🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
So, why do you play RTS games ?
Author
So, why is it that you like RTS games ?
What does it bring you ? Please don''t just say "because they are fun", or "because I like it". What I''d like to know, is the very reasons taht make them enjoyable. The deeper reasons. Is it the feeling of commanding a vast army? Is it the incredible story that you want to see unfold ? Or something even deeper ?
I was gonna write a long post about some stuff I have read lately and about my regrets that such depth still doesn''t exist. But I am realising more and more that most people don''t really care about depth that much. "giving jam to pigs" we say in France... Why bother doing a masterpiece if no one is ever goingto appreciate it. Who really knows about wargames, who care about recreating conflicts, who cares about history and what it can teach us ?
I do, but most people don''t seem to. And you ?
To give you an example of what I am asking for, I''ll start by answering myself.
I like that feeling of being in charge. I am supposed to save the day, keep my men alive, and take responsibility if all fails. I like that feeling when my little outpost units bravely hold a charge of the enemy and repel it. I would love to be able to play something as dramatic as the Rork''s Drift siege (an english outpost full of wounded with only 150 men, against an army of around 4000 zulus, during a whole night. In the morning, the Zulus retreated, impressed by the bravery of those soldiers), or the Camerone siege (the Foreign Legion in Mexico). I like it when my actions are actually changing something to the story. And most of all, I like to learn from my mistakes. I like to "play" with my opponent by using tricks, maneuvers, deceit. I want a game where forests, hills, rocky grounds, all affect the fight in various ways. I want a game where the weather matters, where you have to take care of your soldiers by feeding them, sheltering them, but where the civilians are doing fine on their own. etc etc etc ...
I was watching a program yesterday on the Austro prussian war at the end of the 19th century. During a battle in the forest of Konnigsrad, 6400 men died in a day, mostly austrian. And the little detail that made the austrian lose so badly, was the difference of guns : the Prussians had "needle" rifles (the shell would be perfored by the needle, thus projecting the bullet), while the Austrian used the old Muskets (you had to stand, put powder, and a bullet to reload). The prussiand could fire 3 times faster and reload while crawling... the Austrian got annihilated. Who would have thought that such a little detail would tip the balance of the whole war on the side of the Prussians ?
Well, anyway.
I think you see what I am asking. So now it''s your turn. Why would any designer bother improving the genre of RTS for you ? In which direction should they improve it ?
youpla :-P
quote:
I think you see what I am asking. So now it''s your turn. Why would any designer bother improving the genre of RTS for you ? In which direction should they improve it ?
Make it exactly like Myth. =)
-RWarden (roberte@maui.net)
Actually, I could have easily told you that such a mechanical advantage would have a huge impact on a battle with all other things being equal. Obviously mechanical superiority can be overcome by numerical superiority, superior strategy, and/or superior positioning. Technological superiority is a huge advantage in any environment that requires almost no skill or effort to take advantage of.
I myself am not all that interested in games that reproduce historical battles/events because I already know what the outcome of those events are supposed to be. I''ve never had the desire to walk in another''s footsteps, even if those footsteps were supposedly made by great men. I prefer to play games where the outcome is unknown, where even the possible outcomes are unknown or relatively vague.
What I like in any Strategy game is the strategy. Discovering tactics to give your forces an edge. Finding your enemies weaknesses and exploiting them. Victory through intelligence and knowledge. The environment is irrelevant whether it be Sci fi, fantasy, or simulation, so long as there are plenty of strategy and tactical aspects to keep the replay value high (as well as quality implementation, but as far as I''m concerned that goes without saying).
I myself am not all that interested in games that reproduce historical battles/events because I already know what the outcome of those events are supposed to be. I''ve never had the desire to walk in another''s footsteps, even if those footsteps were supposedly made by great men. I prefer to play games where the outcome is unknown, where even the possible outcomes are unknown or relatively vague.
What I like in any Strategy game is the strategy. Discovering tactics to give your forces an edge. Finding your enemies weaknesses and exploiting them. Victory through intelligence and knowledge. The environment is irrelevant whether it be Sci fi, fantasy, or simulation, so long as there are plenty of strategy and tactical aspects to keep the replay value high (as well as quality implementation, but as far as I''m concerned that goes without saying).
quote: Original post by ahw
So, why is it that you like RTS games ?
I don''t
Reason being: They''re are far too many and mostly on the first-generation ones are original and any FUN. If you''re going to make one, take hints from the greats--LOTS of hints, but DON''T copy them. Do something radically different, using past successes and a very loose guideline.
