|
On January 23 2016 00:41 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:On January 22 2016 23:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 16:51 papaz wrote:
SC2 e-sports growth or lack of is such a disappointment. I remembered the hype when the game got relesed and GSL announced. We had Fruitdealer, Artosis and Tasteless casting (Artosis even playing).
The feeling when waiting for GSL to come on air with the k-pop. Those were the days.
And here I thought that was only the beginning, from there it would only get bigger.
And look at the scene today.
I'm not sure what goes on in Blizz headquarters. If there are in it for the really long run so that when SC3 gets released in 15-20 years the foreign scene will be on par with Korea. the RTS genre is not worth their valuable time. Morhaime, Pearce, et al are too talented to waste their time on a group of people that spends no money. the entire genre is going down. there is nothing BLizzard can do about it. in fact, there is nothing ATVI and EA and Microsoft combined can do about it. its over. consumer tastes changed. Same thing happened with the dot-eating maze game genre. Games like LadyBug and MsPacman were far better than Pacman and it didn't matter. Everyone quit playing because consumer tastes changed. Nothing ever came close to making the cash Pacman did. And, really Pacman is not that great a game and it made 7 billion, but it hit consumers at just the right time. Game Quality is not the final word on the financial success of a game.. and without financial success the entire AAA business model goes away It is interesting watching the genre's #1 heavyweight attempt to deal with shifting consumer tastes. EA and Microsoft have already given up. Blizzard is by far the best company at making RTS games and the abuse they take from their "fans" is hilarious. The threats to David Kim. The insults. These people should fire up a copy of Grey Goo or Act of Aggression. Or maybe play the new F2P online-only Command and Conquer game made by Victory Studios. Or play some Age of Empires Online. Then they'll see how good Blizzard really is.
The quality of SC2's game play is irrelevant. Consumers are bored with RTS games. Microsoft has shifted its focus on the Xbox. EA is a shit company. And they don't seem to be interested in eSports. Grey Goo and AoA were projects that wanted to be shit. Their design-philosphy was "we want to make a game without taking any lessons from other games, in particular we want it to be as far as possible from the successful multiplayer games out there." And hey look, the games were shit. Mission accomplished I guess. (the fact that they didn't have money for good development to begin with didn't help either) Moving on, LotV sold a million copies in 24 hours (not including presales). People out there are eager for RTS games. They just don't want to play a multiplayer that has nothing to do with the way they envision to play strategy games. When most of the players from other successful esports genre's tell you that your game is too hard to be fun - players that have the passion and endurance to become total freaks in their respective games - then everything has been said. From 2010: http://www.pcgamer.com/5-lessons-starcraft-2-could-learn-from-supcom-2/Imagine if you just had to set your Barracks to producing marines as fast as it could for as long as you had the money - you could take your eyes off of the Barracks and actually take care of that second expansion, finance your end-game push. Sure, some people could do that in their sleep, but some people choose StarCraft over sleep. What about the rest of us?That last sentence tells you exactly where SC2 went wrong. The 95%, the rest of us, that would love to build armies and bases and let them fight, but don't want to micromanage every single little shit in the game so that it just does what you envision it to do. What you need is a big company to produce such a game. Not a shitty half-year development CnC from EA with no support, not a shitty game that tries to recreate 90s-feelings and not an elite game whose expansions cater to making too hard things even harder. Starcraft 2 is the only successful RTS game in recent years and that is with a long history, a big existing player base and the Blizzard brand and advertisement behind it. There is absolutly nothing out there indicating that people want RTS games, the only thing that is proven by the information you provided was that people wanted a new Starcraft expansion. Thats the only thing the data you present show, When I'm in the mood to play a RTS I'm enjoying every second I spend with Starcraft 2, but it is not often I find myself in that mood this days and that has nothing to do with the game itself. I would argue that the skill needed to do well in Starcraft was it's biggest strenght and not, like you are implying, it's biggest weakness. The main reason I played Starcraft as much as I did at a point in my life and the main reason I still come back to it is because it is so damn hard. There are so many small thing you can improve and work on which I enjoy, you can really go deep and when you execute it well it feels so damn rewarding, and you know that there is not many other out there who could do what you just did. Like Bloodborn I enjoyed it because it was hard, not despite it.
Strategy games without a focus on the mechanic aspect from mobile games to Civilization 5 (sold as much as Wings of Liberty!) are hugely popular.
Age of Empires 2 has gotten support and expansions in 2015, because the game is still rolling fueled by the insane RTS-game vacuum that is going on at the moment.
Desert Strike and Nexus Wars, two RTS-esque games that plainly take the mechanical skill out of SC2 probably surpass regular SC2 in popularity.
DotA, a game that took WC3 and removed the macro parts of it and just focused on the one thing everybody loved about the muliplayer, the unit combats with the hero focus, eventually surpassed WC3 in popularity.
In general the notion that RTS games need to be hard so that people love them goes against everything we know about games. Games aren't fun because they are hard. If a game is worth being an esport it's going to be hard because the competition makes it hard anyways. Even fucking hearthstone is an esport.
|
On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 23:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 16:51 papaz wrote:
SC2 e-sports growth or lack of is such a disappointment. I remembered the hype when the game got relesed and GSL announced. We had Fruitdealer, Artosis and Tasteless casting (Artosis even playing).
The feeling when waiting for GSL to come on air with the k-pop. Those were the days.
And here I thought that was only the beginning, from there it would only get bigger.
And look at the scene today.
I'm not sure what goes on in Blizz headquarters. If there are in it for the really long run so that when SC3 gets released in 15-20 years the foreign scene will be on par with Korea. the RTS genre is not worth their valuable time. Morhaime, Pearce, et al are too talented to waste their time on a group of people that spends no money. the entire genre is going down. there is nothing BLizzard can do about it. in fact, there is nothing ATVI and EA and Microsoft combined can do about it. its over. consumer tastes changed. Same thing happened with the dot-eating maze game genre. Games like LadyBug and MsPacman were far better than Pacman and it didn't matter. Everyone quit playing because consumer tastes changed. Nothing ever came close to making the cash Pacman did. And, really Pacman is not that great a game and it made 7 billion, but it hit consumers at just the right time. Game Quality is not the final word on the financial success of a game.. and without financial success the entire AAA business model goes away It is interesting watching the genre's #1 heavyweight attempt to deal with shifting consumer tastes. EA and Microsoft have already given up. Blizzard is by far the best company at making RTS games and the abuse they take from their "fans" is hilarious. The threats to David Kim. The insults. These people should fire up a copy of Grey Goo or Act of Aggression. Or maybe play the new F2P online-only Command and Conquer game made by Victory Studios. Or play some Age of Empires Online. Then they'll see how good Blizzard really is.
