This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is the RTS genre dying?

#71DerPancake(Topic Creator)Posted 11/18/2013 9:24:33 PM
I hate some RTS players, you are winning or turn the game around and they pull the plug or find a way so the game goes Out of Sync, and this only happens on multiplayer RTS games.
---
http://i.imgur.com/mng6Lqf.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/mxvh3ut - Taylor Swift: Queen of Pop.
#72majinbuu58Posted 11/19/2013 12:01:22 AM
dekou posted...
Worknofun370 posted...
I guess the question I'm asking would be... what do you want from an RTS game?


1) A solid SP campaign with a good story
2) Innovation
3) Fun multiplayer

Warcraft 3 is a game that got all of these right IMO, which is why SC2 was a bit of a letdown.

I don't really see where SC2 everything else plays second fiddle... I really don't.


You can clearly see Blizzard was focused on e-sports and serious PvP when they made SC2. The campaign got some attention and pretty cutscenes, but felt very uninspired otherwise. They also didn't want to risk losing their existing fans by experimenting too much.

I also don't know how you make an RTS that isn't competitively focused... I mean, it's a strategy game.. what else are you suppose to do?


You'll nearly always be competing against something, but the whole game doesn't have to be balanced and built around fighting other players in fair matches. For example, there used to be a whole lot of RTS games that were focused entirely on SP campaigns, such as Earth 2150. Red Alert 2 and its like, too. They weren't particularly balanced or meant for e-sports, but had fun SP and supported MP matches well enough.

Basically, when I look at SC2, I don't see an exciting new game. I see the same old SC with some new units. It's not something I want to play. The new units aren't something I care about. It's boring.


This man nailed it. They even destroyed the steps they took towards custom maps in WC3 with SC2. The map designer is seriously lacking in comparison. And you can't go back to WC3 for all the classics, as a patch to fix competitive play rendered 98% of the custom maps unplayable
#73TheOppositePosted 11/19/2013 12:18:43 AM
I think RTS died as a genre when EA did away with Westwood Studios.
#74The cranky hermitPosted 11/19/2013 10:53:10 AM
You didn't address my question. Point out the differences. Now. Point out the differences or you're a complete ignoramus talking out of his ass.

No, Sheb, you're a complete ignoramous talking out of your ass. You're the one acting like an authority on SC2 - the burden of proof is entirely on you, and so far, you're not impressing me. Your question to me is an irrelevant change of subject, which is what you usually do when your over-zealous knee-jerk rationalizations are under attack.

It's like you just talk in purposefully vague generalities to obscure how little you've actually played of both games.

It's more like you're dodging *my* points because you know damn well that you can't refute them, and asking me completely unrelated questions to obscure THAT.

Did you just sit there playing mouse only?

Nope.

Could someone who only played both games mouse only really have a valid opinion?

Yes, absolutely! Lack of experience is fair grounds for scrutinizing an opinion, but not for dismissing it.
---
http://thecrankyhermit.wikispaces.com/
Year-by-year analysis of the finest gaming has to offer, and (eventually) more!
#75ShebeskiiPosted 11/19/2013 5:08:35 PM
No, Sheb, you're a complete ignoramous talking out of your ass. You're the one acting like an authority on SC2 - the burden of proof is entirely on you, and so far, you're not impressing me. Your question to me is an irrelevant change of subject, which is what you usually do when your over-zealous knee-jerk rationalizations are under attack.

The burden of proof is on YOU. You've claimed they should have made changes to reduce APM. That claim is false, demonstrably. It's so obviously false I want you to point out the simple differences between the games to demonstrate why your claims are nonsensical.

It's more like you're dodging *my* points because you know damn well that you can't refute them, and asking me completely unrelated questions to obscure THAT.

I'm not going to educate someone who talks so authoritatively on a game when what he says is easily demonstrably false.

I'll pull out the differences if you keep acting like an ignoramus, or you could go research them and realize how foolish you're posts are and disappear from this topic.

Yes, absolutely! Lack of experience is fair grounds for scrutinizing an opinion, but not for dismissing it.

An opinion isn't immune to dismissal because it's an opinion.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#76codyorrPosted 11/19/2013 5:39:03 PM
KabtheMentat posted...
Gregsplintercel posted...
I sure hope the RTS genre dies off because those type of games are just so boring.


Whoa whoa whoa. Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis are RTS games and they are probably come of the best, and most fun, out there.
#77KamenRiderBladePosted 11/19/2013 6:44:55 PM
The one aspect I never liked about most RTS games is the lack of logistics to the front line.

