why do some hate rts games?

[Moon]

We're a partner of Direct2Drive, and we also have firm plans to release the game in retail, too.

Martin

[C'Rogers]

I think there are a couple of reasons that people dislike RTS games.

1) Click fest.

Most gamers like to control everything. So instead of controlling a few units with deep detail, you control a ton of units but can issue only the most basic orders (move-attack).

BFC has created a market of gamers who are looking for much more depth, so somewhat turned off by RTS.

2) Failure to deliver in the past by industry.

BFC says that this game won't be a click fest and will involve deep thinking. I believe them (because I put them up on a pedastal away from other game makers), but RTS developers in general have said that in past, and come production players find themselves madly clicking away.

3) Deep thinking vs memorizing

In a turn based game you have an unrealistic amount of time to plan, but you can make excellent plans (you also generally plan for a far larger scope then one commander normally would in detail). While I think the ability to act quickly is underrated, most RTS just teach the memorizing of a few simple counters to techniques (due to the general rock-paper-scissors nature).

4) Easy to screw up

It is probably much harder to make an RTS then a turn based game in balance. A few units too many and the player will find himself overwhelmed and clicking around the map desperatly. Too few units and the player will be bored. This isn't as much a problem for turn based, if you have less units you have quick turns, a lot of units longer turns.

From this forum I think it is one of two reasons.

1) RTS generally are bad

2) Most players here would rather take a long time to plan a massive action then a short time to leap from action to action.

Personally the only RTS game I would put on the same level as Combat Mission in requiring deep thinking was the first Kohan (Ground Control 1 being another possibility but never really touched its multiplayer).

[gunnergoz]

To me it boils down to whether you think there is entertainment value in adding the additional pressure of time to the other components of the game. Personally, I have enough time-based stress in work and life and when I play a game, I want it to be paced to my liking. I don't like to feel pressured in a game, beyond the thinking that may go into it. I like to play in a leisurely fashion and RTS just rubs me the wrong way.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

To me it boils down to whether you think there is entertainment value in adding the additional pressure of time to the other components of the game. Personally, I have enough time-based stress in work and life and when I play a game, I want it to be paced to my liking. I don't like to feel pressured in a game, beyond the thinking that may go into it. I like to play in a leisurely fashion and RTS just rubs me the wrong way.

<font size=5 color="red">BINGO</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

.

In a turn based game you have an unrealistic amount of time to plan, but you can make excellent plans (you also generally plan for a far larger scope then one commander normally would in detail).

That's an old argument that I still don't buy. A real life commander would have either a staff, a number of subordinate commanders, or both, all of whom would help with that planning. So having a lot of time to plan is not unrealistic, it simply accepts that the game player is making decisions on his own and helping balance out his burden by giving him the time to find out stuff his staff or lower level commanders would have been paid to tell him anyway.

[RMC]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

To me it boils down to whether you think there is entertainment value in adding the additional pressure of time to the other components of the game.

Adding time as an additional resource which the player must manage in order to be successful is not the sole purpose in going to an RT environment. When the first one appeared (Dune2) it was hailed as a breakthrough because now you didn't have to move each unit individually each turn. You could give commands that took a unit further than it's normal "movement factor" would have been in a TB game. Units could be in motion in accordance with your intent while you focused on other units. It could take a tedious TB environment (end game of Civ III anyone?) and make it more fun.

I like to play in a leisurely fashion and RTS just rubs me the wrong way.

That's fine. My objection is that people are unable to leave it at "rubs me the wrong way." They feel compelled to denigrate the RTS genre and everyone who plays them with their snide commentary of "twitch kiddies" "he who clicks fastest wins" etc etc.

