Hello I am new to this or any forum on the internet. I appreciate a place where I can express views about games and get interesting feedback. Here are my topics for discussion. When we think of Real-time strategy as gamers we think of the now and present, as opposed to Turn-based games. However the word REAL is something that is rarely looked at by current designers. I am not talking about fantasy type games but war games like Empire Earth, Age of Empires or Cossacks. I liked all of these games but it seems they all have one thing or another missing. For example the Age of empires series was good because it allowed trade within its game as a means of gaining wealth. This to me is very realistic in that in our current world and for as long as I can remember, trade either internationally or domestic provides wealth for that country. However most games do not have a very good trading system, but rely on whacking away on a pile of Gold for wealth, (very unrealistic). Civilization lll has a great trade system with special natural resources for each nation. This creates tension between nations and a very good reason for conflicts between them because one nation wants that resource and must decide how to get it, whether by force or diplomacy. This leads into my next topic, and as you can see I have a lot on my mind. What is the reason for conflict in an game? Is it for resources, territory, money, etc? The plot behind the conflict needs to be improved. Just fighting because there are two different factions on the map is not good enough. This is the strategy part of the game. Should I attack or continue with diplomatic negotiations? Better yet where are the diplomatic negotiations in these games. Once again Civ lll a turn-based game has diplomacy as well. Can developers (or aspired like myself) create a more complex diplomacy for single player RTS games? One more thing. Who says that all factions within a game must be equal? When Germany attacked Poland at the beginning of WORLD WAR ll, it wasn''t equal. Certain civilizations acquire technological advances faster than others. That''s the way it should be in a REAL strategy game. American Conquest Fight back, although I never played it is one of the few that has this concept of unequal play. The native indians can supposedly create troops much quicker than lets say the British which helps the odds of the Natives against the more technological advanced British Faction. What do you think of REAL gaming?

Pfff... You seem not to understand what game design or game balance is...

Gonna make only a few quick points.
It's "real-time", meaning that time flows at a constant rate and cannot be interrupted.

See StarCraft or WarCraft III for a RTS with a nice story.

All factions must be equal because of balance when playing online against other players, besides there's no fun fighting an ennemy way strong or weaker than you...


-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-


[edited by - Ingenu on November 3, 2003 5:04:56 PM]

I think that most RTS games tend to assume that diplomacy has already broken down. In fact, I think they should assume this, or you may end up with a game that goes something like this....

Player 1: I''m in ur base and im killing all ur d00dz lol
Player 2: Yeah? i just built another base, and my d00dz are preparing to attack ur base.
Player 1: Oh.
Player 2: if you pull out ur men, and promise not to attack me again, I wont attack you
Player 1: OK, but i need more gold
Pleyer 2: OK, i got lotsa gold, swap u 1000 gold for 1000 stone
Player 1: yeah ok. I got loadsa stone, that sounds fair
Player 2: Cool. Lets just be friends.

You could extend the scope of the game to incorporate diplomacy in this manner, but what you end up with is more of an empire simulation than a war game, which is a rather different kettle of fish, and less suitable for a game designed to be played competitively in a multiplayer situation, in less than an hour total game time.

Several people have suggested the idea of a ''persistent'' RTS game, in which such diplomacy might have a place, but persistent games like that have their own problems, since not everyone can play solidly for 24 hours a day.

As for the balance issue, mismatched forces are interesting. I''d like to see an RTS game which encourages this sort of thing a bit more - I think that ''balanced'' forces are still necessary to some extent, because as I said before, many of these games are played competitively. However, it would be nice to provide some sort of mechanism whereby experienced players can take on a handicap against less experienced players.

In response to Ingenu.

Thanks for the response. This is the type of dialogue I was hoping for, so I could better understand what gamers are looking for. I understand the concept of Real-time gaming, however I was talking about the concept of REAL as in real world events. Don''t you think it is possible to design a game that incorporates more real world events?

