Poll: Should RTS stick to just being for the PC?

Recommended Videos

ImprovizoR

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,952
0
0
GamesB2 said:
I really love RTS games (I suck at them too, but still) I think they should keep trying to make RTS' work on consoles, it's obvious the PC is where they're at, but if studios just give up, console RTS' may never evolve.

Take a look at Halo Wars and Endwar as two prominent examples, Halo Wars worked to a degree with quick buttons, only a single resource to manage and doing a lot of the complicated legwork for you, it wasn't innovative but it worked and I played a lot of it.

Endwar wasn't IMO as good as Halo wars, but Endwar was trying something new and it was actually a great idea, a little iffy and sometimes didn't pick up your voice properly, but it was the kind of evolution I'd like to see more of.

Here's hoping for a Strategy game that uses Kinect to track hand and voice at the same time.

I would definitely try that out.
No, just no. They should not try to develop RTS for consoles because developing such abominations would mean dumbing it down for the PC eventually. Just look what happened with FPS games. Someone though it would be a good idea to make FPS on a console and now ever god damn FPS is dumbed down and ported in that miserable shape to PC. Only real PC FPS games use more advanced gameplay mechanics. Just wait for Red Orchestra 2 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,595
0
0
ImprovizoR said:
No, just no. They should not try to develop RTS for consoles because developing such abominations would mean dumbing it down for the PC eventually. Just look what happened with FPS games. Someone though it would be a good idea to make FPS on a console and now ever god damn FPS is dumbed down and ported in that miserable shape to PC. Only real PC FPS games use more advanced gameplay mechanics. Just wait for Red Orchestra 2 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
That post sounded so full of elitism ._.

If we disregard the console crowd there will be less evolution of current genres.

I'm not saying to attempt to outsource every RTS to consoles, that's ridiculous, Galactic Civilizations 2 would never work on consoles and belongs on PC.

But to completely disregard consoles because of 'dumbing down' is just a defeatist and counter-productive attitude.
 

mindlesspuppet

New member
Jun 16, 2004
780
0
0
ImprovizoR said:
GamesB2 said:
I really love RTS games (I suck at them too, but still) I think they should keep trying to make RTS' work on consoles, it's obvious the PC is where they're at, but if studios just give up, console RTS' may never evolve.

Take a look at Halo Wars and Endwar as two prominent examples, Halo Wars worked to a degree with quick buttons, only a single resource to manage and doing a lot of the complicated legwork for you, it wasn't innovative but it worked and I played a lot of it.

Endwar wasn't IMO as good as Halo wars, but Endwar was trying something new and it was actually a great idea, a little iffy and sometimes didn't pick up your voice properly, but it was the kind of evolution I'd like to see more of.

Here's hoping for a Strategy game that uses Kinect to track hand and voice at the same time.

I would definitely try that out.
No, just no. They should not try to develop RTS for consoles because developing such abominations would mean dumbing it down for the PC eventually. Just look what happened with FPS games. Someone though it would be a good idea to make FPS on a console and now ever god damn FPS is dumbed down and ported in that miserable shape to PC. Only real PC FPS games use more advanced gameplay mechanics. Just wait for Red Orchestra 2 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
This, god this.

Console players aren't very the sharpest folk around, bringing RTSs to them would just kill the genre as a whole.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,595
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Dumbing down is the opposite of evolution.

Also, enough with brushing off arguments by saying the word 'elitist'. Better argue if there's any truth to the case the guy's making.
Streamlining =/= dumbing down.

Elitism voids an argument as it assumes that one thing is far better than others in every respect.

There is some truth, but it's shrouded in falseness and the inability to accept consoles.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,595
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Argue the argument, not the way it is presented is all I'm going to say about elitism.
Well our views differ there, if someone delivers an argument in an illogical way (overly biased, full of emotion, unresearched facts) then I have a tendency to ignore it.

ciortas1 said:
Now on streamlining, I'd very much argue that it's dumbing down, in a lot of cases at least. Take, for instance, a game like Oblivion. How deep is the inventory system? How deep is the combat in it? Both categories, teaspoon deep. These both problems are things that can be logically thought to have emerged because the game was developed console first. Or that the developer is incompetent. Although that argument loses its weight after it's used on almost every developer who does their games for a console.

