Would you play an RTS on the WII U?

[Caiphus]

The Wii U would definitely be the most capable of consoles so far in terms of RTS ability, by a considerable margin. And if devs were willing to try and create RTS' on the 360 and PS3 there shouldn't be much stopping them from making them on the Wii U. Aside from possible issues with there being a smaller market on the Wii U. But that'll be Nintendo's problem. I don't know how well things like Halo Wars sold. Can't end up much worse than this though:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/stormrise

That said, I'm not fully convinced it'll be up to the KB + M standard on the PC, but it'll be a damn sight closer than trying to control stuff with a dualshock controller.

To answer the question in the OP, though. No I wouldn't play one. I'm not an RTS fan. And the few RTS' that I enjoy, I might as well get them on the PC.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Why would an RTS game require you to use the Left and Right triggers on the gamepad? Especially when it is completely possible to play an entire game on the touch pad. Not even considering the fact that holding and sliding works just as well for scrolling up/down/left/right on the screen? If the main gameplay function of RTS's is to scout, select units, move units to different locations, so on and so forth, all of those things are possible simply using the touch screen. Even inventory is simple.

That is something interesting; people always overcomplicate and overthink the Gamepad. It's NOT that hard. Pikmin 3 used it as a minimap that you could scroll through at any time. Furthermore, the hot keys for the important functions could be relegated to the face buttons or you could put extra ones on the Gamepad's touchscreen. This isn't hard.

 

[zerragonoss]

... not to mention inaccuracies of the touchscreen interface.

Because you would really have to dumb the game down to make it playable.

Pikmin didn't have a PC release, it's WiiU exclusive so it doesn't play the same way and doesn't have the same mechanics as other PC RTS games... and it feels REALLY dumbed down compared to other RTS titles.

You can release a few RTS games on consoles, but PC RTS games will always be capable of far greater complexity and control.

Two things, first why are more accurate, and faster controls a good thing in of themselves? The need to control every little detail and react is what turns me off playing a lot of PC RTS for long. Where I like the idea of a slower more deliberate experience that focuses less on micro and more on strategy. Not saying that pc rts don't have a ton of strategy, just that a cretin level of competency is need before it matters to much). Second why is more buttons more complexity in a game where you have economics, unit interactions, unit types, unit positioning and tech trees? While you do have a point for say a fighting game, where everything you can do needs to be done fluidly, without any type of menu changes. Seems to me in an RTS their is plenty of room for complexity that has nothing to do with commands you have access to at one time.

 

[Abomination]

Why would an RTS game require you to use the Left and Right triggers on the gamepad? Especially when it is completely possible to play an entire game on the touch pad. Not even considering the fact that holding and sliding works just as well for scrolling up/down/left/right on the screen? If the main gameplay function of RTS's is to scout, select units, move units to different locations, so on and so forth, all of those things are possible simply using the touch screen. Even inventory is simple.

Because that was the suggestion that was made above my first post in this thread. I assumed we were still discussing that particular setup.

Because you never have to remove your hand from the mouse & WSAD when you play the game? Also, the mouse has more functions than just one button. Mouses today - even the most rudimentary - have 2 buttons, a mouse wheel which has 3 functions (wheel up, wheel down and press wheel) as well as mouseover function. This allows for far more options than the relatively binary touch screen, as well as faster options.

With the tablet you are able to quickly tap on units, or items you want to select. You can easily scroll around the screen by holding down the stylus and moving in in whichever direction you want it to go. If you don't feel like doing that, I'm certain the two analog sticks which are basically very much within your fingers grasp can accomplish the same thing. You can quickly tap and drag specific units to certain locations, the overworld map can easily be integrated onto the touch screen, so on and so forth.

Both control schemes have their pros and cons. That does not mean either of one are better than the other. Mouse and Keypad has the advantage because it's been there longer. However both control schemes are perfect for the genre.
You are making the touchpad interface seem a lot more horrible than it really is.

You can tap units but you can't give quick specific commands like MOVE to this location or ATTACK to this location. There are so many things you can do with a mouse and keyboard that you can NOT do with a touchpad. And some of the things will require the touchpad takes up valuable & limited space to make those options available.

Touchpad has tap and double tap. Mouse has left click, double left click, right click, double right click, mousewheel click, mousewheel up, mousewheel down, left click and drag, right click and drag, mousewheel click and drag, edge-scrolling... and that's just the mouse. Then you get to the keyboard that can do everything that the controller can do - and more.

And what is it, touchscreen with fingers or stylus? Because trying to use both AND both hands with the controller is just not feasible.

Is a touchscreen terrible? No. Is it terrible compared to a mouse and keyboard? Yes.

A very great niche future, I guess. It's possible to port COD and Battlefield to consoles - games considered pretty much the "best" FPS games with cross-platform marketing (this is the big thing, they can market ONE game to THREE platforms at the same time) - but can you imagine another big RTS title that could be cross-platform marketed? The big names are games like Starcraft, C&C, Warcraft, Dawn of War, Sins of a Solar Empire, & Wargame. How could you play any of those on console without the gameplay feeling "dumbed down"?

Because you would really have to dumb the game down to make it playable.

Pikmin didn't have a PC release, it's WiiU exclusive so it doesn't play the same way and doesn't have the same mechanics as other PC RTS games... and it feels REALLY dumbed down compared to other RTS titles.

You can release a few RTS games on consoles, but PC RTS games will always be capable of far greater complexity and control.

Shooters were probably proclaimed to be a niche future on consoles back in the day too. And look where it's at right now. Sells millions. For a few in particular 10's of millions. The same future can be within grasp with RTS games.

You really need to back up the claim that RTS games would be "dumbed down" on the Wii U.
You really do.

Auto-aim for FPS. That's the only way people are able to play the same FPS games on consoles as they are on PC. Companies have discovered time and again the Mouse and Keyboard players THRASH Console players in FPS games.

Try applying touchscreen to PC RTS games. They HAVE to be dumbed down in order for the player to compete at the same input level.

Because as far as I'm concerned, it's difficulty came from the computer AI. Not the mouse and keyboard configuration.

And the mouse and keyboard were the tools that needed to be used to combat the AI and scenarios. If you make input more difficult it makes the gameplay difficulty compound.

Pikmin isn't a "dunbed down" RTS.
It simply has different priorities.
The real challenge in Pikmin comes from now how hard it is to do anything, but how fast and efficiently you can accomplish the tasks at hand.
Many people were turned off by the first Pikmin due to how unforgiving it was with the time restraints.

So the game is based on how quickly you can do things... a mouse and keyboard would make that faster and easier. It would probably make a lot of the game way easier.

A mouse and keyboard will ALWAYS be better than a touchscreen for a classic RTS. And there's no "auto-aim" feature you can introduce that will even get close to spanning the gap between them.

 

[Abomination]

... not to mention inaccuracies of the touchscreen interface.

Because you would really have to dumb the game down to make it playable.

Pikmin didn't have a PC release, it's WiiU exclusive so it doesn't play the same way and doesn't have the same mechanics as other PC RTS games... and it feels REALLY dumbed down compared to other RTS titles.

You can release a few RTS games on consoles, but PC RTS games will always be capable of far greater complexity and control.

Two things, first why are more accurate, and faster controls a good thing in of themselves? The need to control every little detail and react is what turns me off playing a lot of PC RTS for long. Where I like the idea of a slower more deliberate experience that focuses less on micro and more on strategy. Not saying that pc rts don't have a ton of strategy, just that a cretin level of competency is need before it matters to much). Second why is more buttons more complexity in a game where you have economics, unit interactions, unit types, unit positioning and tech trees? While you do have a point for say a fighting game, where everything you can do needs to be done fluidly, without any type of menu changes. Seems to me in an RTS their is plenty of room for complexity that has nothing to do with commands you have access to at one time.

The answer is simple: because Starcraft.

No really, Starcraft is pretty much considered the "best" RTS out there in both gameplay and balance. It has set the gold standard by which other RTS games are judged.

Another example would be the Homeworld series.

The reason why speed and accuracy is so important for RTS games is because that's the difference between a good strategist and a great strategist: micromanagement. A person skilled in micromanagement can turn a battle between two forces that would be a loss if left unattended into a victory with minimal casualties. You have things such as withdrawing individual units and focus-firing on individual enemy units - at the same time. Even with the most simple systems the better micro-manager will win because they will be able to squeeze out every extra bit of performance from their units.

Games inevitably evolve this way as the only way of really defeating impossible odds is to squeeze as much as you can out of individual units, and that often involves directing their actions in real time. The more units you can pay this amount of attention to the more you will squeeze out of your forces. If your method of interacting with your units allows you to do this faster and more fluidly then the skill ceiling of the game can be higher.

 

[zerragonoss]

The answer is simple: because Starcraft.

No really, Starcraft is pretty much considered the "best" RTS out there in both gameplay and balance. It has set the gold standard by which other RTS games are judged.

Another example would be the Homeworld series.

The reason why speed and accuracy is so important for RTS games is because that's the difference between a good strategist and a great strategist: micromanagement. A person skilled in micromanagement can turn a battle between two forces that would be a loss if left unattended into a victory with minimal casualties. You have things such as withdrawing individual units and focus-firing on individual enemy units - at the same time. Even with the most simple systems the better micro-manager will win because they will be able to squeeze out every extra bit of performance from their units.

Games inevitably evolve this way as the only way of really defeating impossible odds is to squeeze as much as you can out of individual units, and that often involves directing their actions in real time. The more units you can pay this amount of attention to the more you will squeeze out of your forces. If your method of interacting with your units allows you to do this faster and more fluidly then the skill ceiling of the game can be higher.

I don't see what micromanagement has to do with strategy. In real life strategists don't get to micro mange the get to send orders and hope it works out. In my experience if you lower the importance of skill in one area of a complex game, you just raise the importance of skill in other areas. So it does not often in a lower skill cap in a game if you reduce the max skill that can be displayed in one area. Even if it did however game with a higher skill cap does not equal a better game. I do agree that it would have to be designed for touch screen and it would be a mistake mixing pc players with Wii U players. That would just be a slaughter because they are unequal mediums in terms of control. As I have said before though the skill that would become more important by the reduced emphasis on micro make the games sound more fun to me.

 

[Abomination]

The answer is simple: because Starcraft.

No really, Starcraft is pretty much considered the "best" RTS out there in both gameplay and balance. It has set the gold standard by which other RTS games are judged.

Another example would be the Homeworld series.

The reason why speed and accuracy is so important for RTS games is because that's the difference between a good strategist and a great strategist: micromanagement. A person skilled in micromanagement can turn a battle between two forces that would be a loss if left unattended into a victory with minimal casualties. You have things such as withdrawing individual units and focus-firing on individual enemy units - at the same time. Even with the most simple systems the better micro-manager will win because they will be able to squeeze out every extra bit of performance from their units.

Games inevitably evolve this way as the only way of really defeating impossible odds is to squeeze as much as you can out of individual units, and that often involves directing their actions in real time. The more units you can pay this amount of attention to the more you will squeeze out of your forces. If your method of interacting with your units allows you to do this faster and more fluidly then the skill ceiling of the game can be higher.

I don't see what micromanagement has to do with strategy. In real life strategists don't get to micro mange the get to send orders and hope it works out. In my experience if you lower the importance of skill in one area of a complex game, you just raise the importance of skill in other areas. So it does not often in a lower skill cap in a game if you reduce the max skill that can be displayed in one area. Even if it did however game with a higher skill cap does not equal a better game. I do agree that it would have to be designed for touch screen and it would be a mistake mixing pc players with Wii U players. That would just be a slaughter because they are unequal mediums in terms of control. As I have said before though the skill that would become more important by the reduced emphasis on micro make the games sound more fun to me.

I agree with you, I prefer non-micromanagement games. That's why I play Crusader Kings II and Europa Universalis far more than I play games like Starcraft. I also love Total War games because they offer the best of both worlds, allowing you to pause and plan then enable real-time combat... but even then I'd hate to have to play Total War games on a tablet as camera control is three dimensional, but the pause function would make it far more versatile.

I do not think there's a market for RTS games on consoles, but I do believe there's a market for TBS and the touchpad is great for that. Not sure about Crusader Kings 2 and Europa Univsersalis though as those games have a far too many menus, a higher learning curve, and menus, and background mechanics, and menus, and there are lots of pop ups, and menus...

 

[Jingle Fett]

Accidental post please delete

 

[saleem]

RS/LS - panning around the screen*
RS/LS - Zooming in and out*
Touch Screen - selector/pointer
Bumpers and triggers - For left/right mouse buttons
D Pad and A B X Y buttons - various commands
*RS/LS could be swappable for southpaws

I'm sorry, but that control scheme requires you to do something that a mouse and keyboard doesnt - lift your hand up from one controller to the other.

Unless you've got 3 arms the mouse and keyboard is just so superior to consoles, even with a touch screen.

In fact, a touch screen has the massive disadvantage of you covering the very things you're trying to select... not to mention inaccuracies of the touchscreen interface.

No, the RTS market is firmly in the PC camp. They might be able to sell a few copies on a console but they will always sell more if they release it on a PC.

Abomination I think your miss reading what I put up. Think of it like this instead

Use left bumper for RMB
Use left trigger for LMB
Right bumper and trigger are spare
Use RS to pan and scroll
Use LS for mouse wheel
DPAD for quick commands like move, attack, guard and use special
ABXY buttons for other stuff
Touch screen to move pointer and virtual buttons

Swap these around if your left handed

Now with my left hand I can use my index finger/middle finger to control bumper and triggers
Left thumb controls pan and zoom and Dpad commands and virtual buttons
Right hand controls stylus

So you see you only need two hands and maybe you might need to lift the had that carries the stylus to press ABXY but thats no different from moving the mouse to the corner of the screen and clicking on the unit command menu in games like in SC. This could be further simplified if buttons became context sensitive. Maybe the Dpad does different things when a building is selected .

Your looking for problems when they can be easily solved on the dev side.

 

[saleem]

So far at day 2 the petition has 8 signatures on it. It's slow going but I have contacted a few guys and who knows maybe it will pick up.

Remember guys this isnt about putting a PC game on the Wii U, rather its about putting a genre on it. No one expects a game experience like starcraft2 to be ported to a console, however any body looking at the wii U gamepad can plainly see that its very well suited to the RTS genre.

One more thing, guys I know you may think that its funny and smart to post up pics of Pikmin and say its there already but lets be honest here, that game is in a league of its own. I would like to see games like Dune, C&C, KKND, Dark Reign etc resurface again. The best thing is that these games generally cost no where near as much as making something like an FPS, TPS or even an RPG ala Final Fantasy as such if devs see that there is interest they might be more inclined to take the leap.

Dont get bogged down discussing keyboard/mouse setups vs the gamepad and which one is better, the devs will sort that out if they ever decide to build a game. Your part in this is to only show that there is enough interest in the genre to begin with.

Cheers

 

[DataSnake]

I don't personally own a Wii U, but I will say it's the only console I'd ever consider getting a RTS on (except a hybrid quasi-RTS like Brutal Legend, that is) because you could use pointing the wiimote at the desired part of the screen and pressing a button as a good replacement for the mouse and the touchpad for the minimap and command lists.