Ever get the feeling that real-time strategy as a genre is going through a weird transitional phase right now? There are a few exceptions; studios like Blizzard and Gas Powered Games who are staying true to the classic formula by updating outdated ideas without going overboard.
But then there's seemingly everyone else who are all trying to give the genre a radical face-lift by introducing new concepts where they -- more often than not -- aren't needed. Gas Powered Games' Chris Taylor recently expressed similar thoughts in an interview with Eurogamer.
"There's been some desperate moves in the industry to find a new place for RTS ... it's like saying let's add a fifth wheel to a car. But maybe we can actually make the car more comfortable, maybe we can make the drive less noisy or more fuel-efficient."
Innovation for innovation's sake actually takes you backwards," he continues. "There's other places to go than just pure breaking something off or sticking something on to innovate. We're doing a good job of revitalizing RTS but keeping it moving forward in a way that doesn't forget itself."
"I mean, certainly Blizzard is staying on that track, they're not throwing away the old formula."
How do you strategy guys feel about this topic? Are you liking the "less is more" approach to more recent RTSs, or would you prefer developers to go back to more traditional concepts for things like base-building?
Taylor: RTS innovators going backwards [Eurogamer]
Jordan Devore is Destructoid's PC gaming manager and founding ginger editor. He is said to be easy to love but difficult to know. When Samit inquired about his curious bio photo Jordan simply replied:
"bitches love sandcastles" ... yet, there is no sandcastle in that photo. We may never truly understand his ways.
Likes
Platformers, Pixel-based graphics, Stickerbrush Symphony, Pokemon, Leaderboards
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
58 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
4:00 AM on 01.13.2010
| 
Their work on Company of Heroes blew everything out of the water. That mind, friends, is innovation.
Gas Powered? I've never really played many of their games, but what's so special about them?
And what's so special about Blizzard? I really do think, and hope that Starcraft 2 fails. I don't like what Blizzard has become.
That said, RTS is a genre based on complexity, so it will always need that complex side to it. Making it too complex... Well... Maybe not. Recently read about an old RTS that did some interesting things. Dark Reign, you could do stuff like set units to come back to base at certain health percentages or give them kamikaze aspects.
So I think there is a whole lot of room to grow, but like much of the gaming industry developers JUST aren't interested in new ideas or experiments like when the genre first came about.
I mean, look at Starcraft 2, do you honestly expect Blizzard to try new ideas here? No of course not. They are far to scared of losing money from Koreans, instead they will make a standard upgrade in which they can move all current players to it. Hence make a new platform that ALL players need to join, control it (no LAN guys, GRATZ) completely and then milk it for all its worth.
Of course I have my doubts that their plan will work. I feel (and again, hope) that Korean players will not accept and just go back to the game that they trust and won't hurt them.
It's battles are slower paced than most traditional RTS games, it utilizes a cover mechanic that encourages the player not to move his units because of the defensive bonuses they get from standing near cover, and it doesn't even let me make interesting technology choices, expand my economy, or do other side-stuff in the base to keep me occupied. In the end, the player is left waiting for stuff to happen for most of a match.
Although I must say some other of the innovative RTS games these latest years have been successful in moving the genre forward - take games like World In Conflict whose gameplay abandons base building for tactical micromanagement of your units - it all works because of the nice interface, somewhat quick pacing, and unit differences. Not to mention the multiplayer which is an absolute BLAST if you get enough players together - at least three versus three players recommended.
Or why not Sins of a Solar Empire, the RTS that took civilizations-style 4x gameplay and managed to put it into an RTS format without breaking it completely. Sure, it's kinda dumbed-down in complexity compared to Civ, especially in the diplomacy department, but they are adding in more stuff in the next expansion (out soon!)
Company of Heroes frankly makes every other RTS seem quaint (with the exception of some RTT games like Theatre of War and the Total War series) I can't express the irony in the same guy who made SupCom - a game marketed on its one stupid gimmick (ITS REALLY BIG LAWL!) saying stuff like this. Every other genre is moving forward in complexity and innovation except RTS games - which amazingly seem to be going backward!
"updating outdated ideas without going overboard" - Huh? Starcraft 2 has been explicitly marketed as 'starcraft in 3D' and SupCom was an a clone of TotalA will none of the soul and character. SupCom stunk, I find it offensive that Taylor tries to portray himself as saving the genre, when that honor belongs squarely with Relic.