Or fucking Mafia 2/Mass Effect, which I still can't believe don't have a jump button. You want to guess why they're not there?
Streamlining and dumbing down overlap in areas, but by far are not the same thing.

Streamlining refers to the speeding up of actions, a hotkey is streamlining in its own way, however developers want to make it possible for consoles to have the same experience with less buttons.

I can't really say much about Oblivion... I didn't enjoy it enough to play extensively, but from what I did play the combat didn't need much more depth (maybe the magic) but that was more a game-wide thing than because of it being 'console-ified'.

Haven't played Mafia 2, but I thought the reason Mass Effect didn't have a jump button would have been because the engine and the way it handled movement would have made for difficult platforming, not to mention that people would be jumping round the maps attempting to find break spots.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,595
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Or because movement-related controls are almost all boiled down to one context-sensitive button because the controller doesn't give developers much to work with. Tell me I'm wrong on this.
Well I disagree with that, they could easily have made a jump button if they so wished.

Mass Effect is not a good example as it manages to do everything and still have buttons left over.

A was generally action button, X was a second action button, Y was to heal? I believe, it's been a while, and B was cancel.

Plenty of space to implement more specific button types.

Assassins Creed probably handled it the best however.
 

hawkeye52

New member
Jul 17, 2009
760
0
0
unless they can make a completely new revolutionary design for console to do rts's then yes otherwise there is no hope in hell.
 

C95J

I plan to live forever.
Apr 10, 2010
3,491
0
0
mindlesspuppet said:
Console players aren't very the sharpest folk around
oh, I see. You are mindlessly stereotyping all console players, based on no actual information whatsoever, only your own viewpoint.

I think it is more reasonable to assume that you're not the sharpest here...]

OT: I do prefer to play RTS games on the PC, they just work better. But it also has the potential to work on consoles as well, if done right. I played the R.U.S.E demo and that was really good, don't know about Halo Wars though I have never played it...
 

random_bars

New member
Oct 2, 2010
585
0
0
I think RTS games in the style of PC RTS don't end up working on consoles, because they tend to rely heavily on intense micromanagement for their strategy and depth that you just can't get with a controller. However, the genre can be modified for consoles - instead of just dumbing it down, if taken in a new direction it can be fun, deep, creative and very playable on a console.

Brutal Legend is a great example. Instead of being a straight-up RTS, it's a blend of strategy and action elements. The base-building is pretty much nonexistant - your stage, which serves as your base, is constructed automatically at the start of the battle - and resource gathering is limited to driving off a leech from a geyser with your troops and playing a solo to put a merchandise booth there, which gives you a constant supply of fans, your resource. You control your troops with a few basic commands, and can select individual units if you want, but the game avoids the usual frustration of trying to micromanage with a controller because you don't need to. Your army works best when it's all together, and your influence isn't in intricately controlling them, but in fighting alongside them.

Because instead of controlling the game from the sky, you actually play as what amounts to your army's 'hero unit'. You can fly around the battlefield, land at any time and fight your opponent or their troops with your axe and guitar, which can summon stage pyrotechnics to serve as ranged attacks - however if you die your opponent gets a free 50 fans.

You can also choose to play from a huge selection of solos, which each have a different (and usually awesome) effect - like attaching an anvil to your opponent to stop them flying away, or melting the faces of any nearby enemy infantry, or turning your nearby troops invisible, or crashing a flaming blimp onto the battlefield. These take time to recharge so knowing when to use which solo is an important part of the strategy of the game.

And as well as that, you can team up with any of your troops to do an attack more powerful than either of you could do alone. This ranges from simply controlling a more powerful version of their usual attack, to doing something totally different, such as the double team for the Fire Barons, bikers who throw molotov cocktails, which lets you lay down a trail of flaming booze, doing tons of damage if you manage to trap enemies in a ring of fire.