It felt very unrealistic that any soldier or unit can fight indefinitely as long as they have health.

In the real world, all units have some sort of limiting factor.

Ground soldiers have their health, food, water, ammunition

Pilots of aircraft have fuel and ammo.

Tanks have gas, ammo, and food limitations for the crew.

All armies run on a very severe logistics train that takes real planning, and screwing up that logistics train can cripple and army and lose battles or wars.
---
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T - Johnny Depp 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico'
#78GynthaeresPosted 11/19/2013 7:22:41 PM
Out of everything said in the topic...

Shebeskii posted...
There's significantly more differences between SC1 and SC2 than there is between Dawn of War (1 or 2) and Company of Heroes (1 or 2). DoW and CoH are essentially the same game in comparison.

How this is overlooked is beyond me. I think the anti-SC2 crowd is still back in 2010 talking about 1/3rd a game. Fools.



I think this was most worthy of a true "LOL". Someone has clearly not played very much of any of those games. That's the most absurd statement I've seen in a while, at least regarding gaming / RTSes. You might as well say there's more differences between Quake 2 and Quake 3 than there are between Unreal, UT, Half-Life, and HL2. The statement would be equally comically, and and just as incorrect.

Of course, you tend to make those kinds of statements. I still laugh at something you said a while ago, concerning balance in SC2 vs. balance in other RTSes.



Shebeskii posted...
Tell the board what changes they made to the mechanics of SC2 to reduce the amount of APM needed to play.

Go on, you're at the podium.


I'm pretty sure Cranky never actually said they didn't do anything to reduce the APM requirements.
But, I'll go ahead and do this for you anyway, because I know how fixated you get on these things.

Off the top of my head:

-Improved pathfinding some (though it's still pretty bad). I'm sure that counts for you.
-You can select up to 255 units at once, up from 12.
-You can select + build from multiple unit producing structures at once.
-You can hotkey buildings (I don't think you could do this in SC1, but maybe).
-Workers actually being quasi-intelligent is a big one, with moving from mineral patch to mineral patch.
-Units move out of the way of structures being built.
-Units will move out of the way of other friendly units (a lazy, but still effective, way to try to improve the poor pathfinding).
-Workers now auto-mine on start, though that wasn't introduced to reduce micro requirements, so I don't think that counts.
-"Select Idle Workers" and "Select Army" buttons.
-The ability to queue up abilities (e.g. Shift click a medivac somewhere, hit the Boost button, shift-click somewhere else, and the medivac will boost when it gets to that first point as it heads to the second).
-The harvester count over command structures, which means you don't need to select your workers to see how many you have mining.

Am I forgetting something? Probably am. I've come to this point a few times, and then remembered something else to add.

However, there are two points to be made here:
One, these weren't conscious decisions to reduce APM requirements. This was simply modernizing Starcraft's interface and mechanics. Likewise, those original systems in SC1? They weren't there to increase the skill requirement of the game, they were there because of limitations at the time.
They also didn't modernize everything. There are still a few aspects of SC1 that they kept, for no other reason than to increase the "skill" requirement.

And two, with the interface now modernized, they then went and added unnecessary things to artificially increase the APM requirements. The aforementioned "Inject Larva" is the most egregious.
This is a bit annoying to those of us who hate mindless spam, and want more strategic depth.

Personally, I think the game needs less "just spam buttons" stuff, and more interesting choices and decisions. Unfortunately, as long as people keep arguing in favor of keeping the silly APM sinks, SC2 won't really be able to evolve into a much more interesting, more deep and strategic, game.
---
The sole purpose of this space is to make my post look longer.
#79The cranky hermitPosted 11/19/2013 10:00:06 PM
I'm pretty sure Cranky never actually said they didn't do anything to reduce the APM requirements.

Correct, and basically EVERYTHING he's said in reply to me is erroneous considering I never made this claim.
---
http://thecrankyhermit.wikispaces.com/
Year-by-year analysis of the finest gaming has to offer, and (eventually) more!
#80majinbuu58Posted 11/19/2013 10:06:32 PM
Gynthaeres posted...
Out of everything said in the topic...

Shebeskii posted...
There's significantly more differences between SC1 and SC2 than there is between Dawn of War (1 or 2) and Company of Heroes (1 or 2). DoW and CoH are essentially the same game in comparison.

How this is overlooked is beyond me. I think the anti-SC2 crowd is still back in 2010 talking about 1/3rd a game. Fools.







I'm not sure how i missed this.
http://i.imgur.com/IprWZ4b.gif