Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck? - Page 3

Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by KDR_11k »

Bartosh wrote:My favorite funny/inaccurate thing in CoH is building a shit-ton of AT guns and telling them to attack move. They kick ass, and it hilarious watching them come charging in carrying those thing like wheel barrels, and all this machine gun fire and what not isn't doing crap to them.
1. You're doing it wrong
2. You're doing it wrong
3. lolnades

The easy computer AI is not indicative of a proper opponent.
Want to get modern, impatient, casual gamers into a space sim? Design it like an FPS - tight, clearly designed levels with navigateable terrain to provide a sense of location and speed, deathmatch or team-oriented action, and mouse-based controls.
Yeah, needs a name. How about... Descent?
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Pxtl »

KDR_11k wrote:
Want to get modern, impatient, casual gamers into a space sim? Design it like an FPS - tight, clearly designed levels with navigateable terrain to provide a sense of location and speed, deathmatch or team-oriented action, and mouse-based controls.
Yeah, needs a name. How about... Descent?
I think that's going a little further into FPS territory than I meant. I meant that a space fighter should still handle like a fighter (instead of descent, where it handles like a slippery FPS character that can fly). Besides that, Descent isn't exactly the best level design either - endless corridors aren't much better than the endless vacuum of space. I loved the Descent games, but the long winding maps of tunnel never did it for me.
User avatar
Bartosh
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 Aug 2008, 18:11

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Bartosh »

KDR_11k wrote:
Bartosh wrote:My favorite funny/inaccurate thing in CoH is building a shit-ton of AT guns and telling them to attack move. They kick ass, and it hilarious watching them come charging in carrying those thing like wheel barrels, and all this machine gun fire and what not isn't doing crap to them.
1. You're doing it wrong
2. You're doing it wrong
3. lolnades
Try it, it works. , Im shore a human player would artillery strike it or something, but still...
----------------------------------------
After talking about it, im shore theres going to be a great rts coming some time in the future. as soon as every body stops trying to make shiner ones. but except for starcraft 2 and redalert 3 i really haven├óÔé¼Ôäót heard of anything on the radar. (Bartosh says on the forum of spring)

but except for starcraft 2 and redalert3, i really haven├óÔé¼Ôäót heard of anything on the radar. (Bartosh says on the forum of spring)

redalert 2 was weird but it looks like the redalert 3 developers have gone bats shit crazy. Bears, Dolphins, giant robots, Japanese school girls. Along with each country has one of charley├óÔé¼Ôäós angles: Tanya, Natasha ,Yuriko. plus everything turns into a boat and can shoot lasers or freeze shit. I swear that game had something to do with an alternate ww2 with Russia and the Allies, maybe I was wrong.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by KDR_11k »

AT gun is 310 a piece if you're US, 280 if you're Wehrmacht. Inf squads are 270 and 280 respectively and rape AT guns with grenades and whatnot (hell, you can run up to them and kill them with point blank fire). Snipers are 300 or so a piece and two-shot an AT gun crew.

It may work against the AI but the AI is not a benchmark of how the game is balanced and you cannot call the game bad just because its AI won't be able to cope with every strategy, RTSes are meant to be played against people and people will rape you if you try something as stupid as that. You said you're playing the games against your friends but measure them by their AI?
User avatar
Bartosh
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 Aug 2008, 18:11

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Bartosh »

KDR_11k wrote: It may work against the AI but the AI is not a benchmark of how the game is balanced and you cannot call the game bad just because its AI won't be able to cope with every strategy, RTSes are meant to be played against people and people will rape you if you try something as stupid as that.
CoH isn├óÔé¼Ôäót a bad game, it was fun, I relay liked how the infantry took cover and build sand bags and what not. My biggest problem with it is that its theme is something that├óÔé¼Ôäós been done over and over(WW2) it just does it better, but it still inherently gets rid of story(we all no what happened, I├óÔé¼Ôäóve had to have stormed Normand in at least 15 deferent games by now) A ww2 game like that with a twist such as Resistance: fall of man would make it something. Just sick of the same old ww2.- plus

The scale of war is small (has a vary low unit cap)

maps are tiny,

Resource gathering/management is vary simplified (you have to rush)

Bases Don├óÔé¼Ôäót have much to them (building bases is probably the best part of rts├óÔé¼Ôäós)
- All the things I hate about modern rts├óÔé¼Ôäós. Its all part of the new
trend to make rts├óÔé¼Ôäós action packed and fast.

But its the best rts I├óÔé¼Ôäóve played in the past 8 years so├óÔé¼┬ª
---------------------
KDR_11k wrote:AT gun is 310 a piece if you're US, 280 if you're Wehrmacht. Inf squads are 270 and 280 respectively and rape AT guns with grenades and whatnot (hell, you can run up to them and kill them with point blank fire). Snipers are 300 or so a piece and two-shot an AT gun crew.

