|
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 14 2014 14:06 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 13:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 13:42 Parcelleus wrote:
Waiting for the true successor to Warhammer 40,000: Soulstorm.
Sc2 is not too complicated at all.
You're mis-stating it. SC2 is not "actually" complicated, but RTS as a genre is highly difficult to grok due to its presentation. BW had no trouble in Korea. We need to challenge the idea that RTS as a genre is not very audience-friendly and difficult to present. I remember the flak Husky got in the community for not being "knowledgable" enough - and yet he's the only SC2 caster who received a compliment from a family member of mine and who knows nothing about gaming. SC2 e-sports won't grow if it keeps catering to a misanthropic and socially-awkward minority.
I love BW myself, but there's also a reason it only really took off in SK and did not become as global as WC3
|
On May 14 2014 14:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 14:06 plogamer wrote:On May 14 2014 13:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 13:42 Parcelleus wrote:
Waiting for the true successor to Warhammer 40,000: Soulstorm.
Sc2 is not too complicated at all.
You're mis-stating it. SC2 is not "actually" complicated, but RTS as a genre is highly difficult to grok due to its presentation. BW had no trouble in Korea. We need to challenge the idea that RTS as a genre is not very audience-friendly and difficult to present. I remember the flak Husky got in the community for not being "knowledgable" enough - and yet he's the only SC2 caster who received a compliment from a family member of mine and who knows nothing about gaming. SC2 e-sports won't grow if it keeps catering to a misanthropic and socially-awkward minority. I love BW myself, but there's also a reason it only really took off in SK and did not become as global as WC3
WC3 did better than BW globally is because of its two expos and WoW. Many people wanted to check out what's the fuzz about in the original WarCraft story and that the game "refreshed" itself with release of more expansion. Another factor is also because of its 'shinier' graphics.
|
I actually began construction of a custom mod in an attempt to fuse SC2 with heroes just to see what happened. (Although, I haven't worked on it since reaper of souls and Hearthstone hijacked all of my free time).
The idea was essentially to preserve more or less every aspect of SC2's RTS elements, but you would have the option to devote your resources into a revivable, persistent, upgradeable 'hero' unit.
- There would be a hero selector 'alter' that you build, like in Warcraft 3 where you train and revive heroes
- no creep camps
- no 'experience points' (and obviously no last hitting)
- no items (at least in this first iteration of the game)
- your Hero(es) can gain in power and acquire their skills only by spending scaling amounts of minerals or gas
- you could gain additional resources at certain points of contention on the map (eg. a vespene fountain) that you'd have to hold like a xelnaga tower for X seconds; or destroy, like the lemons on GSTL Fruitland
What I somewhat disliked about WC3 was that everything is predicated on the strength of your hero and its items. When everything runs through faction-locked heroes, it creates certain problems (not to mention imbalances) when it comes to viable and meaningful choices.
The opposing hero/faction that can most efficiently and quickly gain hero strength / strong items in many ways gains an incomparable strategic edge because there are no alternate paths to victory other than trying to win the leveling 'race' - it's hero leveling or bust. And to make it worse, the faction with the stronger hero can maintain the stronger army and be the first to take and secure an economic edge. Rather than pick one over the other, the hero-leveling route 'unlocks' all the other routes, so to speak.
But by re-routing hero strength through the economy in this mod, it preserves the 'tactical wheel' (or strategic depth if you want to call it that) that you find in SC2 while adding in a flashy 'super unit' that - unlike the WoL mothership - could actually influence battles in interesting ways while also adding more 'strategic choice' about where to allocate resources.
That said, I couldn't figure out a good hotkey setup to manage 3 heroes, locations, my base, spellcasters, dropships and army units during my tests. It was as hard. It felt cool though.
|
Also in order to attract players, you need to have EXTREMELY well designed, high micro potential units that emerges the players completely into the atmosphere' ambiance.
