EPT[Q] How did other RTS games fail? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
hazz
United Kingdom570 Posts
| ||
|
BrutalMenace
United States1237 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
| ||
|
Deimos0
Poland277 Posts
| ||
|
Ch3m1c4l
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
I would say (now) there are almost two types of RTS's; if you want a description of the 'feel' i'd say 'stoner RTS's' (like the ones you just chill out, build up a massive base, and just do stuff that is interesting, with no conceivable end in sight.. and winning generally isn't the point of playing...) and then the 'pill popper RTS' where everything needs too be intense, the games are fast n short (like i'd equate the feel of competitive SC much closer too CS.. with fast rounds that are action packed). Too draw the distinction; i'd like too draw on two games that came out pretty much the same time, and still have a very large fan base (although one is a large casual LAN gamer base, rather than pro). Too represent the 'mellow RTS' side of things, we have Microsoft's AoE2, which is still HUGELY popular with casual gamers and games typically last for upwards of 2 hours (with a movie or something on in the background). The game isn't very well balanced at all, with players usually being able too amass a massive army of two types of units and just batter each other with them too achieve victory. The resources are seemingly endless (trade carts) and defenses are a massive component (too say the least). To define the type of feel behind the fun you get from this... in essence i'd bring it right down too the type of 'tower defence/attack' mods you get for wc3. You get loads and loads of crap, and batter it against your enemy's defenses (strategy plays very little part) and pretty much see who ends up winning the big brute force battle. To represent the 'hyper intense' RTS, is your beloved Starcraft. The game must be super balanced because it is quite literally about getting the upper hand on the other person. It is competitive gaming on steroids, and i consider it a much closer feel too Counter Strike than your typical RTS. This isn't really a game you can play for hours and hours on end with 'interesting strategies' that seem like a good idea at the time just because you felt it was time that you started building tanks. Too put it bluntly, SC to me is an absolutely shit house mellow RTS, with Terran the only real race you can play in relative safety if your gonna just mass turtle and then swarm loads of crap at each other. And too the same extent, AoE2 is a crap competitive RTS because of the appallingly OP units and strats. So, it depends on what kind of 'feel' your looking for in the game. And i'm sure there are games that you can do both in, but starcraft 1 defiantly isn't one of those games, and i doubt Starcraft 2 will be ether. It just isn't the kind of game where you can feasibly turtle and simply use a chilled out brute force tactic with a long drawn out game with seemingly endless supply and units. p.s. for all those here who will undoubtedly say that 'all chilled out games are shit, and that competitive games are the way of the future', i say lighten up. Games are for enjoying, if you want too chill and thats what you look for in a game, then so be it. Being a balanced game with intense game play is NOT what 'all' RTS's are about. Nor should they be. OP super units are the sex for some people, and absolutely amazingly massive defenses represent a game that is good for chillaxing too while getting stoned or watching a movie/eating/playing guitar at the same time. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
The thing about this thread is that most RTS only go one route and either say "Casuals Only" or "Hardcores Only". Starcraft however is probably one of the only RTSs that manages to snag both crowds into one game. Even though TL.net is a hardcore-oriented site, SC has always been an easy to learn hard to master kind of game. You say it isn't for casuals, but I honestly don't see how you can say that. Bnet is always full of BGH maps which are notoriously casual, and the custom game menu is always active and full of maps that are perfectly casual-friendly. To this day, you can get your buddies and play a non-serious match on BGH or go custom with tower defense or something. You don't HAVE to have a 300+ APM to enjoy this game, no matter what anyone tells you. When we refer to other RTS games "failing", we don't mean to say that the game sucks, but that it failed to capture the desires of the hardcore playerbase. It's easy to make a game that only caters to casuals, but quite frankly casual games are a dime a dozen nowadays. "Chilled out" games are fun, but competitive games are even better because you can actually choose between casual and hardcore play-styles, and not have to be shoehorned into casual-only like so many other games do. It's for this reason why I can't fathom why gamers today are on this "anti-hardcore" crusade. Games that appeal to everyone are the ones that stand out, and it's one of the core philosophies that Blizzard follows. If you want to turtle in your base and mass Carriers/Battlecruisers/Ultralisks, then you're more than welcome to do so. Nobody is stopping casuals for having their relaxing fun with SC2; hardcores simply want to make sure that they can have their fun as well. | ||
|
ManWithCheese
Canada246 Posts
| ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
