Real Time Strategy has always been led in popularity by Blizzard, with other popular developers being Microsoft and Westwood. I''m sure there are many other popular RTS''s, but I''d say it''s safe to say that these are the main three. Now, I find that all follow more or less the same formula, one that I particularily like, however Blizzard tends to introduce new and unique features into there games that, whether or not propelled and supported by fan hype or popular because they are genuinely great ideas, has made there games legendary. The RTS genre always seemed a little quiet, and I wonder if it is because these are (or were) the most complex games to create and master. Now, I''m pretty sure that MMORPG''s have taken the lead in complex developing, but it''s funny that one of the most popular games happens to be an RTS, however RTS''s are extremely rare. I''m just wondering where everyone see''s this genre going. Is it going to merge into something different (eg RPG -> MMORPG), or are we going to see more RPS''s instead? While I do like realism, I don''t really enjoy it as much in RTS games. Perhaps because of there complexity (managing so many things - resources, units, buildings, spells, etc etc) making them "real" is even more of a challenge. For we all know that in real battles there are more than 24 units, and it is infinitly more horrendous. I personally prefer RTS''s that are far from reality, whether it is avoidence, or the fact that I really really like brightly colored objects I think complexity is one reason that we see so many graphically-advanced (in terms of realism) RPG''s and FPS''s, and not so many RTS''s of the same graphical scale. But a big question of mine is: If technology allows, will realism increase? I spose these musings are actually not that intresting, but I''d like some feedback. I really hope that RTS''s stay away from the true-to-life realism and continue to stay in future or in fantasy. Haha.. looking back at this, I assume RTS means warcraft and starcraft Sorry. I guess they are really the *only* two games I play, and the *only* two games I am obsessed with. Anyway.. comments appreciated.

I had a thread a little while back asking if because of the recent war, people were more interested (or less interested) in how real warfare and strategy is played out. In other words, make it more realistic to cover the topics you hear about every day in the news.

A little while ago, I became kind of disgusted with my own work on ym game because making a game about war when a war was happening literally made me sick. But I then started realizing that my initial concept for the game was to illustrate the horrors of war.

Sometimes people think the end goal of gaming is to have fun. I see that as very limiting. Look at why people want to watch sad movies or scary movies. I think it''s more important to give players an experience. So far we''ve only concentrated on "fun" experiences, but little else. So it damwned on me that perhaps now more than ever my game should see the light of day.

I''ve personally gotten a couple emails of correspondence from people interested in my more realistic game design, so I know that there is a market out there. I think graphics should be there as an immersion factor, so that is important in a sense, but the msot important part to me for strategy games is understanding how to control your forces. To me, this point is not well defined in most games, sense basically you automatically control your units. But I wanted the player to think of his units like they were human beings instead of cannon fodder. Anything which enhances the immersion experience and also factors in the many layers of strategic warfare are important to me.

What will RTS be in the future? I think they too will succumb to the MMO paradigm (for better or for worse....for the worse I think). The main reason I''m down on the MMO paradigm is that there''s no real way to tell a story. So if you''re a story-based designer, than MMO is in my opinion not the way to go (although it shouldn''t be heard to have both a single player and multiplayer aspects). I think RTS''s will start to become more realistic due to people''s exposure to this recent war. Now people are exposed to concepts like securing roads, harbors and ports. They are bombarded with war analysts explaining concepts of encirclement, cutting off communications lines and disabling the command and control capabilities of the enemy side. Games that don''t feature these things will I think be considered "toys" in the coming future. So I think realism will become more of an asset, and less of a hindering feature than it was before, because all the people exposed to CNN are going to wonder how to enact those elements they saw from the war analysts.

Sorry but what does the acronym "MMO" stand for? I''m not a native english speaker, so don''t laugh at this trivial question =)

MMO = massively mltiplayer online (game)

Thanks

A few years back, everyone and their brother made an RTS game. These days, every third hobo on the street i releasing a MMORPG (any day now!). Next year, it''ll be the revival of space-based action-puzzle-adventures featuring chickens.

These things go in cycles, and there''s a lot of copycats after each successful title. If you can make a successful title in any space, you should do that. If you can make one in a space that currently does NOT have zillions of knock-offs, that''s much better -- much easier to stand out!

quote:

---

Original post by Dauntless
I had a thread a little while back asking if because of the recent war, people were more interested (or less interested) in how real warfare and strategy is played out. In other words, make it more realistic to cover the topics you hear about every day in the news.

