Enidigm
04-16-2003, 10:55 PM
What ive found interesting about the direction Blizzard is taking War3 in the expansion is that it underlines what players are expecting RTS's to be. Their lofty ideals about simplifing economics to focus on tactical combat was pretty much rejected by every hardcore RTS player, and the games' success was mostly upon Blizzard's irresistable inertia (almost every 'named' player panned the game even if they played it). Aside from some obvious imbalances which lowered the bar on vanilla war3, the expansion is trying to re-include many of the macro ecnomic decisions that most have come to expect from the genre, even if these contradict their original vision.
But juggling AoM and War3 TFT recently ive begun worrying that RTS really has grown stale because of limitations imposed fans' expectations. Players just don't want major innovation on the micro side of control. It seems that players expect and demand a certain amount of bell curve in the micro/macro because thats one attribute of smart expert-ishness, being able to juggle 20 hotkeys like a secretary. Anything else means the game is playing itself. So, if we can't streamline controlling the game, where can innovation take root?
Ive also been seeing a certain lack of inititive from developers to really shake up the forumlas that have worked so well in the past. Even AoM which i love is still the infantry/archer/cavarly affair every Ensemble game has ever been. War3 has many more ideas but most are just borrowed from another of their games (diablo 2).
So... here is where RTS must go in the future.
Unique Loss Conditions
All RTS games today use multiple factions with the conceit each has certain specilizations such that they play somewhat differently from one another. But because they all have the same goals their overall strategies are always the same. In an Age of Empires game one civ has stronger buildings and another stronger cavalry, but both have the same objectives, the same resource limitations and need for expansions, the same basic economics. So the first civ uses more towers and the second more cavalry and thats the extent of their individuality.
I haven't played Generals but i can all but guess exactly how it play out. FYI, it includes American, Chinese, and Terrorists as playable factions. Now you as designer want to make the Chinese use human wave tactics, the Americans have massive firepower and the Terrorists insurgents. But how do you actually make these civs actually play that way if the path victory is the same for them all? You can quarter a heavy tank and call it a light tank and sell if for 1/4 the cost, wave your hands, and have your human wave, but is that a meaningful decision? Not anymore, with such things having been done for years.
What would be better, and would give designers much more liberty in other places, is create faction specific loss conditions. So for the game above imagine an American civilization that loses if it takes more than 50 casualties. Now, the players are forced into a wholly different playstyle that doesn't reside in superficial balance accentuations. Such a player would be far more vigilant, deliberate, and take extra care to heal or preserve each and every unit. Or imaging giving the Chinese only one hour to win; instead of just masses of cheap units you force the player to be as aggressive as possible since the only thing that matters is time. Or make the Terrorists lose if their "Imam" is killed, or their all their cloaked training camps destroyed.
The alternate victory conditions in AoE games haven't done this becaue no faction is dependant upon them, and because to win an 'economic' victory means essentially controlling the majority of resources on the map and can't be done without winning militarily.
In AoK terms think about a Byzantine faction that loses if its starting capital is destroyed, a Saracen if it fails to convert 100 units in two hours, or a Persian if more than 100 of its units are converted, and how much more intersting the game would play. The Byzantines would really want to make the Theodosian walls.
The other major advantage of this method is that it allows the developer to use much more radical and aesthetic forms of balance; instead of 10% with different loss conditions bonuses might still be balanced at 60 or 100% compared to the next faction.
Improving UI and interfaces
No game has really approached this complicated problem because their isn't consensus as to what needs to be improved. Most of the time new games incorperate small innovations to streamline control, but generally there hasn't been a real revolution here from any corner.
It has much to do with the 'herding cats' style of gameplay, where units pop out unassigned and you have to bandbox select them, sort them out according to whim, then send them on their merry way. Some developer is going to make some real improvements here; perhaps pre-assigning units in queues to groups, perhaps having 'groups' of units being built instead of one at a time. Ground Control did this rather well but it had no ecnoomic component.
Then once band-boxed manipulating this group is rather cumbersome. Moving it around is easy, but adding or subtracting from it, or selecting different parts of it easily are functions that are still underdeveloped. Only War3 has made decent progress here with tabbed sub groups.
Managing your economy with your military is also something that becomes increasingly difficult as time goes on. Oddly Westwood games, for all their other flaws, had native support for this better than all other developers with their build task bar. Now you can do this by hotkeying production buildings, or cycling through 'select X building' hotkeys but hopefully there is room for streamlining.
Interactive Environments
Deformable terrain, weather or terrain penalties, elevation, time of day, all are standard wargamer fare that trickle into rts every so often. The toughest part is transparency to the player and to make regions instead of tying it to textures. Many games have tried this, and most RTS have failed to the point where its never even considered anymore. Its definately something that could potentially add strategic decisions but its greatly dependant upon how well its incorperated into maps.
Micropayments?
This is not my idea btw, its something i read a while ago.
RTS games, done well, provide years of enjoyment, yet the cost just the same as any old POS that no one cares about in a month. How can developers' recover costs? Currently the model is to create less expansions as a form of 'profit taking'; EVERY successful RTS has an expansion (if not every successful PC game).
But RTS also has discreet units, and most have viable multiplayer components. Like Cavedog so many years before its possible to add small amounts of interesting content post release. Perhaps, a year or two later, this content can be sold online to help add profit. Whether adding more units, a new campaign, or whatever.