So while Brutal Legend can seem simple or dumbed down if you base it purely on how well it emulates PC RTS games, it does actually have a hell of a lot of depth in its own way, and takes the genre in a direction where it does work well on a console. If more RTS games are to be successful on consoles, I think this is the approach they need to take - not "how can we make the control scheme of a controller work for a PC RTS?" but "how can we modify the genre so that it plays to a console's strengths?"
 

mindlesspuppet

New member
Jun 16, 2004
780
0
0
C95J said:
mindlesspuppet said:
Console players aren't very the sharpest folk around
oh, I see. You are mindlessly stereotyping all console players, based on no actual information whatsoever, only your own viewpoint.

I think it is more reasonable to assume that you're not the sharpest here...]

OT: I do prefer to play RTS games on the PC, they just work better. But it also has the potential to work on consoles as well, if done right. I played the R.U.S.E demo and that was really good, don't know about Halo Wars though I have never played it...
Actually it's pretty simple logic, consoles have the larger audience, thus the average is going to be lower.

Putting that aside, a key reasoning to playing consoles over PCs is simplicity: "PCs are too confusing and complex" or other such nonsense. Another is "PCs are expensive". Each of these demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of technology on their behalf.

The console audience has already destroyed FPSs into the watered-down, twitch free, pieces of trash we have today.
 

C95J

I plan to live forever.
Apr 10, 2010
3,491
0
0
mindlesspuppet said:
Actually it's pretty simple logic, consoles have the larger audience, thus the average is going to be lower.
Not necessarily, larger target audience does not mean lower average intelligence, that would be assuming that all the extra people who are playing on consoles are dumber than average, when in reality you have no idea if they are in fact dumber, or smarter.

I could take a guess and say that console gamers are smarter, by assuming that those extra people are more intelligent than average.

:)
 

mindlesspuppet

New member
Jun 16, 2004
780
0
0
C95J said:
mindlesspuppet said:
Actually it's pretty simple logic, consoles have the larger audience, thus the average is going to be lower.
Not necessarily, larger target audience does not mean lower average intelligence, that would be assuming that all the extra people who are playing on consoles are dumber than average, when in reality you have no idea if they are in fact dumber, or smarter.

I could take a guess and say that console gamers are smarter, by assuming that those extra people are more intelligent than average.

:O
Not really. Hypothetically, it's possible. In reality, not quite. There's a reason most newspapers are written on sixth grade reading levels. When you target a mainstream audience, you lower the bar to accommodate as many people as possible.

You can argue all you want, but the business practices of the past... well... forever, beg to differ.
 

C95J

I plan to live forever.
Apr 10, 2010
3,491
0
0
mindlesspuppet said:
C95J said:
mindlesspuppet said:
Actually it's pretty simple logic, consoles have the larger audience, thus the average is going to be lower.
Not necessarily, larger target audience does not mean lower average intelligence, that would be assuming that all the extra people who are playing on consoles are dumber than average, when in reality you have no idea if they are in fact dumber, or smarter.

I could take a guess and say that console gamers are smarter, by assuming that those extra people are more intelligent than average.

:O
Not really. Hypothetically, it's possible. In reality, not quite. There's a reason most newspapers are written on sixth grade reading levels. When you target a mainstream audience, you lower the bar to accommodate as many people as possible.

You can argue all you want, but the business practices of the past... well... forever, beg to differ.
Again, you are only making assumptions. You don't know everybody who plays a Console do you, or PC for a matter of fact. How do you know console gaming is bigger? Maybe PC gaming is bigger?

By saying console gamers are dumb, do you mean the games have to be "dumbed down" to make it easier for them to play, or are you saying it just because you don't like them?

You do know that it isn't the gamers intelligence which limits RTS games, it is the console itself. Saying that the game is simplified because console gamers can't handle pressing a few more buttons is pretty stupid, because I'm sure if you can't handle a game which has a bit more functions, then you shouldn't really be gaming in the first place.

I'm sorry to say this, but this whole argument is based on the gamers intelligence when it should be on the consoles limitations...