A little while ago, I became kind of disgusted with my own work on ym game because making a game about war when a war was happening literally made me sick. But I then started realizing that my initial concept for the game was to illustrate the horrors of war.

Sometimes people think the end goal of gaming is to have fun. I see that as very limiting. Look at why people want to watch sad movies or scary movies. I think it's more important to give players an experience. So far we've only concentrated on "fun" experiences, but little else. So it damwned on me that perhaps now more than ever my game should see the light of day.

I've personally gotten a couple emails of correspondence from people interested in my more realistic game design, so I know that there is a market out there. I think graphics should be there as an immersion factor, so that is important in a sense, but the msot important part to me for strategy games is understanding how to control your forces. To me, this point is not well defined in most games, sense basically you automatically control your units. But I wanted the player to think of his units like they were human beings instead of cannon fodder. Anything which enhances the immersion experience and also factors in the many layers of strategic warfare are important to me.

What will RTS be in the future? I think they too will succumb to the MMO paradigm (for better or for worse....for the worse I think). The main reason I'm down on the MMO paradigm is that there's no real way to tell a story. So if you're a story-based designer, than MMO is in my opinion not the way to go (although it shouldn't be heard to have both a single player and multiplayer aspects). I think RTS's will start to become more realistic due to people's exposure to this recent war. Now people are exposed to concepts like securing roads, harbors and ports. They are bombarded with war analysts explaining concepts of encirclement, cutting off communications lines and disabling the command and control capabilities of the enemy side. Games that don't feature these things will I think be considered "toys" in the coming future. So I think realism will become more of an asset, and less of a hindering feature than it was before, because all the people exposed to CNN are going to wonder how to enact those elements they saw from the war analysts.

---

I have a very hard time with this games for fun, games about war thingy. I mean, I know there are no words to describe the horrors of war (and, as I havn't experienced war and plan not to experience it in the future, I don't fully understand the horrors of war). However, game definatly interest me, and I've wondered a lot about what part of the game interests me the most. And I've finally decided that it's not so much the war aspect of the game that interests me, it's the attention to detail, the deformable terrain, the unique spells and the developmental side of the game (and of course the story). If it were about the war, I would probably be playing as many games as possible.

That is probably why I prefer Blizzard RTS's to any other RTS. For instance, take Warcraft III. Now, I agree this is far from a perfect game. It has many balance issues which are continously in the process of being worked out, including game mechanics and design. However, it has an extremely solid base and is extremely flexible. Warcraft III's story may not have been the best, but it was still far better than any other RTS I've played (and I havn't played very many.. I guess that sentence lost all credibility). Anyway, I just think it's a really gooooood game.

However, I think of all the games I've played, Starcraft best illustrates the horror of war in it's story. The story hasn't completely unfolded yet, but so far it is a very.. dare I say it.. "psychological" story. Every character seems to have his/her own agenda, and only slowely are they realizing there mistakes, at severe costs. Starcraft better not have a happy ending

Next, the whole violence issue. This is a huge debate, and although studies have yielded statistics to support both sides, I think it is far to early to see the effects of violence in entertainment on humanity. I really don't see how it can not affect us, however I am not blaming violent entertainment on all that is bad in the world. Anyway, I agree with cutting out the glorification of war, excluding much of the gore and violence, and replacing it with a better look at the psychological effects of war. I still remember that article in a Canadian magazine (Macleans) that interviewed a few US soldiers that were going over to Iraq to fight, and how they were so excited to finally being able to use weapons and be in the battle field. I'm sure this does not reflect all soldiers, but it is extremely appalling that after such larges wars not that long ago, we still have little respect for the power of war itself. Not the people that faught in those wars, but for war as an entity.

The strategy element of RTS's is very important, however I think it should be much different from turn based strategy games, since in a way RTS's are more realistic compared to TBS's (two units must fight to death, instead of one unit taking over another unit, though I realize not all tbs games are this way). As such, I think the strategy element should be more part of the pre-war design than the actual battle design. Basically, it should include resource management, unit planning (ie, a variety over comes masses), and deciding when to fight (including taking weather conditions, etc into consideration).

