I'm not the only one who avoids multiplayer RTS gaming, even though I wish I was good at it and enjoy other multiplayer games like FPS, MMOs, all sorts, which I am often extremely good at, RTS only works for me in single player.
I come from the birth of RTS days, I completed Dune 2, many believe C&C invented RTS, C&C copied Dune 2 big time. Some might claim games like Mega-lo-Mania (which I also played) are more the birth of RTS, but put that game next to RTS of today and there is next to no resemblance. Compare Dune 2 to games like C&C Red Alert 2, the up and coming Starcraft 2 or even Sins and you can see things really haven't changed a hell of a lot.
In the old days people played vs the PC in RTS, multiplayer was enjoyed by very few PC gamers. Most RTS campaigns would involve you starting with a tiny force against a well established base so you would need to prepare a good defence before the first wave came along. A campaign level would mostly consist of turtling, countering waves until you had built up enough tech and units to begin destroying the enemy(s).
Multiplayer RTS really took off because of Battlenet. I don't care if you can tell me about being able to play multiplayer RTS online before that, I know you could, but the systems of getting a game up and running meant RTS wasn't played online more than by small pockets of the online community. Another company, around the same time introduced a game and it's own version of Battlenet, that company was Bungie, who created Bungie.net(!), and it's game that was going to be something amazing that is still played today? Myth: The Fallen Lords.
Starcraft became massive, all of a sudden people started talking about perfect build orders, rushing, micro-management. All of these terms and styles of play were completely alien to me, I tried the perfect build orders, they improved my game, I tried to change, but it felt like I was just racing, rather than strategising. I used to enjoy winning by becomming impregnable, I love setting up a defence that was able to repel any force and that just didn't work in muliplayer.
On the other hand there was Myth (it's sequel was even more amazing), a slow paced, no resources, purely commanding your units game. There was micromanagement but your forces only consisted of about 30 units at best. You commanded them as an army, having your archers nowhere near your thralls or soldiers was crazy, each had their role. The game didn't have build orders, it didn't need shortcut keys to switch to different base buildings, rushing was unlikely. It was pure strategy and tactical combat, even using the terrain was important, using height for your archers and dwarfs for example.
Ever since these two great, well loved games multiplayer RTS has gone 1 direction only, speed. Games have got faster, constant attacking and building is required to win. Where are the games that have advanced what Myth did? I see tons of games taking the SC formula and making it faster, considering how successful Myth was and how it is still played today (Myth II mostly) what games have followed in it's vein?
I enoy Sins single player as I can play that like I could play RTS years ago, I can tech up and build up just playing defencively until I'm ready to dominate. I know I would be a million times better player if I was more aggressive, if I didn't use Capital Ships as much because I enjoy seeing them in battle or if I micro'd units a lot more but I can't change. I've tried and I don't find it fun. Am I alone in being this way? Pretty sure I'm not, and I'm sure there are others like me that are waiting for that game to come out that will tap that very style of play I like to enjoy and can enjoy it against others.
And maybe you need to get your vision checked out. Never once did I say slow paced was better than fast. Once again, IN OUR OPINION. AS IN THE OP AND POSTERS WHO AGREED WITH HIM. WE THINK A SLOWER PACE GAME ALLOW FOR MORE ENJOYMENT. That it. All we were saying. We DONT FEEL NEWER RTS GIVE US THAT SAME FEEL AS OLDER RTS DO. Why? Its turned into a spam fest.
I dont not mind a discussion. But you are trying to make a point that is not the same as I or even the OP is. Your defending something we never said was wrong. I dont not hold that agaisnt you, for that is your opinon. If you like those games go for it. BUT DO NOT TELL US HOW AND WHAT TYPE OF GAME WE SHOULD PLAY JUST B/C WE DONT FIT INTO YOUR MAINSTREAM BULLS#$% SPAM $#%@ FEST. IM AN NOT SAY OUR OPINION WAS FACT, NOT #*$(ING ONCE. YET YOU CONTINUED TO PUSH THIS IDEA THAT WE ARE IN THE WRONG, FOR MAKING A COMMENT ON A TREND IN GAMING AND IN RTS GAMES. MY GOD!!!!
Im am tired of this topic, it has gone from great to bad. Im sorry to everyone if I was the cause of that, I was just defending my opinion on the fact that RTS are not what they use to be and for the 90% of us who dont enjoy the spam/rush trend.
...and...
...don't really co-exist peacefully.
I will follow this up with the main point I was trying to make throughout this thread:
Myth was not a RTS (Real Time Strategy). It was a RTT (Real time Tactical). It sounds like you don't like RTS at all, but instead prefer RTT. Not all game developers label their game as RTT, instead mention RTS, but try to mention their game is different from a traditional RTS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics
If you are into RTT, you might want to check out World In Conflict. No resource management, just real time units to micro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Conflict
Personally, I don't care too much for the RTT genre. I didn't like Myth, and prefer RTS games like starcraft/warcraft(and of course sins, but thats more like a combo RTS/4x). But to each his own....
I think some people are being a bit unfair about multiplayer RTS. It's true that multiplayer has a different feel than single player. But I don't think that game developers ruin the single player by trying to make play balancing or abuse fixing multiplayer related tweaks. Nor do I think the game is nothing but a clickfest.
And about some of the rushing vs turtling/teching comments. I think it is too simplistic to say something like "rushing is boring". That kind of reasoning is almost like suggesting tier 1 should have no combat units at all, and you can only attack once you have teched to tier 2 or 3. If you want to tech, you should be able to defend your base from rushes. RTS games allow you to build base defenses and defend yourself from a rush.
