Hi! I'm conducting a survey for a game I'm developing. It's an isometric rts, and I hope that you guys can answer some questions for me regarding games and gameplay in isometric games(regardless of whether it's turn-based or real-time, real-time is after all simulated). In case you want to know, it's for academic purposes. It's opensource, as I'm using opensource tools. Anyway, here are the questions: 1. How interested are you in games of this genre? 2. What type of graphical representation(2D/3D) would you prefer in games of this genre? 3. How would you rate the importance between the graphics and gameplay? 4. What mode of game saving would you prefer?(save-anywhere/save-after-event?/etc.) 5. Do you prefer multiple endings in games of this genre? 6. What are your favourite games in this genre? 7. Comments? Sorry about the repeated question. I've decided to remove the question about the verbal presentation. Seems that it works only for RPGs. Thank you. Edited by - cdtrrrst on February 23, 2002 1:56:56 PM Edited by - cdtrrrst on February 23, 2002 12:14:38 AM

1. How interested are you in games of this genre?
I'm somewhat interested in iso-RTSs, but you have to be extremely careful to not clone what's already out there, because in this style of game, what's done is done, and if you mimic it, your players will get bored.

2. What type of graphical representation(2D/3D) would you prefer in games of this genre?
pseudo-3D, as in, layered animated sprites, like SC. Come to think of it, I'm not sure they didn't use 3D models there...

3. How would you rate the importance between the graphics and gameplay?
Gameplay ranks far above graphics, because if the interations the player is having with the game suck, no amount of pretty graphics will be its salvation, yet, you can have a very fun game with few flashy effects.

4. What mode of verbal presentation would you prefer?
This completely depends on the style of your game. It's a design choice.

5. What type of verbal presentation would you prefer?
See above.

6. What mode of game saving would you prefer?(save-anywhere/save-after-event?/etc.)
Again, it depends. However, if you plan for levels to be long, add a save-anywhere feature. Despite what people say about it not being realistic, or the fact that it can reduce immersion, it's one of the worst things to not be able to save and to lose progress because of it.

7. Do you prefer multiple endings in games of this genre?
Naturally; any twist you can add will only give depth. Make certain that it flows, though.

8. What are your favourite games in this genre?
Starcraft, by far, because it had a vast number of units, attacks, upgrades, and levels. Warcraft good. AOE not my idea of fun, but that's because I don't like history so much. Shattered Galaxy (winner at the IGF2001) looked really cool, but I never played it. I guess that's about it.

9. Comments?
Stick with it. Study other games of the genre and learn what you can, then improve on it with your own style.

Later,
ZE.



//email me.//zealouselixir software.//msdn.//n00biez.//
miscellaneous links

[if you have a link proposal, email me.]

EDIT: Mis-matched HTML tags...

Edited by - zealouselixir on February 23, 2002 1:52:04 PM

Here are my responses to your survey:

1. I personally like RTS games. I am also a fan of Isometric games as well.

2. I like the usual, the isometric map screen as in Age of Empires etc.. But I also think that a RTS game whose map was in 3D (i.e. Dark Cloud for PS2 when you rebuild the villages).

3. I personally, am for concered with gameplay than with graphics. There could be a game that had the best graphics but it still wouldn''t be fun if the gameplay was lacking.

4 & 5: I like games where you don''t have to read the players'' messages in little boxes that come out of their mouths, although in some cases this is necessary. I think it allows for deeper characters because you can hear what they might sound like.

6: To me, this depends on the game, and its difficulty. If the RTS would have different missions (and I have played some that do not) then I would prefer saving after the missions.

7: Yes, I prefer muliple endings in most game genres. I think it allows for a richer story with the ability to see the story end in a number of ways, and it also adds to the re-playability to the game.

8: I especially liked Kingdom Under Fire and the Age of Empire series.

9: Good luck on creating your game

[N]

1. How interested are you in games of this genre?
Mildly. I''m not an avid game player; I peruse games when they come out and decide whether I find them interesting or not. If I do, then I might bother with the purchase. I''m still looking for an RTS that lives up to my expectations of Real-Time Strategy. See Comments below.

