Support NeoGAF

[Alexios]

Don't think ex-company games work out so well unless it's a substantial part of the former team rather than just some former key figures which often go on to flop (Warren Spector, Yu Suzuki, Yuji Naka) and even then it takes a while for them to get it right, if they get enough chances (Arkane).

 

[BabyYoda]

Yup, maybe give the demo a go! A big step up from their first game imho.

 

[ZywyPL]

Great article and the point is right there. These games made money to Blizzard, just not enough money.

SC2 was my second biggest disappointing sequel ever (only Fallout 3 being even worse) - the game was made for esports players with added campaign to it, the initial reveal was so amazing in comparison, especially the Protoss' Mothership, but they cut out many of the stuff shown there since it was all hard/impossible to balance in MP. And to make things worse, especially for themselves, they divided that garbade SP campaign into 3 parts, meaning not many people even bothered with 2nd and 3rd part after experiencing Wings of Liberty. So it was all of them, they made a game to serve the esports crowd, they achieved it, but at a great cost, the game could've been huge, really huge, one of the biggest RTS ever made, but they screw it up big times. So that brings the question if the newly created studio made from the very same people is actually able to deliver something good...

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Stop moving the goalposts. This is specifically about real time strategy. And while RTS games don't have to look like Starcraft or Warcraft, they do have to let the player control units in real time. As long as that is true, the player who can do it faster and more efficiently will have a significant advantage. There's no way around it.

The way you make it sound getting around these constraints should be trivial. Let's hear some of your suggestions then.

The goalposts have remained consistent the entire time.

Me: Real Time Strategy is any game that emphasizes strategy (choices made before conflict) in a real time environment.

You: Real Time Strategy is StarCraft + WarCraft style games.

Strategy shouldn't depend on how fast you can make choices. Correct choice should beat fast choice.

 

[LazyParrot]

The goalposts have remained consistent the entire time.

Me: Real Time Strategy is any game that emphasizes strategy (choices made before conflict) in a real time environment.

You: Real Time Strategy is StarCraft + WarCraft style games.

Strategy shouldn't depend on how fast you can make choices. Correct choice should beat fast choice.

So essentially you want a game where the choices determining the result of a battle are made long before you actually engage the enemy, and where players have little to no further control over the outcome of a particular encounter once fighting has started. But in real time.

Do you not realize how incredibly unappealing this would sound to most people? I don't know what kind of game could restore the RTS genre to its former glory, but I'm pretty sure one where you capacity for real time intervention is crippled to the point where it might as well be turn or round-based isn't gonna be it.

I'm gonna ask again, though. Do you have any concrete ideas how such a game would work in terms of structure and mechanics?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

So essentially you want a game where the choices determining the result of a battle are made long before you actually engage the enemy, and where players have little to no further control over the outcome of a particular encounter once fighting has started. But in real time.

No.

Warfare is Strategy + Tactics. I simply want the strategy portion in REAL TIME STRATEGY games to be valued more.

APM gave players such an insane advantage in those old games that it actively diminished the strategic nature of the game.

 

[LazyParrot]

No.

Warfare is Strategy + Tactics. I simply want the strategy portion in REAL TIME STRATEGY games to be valued more.

APM gave players such an insane advantage in those old games that it actively diminished the strategic nature of the game.

What do you mean "No"? That's literally what you wrote:

Real Time Strategy is any game that emphasizes strategy (choices made before conflict) in a real time environment.

Strategy shouldn't depend on how fast you can make choices. Correct choice should beat fast choice.

And could you please stop ignoring my questions?

For the third time: How would you make all of this work in a real time? What would the gameplay look like?

What if multiple players make the "correct" choice given the information available to them? Will you at least allow mechanical skill to function as a tie breaker in those cases? If so, how would you ensure it retains enough impact to effectively do this in these situation, but not others?

 

[Samrf89]

Dear God,

Please let these guys make an awesome RTS and revitalize the genre.

Sincerely,
Me

 

[jigglet]

Non-fantasy, base building RTS pls.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

What do you mean "No"? That's literally what you wrote:



And could you please stop ignoring my questions?

For the third time: How would you make all of this work in a real time? What would the gameplay look like?

What if multiple players make the "correct" choice given the information available to them? Will you at least allow mechanical skill to function as a tie breaker in those cases? If so, how would you ensure it retains enough impact to effectively do this in these situation, but not others?

Nope. I've always maintained that I want to see the STRATEGY portion of real time STRATEGY games be valued more than it currently is. There's a place for tactics in warfare just like there's a place for strategy.

APM should not predict the winner of common matchmaking at a 93.7 percent rate. It's antithetical to the word strategy.

If you want to see how the RTS genre could potentially be brought back to life check out games like Neptune's Pride, RUSE, EVE, Rust, Fortnite, Valheim etc...

It's odd how people who love StarCraft and WarCraft are so suspicious of the word strategy.

 

[Rat Rage]

The discussion in this thread can be improved by clearing up a huge misconception: that one needs super high apm to either enjoy or be good a RTS.

Let's take the best RTS ever made for an example: Starcraft Broodwar. You see Pro Gamers with 300 to 400 apm in tournaments and stuff, but this number does consist of many bullshit clicks that do nothing (like clicking on the same space on the ground 3 or 4 times just to make a unit move for example). I mean, Pro Gamers can multi-task very well and their "real" apm (actual meaningful clicks) is higher than that of other players, but this doesn't matter for the average guy trying to enjoy these games.

The truth is, with much lower APM like 80 to 180 (which anybody can do) you can have fun and be good at the game.

Strategy, experience, thorough understanding of all the units, their strengths and weaknesses, AND a certain amount of creativity in your playstyle is MUCH MORE important to become good and have fun, because moving units, attacking with units and bulding units in a fairly fast and efficient way is something anyone can learn quite easily.

 

[llien]

I'm still regularly watching GSL games (especially with Maru).
Very skeptical about ability of a startup to make a dent in Blizzard's RTS dominance.

The truth is, with much lower APM like 80 to 180 (which anybody can do) you can have fun and be good at the game.

I'd say: with blizzard's match making engine, you can have fun as it will find opponents of your caliber, which guarantees fun.

 

[LazyParrot]

APM should not predict the winner of common matchmaking at a 93.7 percent rate. It's antithetical to the word strategy.

That's awfully specific. How did you arrive at that number? And why are you so obsessed with that topic anyway? I played Starcraft and Warcraft 3 online for years before I even knew what APM was, and even once Starcraft II came out and let you see it in replays mine was always way below 100 (i.e. utter shit). Still won more than my fair share of games, still had fun. Unless you're trying to go pro, I don't really see how this is even an issue.

If you want to see how the RTS genre could potentially be brought back to life check out games like Neptune's Pride, RUSE, EVE, Rust, Fortnite, Valheim etc...

You're casting an awfully wide net here. Neptune's Pride lets you give orders at any time, but they only get carried out at the start of every hour. Between these hourly updates, the state of the game is essentially frozen. That's not real-time. RUSE is real-time at least, but it failed to appeal to a larger audience and is now deader than any Blizzard game will ever be. Not exactly promising candidates if you're looking to kickstart a large-scale revival of the genre.

The other games you listed can only be considered real-time strategy in the loosest possible sense of the word. They're RTS games in the same way that Half-Life is technically an RPG because you're playing the role of Gordon Freeman. Not to mention that if people actually thought of popular games like Rust, Fortnite or Valheim as RTS nobody would be saying the genre was dead.