------------------------------
Changing the future of adventure gaming...
Atypical Interactive
Author
Atypical Alex : so what would make you happy in a RTS. What do YOU want RTS to mean. Please, don''t answer a lame "as long as it''s fun!" answer. I''d like to understand what is it that tickles when we play games. And in the case of strategy games, what is it that''s so interesting about it.
youpla :-P
youpla :-P
I like em because no other genre has the depth of strategy and tactics. Turn based strategy is really a misnomer since they are all actually sims and I hate sims (simulation and strategy being on opposite ends of the same axis). So basically I''m a strategy gamer and RTS is where the strategy is. The real time nature can be bothersome but there is no other way to get through a game in a reasonable time. Bad games like AoK mess up the pacing but the result is the opposite: reduced interaction and thus a reduction in strategy.
Where can RTS be improved?
Trim the last traces of sim out
Use more recognizable art, the units need not look realistic at all. The warcraft/starcraft style is superior because no two units look alike. The art does not stand alone, good art does not always mean good game art.
Smaller armies, slower paced battles, Myth has this down
reduce emphasis on economics
elminate pointless tasks
Good RTSs that will be coming out:
Strifeshadow (ethermoon.com), expected release in december.
Warcraft III (Blizzard.com) expected release late spring.
Where can RTS be improved?
Trim the last traces of sim out
Use more recognizable art, the units need not look realistic at all. The warcraft/starcraft style is superior because no two units look alike. The art does not stand alone, good art does not always mean good game art.
Smaller armies, slower paced battles, Myth has this down
reduce emphasis on economics
elminate pointless tasks
Good RTSs that will be coming out:
Strifeshadow (ethermoon.com), expected release in december.
Warcraft III (Blizzard.com) expected release late spring.
What i get out of playing rts is different per rts. I hate mission based rts''s. I prefer one''s where i can plan-build-progress-defeat. I get an interectual tingle from knowing that my plans where better than someone elses. I also don''t mind being beaten if i know that what i did wrong. I get frustrated if i can''t work out why i was beaten or if i was beaten by luck. Although i sometimes put on a brave face 
Generally it comes down to something interlectual thats motivating me to play these games. Also an interest in stiring up the can of worms to see what happens if i do this or that (Curiousity). But overall i like just being able to test the water for ways of winning and then applying my smarts to see how i can make best use of it.
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
Generally it comes down to something interlectual thats motivating me to play these games. Also an interest in stiring up the can of worms to see what happens if i do this or that (Curiousity). But overall i like just being able to test the water for ways of winning and then applying my smarts to see how i can make best use of it.
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
I like having the ability to outfox someone. So RTS games that give me the ability to excercise tactical strokes of genius and really use my mind are well received. Total Annihilation had this more than Starcraft, I think, because you had greater control of your forces.
As far as depth, I hear ya. The more shallow the game, the wider the audience. (Funny enough, the more shallow the audience the more likely they are to treat your game like a 30 second commmercial and toss it in short order... no brand loyalty whatsoever...)
My suggestions (sorry it''s so long, I''m trying to avoid working)
1) Less death via micromanagement. Starcraft''s awesome, but some units are nearly unusable because of micromanagement problems (Ghosts and Templars, anyone?)
2) More detailed AI controls. My damn Ghost should be able to HOLD FIRE when I''m sneaking around an enemy base. TA had control of firing and manuever, with 2 easy buttons, and that went a long way.
3) Rush busters: Some players only know how to mass a bunch of troops and send them your way. This isn''t strategy (interesting strategy, anyway). Splash damage and area effect weapons need to be available early game to prevent this.
4) Quicker endings once you''ve practically won. You shouldn''t have to hunt down every last player''s unit on the board to win. Dark Reign''s base timer (must not lose your primary base for more than 3 minutes) is an awesome idea
5) User customizable units. Take the Quake route: Let your community help build your game, and thus do a lot of the work and share in a lot of the joy of creating it. Huge possibility of loyal fan base here...
6) Better backstory. Man, if I hear that four factions crap again I''m gonna start stranglin'' designers...
7) Indirect strategy. Taking a page from Chris Crawford, you only get so many interesting interactions if direct conflict is your ownly option. As we can see, many weapon and unit ideas have already been exhausted because of this. So think of indirect ways of conflict that supliment the battle.
8) More between-game game. I''d love it if the games felt less like levels and more like something cohesive.