The quality of SC2's game play is irrelevant. Consumers are bored with RTS games. Microsoft has shifted its focus on the Xbox. EA is a shit company. And they don't seem to be interested in eSports. Grey Goo and AoA were projects that wanted to be shit. Their design-philosphy was "we want to make a game without taking any lessons from other games, in particular we want it to be as far as possible from the successful multiplayer games out there." And hey look, the games were shit. Mission accomplished I guess. (the fact that they didn't have money for good development to begin with didn't help either) Moving on, LotV sold a million copies in 24 hours (not including presales). People out there are eager for RTS games. They just don't want to play a multiplayer that has nothing to do with the way they envision to play strategy games. When most of the players from other successful esports genre's tell you that your game is too hard to be fun - players that have the passion and endurance to become total freaks in their respective games - then everything has been said. From 2010: http://www.pcgamer.com/5-lessons-starcraft-2-could-learn-from-supcom-2/Imagine if you just had to set your Barracks to producing marines as fast as it could for as long as you had the money - you could take your eyes off of the Barracks and actually take care of that second expansion, finance your end-game push. Sure, some people could do that in their sleep, but some people choose StarCraft over sleep. What about the rest of us?That last sentence tells you exactly where SC2 went wrong. The 95%, the rest of us, that would love to build armies and bases and let them fight, but don't want to micromanage every single little shit in the game so that it just does what you envision it to do. What you need is a big company to produce such a game. Not a shitty half-year development CnC from EA with no support, not a shitty game that tries to recreate 90s-feelings and not an elite game whose expansions cater to making too hard things even harder.
I agree with some of your points. The indie scene regarding RTS has not been doing the genre justice and also Blizz has in some regards done a fairly bad job in continued development of Sc2. I am not saying Sc2 should be up there with LoL or CS:GO in terms of popularity, but fuck man, it should doing better than what it has over the last three or so years.
As good as Blizz have been for the RTS genre in the past I really would like to see Valve try and develop an RTS. I just feel like they are a better right now for competitive games where as Blizz seem to be completely lop sided on casual pandering: WoW, Hearthstone, Heroes etc and Sc2 just doesn't really fit in with what they are about. Failing that it will be a wait for some indie developers to reinvigorate the genre.
|
On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:
Microsoft has shifted its focus on the Xbox.
MS shifts its focus towards long term profit. MS saw Ensemble's games were good but not making enough money. Ensemble was closed for money reasons. how is Age of Empires Online doing?
On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:
EA is a shit company.
Black and Morten are from EA.. lots of talent there.
EA makes a ton of revenue selling video games. EA is all about money. When they turn your back on your genre and stick with pumping out NHL games you know what few your genre's consumers spend ZERO cash. EA knows that the NHL series long term prospects are better than the RTS genre.
As a result, EA Canada exists... Victory Games does not exist. How many people do you know that bought NHL '16 ?
On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:
Grey Goo and AoA were projects that wanted to be shit.
they had a small budget because no one wants to invest in the genre because even Blizzard is making fuck-all from the genre.
On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:
Moving on, LotV sold a million copies in 24 hours (not including presales). People out there are eager for RTS games.
a million copies for a game that is not even full box price. with 30 missions countless new features. 1 million copies is not enough to support a AAA level game.
Sigaty announced nothing coming out of Blizz will compete in the SC2 space of at least 10 years. Blizzard has already abandoned the prospect of developing a new AAA level RTS game.
Everyone is gone. Blizzard, MS, and EA are all gone. you can point fingers at everyone else though but a 1 line explanation is all that is required. Consumers are bored with the RTS Genre.
People labelling the vast majority of RTS games coming out in the past 8 years as lousy is a symptom of the boredom. Developers are busy making fun games that make money and don't care about us. I do not blame them one bit.
|
On January 23 2016 00:56 KrOeastbound wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:On January 22 2016 23:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 16:51 papaz wrote:
SC2 e-sports growth or lack of is such a disappointment. I remembered the hype when the game got relesed and GSL announced. We had Fruitdealer, Artosis and Tasteless casting (Artosis even playing).
The feeling when waiting for GSL to come on air with the k-pop. Those were the days.
And here I thought that was only the beginning, from there it would only get bigger.
And look at the scene today.
I'm not sure what goes on in Blizz headquarters. If there are in it for the really long run so that when SC3 gets released in 15-20 years the foreign scene will be on par with Korea. the RTS genre is not worth their valuable time. Morhaime, Pearce, et al are too talented to waste their time on a group of people that spends no money. the entire genre is going down. there is nothing BLizzard can do about it. in fact, there is nothing ATVI and EA and Microsoft combined can do about it. its over. consumer tastes changed. Same thing happened with the dot-eating maze game genre. Games like LadyBug and MsPacman were far better than Pacman and it didn't matter. Everyone quit playing because consumer tastes changed. Nothing ever came close to making the cash Pacman did. And, really Pacman is not that great a game and it made 7 billion, but it hit consumers at just the right time. Game Quality is not the final word on the financial success of a game.. and without financial success the entire AAA business model goes away It is interesting watching the genre's #1 heavyweight attempt to deal with shifting consumer tastes. EA and Microsoft have already given up. Blizzard is by far the best company at making RTS games and the abuse they take from their "fans" is hilarious. The threats to David Kim. The insults. These people should fire up a copy of Grey Goo or Act of Aggression. Or maybe play the new F2P online-only Command and Conquer game made by Victory Studios. Or play some Age of Empires Online. Then they'll see how good Blizzard really is.
The quality of SC2's game play is irrelevant. Consumers are bored with RTS games. Microsoft has shifted its focus on the Xbox. EA is a shit company. And they don't seem to be interested in eSports. Grey Goo and AoA were projects that wanted to be shit. Their design-philosphy was "we want to make a game without taking any lessons from other games, in particular we want it to be as far as possible from the successful multiplayer games out there." And hey look, the games were shit. Mission accomplished I guess. (the fact that they didn't have money for good development to begin with didn't help either) Moving on, LotV sold a million copies in 24 hours (not including presales). People out there are eager for RTS games. They just don't want to play a multiplayer that has nothing to do with the way they envision to play strategy games. When most of the players from other successful esports genre's tell you that your game is too hard to be fun - players that have the passion and endurance to become total freaks in their respective games - then everything has been said. From 2010: http://www.pcgamer.com/5-lessons-starcraft-2-could-learn-from-supcom-2/Imagine if you just had to set your Barracks to producing marines as fast as it could for as long as you had the money - you could take your eyes off of the Barracks and actually take care of that second expansion, finance your end-game push. Sure, some people could do that in their sleep, but some people choose StarCraft over sleep. What about the rest of us?That last sentence tells you exactly where SC2 went wrong. The 95%, the rest of us, that would love to build armies and bases and let them fight, but don't want to micromanage every single little shit in the game so that it just does what you envision it to do. What you need is a big company to produce such a game. Not a shitty half-year development CnC from EA with no support, not a shitty game that tries to recreate 90s-feelings and not an elite game whose expansions cater to making too hard things even harder. I agree with some of your points. The indie scene regarding RTS has not been doing the genre justice and also Blizz has in some regards done a fairly bad job in continued development of Sc2. I am not saying Sc2 should be up there with LoL or CS:GO in terms of popularity, but fuck man, it should doing better than what it has over the last three or so years. As good as Blizz have been for the RTS genre in the past I really would like to see Valve try and develop an RTS. I just feel like they are a better right now for competitive games where as Blizz seem to be completely lop sided on casual pandering: WoW, Hearthstone, Heroes etc and Sc2 just doesn't really fit in with what they are about. Failing that it will be a wait for some indie developers to reinvigorate the genre.