MOBA have done this well with their unique units. You need to have the factor of getting players hyped up w/ thoughts of "Omg I can do X, Y, and Z with A, B, and C! This will totally kick ass."
Every single units needs to have enough room for micro that each players can diverge from each other. One player might do X w/ this unit, another player might use a completely different style w/ the same unit.
THAT will captivate fan's attention by not making one dimensional unit that can only be used for one purpose-only but it can be utilized in conjunction of other factors and be multipurpose.
And also the game company need to capitalize on micro transaction b/w skins and building design. And there need to have a map design "store" in order for player to sell their own custom map for cash. There can also be different spell model. For example having different color of Psionic Storms, different visual for Fungal Growth. This can spark community movement across the board with people designing stuff all over the place and the company can make a profit from the transaction.
Why Blizzard isn't doing ANY of the above ideas and concepts listed is our very own Bermuda enigma.
|
On May 14 2014 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Players who jump into an RTS they focus purely whats on the screen in front of them. The battle, the base building, etc...
However, people who LOVE playing RTS games play with the minimap in mind moreso than the screen in front of them.
To take RTS games to the next level, we need to bridge that gap between those two groups.
I'd approach this not as a gameplay problem but rather the way the information is presented. The minimap is not necessarily exciting to look at but as an RTS lover, I love the minimap. I don't know how to bridge the gap as a player because to succeed in such games you need to be apt dealing with both what's on your screen and what's on your minimap (even in LoL this is the case).
I wonder if there are any "observer UI" minimaps (maybe "megamaps") where the units are not just small-medium-large sized colored blocks, but more representative of what the units themselves are. That way, viewers can get an idea of what the big picture is more easily. A compromise might be to allow zooming even further out than what we have now?
Kind of rambling on here but... another thing, unit composition identifier? Like if I'm an observer/caster, and I box a bunch of units, could the UI just tell me what I selected in terms of grouping? Instead of having to count everything manually? Or perhaps define a certain range on the minimap and tell me what units for each side are in that range?
For some reason I'm reminded of History Channel war/battle documentaries, niche indeed
I don't really know how this kind of stuff works without giant screens though. Like it's fine to watch "2 TVs in 1" on a 48" (in this case, the "main action" on 1 view and side-by-side to that the "megamap") but on a 13.3" laptop monitor?
Some other musings. In a romantic sense, a hero is always something for an audience to attach themselves too. In this case I am reminded of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, where we have giant armies clashing but there is so much attention focused on "the leaders" - often people that rise from the ranks of the regular armies. This would be the equivalent of a marine killing like 50 units and then giving some temporary localized boost to nearby units lol not advocating this at all.
The flipside to the "hero" approach (i.e. how SC2 is currently setup) - is probably more realistic though - in big battles, the individual soldier is rarely interesting, but it is instead the sum of the parts that makes something turn the tide.
|
On May 14 2014 06:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
The future of RTS is some kind of MMMORTS, with you joining thousands of other wannabe generals in waging war in some large-scale sector-wide conflict, ideally in space.
Are you an accountant at heart, why not put your skills to work in sorting out supply chains for your faction and deploying forces? A micro fiend? Well you get deployed in charge of elite squadrons for crucial small-scale missions etc.
Would be a motherfucker to do, but would be so sick let's be honest
Why not bring everyone together and make it a MMORTSBA, so hero lovers can join the fun and control a single hero amongst player controlled units. Hell, let them play from top down, 3rd or first person perspective and maybe we could bring FPS and RPG players in too.
Soon we will have everyone together playing the One True Game!
I actually think it would be awesome, but like you said it would be a motherfucker to do.
|
I disagree with a lot of what was said in OP. The "boring" part of an RTS is building stuff? Builds are an integral part of RTS strategy. "Too complicated" for casual gamers is also silly, it's actually the depth of the RTS genre that makes it so good to watch and play. Anyone who isn't GM-pro is basically a casual, with the number of viewers you get for WCS for example, it's obvious that casuals are easily able to get into RTS.