2. What type of graphical representation(2D/3D) would you prefer in games of this genre?
Whatever presentation is most appropriate and does not get in the way of gameplay.

3. How would you rate the importance between the graphics and gameplay?
Gameplay is everything. Graphics is just icing on the cake. I mean, how much icing can you eat without any cake?

4. What mode of verbal presentation would you prefer?
I don''t really understand the question, probably since I don''t play many RTSes. Anyway, voiceovers are nice but they shouldn''t become overly repetitive.

5. What mode of game saving would you prefer?(save-anywhere/save-after-event?/etc.)
Save anywhere in general, but you can still have "advancement points" - objectives that, once achieved, allow the player a little respite to replenish the troops, modify overall strategy, etc.

6. Do you prefer multiple endings in games of this genre?
Yes. In fact, I prefer endings to simply be the consequence of player actions rather than being pre-scripted. Of course, achieving that isn''t quite as easy as it sounds...

7. What are your favourite games in this genre?
N/A.

8. Comments?
As stated above, I am discontent with the "strategy-orientedness" of current RTS games. I find that there is far too much necessitated resource gathering/management and micromanagement in general. IMNSHO, an RTS game should present a player with a scenario (the Franks are encroaching on our western border; we will require you to take a scout unit and assess the situation... or take Gerhardt''s band and head them off before they reach the Shumacher overpass...), resources (soldiers, rations, equipment), intelligence (maps, scout reports - which you may have been the one to obtain, etc) and let you rip.

The strategy then becomes critical to winning the game, because if you play smart - using elevation and position to your advantage, or tactics like the Pincer Manouver - then you can defeat an opponent with significantly more resources.

Evolve the genre.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

1. How interested are you in games of this genre?
I''m not a big fan of real time strategy games, but I love isometric graphics. I would have to know the story of the RTS to tell you whether or not I''d be interested.

2. What type of graphical representation(2D/3D) would you prefer in games of this genre?
3D is more realistic, but 2D graphics just touch my heart . I grew up with them, I won''t let them go! Hehe.

3. How would you rate the importance between the graphics and gameplay?
Graphics don''t even matter. What make the game in my eyes is the game play, story, and complexity. I don''t really enjoy simple games. As for graphics: I really don''t care. I personally like 2D(top down, birds eye) and isometric, and I like 3D(only in third person mode..) pretty well, too. I dislike first person mode video games.

4. What mode of verbal presentation would you prefer?
I don''t really understand. Is this something related only to RTSes?

5. What mode of game saving would you prefer?(save-anywhere/save-after-event?/etc.)
I like to be able to save anywhere because I don''t like to do one thing for a long time. Unless I''m playing a role playing game. Other than RPGs, I tend to play for 15 minutes, stop, play, etc.

6. Do you prefer multiple endings in games of this genre?
Definately multiple endings. It helps to add replay value.

7. What are your favourite games in this genre?
I don''t know the names of any of them, because I don''t own one. Does the game "Populous: The Beginning" count? I don''t know if this is considered a real time strategy game but it''s quite similar.

8. Comments?
Yeah, good luck and have fun making it!




------------------------------
Simple DirectMedia Layer:

Main Site - (www.libsdl.org)
Cone3D Tutorials- (cone3D.gamedev.net)
GameDev.net''s Tutorials - (Here)

OpenGL:

Main Site - (www.opengl.org)
NeHe Tutorials - (nehe.gamedev.net)
Online Books - (Red Book) (Blue Book)

1. How interested are you in games of this genre?
I am not interested in RTS games. At least how they are now.

2. What type of graphical representation(2D/3D) would you prefer in games of this genre?
From what i have seen 2d works better now.

3. How would you rate the importance between the graphics and gameplay?
Gameplay is everything but without nice graphics you wont attract many players.

4. What mode of verbal presentation would you prefer?
Don understand.

5. What mode of game saving would you prefer?(save-anywhere/save-after-event?/etc.)
All pc users are used to save anywhere so dont change that.

