To be honest, I suck at every RTS except for Multiwinia, which has its own problems. They all seem to end up as being games of who can click the fastest, and that is not me. However, the videos I've seen of Starcraft 2, and what I saw at PAX, are very impressive, and I really want to try it. I hope there's a demo.
From what I've read it seems like the three separate games are actually going to be one game and two expansions. At least, that's how they're marketing it.
So you'll buy the first game, which will have one single player Terran campaign, but have multiplayer with all three races. Then there's a Zerg expansion that has a Zerg single player campaign, but also adds a bunch of new shit to multiplayer for all races. Then there's a Protoss expansion that has yet another single player campaign and adds even more stuff to everyone in multiplayer.
If you think about it, it's pretty obvious why they are doing this. First off, if they just sold the entire thing for $50, they couldn't really justify it. WoW. makes so much money, that it's not worth it for them to do a video game project that doesn't rake in a huge load. Getting $150 per player is a way to do that. Secondly, they've got a captive audience in South Korea. As long as the Koreans don't turn on them, and keep playing Starcraft 1 forever, this game is guaranteed to sell a bajillion copies over there. By doing this, they triple the size of that guaranteed sale.
To be honest, I suck at every RTS except for Multiwinia, which has its own problems. They all seem to end up as being games of who can click the fastest, and that is not me. However, the videos I've seen of Starcraft 2, and what I saw at PAX, are very impressive, and I really want to try it. I hope there's a demo.
You should try Medieval 2 if you don't like RTS'es. It has real time combat (controlling brigades of 40-60 men in sieges/field battles) and the rest is turn based like Civ. It's pretty damn fun, and only $30 on Steam. I've already played it 200 hours.
To be honest, I suck at every RTS except for Multiwinia, which has its own problems. They all seem to end up as being games of who can click the fastest, and that is not me. However, the videos I've seen of Starcraft 2, and what I saw at PAX, are very impressive, and I really want to try it. I hope there's a demo.
To be honest, I suck at every RTS except for Multiwinia, which has its own problems. They all seem to end up as being games of who can click the fastest, and that is not me. However, the videos I've seen of Starcraft 2, and what I saw at PAX, are very impressive, and I really want to try it. I hope there's a demo.
Have you tried Sins of a Solar Empire?
Yes. Not impressed.
Have you tried Company of Heroes?
I'm a Dawn of War person myself. I've tried both CoH and Dawn of War, and despite their being similar but CoH more advanced, I just like DoW more.
Also, while "fast clicking" is a core skill of RTS, there is generally far more to it than that. Watch skilled replays of any decent enough RTS and you'll see this.
Also, while "fast clicking" is a core skill of RTS, there is generally far more to it than that. Watch skilled replays of any decent enough RTS and you'll see this.
I've watched many a Korean Starcraft championship video. Those guys click way fast. Sure, when you're competing at that high level among other fast clickers, it is the strategy that determines who wins and loses. However, for someone at my level of click speed, even the best strategy in the universe can not compete with the fast clicking of those experts. There are other factors in determining the winner besides fast clicking, but fast clicking beats all the others.
There are other factors in determining the winner besides fast clicking, but fast clicking beats all the others.
Fast clicking also has to include fast hotkey-ing =P. For Starcraft, I'll concede that point. However, you'll find that a number of modern RTS have significantly reduced how large a factor click speed is. The game mechanics of Company of Heroes are very good at alleviating this, I believe.
Let's divert this thread to an argument (flamewar?) about RTS. Essentially, we're discussing the arguments under "Criticism of gameplay" in the Wikipedia RTS article. In my opinion, modern RTS have made significant improvements in many of the fields mentioned.
Here is the issue though Scott. Click speed and by association reaction time is an inherent component of the RTS genre. There is no way for an RTS game to exist where reaction time does not play some sort of factor in the game. Sure, it can be mitigated to reduce it's effect on the overall outcome of the game, but in the end it's always going to be part of RTS games.
Also, don't you find it hypocritical to criticize RTS games for relying too much on reaction and click speeds while at the same time you champion twitch shooters like Tribes 2 which place a great deal of emphasis on those same mechanics?
Here is the issue though Scott. Click speed and by association reaction time is an inherent component of the RTS genre. There is no way for an RTS game to exist where reaction time does not play some sort of factor in the game. Sure, it can be mitigated to reduce it's effect on the overall outcome of the game, but in the end it's always going to be part of RTS games.
