|
On May 04 2016 01:18 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:33 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2016 00:23 blade55555 wrote:On May 03 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 23:43 RolleMcKnolle wrote:On May 03 2016 23:29 Foxxan wrote: I just have the needs to also point this out, even though plansix does it good already. The RTS genre is all about BUILD UP for along time. Nothing relevant happens. PLEASE fix that already. After 30sec very relevant stuff should happen and that relevant stuff should go on till the game ends.
Early game micro should be WAY more advanced. It shouldnt be about "he has 3stalkers, i have 3x units. He cant do anyhting", get rid of that and make the players be able to DO way more dancing none-stop. wasnt that always the point of DoW? action from the first unit u build until the end of the game? Yes, but they need to take it farther. The first part of the game is all about capping order and building up power to get the much needed tech. There is fighting a little, but its mostly build up. It’s the problem with RTS games, you scaled your power and its ever increasing until the supply cap. But what if the game started out and you had 1/3 of the map already and a robust army that you picked before the match. An interlinked economy that covered the 1/3 of the map you owned, with defenses built it. Of course there would be 1/3 of the map to fight over and bigger, better units to get. The coolest part of RTS games are the fights with big armies. The build up and victory are pretty dull. Just make the whole game the mid-game all the time. Man am I happy that RTS creators don't listen to you. No offense, but man that would be so boring if an "RTS" was just "here's your army, economy already setup now go!". That's why most RTS's have different game modes, like deathmatch so they can do that. See, all I view that as is a lack of vision. If you give a player 1/3 of the map and a functioning “economy” on that third of the map, it opens up new possibilities. What if the resources had to be shipped back to the base and could be raided by the other side? What if there are complex transportation for units on parts of the map that could be attacked to slow new units to the front line? What if the base had a limit number of support structures for air born units that could be raided? What if there were powerful defensive towers that couldn’t rebuilt or repaired, but some factions could tunnel under them? What you see as free base building and units, I see as something that can be finite and adds depth. Edit: Once again, I am not saying that RTS games shouldn’t have tech trees or base building. I just think they should change the way those systems work. We have far more power computers than the era of BW and C&C. Making the economy automated, but more complex by moving it out of tiny corner of the base could change things. And providing more way to do economic damage than “kill workers, forcing construction of new workers” would be good. For all its flaws, Ruse, had an interesting take on economy and fog of war. I would to see more complex systems that we interact with. AoA vanilla tried to make more interesting resource management and it only cost them bad reviews. I don't think a game like you propose has a big market out there. AoA has a lot of problems and was not a very good game in general. This is on top of being in one of the most niche game genera’s out there. I don’t think that every failed RTS proves that all games should stick to the BW/SC2 formal as closely as possible. Constantly rehashing the same gameplay design choices is not going to magically make the game successful. If anything, it just dooms it to failure because that game already exists.
|
On May 03 2016 23:09 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 20:54 Faruko wrote: DoW 2 was great, the mp was fun, the loot was cool and the campaign was really well done
If they want this game to survive, do not make it an RTS, dead genre. why is the RTS genre on life support, is it just hard to make them good?
Strategy game fans had a large group of conservative people. As a result everything that was not the standard rts game, was a different genre. Overall access to multiplayer grew, but isolationist groups like the rts genre, stayed rather the same size.
Then the giant Warcraft 3 armageddon happened, everyone wanted a piece of the rts pie that Warcraft 3 was. And everyone failed because they didn't understand why Warcraft 3 was so popular. Afterwards people were just to scared to make rts games. As a result, people think its a dying genre and are scared a shitton that they will never see a rts again that they like. Thats why people are so vocal to get games changed the way they want them to be.
And then Dota happened, that split of a large part of the rts community.
Now some developers of the rts genre came back together to make a new rts game with the mechanics fell in love with using the newest technology, they never intended to make something new. They just wanted to see whats possible now. While everyone in the rts community wants to get back to the glory of old days, where they were a big community. And they feel like rts games need to be different to get more players etc. Because more people = more games produced = bigger chance they get a game they can all in love with.
I am really curious about the next generation of rts games, now that developers got a feel for what you can do.
On topic Seems like Dawn of War 3 will become a Hybrid of both Dawn of Wars, basically a Warcraft 3 thing. If they manage to take the best parts of 1 and 2 it will be glorius.
|
Yay awesome trailer in terms of visuals, but as i was fearing, could just as well be a trailer for dow1 or dow2. Blood ravens again, banshees again, more orks. I guess they dont want to alienate people who have played the previous game, but as someone who has played the 40k tabletop before, it's kinda disapppoiting to see the same small part of the picture over and over again. Too bad dark crusade never really picked up, it was really fun, even with all the balance issues.