As far as I know the problem with indie RTS games is that there is no engine you can develop it on. Blizzard is probably the only company that has an engine worth of a modern times RTS games and they are not giving it away.
|
On January 22 2016 14:59 sCCrooked wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who tries to act like a conversation-limiting post is in any way a true "cover-all" above this line is a certified inferior being
So far, the conversation has been discontinued, so it seems limiting the conversation is valid. After all, what are mod warnings for? 
|
On January 23 2016 01:05 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:56 KrOeastbound wrote:On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:On January 22 2016 23:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 16:51 papaz wrote:
SC2 e-sports growth or lack of is such a disappointment. I remembered the hype when the game got relesed and GSL announced. We had Fruitdealer, Artosis and Tasteless casting (Artosis even playing).
The feeling when waiting for GSL to come on air with the k-pop. Those were the days.
And here I thought that was only the beginning, from there it would only get bigger.
And look at the scene today.
I'm not sure what goes on in Blizz headquarters. If there are in it for the really long run so that when SC3 gets released in 15-20 years the foreign scene will be on par with Korea. the RTS genre is not worth their valuable time. Morhaime, Pearce, et al are too talented to waste their time on a group of people that spends no money. the entire genre is going down. there is nothing BLizzard can do about it. in fact, there is nothing ATVI and EA and Microsoft combined can do about it. its over. consumer tastes changed. Same thing happened with the dot-eating maze game genre. Games like LadyBug and MsPacman were far better than Pacman and it didn't matter. Everyone quit playing because consumer tastes changed. Nothing ever came close to making the cash Pacman did. And, really Pacman is not that great a game and it made 7 billion, but it hit consumers at just the right time. Game Quality is not the final word on the financial success of a game.. and without financial success the entire AAA business model goes away It is interesting watching the genre's #1 heavyweight attempt to deal with shifting consumer tastes. EA and Microsoft have already given up. Blizzard is by far the best company at making RTS games and the abuse they take from their "fans" is hilarious. The threats to David Kim. The insults. These people should fire up a copy of Grey Goo or Act of Aggression. Or maybe play the new F2P online-only Command and Conquer game made by Victory Studios. Or play some Age of Empires Online. Then they'll see how good Blizzard really is.
The quality of SC2's game play is irrelevant. Consumers are bored with RTS games. Microsoft has shifted its focus on the Xbox. EA is a shit company. And they don't seem to be interested in eSports. Grey Goo and AoA were projects that wanted to be shit. Their design-philosphy was "we want to make a game without taking any lessons from other games, in particular we want it to be as far as possible from the successful multiplayer games out there." And hey look, the games were shit. Mission accomplished I guess. (the fact that they didn't have money for good development to begin with didn't help either) Moving on, LotV sold a million copies in 24 hours (not including presales). People out there are eager for RTS games. They just don't want to play a multiplayer that has nothing to do with the way they envision to play strategy games. When most of the players from other successful esports genre's tell you that your game is too hard to be fun - players that have the passion and endurance to become total freaks in their respective games - then everything has been said. From 2010: http://www.pcgamer.com/5-lessons-starcraft-2-could-learn-from-supcom-2/Imagine if you just had to set your Barracks to producing marines as fast as it could for as long as you had the money - you could take your eyes off of the Barracks and actually take care of that second expansion, finance your end-game push. Sure, some people could do that in their sleep, but some people choose StarCraft over sleep. What about the rest of us?That last sentence tells you exactly where SC2 went wrong. The 95%, the rest of us, that would love to build armies and bases and let them fight, but don't want to micromanage every single little shit in the game so that it just does what you envision it to do. What you need is a big company to produce such a game. Not a shitty half-year development CnC from EA with no support, not a shitty game that tries to recreate 90s-feelings and not an elite game whose expansions cater to making too hard things even harder. I agree with some of your points. The indie scene regarding RTS has not been doing the genre justice and also Blizz has in some regards done a fairly bad job in continued development of Sc2. I am not saying Sc2 should be up there with LoL or CS:GO in terms of popularity, but fuck man, it should doing better than what it has over the last three or so years. As good as Blizz have been for the RTS genre in the past I really would like to see Valve try and develop an RTS. I just feel like they are a better right now for competitive games where as Blizz seem to be completely lop sided on casual pandering: WoW, Hearthstone, Heroes etc and Sc2 just doesn't really fit in with what they are about. Failing that it will be a wait for some indie developers to reinvigorate the genre. As far as I know the problem with indie RTS games is that there is no engine you can develop it on. Blizzard is probably the only company that has an engine worth of a modern times RTS games and they are not giving it away.
This is so not true. Any major engine could easily support a RTS, from their view and style of netcode they have very few technical requirements from an engine POV.
UE4 even comes with some sample projects that are very similar to RTS,and both UE4 and Unity have many assets dedicated to RTS.
RTS's simply declined in popularity since mobas became popular. We seen a lot of evolution in the moba-style game genre over the years. RTS's have not evolved with the times. Partly because the community is so damn elitist they think every part of the design has to be as complex and "hard to play" as possible, not realizing that "hard to play" != a top tournament game.
The best tournament games are easy to pick up, intuitive to play, fun to play while learning, and a high skill cap so hard to master. RTS's in their current design are hard to pick up, not very intuitive unless you played one seriously in the past, frustrating to learn, with a very high skill cap.
|
On January 23 2016 00:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:41 ddayzy wrote:On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:On January 22 2016 23:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 16:51 papaz wrote:
SC2 e-sports growth or lack of is such a disappointment. I remembered the hype when the game got relesed and GSL announced. We had Fruitdealer, Artosis and Tasteless casting (Artosis even playing).
The feeling when waiting for GSL to come on air with the k-pop. Those were the days.
And here I thought that was only the beginning, from there it would only get bigger.
And look at the scene today.