Snipers and infantry can├óÔé¼Ôäót kill tanks nearly as well.
They cost less and don├óÔé¼Ôäót take up as much of the unit cap as tanks, so you can actually build a lot.
Plus when you get a ton they destroy infantry to.
But Yeah, its kind of impossible to gather that many troops when you play multiplayer, its just funny to watch, not really a legitimate strategy
-----------
KDR_11k wrote:You said you're playing the games against your friends but measure them by their AI?
?...
User avatar
Lolsquad_Steven
Posts: 488
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 17:55

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Lolsquad_Steven »

Because they're being designed by programmers not gamers.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by KDR_11k »

Bartosh wrote:The scale of war is small (has a vary low unit cap)

maps are tiny,

Resource gathering/management is vary simplified (you have to rush)

Bases Don├óÔé¼Ôäót have much to them (building bases is probably the best part of rts├óÔé¼Ôäós)
- All the things I hate about modern rts├óÔé¼Ôäós. Its all part of the new
trend to make rts├óÔé¼Ôäós action packed and fast.
So you want porcing and SimBasing? No wonder that you don't like modern RTSes since porc/simbase is seen as the unenjoyable part where you just optimize your build order before getting to the fighting.
Snipers and infantry can├óÔé¼Ôäót kill tanks nearly as well.
They cost less and don├óÔé¼Ôäót take up as much of the unit cap as tanks, so you can actually build a lot.
Plus when you get a ton they destroy infantry to.
But Yeah, its kind of impossible to gather that many troops when you play multiplayer, its just funny to watch, not really a legitimate strategy
That's why you don't field tanks when the opponent is spamming AT guns, you field more infantry.
?...
Your complaint is about something you admit probably won't work vs players, suggesting you played vs the AI instead of players.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Gota »

Lolsquad_Steven wrote:Because they're being designed by programmers not gamers.
Very true.
I dont know if it is actualy so but if and when it is it must end with a fail product.
User avatar
PicassoCT
Journeywar Developer & Mapper
Posts: 10367
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by PicassoCT »

Oh, good old RTS Games...

well Dark Omen (so often they tried to beat that- and epically phailed)

StarShipTroopers (genious - but without the boring always-the-same-in-every-Game-Basebuilding, this pattern, only TA ever broke)

Popoulus the Beginning: Genious, because it reduced a Strategy Game to nearly three Units, two Vehicles, 5 Buildings) and it still worked..

I think it is always comes down to what the people can handel.. 5 years, after everybody could handel a mouse- and had a decent PC, the DuneConcept exploded in Sucess + forcing Evolution through Competition..

Best would be if we PC-Players could play against those Consoleros... they wouldn´t stay in any HighScore, and suddenly there would be a Return to the Machines that are able-to-win.
User avatar
Bartosh
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 Aug 2008, 18:11

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Bartosh »

Yeah... I guess I├óÔé¼Ôäóm a freak for likeing to build base defenses, and enjoyed the exponential money making that comes from focusing on an economy. Along with building an army.

Apparently I├óÔé¼Ôäóm the only guy that liked those parts. Every game now has a bold emphasis that says ├óÔé¼┼ôSimple bases and no complex resource gathering to get you right to the action!├óÔé¼┬Ø

Let├óÔé¼Ôäós be honest. The ├óÔé¼┼ôstrategy├óÔé¼┬Ø in most rts is build a shit ton of units and tell them to attack move. Whether it be one over powered type, or a large maw of a bunch of different types

The process of getting to that point is where the fun comes in.
or I guess you can go rape the other guy before he has built anything to stop you, never really saw the fun in that though, I guess it├óÔé¼Ôäós the same kind of ├óÔé¼┼ôfun├óÔé¼┬Ø as kicking a kitten.

-----------------------
3d Graphics were also part of the problem.
They really are pointless in a strategy game. More so than any other type of game. In a strategy game, you want to see as much of the battle field as you can, but still be able to enjoy watching the battle (do to the obscene range of units in supreme commander it was impossible to do both, and is why spring is better).

Oh the grass looks real, and the units look so shiny, you enjoy that shit for a little bit, then you completely ignore it, because your zoomed out as far as you can go so you can control your units ,which isn├óÔé¼Ôäót very far, because you can├óÔé¼Ôäót see the shiny units from far away, and the game would go slow as shit rendering it all

The old 2d games had a good view distance (ok if you increased the resolution as high as it would go). Oh it├óÔé¼Ôäós fun to get right up in the trenches and watch the space marine cut the other guy in half with his chain saw, but it would kind of distract you from the overall strategy if it had any.

