Menu
RTS, SiRT or New Genres.
3 years ago
AmalurLegend
Hi, I want to discuss the future about Strategy game in Real Time genre at this article.
Index：
Part I - What does "Real Time" mean?
Part II - The players' "Stereotype" of what does RTS mean at the "Real Time" part.
Part III - The more and more narrow path for RTS genre.
Part IV - What's the future of SiRT?
Part V - Conclusion.
To be continued........
0
Comments
AmalurLegend
Part I - What does "Real Time" mean?
First, according to the history of strategy game's development, the "Real Time" is contrast to "Turn Based". It means player A does not have to wait player B finished "His Turn" and player A can issue his order at the same time.
Second, The time ticker is like the real clock in the world, not like the turn based games. It means 2 hours are 2 hours, not like turn based games that if a player does not finish "His Turn" and then the time is stopped by his turn, no matter, how long does his turn have, maybe 1 hour for his turn or 3 hours for his turn.
Third, basically if a game does follow this rule and then we can call it a "Strategy game in Real Time".
To be continued............
AmalurLegend
Part II - The players' "Stereotype" of what does RTS mean at the "Real Time" part.
First, there are 3 main "Stereotype" things among "RTS" genre：
[1] The issued order must be executed "instantly".
[2] Focusing on "Heavy Micro-management".
[3] There is "only war" in RTS.
Second, I will use 2 parts to discuss topic [1] The issued order must be worked "instantly", one part is the war in real world and the other part is the war in game world.
[A] The war in real world part.
According the history, all of human being's wars are "Real Time", and there is no war is a turn based war. The main difference is the speed of message transportation.
In ancient wars, those war message requires a couple of days to be transported from place A to place B, so even the King made his decision immediately but his decision must be prolong by a couple of days to become effective.
In modern wars, those war message requires a couple of seconds to be transported from place A to place B, so even the Commander made his decision immediately but his decision must be prolong by a couple of seconds to become effective.
Even in the modern wars, the commander still have to endure the delay by a couple of seconds, but it's our best technology.
What I want to say is why can't players endure a couple of seconds delay about their order becomes effective.
[B] The war in game world part.
My point is very clear that the "Real Time" is a feeling for players. There are many different "Times" of order becomes effective, some game requires 0.2 seconds, some game requires 0.4 seconds, and some game requires 2.0 seconds and all of those design are belong the "Real Time".
Some players complain about the input delay and I take Universe at War for an example, in UAW the Hierarchy faction's Giant Robot requires more time to execute the order because it need to rotate its body and then it can walk to the target location. This is just a game designer's choice, there are 2 types of design direction one is Authentic and the other one is Not Authentic, if you want Authentic and then you have to accept the delay time and vice versa.
And some players just complain about what they can feel, but not to complain about what they can't feel. What I mean is they can feel the difference between 0.2 seconds delay and 2.0 seconds delay, so they complain about it, but they can not feel the difference between 0.2 seconds delay and 0.4 seconds delay, so they don't complain about it. The 0.4 seconds delay is still a kind of input delay, but they don't complain it and it makes me think their complain is not based on fact but based on feeling.
[C] What I want to say is the "Input delay" can become a result of designer's choice and it means designers choose the Authentic perspective to make the game, and a game with this feature is still belong the "Strategy in Real Time genre".
Third, I will use 2 part to discuss topic [2] Focusing on "Heavy Micro-management".
[A] Players just misunderstand it and think the result as the reason.
Why does RTS have "Heavy Micro-management"? It's not because the game should be like that or born to be like that, but because the limitation of human being's computer technology.
But there are a lot of players still think the result as the reason. We can see that there are a lot of facts to prove they are wrong.
Example 1. At before, there is no squad control, but DoW and CoH made it and prove it. We can use squad control to play RTS game.
Example 2. At before, there is no auto-retreat order, but DoW2 and CoH1&2 made it and prove it. We can use auto-retreat order to play RTS game.
Example 3. At before, there is no auto-searching cover function, but CoH made it and prove it. We can use auto-searching cover to play RTS game.
So, "RTS" games can be a "Meso-Management" game.
[B] What's "Meso-Management"?
