2012: bad year for RTS?

[Thrawn]

There's probably at least two more expansions for wow, I know the next one is already in development. Then they've got the next sc2 expansion after hots is out, plus probably D3 expansions, then there's also Titan coming up. So I'm not really sure they'll be doing anytime in the next few years.

 

[PhilBowles]

I agree with Hehehe which is what informs my goal gameplay for my projects. Why would I want to play a reskinned and likely inferior version of Starcraft when I can just play Starcraft 2?

The Blizzard diehards will tell you that Starcraft 2 is a reskinned and inferior version of Starcraft...

Personally, I feel that the traditional RTS is best left to Blizzard at this stage. Starcraft 2 is deliberately nostalgic, and at the same time represents both the best a modern take on the original genre is likely to be and how far more modern RTS games have come since. The classic SC-type RTS is just an economy manager - you build up your economy, then your army, then swarm. There's no realism, no contest for territory (you try to destroy the other guy's base to deny him resources, not to steal them for yourself), no tactical play, no terrain effects or cover, and tech tree elements are limited to units, structures and researchable upgrades. I actually came back to SC2 following a long stint with Total War and had to train myself out of trying to execute flanking and rear attacks...

Set next to, say, Company of Heroes Starcraft 2 feels extraordinarily dated - despite being the newer game. It doesn't even feature the complexity of later-era traditional RTSes like Cossacks. That is a large part of its appeal (the rest coming from the familiar setting - itself a nod to nostalgia - and the fact that it is far better set-up for competitive play than any other RTS on the market), but it does mean that it rather corners the market it's aiming at: if you've seen one nostalgic Starcraft clone you've seen them all.

Never heard of Planetary Annihilation, but 2013 will see Company of Heroes 2 and Total War:Rome 2 (and Total War seems to be being treated here as an honorary RTS), so there are those to look forward to.

 

[Double A]

And what if I don't like Blizzard?

Also, you said Rome 2: Total War wrong. You are now legally obligated to punch yourself in the mouth.

 

[Maniacal]

The Blizzard diehards will tell you that Starcraft 2 is a reskinned and inferior version of Starcraft...

*the Starcraft 1 diehards you mean. You get the same people saying the same thing about every game with a sequel, regardless if it improves or not.

 

[Double A]

Except Pokemon, because we all know that Gen 2 was the best one.

 

[Maniacal]

Oh yeah, I'll just go put my copy of Gold into my GBA SP and/.. oh, that's right, none of the original Gold and Silver copies work anymore >.>

Pokemon's gameplay hasn't really changed though.

 

[PhilBowles]

*the Starcraft 1 diehards you mean. You get the same people saying the same thing about every game with a sequel, regardless if it improves or not.

I know, just look around the Civ forums...

 

[PhilBowles]

And what if I don't like Blizzard?

Any particular reason? Blizzard can hardly make design decisions a traditional RTS player fundamentally disagrees with - this is not a company that has ever been known for innovation, rather it's one that's made a fortune over the past two decades from precisely two game engines, one ultimately based on an almost exact reskin of Command and Conquer in a fantasy setting, and the other a hack-and-slash game of the sort that's been around since the Spectrum-era Gauntlet and (in isometric form) the early '90s RPG Shadowrun.

Blizzard almost makes Creative Assembly, a company known mainly for a single game engine (half of those games reskinned sequels, and the others the same basic game set in different time periods) and one that's been very slow to adopt new design elements even after they become genre standards (strategic resources, technological research, in-game encyclopedias, visible diplomacy modifiers etc.) look, well, creative.

Also, you said Rome 2: Total War wrong. You are now legally obligated to punch yourself in the mouth.

They've switched the brand name round...

 

[hoplitejoe]

Except Pokemon, because we all know that Gen 2 was the best one.

I honestly preferred gen 3, although the gen 2 remakes were super awesome.

 

[Double A]

Oh yeah, I'll just go put my copy of Gold into my GBA SP and/.. oh, that's right, none of the original Gold and Silver copies work anymore >.>

Pokemon's gameplay hasn't really changed though.

Joan's Silver still technically works, but that's because it can't save.

Isn't it possible to change the battery? I'd mention emulators but I don't know if I can on CFC.

