|
On May 23 2017 03:06 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 03:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 23 2017 02:57 Wildmoon wrote:what you should do is thank me for teaching you something. rather than scoffing at my comment. Blizzard's development teams and developement teams under Activition work as separate entities. It's something no one can lie about. The information is out there. They are hosting Destiny 2 on battle.net. Their developers did not develop the game. do not drop the context. i am not discussing Blizzard's developers. you added that. i did not. nor did the other poster. this is the quote from the otehr poster: "Morhaime is the president of blizzard, and has absolutely nothing to do with bungie games."his comment is incorrect. end of story. just the fact that Morhaime had to prepare a speech, memorize lines, and make a public appearance is indicative of resource allocation to Destiny2. Blizzard has committed their limited resources to Destiny2. With Mike Morhaime being their #1 most limited resource because he only has so much time in the week. He had enough time to go watch SC2 matches in Korea and bought people pizzas.
limited resources allocated to SC2 for a public appearance. sry dawg, any execs most precious resource is time. every second of every day is valuable for a CEO. again, the poster's quote is flat out incorrect. nothing more to discuss.
if you think Morhaime just throws his time away.... we are at the reductio ad absurdum stage of this discussion.
|
RTS games just aren't what they used to be. The reason that Brood War stuck around for so long is because that was the Golden Game of that genre. Sort of like Super Mario Bros. was for side-scrolling platformers. People still love the hell out of both of this aforementioned games because there is achievement and reputation to be gained for being good at them.
One can stand on the pedestal of technological advancement claiming that games are better now because of quality of life improvements, better UI's, adjustable difficulties, etc. but at what cost? At what point do people start to realize that they are hardly playing the game anymore, and it is the game playing them? Personally, I thought difficult action RPG games died with Morrowind the 3rd Elder Scrolls game. However, I was pleasantly surprised when Dark Souls came out because it revitalized the genre.
I think what the RTS genre needs is a Dark Souls-esque revival. That is, a return to making games difficult, especially in terms of mechanical difficulty.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On May 23 2017 06:39 FarmI3oy wrote:
RTS games just aren't what they used to be. The reason that Brood War stuck around for so long is because that was the Golden Game of that genre. Sort of like Super Mario Bros. was for side-scrolling platformers. People still love the hell out of both of this aforementioned games because there is achievement and reputation to be gained for being good at them.
One can stand on the pedestal of technological advancement claiming that games are better now because of quality of life improvements, better UI's, adjustable difficulties, etc. but at what cost? At what point do people start to realize that they are hardly playing the game anymore, and it is the game playing them? Personally, I thought difficult action RPG games died with Morrowind the 3rd Elder Scrolls game. However, I was pleasantly surprised when Dark Souls came out because it revitalized the genre.
I think what the RTS genre needs is a Dark Souls-esque revival. That is, a return to making games difficult, especially in terms of mechanical difficulty.
BW's mechanical difficulty had precisely nil to do with it's popularity, whether inside or outside Korea.
|
Precisely nil? Not even .00000001%? I find that hard to believe.
|
On May 23 2017 06:39 FarmI3oy wrote:
I think what the RTS genre needs is a Dark Souls-esque revival. That is, a return to making games difficult, especially in terms of mechanical difficulty.
we were willing to tolerate "hard" in 1995 because the state of technology demanded it. You wanted to see 100+ units all shooting each other in an amazing full scale battle with bullets flying every where.. u needed to own a giant sized PC, be tech savy to configure the PC ... etc etc. hell even getting your mouse to not conflict with ur speakers was an art form.
those days are gone.. i can orchestrate and micro giant army fights on my smartphone
|
On May 23 2017 07:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 06:39 FarmI3oy wrote:
I think what the RTS genre needs is a Dark Souls-esque revival. That is, a return to making games difficult, especially in terms of mechanical difficulty. we were willing to tolerate "hard" in 1995 because the state of technology demanded it. You wanted to see 100+ units all shooting each other in an amazing full scale battle with bullets flying every where.. u needed to own a giant sized PC, be tech savy to configure the PC ... etc etc. hell even getting your mouse to not conflict with ur microphone was an art form. those days are gone.. i can orchestrate and micro giant army fights on my smartphone
Yet you would deny that we lost something by being able to do that on a smartphone?