[Mord]

I dislike RTS games mostly because I miss a lot of the action...and the cool little moments are what really pumps my nads. A well placed bazooka shot, a desperate fire fight, a well thrown grenade or what have you. But when you have thirty different things going on all over the map you can only focus in one spot for so long and while you are doing that you are missing out on stuff somewhere else. That's why I loved the playback feature in CM. I'd rewind and watch a turn a bunch of times to catch all the neat little exchanges. And if they were really cool I'd rewatch from different angles. I don't care about what real life commanders can or can't do...it's a friggin' game not real life. I want to enjoy it as much as possible and missing out on half the battle isn't enjoyment.

Mord.

[Melnibone]

Well said. The replay function has always been my number 1 delight.

[MikeyD]

Most objections i hear from players to RTS games reminds me of how some people complain about ex-girlfriends.

We used to love our RTS games (for some of us we're talking more than 15 years ago) but we grew apart, took different paths, and the relationship didn't last. The breakup was hard. We felt betrayed that our beloved RTS was unable to stay forever young for us. We lashed out, accusing the RTS of being willing to do anything, no matter how degrading, for money. Now whenever we talk of RTS games you can still hear a tinge of bitterness and regret in our voices.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Most objections i hear from players to RTS games reminds me of how some people complain about ex-girlfriends.

Did those RTS games sport BIG cans!!!

Barkhorn.

[Elementalism]

I have played a lot of RTS's, some good(starcraft, Warhammer 40K, Battlezone I and II) some bad (AOE II, C&C Generals, and Warcraft III). They all boil down to knowing your race, build times, ect. They are mildly amusing to play drunk against superior numbers of AI players. But if you venture out into the MP arena expect to be slammed within 5 mins.

That doesnt mean I hate them, but they are like driving a bicycle where games like CM are driving the car.

And I fully intend to buy Supreme Commander when it comes out

[Tarquelne]

That's fine. My objection is that people are unable to leave it at "rubs me the wrong way." They feel compelled to denigrate the RTS genre and everyone who plays them with their snide commentary of "twitch kiddies" "he who clicks fastest wins" etc etc. [/QB]

I agree completely.

The proper course is to examine each RTS game on it's own merits, because each one has it's own unique host of stupid and horrible flaws for which it should be publicly reviled.

Well, OK, maybe not. I have found a few I like.

I think the basic problem with RTS games has been that while they lack most of the qualities a wargamer values, we keep getting told they posses these qualities. This creates a certain amount of ill will.

Most RTS games are action games with a few strategic elements rather than a bona fide "strategy" games. Even the decent ones are rarely all that hot as a plain strategy game, let alone as a wargame.

If nothing else, the pace tends to be too fast for strategic thinking of significant depth so far as the heart of the game goes, the fighting.

DoW is an RTS I'm currently playing. Out of the box it's got far more tactical depth than most RTSs, it's moddable, and the sound/graphics are a hoot. But it's no wargame. I play it when I feel like an action game - when I might otherwise play an FPS. Not when I feel like playing a strategy game.

What BFC/1C seem to be promising is TOW will truly be a "real time strategy" game. The pace won't be too fast for interesting planning (of tactical nature), plus the units and terrain will be decently detailed.

It still may not appeal to many CM fans. More often than not I find I want a "leisurely" game, too. It's easy for me to imagine seldom feeling otherwise.

[Dirtweasle]

Most RTS fansites are infested with slack jawed mouth-breaters many of which lack a sense of humor. Reason enough to stay clear of the genre.

Is Harpoon (Computer Versions) considered RT? If so, Harp was, (is still in the area of classics I no longer play but still think fondly of), one of my favorites and the play felt very natural.

But when I think of RTS games I think of all the hokey crappola I see stocked on the shelves of Walmart.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Most RTS fansites are infested with slack jawed mouth-breaters many of which lack a sense of humor. Reason enough to stay clear of the genre.

Is Harpoon (Computer Versions) considered RT? If so, Harp was, (is still in the area of classics I no longer play but still think fondly of), one of my favorites and the play felt very natural.

But when I think of RTS games I think of all the hokey crappola I see stocked on the shelves of Walmart.

