I won''t let you die, beloved thread

Microsoft isn''t actually a developer, it''s just the publisher. Ensemble Studios is the developer. The creator of the might Age of series. Which infact is the true king of the RTS genre. But you should not only love AoK but play C&C Generals as well. Blizzard RTSes are nice but your missing out if you don''t play the C&C and Age of series.

quote: Original post by PSWind
Microsoft isn''t actually a developer, it''s just the publisher. Ensemble Studios is the developer. The creator of the might Age of series. Which infact is the true king of the RTS genre. But you should not only love AoK but play C&C Generals as well. Blizzard RTSes are nice but your missing out if you don''t play the C&C and Age of series.

I suppose that''s a matter of opinion, but Blizzard has led in numbers, where as ensemble studio''s seems to like to spam out there games every few months. Not that this makes either companies great, or even good developers, nor does it make them bad or horrible developers.

quote: Original post by Fuzztrek
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 think it''s just because they were oversaturated for a couple of years, and now we have a new ''trendy genre'' in MMORPGs.

quote: 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.

I think you''ve never written a complete game, if you think that the average RTS is more complex than the average RPG

quote: Haha.. looking back at this, I assume RTS means warcraft and starcraft Sorry.

The funny thing is, I like Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Myth: The Fallen Lords, and several other RTS games, but I couldn''t get into Starcraft. It just seemed... boring. I hear it is the best balanced RTS out there, which may be so, but to me it was just tedious

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

STARCRAFT is just briliant for multiplayer, not surpased yet IMHO.

I think that if game had to much detail and paid to much attention to miniature details it wouldn''t be as good.

See, RTS build around A story probably wouldn''t be good in multiplayer as story has no relevance there. That is because people playing it are kinda making a story. In multiplayer its all about balance and you being able to surprise your friend on the computer across the room (like sneaking up with a ghost and watching him panickly look for a read dot when "Nuclear launch detected" message pops up on the screen).

quote: Original post by Kylotan
I think you''ve never written a complete game, if you think that the average RTS is more complex than the average RPG

That is very true But I still think they are extremely complex. Must be my unexperienced, because it seems much harder than an RPG to me. Time will tell I guess

¬_¬

I''ve played my share of RTS games, and though most share alot of good common values, I''ve usually come out of the game feeling there wasn''t enough to hold my attention. Either the game felt very off balance with certain units/abilities, the maps were to common and became boring, there wasn''t enough action and too much micromanagement, or even your troops seeming to be quite stupid compared to how they should act in certain situations.

There''s plenty more but I''m hoping to address alot of these concerns with my own designs (I know, everyone hates that whole ''My'' word, but it''s true ). In fact, I''ve already done a pen and paper (AD&D) version of the game, but it''s not completely ready yet. As for the PC version, as soon as I can find a dedicated team who can help me work out any kinks in what I have so far, I can promise we''ll bring into light a new generation of RTS and FPS gamers!

Or maybe I''m just rambling here, but there''s my dimes in a jar

- Chris

wait a sec... you''re saying that there are only a few RTS''s out there? Right now we might be going through somewhat of a rpg craze, but a couple of years ago, when warcraft II and the first command & conquer were brought out it sparkled a craze where every game developer wanted a piece of the action... krush kill and destroy, robo rumble, total annihalation and a whole lot more games that fell into obscurity. Why? They only profited the craze and were not nearly done as well as WC or C&C. (TA comes close maybe)

Right now RPG''s or MMOG seem to be the way to go to get a piece of the action. It doesn''t matter what genre a movie or a game is, as long as it has been done well, IMHO.

Total Annihilation was one of my favourite RTS''s, I think for it''s time it was totally amazing. shaded realistic looking non-tiled terrain, and a huge selection of units, seamless integration of land sea and air units, where the ships actually ''turn'' and planes actually ''fly'' and both have a real sence of momentum. Many units could shoot on the move, which gives you access to such fluid and dynamic battle strategies, as gorilla warfare, hit and run attacks, and this rarely used but tactically essential action, retrograde manouver(retreat). It also eliminated my pet peve with other RTS''s at the time which was that a unit could see as far as it could shoot, which made catapults the most farsighted things on the battlefield. In Total Annihilation however many units could shoot much father than they could see, which made fast recon, and radar equiped units as valuable as the artillery units. As far as providing battlefield like options and concerns, it was way ahead of its time. But it had the most stupid thread bare story lines ever, and there was little character to the factions, you might as well be pushing cardboard tokens around a hex map, which suited a grognard like myself but flew wide of most of the disaffected youth of the time. What Blizzard had was style, they weren''t the best programmers or game designers, but they had angsty commic book style artists and story writers, which provided the hook that scewed peoples opinions towards them in the first place, Dune Two whas way more innovative and competently executed than Warcraft, and Warcraft Two just happened to get the right mix.

What I want to see is a Starcraft mod for Total Annihilation, meld the style and tech trees of Starcraft with the dynamic unit interactions of TA, man that would be sweet.


My other fav for RTS''s though more RTT, is Close Combat II - Operation Market Garden. Once again no style or story, but great tactics

Returning to the "Future of RTS" topic, I think we will see two subgenres of RTS:
1: A Homeworld-inspired genre. Homeworld, for those that didn''t play it, was a space-based fully 3d RTS. It was quite fun, but to date hasn''t spawned any clones besides its sequels (AFAIK)

2: RTS''s where you have less control over individual units, and must instead command large groups, which will have increasingly advanced intelligence.

Blizzard will continue to push out Starcraft & Warcraft style games with the same old overhead-map style look and figure-based (as opposed to group-based) command and with the much-adored character-based story. They may fork a new subgenre of hero-based RTS''s with subsequent Warcrafts or other series. I don''t expect Starcraft 2 to be hero-based, but Blizzard often surprises me.

What I''d like to see, but probably won''t is some sort of urban strategy game, where you can take up positions anywhere inside any room of any building on any floor, with any number of floors, and you are still commanding from third person, floating freely around the world.