I'm not sure what goes on in Blizz headquarters. If there are in it for the really long run so that when SC3 gets released in 15-20 years the foreign scene will be on par with Korea. the RTS genre is not worth their valuable time. Morhaime, Pearce, et al are too talented to waste their time on a group of people that spends no money. the entire genre is going down. there is nothing BLizzard can do about it. in fact, there is nothing ATVI and EA and Microsoft combined can do about it. its over. consumer tastes changed. Same thing happened with the dot-eating maze game genre. Games like LadyBug and MsPacman were far better than Pacman and it didn't matter. Everyone quit playing because consumer tastes changed. Nothing ever came close to making the cash Pacman did. And, really Pacman is not that great a game and it made 7 billion, but it hit consumers at just the right time. Game Quality is not the final word on the financial success of a game.. and without financial success the entire AAA business model goes away It is interesting watching the genre's #1 heavyweight attempt to deal with shifting consumer tastes. EA and Microsoft have already given up. Blizzard is by far the best company at making RTS games and the abuse they take from their "fans" is hilarious. The threats to David Kim. The insults. These people should fire up a copy of Grey Goo or Act of Aggression. Or maybe play the new F2P online-only Command and Conquer game made by Victory Studios. Or play some Age of Empires Online. Then they'll see how good Blizzard really is.
The quality of SC2's game play is irrelevant. Consumers are bored with RTS games. Microsoft has shifted its focus on the Xbox. EA is a shit company. And they don't seem to be interested in eSports. Grey Goo and AoA were projects that wanted to be shit. Their design-philosphy was "we want to make a game without taking any lessons from other games, in particular we want it to be as far as possible from the successful multiplayer games out there." And hey look, the games were shit. Mission accomplished I guess. (the fact that they didn't have money for good development to begin with didn't help either) Moving on, LotV sold a million copies in 24 hours (not including presales). People out there are eager for RTS games. They just don't want to play a multiplayer that has nothing to do with the way they envision to play strategy games. When most of the players from other successful esports genre's tell you that your game is too hard to be fun - players that have the passion and endurance to become total freaks in their respective games - then everything has been said. From 2010: http://www.pcgamer.com/5-lessons-starcraft-2-could-learn-from-supcom-2/Imagine if you just had to set your Barracks to producing marines as fast as it could for as long as you had the money - you could take your eyes off of the Barracks and actually take care of that second expansion, finance your end-game push. Sure, some people could do that in their sleep, but some people choose StarCraft over sleep. What about the rest of us?That last sentence tells you exactly where SC2 went wrong. The 95%, the rest of us, that would love to build armies and bases and let them fight, but don't want to micromanage every single little shit in the game so that it just does what you envision it to do. What you need is a big company to produce such a game. Not a shitty half-year development CnC from EA with no support, not a shitty game that tries to recreate 90s-feelings and not an elite game whose expansions cater to making too hard things even harder. Starcraft 2 is the only successful RTS game in recent years and that is with a long history, a big existing player base and the Blizzard brand and advertisement behind it. There is absolutly nothing out there indicating that people want RTS games, the only thing that is proven by the information you provided was that people wanted a new Starcraft expansion. Thats the only thing the data you present show, When I'm in the mood to play a RTS I'm enjoying every second I spend with Starcraft 2, but it is not often I find myself in that mood this days and that has nothing to do with the game itself. I would argue that the skill needed to do well in Starcraft was it's biggest strenght and not, like you are implying, it's biggest weakness. The main reason I played Starcraft as much as I did at a point in my life and the main reason I still come back to it is because it is so damn hard. There are so many small thing you can improve and work on which I enjoy, you can really go deep and when you execute it well it feels so damn rewarding, and you know that there is not many other out there who could do what you just did. Like Bloodborn I enjoyed it because it was hard, not despite it. Strategy games without a focus on the mechanic aspect from mobile games to Civilization 5 (sold as much as Wings of Liberty!) are hugely popular. Age of Empires 2 has gotten support and expansions in 2015, because the game is still rolling fueled by the insane RTS-game vacuum that is going on at the moment. Desert Strike and Nexus Wars, two RTS-esque games that plainly take the mechanical skill out of SC2 probably surpass regular SC2 in popularity. DotA, a game that took WC3 and removed the macro parts of it and just focused on the one thing everybody loved about the muliplayer, the unit combats with the hero focus, eventually surpassed WC3 in popularity. In general the notion that RTS games need to be hard so that people love them goes against everything we know about games. Games aren't fun because they are hard. If a game is worth being an esport it's going to be hard because the competition makes it hard anyways. Even fucking hearthstone is an esport.
Strategy games != RTS.
Civ 5 is not an RTS. It's a turn-based strategy game, which is an entirely different (and well regarded) genre, if you didn't know, which also means any of the mechanical requirements of an RTS like StarCraft simply do not exist. Civ 5 is also a more accessible version of the Civ 3 / 4 formula (which are widely considered to be better games by franchise veterans) that's also on Steam and frequently on sale for very cheap. That explains its popularity.
Age of Empires 2 is a game that is only one year younger than StarCraft 1. It used to be comparably popular over here in Europe back in the early 00s, and the Age of Empires series has a legacy of reverence comparable to the StarCraft franchise, despite the failings of AoE3. AoE2 HD is also on Steam, features new DLC campaigns and is often on sale for very cheap. I would also like to point out that AoE2 is also very harsh to get into as a multiplayer game, with high level plays also being very micro-intensive and multitasking-intensive, although mostly in terms of ranged unit control rather than spells or abilities as in the Blizzard games. I know this is TL and many people haven't played other RTS than StarCraft or consider them to be competitive at all, but trust me (or don't, go look it up), AoE2 is not an easy game at all.
Desert Strike, Nexus Wars and their ilk have been around long before SC2. Also they're not RTS.
DotA is not RTS.
Hearthstone being an eSport is kind of a strange thing to touch upon. It wasn't intended as such; my hunch is that it became an eSport simply because people enjoyed watching it on Twitch and that was capitalized upon. If you ask people who have actually played. you will note that you can't actually compete at a decent level without spending hundreds of hours grinding for the cards you need to make whatever decks are being played at that time. And the only people who can win games without needing those cards are the people who already have thousands of hours of practice and intimate knowledge of the game meta to begin with. So not really different from the skill floor requirement of SC and such games.
I realise my post may come across as a bit condescending but I speak as someone who has been in love with the RTS genre since the 90s and has played a few dozen of these games. I don't see the "interest" that you claim to see. SC2 is doing as well as it is solely because of Blizzard's efforts and the Blizzard brand. Every other RTS released in the past 3 or so years seems to have done very poorly either commercially or was a disappointment in the eyes of most RTS enthusiasts or both. Planetary Annihilation? Overpriced, buggy, incomplete. Grey Goo? Decent, but disappointing given the premise. Act of Aggression? Same. Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak? So far seems to be doing okay but that's based on the strength of its single player campaign (not unlike SC2 mind you) which has long been a hallmark of the Homeworld franchise. Otherwise the game has very poor AI opponents and very few skirmish / multiplayer maps.
|
On January 23 2016 00:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:41 ddayzy wrote:On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:On January 22 2016 23:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 16:51 papaz wrote:
SC2 e-sports growth or lack of is such a disappointment. I remembered the hype when the game got relesed and GSL announced. We had Fruitdealer, Artosis and Tasteless casting (Artosis even playing).