It's a middle status between Macro-management and micro-management. Here, my Macro-management is not talking the economic dimension, but about the level of army control.
Micro-management
Macro-management
Meso-management
To be continued..............
AmalurLegend
Forth, I will use 4 part to discuss topic [3] There is "only war" in RTS.
[A] The main thing is about the Victory Condition and in traditional "Annihilate mode", there is the Tug of War and it means only the continually production Army ability is the Key to win. Because the winning condition is bound to continually production Army ability directly. The shortage of this design is it's easy to become a snowballing scene and players do have rare chance to come back.
[B] This situation has been improved in CoH1, because CoH1 made the relationship between continually production Army ability and winning condition become indirectly. Those powerful units like tanks can not occupy the Victory Points and only weak units like infantry can occupy those VP and there are suppression fire and artillery barrage can deny the occupy operation of infantry and the army scale is small and all of these designs make players has chance to hold those VP with less number units.
[C] There are other victory conditions in past RTS games, like Like take and hold victory condition in DoW1 and in Rise of Legends. That's why I say we can have diplomacy in RTS games. To capture a City is similar to capture a Strategic Point and when we capture a city and then it becomes a "Diplomacy" situation and of course, the diplomacy in the game is not that simple, but the first step is do-able and then those follow steps can be done.
[D] Besides, to hold a territory does not necessary to use an army to fight. For example, there is an "Attrition" design in Rise of Nations and Rise of Legends, players can use the high attrition ability to damage enemy's army and then prevent their attack. So, there are really other ways to win the game not only war.
What I want to say is we could have more than one Annihilate Victory Condition at the same time.
To be continued..........
AmalurLegend
Part III - The more and more narrow path for RTS genre.
First, we can see the path of RTS genre is become more and more narrow from past to now.
I think those reasons are：
[1] The 3 "Stereotypes".
[2] Nostalgic glasses.
[3] Blindly pursuing Competitive scene.
Second, why I said the path of RTS genre is become more and more narrow?
Those reasons are：
[1] I think some players are "Stubborn" and it means they not only refuse to open their mind to try new games but also to try hard to deny the new games.
Example 1. World in Conflict is a RTS game, but a lot of players said there is no manual constructable base buildings, so it's not a RTS but a RTT.
Example 2. C&C4 is a RTS game and it's kind of like WiC, but a lot of players said it like a MOBA not a RTS.
Example 3. DoW3 is a RTS game, but a lot of players said it like a MOBA not a RTS.
I think DoW3 has the qualification to be made like this now, due to the unique DoW2's legacy. There are 1 HQ and 2 Turrets in DoW2 and DoW3 just keep them and with a little adjustment - adding Shield Generators and making a chain relationship among Power Core, Turrets and Shield Generators.
[2] What they want is just a Remaster version game and new content like expansions and they do not want an all new game. I will say the percentage is 70% old content and 30% new content and it can make those players have less unsatisfied feeling.
Third, That's why the path of RTS genre is become more and more narrow.
To be continued...........
AmalurLegend
Part IV - What's the future of SiRT?
First, if we want to plan the future, we must to see the present clearly.
The facts are：
[A] RTS games can not become as popular as before, due to the tons of other games can be picked up.
[B] There are 3 types of major players one is competitive online players, another is not so competitive online players and the other is campaign and co-op players.
[C] Most of players that they play games just want to have fun and relax and those are not RTS can provide and the reason of most of players play RTS game is not because they really like Strategy but is that they want to enjoy to command a Large Army to crush their opponent.
Second, Alternative 1 - the easiest way.
Developers just make different content for different type of players.
[A] Making a hard core PvP for those competitive online players.
[B] Making a challenge AI for those not so competitive online players.
[C] Making a replay-able campaign and co-op for those campaign and co-op players.
Well, it's the easiest way, so all developers have to do are to keep patching balance at PvP part and add missions at campaign & co-op part.
Third, Alternative 2 - the hardiest way.
I say this：How about we develop new genres for Strategy game in Real Time.
The thing is easy and simple since players don't like every new RTS games and then we just do not make RTS games. We make new SiRT games.