On January 06 2009 17:19 Tyraz wrote: Too put it bluntly, SC to me is an absolutely shit house mellow RTS, with Terran the only real race you can play in relative safety if your gonna just mass turtle and then swarm loads of crap at each other. And too the same extent, AoE2 is a crap competitive RTS because of the appallingly OP units and strats. you have interesting theories but you are forgetting that there is a seperate SC community you are forgetting The fast map community that make games with "NR20" or "NRMM" , and then mass units with even bigger defenses and play that crap for hours. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On January 06 2009 17:19 Tyraz wrote: Too draw the distinction; i'd like too draw on two games that came out pretty much the same time, and still have a very large fan base (although one is a large casual LAN gamer base, rather than pro). Too represent the 'mellow RTS' side of things, we have Microsoft's AoE2, which is still HUGELY popular with casual gamers and games typically last for upwards of 2 hours (with a movie or something on in the background). The game isn't very well balanced at all, with players usually being able too amass a massive army of two types of units and just batter each other with them too achieve victory. The resources are seemingly endless (trade carts) and defenses are a massive component (too say the least). To define the type of feel behind the fun you get from this... in essence i'd bring it right down too the type of 'tower defence/attack' mods you get for wc3. You get loads and loads of crap, and batter it against your enemy's defenses (strategy plays very little part) and pretty much see who ends up winning the big brute force battle. . Did you ever, you know, actually play AoE2 ? =p The game is quite fast paced, intense micro while managing an economy more complex than in bw, units build faster than in bw, there is no working MBS iirc (except for rallies) Saying that games last 2 hours would be like looking at a 4v4 fastest game of bw and draw conclusions on gameplay :/ Oh god... I just finished reading your post and realized that's exactly what you did lols. -_- Your comments on bw strategy are just ><. Seriously didn't it ever cross your mind that you might not understand how a game works when you've only played it with newbies for like 10 hours? :/ | ||
|
MuR)Ernu
Finland768 Posts
Thats something Starcraft 2 ATM seems like it would fail like this | ||
|
[DUF]MethodMan
Germany1716 Posts
I played BGHish Maps in Vanilla (which were only big in the German community i guess, in its prime around 03 there were 3 big Leagues having like the same number of BWCL + WGTCL in clans and players in it) until 04/05 when I started BW Low. In non-competitive games, meaning the ones outside the leagues and ladders, you could do any shit you wanted, BCs and Carriers were absolutely common and it was shitloads of fun. So i guess your argument doesn't work here. Also I would go that far, defining games where you just can't play that competitive as in SC not as RTS because you obv don't see much of "real time" in it. They are more like a mix between RTS and classic Strategygames like Civilization. Serving the competitive/hardcore gamers doesn't mean the game isn't playable anymore for the casual/noob gamer. All of the best games ever in their respective genre are fun to both casual and hardcore gamers, see Q3, CS, SC. I won't mention WC3 cause I'm biased and I think a game which deserves the attribute "competitive game" has to be easy to spectate which WC3 is definetly not. | ||
|
ToSs.Bag
United States201 Posts
On January 06 2009 19:10 Spawkuring wrote: Tyraz, there's nothing wrong with a game being both casual and hardcore friendly at the same time. Thats what WoW is trying to do, and is phail. But on a side note, I think there needs to be a ground set for "Succeeded" I can think of many games that "succeeded" but arent playing professionally and arent really played much or talked about today. I know of games that "succeeded" in a sense that they brought me overwhelming joy along with many others but were never into the mainstream. Lets take some ole SNES classics.... namely Chrono Trigger and Super Mario RPG....... now most casual gamers are going looking at me right now either say "uh, what" or "Oh yeah, Super Mario, I loved Star Road" when in fact its an entirely different game. What game would you consider more successful? A game that everybody knows, or a game that made it into the hearts of thousands as one of the best games of all time. The only reason Starcraft is gaining popularity and giving Iccup more D newbs than ever is A) WoW & Blizzcon B) Tasteless (which isnt a bad thing) C) Starcraft Two anticipation or in some cases: D) Screaming girl fans in Korea Aside from that Starcraft was to be remembered as an amazing storyline for a game, and back in its prime time (which some argue could be now, but come on people, you know what I mean) , was notorious for cheese builds, back when Spawning pools were 150 minerals and we had nice and small ladder maps. The thing that makes games stay alive though, and this everyone knows, is patches and dev work, however, what makes starcraft unique, is much of that is done 3rd party. Whether it be ICcup or ChaosLauncher, KeSPA or Teamliquid, everyone puts heart sweat and blood into this game because it captivated peoples hearts the time of release. Of course, the progaming scene in Korea propelled it, which I won't even delve into how that got started, but you get my picture. If you forget about a game, people will widdle off. Take Diablo II for instance. I used to play Hardcore Classic (not expac) and there was a huge community not long ago, but every year it widdles down. WHy? because all they do is reset the ladder these days... no modding, no new items or skills or balancing. The last balance I can remember is making Cleglaws gloves not be the most OP thing in PvP ever. I digress, but tell me guys, if KeSPA and ICcup weren't around (and the other servers) the game wouldnt be NEAR as fun. If Blizzard stepped the fuck up maybe yeah, but everyone is giving them way too much credit. The great things about this game are what people put into it. Otherwise it would have been dead long ago. Even strategy wise. For instance: Reavers are described as a defensive unit, but are commonly used as the most harass friendly unit in the game, but people were figuring out shuttle and reaver combos, progressing the game ever so slightly. People figured out you can put a barracks next to CC to micro around a zealot, was that intended? Probably not even thought about.... Maynarding workers... the list goes on. My point is, if there wasn't something that captivated you initially, whether it be a progamers enthusiasm, or their fans, something had to get you into it, and what made you stick is the community, and how hard everyone works at making a perfect game, how much people care about it. Literally taking it from a game, to a sport,and thus esports was born. Aside from the fact that yes its an amazing game, and surprisingly balanced, but I think that was more by a stroke of luck than anything. anywho im done rambling, tahtah | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
I have looked thro the settings again and again trying to find a way to increase the speed, I cant believe anyone actually wants to play on the initial speed, its so slow that the seconds on stuff cooldown or construction takes more than 1 second do pass, ridiculous. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
A lot of SC's popularity came from 3rd party support, yet you talk as if this is a bad thing. None of that 3rd party support would have came if there wasn't a solid game to build it on. Yes, SC was a bit of a fluke, but I don't really see what you're getting at here. | ||
|
pooper-scooper
United States3108 Posts
Strifeshadow! It failed because only about 60 people ever dled it, it had terribly outdated graphics the moment it came out and it had a few balance issues. It did have instant unit response! | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
So if your computer only manages 15FPS, 1 ingame second takes 2 RL seconds. In C&C3 this was the most annoying thing ever online, when someone puts their settings waaaay above what their comp can handle just to annoy the hell out of you by slowing the game to a crawl. | ||
|
ToSs.Bag
United States201 Posts
 .And yes, the fact that the units move quickly is a major plus! Makes for spectating much more intense because the tides of the game can turn in seconds. Looking back, RTS in general (macro RTS) like RoN focus too much on tech trees where BO's would be too complex and army positioning.... which is fun, but watching a movie during battle isnt fun.... one thing I love about starcraft is even as protoss (lol) you cant just sit there and watch your army hit the other guys, thats when the game gets most intense. but yeah that previous post...... blame is on flying Red-eye cross country.... ugh | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On January 07 2009 06:46 dmfg wrote: Slightly OT but D10 - I believe the RA3 engine shares the C&C3 engine's quirk of being locked at 30 FPS, meaning that if your comp is too slow to output 30 FPS then it actually slows down the game. So if your computer only manages 15FPS, 1 ingame second takes 2 RL seconds. In C&C3 this was the most annoying thing ever online, when someone puts their settings waaaay above what their comp can handle just to annoy the hell out of you by slowing the game to a crawl. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!! <3 | ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
For example, War 3 is going to be brought up a lot- was it as successful, more successful, or less successful than starcraft? In my mind, war 3 is less successful than starcraft, but that could be a personal bias. As for lots of things that sunk other RTS's- the units/animations are too slow, making the game boring only mirror matches brought out only one, best build order (I'm thinking homeworld here) game imbalance made it so that only one build order was viable in every matchup Harass wasn't as effective, meaning that macro/an economic style wasn't as important. the game wasn't as deep (linked to only 1 bo being the best) Quite frankly, I think that the most important elements of starcraft were the varied build order choices, the faster unit movement, and the fact that the learning curve was really really steep (the last point being a combination of just about everything). Anyone (yes, even D+ level players) would destroy boxer in 2002 (or elky >.>) for about 2 months before they figured out how to catch up, because the game just wasn't as developed then. The depth of starcraft made it so that the game is unmatched today. Today, starcraft is unmatched as an RTS because of how balanced the game currently is. For more discussion on this, i'm sure that there are threads floating around on how sc2 is going to have a really really hard time surpassing sc1. | ||
| ||