The feeling when waiting for GSL to come on air with the k-pop. Those were the days.
And here I thought that was only the beginning, from there it would only get bigger.
And look at the scene today.
I'm not sure what goes on in Blizz headquarters. If there are in it for the really long run so that when SC3 gets released in 15-20 years the foreign scene will be on par with Korea. the RTS genre is not worth their valuable time. Morhaime, Pearce, et al are too talented to waste their time on a group of people that spends no money. the entire genre is going down. there is nothing BLizzard can do about it. in fact, there is nothing ATVI and EA and Microsoft combined can do about it. its over. consumer tastes changed. Same thing happened with the dot-eating maze game genre. Games like LadyBug and MsPacman were far better than Pacman and it didn't matter. Everyone quit playing because consumer tastes changed. Nothing ever came close to making the cash Pacman did. And, really Pacman is not that great a game and it made 7 billion, but it hit consumers at just the right time. Game Quality is not the final word on the financial success of a game.. and without financial success the entire AAA business model goes away It is interesting watching the genre's #1 heavyweight attempt to deal with shifting consumer tastes. EA and Microsoft have already given up. Blizzard is by far the best company at making RTS games and the abuse they take from their "fans" is hilarious. The threats to David Kim. The insults. These people should fire up a copy of Grey Goo or Act of Aggression. Or maybe play the new F2P online-only Command and Conquer game made by Victory Studios. Or play some Age of Empires Online. Then they'll see how good Blizzard really is.
The quality of SC2's game play is irrelevant. Consumers are bored with RTS games. Microsoft has shifted its focus on the Xbox. EA is a shit company. And they don't seem to be interested in eSports. Grey Goo and AoA were projects that wanted to be shit. Their design-philosphy was "we want to make a game without taking any lessons from other games, in particular we want it to be as far as possible from the successful multiplayer games out there." And hey look, the games were shit. Mission accomplished I guess. (the fact that they didn't have money for good development to begin with didn't help either) Moving on, LotV sold a million copies in 24 hours (not including presales). People out there are eager for RTS games. They just don't want to play a multiplayer that has nothing to do with the way they envision to play strategy games. When most of the players from other successful esports genre's tell you that your game is too hard to be fun - players that have the passion and endurance to become total freaks in their respective games - then everything has been said. From 2010: http://www.pcgamer.com/5-lessons-starcraft-2-could-learn-from-supcom-2/Imagine if you just had to set your Barracks to producing marines as fast as it could for as long as you had the money - you could take your eyes off of the Barracks and actually take care of that second expansion, finance your end-game push. Sure, some people could do that in their sleep, but some people choose StarCraft over sleep. What about the rest of us?That last sentence tells you exactly where SC2 went wrong. The 95%, the rest of us, that would love to build armies and bases and let them fight, but don't want to micromanage every single little shit in the game so that it just does what you envision it to do. What you need is a big company to produce such a game. Not a shitty half-year development CnC from EA with no support, not a shitty game that tries to recreate 90s-feelings and not an elite game whose expansions cater to making too hard things even harder. Starcraft 2 is the only successful RTS game in recent years and that is with a long history, a big existing player base and the Blizzard brand and advertisement behind it. There is absolutly nothing out there indicating that people want RTS games, the only thing that is proven by the information you provided was that people wanted a new Starcraft expansion. Thats the only thing the data you present show, When I'm in the mood to play a RTS I'm enjoying every second I spend with Starcraft 2, but it is not often I find myself in that mood this days and that has nothing to do with the game itself. I would argue that the skill needed to do well in Starcraft was it's biggest strenght and not, like you are implying, it's biggest weakness. The main reason I played Starcraft as much as I did at a point in my life and the main reason I still come back to it is because it is so damn hard. There are so many small thing you can improve and work on which I enjoy, you can really go deep and when you execute it well it feels so damn rewarding, and you know that there is not many other out there who could do what you just did. Like Bloodborn I enjoyed it because it was hard, not despite it. Strategy games without a focus on the mechanic aspect from mobile games to Civilization 5 (sold as much as Wings of Liberty!) are hugely popular. Age of Empires 2 has gotten support and expansions in 2015, because the game is still rolling fueled by the insane RTS-game vacuum that is going on at the moment. Desert Strike and Nexus Wars, two RTS-esque games that plainly take the mechanical skill out of SC2 probably surpass regular SC2 in popularity. DotA, a game that took WC3 and removed the macro parts of it and just focused on the one thing everybody loved about the muliplayer, the unit combats with the hero focus, eventually surpassed WC3 in popularity. In general the notion that RTS games need to be hard so that people love them goes against everything we know about games. Games aren't fun because they are hard. If a game is worth being an esport it's going to be hard because the competition makes it hard anyways. Even fucking hearthstone is an esport.
Are you seriously trying to pass off the popularity of non RTS games as proof that RTS is a popular genre? You still are providing zero data backing up your claims.
Your last paragraph is just half untrue and half irrelevant. Why do you think games like Bloodborne are popular?
No games do not have to be difficult to be popular, but being hard does not automatically make them unpopular either, which you seem to suget.
If you remove the core mechanics from the game to make it more popular, it did very well saleswise, you are not bringing the game to a new audience you are making a new game for a different audience. If what you want to play is Civilization you allready have Civilization, which is not even in the same genre.
|
On January 23 2016 00:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:41 ddayzy wrote:On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:On January 22 2016 23:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 16:51 papaz wrote:
SC2 e-sports growth or lack of is such a disappointment. I remembered the hype when the game got relesed and GSL announced. We had Fruitdealer, Artosis and Tasteless casting (Artosis even playing).
The feeling when waiting for GSL to come on air with the k-pop. Those were the days.
And here I thought that was only the beginning, from there it would only get bigger.
And look at the scene today.
I'm not sure what goes on in Blizz headquarters. If there are in it for the really long run so that when SC3 gets released in 15-20 years the foreign scene will be on par with Korea. the RTS genre is not worth their valuable time. Morhaime, Pearce, et al are too talented to waste their time on a group of people that spends no money. the entire genre is going down. there is nothing BLizzard can do about it. in fact, there is nothing ATVI and EA and Microsoft combined can do about it. its over. consumer tastes changed. Same thing happened with the dot-eating maze game genre. Games like LadyBug and MsPacman were far better than Pacman and it didn't matter. Everyone quit playing because consumer tastes changed. Nothing ever came close to making the cash Pacman did. And, really Pacman is not that great a game and it made 7 billion, but it hit consumers at just the right time. Game Quality is not the final word on the financial success of a game.. and without financial success the entire AAA business model goes away It is interesting watching the genre's #1 heavyweight attempt to deal with shifting consumer tastes. EA and Microsoft have already given up. Blizzard is by far the best company at making RTS games and the abuse they take from their "fans" is hilarious. The threats to David Kim. The insults. These people should fire up a copy of Grey Goo or Act of Aggression. Or maybe play the new F2P online-only Command and Conquer game made by Victory Studios. Or play some Age of Empires Online. Then they'll see how good Blizzard really is.