Also, don't you find it hypocritical to criticize RTS games for relying too much on reaction and click speeds while at the same time you champion twitch shooters like Tribes 2 which place a great deal of emphasis on those same mechanics?
I really wanted to point this out, but then I realized that Scott never criticizes RTS games. He just keeps saying that he doesn't like them or can’t play them because he’s bad at them, so I donno if this applies.
Well, "twitch" is a bit different from "fast clicking", but you have a point there. I don't think Scott was really criticizing RTS, merely saying that they didn't work for him.
The key difference is that an fps like Quake is supposed to be a game of shooting and reflexes. If I complained that Quake didn't test my puzzle solving skills, that would be kind of weird because it isn't supposed to be a puzzle game. It's ok for an fps, or a fighting game, to test twitch skills, because that's what they're supposed to do.
An RTS is supposed to be a strategy game. The difference is that they are real-time and require faster decision making than a turn based game which gives you forever to make your decisions. The problem is that the user interfaces for these games are often a pain in the ass. Granted, we've come a long way since the days of Warcraft 1, which had a horrendous UI, but modern RTS UIs still suck.
I can make decisions about what I want my units and buildings to do a lot faster than I can give those orders with the mouse and keyboard. Also, even when I do manage to give the orders, they are often not executed exactly as I desire. Many times the user interface will be too simple to give the kinds of complex orders I want. Other times the user interface will be too complex, requiring many extra clicks to give simple orders. Also, even in the most modern of games, the unit AI is not smart, and units will often waste time, get lost, or die needlessly because of the automatic algorithms controlling them. Even in Multiwinia, one of the simplest RTSes you can find, units will walk into walls instead of going around.
The RTS advertises itself as a game in strategy. Yet, strategy is only secondary to fast clicking. There's nothing wrong with a game of fast clicking, but it's false advertising.
Every time a new RTS comes out I end up getting excited about it, then playing it for about an hour and realizing that they haven't changed significantly. I haven't tried all the most recent ones, but the ones I've played rely a little to heavily on the player memorizing things. Obviously one needs to learn how to play the game, but due to the poor unit commands and AI there's not really a battle strategy, just army composition and defensive setup that often takes advantage of the simple AI. When there's an RTS with semi realistic tactical options. (guerrilla tactics, supply lines, maybe a better representation of intel than fog of war)
There's an open source RTS engine, Spring, which is the first time I've seen decent terrain deformation in an RTS. I won a game once by blowing up all the land bridges, and concentrating on aerial offense / defense. Memorization and fast clicking doesn't really interest me.
Every time a new RTS comes out I end up getting excited about it, then playing it for about an hour and realizing that they haven't changed significantly. I haven't tried all the most recent ones, but the ones I've played rely a little to heavily on the player memorizing things. Obviously one needs to learn how to play the game, but due to the poor unit commands and AI there's not really a battle strategy, just army composition and defensive setup that often takes advantage of the simple AI. When there's an RTS with semi realistic tactical options. (guerrilla tactics, supply lines, maybe a better representation of intel than fog of war)
There's an open source RTS engine,Spring, which is the first time I've seen decent terrain deformation in an RTS. I won a game once my blowing up all the land bridges, and concentrating on aerial offense / defense. Memorization and fast clicking doesn't really interest me.
Spring looks very very interesting. I'm definitely going to mess around with that when I get home.
As for the memorization factor, I definitely see what you are talking about. A lot of times I get crushed in an RTS by a mediocre player only because they have memorized the correct order to build buildings and units to get the most military force in the least time. I'm sure if I looked at a FAQ, I could easily memorize the correct sequence to build things in, as there aren't that many different options to choose from. However, it is annoying.
One thing I was thinking about was the fact that all RTSes seem to take place on the battle scale. Let's say you play a typical RTS and tell a squad of units to attack the enemy base. They're going to die. However, if you micromanage them, it is possible that they can do significant damage. You just have to get them to take the long way around to approach the base from its weak side and attack in unison on the right building from maximum range and from under the cover of trees where tanks can't go. However, if you try to manage that squad so much, you will end up ignoring other important things and lose. Imagine if the entire RTS was squad level. Think of a game like X-Com only real-time instead of turn based. Does such a game exist?
Another idea is to go for more of a modern Metal Marines remake. That's something I've been thinking about for quite awhile now.