I don't like the idea of battle strategy as much, I think it's important, but it shouldn't rely so much on micro managment. I think there are a number of things that separate RTS games from reality, including the fact that you have to manage resources, and the fact that you generally do not have control over every single person.

I guess what I mean is, I would prefer if the gameplay stayed "fake" or whatever, but for the story to become much much more realistic. However, I would like to see less glorification in gameplay.

[edited by - Fuzztrek on April 9, 2003 5:22:21 PM]

I was always a bigger fan of the C&C games but the thing that really stands out in my mind as what "made" the games was a multitude of little things. Storyline was important because it gave you a basis on the units. The strategy involved in using the available units and the various combinations that could be utilized were a big part of my continued interest. I would have to say that above all else, the multiplay options were by far the most appealing to me. Playing against a bot and a real person don''t even compare. The realism never even came to mind. If I wanted realism, I would play a simulation.

GRELLIN

"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity."

fuzzrek-
Have you ever played any turn based games? If you like the attention to detail aspect, you might like those more since in general they tend to get into the nitty gritty details of things more. Unfortunately, as far as I know, I don''t think they really set out to tell a story as much.

I agree with you about the storyline and the personality of units and characters. To me, what always fascinated me about military history were its generals and the famous fighting units. The illustrious history and pageantry of units and the genius and bumbling ineptitude of its leaders always fascinate me. I guess that''s why I don''t see war games as moving pieces around that represent troops to get your goal. I see them as people that had stories to tell. It helps that I got to hear some stories about WWII from my grandfather''s generation.

I think in the future maybe RTS games will start to factor more attention to detail. If the usage of sophisticated AI increases, I think this can alleviate some of the burden of micromanaging certain details...but with the option of the player micromanaging it if he likes that. I also hope more RTS games introduce stories. I did like Warcraft and Starcraft for that aspect, and I wish more games did the same (kohan had a somewhat interesting storyline as well though for some reason, I didn''t feel attached to any of the Immortals). Graphics may help achieve a sense of immersion that may be more interesting.

While it''s not exactly RTS, more like RTT, I''d like to see a new genre created where you play the role of a platoon or company commander in first person mode. Basically, you''ll be fighting side-by-side with your troops, but also having to deal with the the tactical elements of combat. This kind of game will require some heavy duty technological horsepower....imagine a game like Operation Flashpoint or Ghost Recon, but with about 100 men that are under your command (or even Warcraft 3, but in first person). I heard Battle Engine Aquila is sort of like this, in that you are a single player on a huge battlefield. In Medal of Honor, your allies were essentially scripted, although they could help you out to a degree...but at most you only had 4 helpers or so. Imagine playing the Omaha Beach landing where every soldier wasn''t scripted...but actually under your command and each with independent AI.

Actually, what your proposing is almost like what Warcraft III was in very early stages. While there is not a lot of information on this, the camera seemed to have been fixed to your hero, and units near the hero could be commanded. Of course, there were many less units, but it is kind of along the lines of what you described. You can check out the old screenshots here if you like. Again, it''s not exactly the same but might give you some insight.

I like the idea of ranking within armys, however I think that when units die, at least in the story, it should be made ironic that the higher ranked units get more publicity for there funerals while perhaps making bad decisions and screwing the entire army up, where as lower ranked units that were only "following orders" hardly get any publicity or funeral services at all. Perhaps this is mostly because I don''t see that people willing to go into war should be considered honerable.

IE, in the storyline, all units that die affect units around them. This wouldnt'' work too well in game, I don''t think, because it would be very annoying to have units preforming below average just because a unit beside them died. It might be neat if AI was advanced enough, I guess I''d just have to see it. Perhaps it wouldnt'' be so bad.

I suppose because the more complex the game is, usually the harder it is to play is one reason that I would prefer realism to stay out of games and remain in storylines. However, this may just be because current games that have lots of features (not in terms of realism) I find cluttered and not userfriendly, where as games like warcraft and starcraft have very simple interfaces and are more universal.

Heh.. I don''t know if any of that made sense.. I just like to ramble away.. rather annoying since my fingers usually start to cramp up from typing so fast half way through, thus my fingers are many thoughts behind my current one. Ah well