The quality of SC2's game play is irrelevant. Consumers are bored with RTS games. Microsoft has shifted its focus on the Xbox. EA is a shit company. And they don't seem to be interested in eSports. Grey Goo and AoA were projects that wanted to be shit. Their design-philosphy was "we want to make a game without taking any lessons from other games, in particular we want it to be as far as possible from the successful multiplayer games out there." And hey look, the games were shit. Mission accomplished I guess. (the fact that they didn't have money for good development to begin with didn't help either) Moving on, LotV sold a million copies in 24 hours (not including presales). People out there are eager for RTS games. They just don't want to play a multiplayer that has nothing to do with the way they envision to play strategy games. When most of the players from other successful esports genre's tell you that your game is too hard to be fun - players that have the passion and endurance to become total freaks in their respective games - then everything has been said. From 2010: http://www.pcgamer.com/5-lessons-starcraft-2-could-learn-from-supcom-2/Imagine if you just had to set your Barracks to producing marines as fast as it could for as long as you had the money - you could take your eyes off of the Barracks and actually take care of that second expansion, finance your end-game push. Sure, some people could do that in their sleep, but some people choose StarCraft over sleep. What about the rest of us?That last sentence tells you exactly where SC2 went wrong. The 95%, the rest of us, that would love to build armies and bases and let them fight, but don't want to micromanage every single little shit in the game so that it just does what you envision it to do. What you need is a big company to produce such a game. Not a shitty half-year development CnC from EA with no support, not a shitty game that tries to recreate 90s-feelings and not an elite game whose expansions cater to making too hard things even harder. Starcraft 2 is the only successful RTS game in recent years and that is with a long history, a big existing player base and the Blizzard brand and advertisement behind it. There is absolutly nothing out there indicating that people want RTS games, the only thing that is proven by the information you provided was that people wanted a new Starcraft expansion. Thats the only thing the data you present show, When I'm in the mood to play a RTS I'm enjoying every second I spend with Starcraft 2, but it is not often I find myself in that mood this days and that has nothing to do with the game itself. I would argue that the skill needed to do well in Starcraft was it's biggest strenght and not, like you are implying, it's biggest weakness. The main reason I played Starcraft as much as I did at a point in my life and the main reason I still come back to it is because it is so damn hard. There are so many small thing you can improve and work on which I enjoy, you can really go deep and when you execute it well it feels so damn rewarding, and you know that there is not many other out there who could do what you just did. Like Bloodborn I enjoyed it because it was hard, not despite it. Age of Empires 2 has gotten support and expansions in 2015, because the game is still rolling fueled by the insane RTS-game vacuum that is going on at the moment.
I don't agree, but I can confirm that AOE2 is actually reviving quiet a bit. One of the bigger Steam communities around and improving online infrastructure. To my knowledge it isn't being played "competitively" anymore, but few "retired professionals" and casters produce couple hours of content weekly.
|
On January 23 2016 01:27 MaCRo.gg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:55 Big J wrote:On January 23 2016 00:41 ddayzy wrote:On January 23 2016 00:21 Big J wrote:On January 22 2016 23:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 16:51 papaz wrote:
SC2 e-sports growth or lack of is such a disappointment. I remembered the hype when the game got relesed and GSL announced. We had Fruitdealer, Artosis and Tasteless casting (Artosis even playing).
The feeling when waiting for GSL to come on air with the k-pop. Those were the days.
And here I thought that was only the beginning, from there it would only get bigger.
And look at the scene today.
I'm not sure what goes on in Blizz headquarters. If there are in it for the really long run so that when SC3 gets released in 15-20 years the foreign scene will be on par with Korea. the RTS genre is not worth their valuable time. Morhaime, Pearce, et al are too talented to waste their time on a group of people that spends no money. the entire genre is going down. there is nothing BLizzard can do about it. in fact, there is nothing ATVI and EA and Microsoft combined can do about it. its over. consumer tastes changed. Same thing happened with the dot-eating maze game genre. Games like LadyBug and MsPacman were far better than Pacman and it didn't matter. Everyone quit playing because consumer tastes changed. Nothing ever came close to making the cash Pacman did. And, really Pacman is not that great a game and it made 7 billion, but it hit consumers at just the right time. Game Quality is not the final word on the financial success of a game.. and without financial success the entire AAA business model goes away It is interesting watching the genre's #1 heavyweight attempt to deal with shifting consumer tastes. EA and Microsoft have already given up. Blizzard is by far the best company at making RTS games and the abuse they take from their "fans" is hilarious. The threats to David Kim. The insults. These people should fire up a copy of Grey Goo or Act of Aggression. Or maybe play the new F2P online-only Command and Conquer game made by Victory Studios. Or play some Age of Empires Online. Then they'll see how good Blizzard really is.
The quality of SC2's game play is irrelevant. Consumers are bored with RTS games. Microsoft has shifted its focus on the Xbox. EA is a shit company. And they don't seem to be interested in eSports. Grey Goo and AoA were projects that wanted to be shit. Their design-philosphy was "we want to make a game without taking any lessons from other games, in particular we want it to be as far as possible from the successful multiplayer games out there." And hey look, the games were shit. Mission accomplished I guess. (the fact that they didn't have money for good development to begin with didn't help either) Moving on, LotV sold a million copies in 24 hours (not including presales). People out there are eager for RTS games. They just don't want to play a multiplayer that has nothing to do with the way they envision to play strategy games. When most of the players from other successful esports genre's tell you that your game is too hard to be fun - players that have the passion and endurance to become total freaks in their respective games - then everything has been said. From 2010: http://www.pcgamer.com/5-lessons-starcraft-2-could-learn-from-supcom-2/Imagine if you just had to set your Barracks to producing marines as fast as it could for as long as you had the money - you could take your eyes off of the Barracks and actually take care of that second expansion, finance your end-game push. Sure, some people could do that in their sleep, but some people choose StarCraft over sleep. What about the rest of us?That last sentence tells you exactly where SC2 went wrong. The 95%, the rest of us, that would love to build armies and bases and let them fight, but don't want to micromanage every single little shit in the game so that it just does what you envision it to do. What you need is a big company to produce such a game. Not a shitty half-year development CnC from EA with no support, not a shitty game that tries to recreate 90s-feelings and not an elite game whose expansions cater to making too hard things even harder. Starcraft 2 is the only successful RTS game in recent years and that is with a long history, a big existing player base and the Blizzard brand and advertisement behind it. There is absolutly nothing out there indicating that people want RTS games, the only thing that is proven by the information you provided was that people wanted a new Starcraft expansion. Thats the only thing the data you present show, When I'm in the mood to play a RTS I'm enjoying every second I spend with Starcraft 2, but it is not often I find myself in that mood this days and that has nothing to do with the game itself. I would argue that the skill needed to do well in Starcraft was it's biggest strenght and not, like you are implying, it's biggest weakness. The main reason I played Starcraft as much as I did at a point in my life and the main reason I still come back to it is because it is so damn hard. There are so many small thing you can improve and work on which I enjoy, you can really go deep and when you execute it well it feels so damn rewarding, and you know that there is not many other out there who could do what you just did. Like Bloodborn I enjoyed it because it was hard, not despite it. Age of Empires 2 has gotten support and expansions in 2015, because the game is still rolling fueled by the insane RTS-game vacuum that is going on at the moment. I don't agree, but I can confirm that AOE2 is actually reviving quiet a bit. One of the bigger Steam communities around and improving online infrastructure. To my knowledge it isn't being played "competitively" anymore, but few "retired professionals" and casters produce couple hours of content weekly.