Any casual who doesn't play LoL for example won't understand shit of what's going on in the game. I watch Dota sometimes and I have no idea what I'm looking at.
The RTS as a genre is fine. The reason it isn't as "popular" is because there hasn't been any developer that's made a good RTS since SC2. I'm talking good like Brood War, AoC, Age of Empires 3, Age of Mythology/Titans, Dawn of War, Starcraft 2. There are probably other good RTS but these are the ones I'm sure of, as they had a solid community behind them (which is pretty much the sign of a well-made RTS).
Has any RTS even been released after SC2? Off the top of my head, I can only think of Age of Empires Online. The reason AoeO completely sucked are the following reasons:
+ Show Spoiler +- The art was shit. It's a cringe-worthy that they even thought that they could make a game called "Age of Empires" with this kind of art.
- The game's core was nothing more than a simplified version of AoC, with snare which is horrible. Snare is when any unit hit by a melee unit has its movement speed reduced. It's bad design, imo.
- Ridiculously stupid grinding is required to play competitively. You have to complete "quests" to unlock "gear" which is stuff you add on to your units to increase their stats. I'm talking real fucking grinding, you can't do PvP to unlock this bullcrap.
- You basically paid for a civ. Imagine that SC2 is "free to play" but zerg, protoss and terran cost €30 each for the full tech-tree. I'm not lying, the €18 I spent buying a greek civilization in AoeO is the biggest fucking money I've ever wasted in my life. I'm still pissed about how RE basically used the "Age of Empires" name to nick some cash from the people who loved the game in the past.
All in all, the only saving grace for RE is that they at very least maintain ESO for AoE3.
The thing with RTS is that it can be played two ways really. I think that's what game developers have lost sight of.
When I played Aoe3 offline when I was ... what, 12? 13 years old? I wasn't playing the game competitively. Yet I still had SO MUCH FUN. It was absurd that I could just 1v1 vs the AI (medium level, no higher) and have SO MUCH FUN. That's because I treated Aoe3 like a sandbox where I could build my buildings and have a powerful army. I only had 31 villagers total because I wanted to have the biggest possible army. 31 seemed like a good compromise (in reality you want 99, lul), 10 for each resource and 1 was a builder. When I didn't have anything to build, I would just let him relax and remain idle. That's when I would play defensively with some units, build huge walls, building a huge town, get massive upgrades and eventually prepare myself for a game ending push where I would crush the AI. AND THAT WAS SO FUCKING FUN to my 12 year old self. The incredible diversity of units that Aoe3 had as well as the graphics (which are still good today) made Aoe3 a great game for me.
The second way to play an RTS is competitively. I went online when I finally got an internet connection and I got CRUSHED by some guy who just made x amount of units and just sent them to my base. I just lost and it was like .. "wow holy shit I need to step up my game" and I started doing research and shit and realized what RTS actually was. This was so interesting to me because the idea of building an economy, raising an army and then fighting with that army was just such a novelty to me.
Game developers today look at the RTS either only on the competitive aspect (SC2 for example) or only on the casual aspect (age of empires online, the total war series). I really think that a good RTS is one that can cater to both ends of the spectrum and pretty much all the titles I mentioned at the top of this post do that. SC2 less so in terms of the casual aspect (I don't give a shit about campaign or team games and most people don't play SC2 for "fun" they just like winning)
|
The future of RTS:
Supreme Commander Forged Alliance
Good stuff:
- Epic battles
- Big variety of units
- Strategic variety and depth
- A community that continues to grow without any official support
- A variety of mods and game modes
Bad stuff:
- Too complicated for almost everyone, beating the campaign is not playing the game
- Need an overclocked Sandy to play it smoothly
- Hidden behind Supcom 2 and Supcom Vanilla and an army of RTS experts who have no idea what it is, but still open their mouth
- The game is played mostly by Europeans(bad if you are not in Europe)
- The version you get on Steam is buggy and unbalanced
If you find yourself asking the question, "What happened to RTS?" and don't know about FAF,
then you are likely to miss the next great RTS unless it is crammed down your throat with commercials
and that is unlikely to happen.
|
On May 14 2014 14:44 Incognoto wrote:
SC2 less so in terms of the casual aspect (I don't give a shit about campaign or team games and most people don't play SC2 for "fun" they just like winning)
Speak for yourself!