Developers can invent other new genres to prevent triggering the mine of RTS genre.
I invent a new genre called "CTS" (Controller Strategy) and with many new features：
[A] Controller Based Gameplay.
[B] Meso-management.
[C] Collectivism control system.
[D] Indirect command and indirect effect.
[E] Issue Order limitation and periods.
Part V - Conclusion.
If players do not like new RTS games and then we don't make it, but to make new genre games of SiRT.
Thanks for reading.
Sunnyurr
Before I reply, thanks for the article. But can you source the facts?
StarSauron
@OP nice Article
can you explain again what you mean what exactly you mean with SiRT
and what it stands for its not really clear to mean.
I agree on point 1,2,3 ,
the wrong assumption by RTS game is to make them based ons speed, not on thinking through.
but not on point 4 and 5.
As you point out the flaws of the design of RTS games and their recent fails, I would say
the easiest way would be to make simply RTS games again.
My conclusion is, the chase after Starcraft2 does always end in selfownage,
so developer should try to go back to the roots and make RTS games like Westwood C&Cs.
Sunnyurr
Do RTS games even chase after SC2?
As for OP's initial discussion point: discussing the future of RTS games.
The market for RTS is dying. I believe this to be because of time and money constraints. Games nowadays need to get pumped out as fast as they can while not costing as much as they can. Start reeling in money while it's still in Alpha, the suckers will buy it anyway. After the money has already been collected, the pressure to finish the game is less likely there. Hence why so many games nowadays feel incomplete.
It also doesn't help that RTS games need significant more time to create with issues such as: creating a campaign, AI behavior and chronical balancing of units.This makes creating a RTS game more time consuming than other genres (especially procedural generated adventure games), thus more expensive.. and not many game producers want to invest in this, nor do many studios have the money to spare.
Relic releasing a RTS game in this time is short of a miracle. In my opinion, the game is wonderful and exciting and therefore I believe Relic deserves a very big 'Bravo'.
Katitof
Over last 5 years the singular RTS game that had any kind of SC resemblence even by a long stretch was Grey Goo.
Everything else was different.
Also, Westwood C&C series is extremely dated and plain. That type of RTS is plain, that's why outside of SC2 its not around us anymore and SC2 is around exclusively because of enormous blizzard marketing, iit would be dead long time ago if not for that.
The only other non relic RTS game which is somewhat popular is AoE HD remake, but that game got no future, its been played by the exact same people who played it back when it was released, it can't attract new players at all. Ironically, exact same thing applies to DoW1.
RTS used to be mainstream genre when PC gaming started to be a thing, they looked good, they were easy to make, they were something completely new over what consoles provided and that make them big.
Nowadays it doesn't matter what you'll do with RTS genre, because old RTS players are more casual and new RTS players are only a few thanks to existence of MOBA branch, which is both, a form of evolution of RTS genre as well as direct cause of its death.
Modern players have attention span of a kitten and are looking for instant gratification with least effort possible, RTS games "force" you to take a blame for your loss on yourself mostly, in MOBAs you don't need to learn as much, don't need to micro, don't need to think of economy and can blame your team.
RTS isn't a dying genre, but it most certainly isn't mainstream anymore, its a niche now and it'll remain niche, because this type of gameplay isn't as popular as it used to be, just like adventure games and dungeon crawlers.
StarSauron
How can a market die, if people don't get a product at all ?
lets look what we got in last years.
8-Bit Invaders is a totally rip off Starcraft
Same goes for Grey Goo
Act of Aggression did deliver a 3 faction brocken balance game,
that tried to be a Starcraft/generals hybrid and failed horribly.
Etherium was a 3 faction broken balance game. And crashed all time online.
Steel Division Normandy 44 , kill itself with a front-line, where you see where the enemy is.
Heritage from a game series about tactic and planning, to reduce so hardcore, is literally disappointed most of the fans.
Look if all Shooters we get would be like Call of Duty®: Infinite Warfare, Battleborn and Mass Effect Andromeda, could you than say Shooters are a dead genre ?
No, unlike RTS we get there Overwatch, Battlefield 1, Warframe or Playerunknown's Battlegrounds.
