Good colsole RTS
- Thread starter inFAMOUSCowZ
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Console RTS, mate.Millardo said:
OT: Warhammer Battlemarch is pretty fun. RUSE is absolute crap for a console. Not sure about PC though.
For a split second there, I read "good console TITS".
OT: I've wanted to play Halo Wars for some time, but due to lack of funds...well...
OT: I've wanted to play Halo Wars for some time, but due to lack of funds...well...
Traun said:
Souplex said:
I like to think of it as a mathematical formula: 100% = maximum possible intentional APM.
The quality of your RTS play is the Action% of the quality of your strategy.
Souplex said:
"Aboot" is a mispronunciation of about. It's intentional though, and the meaning is clear.
Actually, that was terrible. Anyone even remotely experienced with RTS games can tell you that it's important to maximise the number of tasks you complete with the keyboard so you can free up your mouse for unit control. In this video, however, the player needed to rely entirely on his hands for all tasks. He didn't even have the benefit of a right mouse button for attacking...he quite literally had to click on the Attack button on the interface to order his units to attack!Mr.SunShine said:
That's not the only problem either. Touchscreens lack tactile feedback, which is important for an RTS game, since you cannot waste time second guessing whether or not your command registered. Plus, fingers lack the precision of a mouse, which is a vital aspect in unit control. It's actually kind of ironic that the video showcases WarCraft III, since that game emphasises unit control more than anything else.
Don't get me wrong, it's a neat experiment. But from a practical standpoint, it is far too lacking to be even a decent replacement to the mouse and keyboard.
If you are going to bring reality into it all, keep in mind that time doesn't stop for real-life strategic planning either. But I digress...that is besides the point, since we are talking about games.Souplex said:
Whether or not the game has strategy isn't dependant on whether the game is realtime or turn-based. Infact, strategy isn't something you should be thinking about during the course of a game. Any good RTS player will be clear on what strategy (s)he wants to pursue before the game starts. If someone is trying to think of a strategy on the fly, they are doing it wrong and chances are that they will lose horribily (unless their opponent is using the exact same mindset). Even in real-life, strategy is something that is supposed to be planned well before the bullets start flying.
Ultimately, the main difference that the realtime element causes is that it demands a level of dexterity from the player (assuming the game can't be paused), since it becomes important to execute actions both quickly and accurately. But as I said, that has no bearing on strategy which is (or at least should be) planned well ahead of the game. Plus, keep in mind that by dismissing RTS games in general, you are also dismissing titles like Hearts of Iron and Europa Universalis, who have more strategy than most turn-based strategy games.
That said, I do agree that Fire Emblem and Turn-Based Strategy games in general are awesome. =)
1.The reason why there is a ladder, is to place people with relative APM to each other against each other. The system will make sure that you are never severely outmatched by your opponent.Souplex said:
2.You statement about "mathematical formula" shows that you are having no real experience with RTS games and know little of the genre. As is your inability to provide examples of your statements that would go beyond your own opinion.
*sigh*Tom Phoenix said:
I completely disagree that strategy is something you fix in your head before a fight because if your defending cooridnate x and the enemy attacks coordinate y you aren't going to go "d'oh well, i gotta stick to my strategy" NO! you will reallocate some or all of your forces! CHANGING! your strategy!
and i also disagree with "he quite literally had to click on the attack button" well yes and no. i showed this to a buddy of mine and he noted that one hand seems to change the meaning of the other, Like if you hold one finger on the screen and drag the other hand acrossed that is a different action than just dragging your hand accrosed...
Also yes not being able to select certain groups with a 1 2 3 of the keyboard would be bad BUT, they display it on the screen for you to click there.. whereas a console with a controller (halo wars as an example) has you go from, one group to one group to the other group, scrolling through them...
I have a LOT more to say to you but i have to redirect my attention to THIS guy
con·sole2    /ˈkɒnsoʊl/ Show SpelledTheDoctor455 said:
[kon-sohl] Show IPA
?noun
2. the control or monitoring unit of a computer, containing the keyboard or keys, switches, etc.
Also, my point wasn't that it was a console, my point was that it wasnt using a mouse/keyboard. which as the quote says will never be unseated in rts ownership, well i posted the video to show that there are other ways besides the mouse and keyboard, they just aren't that popular yet... hell! this might be the standard rts in the near future! but who knows...
