State of the RTS

IGN's The State of the RTS is an epic article discussing the realities of real-time strategy, delving into the origins and history of the genre before moving on to examine where it stands today, and where it's headed in the future, drawing on the expertise of several developers who are major contributors in the field.
View : : :
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
9.
 
No subject
Apr 10, 2006, 08:44
9.
No subject Apr 10, 2006, 08:44
Apr 10, 2006, 08:44
 
You can distinguish Strategy from Tactics in a relatively simple way:

If you allow yourself to lose a battle or arrive ON PURPOSE at a less-than-optimal single battle outcome in order to better win the overall longer-term war, that's strategy.
Otherwise it's tactics.

So none of those games are strategic in nature, they're all tactical: win every battle in the best possible way.


8.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 10, 2006, 06:56
8.
Re: No subject Apr 10, 2006, 06:56
Apr 10, 2006, 06:56
 
There are a few games that have tried to implement a strategical component - RoN and BfME as examples. It's extremely basic, pretty much comprised of 'pick which area to attack next', but at least that's strategy. Fighting a single battle on a single map, whether you have to build buildings and collect resources or not, is not strategy.

Damn straight.

Beamer: what happened to good old common sense? Just because Wikipedia says something doesn't mean it's correct. Wikipedia is run by volunteers afterall, and maybe they're wrong on some occasions. They're still people, with their own opinions.

Furthermore, you completely missed the point I was making: yes those games are being called strategy games, but that's just a gross misnomer. Everyone calls them that (yes even the folks at Wikipedia), just because people misnamed them at the very beginning.

Look up the words strategy and tactics in your dictionary and tell me what that has to do with base building. Just being able to build a base doesn't make a game a strategy game.

Do us all a favor and think before taking some one else's opinion and passing it as fact the next time.

This comment was edited on Apr 10, 07:01.
7.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 10, 2006, 02:20
7.
Re: No subject Apr 10, 2006, 02:20
Apr 10, 2006, 02:20
 
There are a few games that have tried to implement a strategical component - RoN and BfME as examples. It's extremely basic, pretty much comprised of 'pick which area to attack next', but at least that's strategy. Fighting a single battle on a single map, whether you have to build buildings and collect resources or not, is not strategy.

6.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 9, 2006, 22:08
Beamer
 
6.
Re: No subject Apr 9, 2006, 22:08
Apr 9, 2006, 22:08
 Beamer
 
Actually, thanks to a discussion here the other day I was looking up RTS games on the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics

Rome: Total War is considered Real Time Tactics. Other games are considered Real Time Strategy. So pgoeleven has it entirely backwards.


Which makes sense to me. If you're building an army and a base, it's strategy. If you only have fighting units, it's tactics.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/
5.
 
No subject
Apr 9, 2006, 19:15
5.
No subject Apr 9, 2006, 19:15
Apr 9, 2006, 19:15
 
The strategic part of Rome:TW is turn based so I'm not sure how you'd call that an RTS. The actual real time part of Rome:TW is entirely a tactical game, no strategic considerations what so ever. Not sure what you're getting at here.

You're right about the real-time aspect, but I meant the scope of the game (i.e. winning a war instead of a battle).

4.
 
Re: I'll tell you where it's going...
Apr 9, 2006, 17:25
Jow
4.
Re: I'll tell you where it's going... Apr 9, 2006, 17:25
Apr 9, 2006, 17:25
Jow
 
RTS is just a label anymore, an inaccurate one at best. Subgenres have sprouted up (RTT, RTE - realtime tactics and realtime economy) and all get lumped under the RTS umbrella. I'm actually really looking forward to checking this article out as it's one of the few genres I'm still interested in PC gaming-wise... though I think it's also become one of the most stagnant.

3.
 
Re: I'll tell you where it's going...
Apr 9, 2006, 17:18
3.
Re: I'll tell you where it's going... Apr 9, 2006, 17:18
Apr 9, 2006, 17:18
 
In fact, the games in that article do not deserve to be called real time strategy games, but real time tactics games.

The strategic part of Rome:TW is turn based so I'm not sure how you'd call that an RTS. The actual real time part of Rome:TW is entirely a tactical game, no strategic considerations what so ever. Not sure what you're getting at here.

2.
 
Re: I'll tell you where it's going...
Apr 9, 2006, 17:00
2.
Re: I'll tell you where it's going... Apr 9, 2006, 17:00
Apr 9, 2006, 17:00
 
If Supreme commander is only half as good as Total Annihilation was then its going to be better the most of the RTS games that have come out in the last 5 yrs. TA is still my favorite RTS of all time and the reason why I love these types of games.

1.
 
I'll tell you where it's going...
Apr 9, 2006, 16:35
1.
I'll tell you where it's going... Apr 9, 2006, 16:35
Apr 9, 2006, 16:35
 
... nowhere.

They're still churning out Dune copies, remembering everything, learning nothing.

And then, when some guy writes about RTS games, he excludes the one game that definitely deserves the title: Rome:TW. Moron. In fact, the games in that article do not deserve to be called real time strategy games, but real time tactics games.

Yes let's all get a hard-on when the next Blizzard "RTS" game is announced and then spray our shorts when it's released.

Here's hoping Supreme Commander will do something new.

This comment was edited on Apr 9, 16:36.
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older