There are still team tournaments with hundreds of thousands of USD in prize pool. Or at least there were a few months ago. There are also showmatches between top players which have money on the line.
But yeah contrary to what some people on TL might think, AoE2 is a super hard game to be good at. Maybe not BW hard, but hard nonetheless.
|
We're getting into the stupid zone. I'm saying there is a vacuum in the RTS genre, but in general the demand for such games is there as indicated by the popularity of games that come as close as possible to the RTS genre. Then you make walls of texts that those games are not RTS genre... lol. Tell me something I didn't post upfront.
Whatever, believe what you want. I will be there when the Warcraft 4 hype takes over. I will be there if a creative game like Project Atlas goes to the top.
|
On January 23 2016 01:40 Big J wrote:
We're getting into the stupid zone. I'm saying there is a vacuum in the RTS genre, but in general the demand for such games is there as indicated by the popularity of games that come as close as possible to the RTS genre. Then you make walls of texts that those games are not RTS genre... lol. Tell me something I didn't post upfront.
Whatever, believe what you want. I will be there when the Warcraft 4 hype takes over. I will be there if a creative game like Project Atlas goes to the top.
Did you miss the last part of my post?
Did you miss the part where *RTS games are still coming out* but don't do well at all, either commercially or in terms of critical acclaim or playerbase?
Out of curiosity, have you purchased and/or played any of the games I mentioned at the end of my previous post? If so, how did you feel about them?
If there were such a vacuum wouldn't people be flocking to play those? Or is it because they're all somehow terrible games, every single one of them?
Yes, WarCraft 4 hype will be very real if it ever happens, because it's a Blizzard game in a series with a long standing legacy of being excellent and also hits a nostalgia sweet spot for many people.
|
On January 23 2016 01:44 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 01:40 Big J wrote:
We're getting into the stupid zone. I'm saying there is a vacuum in the RTS genre, but in general the demand for such games is there as indicated by the popularity of games that come as close as possible to the RTS genre. Then you make walls of texts that those games are not RTS genre... lol. Tell me something I didn't post upfront.
Whatever, believe what you want. I will be there when the Warcraft 4 hype takes over. I will be there if a creative game like Project Atlas goes to the top. Did you miss the last part of my post? Did you miss the part where *RTS games are still coming out* but don't do well at all, either commercially or in terms of critical acclaim or playerbase? Out of curiosity, have you purchased and/or played any of the games I mentioned at the end of my previous post? If so, how did you feel about them? If there were such a vacuum wouldn't people be flocking to play those? Or is it because they're all somehow terrible games, every single one of them? Yes, WarCraft 4 hype will be very real if it ever happens, because it's a Blizzard game in a series with a long standing legacy of being excellent and also hits a nostalgia sweet spot for many people.
I haven't played any of those, why would I even try them?
Grey Goo canceled it's beta, I'm not going to pay $50 for a game that didn't even have a beta, sorry. Not to mention that the whole design was a mess. Like that one race that needs to connect everything and is meant to turtle for 50mins? That was kind of the description of the race, why would I want to play with or against that? Or the goo, which can wabble through units and over terrain and then split into units in the opponent's base. I have enough experience with Warpgates to know that this is just bad. Also, in general all units were pretty unmicroable by design and that's the complete opposite of what I want.
Act of Aggression introduced a whole faction like 3 weeks before release. That was all I needed to know.
A CS:GO player also wouldn't switch to some rushed out, cheap, third class production if there were no big shooters around anymore. A bad game is going to be bad and unsucessful, regardless of the genre.
|
On January 23 2016 01:40 Big J wrote:
We're getting into the stupid zone. I'm saying there is a vacuum in the RTS genre, but in general the demand for such games is there as indicated by the popularity of games that come as close as possible to the RTS genre. Then you make walls of texts that those games are not RTS genre... lol. Tell me something I didn't post upfront.
Whatever, believe what you want. I will be there when the Warcraft 4 hype takes over. I will be there if a creative game like Project Atlas goes to the top.
Is the stupid zone where you go when you claim the popularity of other genres is proof that the RTS genre is popular? One of your examples, Dota, even disproves your point. The RTS version of the game, Warcraft, was surpased in popularity by the moba it made possible. In that case the RTS game lost out to the moba game. Your text is disproving your own point..
You should try to bow out more gracefully. Now you just sound bitter that you got called out with the "I will show you!" shtick.
|
On January 23 2016 01:40 Big J wrote:
We're getting into the stupid zone. I'm saying there is a vacuum in the RTS genre, but in general the demand for such games is there as indicated by the popularity of games that come as close as possible to the RTS genre. Then you make walls of texts that those games are not RTS genre... lol. Tell me something I didn't post upfront.
Whatever, believe what you want. I will be there when the Warcraft 4 hype takes over. I will be there if a creative game like Project Atlas goes to the top.
there is no money in this vacuum.
12 to 15 year olds are getting their "big army fighting" fix by playing Mobile Strike , Boom Beach and Clash of CLans. they are spending far less time with their PCs than their fathers did. its over.
will there be a small group of RTS enthusiasts making MODs and organizing C&C:Generals tournaments? Yes!
there is also an active NHL '94 competitive community and a Super Tecmo Bowl Community. This is the future. This is where AoE2 is right now.
|
On January 23 2016 01:53 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 01:40 Big J wrote:
We're getting into the stupid zone. I'm saying there is a vacuum in the RTS genre, but in general the demand for such games is there as indicated by the popularity of games that come as close as possible to the RTS genre. Then you make walls of texts that those games are not RTS genre... lol. Tell me something I didn't post upfront.
Whatever, believe what you want. I will be there when the Warcraft 4 hype takes over. I will be there if a creative game like Project Atlas goes to the top. Is the stupid zone where you go when you claim the popularity of other genres is proof that the RTS genre is popular? One of your examples, Dota, even disproves your point. The RTS version of the game, Warcraft, was surpased in popularity by the moba it made possible. In that case the RTS game lost out to the moba game. Your text is disproving your own point.. You should try to bow out more gracefully. Now you just sound bitter that you got called out with the "I will show you!" shtick.
