It seems to me that we may have a potential split in the RTS genre: one that deals with patternization of the player, which to me seems to be quake, but slower, and another that deals with more pure strategy, that of the scripted gameplay.

I believe that the scripted gameplay really needs to be explored. we just need a game to do it with. i would love to see a game that allows Iron Chef to set a standing army size, and just annihilate units without worrying about having to queue them back up. It might be a great game, it might not. I would like to see it done, though. if noone does it before I get around to it(a while), I'll do it.

Again, I'm not going to get into this argument, but could you define "patternized" and "scripted" in that context?

By patternized I mean the type of gameplay that Daniel Miller and Dawnstrider seem to be talking about.

By scripted, I mean what Iron Chef Carnage and Telastyn seem to be talking about.

Quote:

Original post by NIm By patternized I mean the type of gameplay that Daniel Miller and Dawnstrider seem to be talking about. By scripted, I mean what Iron Chef Carnage and Telastyn seem to be talking about.

I know, but why did you choose those words?

Quote:

Original post by NIm By patternized I mean the type of gameplay that Daniel Miller and Dawnstrider seem to be talking about. By scripted, I mean what Iron Chef Carnage and Telastyn seem to be talking about.

Note that I actually don't advocate the OP's first suggestion of adding automation to RTS games or scripting. Scripting isn't fun for most people, it doesn't provide direct results, and it's hard to allow without exploits. Automation removes gameplay by removing players' choice from them. Further many of the AI exploits that [imo] harm most RTSes are caused by modern day [and forseable future] lack of good adaptive AI. Adding more subpar automated/AI stuff would only make that worse.

[edit: not that scripting would solve those AI exploits either...]

It all depends on who your opponent is. You need to know when to use which S.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster It sounds like some of you want RTSes want to be more like Soccer Manager games, if that is a good or bad thing I'll let you decide.

Or maybe we'd rather concentrate on executing strategies than micromanaging everything. I'm sorry, but doing 5 little tricks all at once while still pumping out units back at the base has nothing to do with strategy (on the other hand, I'm starting to think there's a market for a casual game where you play bejeweled, zuma, and a few other games, all at once, with a time limit).

I've got nothing against people who enjoy that kind of challenge, but just because it's in an RTS doesn't make it strategy. Look it up, and you'll find few mentions of "multitasking". Strategy is about planning, laying out a set of objectives, assumptions, the actions to achieve them, and if you're really thinking, what to do if something goes wrong.

You can combine the two, but one of them will be a greater deciding factor than the other, and StarCraft is an example of where strategy loses more often than not.

Some of us just want a game where the opposite is true; where a superior strategist can go take a nice long piss (edit: or poop if that's your thing) in the middle of the game, come back, and still wipe the floor with his opponent.

[Edited by - nuvem on October 23, 2005 11:41:09 PM]

For Daniel Miller:
I chose those words because they fit the method for storing the details of a particular move. In scripted games, the game has a script for many common actions. In patternized games, the player has a memorized motor skill for everything.

As for the actual argument, nuvem said it pretty eloquently, but I'd like to add something.

A scripted game would be pointless.

Unless the player can change the script easily. if the script is just a script in the gamedir, it will be ignored. if, however, there's a nice gui for the player to edit the script with, it'll be much more accessible to non-programmers/modders.

I know this will likely never be read, but wth... If you want lots of good ideas, try out a few tuern based strat games like the Warlords series, and Advance Wars. Even better than those are TBS RPGs like Disciples and Heroes of Might and Magic and Fire Emblem. Find what aspects you like best about them and find a way of making those aspects real time. I personally dislike RTSs that solely rely on rush tactics, which is why all my battle.net time is spent playing risk and the like. I didn't really give you any specific advice, but I hope I was able to help you out.

I tend to think that both accumulative and streamlined games and combinations of the two are fun. I think, however, that that is not the isssue here. I think that games shpould be more accumulative, but that which adds to your superiority should be strategic. In starcraft, you have lots of things that have strategic value, but are not in themselves strategic(and by that I mean that they require no strategic ability to carry out), such as dumping something from a dropship for one shot and reloading it. I believe that in a strategy game, there should be more strategy centered skills(being able to analyze your opponent quickly) than other skills(being able to do the driopship trick).