|
it is a completely different experience. "lost something"? i can see why some view it that way.
thing is in 1995 there was absolutely only 1 way to get that massive epic big army fight feeling: PC on a giant CRT with a giant desktop case and sometimes hours of careful set up. As a result, consumer demand for that feeling could only be satiated via PC. Now consumers have a myriad of choices to fulfill that via several platforms.
This has greatly diluted demand for big army fighting games on PC since the mid 1990s. Combine this with the point that guy from France made about 1v1 games dying and you do not exactly have a recipe for RTS genre growth.
|
The idea that people play RTSs for the sole reason of seeing massive army battles is a little bit of a stretch.
|
On May 23 2017 08:16 FarmI3oy wrote:
The idea that people play RTSs for the sole reason of seeing massive army battles is a little bit of a stretch.
its not the sole reason. it remains to this day a very big payoff for many consumers. the reason me and my nOOb pals put up with all the hassle of managing an economy, climbing the tech tree... was for the eventual combat where u could make ur big win happen. really cool combat graphics were essential.
look at all the time and effort RTS developers put into making the combat look as great as possible.
Furthermore, in 1995 no one had ever seen hundreds of units and thousands of bullets flying because it was not technically possible. Breaking new technical ground creates even more buzz and excitement.
|
For starters it'd be nice if RTS games have good teammodes (Or a good arcade lul). It's hardly a stretch to say that 1v1 games aren't capable of making people stay as committed to a game as games played together. Literally every other multiplayer game that's really popular (fighting games aren't that popular) is popular because it's not 1v1. And RTS developers to my knowledge have never, ever, ever, ever, in any strategy game, paid special attention to 2v2/3v3/4v4. All strategy games are balanced and designed around the top lvl 1v1. The only hope for teamgames is that maps could fix what obviously cannot be fixed.
If I see an RTS game with a different unit design, vision, and different mechanics for different modes still fail... Then and only then will I join the bandwagon of RTS games have no hope.
|
In answer to the first topic, let's not forget that one of the reasons for the fall ot RTS genre is that Starcraft 2 was divided into three games for 5 years. Sorry, but that's the ugly truth.
|
@Velvurian
It was very good that Sc 2 was divided into 3 games. Man even Broodwar was an expansion. The other two parts of Sc 2 gave room for more units and more campaign stuff which is absolulutly great.
Guys i heavily disagree that people are not interested in 1v1. Starcraft 2 was verey succesfull in the first 3 years. The problem is that Blizzard did horrible mistakes in gamedesign with SC II Hots (the second expansion) and that they didnt patch the game more frequently regarding the balance (see swarmhost now and back at hots times).
Oh anf by the way ist absolutly ok to design a game to become an E-Sports. Most RTS games fail because they dont do it.
Also if you design an RTS around heroes and leveling them like warcraft 3 it would be a huge success because many people like to play heroes because they identify with them.
What you dont see here is that SC 2 was a huge success for a few years and at least we still have a healthy playerbase with tournaments.
The problem is that the new RTS games from other companies are garbage look at Dawn of war 3 (i bought it played it 1 day and got bored of it). Thats the real problem.
|
I played pretty much every RTS from the 90s and I don't know what some of you are talking about implying there was harder RTS back then, in 1995 especially (how many even were there). Maybe you mean RTS in general. Dark Reign is probably the closer game to BW/SC2 and the mechanics are pretty much the same, Total Annihilation a completely different style of RTS. If it got 'harder' (in what way?) then wouldn't it just be unfair? It's as hard as the opponent unless you want single player challenges, maybe you do single you mention Dark Souls - a game which has no relevance to RTS at all.