If both coordinates x and y are strategically important to you, and yet you fail to consider when you lay your plans that the enemy might attack coordinate y, then you are an imbecile and deserves any defeat you might suffer.Mr.SunShine said:
Seriously though, the plan that you lay ahead of the battle should allow for the enemy's movement too, and obviously thats gonna include defence of anywhere that you've established a base.
Give this man a cookie, he has obtained enlightenment.T_ConX said:
You probably shouldn't bother with Console RTS games. They are not nearly as good as ones on the PC. Starcraft 2 is excellent for micromanaging, has a great story, awesome gameplay, and you can actually play it really competitively.
Just save your time for that, it will be much more worth it.
...That's not strategy. That is tactical manouvering. Holding location x or moving to location y isn't a strategy. It can be a part of an overall strategy, but is not a strategy in itself.Mr.SunShine said:
Strategy is your long-term plan as to how you intend to achieve victory. It focuses on the overall picture and not just a part of it. Simply put, strategy is the method with which you plan to achieve victory or success while tactics is the implementation of said method into practice.
I never said that this was worse than the console control scheme. What I said was that it is lacking compared to the standard mouse and keyboard control scheme.
As for your hand comment, that sounds neat. Still, there are countless commands that the gesture could stand for (and it can't stand for all of them either). In the video, the player had to use the Attack button on the interface to order his units to attack, which is awkward and slow. Also, having hotkey buttons on the screen is not an adequate replacement, beacuse, agaim, touchscreens lack tactile feedback (plus, you don't have any replacement for the command and unit hotkeys either).
Also, while we are on the subject, I also realised two other downsides of a touchscreen control scheme:
- The minimap is one of the most vital tools in an RTS game. Any player worth his salt will pay constant attention to it, to see what is going on across the entire battlefield, and to also be able jump to a certain location if necessarry. But since the minimap has to be small in order to not take up too much space, you need to be able to precisely pinpoint the exact location you want the main screen to jump to. With a touchscreen, this is not possible, beacuse human fingers are big and stubby compared to a mouse pointer. Touchscreens in general are not built for precision, hence why touchscreen-based devices either have some sort of physical pointer or they have larger buttons to compensate. Which brings me to another point...
- In an RTS, it is important to have a clear view of what is going on on the screen at all times and that you see as much as possible. This is why RTS games always strive to have a streamlined and minimalistic UI, so that the player has all the information he needs at his disposal without it being in the way. With a touchscreen, this becomes a serious issue, beacuse the buttons have to be much larger, thus taking up precious screen space.
But even if the buttons weren't a problem, there will always be one thing cluttering your view....your own hands. Beacuse you have to actually press on the screen to issue commands, your hands will always cover a part of the screen from your view. In a game where noticing something in split second timing is important, that is a preety enormous drawback. It makes unit control far more difficult than it needs to be (and as I said, unit control is everything in WarCraft III).
As I said, as an experiment, this was a neat little exercise. However, it is far too lacking in practical terms to be useful. If you honestly think this would be an adequate replacement to the mouse and keyboard control scheme, you are sorely mistaken.
Mind you, I completely agree with you! I was just pointing out that there are better ways than the console, Yes it is much worse than the mouse and keyboard but it is also just what you pointed out. an experiment. a test. an alpha. an idea. a THOUGHT none of these you might have noticed are FINAL products. i see that your complaints can be very easily assuaged by a change of resolution. and if the mini map is so important in RTSs then wouldn't any developer worth his salt make it easily accesible? workable?Tom Phoenix said:
I can't really argue with you since the only RTS i really ever played was red alert 2 yuri's revenge. but as i remember the minimap had a SQUARE box showing you what you were looking at. it seems to me that if you wanted to go somewhere on the minimap it wouldn't have to be very precise. Also, in my freakish habit of mine.
Strategy
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.
So i see a series of maneuvers as moving troops from point A to B to defend C
And yeah yeah "If you aren't covering coordinate Y then you're a damned fool and deserve whatever defeat you get!" That wasn't my best example ok? i was typing fast and not thinking much. regretting it by the second. but at the least the argument is fun. at least there is no realy HATRED or anything. unless you have a VERY good text poker-face...