Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

probablydance.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 214 posts

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#81

Post by moksly »

temporaryvector wrote: post #79
caymanjim wrote: post #73

> Blizzard had a long distraction with WoW, then they made Starcraft 2 followed by the MOBA Heroes of the Storm. They’re still insanely successful. Now they’re remaking their old games, recently releasing a HD remake of Starcraft 1 and are about to release a remake of Warcraft III. Blizzard went off the rails by dumbing down WoW steadily over ten years, appealing to the lowest common demoninator. Modern WoW is boring…

>Blizzard went off the rails by dumbing down WoW [...], appealing to the lowest common demoninator. [...] WoW is boring, unchallenging, and appears designed to provoke the least amount of whining by a vocal but dispassionate player base. I was around the MMO scene back when Blizzard was developing WoW, and this was the general sentiment around the community even at the time, it was seen as the care-bearest of the all…

My first MMO was ultima online, followed by Ashrons Call (Darktide), SWG, AO and shadowbane, and I’m enjoying the hell out of classic WoW.

I think the GP is absolutely right, Blizzard went to far with their streamlining, and every other MMO copied them.

For me the key difference between modern and classic wow is the design approach to challenge. In classic you go at things expecting to fail, in modern you go at things expecting to win. The difference this makes is that classic makes you happy while modern makes you sad when your expectations aren’t met.

Part of what makes that possible is the player freedom. You can make different builds, you can approach content differently and you can overcome challenges your own way. It’s like Blizzard, and I think modern game design in general, forgot that being challenged and figuring things out is fun.

I think I may have forgotten too, because I’ve been surprised at how well classic holds up in 2019.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#83

Post by temporaryvector »

isostatic wrote: post #34

Not RTS, but certainly real time, and as old as the hills. Railroad Tycoon The sequels never really did it for me. Transport Tycoon sucked up the hours, but nothing really did it as much as the feel of that first game. Maybe it was the time — the CGA monitor (which couldn’t cope with Civilisation), no mouse of course. I did play it years later and it want the same. I doubt that feeling can be recaptured. It probably…

I think this is a common enough sentiment. Your first games leave more of an impact and that feeling is often not really related to how good the game is. Just like comfort food, they're comfort games.

I never player Railroad Tycoon, my first in that genre was Transport Tycoon Deluxe, but I feel pretty much the same way about it, and I'm pretty lucky that OpenTTD exists.

Similarly there's a game called Star Reach (also known as Space Federation) that was the first strategy game I played. In retrospect, it was pretty bad, but sometimes I want to play a space game and not even much superior games like Masters of Orion or more modern games like Sins of a Solar Empire will satisfy the particular craving like Star Reach.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#84

Post by gmueckl »

314 wrote: post #65
dchuk wrote: post #2

I don't play games much anymore, but when I did, I always had an affinity for RTS games(Command and Conquer, Age of Empires, Warcraft, etc), and Action RPGs (Diablo, Torchlight). It's exhausting to find games nowadays that don't nickel and dime you to succeed. I like the Kingdom Rush Tower Defense games on iPad when I'm traveling. Any other suggestions?

Take a look at They Are Billions. It’s a mixture of city-building, RTS and tower defense. Very good fun.

They are Billions is a very well made game! I like it. And it's actually a refreshingly colorful game.

The tower defense element (thousands of zombies spawning and storming your settlement) makes it a pretty punishing game: you try to frantically build out your settlement while protecting it from early waves for about two hours before the inevitable overwhelming final wave comes. You don't know until the very end whether you are doing OK or not.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#85

Post by temporaryvector »

moksly wrote: post #81
temporaryvector wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Blizzard went off the rails by dumbing down WoW [...], appealing to the lowest common demoninator. [...] WoW is boring, unchallenging, and appears designed to provoke the least amount of whining by a vocal but dispassionate player base. I was around the MMO scene back when Blizzard was developing WoW, and this was the general sentiment around the community even at the time, it was seen as the care-bearest of the all…

My first MMO was ultima online, followed by Ashrons Call (Darktide), SWG, AO and shadowbane, and I’m enjoying the hell out of classic WoW. I think the GP is absolutely right, Blizzard went to far with their streamlining, and every other MMO copied them. For me the key difference between modern and classic wow is the design approach to challenge. In classic you go at things expecting to fail, in modern you go at thing…

I would agree that Classic is a decent experience compared to modern MMOs, even if it's not the style of MMO I prefer.

That said, I kinda understand how Blizzard got to where it is with modern WoW. Blizzard has always been known for taking existing ideas and streamlining them and polishing them as much as possible. That, and not gameplay innovation, has always been their forte. In a way they're analogous to Apple, they take ideas that have been tried by others and combine them into a single polished experience.

