Good colsole RTS
- Thread starter inFAMOUSCowZ
- Start date
Recommended Videos
SirBryghtside said:
Halo wars was an epic fail, it sold the least amout of units in the entire Halo franchise. and a wii RTS... no, just no. for one the wii resposnse time is shit. and in an rts you need lightning fast micro(thus keyboard and mouse) the Wii lacks pricision thats why most wii games involve lots of flailing about, (red steel, wii sports resort, every other wii game...) also no AAA developer will take that kind of risk. a RTS for Wii would require Massive reworking of traditional RTS elements. (imagine making a whole new genre) to the point where its not a RTS anymore. that will require an insane amount of research and development and thus, and insane amount of money. also the target audience for a Wii "casual gamers" will never touch an RTS. (speculating here)
also, if you were just trolling, i fucking hate you.
For the same reason they don't count Battalion Wars 1/2. They feel if you the player are taking direct action it ceases to be RTS, and becomes just another action game. I can kind of see where they're coming from.Heart of Darkness said:
now now, i think your being a little harsh to RTS there, its true that RTS games involve a lot of speed spamming, but that does not mean all the strategy goes out the window, in real life battles ARE fought in real time and they still call that strategy. i agree that turn based games involve MORE strategy, but thats because you have a lot of time to think and plan and shit. its like chess. in RTS you are given a limited amout of time to plan, and as such need to make decisions speedily. it takes the boring parts out of strategy, and makes it more exciting.Souplex said:
btw this is a reply to your earlier post, not the troll in the second quotation.
Yes, but your strategy is hampered by how quickly you can command your units in that time. Once again, the strategy is hurt by the real time.Daffy F said:
The average competitive Starcraft player averages aboot 5 actions a second. The average human is significantly slower, so even if it is the best plan ever, it will suffer because of the real time elements.
Look as a general rule, console RTS are all shit. All they are,are bad ports of good pc games.
So if you want to play a good RTS game play Command And Conquer Tiberium wars on PC it is one
of the best in the business. Then compair that with the console version of the game and you can decide which is best.
So if you want to play a good RTS game play Command And Conquer Tiberium wars on PC it is one
of the best in the business. Then compair that with the console version of the game and you can decide which is best.
Its possible, i was going to add to my post that a Wii RTS might be crazy enough to work, and i accept your thought that casual gamers could get into it. not all of them are painted with the same brush. but i believe that such a venture would only accomplish one thing. it wont make harcore buy more wii games, but might send the casuals down the path of the hardcore.SirBryghtside said:
It's funny, because if you don't provide any argument or evidence, then you're basically just saying "No, you're wrong, and you smell funny!" (Although I just added that last part to make it more amusing to read)[/quote]Souplex said:
If I must...
Every real-time strategy game has decision on both tactical and strategical level. For this example I would use Starcraft 2.
A strategical decision is whatever you open with 6 pool or reapers and the fallowing transition, whatever you expand or not and the build order afterwards. A strategical decision is whatever to attack on two fronts, or concentrate on only one. Whatever you prefer drone production or unit production on your main hatch. after the expo is down.
A tactical decision is whatever you hit & run or push hard, whatever your AA units are in front or in the back. Whatever you split your units mid-battle or not. Tactics are only valid for a SINGLE battle.
I don't play regularly basketball, if I play someone who plays regularly, he is going to trample me. If a person who isn't playing chess often, plays against some who does, he is going to lose. No matter what a person who doesn't engage in one activity, would be defeated by someone who does. This is why there is a term "novice".Souplex said:
And just a hint: the APM depends on how many task you need to preform(if it isn't button mashing, which is just a practice and of no effect in the game). The better player you are, the more actions you need to do.
In real life however, soldiers have more autonomy than "Attack back if you are under fire", you can set up full plans in advance and watch them play out, (In RTSes that I know of the only plans that can do that are "Defend position X" ), and voice command means that you're not limited to commanding the section of the battle that your screen is hovering over.GUYWITHAGUN said:
Real command is very different from RTS.
