Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Examining the Beginnings of the RTS Genre

Posted by Soulskill on from the more-vespene-gas dept.

Edge Magazine is running a story about the development of the real-time strategy genre. They credit Dune II: the Building of a Dynasty with establishing the basic concepts that led to more popular titles like Command & Conquer and the original Warcraft. "[Westwood Studios co-founder Brett] Sperry describes Dune II's core challenge as 'combining combat, exploration and production at a particular pace and rhythm to make it all exciting and almost out of control. That was a key part of what made it so addictive.' Indeed, the experience was quite unlike more staid turnbased strategies, where success or failure rolled in slowly rather than rushing over sand dunes at the speed of an action game. 'You had to think and respond fairly quickly, and in realtime, or else your base and forces would all be overrun. And as we developed the game further, it became clearer how the pacing and battle scenario design were all a delicate balance.'"

9 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. C&C FTW! by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The original C&C was huge though not just for gameplay, but because it was one of the first games to use full-screen video, you could play as the baddies or goodies (each with their own very distinct units), had an awesome soundtrack, and to this day had the best setup program ever!

    Oh, and for the NOD missions you could choose your ending.

    They don't make them like they used to!

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:C&C FTW! by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, to be brutally honest with you, the only other game that knocked me nearly as flat as the first glorious C&C sessions has been Generals Zero Hour (which perfected the vanilla generals).

      Generals ZH was all about battle gameplay though; it had really well thought-out units that were few enough that complete n00bs could get into a LAN game without too much confusion, and again each side was distinct, but this time that the generals had different strategy emphasis which added lot's to the game-play style. My only problem would be the super-weapons general had a massive massive advantage if the limit super-weapons was not set.
      C&C3 & RA3 in my opinion are prettier versions that just don't add anything to the Generals new take on the C&C direction.

      But anyway, back to the original; no game has since topped that first experience all-round C&C experience; I'll never forget my first human on human battle using the serial ports and one huge cable I bought specifically for it...having all the tech at once was worth it alone.

      And how could I forget.....the surprise crates (money bonus/see all map/tiberian monster/etc)! Ah man, what a game; no other RTS has inspired so much joy and happy memories as this one, and for so many reasons.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    2. Re:C&C FTW! by Haeleth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      C&C also had the best exploit ever -- the AI didn't know how to destroy sandbags, so you could just build a line of sandbags to the enemy base, extend it to a wall around said base, and then get on with building your Mighty Army of Doom while the enemy sat around wondering how it was ever going to get a harvester out with all those sandbags in the way.

      Of course, those of us who played it that way also had big problems on the baseless missions, where we were forced to play fair and generally got slaughtered in consequence. :)

  2. Re:Was an OK game by Mprx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    X-Com is much less fun once you've memorized all enemy routes and spawn points and know how to exploit the AI. Multiplayer is always better, and multiplayer is more fun when you don't have to wait for the other player to finish his turn.

  3. Re:Um, duh? by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree about modern RTS's, which I can't even play online. I prefer playing them offline where I can play at my own pace.

    That's why I love playing Spring -- you can pause a single-player game against AIs in midstream, spend several minutes scanning the map from all angles and queueing up orders, and then let it fly again.

    Not only does it slow the pace down, but it helps to negate some of the reaction speed advantage that the AI players have. You can stop at any point and analyze the situation in great detail. :-)

    Both Spring (and the game which inspired it, Total Annihilation) allow for enough automation and order queueing even in real-time to remove some of the micromanagement from the game. Makes the game a lot less hectic to run than most RTS games I've played -- it's nice to have units which already have orders to patrol a certain route, attack anything within range, and repair themselves automagically w/o my intervention, and they can be set up to do all of the above as part of a repeating build queue.

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  4. Re:Thank goodness for Dune 2 by dtolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the benefits of PC gaming is that, assuming you keep your mitts on all your bits, you can whip out old games and replay them years later. I did a full replay of CH:R about 10 years ago, and did a partial replay 2 years ago. I'm actually working my way though mechcomander 1/expansion/2 right now... great games. Always loved the whole idea of battlefield salvage as your primary resource, not to mention the fun in mixing-matching-and customizing mechs.

    Also - you're right that its a shame about the real time. To this date the ONLY turn based AAA battletech title ever released was the Crescent Hawks Inception - a fantastic RPG/tactical wargame hybrid - one that I replay much more often than its sequel.

  5. Re:Um, duh? by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's one part of the macro, obviously more troops = better. The other parts are when you get what troops since tanks aren't going to do you a whole lot of good when the enemy is going with helicopters, how you plan to develop your economy (invest a lot, possibly reaping huge growth but also being left defenseless if your enemy attacks before you got your econ going?), when you attack (try to off the enemy with an early attack but be pretty much fucked if he defends? Run a raid on one end of the map and while his forces move back go in and wreck the main?), etc. There's also the micro part that many weaker players revile so much because they want "more strategy, not a clickfest" but micro is what enables tactics which are the real reason the RT is in RTS. Encircle? Blow a hole into the enemy phalanx and rush to his heavy fire support in the back? Toss some special weapons in the right place to disable a lot of his firepower or try to deny him the ability to do so himself? Micro is what makes combat more than just numbers and rock-paper-scissors, it lets a skilled player use that skill even once the battle has started.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  6. Re:Herzog Twei by Madsy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Herzog Zwei rocks, and I still occasionally play it. It's kind of strange that no one has taken the concept further. To play as a unit instead of using a mouse is ingenious. And would fit perfectly on today's TV consoles as well. Sounds like a nice little XNA project to me.

  7. you mean RTT by NuShrike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RTS means you send units out to some location and let them sort it out while one plans the bigger picture of the war -- not the individual battles.

    RTT is where you send units out to some location and micromanage each battle out. Most of the "RTS" games are really only RTT.

    Also, Herzog Zwei predates Dune II and better qualifies as one of the first RTT games.