I don't have complete numbers but everytime I log into SC2 it tells me at the top right corner how many players are on Bnet. It's saying 1.5 million right now (seems crazy high), not even 20% of that population has completed a ladder placement match this season (source: nios.kr)
If that million number accounts for all Bnet games, well I can't really argue too much without data. It would be nice to have numbers for the Arcade. I just think you are understating the importance of the campaign and non-Melee "fun" to SC2 players. Maybe because I spend time playing in the Arcade and I see a huge majority of people are not in ladder...
|
On May 14 2014 14:43 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 06:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
The future of RTS is some kind of MMMORTS, with you joining thousands of other wannabe generals in waging war in some large-scale sector-wide conflict, ideally in space.
Are you an accountant at heart, why not put your skills to work in sorting out supply chains for your faction and deploying forces? A micro fiend? Well you get deployed in charge of elite squadrons for crucial small-scale missions etc.
Would be a motherfucker to do, but would be so sick let's be honest Why not bring everyone together and make it a MMORTSBA, so hero lovers can join the fun and control a single hero amongst player controlled units. Hell, let them play from top down, 3rd or first person perspective and maybe we could bring FPS and RPG players in too. Soon we will have everyone together playing the One True Game! I actually think it would be awesome, but like you said it would be a motherfucker to do.
only if combat requires street fighter controls on a 1v1 scale.
|
I think the rising popularity of MOBAs is largely because they are free to play
|
On May 14 2014 15:02 frajen86 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 14:44 Incognoto wrote:
SC2 less so in terms of the casual aspect (I don't give a shit about campaign or team games and most people don't play SC2 for "fun" they just like winning) Speak for yourself! I don't have complete numbers but everytime I log into SC2 it tells me at the top right corner how many players are on Bnet. It's saying 1.5 million right now (seems crazy high), not even 20% of that population has completed a ladder placement match this year (source: nios.kr) I can't really argue too much. It would be nice to have numbers for the Arcade. I just think you are understating the importance of the campaign to SC2 players.
Well that was just my view of things, obviously skewed since I'm only a single person. I've never given anything other than 1v1 the slightest afterthought in SC2, whereas in Aoe3's prime it was easy to get 8 player obs games going or 5 player FFAs going and have loads of fun. This is due to the fact that you're able to play any Civ in Aoe3 not too badly given that they're all similar in their core design (they play very differently in reality obviously), so there are LOTS of different fun match ups to choose from and there's no such thing as a "France" player or a "Brits" player. Generally speaking any player can play any civ, with different levels of comfort.
In SC2 if you want to play custom obs games, well, most players limit themselves to one race and there are only 6 different match ups in the game. So if I'm a zerg player it's like.. well I'm only going to be playing at most 3 different match ups. I might also watch TvP which I don't really care about since I'm a zerg player. In Aoe3 you could glean anything from a game regardless of the match up.
Before someone tells me that Aoe3 is stale because the match-ups resemble each other, allow me to debunk that. Every civ followed had the same "core" design but the viable strategies that every civ had could be quite different. Very different. Rushing was viable (dual rax, any rush from civs like Iro or Otto), emphasis on low tech, high economy play was viable (colonial brits excelled at this, as did Russia), emphasis on high tech, low economy was also viable (france, china, dutch, etc). Some civs could do all three well (France, Germany), some civs could do one style really well (brits had an absurd early game boom, coupled with archaic units that were actually very good). Since there were 14 civs total, you had a very diverse game which was actually very balanced with a community made "fan-patch". It's really amazing to think about it, even now.