6. Do you prefer multiple endings in games of this genre?
Yes and no. yes because you get more game and no because when you finish it you feel like you missed something all the time.
7. What are your favourite games in this genre?
Age of empires but i didnt like when other players started destroying my buildings. that ruined the whole thing for me.
8. Comments?
RTS are usually focused to the hardcore player. try to make them more accesible.

(c) 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd, 0:1

1. RTS is my favourite genre

2. 3D units and 2D backgrounds. Sprites look better than models but 3D models seem to add to gameplay. Just make sure that the units are small enough so I don´t have to scroll constantly.

3. Gameplay is more important, but since you can´t convert graphics to gameplay, the question is pointless.

4. I´m not sure if I understand this one, but I think that plain text can be more effective than 3D cutscenes or animations.

5. Save anywhere

6. I usually play skirmish/multiplayer so I don´t really have a strong preference, gameplay is more important than the background campaign&story. Multiple endings for missions would be nice, but I don´t think that a branching campaign is worth the effort.

7. Total Annihilation and the Settlers series.

8. Ignore Oluseyi Resource managment is what makes RTS games great.

Edited by - Ecthelion on February 23, 2002 3:52:35 PM

1. Normally I only play a RTS game if it is really good, but I will give most of them a go.

2. 3D games like the Myth series look brilliant, but they arn''t nessarcry to a good game, in many cases 2D look just as good.

3. Gameplay is more important

4. Don''t care, whatever works

5. Same, I tend not to save during missions anyway

6. Depends how important the story is. Total Annihilation had no story to speak of but it remained a brilliant game.

7. Total Annihilation is the best. Metal Fatique was pretty good as well, and I don''t know if you count them or not, but the Commandos series was excellent as well.

8. Don''t clone starcraft. Do something different. Don''t fall into the trap of build base/build resource units/built army of unit X/Win. This makes a game get old really fast.

"In the name of God, impure souls of the living dead shall be banished into eternal damnation, Amen"

1. It''s about the best genre if it''s done properly - it''s action and puzzle at the same time.

2. I prefer 3D but only if it actually adds to the game, ie if I''m glued to top down in 3d then I''d rather have 2d. If it''s difficult to control the 3d then I''d rather have 2d. 3D has the possibility of 3d deformable landscape - 3 buzzwords for the search engines and press releases

3. Gameplay should always win. You need the graphics to get them hooked and drawn them in but gameplay will keep them there.

4. I''d like the units to talk to me, with sound. If I where you I''d put all types in. Have speech but with a text log, that way I can refer to it when my brain gets forgetful. Speaking of which a little notepad, or planner could be useful, especially if the AI could do some of it for you (like maintain army at 10 soldiers or something).

5. Save anywhere, games sometimes last for ages and I don''t want to be forced to pause my PC and leave it running for a day because I''ve got to sleep.

6. As long as I feel in control then I don''t mind. If the game is linear and I want to go in that direction anyway then it doesn''t matter. If the game wants me to bomb the Allied Hospital I shouldn''t have to. I''d make the story linear but the missions nonlinear. The ability to change sides would be cool - of if there were no sides. Just rebel armies - that would scale well to the internet. THe more you play the more tech/resources you get.

7. Starcraft! Though I preferred the setting of Warcraft. I''m not keen in the "balance all your resources" I don''t mind some of that but games that tend towards Alpha Centuari (admittedly not an RTS) do my head it. Especially if you run out of resources when making an attack or defense - yes it''s bad planning but in the heat of battle you don''t want to worry about your schools/etc.

8. Try and make each level a uniformly fun experience. Too many of these type of games are just "build base" then "build units" then "collect resources" then "make army" then "fend off minor attacks" then "attack and conquer". Decent AI would really help here. Make each minute challenging (maybe different challenges) and fun.

Is this shareware, commericial? PC, console, multiplatform? Open source?

hmmm... I guess nobody likes surveys?