It's not perfect I know and this is only my opinion, but I've found the player with the best strategy usually wins in games like this and isn't that what RTS is meant to be about?
You are out of your goddamned mind for the following reasons:
"And what's so special about Blizzard? I really do think, and hope that Starcraft 2 fails. I don't like what Blizzard has become."
The special thing about Blizzard is that they've managed to innovate with their games while keeping them as polished as fucking possible.
An example of innovations Blizzard has brought to gaming:
Warcraft:
First RTS with multiplayer LAN play.
Warcraft 2:
First RTS to utilize the right mouse button for the deafult move/attack command.
First RTS with online play. (Battle.NET edititon)
Diablo:
Basically created it's own breed of hack and slash rpg with roguelike elements.
StarCraft:
First RTS to have more than one faction with completely different unit composition.
StarEdit was a very powerful editor that laid the groundworks for Warcraft 3s World Edit.
Diablo 2:
Multiple minor innovations improving upon the previous iteration.
Warcraft 3:
Invented the "Hero" mechanics that is today used in almost every RTS game that isn't called Command & Conquer: Something or Another.
Further developed the powerful WorldEdit, laying the grounds for such maps as Defense of the Ancients, which would later go on to create a whole sub-genre of team-based competitive multiplayer action-RPGs
World of Warcraft: Instant cast spells, global cooldown, cross-realm battlegrounds, cross-realm dungeons.
Not to mention what we already know about StarCraft 2 and what it's doing with multi-building and multi-unit selections, and how profoundly powerful it's map editor seems to be.
StarCraft 2 may not be filled to the brink with innovation, but it's certainly not shying away from doing it's own thing. It's demanding, it's fast, it requires you to constantly DO MORE, AND FASTER, and it's unapologetic about it.
Your hate seems to me completely unjustified. Why would you want the game to fail? What has it done to you?
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who'd be happy with Starcraft 2 just being Starcraft with better graphics and more story.
key to success is to make a game with almost the same ui as the biggest game of that genre so that joe schmoe that picks up a game a year can feel at home.
thats why complex games often fail and why new means of controls like wiimotion and natal will fail in the long run, becase we are creatures of habit and the joypad will be the way to control a game until you actually can control it with your thoughts.
I cant recommend Dawn of War2 enough to anyone who's looking to get in or back in to the genre, that game did some amazing things with its single player (the co-op is wicked fun). The multiplayer, not so much, but they did add a great free 'horde mode' recently. My steam name is the same as my des name if anyone's interested.
two titles popularised; moral, deep cover mechanics, tank facing and armour values, sophisticated armor combat (such as disabled guns, immobilization, deflection and armor sloping, engine damage) Suppression and flanking, the best Sniper system yet made, a completley new resource system and retreating mechanics. Combined with this was the fact that coh expanded on new innovations, such as tactical call in aid, instantly arriving off map units, destructible environments, and true ballistics that were affected by terrain.
People hate Starcraft 2 because they recognise it is the representation of the worst regressive elements of the RTS genre - it is a step backwards from existing standards and its innovations will likely be minor and trivial to not upset the korean fans. - Just as it was a good thing that the FPS community rejected endlessly re-realisng doom (and pushed for stuff like free roam, rpg elements and massively improved AI and storytelling) so do does the RTS community need to break out of the stupor that it being content with the same old thing with a 100 AUD price tag.
It's no coincidence that coh is the highest rated RTS of all time, because it was so differnt yet so brillaint, it fundamentally shook the RTS genre. Yet blizzard is going to totally ignore all these wonderful new standard for absolutely no reason except the unique brand of elitism that starcraft has created.
Though I've recently started playing Company of Heroes and feel the command point mechanic really sets the WWII feel, the constant struggle for territory; mostly these games are rubbish, poorly executed and badly balanced.
Or am I the only one?
Yeah, Blizzard doesn't introduce blinding new innovations that Company of Heroes introduced; but why should it? The two games shouldn't be alike, because they don't even stand in the same genre of RTS. Making it more like another RTS would take away from the distinct StarCraft flavour and you'd lose far more people than you'd ever gain going in this direction.
I'm goddamn excited for SC2 anyways, I'm not expecting entirely new ways to play RTS games, but what I do expect is a brand of Blizzard polish of a game that's been six or so years in the making.