But maybe, just maybe, they have deliberately left out a 4th (5th?) race and surprise me with something other than chaos marines this time. On second thought (and after checking), dow2 actually included tyranids and only added chaos via addon? I guess I have to give the publishers a little bit more credit than I initally did.
|
They should pull a fast one and have Squats be the 4th race.
|
On May 03 2016 23:29 Foxxan wrote: I just have the needs to also point this out, even though plansix does it good already. The RTS genre is all about BUILD UP for along time. Nothing relevant happens. PLEASE fix that already. After 30sec very relevant stuff should happen and that relevant stuff should go on till the game ends.
Early game micro should be WAY more advanced. It shouldnt be about "he has 3stalkers, i have 3x units. He cant do anyhting", get rid of that and make the players be able to DO way more dancing none-stop.
Dawn of War always had aggression in the early game, so unless they move away from the control point based macro and squad based infantry, I doubt that will change. So don't worry about that.
Dawn of War 2 had to much aggression. People don't want deathballs and constant action. Well Dawn of War 2 had that and showed, why it won't bring the success some people think it would bring. I loved seeing Dawn of War 2 competitions, but that game was just to much to handle for most people.
Anyway if you look at the popular games, all have build up at the start and only small bursts of action. And then people crawl back into a defensive position the enemy can't risk to engange into to reorganize. And I hope Dawn of War will be just like this. Minus the burst of action, because Warhammer needs constant fighting.
|
i can agree that dow2 was a ittle too complex and convoluted for its own good, but i think it was a good game anyway and it was a step in the right direction
they should fine tune that or change thedirection while taking what made dow2 exciting
|
I would like a less complicated shooting model in general. The DPS output of a unit was really hard to predict and just make the game overly complex with little pay off.
And the damage/anti-armor system for vehicles. The previous system of lots of entrench anti tank guns was fine, but both lacked range and vision to be effective. I would prefer a better system for vehicles in general, where they are not in this binary state of “amazing” and then “fucking dead, you fucked up”.
|
I dunno much about DoW 2's multiplayer. I recall I played the beta many a year ago, thought "this is like CoH but for dummies" and never touched it again.
Close enough?
|
That is a completely viable "Shitty-reductive-hot-take" of the game.
|
i have a great idea for a game guys!
lets make an RTS where 20 minutes into the game more than half your units are worker units continuously going back and forth from 1 building to a field of minerals...and you spend the first 10 minutes pressing the same button rhythmically every 12 seconds so that this 1 building keeps making worker units!
lets call it StarFarmCraftville.
|
Oh boy only 3 races, can't wait for SEGA and Relic to fuck me up the ass with a constant stream of DLC races. At least they brought back basebuilding, so maybe it will be a good game at least.
|
DoW1 was fun to play, campaign was great, MP was great. Didn't like DoW2 that much. Hope they try to copy DoW1.
And you don't need to innovate to make good/interesting games. I mean look at blizzard aside from WC3 they didn't make anything new.
|
On May 04 2016 02:20 Andre wrote: DoW1 was fun to play, campaign was great, MP was great. Didn't like DoW2 that much. Hope they try to copy DoW1.
ya, i thought DoW1 >> DoW2 i hope its more like DoW1.
|
Trailer looks good, info sounds good, we need additional information
|
trailer is good, but if they dont improve gameplay and storyline, there is no sense. dow I and II was so boring, i dropped them both on middle
|
They said it will have unit producing and big battles.
|
On May 04 2016 01:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 01:18 -Archangel- wrote:On May 04 2016 00:33 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2016 00:23 blade55555 wrote:On May 03 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 23:43 RolleMcKnolle wrote:On May 03 2016 23:29 Foxxan wrote: I just have the needs to also point this out, even though plansix does it good already. The RTS genre is all about BUILD UP for along time. Nothing relevant happens. PLEASE fix that already. After 30sec very relevant stuff should happen and that relevant stuff should go on till the game ends.
