do they need to have tech they just have to be a strategy game played in real time instead of turn based. I think its definitely true that Blizzard could have evolved the genre through StarCraft 2 and really didn't. Someone will eventually. | ||
|
BlackGosu
Canada1046 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 30 2014 13:17 BlackGosu wrote: rts games just cannot keep up with moba games. dota and LoL are just more fun. sure they're not as hard as sc2, but they're a hell of a lot more fun and social I can testify that it was easier getting an aeon of strife game running than a 1v1 game running. MOBAs have been more successful since BW. | ||
Falling
Canada11534 Posts
On May 30 2014 15:55 Thieving Magpie wrote: I can testify that it was easier getting an aeon of strife game running than a 1v1 game running. MOBAs have been more successful since BW. Do you have the aeon of strife map? I've never seen anyone play it and although I've downloaded a lot of ums map packs, I've yet to come across it. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 30 2014 16:01 Falling wrote: Do you have the aeon of strife map? I've never seen anyone play it and although I've downloaded a lot of ums map packs, I've yet to come across it. That was about 3 CPUs and 2 diskettes ago I'm afraid  | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On May 30 2014 15:55 Thieving Magpie wrote: I can testify that it was easier getting an aeon of strife game running than a 1v1 game running. MOBAs have been more successful since BW. that's bullshit | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Don't hate on bnet 1.0 for being different than what you wished it was. | ||
|
Thrillz
4313 Posts
At this moment the state of SC2 is pretty ...meh unsatisfactory imo. Until it's fun/good enough and Blizzard gets their act together I have no reservations about SC2 declining. | ||
|
CYFAWS
Sweden275 Posts
| ||
|
Coldblackice
United States49 Posts
We're inundated with so many options these days -- tons of new games (how many times do we hear someone say they're adding yet another game to their miles-long backlog?), streamed movies, on-demand TV, reddit, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. etc. So many options, so little time. With this, comes dwindling patience -- people aren't willing to invest large chunks of time into something that doesn't give a quick and satisfying return/reward. Unfortunately, the RTS has become an increasingly outdated model. Like boardgames before video games. They take a high amount of investment in terms of time, learning curve, and upkeep. You can't sign-out for a few weeks/months, come back, and hope to get a decent return on time invested. You're going to slog through a good amount of pain (losing) to catch back up. A big investment, with little (or delayed) return. MOBAs seem to be the new modern equivalent of the "video game" to the RTS "board game". You can jump in quickly, get straight into action quickly, and get a relatively quick return on your time invested in the form of wins, successes, rewards, etc. And this is aside from other more modernized features of the MOBA, like increased social connection, extending a vastly more interconnected world today compared to the 1998 world of Starcraft. The world today expects to connect with anyone and everyone throughout anything and everything -- nearly every single app or website we use today is connecting with and interacting with others. In contrast, the RTS is spent mostly in the silent solitude of 1v1. And this bridges into yet another difference -- stress. The RTS is traditionally much more stressful, particularly in lieu of its 1v1 nature, the stress of steep learning curves, the stress of steep upkeep demands, the stress of "forced" competition through ladder, etc. Personally, I'm an avid Starcrafter, through and through, with no interest in MOBAs whatsoever. But I also recognize that I'm the modern minority in this, and that modern interests, cultures, and a massive international gaming industry/community that is light-years larger and different from the late 90's Starcraft-world has paved the path for a continually evolving evolution of game interests and preferences. I wish it weren't so! I wish -- and fleetingly hope -- that Starcraft and the RTS can evolve and stay fun and relevant. But like has already been mentioned, unfortunately, I think the RTS has indeed already evolved: it's what we now call the "MOBA". tl;dr Gamers today: "Ain't nobody got time for that!" | ||
|
Falling
Canada11534 Posts
On May 30 2014 17:47 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't hate on bnet 1.0 for being different than what you wished it was. That's a shame that you don't have the map. No-one seems to anymore But, I also kinda wonder what was your time period of playing. Because 2009-2014 on iccup, it would seem to me that ums are in the minority and it has always been super easy to get a 1v1 game running at my level. It's only in this last year that the server population has gone down that certain times of day are more difficult. Never saw Aeon in that time. I would have pegged BGH and Fastest Possible as the easy games to get started with a significant number of people. | ||
| ||