We need both. The entire genre would NOT exist if it wasn't for Herzog Zwei which was very shallow, refined upon with Dune 2000, and ultimately refined further with RTS after RTS. But fact of the matter is some of us are tired of spending five minutes turtling and learning the main difference between Game X and Game Y isn't it's long term strategy, conflict style, or even options within that combat style, but the goddam tech tree. When RTS's hit it big, that was the key differences. Setting and Tech Tree. In fact, the size and complexity of your tech tree started becoming a selling point put on the back of your box. For many people, that was just fine.
But not for me. It turned me off the genre in a major way. A way which only recently, with Demigod and Relic's takes, I started getting back into. Now the old guard is talking about how they're making the old formula more complex yet again (see: Blizzard's comments about how resource management will constantly have to be checked up on) and fine, there is a place for that. But doing what Chris Taylor said, shunning innovation when all you really have to do is make a planetary sized Total Annihilation, is the reason why I got out of the genre.
Lots of us are coming back in... don't push us out again with elitist Roberta Williams style douchebaggery...
Firstly, Blizzard never truly innovated. They polished. WC2 online was originally setup as Kali, which was not at all because of Blizzard, even though Blizzard used it and even started shipping WC2 with Kali CDs. Battlenet only came with Diablo in 1997, this was a year after Red Alert was already using MPlayer.com online. Claiming randomly that Blizzard started internet gaming just shows your complete ignorance. Most of original ideas from the first WC came from Dune II, Dune II was the revolution in RTS gaming, even though it wasn't as polished as WC was (WC being released years later).
Blizzard invented Hero mechanics in RTS games? Really? I was leveling up my units in RA2 years before. And even the expansion pact to RA2 had more obvious hero units and that came out six months before WC3 (not counting other games)... Seriously where are you getting this rubbish from?
Starcraft multiple factions. Debatable. I haven't really looked into that. No doubt fanboys like you will give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt like you do with online play (LOL) and hero units (MORE LOL).
Blizzard never invented game editors (such as map editors) but no doubt Blizzard did a great service in creating them, I am highly doubtful that they will continue such a service in the future.
BLIZZARD INVENTED ATTACKS THAT HAPPEN WHEN YOU PRESS THE BUTTON (see instant cast spells) WOW!!!!!1111
Global Cooldowns: proof or you have nothing.
Cross realm ANYTHING only ruins MMORPGs, so I'll give that one to Blizzard.
Blizzard and innovation don't mix buddy, Blizzard has only ever been about polish.
That said, my aim at Blizzard is at the current Blizzard. Not the former Blizzard that did make good games. WoW was a polished version of many MMORPGs in one big pool, and made easier. Of course now it is just a shell of its former self and is now solely a cash cow.
No Starcraft LAN, three sets of games, subscription for tournament play. It is pretty obvious that Blizzard is now fully Activision Blizzard.
He might mean 'they' as in those who made GrimGrim.
Otherwise, I agree. Simple yet entertaining game. Even though it should have been harder, most of the time I just built up the different ultimates (part from the death guy) and just stormed. The ending was meh to me, and really did feel it needed a sequal... for the most part it just felt incomplete the way they handled it, no real conclusion to any of the characters AT ALL.
What I don't understand is how this guy can be saying that innovation is bad when he is copying Total Annihilation. Wasn't that game pretty innovative for its time?
Chris Taylor made Total Annihilation so he's in a position to copy his own game.
By supporting 'AAA' title rehashes like MW2 and SC2 in the quantity we do over games like STALKER, we are presenting a clear message to developers 'We dont want change, keep remaking old stuff forever' (see; mario)
From playing the beta I must say it reinvents rts in a way you could call it modern digital chess with just far more depth then any rts yet, yes it beats starcraft and supreme commander.
R.U.S.E. removes most of the boring children parts like ridiculous and stupid unneeded micro management (like press button the make squad throw nade when the buggers should do it automatically) and instead focuses on intelligent gameplay.
I do not expect idiots and starcraft\coh kiddos to like R.U.S.E. but for those born with a brain it’s just as a big leap as dune 2 and the next step in rts development.
What the fuck are you smoking? Is that a fucking troll post? Isn't instead of having YOU decide when and where and at what time said grenade is thrown, it's thrown automatically and that's considered 'intelligent' and 'unneeded'.
