|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On June 15 2014 22:18 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 21:45 FeyFey wrote:On June 15 2014 18:53 urboss wrote:
Any multiplayer game is "competitive".
The only reason Blizzard needs to pay close attention to balance issues is because it uses three distinct races.
No one whines about balance in chess or poker.
I'm perfectly OK with having a "Terran Only" RTS if it kicks ass otherwise!
No one whines about balance in chess, because we know no one can change the game for everyone. So chess players accept that their game will be imbalanced forever. Just as everyone accepts that card games are heavily based on luck. Card games are based on luck, that doesn't mean that they are imbalanced. The luck can hit anyone. If you mean White's advantage in chess, the way they solve this is by having players play BOTH White and Black in alternation. Similarly, there would be no balance whine in SC2 if players were required to play ALL 3 races in each matchup. So if Taeja meets MC at Dreamhack in the quarter final, this is how it would look like: Game 1: MC chooses Protoss, Taeja chooses Terrain Game 2: MC chooses Zerg, Taeja chooses Protoss Game 3: MC takes Terrain, Taeja takes Zerg If Blizzard would have enforced this from the beginning, there would never have been any balance issues.
That is indeed an interesting concept for tourneys. Is it feasible?
|
Since the players are already super-specialized on one race, you would run into problems now if you choose the races randomly:
Let's say, MC picks Zerg and Taeja picks Terrain.
Obviously, Taeja would roflstomp MC and the match wouldn't be very interesting to watch.
Therefore, the first game would have to be fixed to the best race for existing pro players.
i.e. for Game 1 MC always Protoss, Taeja always Terran
After that they can choose.
New players would be able to choose in game 1 already.
|
On June 15 2014 23:19 urboss wrote:
Since the players are already super-specialized on one race, you would run into problems now if you choose the races randomly:
Let's say, MC picks Zerg and Taeja picks Terrain.
Obviously, Taeja would roflstomp MC and the match wouldn't be very interesting to watch.
Therefore, the first game would have to be fixed to the best race for existing pro players.
i.e. for Game 1 MC always Protoss, Taeja always Terran
After that they can choose.
New players would be able to choose in game 1 already.
MC is said to be one of the best European Zerg players. ;-)
Anyways, imo race in RTS games means some form of identity and playstyle. With an undynamic race concept like Starcraft's, I think it would simple decrease the game's quality and fandom for players.
Though it would be interesting to prevent players playing the same units or playstyles over and over again.
Taeja's 2rax lost against MC's 2base Colossus build? 2nd game MC has to play the same playstyle and Taeja has to use a different configuration.
|
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think?
|
On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think?
MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind.
Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome.
For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA.
|
On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA.
I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles )
|
This thread is full of awful ideas.
Basically, the main idea here is: make the game easier, in every way possible
Base building is core to RTS would be awful to remove.
The need for build orders to be precise arises because people get good at the game. Same "problem" with the multitasking. Essentially, this is complaining about players getting good at the game.
I really do not understand all the complaints about the "boring" phase of the game. You mean the interesting part where you are gathering intelligence and deciding what you are going to do (build-wise) in the game?
Making comebacks "easier" would just eliminate what makes comebacks 'epic'--it would pretty much destroy any possibility of an epic game being played in that game. Comebacks rock because they are unexpected and they require fantastic play by one player (and possibly a key mistake by the other). If they were easier, then who would care?
Personally, I love pro Sc2 exactly because it is 1v1 and not team matches. Why is being team oriented marked as a "good" for MOBA? It is great to see two champions battle it out one on one. I mean, being a team sport isn't really a "good" or "bad" thing, neither is being an individual sport. They both have their pros and cons to them.
My solution: Bring back Boxer. Fixed it.
|
On July 10 2014 06:41 pjc8513 wrote:
This thread is full of awful ideas.
Basically, the main idea here is: make the game easier, in every way possible
Base building is core to RTS would be awful to remove.
The need for build orders to be precise arises because people get good at the game. Same "problem" with the multitasking. Essentially, this is complaining about players getting good at the game.
I really do not understand all the complaints about the "boring" phase of the game. You mean the interesting part where you are gathering intelligence and deciding what you are going to do (build-wise) in the game?
Making comebacks "easier" would just eliminate what makes comebacks 'epic'--it would pretty much destroy any possibility of an epic game being played in that game. Comebacks rock because they are unexpected and they require fantastic play by one player (and possibly a key mistake by the other). If they were easier, then who would care?