Play any kind of competitive PVP and you are going to see cheezy strats. And not all of them happen in the tier 1 stage either. For example, ever play starcraft and have someone drop some tanks on a ledge just off your resourcers? Or have a shuttle drop off a pair of reavers, blow your resourcers to hell, than fly off in the shuttle before you can even respond? Back when I still played Warcraft II, I used to run over to my enemies base and tower the crap out of it. Or build a barracks in his resource flow. Many players would get extremely frustrated at such tactics because they fell outside the boundries of what they considered fun. I got into a long discussion with one such vicitim, explaining some of the tactics of towering and anti-towering. I also explained that this tug of war with tower vs anti-tower had developed into a small game within itself and he was denying himself some of the fun of the game by not opening himself up to this aspect of online play. He later agreed, and started towering himself. Now not everyone will be willing to take this approach and instead prefer to play only within the confines of his personal rules. This is fine too, just don't expect competitive players to conform to your rules. You can either play single player, or try to find like minded players who just want to play a casual game.
One more thing, I am a bit surprised that people are saying only RTS games have a competitive vs casual gamer problem. Have you guys tried playing in competitive games in other genres? The competition, cheating, and hacks there can be intense.
"Even with the use of anti-cheat software, the FPS games are notorious for having the most cheats, which can sometimes turn people away from that type of game. This may be due in part because both clients and servers are run on private systems instead of on company owned servers. One of the most infamously hacked games is the original Diablo, a role-playing game with an online component. Another game is Aliens versus Predator 2 where hackers change memory variables to alter the game's programming." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer
As I stated earlier, no matter what game genre you are in, you are going to have casual and competive players. I don't diss either group, but sometimes it can be unpleasant for both sides when they mix in the same game. I am still gnashing my teeth from a war3 game where a human player would teleport in, level my base in seconds with siege tanks, then teleport out before I could do any damage. But just because I didn't have a good counter for the strat at the time, doesn't mean I am going to throw my arms in the air and declare "PVP RTS sux. I am going back to single player." It just means I have more to learn.
There's a difference between cheaters and competitive players. Cheaters are jerks who do illegal things with the system, perverting its purpose. Competitive players push the system to achieve greater skill.
Agreed, I should have left out that bit about cheaters.
Also, I wanted to say I don't appreciate some of the nasty comments about competitive players. I have at times been in both groups, playing casually and competitively. And I don't think posters are being honest why they say things like they have nothing against competitive players, then post: "go be competitive and make your mommy proud". Not only are they being dishonest, they are being rude as well. It's all well and good to make an argument that you feel RTS gaming has been progressively catering more to competitive players at the expense of casual players. But you can do so without the snide comments about competitive players.
What the? I posted an almost identical topic a couple months ago and was practically flamed over it. Now everyone agrees that RTS is too twitch/reflex based. What happened in the last two months?
Anyway, I just figure RTS isn't for me. The big industry push to get RTS games on Xbox is indicitive of their potential with the console audience. I switched to PC gaming 100% and never touch consoles anymore, mainly because I don't feel any satisfaction over having great reflexes and hand-eye coordination, which is the basis for most of the console experience. I really like games that make you think. All hail to a slow pace and deep concentration!
Just adding my 2c here - Myth, Myth 2 - great games - and if you haven't played Sacrifice - you owe yourself the search for it and treat of playing it - big damn fun!
I agree with what you're saying Myth is more tactical than strategy, I enjoyed the Mechcommander games and some others in that list. It's not really the difference between manageing production and resources that I dislike though.
I do like RTS, I've always played single player RTS and even skirmish Vs the AI on them, it is 90% of the time more satisfying than playing online (for people like me) because of the pace you are required to play at against players. Generally the AI wont rush or deliberately tech to and spam single unit types that cannot be countered unless by a similar faced paced build strategy. Some people in this thread seem to see that as a criticism, I'm not going to humour it, I don't enjoy playing against that style of play. Perhaps it is the production/tech side of RTS that makes it not workable for players like me online, as there will always be these ultimate strategies. I have mildly enjoyed Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth online as that didn't seem so micro heavy and slower paced.
Thanks for pointing out some games I would probably enjoy.
Most people have negative views towards playing a competitive game until they actually play the game how it should be and notice the fun in being in an intense battle with another human player instead of a predictable CPU. I was the same way with my first RTS games like AoE2 and CnC Generals. There is a lot of basic RTS knowledge you gotta pick up on that makes moving from RTS to RTS a much easier task. The way I actually got into playing RTS games "right" is I joined a low level fun clan and just messed around and had fun while being bad at the game, then somehow I magically got good at CCG and learned to appreciate playing a game to it's fullest.
Once you get over your fear of losing and find a nice person to show you the ropes of RTS it's all easy from on then. I'm currently playing Brood War after just buying it this summer and playing in a ladder. My record is atrocious something like 12-45 but at the same time I'm slowly improving and meeting South Korean buddies lol
These are games so play what you want to play.
Hey Alfonse, you're from GameReplays or some other competetive site? A few competetive gamers in a sea of casuals (Reminds of a quote from the Dawn of War: Soulstorm campaign: "One bright candle in a sea of filth and darkness!") Note though that I don't mean anything against the casual RTS gamers.
I'm in the middle of competetive and casual. I'm in the DoW 2 beta but I haven't tried ranked games yet (I care about the stats as strange as that may sound....) but I prefer to play against people I can chat to afterwards. And I hate the elitist, arrogant attitude of some people who say you should play with the sound off (which kills the immersion for me), reduce the graphics to better see something better or something like that.
Ontopic though, competing against another human (especially friends and internetfriends) is exciting and fun. Playing TBS games in multiplayer isn't half as exciting for me since they're turnbased which doesn't allow you to do things all the time. I played Age of Wonders 2: Shadow Magic against one of the best and ofcourse always lost, but when he moved his stack I couldn't do anything if my movement points were used. Feels locked.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