We could only say RTS is dead, if good RTS games fail, not if bad games do get what they deserve.
StarSauron
OK, so what RTS beside Relics was in your opinion in the last 5 years any good ?
How can a genre be mainstream if , no good games are done ?
Sunnyurr
Kind of a contradicting statement you're doing there. I'm not saying it's dead, i'm saying its dying. Not seeing the decline in RTS games' market share is not facing the truth. Also, you mentioned Westwood C&C. Here's a quote from one of the main developers:
Uber Entertainment’s chief technology officer John Comes—who designed Command & Conquer titles at Westwood Interactive and EA, before joining Gas Powered Games to work on Supreme Commander—agrees that the golden era of big budget RTS development has passed. “Businesswise I feel like there is still a place for RTS,” he says. “But there’s a fraction of the fan base it used to have, and a big publisher betting on one is a risk that most won’t take.”
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-decline-evolution-and-future-of-the-rts/
Here's another (long, but) interesting read:
https://www.geek.com/news/what-happened-to-the-real-time-strategy-genre-1649869/
Katitof
I'm going to explode your mind and kill you instantly, but listen now carefully:
8-bit invaders got NOTHING in common with SC in any way, "space marines" and aliens do not make the game resemble SC.
It takes literally 10 seconds of watching its gameplay to know its pixelated C&C game.
GG DID aimed at SC, but its factions and economy are still very unique, its downfall was lack of marketing, TERRIBLE sound and getting too deep into the roots, making the game too plain to the point where interesting faction design(especially goo) and intriguing story which I would love to see expanded and continued-sadly wasn't enough to keep the game afloat.
3 factions does not make the game SC ripoff in any way.
Its like calling Mortal Kombat a Street Fighter ripoff, because they both have 2 players selecting one of X fighters and then beating each other until health bar is empty for one of them.
Katitof
And how many good MOBAs are there?
What FPS can match a fraction of CS:GO popularity?
Each genre got one, two jewels and everything else is medicority, it depends on the player trends more then on what good games are being made.
Remember MMO boom years ago? Market was littered with medicore or just plain bad MMOs which still did a good money, but nothing could contest WoW.
Same with FPS boom ages ago, which made everything that isn't CS, CoD or BF irrelevant.
For RTS its Blizzard and Relic, because C&C series struggles ever since EA took over Westwood and pretty much killed the IP.
MMO boom ended and hardly anyone makes them, old ones are sustained, new ones have attempts, but fail.
RTS suffers from the exact same thing currently.
Remember when Zombie survival games were THE thing? 7 days to die remained as exclusive successful one, all others, together if ever so praised Day-Z are dead.
People are thinking that if the game does not have 10k CCU then it is a fail. Well, that's now how it works, especially with genres that are past its mainstream time.
StarSauron
With 8 bit Invaders, they did try to make again different factions with different gameplay. Removed from the harvesters ability to crush enemy infantry. So new pay2win faction were even stronger. Problem is Invaders do not require refineries, so could harvest anywhere on the map, so build way bigger army. They did totaly broken own game with this , did fast die after they did give up C&C elements , to please once again the "Starcraft acolytes".
Its not simply a 3 faction thing.
But 3 factions with different build style is always a problem to balance, becouse who has beside the Blizzard team like 5 years to develope a game ?
You can have any amount of factions, as long they have a similar and comparable build style.
Problem is by 3 factions, without proper balance, that will be reduced to 1 same play style.
The Article is about the different game genres we have and maybe there, people play something else.
But in my opinion that's not the case. MOBAs were invented back 2003.
But RTS did run good for at least till 2010.
Its not MOBAs faul. And its not fault of other game genres.
There were always a lot of different genres for lot of games .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Ancients
Actually this one is a good example to explain why RTS games are not bad,
but there are companies that do make bad games and look for a cheap excuse.
Uber Entertainment is a bunch of liars and shenanigans.
They are one of the core reason why people don't trust Kickstarter any more.
As they asked for money to make RTS games great again, like Total Annihilation.
People did fund all Stretch Goals, they had more than ennough money to make the game.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659943965/planetary-annihilation-a-next-generation-rts?lang=de
Lie number 1: Factions, they did promise 4 factions.