Sorry babyboy, but you haven't even shown a single argument yourself why the genre cannot be popular. All you do is go around discount arguments, without bringing arguments why noone wants RTS games. And when you are out of arguments because a game was popular or will be popular you just say it's a matter of company and legacy. You know what? I even agree with this. It's always a matter of who makes it. It's the center of my argument that current RTS games suck because they were produced by shitty companies. The games themselves were stupidly bad and produced with too little time and budget.
Also, I was trying not to go there, but since you are hammering on it: MobA's are officially a subgenre of RTS. And that's not for you to discuss, it's everywhere you look. From it's Wikipedia article, to DotA 2's reception as "Valves first RTS" to gaming magazines ranking them as RTS games. Games like AoA or GG have been marketed as "traditional RTS games", so that the average customer knew the distinction from the currently much more popular ActionRTS games.
Those games are not what we are looking for in these discussions so I'm usually not interested in this discussion, but since you keep on insisting on exact definitions, the reality is that the RTS genre was never as successful as right now, led by MobAs. We only discount them on forums like TL because in these discussions we usually look out for RTS games with a bigger build-up aspect.
|
ya, RTS games are so profitable Valve made an RTS game and then created a WorldBUilder so that their "fans" could make a MOBA called "DOTA 2"
|
On January 23 2016 02:02 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 01:53 ddayzy wrote:On January 23 2016 01:40 Big J wrote:
We're getting into the stupid zone. I'm saying there is a vacuum in the RTS genre, but in general the demand for such games is there as indicated by the popularity of games that come as close as possible to the RTS genre. Then you make walls of texts that those games are not RTS genre... lol. Tell me something I didn't post upfront.
Whatever, believe what you want. I will be there when the Warcraft 4 hype takes over. I will be there if a creative game like Project Atlas goes to the top. Is the stupid zone where you go when you claim the popularity of other genres is proof that the RTS genre is popular? One of your examples, Dota, even disproves your point. The RTS version of the game, Warcraft, was surpased in popularity by the moba it made possible. In that case the RTS game lost out to the moba game. Your text is disproving your own point.. You should try to bow out more gracefully. Now you just sound bitter that you got called out with the "I will show you!" shtick. Sorry babyboy, but you haven't even shown a single argument yourself why the genre cannot be popular. All you do is go around discount arguments, without bringing arguments why noone wants RTS games. And when you are out of arguments because a game was popular or will be popular you just say it's a matter of company and legacy. You know what? I even agree with this. It's always a matter of who makes it. It's the center of my argument that current RTS games suck because they were produced by shitty companies. The games themselves were stupidly bad and produced with too little time and budget. Also, I was trying not to go there, but since you are hammering on it: MobA's are officially a subgenre of RTS. And that's not for you to discuss, it's everywhere you look. From it's Wikipedia article, to DotA 2's reception as "Valves first RTS" to gaming magazines ranking them as RTS games. Games like AoA or GG have been marketed as "traditional RTS games", so that the average customer knew the distinction from the currently much more popular ActionRTS games. Those games are not what we are looking for in these discussions so I'm usually not interested in this discussion, but since you keep on insisting on exact definitions, the reality is that the RTS genre was never as successful as right now, led by MobAs. We only discount them on forums like TL because in these discussions we usually look out for RTS games with a bigger build-up aspect.
Except that nobody is asking for RTS games, close to non are made and those who are made sells very poorly. The market has spoken loud and clear. Starcrafts RTS formula is the only exception so for you to claim that changing it's uniqly popular gameplay in a way that would still keep it within the same genre would make it more popular is suported by air.
Unless you think the direction of RTS is become a subgenre of itself how is this relevant?
|
On January 22 2016 08:58 heishe wrote:
Of course they don't know the game like we do, but a lot of their criticism and subjective feeling about the game are justified because SC2 does objectively have some pretty stupid things that do make it a "clickfest", like the arbitrary macro mechanics and lack of a lot of utility function in the UI and control that would make it easier to manage. Also, at the level that most players enter the game, playing speedy far outweighs playing strategically smart, by a ton actually. TBH if these things were gone I think the game would automatically become exactly 120% more awesome, because the sick Korean APM would go into many multipronged unit micro battles which are infinitely more exciting to watch (and also to play) than seeing someones APM being pumped into putting down mules and checking how many drones they have at each expansion.
FWIW this is pretty much exactly why I stopped playing. Mechanics far outweigh strategy in Starcraft 2, and there is very little strategic flexibility or variation in either the matchups or maps. The only real "strategic" question: is my opponent cheesing or no? If no, then you know exactly everything that's going to happen in the game from start to finish and there's nothing you can do about it except execute more cleanly/faster than the other guy and for god's sake don't look away from your minimap for more than 5 seconds. LOTV only made this problem worse by adding lots of new micro mechanics to the mayhem. This isn't why I play "strategy" games so I've moved on.
|
The Greatest RTS game ever made could come out in 2017. It'll be as ignored as Mouse Trap, Lady Bug and Lock'n'Chase were. All better than Pacman and all generating less than a tiny fraction of the profit Pacman generated. And all released a year or two after Pacman.
Game quality is only 1 small factor in determining a game's profitability... and if you're on the wrong side of shifting consumer tastes you're fucked no matter what you do.
which is why ATVI, EA and MS have stopped making new RTS games after having profited from them year after year after year after year after...
now, if you'll excuse me i'm going to plug in my pinball machine and see how many free extra balls i can win... its way more fun than Space Invaders. I have no idea how that boring piece of shit made any money with so many bitchin' Pinball Machines available to play!
On January 23 2016 02:56 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 08:58 heishe wrote:
Of course they don't know the game like we do, but a lot of their criticism and subjective feeling about the game are justified because SC2 does objectively have some pretty stupid things that do make it a "clickfest", like the arbitrary macro mechanics and lack of a lot of utility function in the UI and control that would make it easier to manage. Also, at the level that most players enter the game, playing speedy far outweighs playing strategically smart, by a ton actually. TBH if these things were gone I think the game would automatically become exactly 120% more awesome, because the sick Korean APM would go into many multipronged unit micro battles which are infinitely more exciting to watch (and also to play) than seeing someones APM being pumped into putting down mules and checking how many drones they have at each expansion. FWIW this is pretty much exactly why I stopped playing. Mechanics far outweigh strategy in Starcraft 2, and there is very little strategic flexibility or variation in either the matchups or maps. The only real "strategic" question: is my opponent cheesing or no? If no, then you know exactly everything that's going to happen in the game from start to finish and there's nothing you can do about it except execute more cleanly/faster than the other guy and for god's sake don't look away from your minimap for more than 5 seconds. LOTV only made this problem worse by adding lots of new micro mechanics to the mayhem. This isn't why I play "strategy" games so I've moved on.
you are not alone in this perspective. many people with this perspective are happily playing CoH1 and CoH2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
