|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On one hand, I do agree that early RTS had a lot of puzzle elements in its level design. In particular, here are a couple of neat articles about level design in Command and Conquer.
http://www.ultimaratioregum.co.uk/game/2013/09/07/real-time-strategy-level-design/
http://www.ultimaratioregum.co.uk/game/2014/04/27/real-time-strategy-level-design-ii/
On the other hand, I disagree that multiplayer evolved that much later on. Indeed, Dune 2 didn't have multiplayer when it was released in 1992. However, the next influential games in the genre such as Warcraft 1 and Command and Conquer, released in 1994 and 1995 respectively, did have basic multiplayer, so I think multiplayer was a part of the RTS experience during some of its earliest years. The multiplayer may not have been as solid as in later games, but it still made a big impact on them.
But anyways, I think the single player vs multiplayer debate stretches across many genres beyond RTS and probably has no right answer.
|
On May 14 2014 05:01 urboss wrote:
So here is how our new game may look like:
- We keep similar types of units as in StarCraft
- There are no minions
- We add in heroes that can resurrect
- There are no buildings that need to be built
- Units can be warped in at the start point (in batches)
- The warp in takes some time
- The opponent can always see what is being warped in ahead of time
- There is no economy: Gold for warp-ins increases steadily over time
- The number of players per team is fixed
Or in other words:
MOBA minus minions, plus warpable and controllable units, plus steady economy.
You almost perfectly described Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II.
From everything I've seen, most RTS players prefer to have base building in their games. C&C4 was a horrible failure, and many people had issues with DoW2's style as well.
|
I find it sad that i actually played the first 7 games on that list quite heavily (some more then others) then since then nothing has come close. I feel the original magic of rts games is gone, what is replaced is money hungry companys with goals of getting the biggest paycheck. Or mayb im gettin old.
|
On July 14 2014 14:49 Genome852 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 05:01 urboss wrote:
So here is how our new game may look like:
- We keep similar types of units as in StarCraft
- There are no minions
- We add in heroes that can resurrect
- There are no buildings that need to be built
- Units can be warped in at the start point (in batches)
- The warp in takes some time
- The opponent can always see what is being warped in ahead of time
- There is no economy: Gold for warp-ins increases steadily over time
- The number of players per team is fixed
Or in other words:
MOBA minus minions, plus warpable and controllable units, plus steady economy.
You almost perfectly described Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II. From everything I've seen, most RTS players prefer to have base building in their games. C&C4 was a horrible failure, and many people had issues with DoW2's style as well.
That's also Pretty much Z as well, right? Apart from the Hero units.
|
On July 14 2014 18:56 Gowerly wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2014 14:49 Genome852 wrote:On May 14 2014 05:01 urboss wrote:
So here is how our new game may look like:
- We keep similar types of units as in StarCraft
- There are no minions
- We add in heroes that can resurrect
- There are no buildings that need to be built
- Units can be warped in at the start point (in batches)
- The warp in takes some time
- The opponent can always see what is being warped in ahead of time
- There is no economy: Gold for warp-ins increases steadily over time
- The number of players per team is fixed
Or in other words:
MOBA minus minions, plus warpable and controllable units, plus steady economy.
You almost perfectly described Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II. From everything I've seen, most RTS players prefer to have base building in their games. C&C4 was a horrible failure, and many people had issues with DoW2's style as well. That's also Pretty much Z as well, right? Apart from the Hero units.
Z is similar to DoW2. In DoW2 you build all your units at your base, in Z there can be factories in some of the zones you capture. Also DoW has actual resources with which you buy units while in Z all factories are on a timer and capturing more zones reduces build times on all factories which are constantly building.
|
On June 15 2014 21:15 iky43210 wrote:
Traditional RTS is a thing in the past. It is becoming more niche since early 2000s
No spins you do can change this. Multi-tasking is a chore, macro is a chore. Nature of RTS game have steep learning curve, and as such can never capture large mass audience.
It's becoming a chore because people nowadays take it so damn seriously. SC2's campaigns are proof that RTS can be plain casual fun, especially on the lower difficulty levels. I played SC2's campaigns a couple of times over, while only having like 30-ish multiplayer games in HOTS.
|
On July 14 2014 08:52 eviltomahawk wrote:On one hand, I do agree that early RTS had a lot of puzzle elements in its level design. In particular, here are a couple of neat articles about level design in Command and Conquer. http://www.ultimaratioregum.co.uk/game/2013/09/07/real-time-strategy-level-design/http://www.ultimaratioregum.co.uk/game/2014/04/27/real-time-strategy-level-design-ii/On the other hand, I disagree that multiplayer evolved that much later on. Indeed, Dune 2 didn't have multiplayer when it was released in 1992. However, the next influential games in the genre such as Warcraft 1 and Command and Conquer, released in 1994 and 1995 respectively, did have basic multiplayer, so I think multiplayer was a part of the RTS experience during some of its earliest years. The multiplayer may not have been as solid as in later games, but it still made a big impact on them. But anyways, I think the single player vs multiplayer debate stretches across many genres beyond RTS and probably has no right answer.