If I must...Traun said:
Every real-time strategy game has decision on both tactical and strategical level. For this example I would use Starcraft 2.
A strategical decision is whatever you open with 6 pool or reapers and the fallowing transition, whatever you expand or not and the build order afterwards. A strategical decision is whatever to attack on two fronts, or concentrate on only one. Whatever you prefer drone production or unit production on your main hatch. after the expo is down.
A tactical decision is whatever you hit & run or push hard, whatever your AA units are in front or in the back. Whatever you split your units mid-battle or not. Tactics are only valid for a SINGLE battle.
I don't play regularly basketball, if I play someone who plays regularly, he is going to trample me. If a person who isn't playing chess often, plays against some who does, he is going to lose. No matter what a person who doesn't engage in one activity, would be defeated by someone who does. This is why there is a term "novice".Souplex said:
And just a hint: the APM depends on how many task you need to preform(if it isn't button mashing, which is just a practice and of no effect in the game). The better player you are, the more actions you need to do.[/quote]Not the point, my point is that no matter how good your strategies/tactics are, they are hampered by the RT part of RTS.
and when I was talking aboot APM, I was talking aboot intentional coordinated ones. Hence why I was talking aboot pros who I'm fairly certain don't button mash.
(Also, "Strategical" isn't a real word, the word you were looking for was "Strategic", but that does not change the quality of your argument, only how easy it is to mock.)
alright so from reading most of the replies, ill just wait and get Star Craft 2 when i fix up my pc thanks guys.
In real life, strategy is also very different from taking turns shooting each other in the head, or sticking a pitchfork in their crotch. i agree that the only plans you can do is "defend position X" but thats hardly the genre's fault, you could say the same for turn-based-strategy (lets call it TBS) "stand here and don't move untill i tell you, even if that guy over there with the knives is having a really bad day". perhaps an RTS with TBS elements would be better? Warhammer: Mark of Chaos is such a game. you start the game with a limited number of troops, field them on the battle ground, and when both you and your opponent are good and ready, begin the RTS match. but once the action begins. its quite strategy oriented, troops have very clear cut strengths and weaknesses (Do NOT send the archer unit to fight the cavalry unit) there is also no base building so its only unit control.Souplex said:
(i find the game boring as hell though XD just not my cup of tea)
on that note Dawn of War 2 is on of my all time favorites. No base building, all units are constructed from one HQ, cover system (Squads can take cover behind debris for more defense) and extremely limited units can be fielded. its still very fast paced, and the single player campaign is ALL about strategy.
Happened to me too, apparently the Escapist is having issues at the moment.Souplex said:
This is simply not true, there are many examples where the player with substantially higer APM looses (for example, NaDa vs TLO).Souplex said:
Also - Pro's do button mash, they need to do this in order to keep their APM at a certain level, so they don't loose momentum.
Glad to see you have your priorities straight. Also - aboot isn't exactly a word either.Souplex said:
I only play RTS's which innovate and are original, the mainstream style RTS is fun, but not very well tactical. Currently I'm playing RUSE, it takes the most realistic approach to an RTS, the maps are huge at the expense that the units are smaller, everything is effective depending on its position, if an infantry squad is hiddin in a forest near a road, and a tank is driving down the road its going to get ambushed and blown up by the infantries bazooka, they get a plus for surprise attack as well. On an open field a single tank can chew up infantry like no tomorrow, on the other hand they can use AT guns plus recon (recon in this game is one of the most important parts of a game, without any recon unit your army is going to die faster) to destroy the tank before it can even find the enemy, however infantry units can kill AT guns. and so on and so forth.inFAMOUSCowZ said:
The game is a real challenge, if your tired of easy RTS's, want competent AI and a campaign that's hard as shit, buy this game. The Console controls are a bit frustrating at times, with the selection box sticking to some units not letting you go to the one you want to go too, but other then that its not bad.
World in Conflict and RUSE are nothing like Halo WarsMechsoap said:
