RTS games!

[Namutree]

I was talkin' to Sensuki about RTS games in a different thread so I decided to move such types of conversation to a thread where said conversation is more appropriate.

 

To get things going, here are a few statements people can respond to:

 

1: Total War series really went to crap after Empire came out.

 

2: Starcraft 2 is a good RTS, but pales compared to Starcraft: Brood War.

 

3: Halo Wars can be fun in small doses with friends who aren't serious RTS players.

 

4: Tzar: Burden of the Crown is a game not many people are aware of. I think it's neat.

 

Any thoughts on any RTS is great; I just wanted to give some people statements to agree/disagree with.

 

EDIT: I guess I'm still getting used to the Obsidian website. I put this in the wrong section. Silly me.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Namutree

[Gorgon]

Some more statements

 

 

1 : Follwing Homeworld Shipbreakers with interest

[Gorth]

Moved to to the gaming related section

[Humanoid]

1: RTS is the worst mainstream videogame genre.

[Namutree]

1: RTS is the worst mainstream videogame genre.

On what Basis? Do you find it's single player lacking, or are they somehow structurally flawed?

[Gorgon]

I genrerally dislike RTS gams that center around various production and research buildings. They tend to lack tactics and wind up being strategy games instead. 

The race for research and resource dominate everything. 

[Gorgon]

Yes I know what RTS stands for, but I like to have both tactics and strategy.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I hadn't really played many RTS games longer than a few minutes until Monte Carlo's musings over the COH2 beta made be try it, and I was hooked pretty much instantly. Then, after hundred and hundreds of hours of it, I'm still but a noob, relatively speaking, that's quite some depth for you. Oh, and some matches vs humans are absolutely super-exciting. Your heart is pounding in sheer excitement. The thrill of it all can be almost too overwhelming. However, if you had asked me like two years ago, I had said the same thing as Gorgon.

Edited September 11, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Guest Slinky]

First rule of making RTS games: get Frank Klepacki do the soundtrack.

[Blarghagh]

1: RTS is the worst mainstream videogame genre.

 

It's a mainstream genre?

[Namutree]

 

1: RTS is the worst mainstream videogame genre.

 

It's a mainstream genre?

 

It is in Korea.

[Longknife]

My only beef with RTS games is that you eventually hit the point where your click speed and keyboard typing speed begin to be a cornerstone factor of your playing ability. It's like wtf dude I want strategy and tactics, not Touch Typing for Seniors. I thoroughly enjoyed Age of Empires II and III, but found in three I often played the online mode where you have like 20 mins of peace and THEN fighting is enabled, which admittedly diminished the amount of viable nations. The Germans were an immediate "yes, viable" because they have the most long-term upgrades whereas the Sioux were gonna struggle with that since their economy was pretty ass. It also kinda killed the element of ambushing or overpowering your enemy quickly, but STILL I stuck with it just because 1) everyone knew which nations were viable and stuck to them and 2) it resulted in wider-scale battles with more focus on positioning and actively picking your battles whereas the normal mode had a lot more click-baiting (leading your archers back but clicking an opponent every time their attack cooldown is up, kite-fighting with cavalry by constantly pulling them away and sending them back, just distracting you and waiting for you to get tired of watching or knowing you were suffering for every moment your villagers were distracted) and micromanagement. Those little details just aren't the reason I'm interested in such games.

[Monte Carlo]

The only one I'm playing regularly now is CoH2 as Indira says. I've been with the CoH franchise since, ooooh, 2007 I think.

 

I also play Medieval TW 2 a great deal with mods, I absolutely love it.

 

Obviously I was disappointed with Rome 2 despite epic production values and a great look. It tried to streamline stuff but just made it, er, more complicated (cough... pillars of eternity ...cough).

 

I'm always on the look-out for a new RTS, eventually someone will go back to what made the TW series great.

[Bester]

RTS games went to **** after 1999, the year which saw the last of the great titles of its genre: Starcraft and Total Annihilation.

[Namutree]

My very first experience messing with game design was with the Starcraft editor making special game modes. My favorite remains my "Glorious Sunken Defence XY". It was an altered version of the "Sunken Defense XY" which I felt was too easy an could use a bit of spicing up. 

 

I always added the word Glorious to every unit's name for some reason.

[Monte Carlo]

The single reason RTS games struggle nowadays is because you just can't play them properly on a console. MOBAs are the brash upstart offspring of the RTS.

 

Old-skool RTS's are are the preserve of the PC master race, and thus a bit niche.

[Namutree]

 

Obviously I was disappointed with Rome 2 despite epic production values and a great look. 

 

The game looks great. Definitely not silly.

 

I also hope some one saves the Total War series.

[Humanoid]

Maybe I'm embittered by the late 90s wave of C&C clones, but yeah, beyond the surface, what I mean is that I have no respect whatsoever for that action oriented, buiid-a-base then rush-your-enemies type gameplay. I mean, that skill at that type of game is measured by "actions per minute" is a fair clue that something's gone drastically wrong with the 'strategy' aspect of the games.

