EPTMy question here is what is decisions that caused other games to fail (as a casual or competitive game), focused on game design. Be specific, like Heavy Tank rush broke game Y or that Race 1 vs Race 2 is unbalanced in game W and the patches failed because of Z and so on and how it could be avoided without completely gutting the game (its not starcraft isn't a good answer to everything) and what core concept result in broken-ness in all iterations of its implementation.
[Q] How did other RTS games fail?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
My question here is what is decisions that caused other games to fail (as a casual or competitive game), focused on game design. Be specific, like Heavy Tank rush broke game Y or that Race 1 vs Race 2 is unbalanced in game W and the patches failed because of Z and so on and how it could be avoided without completely gutting the game (its not starcraft isn't a good answer to everything) and what core concept result in broken-ness in all iterations of its implementation. | ||
|
Dgtl
Canada889 Posts
| ||
|
d(O.o)a
Canada5066 Posts
On January 03 2009 13:05 Dgtl wrote: Most RTS's fail because either the untis are too slow, the game is too slow or there is just not a big enough fan base. Or the gameplay is just flat out boring. (Dawn of war) | ||
|
Entertaining
Canada793 Posts
| ||
|
AcrossFiveJulys
United States3612 Posts
| ||
|
Krigstar
Sweden77 Posts
On January 03 2009 13:07 Entertaining wrote: they fail just like FPS games fail, while you play them your comparing them to the best. when i play fps most of the time i think to myself, "i could be playing halo3 right now". while playing rts like supreme commander i think "i could be cutting my wrists right now" lol jk, id rather play STARCRAFT The comparison to FPS doesn't really work since there have been hundreds of FPSs that has been played competitively. You have Halo, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Counter-Strike, Battlefield and a shitload of others. We have only Starcraft and Warcraft 3 really and have only had them since the beginning of time. The reason is that FPS doesn't need to be balanced in the same way an RTS does. Starcraft (and Warcraft 3) are the only games that still after 5 million hours of analyzing every little detail, no race is better than the other and no super-own-all strategy exist. I'm pretty sure the most important aspect of creating a successful RTS in a competitive way is to take it slow and support it until it's perfect. Many other RTS-makers out there makes good games, but just don't give a shit after the user has bought the game. Why bother working on a game years after the release when you can just make a huge marketing campaign to show of explosions and shadow-effects, sell a ton and never have to worry about it again. So basically the problem is that all other RTS-makers aren't Blizzard  | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1288 Posts
Many RTS's have fallen whereas games like war3 which, (imo at least) are pretty crappy have stood up. edit: and by crappy, I don't mean not well polished, just inherently flawed gameplay... | ||
|
gravity
Australia2189 Posts
| ||
|
hazz
United Kingdom570 Posts
edit: and by crappy, I don't mean not well polished, just inherently flawed gameplay... Like? I'm guessing its to do with how you don't like heroes | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
-Way too many races, impossible to maintain balance and the actual mechanics of some races were so simple it's comparable of playing with sc2 interface against a sc player. -Terrible support from the creators, put some effort in patches and don't give up after a year or so. -Superunits, this just blows in online rts, it deals incredible damage to the strategy and tactics part of a game and makes it almost exclusively based on micro, which WC3 has pretty much proven to be boring as fuck. There needs to be a healthy amount of tactics and strategy, people need to be able to be creative, I think this is the fatal flaw of most online games. Just look at sc, even these days there's so much variation and innovation in the matchups. Supreme commander sucked online because it's incredibly slow paced, same with the total war series. On top of that the strategical aspects of the games just seem so shallow compared to sc. The fact that SC has a dropship unit that is viable, stuff like cliffdrops and balanced air units puts it rediculously far ahead of the other games, it's sad really. Most new games promise so much and deliver so little, all their features end up as stupid gimmicks. Oh and then there's the c&c series, the gameplay mechanics of all the races in these games are completely the same which makes it completely inferior to sc in terms of variation and amount of fun to play. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1288 Posts
On January 03 2009 13:29 Hazz wrote: Like? I'm guessing its to do with how you don't like heroes More the absence of any meaningful macro. It's not like choosing to cut troops in favour of econ is all that valid in any way in war3. I don't think heros are as bad as people make it out to be, in a game with more macro they'd probably just play like reaver/shuttles play out in pvps | ||
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