Total Annihilation did have 2 faction, so it was logical for this game to have several factions too.
But it was released with 1 faction. (original statement about the several factions was deleted)
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/faction-name-faction-leader-name-summary.58282/
http://planetaryannihilation.gamepedia.com/Planetary_Annihilation
Lie number 2: No Actual campaign with narration,
Total Annihilation mission had really good introductions, didn't happen here.
Lie number 3: Sequel Planetary Annihilation: Titans.
They did put on store same game again, with just 13 new units and did removed the original from steam store.
It was so badly done, you could simply copy paste folder from Titans to original and play the new units.
https://www.reddit.com/r/planetaryannihilation/comments/3mohjq/planetary_annihilation_store_page_on_steam_no/
Uber Entertainment is not trust worthy, they simply lie, cash grab, abandon their games and betray their customers.
There is a difference between a dead genre and a genre where companies do make just bad games.
The RTS genre is not dead and once somebody does do a good RTS, that is RTS, people will buy it.
Gigs
Part IV alternative 2, that just sounds god awful.
A. game pads with RTS are just messy.
B. your chart didnt really explain what that is and i googled it all i got was specific business jargon and company names.
C. What?
D.were is the fun in that?
E.sounds like mobile games.
StarSauron
Well he had already in games communities a huge similar discussion about the Horror genre.
If you make out of a horror game a call of duty, of course Horror genre people won't like it.
https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/silent-hill-845/are-horror-games-dead-269212/
just look Resident Evil 7 with 1,429,306 Owners, sometimes back to the roots is the solution.
https://steamspy.com/app/530620
About the MMO, greed and low time frame can't reconstruct that master piece like WOW.
All the copies were simply bad and cash grabs.
One or 2 jewels ? lets take for example turned based Strategies, that are way older than RTS.
There are so many and a lot of them are even pretty successful.
https://steamspy.com/tag/Turn-Based+Strategy
2016 Sid Meiers Civilization VI Owners 1,968,289
2016 Total War: WARHAMMER Owners 1,600,986
2016 XCOM 2 Owners 1,546,791
2014 Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth Owners 1,550,503
2014 Endless Legend 1,065,344
2013 Shadowrun Returns 1,007,437
2012 Endless Space Owners 1,334,279
Ui, what kind of magic can be this, that one of the oldest game genres is still so popular ?
Maybe they simply do, what is required for their genre ?
Same could be by RTS games too, simply do what is required for the own genre.
Katitof
Umm, RE7 is completely different then literally every single other RE game in the series, they didn't went to the roots, because that game got nothing in common with its roots, the RE 1 to 3. Its a completely different evolution for RE series.
Square Enix begs to differ, but then again, they got the resources required to pull it off.
And these cash grabs you talk about worked very well, I've been working with a couple of these cash grabs myself, some were even decent at release and degraded into money maker machines with time and neglect.
I thought I've repeated RealTimeStrategy aka RTS enough times for anyone to understand that I'm talking about RTS genre, not grand strategy or tactical turn based strategy games, which are two completely separate genres and can't be comparable in any way to RTS games.
Turn based strategy games and grand strategies are completely different genre, they have nothing in common with RTS and they are mainstream-ish for a long time as they appeal to older players. That genre will probably die when people who are 30+ nowadays will die out.
Like it or not, MOBA birth killed RTS genre.
It won't be revived anytime soon.
Grand strategy games and turn based strategy and tactical games will always be popular, because they cater to older gamers as I've said and most importantly, they cater to single player casual players, they don't put pressure on you, unlike RTS games, which need multiplayer to live.
StarSauron
1 You have asked me about several genres,
so I did give as example one older genre, that is still successful, maybe becouse they simply stay by the roots ?
2 You are right that RTS genre won't come back anytime soon,
but that's because the developers have no idea what they are doing.
So like DOW1/2 and Westwood C&C did?
Stay loyal to fans and cater to single player casual players and don't put pressure on you. With multiplayer.
Maybe that is exactly the innovation the RTS genre needs and needed all the time?
Katitof
I have asked about RTS games.
You did not provided answer to that.