1. More truly unique units and strategies
2. More negotiations, and diplomacy (sieze fire options)
3. More trade options
4. Weaker maybe minor civilizations to conquer (computer controlled).
5. Different behaviors too choose, Aggressive, Passive, etc.
6. Civilian happiness in RTS games
7. Different paths to choose, Economic, Scientific, Cultural etc.

I''m talking more about the single player options. I do realize that most gamers are playing online, but there are some that like to play the CPU as well.

First I'd like to disagree and say that by purporting that there are "real games" you are, in effect, saying there are fake ones.

Fake or real are not qualities that can be put on games, if you define "real" as based in reality, than by the very definition of "game" it is impossible to have a "real game."

Games are meant for one obvious and simple purpose: to make the players have fun. If that isn't the primary goal... say realism is the new goal, it is no longer a game, it is a simulation. Fun is, and always was and always will be, the goal of the game. Fun can be attained in numerous ways. Just look at Postal or Grand Theft Auto, they aren't meant to be "real," just to make the player have fun.

In the case of real-time strategy games such as Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Warcraft, etc... the fun is in commanding troops against opponents and winning through superior tactics and strategy.

You seem to be stuck on the notion that it can't be fun if it weren't real, and I think this notion is simply wrong. Elements that would make a real-time strategy game "real," such as an incredibly intricate resource/economic system, or real time unit speed, or pretty much anything that really happen, stand in the way of the game from being fun.

Sure, I'm not buying the fact that I can train "Grunts" by sending a few of my "units" to go whack a gold mine, but I'm willing to accept these and have fun because hey, it's just a game.

Even sports games such as Madden 2004, which pride themselves in being realistic, get rid of the "not-fun" details of being someone on a football team. You can call the plays (offense and defense), directly control any player at the team at any moment in time, and all sorts of features exclusive to the game, because thats just what it is... a game.

So, in summation, I think "real" doesn't mean "right," and that real is simply an unnecessary quality left for marketing and box-covers. The game world is *not* the real world, which is what makes it so much fun to run over people in Vice City, or managing the Celts to victory.

EDIT: I hope this was interesting feedback

[edited by - LuckyNewbie on November 3, 2003 8:49:00 PM]

Thanks luckie newbie for your feedback. I guess fun is different for each individual. I for one enjoy historically based RTS games and have been searching for one that is more realistic. Perhaps there is something on the market that anyone knows of that is similiar to the Empire Earth interface, but with a better editor. That way I can create my own game the way I want using triggers.

quote: Original post by Ingenu
Pfff... You seem not to understand what game design or game balance is...
...
...
All factions must be equal because of balance when playing online against other players, besides there''s no fun fighting an ennemy way strong or weaker than you...

No, it''s no fun to lose all the time.
It also should be fun to lose some of the time, otherwise a player just isn''t very mature or way too egotistical.
Sometimes I''m good at this, sometimes not, I bet that you don''t usually play multi-player games with three or more factions.

You know what I liked to do when I was playing Twisted Metal 2? I would create a match against the computer with the maximum number of opponents and pick the car with the absolute worst armor. I never won. All I tried to do was survive as long as possible and take out as many as I could, but you know, it''s all just a matter of taste. Some get a bigger rush from winning than playing. Although now I''m having to do it for real to unlock some stuff in Twisted Metal: Black and it''s not as much fun. Anyone know how to get 10 kills on ''Snowy Roads''?

quote: Original post by Sandman
I think that most RTS games tend to assume that diplomacy has already broken down. In fact, I think they should assume this, or you may end up with a game that goes something like this....

Player 1: I''m in ur base and im killing all ur d00dz lol
Player 2: Yeah? i just built another base, and my d00dz are preparing to attack ur base.
Player 1: Oh.
Player 2: if you pull out ur men, and promise not to attack me again, I wont attack you
Player 1: OK, but i need more gold
Pleyer 2: OK, i got lotsa gold, swap u 1000 gold for 1000 stone
Player 1: yeah ok. I got loadsa stone, that sounds fair
Player 2: Cool. Lets just be friends.