Personally, I love pro Sc2 exactly because it is 1v1 and not team matches. Why is being team oriented marked as a "good" for MOBA? It is great to see two champions battle it out one on one. I mean, being a team sport isn't really a "good" or "bad" thing, neither is being an individual sport. They both have their pros and cons to them.
My solution: Bring back Boxer. Fixed it.
Didn't fix sc2..
|
On July 10 2014 06:17 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA. I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles )
Risk BW was a more fun experience than any of the new blizz games. I loved Micro Tournament and all the weird defense maps too.
I just hated all the leavers and the difficulty of finding games to start. SC2 ums really failed for me.
|
On July 10 2014 06:17 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA. I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles )
Yes, casuals enjoy battle more than non-battles, this was true in BW and is true today. The difference was that back in BW people had to resort to UMS maps while today they can download a free game on Steam. The results are the same, more people play casual games than hardcore RTS games.
|
On July 10 2014 07:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 06:17 vOdToasT wrote:On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA. I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles ) Yes, casuals enjoy battle more than non-battles, this was true in BW and is true today. The difference was that back in BW people had to resort to UMS maps while today they can download a free game on Steam. The results are the same, more people play casual games than hardcore RTS games.
I would argue that RTS as single player games aren't hardcore. But they've still stopped making them. I would never play the Red Alert games online in any case, yet I still valued those purchases for the single player experience.
|
Haven't you played Age of Empires 2? Where you all megaomegapros there? Most of people I know enjoyed AoE to death and we all were "casuals" in those days.
|
On July 10 2014 06:17 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA. I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles )
i know you think that means a lot but it doesn't.
|
On July 10 2014 07:56 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 07:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 06:17 vOdToasT wrote:On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA. I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles ) Yes, casuals enjoy battle more than non-battles, this was true in BW and is true today. The difference was that back in BW people had to resort to UMS maps while today they can download a free game on Steam. The results are the same, more people play casual games than hardcore RTS games. I would argue that RTS as single player games aren't hardcore. But they've still stopped making them. I would never play the Red Alert games online in any case, yet I still valued those purchases for the single player experience.
And I would argue that the single player experience does not accurately depict the RTS experience.
|
On July 10 2014 12:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 07:56 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 10 2014 07:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 06:17 vOdToasT wrote:On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA. I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles ) Yes, casuals enjoy battle more than non-battles, this was true in BW and is true today. The difference was that back in BW people had to resort to UMS maps while today they can download a free game on Steam. The results are the same, more people play casual games than hardcore RTS games. I would argue that RTS as single player games aren't hardcore. But they've still stopped making them. I would never play the Red Alert games online in any case, yet I still valued those purchases for the single player experience. And I would argue that the single player experience does not accurately depict the RTS experience.
I agree that single player and multiplayer RTS are two distinct things but for the majority of the market the single player campaign is the entire RTS experience. Blizzard understands this and they are the only developer to make an RTS hit in recent memory. If the genre is to have a future beyond Starcraft, the single player portion has to be the draw.
|
On July 10 2014 12:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 07:56 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 10 2014 07:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 06:17 vOdToasT wrote:On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA. I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles ) Yes, casuals enjoy battle more than non-battles, this was true in BW and is true today. The difference was that back in BW people had to resort to UMS maps while today they can download a free game on Steam. The results are the same, more people play casual games than hardcore RTS games. I would argue that RTS as single player games aren't hardcore. But they've still stopped making them. I would never play the Red Alert games online in any case, yet I still valued those purchases for the single player experience. And I would argue that the single player experience does not accurately depict the RTS experience.
Well originally, RTS was purely based on "solving puzzles". Meaning that each campaign levels are a puzzle to solve. It only evolved into a multiplayer game much later on. And only a few games were able to deliver a good multiplayer experience.
|
On July 10 2014 13:23 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 12:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 07:56 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 10 2014 07:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 06:17 vOdToasT wrote:On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA. I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles ) Yes, casuals enjoy battle more than non-battles, this was true in BW and is true today. The difference was that back in BW people had to resort to UMS maps while today they can download a free game on Steam. The results are the same, more people play casual games than hardcore RTS games. I would argue that RTS as single player games aren't hardcore. But they've still stopped making them. I would never play the Red Alert games online in any case, yet I still valued those purchases for the single player experience. And I would argue that the single player experience does not accurately depict the RTS experience. Well originally, RTS was purely based on "solving puzzles". Meaning that each campaign levels are a puzzle to solve. It only evolved into a multiplayer game much later on. And only a few games were able to deliver a good multiplayer experience.
Yes.
But in those puzzles, base building was not an actual intrinsic aspect since half the time you're already given a base or don't even need one (in installation maps), meaning that the only "core" RTS aspect of the single player is pure army control without base management.
