Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pedro Picasso]

I got a free copy of the game "World in Conflict", and I am enjoying it.

It's a real time strategy.  (If you don't know what this is, think of a game of Chess where you have to move slowly, but you do not have to take turns or move one piece at a time.)  The story is "What if instead of collapsing Russia had totally attacked Europe and then invaded Seattle in 1989?"  The story is told in cut-scenes and vignettes.  I usually don't like this method of storytelling, but I'm liking it here.  Also, they let you skip it without losing anything gameplay-wise.

Good: One soldier explaining what a portable CD-player is to another during a break in the action.

Better: One soldier shaking his head while remarking to the other, "That's going to take a while to rebuild," after blowing up the I-90 bridge to slow the invasion.

The whole thing feels very 'Red Dawn'.

[CortJstr]

Dammit, now I want to go home and fire up Red Alert 2.

Shake it, baby!

[Ruta Bagas]

I once played an online real-time chess game.

It was cocking stupid.

[Pedro Picasso]

I once played an online real-time chess game.

It was cocking stupid.

Okay, yes.  Actual chess would be stupid.  But real-time strategy is COOL!  So cool it's a SPORT in SOUTH KOREA.  No joking.  Starcraft -- a game that is 10 years old -- is a popular televised sport in the country with the most broadband access in the world.  My coworker Sungpil said "In Korea, if you don't know Starcraft, the say, 'OOh!  You're a spy from North Korea!'"  I thought that was hilarious. 

It's kind of got some paper-rock-scissors to it.  Helicopters beat tanks.  Tanks beat anti-aircraft guns.  Anti-aircraft beats helicopters.  Then there's the zen of micromanagement.


Basically, those who don't play real-time strategy games are communists.

[Carlos del Vaca]

Okay, yes.  Actual chess would be stupid.  But real-time strategy is COOL!  So cool it's a SPORT in SOUTH KOREA.  No joking.  Starcraft -- a game that is 10 years old -- is a popular televised sport in the country with the most broadband access in the world. 

I remember a few years back, some lobbying group was running ads for deregulation of broadband provision, and the voice-over included "The United States has a lower rate of broadband availability than South Korea."  Said with contempt as if South Korea is a total third-world backwater.  When in fact, that's actually setting the bar pretty damn high.

[Ruta Bagas]

Okay, yes.  Actual chess would be stupid.  But real-time strategy is COOL!

Oh, I quite agree. you just prompted a long-forgotten memory; sadly I didn't have anything actually relevant to back it up because I haven't played a proper real-time strategy game in blooming ages.

Actually, I tell a lie, I had a protracted fiddle with DEFCON not so long ago, but that's rather different in execution, as you do all your building and such right at the start to pre-defined limits and the winner is decided by a points system.

[lprkn]

Basically, those who don't play real-time strategy games are communists.

I thought that was the thing with communism, that it basically is an RTS. Planned economy, little drones, etc. Your currency is just human misery instead of tiberium or gold or whatever.

[AugustWest]

Basically, those who don't play real-time strategy games are communists.[/size]

But I'm too slow and unco-ordinated! 

I do play lots of turn-based strategy games.  Does that mean I'm only a socialist?

[Arachno-capitalist]

But I'm too slow and unco-ordinated! 

I do play lots of turn-based strategy games.  Does that mean I'm only a socialist?

A communist who cant figure out how to do communism is well... a communist.

[melack]

I played the first level of that game and I was very creeped out by commies invading my hometown. Keep away from the Kingdome, you damned Reds!

[Lister]

Micromanagement is an artifact of insufficient resources being given to the AI and/or poor mechanic design.  Clicking to make my guy move one step to the right and left until he's able to get the killshot for his XP may be a skill, but it's not fun, and it's certainly not strategy.

I think most of the reason I hate real time strategy is because it really forces the player to fight the interface more than his opponent.  The goals are obvious - explore, build your bases, collect resources, build units, disrupt enemy, kill enemy - but you have to tell each individual unit what to do, all the time, in order to execute your plan.  Something that should be a matter of instructing a unit to "go look at parts of the map that you haven't seen, run away from enemies if you see them, and return to the base when you're done" is instead a "skill" of finding the unit, selecting a destination for it, then monitoring it to make sure that it hasn't decided to land in the middle of an enemy base.  Instead of giving orders, I'm issuing vague commands and then having to monitor to make sure those commands weren't turned into "do something stupid now."

Basically I am saying that real time strategy is not strategy and it does not take place in real time.  Also I am up too late.

[Drygioni]

Micromanagement is an artifact of insufficient resources being given to the AI and/or poor mechanic design.  Clicking to make my guy move one step to the right and left until he's able to get the killshot for his XP may be a skill, but it's not fun, and it's certainly not strategy.

I think most of the reason I hate real time strategy is because it really forces the player to fight the interface more than his opponent.  The goals are obvious - explore, build your bases, collect resources, build units, disrupt enemy, kill enemy - but you have to tell each individual unit what to do, all the time, in order to execute your plan.  Something that should be a matter of instructing a unit to "go look at parts of the map that you haven't seen, run away from enemies if you see them, and return to the base when you're done" is instead a "skill" of finding the unit, selecting a destination for it, then monitoring it to make sure that it hasn't decided to land in the middle of an enemy base.  Instead of giving orders, I'm issuing vague commands and then having to monitor to make sure those commands weren't turned into "do something stupid now."

Basically I am saying that real time strategy is not strategy and it does not take place in real time.  Also I am up too late.

See, this is a good gripe. I LOVE the Total War games (massive battlefield simulations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War_%28video_game_series%29) but at times it would be nice if I could instruct my little battalions of men to automatically turn in the presence of an enemy to avoid being flanked, instead of me having to go over the battlefield babysitting them in this manner. I still love it for countless reasons nonetheless.

I was delighted recently upon playing Company of Heroes. My men found cover by themselves! I then sighed as I realised this was the first list in a very long line of problems with RTS.

BUT this affects every genre. FPS games are, when you think about it, extremely limited until your character is simply aping your movements.


Also, get this from the Company of Heroes article: Airborne company: provides strafing and bombing runs,causing germans to be in great disgrace.

[Pedro Picasso]

Micromanagement is an artifact of insufficient resources being given to the AI and/or poor mechanic design.

Writing scripts to tell your units what you deem acceptable behavior: not fun.
Having a game that plays itself based on your prior actions (The Sims, I'm looking at you): not fun.
Having to tell your infantry to sprint out of the way of an oncoming tank: not really fun.
Tank rushing an enemy's infantry because you know his little buggers are too dumb to sprint out of the way: VERY FUN.

RTS is mostly tactics, and a little strategy.  I enjoy them for that.  I don't think I'm Napoleon for remembering that tanks should always drive out of danger in reverse because of their armor situation, but I think it's pretty cool when I CAN keep track of that sort of thing.  Like getting better at Guitar Hero.

I understand you don't like it.  I guess there are people out there who like the Sims.  But it's way for me.

[theinevitable]

why has every tank ever had weak armor in the back? This seems like...

"oh, we'll just put a really weak area of the armor back here, no one will ever guess."

I mean, think the Ventilation Shaft in A New Hope.

[jaydub]

why has every tank ever had weak armor in the back? This seems like...

Armour is heavy, and tanks get rotten mileage as it is.  Keeping the front line of the battlefield supplied with fuel is difficult as it is without paying for protection that can be gained through maneuver (keeping the thick side towards the enemy).