Since polishing and streamlining is what they know best, and since it has always brought them success (even the original WoW was very polished and streamlined, or if put less charitably, dumbed down, when compared to other MMOs of the time), it's understandable that when faced with a declining player base they'd continue doing what they know best. Big corporations like that don't really have a good mechanism for changing course and trying something else, so they keep doubling down on their old ways and hoping it keeps working until a breaking point is reached, and then they do stuff like re-release their old games hoping to cash in on the nostalgia.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#86

Post by celeritascelery »

b0rsuk wrote: post #74
b0rsuk wrote: post #69

I think it boils down to four things: - RTS games, since the first C&C, used an interface for selecting rectangles and pointing them at a single target. It scales extremely poorly. Innovations in this area have failed to catch on. Keyboard used for shortcuts only. Come on, we can do better than that. We have Vim. Action, range(movement key). Alternatively, the Kakoune way: selection first, action second. Either way g…

I just came up with a 5th: - RTS games work poorly on consoles. They need a precise input device.

That is only true if Starcraft style RTS games.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#87

Post by wanderer2323 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #38
matthewowen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't sneak around a distracted army to take out a strategic point Sure you can. In civ for example, sail your fleet one way under fog of war, move your army another to suck in units. I would argue that sneaking based on "the human playing the video game was focused on something else" is a less compelling dynamic than sneaking based on "real" dynamics.

> Sure you can. In civ for example, sail your fleet one way under fog of war, move your army another to suck in units. That's not getting around a distracted army. Even if we ignore player focus, and pretend everyone can multitask perfectly, you're still losing options. You can't engage in a big fight on one side of a map just long enough for a flanking force to hit a critical target, then immediately retreat out of…

You can indeed do what you describe. It is a sometime useful tactic in e.g. quest battles where you can kill a target then withdraw. An uncommon thing to do but generally possible.

But what you seem to describe are tactical operations, so they are happening on a tactical map. Sneaking up a group of units with stalk/forward deployment behind enemy lines then hitting the backline with it in an opportune moment when the main lines are engaging is a staple in a tactical engagement. As are the flanking maneuvers. You might not be hitting the workers or the production buildings but taking out an artillery piece is just as important and satisfying. Cavalry play has alot of the 'dodge the intercepting force' moments, etc.

The high-end TW multiplayer play is not the same and it might not be as difficult as high-end Starcraft play but I have never found the apm requirements and the need to control both macro and micro at the same time an appealing challenge. And the single player campaign is just straight up better because of a sheer variety of what you are doing.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#88

Post by gmueckl »

b0rsuk wrote: post #69

I think it boils down to four things: - RTS games, since the first C&C, used an interface for selecting rectangles and pointing them at a single target. It scales extremely poorly. Innovations in this area have failed to catch on. Keyboard used for shortcuts only. Come on, we can do better than that. We have Vim. Action, range(movement key). Alternatively, the Kakoune way: selection first, action second. Either way g…

You should look at the later TA style games then. Supreme Commander and SpringRTS (open source!) based games have many innovations when it comes to managing your units. Check out Zero-K for a game that is I think one of the most advanced RTSes in terms of gameplay and controls. It's not looking too pretty by today's standards, but the inner values make up for it if you are willing to invest some time to learn.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#89

Post by gmueckl »

celeritascelery wrote: post #86
b0rsuk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just came up with a 5th: - RTS games work poorly on consoles. They need a precise input device.

That is only true if Starcraft style RTS games.

As opposed to which other style/styles?

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#90

Post by temporaryvector »

bsder wrote: post #63
defertoreptar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the core series focused too heavily on maximizing the experience for esports, and that spoiled the genre for the mid-range gamers that were its bread and butter. Out of curiosity, in what ways in particular did they do this?

Everything in SC2 is about the RUSH . Turtlers are not welcome. I put SC2 down and never picked it back up after playing the third timed mission in a row. Supreme Commander dealt with this by having genuinely large maps and resource flow rather than a fixed amount of resources. If you tried to "rush" someone or go after their resources, you generally ran into units a level higher and got annhilated.

RTS as a genre has always favored aggressive play. Even in games that tried to favor defense, like SupCom, turtlers are stills not welcome, and higher level players start aggression quite early. Rarely will a rush downright end the game, but pulling one off correctly will generally put you ahead.

I don't think any RTS game will be able to deal with this naturally, only by adding rules like NR20 or even NR40 can you avoid early aggression and turtle in peace, and even then the winning strategy will always be to expand as aggressively as possible and to defend with units instead of static defenses.

Post reply on HN