1) the races are balanced 2) the races have many diverse builds possible on each one 3) it has micro AND macro. You need these 3 things to actually make something similar to Starcraft. Balance trips up many RTS games, and micro with macro is rare. If one of these things are missing, you end up either with an imbalanced game or a run-of-the-mill RTS where people just try to out-macro each other and mass more units in a slugfest. Really, can someone come up with a RTS besides Starcraft that accomplishes all 3 of these criteria? | ||
|
naventus
United States1337 Posts
The fact is that very few games are made to be competitive. And the ones that are competitive today, were not made with the intent of being competitive, but were pushed that way by the community. Now since there are competitive games in place, it's not enough to be grab a community out of nothing - you really have to design a new game to be competitive AND better. Most game studios/games have no intention of going this route (it's not necessarily more cost-efficient/profitable), and therefore their games "fail". | ||
|
NuB.xE
United States131 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
Relic games: (being the other RTS maker to grab my attention) Homeworld: Difficult learning curve due to genre breaking nature, and broken strategically as games devolve to literal formation-behaviour key spam to out dance opponents by "glitching" fighter units that wasn't fully intended. DoW: Impossible balance model and impossible to statistically understand due to having a ton of races, 7+ armor classes and weapon classes, tons of unique modifiers involving interaction just about every two unit. Memorizing all the semi-hidden interactions as opposed to easy to understand concepts becomes more important than intuitive generalized ones. Immense complexity also means bugs and impossible balance issues that could not be resolved easily, let alone make all races internally balanced and deep. CoH: No mirror matches allowed by design! The same miserable tangled mass of modifiers remain from DoW. Despite being a heavily map dependent game, there is few official maps and insufficient support for outside map packs. Balance issues are also plagued by the "historical accuracy brigade" on top of the usual whiners. ---- SupCom: When build orders takes an entire book to write down, one wonders..... | ||
|
liger13
United States1060 Posts
On January 03 2009 14:15 NuB.xE wrote: Most rts fail because they're not competitive enough imo lol... alot of RTS are fun.. but just doesnt have the community... Im not sure why SC was picked up but thankfully Blizzard actually develops games and continues to develop them... but one of the reason's why i personally stuck with SC is because the community was already there and Korea... well... their Korea  | ||
|
lwstupidus
United States74 Posts
On January 03 2009 13:07 Entertaining wrote: they fail just like FPS games fail, while you play them your comparing them to the best. when i play fps most of the time i think to myself, "i could be playing halo3 right now". while playing rts like supreme commander i think "i could be cutting my wrists right now" lol jk, id rather play STARCRAFT Aside from the game selling well, Halo 3 was a horrible failure, so really bad comparison. The reason is that FPS doesn't need to be balanced in the same way an RTS does. Starcraft (and Warcraft 3) are the only games that still after 5 million hours of analyzing every little detail, no race is better than the other and no super-own-all strategy exist. You must be unfamiliar with Orc. which WC3 has pretty much proven to be boring as fuck. There needs to be a healthy amount of tactics and strategy, people need to be able to be creative, I think this is the fatal flaw of most online games. And you must be unfamiliar with WC3 completely, which has infinitely more strategy at all levels of play, whereas in SC, the player who masses more units through macro at B or below is just going to win with A click. | ||
|
hazz
United Kingdom570 Posts
On January 03 2009 13:53 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: More the absence of any meaningful macro. It's not like choosing to cut troops in favour of econ is all that valid in any way in war3. I don't think heros are as bad as people make it out to be, in a game with more macro they'd probably just play like reaver/shuttles play out in pvps Is there any game apart from starcraft with such diverse economy management? Every other RTS seems to devolve into unit spam and basic micro. I don't think its fair to say warcraft 3 has inherently flawed gameplay because macro isn't the focus | ||
|
Puosu
7017 Posts
On January 03 2009 14:40 lwstupidus wrote: Aside from the game selling well, Halo 3 was a horrible failure, so really bad comparison. You must be unfamiliar with Orc. And you must be unfamiliar with WC3 completely, which has infinitely more strategy at all levels of play, whereas in SC, the player who masses more units through macro at B or below is just going to win with A click. First of all, Halo 3 is far from being a "failure" in any aspect, it still is the biggset e-Sport game in USA thanks to MLG and their newest sponsor Dr. Pepper they're growing at a fast speed and already have shitloads of professional players. And what the fuck are you saying, WC3 more strategy than SC? Uh.. okay, so because macro matter in SC it has no strategy in it? Oh my my you don't know anything. | ||
| ||
