column 144. THE GROWTH OF REAL TIME STRATEGY

[MarkG]

THE GROWTH OF REAL TIME STRATEGY

It might seem strange of me to be posting of the growth of real-time strategy games on a Civ forum, if not strange of me to be posting a column period. But I suppose the very fact that I am posting this helps to affirm my stance: that real-time strategy games have far more worth than many of you might believe More

[SandMonkey]

3 things:

1) I own Warcraft and 1602 AD, both of which I like playing, so what you say does not fall on deaf ears, even at a TBS gaming site.

2) Where exactly were you goign with this article? It's not quite like the other Columns where there is a debatable point.

3)Why is this a sticky thread??

[Ribannah]

Well, it all started with Dune, and the main strategy for winning in AoE is basically still the same whereas there is much more variety in strategy for TBS games.

- Rib -


------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by SandMonkey on 12-09-2000 09:22 PM 3)Why is this a sticky thread??

from now on, threads about a column will be "top-ed" for one week(e.g. until the next column is posted)

[Snapcase on Snapcase]

Firstly, I just have to say that I neither hate nor dislike RTS games, if executed properly. However, I have to disagree with several key tennents of your article. Firstly, that of Story.

My main critisism of RTS games is the lack of story, every supposed story element is just a boring way of setting up a tricky mission for you. You definately don't get a sense of perspective on what's going on, usually the missions are disjointed (they have to be, if the normal bullsh*t approach of forcing you to build a new base every mission is to hold true) and joined together by low-quality, second rate "story lines". In TBS games and in good RTS god-games, on the other hand, you're building a story yourself, you're definately getting a picture of the whole as you're building the whole. Use your imagination and there are millions of story lines available in a good TBS (or god-game).

The other thing I have to complain about is your support for StarCraft, which was a boring click-fest with outdated graphics and a more tedious "story" than usual, and AoE which was down to the tech tree essentialy a TC of WarCraft 2. It was not slower paced, that's just an illusion.

As the pinnacle of the genre I'd instead like to place the game which took RTSing furthest away from the TBS, namely Red Alert. It's fast, it's fun, it's furious. It's got great humorous characters, even in-game. It's closer to a good action game than a TBS. Rowr!

[carnide_]

hmmm....
I suspect this has something to do with CIV3...

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

What? Are TPTB considering making Civilization III a real-time-strategy game? I hope not ... turn-based-strategy is just fine with me.

CYBERAmazon

[zyxpsilon]

Real time has a merry-go-round approach to adrenaline starved players who believe that "action" is fun.
Turn base is much more incline to brainy "intelligent" planners of the adversaries "re-action".
Strategy as defined by many is much more TBS than RTS.
Considering the fact that Civ's has almost a duty to let the players enjoy some kind of -history-, the RTS system can't be used efficiently.
You had an excellent insight on the differences between the genres in your column.
If Civ-3 has to be successful, it must not let itself plunge into the trap of market response (which is obviously altered by "gaming" speculators that gamble on a new trend)
Peoples don't want to perform (they have to do that weekly at work)... they want to be amused and cunningly beat the machine instead of their higher ranking co-workers and bosses.
It all adds up to a simple formula;
Either FUN or Responsabilities.

[johnmcd]

What about the hybrid games, like Shogun Total War? The actual game takes place in seasonal turns but when armies meet the game switches to an RTS format, though with just the armies brought into play at the start of the game, nothing more can be added. Further more the battles are slow in pace and allow a great deal of manouvre, almost turn like.

For me this is the future as it allows the best of both worlds, economics and training on a TBS basis, fighting (with huge armies, several thousand units at a time) on an RTS basis.

[Deathwalker]

Personally I like real time games, I remember games like Dune and Red Alert, these are great games. But in my opinion they never capture the grandure you get with Civ, they are always in one area or part of a stragery. They never have build up cities or diplomacy they are not startegrys like Civ but simply realk time combat only, no depth, though fun.

Also I woudl have to say that lattley they seem to be so repetative and boring, like AOE and Tiberium Sun.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[East Street Trader]

I haven't tried Shogun Total War yet, but have tried Braveheart.

That is another turn based strategy game which goes into real time for battles, raids etc.

Don't buy it - it's not much more than half completed (I really will get round to suing for my money back one day) - but amidst the frustration at being ripped off I, too, found myself thinking that the hybrid genre may well be the way forward.

[Albert B]

First, I never have quite understood people that appear to have a near hatred of one type of game while loving the other. For the most part, I don't think there should be a debate of RTS vs. TBS. There just plain different, accept it and go on.

As for me, I pretty much enjoy both. I have loved playing Civ for many many years and will continue doing so. I also started playing Total Annihilation (spelling?) several years ago and love it. It has nowhere near the detail of Civ nor anything close to the tech tree advance system but is still a lot of fun.

IMO, the RTS system makes for a more fun MP environment whereas TBS is better for single player games. (**PLEASE NOTE: I said IMO **). Why I believe this is true: I personally don't have the many hours (or days) it can take to play a MP game of Civ. Where a relatively long game of TA generally can be done in 2 hours tops.

Also, as far as the who-clicks-faster-wins mentalilty... (at least in TA) you don't necessarily have to click fast as just have a solid strategy going in, the ability to keep yourself focused on goals and the ability to manage multiple tasks at a time. It definatly takes some getting used to but so did trying to manage all the little details of Civ. The main thing about being able to play it and have fun is to find someone with similar abilities as you. It's not much fun to play any game with someone that is far better OR worse than you.
[This message has been edited by Albert B (edited December 11, 2000).]

[Albert B]

In looking back at my post I realized that my original thought never made it out of my head and onto 'paper'...

What I wanted to talk about was the fact that although I like both types of games the problem I have is getting interested in new games of the same type. As an example, I loved Civ I but it took me forever to finally by and play Civ II, because I never wanted to take the time to learn the new parts of it and adjust my play style. Trying to get into other TBS games is even harder because I really can't get myself to take the time to learn enough about them to have fun.

The same is true for RTS games. Total Annihilation (spelling?) was the first one I really got into after a friend introduced me to it. I got into it and had a lot of fun with it and then tried to play other ones but always went back to TA because of the familiarity. I finally got into AoE some but only for very short periods of time.

I think a similar conclusion can be made for people that prefer TBS vs. RTS - the first one you really got into remains your favorite, just as Civ remains my favorite CPU game of all time.

I do believe that that is far more than enough babble from me for now...

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Albert B on 12-11-2000 01:41 PM ... - the first one you really got into remains your favorite, just as Civ remains my favorite CPU game of all time.

I guess Wumpus fixed my preference for TB games ...



------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Dissident Aggressor]

I'll never buy another RTS game. 'nuff said. well maybe not. I admit I don't have the fastest reflexes or finger speed. And I suppose as in real life this would spell doom in a battle situation. But why would I want to play a game where I lose all the time. Some RTS fan please tell me this. I am cursed by my genetics. I consider myself smart, but do not have the finger speed and multi tasking abilities of some. I prefer to play a game where I can actually win against the computer and in multiplayer. I don't want to be made to feel like a loser, I can go to work for that.