E: see that diversity meant that it was just as fun getting together around an obs game as it was to ladder. two guys would play, the rest of us would watch the game, talk about it in chat, discuss it, or dick around. that was so fun, I think it's the epitome of what I consider fun playing a game online. sc2 just doesn't have that.
E2: Just to be clear, I'm not saying SC2 is bad, far from it. I really like SC2 and where it's going right now. i'm just trying to explain why aoe3 is so dear to me and why I would murder someone to have a game dev make an RTS game that could get me the same 8 player obs sessions that I had back then
|
On May 14 2014 14:56 BurnedRice wrote:
The future of RTS:
Supreme Commander Forged Alliance
Good stuff:
- Epic battles
- Big variety of units
- Strategic variety and depth
- A community that continues to grow without any official support
- A variety of mods and game modes
Bad stuff:
- Too complicated for almost everyone, beating the campaign is not playing the game
- Need an overclocked Sandy to play it smoothly
- Hidden behind Supcom 2 and Supcom Vanilla and an army of RTS experts who have no idea what it is, but still open their mouth
- The game is played mostly by Europeans(bad if you are not in Europe)
- The version you get on Steam is buggy and unbalanced
If you find yourself asking the question, "What happened to RTS?" and don't know about FAF,
then you are likely to miss the next great RTS unless it is crammed down your throat with commercials
and that is unlikely to happen.
SupCom is amazing strategically. It has some amazing back and forth action all over the map. The Core of the game is just very good.
But there are a few points that kill the fun for me:
- the fully-zoomed out perspective being "way to strong", so you keep on playing like that and never actually see more than some moving dots
- ultralong turtle games that end with silly strong things like nukes or that infinite resource generator
- the techtree is not very well thought through, most units become redundant and the races hardly differ
and most importantly:
- sluggish units... micro is hardly existant to begin with, but I could be fine with that. But I expect an army to turn around when I give the order to. Not to die in enemy fire turning and bugging into each other for 10seconds.
|
On May 14 2014 14:02 guitarizt wrote:
I'm worried about this now, too. I was bored and googled top rts games on google the other day. I already played all of them and they're old now. MOBAs have super taken over. There was a blog post on here a week ago saying the same thing. I've only ever played rts's and it's too bad they're on life support now.
It takes too long to get a game going on voobly and probably gameranger and steam for AoK and AoE HD. I hate the HotS units and stopped playing WoL when HotS beta came out. I would rather play bw on iccup than HotS. It's just a better and more fun game. I think a ton of other people lost interest in SC2 when HotS came out. It's too bad because WoL during beta phase I was the most fun game I've played and it's not even close.
I agree that WoL was a better game, fora short period of time just before Queen Buff.
Downward spiral started with Queen Buff and I think to this day game didn't recover.
|
On May 14 2014 05:08 -HuShang- wrote:
I HATE heroes. That's all i'm going to say
Edit: Actually, everything you said that was bad about starcraft I disagree with. The complexity of starcraft is what makes it beautiful. Too complicated for casuals? It's only as complicated as you make it. My little brother plays starcraft, he's 8. He just makes units and fights with them and has lots of fun. What's complicated about that?
thats pretty much how i see it too, even people over 70 that i explaind this game understand it, its not that complicated ... some people just seems to want it "stupid".
also i have to disagree with the "boring" stuff you say about sc ... sry but huh ? repetitive ? if it would so, everyone would have the same good macro which isnt the case
heroes are horrible, destroy the "micro/macro" gamedepth and overall makes this game more "wc3" likely which means more luck and less multitask, jaeh perhaps more micro but ... compared to sc2, wc3 looks so boring nowadays ...