The problem of multiplayer was also one of bandwidth and latency.
Sure you had networks and they were expensive a network card then woudl set you back £50 and making up t pieces etc for the bnc cable was expensive.
Serial has shit bandwidth so rts isnt really a go for that. The plasma gun in doom for instance was death by lag and packet loss over serial cable. It was a great fuck you weapon - actually it wasnt pl it was more akin to choke.
Combine this with the fact that you dont really do client server back then means that the playing experience was completley asymetric (or would of been). It just wouldnt of worked for an rts game.
Also the internet was not really an option as again everyones bandwidth was effectivley 0 and usage was also very uncommon.
You want to talk multiplayer rts you need tro look at something like syndicate or mechwarrior. Some games of reasonably similar genre had these features.
|
On July 14 2014 17:29 Luoson wrote:
I find it sad that i actually played the first 7 games on that list quite heavily (some more then others) then since then nothing has come close. I feel the original magic of rts games is gone, what is replaced is money hungry companys with goals of getting the biggest paycheck. Or mayb im gettin old.
You grew older.
|
On July 14 2014 19:40 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 21:15 iky43210 wrote:
Traditional RTS is a thing in the past. It is becoming more niche since early 2000s
No spins you do can change this. Multi-tasking is a chore, macro is a chore. Nature of RTS game have steep learning curve, and as such can never capture large mass audience. It's becoming a chore because people nowadays take it so damn seriously. SC2's campaigns are proof that RTS can be plain casual fun, especially on the lower difficulty levels. I played SC2's campaigns a couple of times over, while only having like 30-ish multiplayer games in HOTS.
I'd say Age of Empires 2 is proof that rts can be casual fun and very hc same time.
|
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.
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:
I think you are looking at this wrong.
First of all the popular mobas are FREE which means they is very accessible.
Dota 2 for instance exists on the steam platform which is very popular.
Starcraft 2 is not accessible. It is limited to a single platform. There is a huge barrier to entry, and I am not even factoring in the incoming expansion.
|
On July 14 2014 23:13 Ryndika wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2014 19:40 maartendq wrote:On June 15 2014 21:15 iky43210 wrote:
Traditional RTS is a thing in the past. It is becoming more niche since early 2000s
No spins you do can change this. Multi-tasking is a chore, macro is a chore. Nature of RTS game have steep learning curve, and as such can never capture large mass audience. It's becoming a chore because people nowadays take it so damn seriously. SC2's campaigns are proof that RTS can be plain casual fun, especially on the lower difficulty levels. I played SC2's campaigns a couple of times over, while only having like 30-ish multiplayer games in HOTS. I'd say Age of Empires 2 is proof that rts can be casual fun and very hc same time.
And Age of Mythology, and the C&C games, and the DoW series etc etc. None of those games require heavy multitasking to be enjoyed, unless you play them on the highest difficulty. I played the AoE-series religiously. Offline. Just random maps against hardest AI.
Thing is, nowadays online multiplayer is more important than offline singleplayer, so people tend to judge games by how hard it is to compete online. I honestly don't care about online SC2 anymore. It's too time-consuming and too frustrating. I'm not having fun online. I do have a lot of fun playing the campaign, and I'm really looking forward to LOTV.
|
I like Demigod and the other MOBA likes that focus on base building and minion upgrading.
|
The time for the RTS genre to make a comeback was 2-3 years ago when SC2's popularity was surging and spearheading the E-Sports community. MOBA's, digital card games, FPS, and fighting games all surpass SC2 in Esports popularity now and thus there's going to be very little incentive for developers to work on RTS titles unless it's a passion project.
Let's face it, Blizzard had ample chances to rejuvenate the RTS genre but they seem to have other plans that don't involve SC2. Some people will look to LotV as a savior, but in the end it'll just introduce a few poorly designed units, a cookie cutter campaign, and absolutely nothing to fix the game.