9) Espionage and deceit. The Germans may well have lost WWII because they believe that the allies were going to land at Calais instead of Normandy. The Allies used fake radio transmissions, inflatible tanks, and a dead soldier with invasion documents to do this. Why can''t I?
10) Better notion of supply without the tedious micromanagement. Wars in RTS games play out more like viral infections than real conflicts. You can''t, for instance, surround a force and starve it rather than attack it directly.
Okay, I''ll stop now
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
and really use my mind are well received. Total Annihilation had this more than Starcraft, I think, because you had greater control of your forces.As far as depth, I hear ya. The more shallow the game, the wider the audience. (Funny enough, the more shallow the audience the more likely they are to treat your game like a 30 second commmercial and toss it in short order... no brand loyalty whatsoever...)
My suggestions (sorry it''s so long, I''m trying to avoid working
)1) Less death via micromanagement. Starcraft''s awesome, but some units are nearly unusable because of micromanagement problems (Ghosts and Templars, anyone?)
2) More detailed AI controls. My damn Ghost should be able to HOLD FIRE when I''m sneaking around an enemy base. TA had control of firing and manuever, with 2 easy buttons, and that went a long way.
3) Rush busters: Some players only know how to mass a bunch of troops and send them your way. This isn''t strategy (interesting strategy, anyway). Splash damage and area effect weapons need to be available early game to prevent this.
4) Quicker endings once you''ve practically won. You shouldn''t have to hunt down every last player''s unit on the board to win. Dark Reign''s base timer (must not lose your primary base for more than 3 minutes) is an awesome idea
5) User customizable units. Take the Quake route: Let your community help build your game, and thus do a lot of the work and share in a lot of the joy of creating it. Huge possibility of loyal fan base here...
6) Better backstory. Man, if I hear that four factions crap again I''m gonna start stranglin'' designers...
7) Indirect strategy. Taking a page from Chris Crawford, you only get so many interesting interactions if direct conflict is your ownly option. As we can see, many weapon and unit ideas have already been exhausted because of this. So think of indirect ways of conflict that supliment the battle.
8) More between-game game. I''d love it if the games felt less like levels and more like something cohesive.
9) Espionage and deceit. The Germans may well have lost WWII because they believe that the allies were going to land at Calais instead of Normandy. The Allies used fake radio transmissions, inflatible tanks, and a dead soldier with invasion documents to do this. Why can''t I?
10) Better notion of supply without the tedious micromanagement. Wars in RTS games play out more like viral infections than real conflicts. You can''t, for instance, surround a force and starve it rather than attack it directly.
Okay, I''ll stop now
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
I like RTS games because I like working my brain. When playing against human intelligence, you have to engineer solutions to problems they generate. I love finding out neat things to do with your units and awesome combinations.... Starcraft example: provoke some scouts to start following a small group of mutalisks, lead them over some burrowed hydras, once they are past the hydras, ensnare them with queens to slow their retreat and unburrow the hydras. Voila! insta-dead-scouts. Its also fun because you are playing a human being, and more often than not, I am the one not pulling my hair out and yelling at the monitor.
Later,
Eck
BTW, StarCraft has been ruined by fastest game speed and the pump-rush....Wow, I got more zerglings in 2 minutes than you did. I win. Want to play again? And somehow, 500 games and 1000 minutes later this is still fun!?!?!?!
Edited by - Eck on August 23, 2000 11:12:44 AM
Its also fun because you are playing a human being, and more often than not, I am the one not pulling my hair out and yelling at the monitor. Later,
Eck
BTW, StarCraft has been ruined by fastest game speed and the pump-rush....Wow, I got more zerglings in 2 minutes than you did. I win. Want to play again? And somehow, 500 games and 1000 minutes later this is still fun!?!?!?!
Edited by - Eck on August 23, 2000 11:12:44 AM
quote: Original post by Eck
BTW, StarCraft has been ruined by fastest game speed and the pump-rush....Wow, I got more zerglings in 2 minutes than you did. I win. Want to play again? And somehow, 500 games and 1000 minutes later this is still fun!?!?!?!
Sorry for the OT post, but yeah, what''s the deal with those damned Big Game Hunter maps. A billion resources at startup, no need to tactically expand, and an infinite rush... It''s all folks play on Battlenet these days.
Does this suggest people don''t want resource management in their games? If not, then what other ways are there to create vulnerability and the necessity of defense points? That''s strategy!
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