Any particular reason? Blizzard can hardly make design decisions a traditional RTS player fundamentally disagrees with - this is not a company that has ever been known for innovation, rather it's one that's made a fortune over the past two decades from precisely two game engines, one ultimately based on an almost exact reskin of Command and Conquer in a fantasy setting, and the other a hack-and-slash game of the sort that's been around since the Spectrum-era Gauntlet and (in isometric form) the early '90s RPG Shadowrun.

Blizzard almost makes Creative Assembly, a company known mainly for a single game engine (half of those games reskinned sequels, and the others the same basic game set in different time periods) and one that's been very slow to adopt new design elements even after they become genre standards (strategic resources, technological research, in-game encyclopedias, visible diplomacy modifiers etc.) look, well, creative.

Blizzard's games graphical style sets me off and makes it impossible for me to get immersed, for starters. I also don't like games with a small number of factions with only a few working strategies. I'm not fast enough to play either Starcraft in MP, but that doesn't mean SP should feel so devoid of fun. None of this is helped by Blizzard acting good deal more evil, greedy, and lazy than most other studios.

I'd much rather play Dawn of War.

They've switched the brand name round...

And the world is that much worse for it, but we don't have to humor them.

 

[PhilBowles]

Joan's Silver still technically works, but that's because it can't save.

Isn't it possible to change the battery? I'd mention emulators but I don't know if I can on CFC.



Blizzard's games graphical style sets me off and makes it impossible for me to get immersed, for starters. I also don't like games with a small number of factions with only a few working strategies.

I could do without the deliberately cartoony graphics, but the rest is par for the course with the more traditional RTS. You want lots of factions in a traditional RTS? Play Cossacks - it has about 25.

I'm not fast enough to play either Starcraft in MP, but that doesn't mean SP should feel so devoid of fun. None of this is helped by Blizzard acting good deal more evil, greedy, and lazy than most other studios.

I'd much rather play Dawn of War.

Hmm, playing Company of Heroes put me off Dawn of War - it's just missing so much (most importantly, supply and the ammo resource), the maps are simplified (not as destructible, far fewer resource points), and while there are more factions, they're much too similar to one another - they all have essentially equivalent units, most have equivalent heroes (sometimes with shared abilities), with more limited upgrade paths, and I prefer the company system in CoH to hero units anyway. Diversity took a step backwards compared with the first DoW - at least there there was a unique Ork resource.

I liked the DoW II map campaign (but the subsequent campaigns were increasingly badly-designed), but quite apart from the difficulty in finding players I wasn't a fan of multiplayer. I found that that tended to require more speed and micro than Starcraft (at least at my level in both games).

 

[Double A]

On the other hand, it's in the W40k universe.

 

[Panzeh]

People talk all kinds of about the state of gaming but Wargame: European Escalation, which is an excellent RTS came out in April and it was good.

 

[Joecoolyo]

People talk all kinds of about the state of gaming but Wargame: European Escalation, which is an excellent RTS came out in April and it was good.

That one looked a lot like World in Conflict.

Is it any similar?

 

[Panzeh]

That one looked a lot like World in Conflict.

Is it any similar?

It's quite a bit different, actually. Way more realistic, and more open.

 

[Joecoolyo]

More realistic and open? How so?

 

[Panzeh]

More realistic and open? How so?

Instead of being locked into a role, you build a deck of 25 units you want from helicopters, various AFVs, artillery, and infantry, and can deploy the units onto the map with points, which are set at the start of the game and trickle in slowly through sector control.

The units themselves are fairly realistically modeled, most NATO and warsaw pact vehicles are modeled as they were, with the point values adjusted, though there are some balance problem spots. The sides being different is pretty huge.

Still, it's strange that the game is under the radar with people.

 

[Double A]

No one's heard of it because no one's heard of it. Not a difficult concept.

 

[Maniacal]

It was on daily special on the Steam sale, it isn't unheard of.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Instead of being locked into a role, you build a deck of 25 units you want from helicopters, various AFVs, artillery, and infantry, and can deploy the units onto the map with points, which are set at the start of the game and trickle in slowly through sector control.

The units themselves are fairly realistically modeled, most NATO and warsaw pact vehicles are modeled as they were, with the point values adjusted, though there are some balance problem spots. The sides being different is pretty huge.

Still, it's strange that the game is under the radar with people.

That actually sounds pretty cool, I started to look into a bit and now its on my wishlist.

If it goes for 75 during the Summer Sale, I might get it.