You could extend the scope of the game to incorporate diplomacy in this manner, but what you end up with is more of an empire simulation than a war game, which is a rather different kettle of fish, and less suitable for a game designed to be played competitively in a multiplayer situation, in less than an hour total game time.

Why not? There are two types of progress, evolutionary and revolutionary. You know what else, that conversation gives me an awesome idea.
Oh, wait, it''s probably been done before, still, I think it''s cool.
Here it is: When does that conversation make sense? In a persistent world. The idea is basic so it could be extended to a variety of settings such as MMO, tournaments, and single multiplayer sessions and there is a lot of variety here I think. Every one plays a set of opponents, possibly just one, then you play someone else, winner can be whoever conquers everyone else or reaches a number of ojbectives first. Depending on how one sets it up, defeated players might stick around(like castaways voting for the winner). The most important factor is probably determing what you get by winning a round versus what you get by cooperation. To put this in "game + game is like new game" terms, this is like Diplomacy plus real-time.

actually there is a lot of game which are 'lose party' and we had fun to them, the most obvious is TIME TRIAL, what's the point??? to reach 00'00"00.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOSER IT4S IMPOSSIBLE
actually the design just reverse the point of view to make us feel better (you reach the best score BUT try again (mean you are a loser))
and there is a lot of game where the opponent is impossible to beat (they abstract most time like time as example) and leave us with the true meaning of FATALITY, (how ironical the game defender was called, there is a infinite number of ennemy, how could we be a defender when you have already fail your task BEFORE the beginning ?? )
why we have so much fun then??? because the opponent we didn't care about it, the TRUE opponent is ourselve, how much 'I' can go far against fatality?? the matter is ourselves, our limit, we won each time the limit is broken....

i have play so many game in impossible mode or with the worst set possible to see how strong i could be, i KNOW it was IMPOSSIBLE, i have no DESIRE to beat the game but MYSELF, mu own LIMITS .... BUT..... sometime what we secretly EXPECT, the UNEXPECTED arrive, what was IMPOSSIBLE simply FALL, we BEAT FATALITY, and arrive in sense of ACHEIVEMENT

how many game i have reach the limit of the count and the game start to bug?? how many game couldn't handle the counter and freeze, i have beat the game, i have beat the impossible, i have reach the limit of the system, i have came into the LANDS of the GOD, the truth is i could reach this bacause because i didn't mind to reach it, i could LOSE because i couldn't WIN, this you cannot reach it with pure egoismand self-flattery, simply seek to maximize benefit and profit, being dependent of the materiality of power, how pityful (NO..., drop that , drop that hammer,drop that FLAMEthrower, drop that voodoo doll, ARRGGGHHH)... use the weakness and beat them all, this is true strength, but once you reach this level, you don't care anymore, you have beat the ultimate opponent YOURS'ELVES'

ok let's facing another challenge....

this the tales of how man couldn't step to the moon, it's impossible, just think about it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[edited by - Neoshaman on November 3, 2003 11:52:37 PM]

Try and get a copy of Sid Meyers Alpha Centaur (sp?). Its a turn based strategy but it covers some of the points you mentioned:
- you don''t necessarily have to kill off all of the other factions.
- You can win by having all the other factions swear a pack with you either because you are a nice guy or you beat them into submission.
- You can save up enough money to attempt an economic take over (buy everyone out)
- get enough research under your belt that you can transcend to the next plain of existence (who cares about war at that point)
- get elected the supreme leader of all factions.

- not all factions are equal, in fact some of them suck and never come close to winning in any of the games I ever played. Some factions are better at fighting, some at making money, another for reasearch, etc.

- you don''t automatically start fighting when you run into another faction. That usually happens later in the game when land starts to run out or someone gets too much power, but not always. Some try to bully you, others you can bully, etc. But the way the factions are set up, most won''t play well together for very long (different ideologies).