Early game micro should be WAY more advanced. It shouldnt be about "he has 3stalkers, i have 3x units. He cant do anyhting", get rid of that and make the players be able to DO way more dancing none-stop. wasnt that always the point of DoW? action from the first unit u build until the end of the game? Yes, but they need to take it farther. The first part of the game is all about capping order and building up power to get the much needed tech. There is fighting a little, but its mostly build up. It’s the problem with RTS games, you scaled your power and its ever increasing until the supply cap. But what if the game started out and you had 1/3 of the map already and a robust army that you picked before the match. An interlinked economy that covered the 1/3 of the map you owned, with defenses built it. Of course there would be 1/3 of the map to fight over and bigger, better units to get. The coolest part of RTS games are the fights with big armies. The build up and victory are pretty dull. Just make the whole game the mid-game all the time. Man am I happy that RTS creators don't listen to you. No offense, but man that would be so boring if an "RTS" was just "here's your army, economy already setup now go!". That's why most RTS's have different game modes, like deathmatch so they can do that. See, all I view that as is a lack of vision. If you give a player 1/3 of the map and a functioning “economy” on that third of the map, it opens up new possibilities. What if the resources had to be shipped back to the base and could be raided by the other side? What if there are complex transportation for units on parts of the map that could be attacked to slow new units to the front line? What if the base had a limit number of support structures for air born units that could be raided? What if there were powerful defensive towers that couldn’t rebuilt or repaired, but some factions could tunnel under them? What you see as free base building and units, I see as something that can be finite and adds depth. Edit: Once again, I am not saying that RTS games shouldn’t have tech trees or base building. I just think they should change the way those systems work. We have far more power computers than the era of BW and C&C. Making the economy automated, but more complex by moving it out of tiny corner of the base could change things. And providing more way to do economic damage than “kill workers, forcing construction of new workers” would be good. For all its flaws, Ruse, had an interesting take on economy and fog of war. I would to see more complex systems that we interact with. AoA vanilla tried to make more interesting resource management and it only cost them bad reviews. I don't think a game like you propose has a big market out there. AoA has a lot of problems and was not a very good game in general. This is on top of being in one of the most niche game genera’s out there. I don’t think that every failed RTS proves that all games should stick to the BW/SC2 formal as closely as possible. Constantly rehashing the same gameplay design choices is not going to magically make the game successful. If anything, it just dooms it to failure because that game already exists. Except there has not been another AAA rts that tried to copy Blizzard recipy and failed or succeeded. So it is impossible to say if they should stop tyring to copy. Also CnC Generals was more similar to warcraft/starcraft than other C&C games and was most successful C&C game.
|
On May 04 2016 02:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 02:20 Andre wrote: DoW1 was fun to play, campaign was great, MP was great. Didn't like DoW2 that much. Hope they try to copy DoW1.
ya, i thought DoW1 >> DoW2 i hope its more like DoW1.
I liked them both but personally I believe that DoW2 was a superior game in the end. I really liked how they brought in mechanics from CoH into it (that moment of dread when the first armored unit comes through the wall at your troops, you don't get that anywhere outside of Relic games). I guess that's because I've really enjoyed WC3 before and liked the micro aspect way more than macro (and the fact that you couldn't just send your units to die and you tried to preserve them as long as possible). Also, the epic artillery barrages and such.
If they make DoW3 a bit more like CoH2 it'll be glorious. There's a lot of potential with global abilities and it all looks like a proper war with huge explosions, terrain being obliterated, mud flying all over the place and obscuring your camera. Epic.
A bit disappointed with just 3 races at the start, although I don't mind it that much since I'm an Eldar player myself, and I guess it was a choice they pretty much had to take as to not completely alienate their existing customers. Would definitely prefer it if they did like Chaos, Mechanicum, Dark Eldar and Imperial Guard (whatever they're called now) for a change.
|
On May 04 2016 03:29 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 01:26 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2016 01:18 -Archangel- wrote:On May 04 2016 00:33 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2016 00:23 blade55555 wrote:On May 03 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 23:43 RolleMcKnolle wrote:On May 03 2016 23:29 Foxxan wrote: I just have the needs to also point this out, even though plansix does it good already. The RTS genre is all about BUILD UP for along time. Nothing relevant happens. PLEASE fix that already. After 30sec very relevant stuff should happen and that relevant stuff should go on till the game ends.