No, that's because player trends are changing.
Currently RTS games are not mainstream anymore, just like zombie survivals, just like MMOs, creating new stuff here is a high risk only a few are willing to take.
These genres are niche now, huge player pops for RTS games is a thing of the past-they might come back in future, they might not.
Oh yeah... exactly like DoW2 was "loyal" to the DoW1 fans
Or how Westwood was loyal and now its dead together with its C&C IP.
Grant strategy last as single player games because they are MADE for that, its impossible to play them in multiplayer and the ones you can, you need whole days for a single session.
Just because RTS game does have single player campaign does not mean its going to sustain itself off it.
That's why there is no such thing as "casual RTS".
RTS genre is competitive by the very nature of its gameplay, if you can't provide that, your game is going to die, just like Grey Goo died, just like 8-bit armies died, just like Homeworld:DoK died.
Older players who lived in RTS era, like me, play them less and less and younger players dive straight for MOBAs instead - the exceptions stick to RTS niche and guess what?
It got nothing to do with how well or not the game is made, modern player attention span doesn't even last 2 months, that's why literally ALL games that don't require tremendous amounts of patience aka very specific player target group are dead within 2-3 months. Developers can't do anything about players having kitten attention span, just look at any multiplayer AAA release and how fast population went down.
This is a very bad time for RTS games and it doesn't matter how well they are being made.
Draconix
Yep, its sad that Grey Goo has died, same with Etherium and now Dawn of War 3. Still I'm playing these games and enjoy it, with Dawn of War 3 currently being most.
Also I might suprise you but Grey Goo had gotted a mini campaign DLC and especially, free DLC with a new faction, a thing that in my opinion truly proved own worth to get it. So, it started with 3 factions and now has 4 factions.
As for Dawn of War 3, I doubt that same will happen here, but if Relic won't give up and will release new faction to this game, I will be impressed.
Getting a new faction is in my opinion a biggest gift RTS can get, just like in Grey Goo's case.
AmalurLegend
It's just a definition issue. SiRT is like its name "Strategy in Real Time", so those game witch match this definition can belong this category, like C&C4, WiC and DoW3 and then after doing so, players do not have to argue about which category do those games belong, RTS or RTT or MOBA. Those are SiRT games.
I think you do not understand my point.
Those players want the old formula games, so we just to make remaster versions for them, but designers also make certain content for those certain type players.
For example, Relic makes a remaster version of DoW1, but they also reinvent the DoW1's campaign with DoW2's formula and add Co-op missions.
Can you tell me why does this action would make simply RTS games again?
That's what I am talking about：players have "Stereotype" about RTS games and it makes the develop path become more and more narrow.
Thanks for reading.
AmalurLegend
First, if players do not wear the "RTS" glasses to see this genre and then I can agree I am talking about the future of "RTS", but if players do wear the "RTS" glasses to see this genre and then I have to say I am talking about the future of SiRT not RTS.
Second, the main point is to discuss if players do not like those new "RTS" and then designer should not use the RTS genre to name their games. I think those designers can invent some other new genre to name their games.
Third, I think the time and money constraints are part of reasons and the most important reason is the taste of players has been changed. They turn to mobile games, FPS or MOBAs.
Thanks for reading.
AmalurLegend
I think you misunderstand my article.
Part I.
What I said is：
"Third, Alternative 2 - the hardiest way.
I say this：How about we develop new genres for Strategy game in Real Time.
The thing is easy and simple since players don't like every new RTS games and then we just do not make RTS games. We make new SiRT games.
Developers can invent other new genres to prevent triggering the mine of RTS genre."
See that?
Alternative 2 - the hardiest way is to develop new genres for Strategy game in Real Time.
I mean the Alternative 2 is not equal to my invention directly.
Part II.
[A] I am not going to make RTS games, but to make CTS, so you should not put your "RTS" glasses on it or you can not see anything with the glasses.
[B]
[Answer]
First, I am talking about the "span of control". You can do Macro, micro or meso-management at any dimension, like economic, diplomacy or military dimension. You can imagine the manage level in a company, The micro-management level is workers' level and they have to deal with those things of basic level. The Macro-management level is CEO's level and he has to deal with those things of High level (like policy decision). The meso-management level is Middle Hierarchy managers' level and they have to deal with those things of middle level(Like visionlizing the policy from CEO and making a coordination for workers.)
