Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

FREE SOFTWARE GIVEAWAY

We have 4 x Pro Licences (valued at $59 each) for 2d modular animation software Spriter to give away in this Thursday's GDNet Direct email newsletter.


Read more in this forum topic or make sure you're signed up (from the right-hand sidebar on the homepage) and read Thursday's newsletter to get in the running!


Cliches in RTS - what do you think about them?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
5 replies to this topic

#1 Pleistorm   Members   -  Reputation: 148

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:24 AM

Cliches doesnt mean it is bad, but lets see what do you think.
I just red a review about RTS game and as "cons" was mentioned that there is no Campain. I am usually skipping campains as they have limited researching tree or technologies or units and prefer "random maps" or "skirmishes".
Are there players, not RPG fans, but RTS fans, who think that RTS without campains is in bad situation?
Another cliche is the research tree and technology upgrades. Personally I think the development of a "race" could be possible even without research tree but maybe some people will be shocked when such are not presented.
I dont mean these things should be removed, but lets say a game is non-standard and is still RTS. What you can't miss in a RTS?

Sponsor:

#2 Waterlimon   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2641

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:56 AM

There doesnt need to be a research tree (for me), but there should be some way of more advanced technology over time. I dont care how its done. Maybe it requires research, more/new resources. I would be happy with a few things to build as long as you can make complex advanced infrastructure to your RTS base with them :3

I dont play campaigns of RTS games (the base building-control-units ones... maybe if its close up controlling a few units), i think campaigns are more interesting for FPS games and such because of the cool maps, visual effects and dat feel.

If i play RTS i play it for the base building.

o3o


#3 Acharis   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3995

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:12 AM

I love campaings. I only play various RTSes because of these (and I rarely play these, still I do). But I know people who never play campaings and stick only to skirmish :) I would say do both.

Europe1300.eu - Historical Realistic Medieval Sim (RELEASED!)

PocketSpaceEmpire - turn based 4X with no micromanagement FB


#4 slicer4ever   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3985

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:38 AM

for long term playability of an rts, a campaign isn't necessary. Too familiarize, and hook people into your rts game, and the lore surrounding the playable races, absolutely.
Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market.

#5 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 10396

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 01 March 2012 - 09:10 AM

I've never been able to dedicate enough time to become competitive at StarCraft (a brief sojourn into Diamond league at my best). But the campaign is very fun, because it offers far more variety than straight-up skirmishes, and many of the custom maps are amazing...

Blizzard could delete ladder play entirely, and I'd be just as happy.

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]


#6 Ashaman73   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8001

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:53 AM

Are there players, not RPG fans, but RTS fans, who think that RTS without campains is in bad situation?

It depends on your goals. For a multiplayer centric game, FPS or RTS, a campaign is more of an add on than a must have. When I want to play a multiplayer game I almost always skip any missions/campaign and jump directly into MP games.

Another cliche is the research tree and technology upgrades. Personally I think the development of a "race" could be possible even without research tree but maybe some people will be shocked when such are not presented.

A strategy game is not a tactical game. There you need to deploy strategically decisions and not only tacticals. With tactical decisions I mean direct countrol of units, combat , micromangement etc, with strategically decisions I mean resource mangement, production queue and research.

Research could be a powerful addition to a strategy game. A tech-tree makes long term planning really critical and you can out-rule an opponent through strategical planning of your path through the tech tree, even if your opponent is much better in a tactical sense (i.e. better micro-management).

I dont mean these things should be removed, but lets say a game is non-standard and is still RTS. What you can't miss in a RTS?

I think that all three categories - resource mangement, production queue(build order) and research - are important and delivers a minimum set of diversitiy. With only two your game play options are really limited and will get boring quite fast. When you want to get rid of one of them, I would sugguest to invest more in other parts of the game, i.e. a tactical component.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS