Slashdot Mirror
On The Ascent And Descent Of The RTS
Thanks to GameSpot for their guest 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing the perceived decline of the real-time strategy genre. The author argues: "While there have been unusual bright spots on the RTS gaming scene, the overall look of it is pretty grim. Most games offer very little when it comes to revitalizing the genre, and eventually they even fail in rekindling old interests that faded away when we let go of Command & Conquer and Warcraft." He finishes with a call to arms, citing Command & Conquer: Generals ("[a] dearth of interesting strategies") and Age Of Mythology ("[offering a] rote formula") as examples of this lack of innovation, and urging: "Only you can stop the market from regurgitating the same old titles, and maybe even encourage it to make a few nudges in the right direction."
A few years ago adventure games were in this same 'state'. All you fans out there: be patient. In a few years time the genre will slowly awake from it beauty sleep, just like adventure games are doing at the moment.
-- Cheers!
Name substantial gameplay differences between Red Alert, Warcraft II, KKND, M.A.X, Knights and Merchants [...] they all offer roughly the same gameplay. It may look a bit different, but it boils down to the same formula: Settle down, collect, build up, expand, destroy.
I hate to burst his bubble, but that is what (RT)S is all about. Next, he says that adventures had no substantial progress since "Adventure" because they are still "solve the puzzles and win" and FPS are all about "shoot the enemy dead".
Besides, there are quite a few games that took RTS one step further, the author names three of them. And yet the future looks grim? C'mon, there are bright spots in every genre, and there is the mass of run-of-the-mill games. That hardly counts as a descent of the genre.
Plus, many games cross borders and mix RTS with RPG or RTS with FPS (Battlezone). So there are influences from other generes that bring in fresh ideas.
I just realized my post has many TLAs. Oh well.
My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
The genre is not descending, it is evolving - though not primarily through the main commercial channels (yet). Just look at the popularity of Natural Selection, a truly innovative approach to real-time strategy: Replacing the dumb computer-controlled units with online gamers.
:-)
This idea seems so good to me that I find it surprising that we haven't seen more games of this type yet. (Or maybe someone have? If so, please shout
Agreed on most RTS's. A big bright light for Warcraft 3 though. That one introduced many gameplay innovations, that made it a truly different game (yet still RTS). Not at all a stale rehash-the-same-game-with-different-graphics-and-p lot affair like the C&C's, Age Of XYZ, and other variations...
Daniel
Carpe Diem
CnC was not the first RTS in the same way that Doom was not the first 3D shooter. They are both the one that many people remember as leading in the genre.
I think he's right about the decline - at least to a certain extent. Here's my quick summary of the Westwood games as I remembered them:
Groundbreaking; excellent story, gameplay and music. Very easy to get into. Liked it lots.
Prequel to CnC, so the story fits in. Gameplay much the same, but different units (including ships and planes) made it interesting. Excellent music. Decent skirmish mode too (which CnC lacked). Liked it lots.
Story continues from CnC, so it fit in (ok, a little stretched, but we'll allow it!). New graphics engine, new units, still interesting. Music didn't kick like the first two. Mild cheesiness, but I still thought it was OK.
Story somewhere between first RA and CnC, but no Kane (some Yuri person instead), so didn't feel quite right. New units, but the cheesiness factor was way up (eg: units all cheer when you complete a mission). Don't remember the music - I was too distracted by all the cheese.
Still annoyed at having been ripped off last time, so didn't bother with this. Smelled like cheese to me anyway.
By now I was into Team Fortress, so I didn't bother. Still annoyed with them too.
Occasionally, I still fire up Red Alert (which runs just fine under wine). It's still fun. It's certainly nostalgic.
The article didn't talk much about Age of Empires, which for me at least, brought some interesting game play - the different types of units and the whole development concept.