Second, in traditional "RTS" games, those games require players to play the 3 type3 role of manage level and I mean players have to play the workers and middle managers and CEO during the whole gameplay and the main focus is the workers' role.
Third, what I want to do is to make players can only focus on the role of middle manager.
[Answer]
The blue circle is our unit and the red circle is enemy unit and the yellow arrow is attack action.
[C] Collectivism control system - I said that before in my past articles.
The core is one order and many actions.
I will give you pictures and some notes, if you want know more and then please ask me.
Here is the website
https://forum.gamer.com.tw/C.php?bsn=07506&snA=6860&page=3
The Collectivism control system in Rise of Legends. Just has the relocation function.
Unit type: square is infantry, circle is cavalry, the triangle is archer.
Army scale: small, large, medium, these three scales.
Execute command timing order: There are simultaneous actions and sequential actions.
Execute command timing order: There are simultaneous actions and sequential actions.
Direction of march.
Direction of march.
Objectives and actions.
All together.
[D]
[Answer]
First, fun is Subjective and I think there is fun in that.
Second, for example, the REQ increasing mechanic in DoW2, players just to keep the captured SP longer and then the REQ's income rate will increase. That's the "Indirect effect". There is a retreat function in CoH and DoW2 and players just order their units to retreat but do not tell them by which path and retreat to where and this is "Indirect command".
[E] Issue Order limitation and periods.
First, I have no ideas why would you think of that.
Second, it's an invention about control system in CTS and no one has done it before.
Thanks for reading.
Krakza
This might be the crutch of a lot of the fan clashes over the Dawn of War franchise.
Unlocked camera, custom skins, sync-kills - what use are these things to us who are actually playing the game as an RTS, aside from being a little novelty on the side?
I feel like a majority of WH40k fans aren't after a competitive RTS game, they want a multiplayer 40k Warzone Simulator - just like Dawn of War 1. It doesn't need balance or tight mechanics - the popularity of Ultimate Apocalypse proved us that.
What better genre for it? Turn based strategy won't provide the same.
Just some thoughts - I don't really have a conclusion, just the above quote got my gears whirring.
StarSauron
OK nothing is more famous what happened to Westwood C&C Series.
Electronic Arts did kill a lot of game studios.
Electronic Arts did buy for a lot of money Virgin Interactive Entertainment=Westwood publisher.
Westwood Team was so later on more in charge what they were doing and dissolved later.
Still the Series did long for long till EA ordered to hardcore fail with Red Alert 3 to compete Starcraft 2.
Than C&C4 Tiberian Twilight was done to please the so called modern audience, was ignored by the modern audience.
A lot people say the Petroglyph team, is their successor, still they lack a lot of team members from Westwood time,
so their game did go at some point again the innovative route. So failed accordingly.
It was never ever the fault of the C&C Series,
but rather ill judgement from EA money greedy people who simply did downgrade the game so far,
there was just no game left, just a software application.
With a publisher like Sega, Westwood would for sure make C&Cs till today, even in Warhammer Universe.
Well I would by DOW3 and C&C4 go for another games category, and put there Steel Division: Normandy 44,
Call of Duty®: Infinite Warfare, Godus and Mass Effect Andromeda .
You have a game like Black & White 2 or Play Populous: The Beginning. Even if its older, that's way superior to Godus.
People do have based on previous games certain expectations. If you deliver less, they won't be pleased.