This is the fuzziest idea but the principle you pay what you get is followed a successful RTS might be (along with Half Life) the cheapest game, per hour of gameplay, imaginable. And developers at some point have to figure out a way to make long term gameplay pay.
Damn can't i just STFU. When will the day come when i can post less than one page on internet forums? When it rains it pours ^^.
But juggling AoM and War3 TFT recently ive begun worrying that RTS really has grown stale because of limitations imposed fans' expectations. Players just don't want major innovation on the micro side of control. It seems that players expect and demand a certain amount of bell curve in the micro/macro because thats one attribute of smart expert-ishness, being able to juggle 20 hotkeys like a secretary. Anything else means the game is playing itself. So, if we can't streamline controlling the game, where can innovation take root?
Ive also been seeing a certain lack of inititive from developers to really shake up the forumlas that have worked so well in the past. Even AoM which i love is still the infantry/archer/cavarly affair every Ensemble game has ever been. War3 has many more ideas but most are just borrowed from another of their games (diablo 2).
So... here is where RTS must go in the future.
Unique Loss Conditions
All RTS games today use multiple factions with the conceit each has certain specilizations such that they play somewhat differently from one another. But because they all have the same goals their overall strategies are always the same. In an Age of Empires game one civ has stronger buildings and another stronger cavalry, but both have the same objectives, the same resource limitations and need for expansions, the same basic economics. So the first civ uses more towers and the second more cavalry and thats the extent of their individuality.
I haven't played Generals but i can all but guess exactly how it play out. FYI, it includes American, Chinese, and Terrorists as playable factions. Now you as designer want to make the Chinese use human wave tactics, the Americans have massive firepower and the Terrorists insurgents. But how do you actually make these civs actually play that way if the path victory is the same for them all? You can quarter a heavy tank and call it a light tank and sell if for 1/4 the cost, wave your hands, and have your human wave, but is that a meaningful decision? Not anymore, with such things having been done for years.
What would be better, and would give designers much more liberty in other places, is create faction specific loss conditions. So for the game above imagine an American civilization that loses if it takes more than 50 casualties. Now, the players are forced into a wholly different playstyle that doesn't reside in superficial balance accentuations. Such a player would be far more vigilant, deliberate, and take extra care to heal or preserve each and every unit. Or imaging giving the Chinese only one hour to win; instead of just masses of cheap units you force the player to be as aggressive as possible since the only thing that matters is time. Or make the Terrorists lose if their "Imam" is killed, or their all their cloaked training camps destroyed.
The alternate victory conditions in AoE games haven't done this becaue no faction is dependant upon them, and because to win an 'economic' victory means essentially controlling the majority of resources on the map and can't be done without winning militarily.
In AoK terms think about a Byzantine faction that loses if its starting capital is destroyed, a Saracen if it fails to convert 100 units in two hours, or a Persian if more than 100 of its units are converted, and how much more intersting the game would play. The Byzantines would really want to make the Theodosian walls.
The other major advantage of this method is that it allows the developer to use much more radical and aesthetic forms of balance; instead of 10% with different loss conditions bonuses might still be balanced at 60 or 100% compared to the next faction.
Improving UI and interfaces
No game has really approached this complicated problem because their isn't consensus as to what needs to be improved. Most of the time new games incorperate small innovations to streamline control, but generally there hasn't been a real revolution here from any corner.
It has much to do with the 'herding cats' style of gameplay, where units pop out unassigned and you have to bandbox select them, sort them out according to whim, then send them on their merry way. Some developer is going to make some real improvements here; perhaps pre-assigning units in queues to groups, perhaps having 'groups' of units being built instead of one at a time. Ground Control did this rather well but it had no ecnoomic component.
Then once band-boxed manipulating this group is rather cumbersome. Moving it around is easy, but adding or subtracting from it, or selecting different parts of it easily are functions that are still underdeveloped. Only War3 has made decent progress here with tabbed sub groups.
Managing your economy with your military is also something that becomes increasingly difficult as time goes on. Oddly Westwood games, for all their other flaws, had native support for this better than all other developers with their build task bar. Now you can do this by hotkeying production buildings, or cycling through 'select X building' hotkeys but hopefully there is room for streamlining.
Interactive Environments
Deformable terrain, weather or terrain penalties, elevation, time of day, all are standard wargamer fare that trickle into rts every so often. The toughest part is transparency to the player and to make regions instead of tying it to textures. Many games have tried this, and most RTS have failed to the point where its never even considered anymore. Its definately something that could potentially add strategic decisions but its greatly dependant upon how well its incorperated into maps.
Micropayments?
This is not my idea btw, its something i read a while ago.
RTS games, done well, provide years of enjoyment, yet the cost just the same as any old POS that no one cares about in a month. How can developers' recover costs? Currently the model is to create less expansions as a form of 'profit taking'; EVERY successful RTS has an expansion (if not every successful PC game).
But RTS also has discreet units, and most have viable multiplayer components. Like Cavedog so many years before its possible to add small amounts of interesting content post release. Perhaps, a year or two later, this content can be sold online to help add profit. Whether adding more units, a new campaign, or whatever.
This is the fuzziest idea but the principle you pay what you get is followed a successful RTS might be (along with Half Life) the cheapest game, per hour of gameplay, imaginable. And developers at some point have to figure out a way to make long term gameplay pay.
Damn can't i just STFU. When will the day come when i can post less than one page on internet forums? When it rains it pours ^^.