Blizzard has largely given up on SC2... they are already developing their next titles (a MOBA and most likely a MMO) and I don't expect them to return to the RTS genre for a long while... if ever.
|
|
|
On July 15 2014 01:12 SupLilSon wrote:
The time for the RTS genre to make a comeback was 2-3 years ago when SC2's popularity was surging and spearheading the E-Sports community. MOBA's, digital card games, FPS, and fighting games all surpass SC2 in Esports popularity now and thus there's going to be very little incentive for developers to work on RTS titles unless it's a passion project.
Let's face it, Blizzard had ample chances to rejuvenate the RTS genre but they seem to have other plans that don't involve SC2. Some people will look to LotV as a savior, but in the end it'll just introduce a few poorly designed units, a cookie cutter campaign, and absolutely nothing to fix the game.
Blizzard has largely given up on SC2... they are already developing their next titles (a MOBA and most likely a MMO) and I don't expect them to return to the RTS genre for a long while... if ever.
They're developing LotV at the moment. You can only expect them to have one RTS project at a time. Its just not as profitable as their other stuff. After LotV is out they'll work on the next thing. RTS games are important to Blizzards brand identity. They might be the only big developer to not give up on the genre. I would even go so far as to say they'll support the genre even if it loses them money(which it won't).
Also, SC2 is broken? That's a tough argument to make, but I'm willing to hear you out.
|
i don't agree, any RTS without base building is not an RTS for me, i'll never like such thing, also you can't have depth without a "complicated structure"
what about an RTS that can be played simultaneously by more people , that control only that one race against another race controlled by another group of people, so one of them build the base and the other build the troops and another one manage the attack or do other things
something like this was possible in BW if i'm not mistaken
|
On July 15 2014 01:43 Garmer wrote:
i don't agree, any RTS without base building is not an RTS for me, i'll never like such thing, also you can't have depth without a "complicated structure"
what about an RTS that can be played simultaneously by more people , that control only that one race against another race controlled by another group of people, so one of them build the base and the other build the troops and another one manage the attack or do other things
something like this was possible in BW if i'm not mistaken
Yeah, those were officially supported in BW as the team melee mode. There were also micro-macro maps where one player does only micro and the other macro. People have remade these modes in SC2 as custom maps.
|
On July 15 2014 01:38 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2014 01:12 SupLilSon wrote:
The time for the RTS genre to make a comeback was 2-3 years ago when SC2's popularity was surging and spearheading the E-Sports community. MOBA's, digital card games, FPS, and fighting games all surpass SC2 in Esports popularity now and thus there's going to be very little incentive for developers to work on RTS titles unless it's a passion project.
Let's face it, Blizzard had ample chances to rejuvenate the RTS genre but they seem to have other plans that don't involve SC2. Some people will look to LotV as a savior, but in the end it'll just introduce a few poorly designed units, a cookie cutter campaign, and absolutely nothing to fix the game.
Blizzard has largely given up on SC2... they are already developing their next titles (a MOBA and most likely a MMO) and I don't expect them to return to the RTS genre for a long while... if ever. They're developing LotV at the moment. You can only expect them to have one RTS project at a time. Its just not as profitable as their other stuff. After LotV is out they'll work on the next thing. RTS games are important to Blizzards brand identity. They might be the only big developer to not give up on the genre. I would even go so far as to say they'll support the genre even if it loses them money(which it won't). Also, SC2 is broken? That's a tough argument to make, but I'm willing to hear you out.
RTS games are not crucial to Blizzard's brand identity... The Warcraft lore and franchise might be , but not the RTS genre. Activision Blizzard doesn't give a shit about anything BESIDES profits. If the genre is not producing revenue then they will give up on it, simple as that. If Blizzard had some sentimental attachment to RTS titles they wouldn't have failed so comically with SC2 and HotS and then withdrawn virtually all support. Blizzard knows they fucked up hard with SC2, they know they fucked up hard with Diablo 3 and they know that they missed the boat on the MOBA front. They are funneling resources into their next MMO, a genre where they still have some legitimacy. If they ever return to making RTS games it won't be for a very long time.
Also about SC2 being "broken", I don't want to derail the thread but there have been tons of good posts about the topic. Check out the recent "Welcome to ZPCraft II" thread as it contains a massive amount of information and does a better job at explaining than I ever could. Obviously everyone's definition of "broken" can be different but just look at the harsh decline SC2 has experienced since it's inception and ask yourself if the game is really in good shape...
