|
Post by Monolith on May 21, 2007 16:28:25 GMT -5
No, I think this is exactly what Starcraft fans want. No wonder it was announced in Korea.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 21, 2007 16:31:15 GMT -5
What's the sarcasm for?
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 21, 2007 16:35:58 GMT -5
I'm too lazy to really argue this any further, so, to sum up my entire opinion:
Same shit, different decade.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 21, 2007 16:39:21 GMT -5
The RTS genre isn't something you can really modify through technological advances. It's all gonna be the "same shit" in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 21, 2007 16:48:50 GMT -5
The RTS genre isn't something you can really modify through technological advances. It's all gonna be the "same shit" in the end. bull. lazy developers are the only reason that the RTS genre is generally the same crap over and over.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 21, 2007 17:15:17 GMT -5
Ho hum. Suit yourself. I, however, very much look forward to enjoying this "crap".
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 21, 2007 17:53:10 GMT -5
The RTS genre isn't something you can really modify through technological advances. It's all gonna be the "same shit" in the end. bull. lazy developers are the only reason that the RTS genre is generally the same crap over and over. please explain JP
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 21, 2007 17:58:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 21, 2007 18:01:03 GMT -5
Starcraft is a huge hit in Korea. Even my Korean roomate last year played. It's a stereotype, but according to statistics it's accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 21, 2007 18:04:01 GMT -5
Oh, nevermind, I misread you. I know SC is popular in Korea.
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 21, 2007 18:25:58 GMT -5
bull. lazy developers are the only reason that the RTS genre is generally the same crap over and over. please explain JP if you look at almost all RTS, particularly the "big name" ones, they're just the same shit over and over again typically. the people making these have incentive to keep doing this, cause everyone else is and their games are still selling for some reason, so they have no reason to spend more money coming up with new ideas (usually). it wouldn't be too rough to shake things up a bit and change the overall model for RTSs. the basic idea in pretty much all of them is to collect resources and then build a base and then build an army. so maybe a change for C&C would be that GDI has a meter that shows support for the war, and various events cause it to go up and down, and if it goes too far down they recieve a significant cut in their resources, which are partly gained on the battlefield but are primarily sent in from elsewhere (units as well, partly built on the battlefield but primarily sent in from outside), and then Nod would have overall morale, and if that fell too low, units, infantry in particular, would sometimes flee, or even surrender/defect to GDI. or better yet, replace resource gathering entirely with a supply train (like you might have in real life) that you have to defend. effects of losing your supply train might be that infantry would eventually starve, tanks would run out of fuel, inability to repair things, etc. . . maybe replace base building with refitting abandoned buildings in a post-apocalyptic RTS, so instead of having a barracks, you have an abandoned school building, where targets are set up on the playground for target practice, and classrooms are converted into living quarters. What I want to see the most is a FPS/RTS crossover where theres one guy on each team playing as a "commander" who plays as though the game is an RTS, and gives orders to soldiers who are played by other players, who treat it like an FPS. This would be somewhat similar to how the marines work in Natural Selection, which is a half-life mod.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 21, 2007 20:53:57 GMT -5
I'm too lazy to really argue this any further, so, to sum up my entire opinion: Same shit, different decade. It's good shit, though.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 22, 2007 1:21:29 GMT -5
While some of those are interesting ideas JP, they are definatively a radical departure from a normal RTS. The first thing to account for is that all of those differences would require more time and clicking to manipulate, and would also only ever work in long drawn out battles. Not to mention that something like morale and at home funding would require politicking at home etc. Its the kind of system that would only work in a team battle (where each player plays a different role) or a turn based strategy (like Civilization).
From what I can tell you are essentially expanding the genre rather than improving on it. The whole point of the RTS genre is to control armies and to control their creation. Anything beyond that is really beyond the scope of an RTS in my opinion unless it supports that main focus.
Hence I think that you are sick of the RTS genre, and not of RTS games.
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 22, 2007 4:15:45 GMT -5
It wouldn't require politicking at home, you'd get funding bonuses for doing stuff like preventing the enemy from destroying buildings in the area, and penalties for accidently killing civilians. morale is already in games such as Dawn of War.
Why are we constraining the defintion of RTS to "games that make you do the same thing over and over with different graphics"? NOT destroying the definitions for a genre is absolutely shooting yourself in the foot.
The main way I come up with ideas for games is to simply take a few titles from the intended genre, use them to form a definition of said genre, and then think of ways to demolish the boundaries set by that definition.
Real-Time Strategy games should be games that are played in real time that involve some manner of strategy, which I think most people accept as playing the role of commander over an army. The actual definition should be nothing more specific than that. Ruling out games because they don't follow the shitty examples of tens of games that just copied each other is nothing short of retarded in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 22, 2007 10:31:20 GMT -5
Your ideas are good, but it's really up to the market to decide whether or not to change the genre. If people like the "same old shit", then companies will keep making it.
|
|