I didn't see Total Anihilation mentioned anywhere, which I found odd. That game took the graphics to new hights, and the gameplay too, with much more in the way of ships, subs and planes than Red Alert. Having a commander and nanolathing were interesting. If you were quick, you could have a transport plane pick up the enemy commander at the beginning of a multiplayer game!
OK, so the basic strategies are much the same, but that's the RTS genre. For me, the decline has not been the lack of new stragies. It's been the lack of new story lines and cool music.. and the addition of cheesey units
-- Steve
The problem with teamplay is different skill level.
It's relatively easy to build teams of novices since this is where most people fit.
Unfortunately, as you go up in skill level, the number of people available to make a team diminishes almost exponentially.
This is what is happening in Warcraft III on Battle.net. Once you go up in level, you have to wait longer and longer to get a team game or even a 1v1 game. And this is by making teams out of players of different levels so it would be even worse if a team was to be made only of players of the same level.
Another problem that has arisen on Battle.net is that players will *very* often create a new account from scratch in the hopes of getting a better win record. As a consequence, you have many very good players in the low levels and that makes leveling a bit harder.
Anyway, playing online means also the need of a VERY balanced game and even Starcraft / Warcraft, while making a good attempt at it, have still some problems to solve.
Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
It's amazing how well it translates. I do actually have a point after the parodies.
...need I go on? These are games depicting completely different worlds, entirely different plots (if applicable), and yet, they all offer roughly the same gameplay. It may look a bit different, but it boils down to the same formula: Run, shoot, reload, heal, get weapons, shoot some more.
--
Original:
The Problem
Look at RTS titles over the years. It's been almost 12 years now since the genre as we know it was introduced, and how much significant advancement can you say has been achieved in the field? Advancements in graphics hardly count as specific improvements--strategy games may benefit from advances in technological prowess, but they're certainly not the catalyst for such advances. Maybe a few companies honed down the interface along the way, added a few more minor elements to the gameplay, but aside for cosmetic makeovers, the changes have been kept to a bare minimum.
Name substantial gameplay differences between Red Alert, Warcraft II, KKND, M.A.X, Knights and Merchants...need I go on? These are games depicting completely different worlds, entirely different plots (if applicable), and yet, they all offer roughly the same gameplay. It may look a bit different, but it boils down to the same formula: Settle down, collect, build up, expand, destroy.
--
--
FPS version:
The Problem
Look at FPS titles over the years. It's been almost 18 years now since the genre as we know it was introduced, and how much significant advancement can you say has been achieved in the field? Advancements in graphics hardly count as specific improvements--shooting games may benefit from advances in technological prowess, but they're certainly not the catalyst for such advances. Maybe a few companies honed down the interface along the way, added a few more minor elements to the gameplay, but aside for cosmetic makeovers, the changes have been kept to a bare minimum.
Name substantial gameplay differences between Doom, Castle Wolfenstein, Quake, Counterstrike, Halo,
--
--
RPG version:
The Problem
Look at RPG titles over the years. It's been almost 15 years now since the genre as we know it was introduced, and how much significant advancement can you say has been achieved in the field? Advancements in multiplayer connectivity hardly count as specific improvements--role-playing games may benefit from advances in technological prowess, but they're certainly not the catalyst for such advances. Maybe a few companies honed down the interface along the way, added a few more minor elements to the gameplay, but aside for cosmetic makeovers, the changes have been kept to a bare minimum.
Name substantial gameplay differences between Everquest, Star Wars Galaxies, Asheron's Call, Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate...need I go on? These are games depicting completely different worlds, entirely different plots (if applicable), and yet, they all offer roughly the same gameplay. It may look a bit different, but it boils down to the same formula: Pick a character, work for XPs, form a party, get a quest, die and respawn.
--
I'll spare you the pain of reading the sections on driving games, sim-whatever games, etc. My point is this...why do you suppose it's fashionable - or even conventional wisdom - to single out the RTS genre as stagnant, yet the other equally-stagnant genres get a pass?