 

Slower paced and more cerebral type RTSes I can respect, though I don't really play them. The Close Combats and the Gettysburg's, and I imagine how the likes of Homeworld and Total War play (never tried those).

 

 

TN: Maybe not so much mainstream now, I guess my disregard for it is such that I haven't really noticed the genre shrinking to mostly just Starcraft, but still Starcraft is one of those games I reserve no fondness for and is emblematic of the RTS design issue. One of the most, if not singularly the most, overrated games of all time.

[Malcador]

Hm, plenty of strategy in SC - at least if you class the match as the conflict's highest level I guess - watching professional matches you can see them at work (watched one guy recover and drastically switch his approach after being deceived by his opponent). Speed being a factor, well, I suppose that is ok. I like all RTS's myself, though they are sadly rare these days. Hopefully Grey Goo will be interesting to play, that's out later this year.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Malcador

[pmp10]

The single reason RTS games struggle nowadays is because you just can't play them properly on a console. MOBAs are the brash upstart offspring of the RTS.

Quite a few got adapted for consoles and still didn't do well.

The genre is dying simply because the production values no longer make sense for a PC exclusive and singleplayer focused game.

MOBAs sidestepped the problem by being made for multiplayer and microtransactions from the get-go.

[Namutree]

Maybe I'm embittered by the late 90s wave of C&C clones, but yeah, beyond the surface, what I mean is that I have no respect whatsoever for that action oriented, buiid-a-base then rush-your-enemies type gameplay. I mean, that skill at that type of game is measured by "actions per minute" is a fair clue that something's gone drastically wrong with the 'strategy' aspect of the games.

 

Slower paced and more cerebral type RTSes I can respect, though I don't really play them. The Close Combats and the Gettysburg's, and I imagine how the likes of Homeworld and Total War play (never tried those).

 

 

TN: Maybe not so much mainstream now, I guess my disregard for it is such that I haven't really noticed the genre shrinking to mostly just Starcraft, but still Starcraft is one of those games I reserve no fondness for and is emblematic of the RTS design issue. One of the most, if not singularly the most, overrated games of all time.

RTS's are supposed to be hectic and require speed. They still require plenty of strategy. I love pure strategy games (Romance of the three Kingdoms 8 for example), but the intense pace of a good RTS is simply wonderful.

[Namutree]

 

The single reason RTS games struggle nowadays is because you just can't play them properly on a console. MOBAs are the brash upstart offspring of the RTS.

Quite a few got adapted for consoles and still didn't do well.

The genre is dying simply because the production values no longer make sense for a PC exclusive and singleplayer focused game.

MOBAs sidestepped the problem by being made for multiplayer and microtransactions from the get-go.

 

Halo Wars did well.

 

Almost all RTS games are made with multiplayer in mind.

[Humanoid]

I think the issue for me, aside from the insane pace of the things, is autonomy. The gameplay design of that style of RTS deliberately strips as much autonomy as possible from your units in order to force you to micromanage as much as possible. If they thought they could get away with making you tie the shoelaces for every single unit you had on the field, they'd make you do that too. The attitude is that if your units had even the slightest hint of intelligence and common sense, that'd be "cheating". I'm their commander, not their bloody nanny.

 

I play a little bit of AoE2, because my sister asks me to. At the very basic level I'm annoyed right away that to do scouting, I have to manually move my scout to exactly where I want, and have to remember to keep queuing up moves for it while I do all the other busywork. Why can't I just give it an order to go "scout the fog"? I can do it well enough in Civilization, even if it's suboptimal. Give me the choice. And don't get me started on how any resources carried by a villager instantly vanishes into thin air the moment you (mis)click them onto a different resource.

 

My preference in games is completely the opposite. When I play the Sims, I set maximum autonomy and let my Sims do whatever they wish, intervening only in situations where a required action such as repairing a broken appliance isn't supported by the AI.

[Calax]

 

 

Obviously I was disappointed with Rome 2 despite epic production values and a great look. 

 

The game looks great. Definitely not silly.

 

I also hope some one saves the Total War series.

 

To be fair the game has come a long way in the year since it's release. I mean they've had 15 updates and are releasing a free xpac next week to play in the Civil war between Octavian and Antony.

[pmp10]

 

 

The single reason RTS games struggle nowadays is because you just can't play them properly on a console. MOBAs are the brash upstart offspring of the RTS.

Quite a few got adapted for consoles and still didn't do well.

The genre is dying simply because the production values no longer make sense for a PC exclusive and singleplayer focused game.

MOBAs sidestepped the problem by being made for multiplayer and microtransactions from the get-go.

 

Halo Wars did well.

 

Almost all RTS games are made with multiplayer in mind.

 

With a strapped-on multiplayer? Sure.

But majority of the player-base just wants the campaign.

That's why trying to move classic RTS model into F2P territory simply didn't work.