DmonBlu
The whole problem with the go back to root things is that the game will eventually lose popularity due to player base aging and thus wont be playing the game anymore (u know nobody plays game anymore after 30 especially in Asian countries and Asia is the biggest market). Relic tried to appeal the younger player base but they made a HUGE mistake that is the giantic price tag of 60$ and the fact RTS is practically dead doesnt help much either. Most ppl in Asia play MOBA games due to them being easier and less micro-intensive which most Asians aint good at. However I did not expect EU to keep the game alive and this might pay off. If the game sold enuf then SEGA will start pumping in cash and get the DLCs coming like TW:W and oh boys 200k copies is an unexpected number especially after all those bashing/ranting Archwarhammer did. The RTS genre is doomed but DOW 3 might still last but I really dont expect it to big a global success as the young audience love casual games that r easy to play and dont require massive practice to git gud. Surely after DOW 3 there wont be another RTS titles especially after Blizzard has given up and switch to the IOS market instead for easy cash grabbing. DOW 3 might be the very last RTS game of our generation so appreciate it for our children wouldnt have the honor of actually playing a RTS game.
This is an opinion post
Gigs
im really trying to understand this but all i can think of is a comparison to Total war.
StarSauron
Well I did think a little about your points.
And here is an example. Something like Total War has no problem to exist, but what about any similar games ?
Imperial Glory was good, but a fail
Warhammer: Mark of Chaos, was really good, but a fail
The Kings’ Crusade was a fail
King Arthur: The Role-Playing Wargame 1 and 2 was bad fail
We all agree that a grand strategy game like Total War is a success and they make games that do sell well.
This means, there is no room for competition that is too similar and "worse" in content.
Its like Sonic vs Mario, both games are about run around and do things, but you have certain differences.
The Great Giana Sisters is a good clone of Supermario Brothers, but still too similar to Mario, so a fail.
You cant be too similar to your competition, this way the better game will own supreme the market. C&C was never really good, AI was dumb since game 1 and balance always broken, anyway it had its own identity/personality, that's why people loved it. As it did get more similar to Starcraft2/MOBAs, fans did give up on the Series.
Same happens now with DOW3, too similar to Starcraft2, the suggested improvements from MOBAs,
that are Warcraft3 game mode, what is the predecessor to Starcraft2,
did backfire in creating something too similar to competitive turf of Starcraft2.
Starcraft2 is not a simple RTS game, its an MMO RTS game and like World of Warcraft simply superior to the competition.
With a huge fan base and does care about the casuals with a great story modus, Archon game modus (2 people, play same faction) and Co-Op modus.
Starcraft2 does beat DOW3 on every level. DOW1 and 2 had just a different identity compared to Starcraft, that's why people did like the series.
As RTS fan, I just see the same wrong assumption happening over and over again, by each game.
A Modern RTS should not try to compete with Starcraft or get any too similar.
Katitof
You're talking about current SC2 here.
SC2 on release was extremely bland game, nothing more then SC1 with improved graphics and a couple of gimmicks.
Let me also remind you that EVERY single Korean player with WoW subscription for 12 months got the game for free on release.
All the features, like the game modes where one player controls micro and another macro or where you do coop pve missions with leveled commander and unique abilities and units, it took years to get that in, DoW3 is ahead of SC2 by far compared to what it was on release, if SC2 was literally the exact same game it is now, but with different name, differently looking units and different publisher, it wouldn't last 6 months. The only reason SC2 is popular is because people go for literally anything with Blizzard name, their MOBA being extremely simplified one in relation to competitors is best example.
Even a simple and plain game can be a major success if its marketed well and got enough of financial backing and if the game isn't even mainstream genre, it absolutely requires to take solid, checked features and improve on them, like 7 days to die did(minecraft-survival-"tower defense" hybrid game for mature people).
World of Warcraft wasn't superior to competition, there were plenty of other much more popular MMOs, HELL WoW wasn't even playable for first month, you literally could not play the game at all and games like Lineage 2 or that old Star Wars MMO had much deeper systems and character progression build in, the only thing WoW had was Warcraft setting, which already had a tremendous fan base because of 3 RTS games prior to it.
If you're going to use certain title as an example, make sure you know the history behind its success and how they actually looked at release.
edit: another quick example:
Dungeon Keeper 2, massive success, praised by crapload of people, loved and renowned game.
Recently it was re-made as War for Overworld and no one gave a crap about it - that is another example of a successful game that did not passed the test of time and nostalgia for its predecessor was not enough to keep it relevant.
Exactly the same thing would happen if DoW3 was just DoW1 with better graphics and quality of life changes instead of different game it is now, which does suit the time and can be expanded upon.