heroes just not fit in rts games and should stay out.
my MAIN problem is that in EVERY genre people and also reviewers etc talk about "lack of new stuff in this part" etc etc and then complain that this game was better in former realises .... jaeh if you add shitt to a game just to add "new stuff" its bad ... its like people now complain there is nothing new in need for speed ... what u guys expect from a racer ? spaceships ?
edit: also i cant understand anyone compare sc to mobas or wanna combine them ...
sc is for players and viewers liking multitask and alot of action with alot of units and mobas are for people liking stuff hapening with ONE guy but lets say in a team ... its really like comparing comparing football with team tennis ... and totaly different people like mobas and starcraft , also some like both but thats like in sport ... no one wanna play a mix of tennis and football just to make tennis more popular huh ? ...
|
On May 14 2014 14:35 Xiphos wrote:
Also in order to attract players, you need to have EXTREMELY well designed, high micro potential units that emerges the players completely into the atmosphere' ambiance.
MOBA have done this well with their unique units. You need to have the factor of getting players hyped up w/ thoughts of "Omg I can do X, Y, and Z with A, B, and C! This will totally kick ass."
Every single units needs to have enough room for micro that each players can diverge from each other. One player might do X w/ this unit, another player might use a completely different style w/ the same unit.
THAT will captivate fan's attention by not making one dimensional unit that can only be used for one purpose-only but it can be utilized in conjunction of other factors and be multipurpose.
I don't think so.
That's maybe the case for Dota-clones but not so much for RTSs. I'd say that lot's of RTS players really like their one-dimensial, simple tank-units (aka roach) because you already have to do and think of lot's of stuff anyway and they're happy for a unit that kinda works on itself. E.g: the majority of SC2 players won't bother microing with burrowed roaches, but they'll happily build a lot of roaches anyway because it's a good allround unit.
It doesn't even has to take away from the viewer experience. In WC3, I love watching pro players microing their grunts to the extreme. You don't see this that much in SC2 'though because units die really fast. Maybe the players even micro, but it's often hard for the casual viewer to recognize it.
|
On May 14 2014 15:13 Incognoto wrote:
E: see that diversity meant that it was just as fun getting together around an obs game as it was to ladder. two guys would play, the rest of us would watch the game, talk about it in chat, discuss it, or dick around. that was so fun, I think it's the epitome of what I consider fun playing a game online. sc2 just doesn't have that.
"1v1 Obs HotS" in the Arcade. Even if you don't care about the matchup there's something to learn because the observer chat usually is lively (at least when I'm in there). You can even do FFA/2v2's with the right maps. Plus... betting, and cute aesthetic rewards for guessing right/winning games.
On May 14 2014 15:13 Incognoto wrote:
E2: Just to be clear, I'm not saying SC2 is bad, far from it. I really like SC2 and where it's going right now. i'm just trying to explain why aoe3 is so dear to me and why I would murder someone to have a game dev make an RTS game that could get me the same 8 player obs sessions that I had back then
lol truth comes out : )
|
On May 14 2014 15:15 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 14:56 BurnedRice wrote:
The future of RTS:
Supreme Commander Forged Alliance
Good stuff:
- Epic battles
- Big variety of units
- Strategic variety and depth
- A community that continues to grow without any official support
- A variety of mods and game modes
Bad stuff:
- Too complicated for almost everyone, beating the campaign is not playing the game
- Need an overclocked Sandy to play it smoothly
- Hidden behind Supcom 2 and Supcom Vanilla and an army of RTS experts who have no idea what it is, but still open their mouth
- The game is played mostly by Europeans(bad if you are not in Europe)
- The version you get on Steam is buggy and unbalanced
If you find yourself asking the question, "What happened to RTS?" and don't know about FAF,
then you are likely to miss the next great RTS unless it is crammed down your throat with commercials
and that is unlikely to happen.