The original M-1 Tank Platoon was an excellent RTS as well; a handful of units but a game surprisingly large in scope - and all made to run on a 386. I've not yet had the same amount of fun playing any other RTS (ie Close Combat, GI Combat, EYSA) despite exponential leaps in computer power, graphic capability, etc. M-1 let you do stuff that other games still haven't emulated, including a pretty decent campaign game where individual crewmembers' stats were tracked, promotions possible, and a sense of attachment to individuals was fostered. I have no idea how accurate stuff like penetration models were, etc., but I do know that the infantry modelling was non-existent (other than little grey boxes being deployed beside APCs). So from that perspective, there is no reason to believe that ToW will suffer from being RTS or not having infantry deploy to buildings. If it is half as fun as the old M-1 was 15 years ago, we'll be laughing.

However, Muzzle Velocity did come close despite the total lack of historical accuracy.

[Dirtweasle]

I forgot about Microprose M1 Tank Platoon, and played the hell out of that one too. Could not agree more with your post if I wrote it myself.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

I forgot about Microprose M1 Tank Platoon, and played the hell out of that one too. Could not agree more with your post if I wrote it myself.

M-1 Tank Platoon was my first PC game! Ahhh...the memories.

Barkhorn.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Most computer game fansites are infested with slack jawed mouth-breaters many of which lack a sense of humor.

There I fixed it for you.

[graetwulff]

i understand a bit more about all this.

but to me the only time i want and tb in a game is right before the fight

where i can plan

with this game i would love if they put into to the game before the fight

you see the map

by the last recon (this could be intell that is 1 to what ever think is best) this game is baseed on realems.

where knowen enemy is

what units are knowen

and so on.

i hope you all know what i am trying to say.

i have played some cm and i would have loved it more if it was real time

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

I forgot about Microprose M1 Tank Platoon, and played the hell out of that one too. Could not agree more with your post if I wrote it myself.

Well even tho I share your benevolence w/r/t the original M1TP (or even easily surpass it), I couldnt disagree more.

M1 Tank Platoon was/is not RTS. It was/is a straightforward Simulator.

It's like calling IL2 a RTS, or FlightSimulator. edit: clarify: ...or like calling MS Flight Simulator a RTS.

M1 had a pretty decent ballistic system. I remember well how SABOT wouldnt get the job done on T-80s fronts at range, but if you superelevated and managed to hit them with a high-arcing HEAT from the top you could take them out at ranges beyond the 3999 (meters) that was the maximum for the ballistics computer.

[ August 10, 2006, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[RMC]

What language is that? Iowan? I might have to take a class in Iowan at the local community college. I'm digging the lax punctuation rules and the complete lack of capitalization. 17 r0x0r5 my b0x0r5.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by graetwulff:

i hope you all know what i am trying to say.

It would help if you could spell words correctly, used punctuation and proper syntax. Oh, and a more traditional paragraph structure might help as well.

Barkhorn.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

...

M1 Tank Platoon was/is not RTS. It was/is a straightforward Simulator.

Except that you could play it as the tank platoon commander as well like a sim.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

...

M1 Tank Platoon was/is not RTS. It was/is a straightforward Simulator.

Except that you could play it as the tank platoon commander as well like a sim. </font>

[M Hofbauer]

not buying it.

M1TP had always been THE tank simulation, not a RTS.

It wasn't meant to be played solely from the map. Map was for calling artillery and controlling some of your assets. The Schwerpunkt of the game clearly lay in the simulation of the M1 tank (gunner, commander, driver).

and how is watching from another vehicle's perspective a point that speaks for RTS and against a simulator?

By your definition, IL2 is a RTS, too, because you can give orders to your wingmen and watch from their planes, too.

that is -excuse me- a silly definition of RTS that doesnt fit general view of what a RTS game is. Coincidentally it would encompass most FPS games, too.

M1TP is as much *the* symbol for a tank simulation as Command&Conquer is for RTS.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

not buying it.

The beauty of it all is, no one is forcing you to.