Jump to content
Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:24 AM
Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:56 AM
Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:12 AM
Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:38 AM
Posted 01 March 2012 - 09:10 AM
Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:53 AM
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.
Are there players, not RPG fans, but RTS fans, who think that RTS without campains is in bad situation?
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.
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 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.
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?