What really is a RTS game ?

[Meltyman]

we had a fine argument when i said BLC* is a rts game.

the argument went on and on, that you need to have buildings and huge armys on a game to be described as a RTS game.

when you think about it aint every RealTime based game a rts ?

strategy is in everything ? its just in smaller scale on some... even rock-paper-chainsaw has a strategy a beats b, b beats c, and so on.. you have to choose your strategy for the upcoming match.


*(blood line champions, check it out its free to play)

 

[Orbert]

Okay, so if strategy is in everything, does that mean everything is a strategy game?

I think RTSs are games where the focus is on the overarching strategy you use, rather than the details of individual battles. In Starcraft, for example, you can lose individual fights, but if you chose an overarching strategy that gives you a better economy than your opponent, you'll probably be able to recover from the loss and win the war.

Bloodline champions requires some strategy (picking characters that go well together against what your opponent is using), but it's mostly tactical because the important decisions are about unit movement and the appropriate selection of attacks.

 

[BENZOOKA]

A strategy-based video game, that is played in real-time environment rather than taking turns, generally involving management of an army or civilization.

It's kind of pointless trying to pinpoint a term that is, at least to some extent, ambiguous.

 

[veloper]

we had a fine argument when i said BLC* is a rts game.

the argument went on and on, that you need to have buildings and huge armys on a game to be described as a RTS game.

when you think about it aint every RealTime based game a rts ?

strategy is in everything ? its just in smaller scale on some... even rock-paper-chainsaw has a strategy a beats b, b beats c, and so on.. you have to choose your strategy for the upcoming match.

On a smaller scale, that's what's called "tactics" and not strategy.

Best example of both: Rome Total war is RTT (tactics) and TBS (strategy).

Traditional RTS like warcraft are borderline strategy and mostly tactics and quick execution, but there is a realtime economy of sorts, so "strategy" it is.
BLC doesn't have that, so BLC is just real-time. It's a PvP arena to be precise.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Ok, to give you an example an RTS would be something like Men of War or Company of Heroes.

Basically, it's a game where you're given a set of units or you have to build up a base to create units. You then use those units to achieve whatever goal there is, whether it be annihilation or the assassination of a single unit. An RTS is not a game where quick reaction and such things is the most important factor. The most important factor in an RTS is the ability to flank enemy units. Thus, Starcraft is not an RTS, it is a game of Rush from an eagle eye perspective.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well I just checked out Bloodline champions, look like an action-rpg, that is far from RTS.

Yes all games require strategy, but the question is what is the main focus of the game, don't go mental on us like those guys that claim Gran Turismo 5 and CoD are RPG's.

 

[Thaluikhain]

On a smaller scale, that's what's called "tactics" and not strategy.

Best example of both: Rome Total war is RTT (tactics) and TBS (strategy).

Traditional RTS like warcraft are borderline strategy and mostly tactics and quick execution, but there is a realtime economy of sorts, so "strategy" it is.
BLC doesn't have that, so BLC is just real-time. It's a PvP arena to be precise.

I dunno...something like Warcraft seemed more strateig cthan tactical...it always seemed "send big X mob over there" "send big Y mob to guard route to base"...or maybe I jsut suck at controlling smaller units during battles.

For me, strategy is when you have little control over the actions of your units (over than stuff like which part of the map you send them to), so they all end up doing their own thing, whereas tactical games allow you to give much more detailed instructions.

Or, to put it another way, in strategy games you decide you need a hole, so you tell the unit to dig a hole and they work it out, in tactical games you are given the mission of getting a hole dug and you direct you minions into what you think is the most efficient hole digging formation.

 

[Meltyman]

On a smaller scale, that's what's called "tactics" and not strategy.

Best example of both: Rome Total war is RTT (tactics) and TBS (strategy).

Traditional RTS like warcraft are borderline strategy and mostly tactics and quick execution, but there is a realtime economy of sorts, so "strategy" it is.
BLC doesn't have that, so BLC is just real-time. It's a PvP arena to be precise.

Thanks veloper, it was a much needed clarification.

Well I just checked out Bloodline champions, look like an action-rpg, that is far from RTS.

Yes all games require strategy, but the question is what is the main focus of the game, don't go mental on us like those guys that claim Gran Turismo 5 and CoD are RPG's.

yeah, my main idea was to know what really makes the "strategy", part where the line goes.
to me building structures and big armys aint the only reason to say a game has strategy. guess what also is a strategy is "tactics" what veloper said.

 

[CloudFir3]

The most important factor in an RTS is the ability to flank enemy units. Thus, Starcraft is not an RTS, it is a game of Rush from an eagle eye perspective.

Can not disagree with you more. There are PLENTY of flanks in Starcraft. Almost every top pro games have battles that engage in flanks and pincer maneuvers. Even strategies such as breaking off the main army into smaller sections to easily handle them is common place (sentries forcefields). Engaging and holding strategic locations on maps, and surprise attacks with the use of drop ships are also in the great majority of games. Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War, attack with a separate force to distract the enemy from your main force's objectives, and drop ship plays are indicative of this. If this is not strategy to you, then I don't know what is.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The most important factor in an RTS is the ability to flank enemy units. Thus, Starcraft is not an RTS, it is a game of Rush from an eagle eye perspective.

Can not disagree with you more. There are PLENTY of flanks in Starcraft. Almost every top pro games have battles that engage in flanks and pincer maneuvers. Even strategies such as breaking off the main army into smaller sections to easily handle them is common place (sentries forcefields). Engaging and holding strategic locations on maps, and surprise attacks with the use of drop ships are also in the great majority of games. Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War, attack with a separate force to distract the enemy from your main force's objectives, and drop ship plays are indicative of this. If this is not strategy to you, then I don't know what is.

I think the problem is that in most RTS, units shoot equally well in all directions at all targets within range, regardless of what is between them. It also doesn't tend to matter which direction incoming fire is coming from. Walls don't provide cover for units hiding behind them, they merely stop certain units walking through them. As long as everything is within range of everything else, it doesn't matter how they are deployed.

Admittedly, yes, you can still flank units to some degree, but it's not as effective as it is in real life.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

To answer the OP's question: the strategy genre, when talking about computer games, has a spiritual predecessor in the form of tabletop wargames. Realtime strategy games are, in their most basic form, wargames in which the turns have been switched out for real time action resolution, since a computer can crunch the relevant numbers much faster than a human can. Having no knowledge of the game mentioned in the OP, I can't say what genre it fits into, but my definition at least explains why games as different as Starcraft, Total War, and Civilization all count as strategy games, but standard JRPGs don't, even though the combat is decided by strategy rather than twitch reflex.

As for the question of tactical games versus strategic games, that's a question which has more value to instructors at military academies than it does to someone who wants to discuss game genres. You can say a game is tactical in scale, but it's still mechanically a strategy game; the only consistent difference is in the number of units and the size of the map, and that's not enough to completely change genres. Otherwise, Battlefield 3 would be in two different genres depending on whether you played the console version or the PC version, let alone the different numbers and map sizes possible within a given version.

Edit: I will, however, admit that there are different subgenres, and the games that are tactical in scope tend to allow for more micromanagement of the units. However, it's the micromanagement, as in the choosing of attacks in an SRPG, which puts these games in a separate subgenre from other strategy games, not the scale. (Not to mention other differences, like turn based vs. real time. The point is, scale isn't the deciding factor.)

 

[veloper]

On a smaller scale, that's what's called "tactics" and not strategy.

Best example of both: Rome Total war is RTT (tactics) and TBS (strategy).

Traditional RTS like warcraft are borderline strategy and mostly tactics and quick execution, but there is a realtime economy of sorts, so "strategy" it is.
BLC doesn't have that, so BLC is just real-time. It's a PvP arena to be precise.

I dunno...something like Warcraft seemed more strateig cthan tactical...it always seemed "send big X mob over there" "send big Y mob to guard route to base"...or maybe I jsut suck at controlling smaller units during battles.

For me, strategy is when you have little control over the actions of your units (over than stuff like which part of the map you send them to), so they all end up doing their own thing, whereas tactical games allow you to give much more detailed instructions.

Or, to put it another way, in strategy games you decide you need a hole, so you tell the unit to dig a hole and they work it out, in tactical games you are given the mission of getting a hole dug and you direct you minions into what you think is the most efficient hole digging formation.

You should micro your units in Blizzard RTS games, against decent players. The production side can simply be hotkeyed, while you focus on the fighting, like pulling units and focus firing.

 

[[.redacted]]

I spent a long, long time deriving a 2-piece formula proven to check if something is an RTS or not:

Is it strategic? Yes/No
Is it in real time? Yes/No

If you answered both "Yes", it is, in fact, an RTS.

 

[Meltyman]

As for the question of tactical games versus strategic games, that's a question which has more value to instructors at military academies than it does to game genres. You can say a game is tactical in scale, but it's still mechanically a strategy game; the only consistent difference is in the number of units and the size of the map, and that's not enough to completely change genres. Otherwise, Battlefield 3 would be in two different genres depending on whether you played the console version or the PC version, let alone the different numbers and map sizes possible within a given version.

If i understood correctly, i totally agree.
stripping down elements of the game to a more linear experience, to me doesent make it any other genre.. like DOTA and HON to me is a polished RTS that has no buildings, yet it needs coordinated teamplay and good use of resources and placements.

Now BLC on the other hand is even more straightforward fighting game with the only resource would be energy, but still needs strategy like hero decisions, targeting the right heroes, using the enviroment and you have to flank btw.

sorry for my english im finnish. ;D

 

[LoFr3Eq]

Arguably DotA is an RTS game, where your economy is improved by fast paced action and tactics (mostly ganking and last hitting). Though there is a much larger focus on battles and micromanagement than the "Sim City type" econ phase. There is also a huge team aspect.

 

[Lord Kloo]

To define RTS we must look to the prime example of the harcore RTS.. Supreme Commander (not the 2nd game, thats terrible) -

A game in which you manage time, complex economies, debt, an entire f***ing war, base defense, military intelligence and a massive construction agenda (+ maintenance)

Now then since this game provides the biggest example of the warring RTS, there are also games which come under the RTS title such as Dawn of War 2 or World in Conflict:

In both of these games you do little in terms management apart from a simple economy and then its just fighting the wars and little battles of micromanagement and timing.. these are RTSs but are more towards tactics not an entire strategy due to the scale being much smaller than the original RTS making them more like RTTs - Real Time Tactics..

Now the RTS was originally called Real-Time because they (eg Age of Empires) were games which moved on from the style of taking turns to a place where everything can happen at once.. so therefore just because a game like COD may also be Real-Time it is definably not strategy or tactics it is a singular shooter as you control one single avatar..

So overall what I'm trying to get at is that an RTS is defined by the word strategy not the Real-Time bit.. and strategy means having a strategy of some kind, generally long term and for a large number of things. A strategy also breaks down into several sets of tactics.
Conclusion: An RTS is a game of strategy, also more modern RTSs (World in Conflict) delegate the power of a supreme commander down to several players to play tactics and work together to achieve strategy. This can I assume apply to games in which you control several 'units' (if its several characters it comes under RPG)..

OT: BLC is not an RTS for the reasons above.. also it is a lot like a eagle eye version of the latest Final Fantasy game several characters working together using their individual skills as tactics.

 

[RA92]

I think the problem is that in most RTS, units shoot equally well in all directions at all targets within range, regardless of what is between them. It also doesn't tend to matter which direction incoming fire is coming from. Walls don't provide cover for units hiding behind them, they merely stop certain units walking through them. As long as everything is within range of everything else, it doesn't matter how they are deployed.

Admittedly, yes, you can still flank units to some degree, but it's not as effective as it is in real life.

I would have to disagree with that, and point at my favorite RTS, Homeworld.

Look at this gameplay footage below. Notice how a frigate is unable to attack at one point when it is being attacked from its blind spot, and actually has to maneuver before it can fire back, taking damage all the while. Or how when the frigates are aiming at a carrier's ion cannon, they miss a lot of the shots since the carrier itself is maneuvering.

This was the first RTS where the z-axis actually mattered, giving it a lot of tactical aspects.

<youtube=W4w50Gs5jZ0>

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would have to disagree with that, and point at my favorite RTS, Homeworld.

Well, I did say "most". There are, of course, exceptions, but you'd agree that it holds true for many, if not most RTS games?

 

[gigastar]

Well a common feature of any RTS game is the ability to command faceless, identity-less mooks to thier deaths as you slowly biuld a path to victory over thier corpses.

When it comes to base biulding, you want to keep all the soft, squishy ones under constant watch, because those ones tend to deal out upgrades. Or are the power plants.