|
I don’t think its that people view them as “intellectual” but as games that favor the person who can multitask and perfect muscle memory better. And people are not interested in difficultly presented in that fashion. People like challenging games. Sales of Dark Souls and other games show that challenge isn’t the problem. I like RTS games, but I am the only one of my friends that plays them anymore.
|
Never played DoW 1, played some DoW 2 but thought wc3 was way better. Still excited for any new RTS that might have an active MP scene. The name alone should get enough players so that the ladder will be active.
Keeping an eye on this for sure.
|
On May 04 2016 01:34 BEARDiaguz wrote: They should pull a fast one and have Squats be the 4th race.
you're just saying that because you are a Squat
|
On May 04 2016 04:04 Plansix wrote: I don’t think its that people view them as “intellectual” but as games that favor the person who can multitask and perfect muscle memory better. And people are not interested in difficultly presented in that fashion. People like challenging games. Sales of Dark Souls and other games show that challenge isn’t the problem. I like RTS games, but I am the only one of my friends that plays them anymore. Yeah might be right, one of the reasons I'm starting to drift away from BW a little is I'm getting older and intensive macro/micro becomes more difficult/exhausting. Maybe if RTS favoured more strategy over apm it would help? But this doesn't sound right either, sc2 made apm less relevant and it isn't very popular. Seems bw just managed to hit the perfect balance of everything. Apparently I'm not very good at assessing either because I've said a lot but can't reach a conclusion about anything.
|
On May 04 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 03:29 -Archangel- wrote: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. I just said that nobody tried it yet, so how can you say it never worked for anyone. LOL. And 4 million units is a very good number.
|
On May 04 2016 05:00 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2016 03:29 -Archangel- wrote: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. I just said that nobody tried it yet, so how can you say it never worked for anyone. LOL. Yes, and I pointed out the reason why no one has tried. When you say AAA studio beyond Blizzard, you are talking about huge development costs for a niche genre. 4 million on two games with IPs that have penetration beyond the the RTS community. The rest don’t break 1 million in sales at all, which isn't great for any multiplayer game.
|
On May 04 2016 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 05:00 -Archangel- wrote:On May 04 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2016 03:29 -Archangel- wrote: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: [quote] 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. I just said that nobody tried it yet, so how can you say it never worked for anyone. LOL. Yes, and I pointed out the reason why no one has tried. When you say AAA studio beyond Blizzard, you are talking about huge development costs for a niche genre. 4 million on two games with IPs that have penetration beyond the the RTS community. The rest don’t break 1 million in sales at all, which isn't great for any multiplayer game. No, you guessed why nobody tried. I don't agree with your guess.
|
The problem is your strange fixation with AAA. AAA doesn't mean anything other than the company's own ability to promote itself in other people's mind as AAA.
|
On May 04 2016 05:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The problem is your strange fixation with AAA. AAA doesn't mean anything other than the company's own ability to promote itself in other people's mind as AAA. I don't agree with this. There is a definite difference between AAA and AA or A in most game genres. AAA does not mean automatically the game is better but the production quality difference is always noticeable.
|
There is not real definition for AAA beyond “I know it when I see it”. Same with indie game, since a lot of the stuff people consider indie have full blown publishers.
I would not consider Relic AAA, since they are so small. Same with the Total War folks. Those games just lack the million dollar markets pushes that EA and activision brings.
|
DoW2 is so underrated. It was a great game. Such a shame if Relic have caved into these vocal base-building dummies. I know all they want is to AFK in their base and build a big blob and A-move it at the enemy. *sigh*
Relic's RTS with CoH and DoW2 were going in a nice CP resources/VP which I liked a lot. More movement and map control. It feels good once you get a feel for it. I hope it's closer to this model than turtle in base and produce 500 worker units =/
|
On May 04 2016 03:30 Manit0u wrote: 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.
noted.
On May 04 2016 03:30 Manit0u wrote: 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.
i kinda like 3 races and no more. i like to be able to glance at a composition and have a pretty good idea what it can do. i can do that in RTS games with 3 races.. and i just give up when its more races and there are 100 different units with 1000s of possible unique interactions.
|
On May 04 2016 06:55 teapot wrote: DoW2 is so underrated. It was a great game. Such a shame if Relic have caved into these vocal base-building dummies. I know all they want is to AFK in their base and build a big blob and A-move it at the enemy. *sigh*
Relic's RTS with CoH and DoW2 were going in a nice CP resources/VP which I liked a lot. More movement and map control. It feels good once you get a feel for it. I hope it's closer to this model than turtle in base and produce 500 worker units =/ I agree and I hope there are no worker units to control. I can deal with building a base to work out of, but I would rather go out on the map to collect resources. I strongly dislike worker units who's only job is to build things, collect $$$ and die.
|
Humm, I dunno what to think honestly. I want it to be good, I really do but RTSes are so hard to make right now. DoW 1 was amazing up till Dark Crusade. I never really got into DoW2 because I thought the units died a bit too slow for my liking. It was slower than CoH, which I really liked, but ultimately DoW 2 felt more like a MOBA hybrid with RTS for nodes.