Players who retire aren't sticking around the scene either, as is the case with other genres. Korean players are going back to BW and foreign players are just disappearing or moving to other games. While watching the International I can see a number of retired DotA pros taking up new positions within the community because it is still exciting and growing. People who leave SC2 largely never look back...
|
On July 15 2014 02:03 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2014 01:38 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 15 2014 01:12 SupLilSon wrote:
The time for the RTS genre to make a comeback was 2-3 years ago when SC2's popularity was surging and spearheading the E-Sports community. MOBA's, digital card games, FPS, and fighting games all surpass SC2 in Esports popularity now and thus there's going to be very little incentive for developers to work on RTS titles unless it's a passion project.
Let's face it, Blizzard had ample chances to rejuvenate the RTS genre but they seem to have other plans that don't involve SC2. Some people will look to LotV as a savior, but in the end it'll just introduce a few poorly designed units, a cookie cutter campaign, and absolutely nothing to fix the game.
Blizzard has largely given up on SC2... they are already developing their next titles (a MOBA and most likely a MMO) and I don't expect them to return to the RTS genre for a long while... if ever. They're developing LotV at the moment. You can only expect them to have one RTS project at a time. Its just not as profitable as their other stuff. After LotV is out they'll work on the next thing. RTS games are important to Blizzards brand identity. They might be the only big developer to not give up on the genre. I would even go so far as to say they'll support the genre even if it loses them money(which it won't). Also, SC2 is broken? That's a tough argument to make, but I'm willing to hear you out. RTS games are not crucial to Blizzard's brand identity... The Warcraft lore and franchise might be , but not the RTS genre. Activision Blizzard doesn't give a shit about anything BESIDES profits. If the genre is not producing revenue then they will give up on it, simple as that. If Blizzard had some sentimental attachment to RTS titles they wouldn't have failed so comically with SC2 and HotS and then withdrawn virtually all support. Blizzard knows they fucked up hard with SC2, they know they fucked up hard with Diablo 3 and they know that they missed the boat on the MOBA front. They are funneling resources into their next MMO, a genre where they still have some legitimacy. If they ever return to making RTS games it won't be for a very long time. Also about SC2 being "broken", I don't want to derail the thread but there have been tons of good posts about the topic. Check out the recent "Welcome to ZPCraft II" thread as it contains a massive amount of information and does a better job at explaining than I ever could. Obviously everyone's definition of "broken" can be different but just look at the harsh decline SC2 has experienced since it's inception and ask yourself if the game is really in good shape...
A lot wrong here. SC2 and D3 were both enormously successful, selling millions of copies worldwide. Last I remember hearing about it SC2:WOL had sold over 6 million copies and D3 over 12 million. So I'm not sure from a business point of view how either of those could be considered fuck ups. I'm also not sure why you think Blizzard has withdrawn all support. Last I checked, Blizzard still releases patches for SC2, funds the WCS tournament system, and is currently developing an expansion pack which is essentially guaranteed to sell 2-3 million copies. SC2 has lost a large percentage of the playerbase it had at launch, but this is to be expected. Most people don't play one game, forever. There is no reason to believe a theoretical SC3 wouldn't have an enormously successful launch.
Coming late to the party does not mean Blizzard missed the boat on the MOBA front. They were late to the party with MMO's as well (remember Everquest? Me neither).
On the subject of branding, which is directly related to revenue: Brands have value. They help consumers create positive associations with a company which in turn drives sales. There's a reason GM maintains the Cadillac brand despite it being responsible for far less revenue than Chevy or Buick. You can think of Starcraft as the Cadillac of Blizzard-Activision, if that makes it easier for you.
On being broken or not, which I won't get into detail here, except to point out that these balance issues are really only evident at the Korean GM level. For 99%+ of the player base the game works as intended. If your, for instance, quit the game because you kept losing to Protoss that wouldn't be evidence of the game being broken. A player on the micro scale shouldn't expect 50-50 in all their matchups. On a macro scale things work fine.
|
On July 15 2014 01:38 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2014 01:12 SupLilSon wrote:
The time for the RTS genre to make a comeback was 2-3 years ago when SC2's popularity was surging and spearheading the E-Sports community. MOBA's, digital card games, FPS, and fighting games all surpass SC2 in Esports popularity now and thus there's going to be very little incentive for developers to work on RTS titles unless it's a passion project.
Let's face it, Blizzard had ample chances to rejuvenate the RTS genre but they seem to have other plans that don't involve SC2. Some people will look to LotV as a savior, but in the end it'll just introduce a few poorly designed units, a cookie cutter campaign, and absolutely nothing to fix the game.
Blizzard has largely given up on SC2... they are already developing their next titles (a MOBA and most likely a MMO) and I don't expect them to return to the RTS genre for a long while... if ever. ...I would even go so far as to say they'll support the genre even if it loses them money... The shareholders beg to differ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