And lol @ micro-management being 'boring children'. What in god's name is that supposed to mean?
Hmmm didn’t mean to write a troll post, sorry if you thought it was that, I just got a deep irritation for the fact that strategy games is either to clicking\micromanagement focused or they are to time taking, and it also makes me angry when people want no more progress in rts so I raged a lot… because I want rts that has little micromanagement a lot of depth and needs little time to be devoted to it.
So when idiots like Chris Taylor says no progress in rts needed he attacks the game I am a rather humongous fan boy of: R.U.S.E. and I as a fanboy must rage back. (or else the universe collapses due to paradox) :p
I completely agree with him but innovation is still nice, just shouldn't be demanded of the genre. I still want try Achron.
Well we're sorry for not being as cool as you for getting into the R.U.S.E Beta. I'll take your cocky word for it though. If R.U.S.E does NOT blow Starcraft / COH out of the water, I will have my dog rape your mother.
Just sayin.
I think with RTS games now also being ported to consoles, we are seeing a lot of the depth stripped away for ease of the controller, which may or may not be a good thing. Halo Wars was fun but dumbed down, and I honestly got that same impression from Red Alert 3. Civ Revolution was also a great game (not an RTS, I know) but also dumbed down considerably from the original.
I really am looking forward to Starcraft 2, even if Blizzard is kinda becoming a bunch of dicks. Here's hoping it is a return to form for RTS games.
C&C4, ruined all that. Squad based top-down combat with no resources or bases? Who the fuck wants that? NOBODY asks for that.
DoW2, ruined all that. Squad based top-down combat with no resources or bases? Who the fuck wanted that? NOBODY asked for that.
Frankly, Starcraft 2 is the only hope the RTS genre has right now, because its actually an RTS game, not a "Real-Time Tactical Third-person-zoomed-out-top-down-perspective Squad Management Resource-Domination-Point Capture-The-Crystal" piece of shit.
Nobody, nobody who loved RTS games from the start since Dune or C&C, ever asked for base building, resources or any of those other things to be removed. We dont fucking want it removed.
We loved RTS games because they were great the way they were, just like FPS games are great the way they are/were.
Its fucking pissing me off. And if Starcraft 2 (and possibly SC2, though the trailers and screenshots ive seen ALL depict tiny arena-style maps) messes this up, the genre is as good as dead.
@ Letters Numbers . .
I know where you are coming from, but polishing is what Blizz does. It has never been a real innovator in the sense of creating groundbreaking mechanics, or anything that was particularly new.
But they are probably the best polishers out there. Eg. WoW was good when it released not because of new stuff but that it, arguably, took old stuff, combined it, mixed it up, and did it better than its progenitors.
Which leads us back to the topic. No innovation is not necessary in any game genre, a fun, well crafted game is (see Jim's review of Darksiders). I think the guy's point was that innovation can't be tacked on or done just for its own sake because it has to fit smoothly into the crafting of the game and make the game playable and fun for players. BTW Blizzard excels at the crafting part IMHO.
I actually asked for that Real-Time Tactical Third-person-zoomed-out-top-down-perspective Squad Management Resource-Domination-Point Capture-The-Crystal piece of shit, and I liked it.
Ironically, it resembles more of the tabletop strategy version.
Seriously get a fucking grip on yourself.
http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/05/game-genre-lifecycle-part-i.html
This applies to the RTS genre in spades. GrimGrimoire was the only RTS I've really enjoyed since Dune 2.
I prefer DoW with out bases and old style resource gathering. Like Chronic Logic said it's more like the table top game that way and as a WH40K game that's what I want.
I'm sorry but I don't want to be thinking about the optimal amount of workers gathering resources, weather my scout is sent out quick enough, weather my macro and micro are up to scratch etc. I just want strategy on the most basic level, army vs army and may the best man win.
Don't get me wrong I like Starcraft and had many years of enjoying it. What it does it does well with it's near perfect balance and it actually being quite an exciting game to watch. But just because of its e-sports success doesn't mean that it has to be used as the rosetta stone for all other RTS games to copy. I'm glad Blizzard are keeping to the same formula for SC2 because if it ain't broke don't fix it. But amazingly some people do want other things from the genre and these newer "less is more" RTS games offer that.
That was my point. Janxer was trying to make Blizzard out to be innovators, not me.