BW was not popular out of luck it's much better than those games and all the ones after it, if you want proof those other games all still exist and people do try and play them competitively in a Starcraft mindset and find out why none of them succeeded.
|
1/ gamers are not doing their part anymore (a good rts could be available for free and no one would play it, just because it isn't advertised "properly" or just because when you test it for the first time, there are no players hosting it, etc)
2/. rts is very hard and it should be (dumbing down rts is as stupid as you can get)
3/ business models, pr, gaming online platforms .. those are things to watch if you are curious but you won't quench your thirst.. blizzard does not communicate nor answer the community's issues/ideas etc..
effectively there is just a company dishing out stuff,
#gaming companies still think we are in the 80/90ies and you can ignore your clients = lol
Lets take a very simple example about how blizzard "treats" bnet:
i play photon cycles or playtest my own maps on bnet
and every time i finish a game (lets say every half hour)
i can't rejoin / or even join any other "new" game or create one 
(#the lobby bug that you all ignore like pussies that you are... you can't even be bothered to lobby to get it fixed)
Why / how would blizzard leave that bug alive (it has been a year or more already)? is that not proof that they don't care about the multiplayer platform?
For me it is clear that sc2 bnet is a failed test and blizzard will not invest in it, whatever they lie about or whatever you are hoping for it!
|
I think difficulty has an enormous impact on the longevity of a game. No one has long term satisfaction from achieving something super simple.
|
Why not everything ?
I'm ok with spreading the pros, and letting young blood become new pros, and watching thrice more starcraft every day.
|
wc3's team games are and always have been head and shoulders above S1 and sc2 and so has it's custom games, there is no denying it if you played war3 and s1+2 heavily.
the fact is, if wc4 is released and they don't fuck it up, new fun and interesting custom games as well as remakes will be played once again both by old veterans and new players, dota will have a remake in the wc3 engine(which will be hugely popular among the die hard wc3 dota fans) without any of the changes that dota 2 has brought, and it's well known that wc3's campaign is pretty much the best RTS campaign of all time.
wc3 doesn't shine a light to s1 or even 2 in some instances when it comes to competitive 1v1 play, although it's still very interesting, but when it comes to pure fun I haven't seen an rts that does anything better then war3 has.
war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
|
@ paxconsciente
I agree with your arguments. I also think that the next RTS has to bee Warcraft 4 to be successfull.
|
On May 23 2017 18:50 paxconsciente wrote:
wc3's team games are and always have been head and shoulders above S1 and sc2 and so has it's custom games, there is no denying it if you played war3 and s1+2 heavily.
the fact is, if wc4 is released and they don't fuck it up, new fun and interesting custom games as well as remakes will be played once again both by old veterans and new players, dota will have a remake in the wc3 engine(which will be hugely popular among the die hard wc3 dota fans) without any of the changes that dota 2 has brought, and it's well known that wc3's campaign is pretty much the best RTS campaign of all time.
wc3 doesn't shine a light to s1 or even 2 in some instances when it comes to competitive 1v1 play, although it's still very interesting, but when it comes to pure fun I haven't seen an rts that does anything better then war3 has.
war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, I really resonated with it and share the same feelings, so I'm happy someone else feels and thought the same way. I am excited for a Warcraft 4, and now that LotV has been out for a bit, and OW is done, maybe it is very possible that a Warcraft 4 could be in the works and come out in the next 5 years or so.
I think the fun nature of warcraft compared to starcraft would be a good balance; it would still have quite a lot of strategy, while being a lot less "hardcore" and more accessible and fun to casual players.
Although it does make me wonder; why is Wc3 pretty much dead? Is it just, as a "fun" RTS, it is hurt significantly by being old and outdated as a game, and thus more casual gamers won't want to play it? SC1 is still around and loved, but WC3 is much smaller. If a WC4 came out and stuck pretty closely to the WC3 formula, could it be a massive success appealing to both casuals and competitive gamers the way LoL and OW have, or would it need to improve on the formula significantly?
|
To a black hole. Sthephen Hawking Dixit.
Youre welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