One thing I was thinking about was the fact that all RTSes seem to take place on the battle scale. Let's say you play a typical RTS and tell a squad of units to attack the enemy base. They're going to die. However, if you micromanage them, it is possible that they can do significant damage. You just have to get them to take the long way around to approach the base from its weak side and attack in unison on the right building from maximum range and from under the cover of trees where tanks can't go. However, if you try to manage that squad so much, you will end up ignoring other important things and lose. Imagine if the entire RTS was squad level. Think of a game like X-Com only real-time instead of turn based. Does such a game exist?
The solution that modern games have taken is that they try to automate all the micro for your squads so you don't have to spend you whole attention on them. CoH has each squad intelligently find the best cover and they often have units move to the best position of cover. Unlike the old games like C&C; and RA, you don't produce individual units, but rather each unit is a squad of men. However, each man is still a single unit which means as your squad takes damage, individual men die. A single man is still the smallest unit in the game, but there is no way you can directly manipulate that single unit, you direct a squad of those men.
By no means is it perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
Andrew, will those squads that have taken damage group together to make up one complete squad again?
No, you have to either have the squad retreat to headquarters to reinforce the lost men, have built a medic station which collects wounded men within it's radius and creates a new squad once it's collected enough men, or if your squad is an airbone squad you can reinforce anywhere (the men just parachute in).
Squad-based? Dawn of War and Company of Heroes; two of the best modern RTS. Can anyone name more?
I think he means something along the lines of the Full SpectrumWarrior games. They're Real Time strategy games where you command two fire teams right down to individual unit tactics. The first one's been released for free, if anyone want's to give it a go.
I think he means something along the lines of theFull SpectrumWarrior games.They're Real Time strategy games where you command two fire teams right down to individual unit tactics. The first one's been released for free, if anyone want's to give it a go.
No, I mean like X-COM, only real time. Either that, or like Project Aftermath, only not rock/paper/scissors.
Comments
Also, while "fast clicking" is a core skill of RTS, there is generally far more to it than that. Watch skilled replays of any decent enough RTS and you'll see this.
Let's divert this thread to an argument (flamewar?) about RTS. Essentially, we're discussing the arguments under "Criticism of gameplay" in the Wikipedia RTS article. In my opinion, modern RTS have made significant improvements in many of the fields mentioned.
Also, don't you find it hypocritical to criticize RTS games for relying too much on reaction and click speeds while at the same time you champion twitch shooters like Tribes 2 which place a great deal of emphasis on those same mechanics?
An RTS is supposed to be a strategy game. The difference is that they are real-time and require faster decision making than a turn based game which gives you forever to make your decisions. The problem is that the user interfaces for these games are often a pain in the ass. Granted, we've come a long way since the days of Warcraft 1, which had a horrendous UI, but modern RTS UIs still suck.
I can make decisions about what I want my units and buildings to do a lot faster than I can give those orders with the mouse and keyboard. Also, even when I do manage to give the orders, they are often not executed exactly as I desire. Many times the user interface will be too simple to give the kinds of complex orders I want. Other times the user interface will be too complex, requiring many extra clicks to give simple orders. Also, even in the most modern of games, the unit AI is not smart, and units will often waste time, get lost, or die needlessly because of the automatic algorithms controlling them. Even in Multiwinia, one of the simplest RTSes you can find, units will walk into walls instead of going around.
The RTS advertises itself as a game in strategy. Yet, strategy is only secondary to fast clicking. There's nothing wrong with a game of fast clicking, but it's false advertising.
There's an open source RTS engine, Spring, which is the first time I've seen decent terrain deformation in an RTS. I won a game once by blowing up all the land bridges, and concentrating on aerial offense / defense. Memorization and fast clicking doesn't really interest me.
As for the memorization factor, I definitely see what you are talking about. A lot of times I get crushed in an RTS by a mediocre player only because they have memorized the correct order to build buildings and units to get the most military force in the least time. I'm sure if I looked at a FAQ, I could easily memorize the correct sequence to build things in, as there aren't that many different options to choose from. However, it is annoying.
One thing I was thinking about was the fact that all RTSes seem to take place on the battle scale. Let's say you play a typical RTS and tell a squad of units to attack the enemy base. They're going to die. However, if you micromanage them, it is possible that they can do significant damage. You just have to get them to take the long way around to approach the base from its weak side and attack in unison on the right building from maximum range and from under the cover of trees where tanks can't go. However, if you try to manage that squad so much, you will end up ignoring other important things and lose. Imagine if the entire RTS was squad level. Think of a game like X-Com only real-time instead of turn based. Does such a game exist?
Another idea is to go for more of a modern Metal Marines remake. That's something I've been thinking about for quite awhile now.
By no means is it perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.