Not to mention the better units look in 3d rts├óÔé¼Ôäós the less you can make. 200 used to be the standard for each player, but nowadays I don├óÔé¼Ôäót think you could fit them all in the tiny ass levels

But spring has proven to me at least that with nowadays computers there├óÔé¼Ôäós no reason you can├óÔé¼Ôäót have both
User avatar
BlackLiger
Posts: 1371
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by BlackLiger »

Actually, Red Alert 3 is pretty fun because of it's madcap game play. All weapons seem to deal like 1/4 health damage in 1 hit, meaning units smash into each other and literally slaughter each other. And the 3 different methods of building amuse me, as they mean each side is different and yet not instantly overpowered.
User avatar
nemppu
Posts: 417
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:27

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by nemppu »

smoth wrote:Battle Realms
this never caught huge popularity which is sad because battle relams fukkkin rocks we still play it sometimez w/ sleska. its a great game with a niec concept that you get peasants which yo uhave to train and theres tactics and theres no ultimate unit and its rly kool totally underrated=((((

also warcraft III is teh awesomeness, i lolled @ the that guy on first page of this topic ranting about wc3 taking all the new innovative features of wcIII and saying its the worst becuz of them:D:D:D:D:D:D the innovation of bringing the heroes and making the hero experience sort of out of the box new resource and disencouradging turtling & shit with upkeep, good stuff. graet sp, great mp.
User avatar
Zpock
Posts: 1218
Joined: 16 Sep 2004, 23:20

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Zpock »

Yeah, people who slog at WC3 and CNC Generals always appear strange to me, their both pretty decent games seen objectively. Both of them have a very nice polished feel, lacking in many games that truly are shitty, and have some nice unique features. The gameplay works out exactly as it's supposed to do, also something lacking from many games. It's mostly whining that it isn't like the earlier games in the serieses to them or something.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by KDR_11k »

Bartosh wrote:Let├óÔé¼Ôäós be honest. The ├óÔé¼┼ôstrategy├óÔé¼┬Ø in most rts is build a shit ton of units and tell them to attack move. Whether it be one over powered type, or a large maw of a bunch of different types
Only if you play vs noobs, in most games mass vs mass doesn't happen if you attack early and often as you're supposed to, only if both players bunker down you get a massive, pointless showdown of who spammed more. The game is decided in the tactics of taking territory, eliminating enemy expansion, fighting asymmetrical battles, etc. Where to fortify, where to expand, where to attack, when to attack in which way, etc.
User avatar
Teutooni
Posts: 717
Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 17:21

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Teutooni »

Bartosh wrote:or I guess you can go rape the other guy before he has built anything to stop you, never really saw the fun in that though, I guess it├óÔé¼Ôäós the same kind of ├óÔé¼┼ôfun├óÔé¼┬Ø as kicking a kitten.
Only if the other player is a helpless porcnoob who can't do shit, yes it is like kicking a kitten and no fun at all. Now, if the other player is a real opponent, it gets intresting like KDR described. :P

About new millennia rts', this right here is the future of the genre: open source engine. The genre is a niche anyway, little commercial intrest. Want a brand new kickass rts? Go help some game project for spring, or even CE or something.
El Idiot
Posts: 147
Joined: 01 Feb 2007, 00:58

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by El Idiot »

dosn't explain why the 3d sequels of those games are crap.
Nearly every RTS out there is very similar to, or a complete sequel of another nowadays. They try to 're-formulate' them, because they can't release the same exact game (well they could, but then it would get criticized for that instead) even if it now has a rotatable camera, but there's nothing wrong with the original formula anyway, and so they ruin it.
User avatar
Lolsquad_Steven
Posts: 488
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 17:55

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Lolsquad_Steven »

lol, battle realms.
User avatar
Tribulexrenamed
Posts: 775
Joined: 22 Apr 2008, 19:06

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Tribulexrenamed »

You forgot XTA, 1998



What about Supreme Commander? I think its comparable. At the very least, its better than starcraft or AOE gameplay wise, but thats just IMO.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by KDR_11k »

Tribulex wrote:At the very least, [Supreme Commander i]s better than starcraft or AOE gameplay wise, but thats just IMO.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
User avatar
Lolsquad_Steven
Posts: 488
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 17:55

Re: Why Do Traditional Rts In The New Millennia Suck?

Post by Lolsquad_Steven »

Tribulex wrote:You forgot XTA, 1998



What about Supreme Commander? I think its comparable. At the very least, its better than starcraft or AOE gameplay wise, but thats just IMO.
noob
Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”