Early game micro should be WAY more advanced. It shouldnt be about "he has 3stalkers, i have 3x units. He cant do anyhting", get rid of that and make the players be able to DO way more dancing none-stop. wasnt that always the point of DoW? action from the first unit u build until the end of the game? Yes, but they need to take it farther. The first part of the game is all about capping order and building up power to get the much needed tech. There is fighting a little, but its mostly build up. It’s the problem with RTS games, you scaled your power and its ever increasing until the supply cap. But what if the game started out and you had 1/3 of the map already and a robust army that you picked before the match. An interlinked economy that covered the 1/3 of the map you owned, with defenses built it. Of course there would be 1/3 of the map to fight over and bigger, better units to get. The coolest part of RTS games are the fights with big armies. The build up and victory are pretty dull. Just make the whole game the mid-game all the time. Man am I happy that RTS creators don't listen to you. No offense, but man that would be so boring if an "RTS" was just "here's your army, economy already setup now go!". That's why most RTS's have different game modes, like deathmatch so they can do that. See, all I view that as is a lack of vision. If you give a player 1/3 of the map and a functioning “economy” on that third of the map, it opens up new possibilities. What if the resources had to be shipped back to the base and could be raided by the other side? What if there are complex transportation for units on parts of the map that could be attacked to slow new units to the front line? What if the base had a limit number of support structures for air born units that could be raided? What if there were powerful defensive towers that couldn’t rebuilt or repaired, but some factions could tunnel under them? What you see as free base building and units, I see as something that can be finite and adds depth. Edit: Once again, I am not saying that RTS games shouldn’t have tech trees or base building. I just think they should change the way those systems work. We have far more power computers than the era of BW and C&C. Making the economy automated, but more complex by moving it out of tiny corner of the base could change things. And providing more way to do economic damage than “kill workers, forcing construction of new workers” would be good. For all its flaws, Ruse, had an interesting take on economy and fog of war. I would to see more complex systems that we interact with. AoA vanilla tried to make more interesting resource management and it only cost them bad reviews. I don't think a game like you propose has a big market out there. AoA has a lot of problems and was not a very good game in general. This is on top of being in one of the most niche game genera’s out there. I don’t think that every failed RTS proves that all games should stick to the BW/SC2 formal as closely as possible. Constantly rehashing the same gameplay design choices is not going to magically make the game successful. If anything, it just dooms it to failure because that game already exists. Except there has not been another AAA rts that tried to copy Blizzard recipy and failed or succeeded. So it is impossible to say if they should stop tyring to copy. Also CnC Generals was more similar to warcraft/starcraft than other C&C games and was most successful C&C game. Chasing the success of Blizzard has never really worked out for anyone. Making the same game they made, but better and more polished is a losing fight. Especially when even the most successful RTS games rare break 1 million units sold. Fuck, even Crusader kings 2 has better sales that most RTS games of the last decade, with the exclusion of SC2 and Dawn of War. But even those games only moved like 4 million units. The audience for hardcore RTS games like BW/SC2 is not worth the development money for AAA studio to cater to.
|
On May 03 2016 23:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 23:09 Assault_1 wrote:On May 03 2016 20:54 Faruko wrote: DoW 2 was great, the mp was fun, the loot was cool and the campaign was really well done
If they want this game to survive, do not make it an RTS, dead genre. why is the RTS genre on life support, is it just hard to make them good? They don’t do anything new, ever. RTS do the same thing every time. You start with limited or no unit, you build up an army and one side snow balls to victory. Special units are rarely scene because games end before that happens. You fight for control of a blank map that you must take over. The victory condition is terrible, forcing the other side to quit, or just drag the game out. They focus on a very specific type of gameplay that revolves around juggling a lot of balls at once(micro, macro), but rarely focus on anything but adding more balls to juggle to increase “difficulty”. I said this before, but give me a game where I own a 1/3 of the map already, with a 1/3 noman’s land to fight over. I have a robust economy right off the bat and I have to protect it from my enemy. Make is so I can’t rebuild things, so losses matter. Do all the things mobas do right by giving people clear objectives to fight over and a clear end game. I don't think your assessment is correct. Look at FPS games, the most copy/pasted genre ever and it never changes. Why can't RTS get away with doing that? I love that you get to start from a simple base in bw, thats how it should be, you build yourself up. Your ideas are maybe better for the singleplayer campaign.
I think the answer to why RTS is dying has more to with people seeing them as intellectual games and not as fun in general. Also I noticed with my friends, they have no problem buying a game , beating it in 10 hours then moving to the next. Maybe I'm just an oddball but I like to focus on playing a very small set of games for months/years. For me I basically just grew up on diablo 2/starcraft/counterstrike (which turns out to be the best of each genre).
I'd like to figure a way to breath life into RTS games again.. I can't believe snooze games like LoL are doing so much better.
|
|
|
|