I don't think making a hardcore RTS like SC1/SC2 will work, honestly. I think it'd be more successful with limited base building, more hero focus and smaller armies like warcraft 3. War3 had a high skill ceiling but the amount of HP units had made it newbie friendly so you could easily save 1 or 2 and feel rewarded. As for economy, I dunno if I want a limited eco like in war3 or nodes back from DoW1 / CoH. If they can pull off nodes, all the more power to them. Also, this is SEGA - inb4 day 1 Khaos DLC and a stand-alone Tyranid "expansion" a la Attila to Rome 2.
Kill the mutant. Burn the heretic. Purge the unclean.
|
On May 04 2016 05:45 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 05:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The problem is your strange fixation with AAA. AAA doesn't mean anything other than the company's own ability to promote itself in other people's mind as AAA. I don't agree with this. There is a definite difference between AAA and AA or A in most game genres. AAA does not mean automatically the game is better but the production quality difference is always noticeable. Problem with that difference is that AA or A or B or C or D games don't exist, nor can you point to a difference between these non existent categories. AAA is purely a marketing term that justifies how much money is spent on marketing. Not a useful concept.
|
On May 04 2016 07:27 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 05:45 -Archangel- wrote:On May 04 2016 05:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The problem is your strange fixation with AAA. AAA doesn't mean anything other than the company's own ability to promote itself in other people's mind as AAA. I don't agree with this. There is a definite difference between AAA and AA or A in most game genres. AAA does not mean automatically the game is better but the production quality difference is always noticeable. Problem with that difference is that AA or A or B or C or D games don't exist, nor can you point to a difference between these non existent categories. AAA is purely a marketing term that justifies how much money is spent on marketing. Not a useful concept. Sorry but no. It is how much overall money was spent. Pillars of Eternity is considered a AA rpg while Dragon Age Inquisition is AAA. DAI is bigger, has full VO and lots of polish and added content. It cost a lot more to make and yes, they marketed it a lot more.
Blizzard RTS are like that. In addition to normal marketing Blizzard also invests a lot of money into promoting competition. Not to mention they invest a lot to polish the game. People made fun of bnet 0.2 but all the AA RTS that came after had all that worse. And features like coop watching of replies will never be done in AA RTS.
|
Well at least with DoW2 Relic showed that they want to inovate and they will probably do it with DoW3, too. The problem now is that they are owned by Sega and that means : 1. The game will be released unfinished, because deadlines. 2. Day one DLC. 3. Countless other DLCs after that.
|
I bought DoW I and II
According to Steam, I have played 15 hrs worth of the first, and 2 hrs of the 2nd.
I am a fairly big Warhammer fan. I am actually taking a bit of a break from painting a model for a Tyranid army. I have quite literally spent over 10 grand on models and paints/glues/tools/etc for the hobby, and surely thousands of hours. But the video games suck, much to my dismay.
I am seriously hoping for Total War: Warhammer to be good though. It looks it. I don't have high hopes for this one though, sadly.
|
On May 04 2016 03:51 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 23:16 Plansix wrote: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. FPS actually evolved and started with more action and less boring cycles from the get go. Things like regenerating health-bars, first person cutscenes, cover systems and limited weapon slots are big reasons why the scene is still alive (although I don't like many of them). You just have to look at the size of the oldschool communities (Quake, UT, Doom) and compare them to the real selling titles like battlefield and CoD. Given, they have less production value.
Relic and THQ actually tried to implement changes with DoW and CoH, with some success.
I'd like to breath life into RTS games again, and I think the way is removing all the boring elements from it. That includes extensive base building, worker building and probably means starting out with troops from the get go. I really liked a lot of the concepts DoW I already established. A big reason why the multiplayer of DoW 2 failed is probably that the campaign, while a lot of fun for me, taught me nothing about the actual multiplayer.
|
On May 04 2016 07:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 06:55 teapot wrote: DoW2 is so underrated. It was a great game. Such a shame if Relic have caved into these vocal base-building dummies. I know all they want is to AFK in their base and build a big blob and A-move it at the enemy. *sigh*
Relic's RTS with CoH and DoW2 were going in a nice CP resources/VP which I liked a lot. More movement and map control. It feels good once you get a feel for it. I hope it's closer to this model than turtle in base and produce 500 worker units =/ I agree and I hope there are no worker units to control. I can deal with building a base to work out of, but I would rather go out on the map to collect resources. I strongly dislike worker units who's only job is to build things, collect $$$ and die. I like your politics, but your taste in video games is awful! :-p
|
|
|
|