SupCom is amazing strategically. It has some amazing back and forth action all over the map. The Core of the game is just very good. But there are a few points that kill the fun for me: - the fully-zoomed out perspective being "way to strong", so you keep on playing like that and never actually see more than some moving dots - ultralong turtle games that end with silly strong things like nukes or that infinite resource generator - the techtree is not very well thought through, most units become redundant and the races hardly differ and most importantly: - sluggish units... micro is hardly existant to begin with, but I could be fine with that. But I expect an army to turn around when I give the order to. Not to die in enemy fire turning and bugging into each other for 10seconds.
1. If you always play zoomed out you miss out on the micro.
2. Most ladder games end in under 20 minutes. Infinite resource generator is extremely rare in multiplayer games. 4v4 games on Seton's Clutch last 20 to 40 minutes usually. The myth of "ultralong turtle games" comes from players who played the campaign and enjoyed base building a bit too much.(nothing wrong with that, but that simply doesn't work online)
3. Techtree? The assortment of units has been very well balanced through the different tech stages by the FAF team, the balance that you get in the Steam version is quite bad with many units being useless in competitive games.
The races are very different if you attempt to micro. It is not possible for one to judge the difference between the races unless one has begun to understand the game. Unfortunately it is possible to beat the campaign by making a turtle, making a blob of units and then giving a move order toward the enemy, under such conditions the races are infact redundant.
4. Some units are sluggish some units are fast, you have to know your units in order to effectively micro them. Micro in this game is as important as macro. Also units have a delayed response if you have 1000 of them and a bad PC. If you want to play it smoothly you need a high end CPU.
|
I know tons of people that would love to play RTS games. Why don't they play Starcraft?
some comments:
"Is 4gate still a thing?"
"well, everyone is just rushing. And maybe you are right that you can defend it when you play enough, but I have paid for a full game and I want to be able to play all the units when I want to."
"too many kids with too much time playing this"
"I wish there was a crossover of SC2 and Desert Strike. So my units play somewhat optimally without me babysitting them."
"too freaky; you have to be way too fast to have any chance at it"
"it got boring after some time. They need more units."
"laddering is too stressful"
Imo that shows, that SC2 just doesn't cater to the average gamer.
In a blow to stereotype fans everywhere, a study of 2,000 gamers has shown that rather than being a 12-year-old male shut-in the average gamer is actually 35 years old with a job, a family and a habit of taking four weeks to finish a title.
Most people just want to go online, start a game, shoot some stuff and go to bed. They do not want to stress themselves out with a game, and unless RTS starts going somewhat into that direction, it is going to stay a footnote in the mind of most people. MOBAs managed that to a huge extend. I'm pretty sure games like Hearthstone manage that. RTS is currently way to mechanically demanding in crucial tasks (the "build your base as quickly as possible and spend all your resources all the time") to manage that.
|
On May 14 2014 15:22 frajen86 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 15:13 Incognoto wrote:
E: see that diversity meant that it was just as fun getting together around an obs game as it was to ladder. two guys would play, the rest of us would watch the game, talk about it in chat, discuss it, or dick around. that was so fun, I think it's the epitome of what I consider fun playing a game online. sc2 just doesn't have that. "1v1 Obs HotS" in the Arcade. Even if you don't care about the matchup there's something to learn because the observer chat usually is lively (at least when I'm in there). You can even do FFA/2v2's with the right maps. Plus... betting, and cute aesthetic rewards for guessing right/winning games. Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 15:13 Incognoto wrote:
E2: Just to be clear, I'm not saying SC2 is bad, far from it. I really like SC2 and where it's going right now. i'm just trying to explain why aoe3 is so dear to me and why I would murder someone to have a game dev make an RTS game that could get me the same 8 player obs sessions that I had back then lol truth comes out : )
I understand what you're getting at but the reason obs isn't as fun in SC2 as it was in Aoe3 is largely due to game design, not the community. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