RTS as we understand them today as a genre intrinsically is intertwined with the base building and management aspect of the game in conjunction with army control. The single player experience of RTS games only has army control as it's main focus.
|
I think the biggest problem in the difficulty on the game is the macro aspect of the game.
Keeping cycling between building to keep productions going and charges up requires a good chunk of the player APM and attention.
An interesting proposal is being able to "auto-produce" units. Similar to auto casting of spells. Of course there is a few problems with a pure auto-produce, but that can always be tuned.
Opinions on it? Restrictions on it?
|
On July 14 2014 03:21 TMG26 wrote:
I think the biggest problem in the difficulty on the game is the macro aspect of the game.
Keeping cycling between building to keep productions going and charges up requires a good chunk of the player APM and attention.
An interesting proposal is being able to "auto-produce" units. Similar to auto casting of spells. Of course there is a few problems with a pure auto-produce, but that can always be tuned.
Opinions on it? Restrictions on it?
Nexus Wars is already the most popular arcade for a reason 
|
On July 11 2014 01:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 13:23 Xiphos wrote:On July 10 2014 12:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 07:56 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 10 2014 07:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 06:17 vOdToasT wrote:On July 10 2014 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2014 05:55 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Is the genre on it's last legs? I have some theories on why this might be the case but none of them are completely satisfying so I'm curious as to what the TL community thinks.
Theory 1: RTS games feature too high a learning curve to attract new players. It's true that commanding an entire army while simultaneously building a base and managing resources is incredibly difficult but this is not a wholly satisfying conclusion. For one, this didn't seem to deter players when RTS games were the hottest thing around circa the release of Starcraft 1. Secondly, a good single player campaign embraces the learning curve as the core of the experience. We're all multiplayer gamers here, but what sold me and everybody on the genre in the first place was playing well designed single player campaigns with a manageable learning curve. Are new players scared off the genre through reputation alone?
Theory 2: Starcraft is so dominant in the genre, there's no room for any competitors. Maybe, but I don't buy the notion that a Starcraft player wouldn't also play other RTS games. Anyways most people who bought Starcraft 2 stopped playing by now. That doesn't mean they've given up on RTS games.
Theory 3: RTS were popular in the 90's because they required less computing power to be compelling than other genres. AKA when shooters got pretty, the RTS died. Except it doesn't really seem like the RTS audience jumped to shooters, but rather to games like DOTA, which brings me to the next theory...
Theory 4: The RTS audience really just wanted to be playing MOBAs all along but they hadn't been invented yet. The decline in RTS popularity does seem to line up with the release of Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Honestly, this is a pretty compelling theory, but the genres are so different it's hard to believe the MOBA audience cannibalized the RTS audience to the degree it appears to have done.
What does everybody else think? MOBAs provide what most RTS promise to give casual players without breaking their mind. Army combat where you are a commander leading troops and it is your decision making and abilities that define the outcome. For people to truly enjoy an RTS they'd have to enjoy the non-combat aspects of it as much as the combat aspects of it, otherwise they will simply shift to a MOBA. I got to diamond in LoL and I still think Micro Tournament in Brood War is more exciting. ( A map that is nothing but battles ) Yes, casuals enjoy battle more than non-battles, this was true in BW and is true today. The difference was that back in BW people had to resort to UMS maps while today they can download a free game on Steam. The results are the same, more people play casual games than hardcore RTS games. I would argue that RTS as single player games aren't hardcore. But they've still stopped making them. I would never play the Red Alert games online in any case, yet I still valued those purchases for the single player experience. And I would argue that the single player experience does not accurately depict the RTS experience. Well originally, RTS was purely based on "solving puzzles". Meaning that each campaign levels are a puzzle to solve. It only evolved into a multiplayer game much later on. And only a few games were able to deliver a good multiplayer experience. Yes. But in those puzzles, base building was not an actual intrinsic aspect since half the time you're already given a base or don't even need one (in installation maps), meaning that the only "core" RTS aspect of the single player is pure army control without base management. RTS as we understand them today as a genre intrinsically is intertwined with the base building and management aspect of the game in conjunction with army control. The single player experience of RTS games only has army control as it's main focus.
Not exactly sure why you brought the base building into a conversation of multiplayer and single player aspect of RTS game.
But this doesn't change the fact that originally, RTS was purely based on "solving puzzles". Meaning that each campaign levels are a puzzle to solve. It only evolved into a multiplayer game much later on. And only a few games were able to deliver a good multiplayer experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
