I’m doing some research to find out why some people don’t like RTS games when they like other games that are very similar.
Is it the lack of being in the action?
Too slow paced?
To confusing?
Can’t pick up and play?
Too much going on?
I’m trying to design a RTS that’s fun for more than just RTS fans.
Strategy is always the same in RTS games.
Step 1: Build up a ton of resources.
Step 2: Swarm your enemy.
Repeat.
That can’t be the reason.
FPS is always the same, pick up a gun and shoot everything that moves, and we all know how FPS’s are popular.
Comparing it to an FPS, when you die, it means nothing. You re-spawn and carry on. Same guns, same everything. Youre not on a backfoot.
in RTS, when you make a move, if its a bad one, you lose the game.
They’ve actually already made an RTS for the crowd that doesn’t play RTS games. It’s called “Tower Defence”
I only play Starcraft 2 regularly (plat top 25), but I see why it can be confusing for new players.
In SC2 for example at lower levels, basically macro > all. That is exactly what khanstruct says, the player who can gather more minerals and spends it, will win.
For a new player, it is not clear why he lost, so he can’t learn from it.
Examples:
If you die to zerglings while just finished your first few roaches roaches, you might think that roaches are bad vs zerglings, while in reality the dude you lost to just played better and more effective, or expanded much earlier, or built an additional hatchery to swarm you, or upgraded his lings. But as a beginner you dont see these, you only see that your roaches die VS his zerglings, so you don’t really learn anything.
Another example: When you die a lot to early aggression, you might be tempted to think that the answer is to build a lot of static defense, while actually the answer is to begin to produce your own army earlier, or spend less time supply blocked, or predict what the opponent will use to harass you, and build units that counter that. But you don’t learn these, you learn to build a lot of static defenses that are just somewhat effective and all they do is to delay your death.
Stuff like these. It is hard to tell for a new player why he lost, he will draw bad conclusions, and so on.
There are also some tactics that can be super annoying for a new player, like cheese tactics and all-ins (6pool, cannon rush, banshee rush, bunker rush, etc), that take some practice to detect or predict, and if you slip or react too late, you autolose.
It takes a while till the true face of an RTS shines, once both players have 120+ APM and a solid understanding of game units, mechanics and possible tactics. That is the point where it actually begins to become a strategy instead of the “higher APM, better macro, cheese wins” game.
So that is basically my opinion, I hope it wasn’t completely useless.
How can that not be the reason? That is my reason.
I would think that, in a genre with the word STRATEGY in its name, you would find more… I don’t know… strategy?
I use far more strategy in an FPS than I do in an RTS (laying traps, utilizing the high ground, etc.) Buying 400 soldiers and having them mindlessly pour into the enemy base is not strategy.
I find I just want to start and play. The Advance Wards series was the only RTS I enjoyed (aside from Battalion Wars on GC).
Same reason for me, on the wide picture.
I know how real RTS maestros can totally debunk this gross caricature in no time, but since 20 years of RTS that I see, for a beginner / mid level gamer, building resources faster than your opponent always comes down as a big advantage. Which imo is logical, as it’s the same in real life war … but here in a game, where mechanics are more important than victory, I fail to be attracted.
Now, on a bit deeper analysis, if I take into account those RTS maestros who don’t need quantity to win, I’d say yes : it is the slow pace of effective actions that turns me off, when a pro tries to play strategy over rushing.
Which leads me to say : it’s just not my gaming genre.
I like them but the things that they lack are usually immersion and story. Even when they go all out trying to make a story like Starcraft, they still can’t compare to other genres of games.
Also, I think PVP ruins RTS games or diverts attention away from what they could be. I love PVP in a shooter, but in strategy games it is extremely tedious and annoying in my experience.
I personally like to have a very linear storyline and control one character. It’s just a preference. I don’t dislike RTS games, but I do not enjoy playing them very much.
By the way, if you’re taking all this advice, then considering doing a blend of RTS and FPS, don’t. Codemasters tried that once. It was a terrible idea.
For me, I think it is because RTS’s end up being a 30 minute long competition for who’s the fastest person to click on their mouse without breaking it, rather than being actual strategy as the name would imply.
I used to love RTS games. But they changed from being about creative use of a limited number of different units to having the knowledge to choose the right units from many different options. The more complex they get, the worse they are. Dune 2 is still my favourite.
What game are you referring to? i kinda want to check it out now…
I agree with an article I once read that games referred to as RTS such as SC2 should instead be termed as RTT ( real-time tactics ). There is often very little strategy in such games other than whether to go offensive/defensive over the duration of the game, but lots of tactics ( aka actions ) that are taken in response to game events ( usually opponent created ). PVP games tend to be tactics-based lasting less than 30 minutes, and as pointed out by others, have pretty much come down to who can rush the other first. The genre has probably become a little stale and hasn’t evolved much since the days of Command Conquer and Warcraft. I’d suggest that the more strategy biased gameplay becomes, the more focus will shift towards single player.
With regards to the OP, can you clarify whether your research relates to RTT or RTS games, perhaps identifying a game that is similar to what you wish to design. Gamer psychology is an interesting topic at the heart of your questions, so it’ll be interesting reading. Have you thought about breaking down your research into responses and emotions. For example, visual and audio cues and how fans of each genre respond to them, and emotional responses such as the presentation of threat, pressure or goal achievement, and then constructing your questions in such as way as to discover the answers? Could be interesting.
I love the idea of RTS and have had fun playing some of them in the past, but I rarely get into them nowadays for same reason khanstruct and n0mad stated, the amount of strategy is minimal to none-existent. It would seem in the interest of making strategy real-time they lost kinda the most important feature, that of strategic play, and no i don’t count knowing the game rules inside out so you can min/max and build units as fast as humanly possible a strategy. Obviously it can be thought of as a strategy, but it not the sort of strategy I want from this type of game. In terms of strategy its about the same level that I tend to use in most other non-strategic games.
To this end I find myself drawn more to turn based strategy games, though there are very few of those in mainstream gaming, though the last XCOM game was pretty good. I’m currently very tempted to try out Blood Bowl, somewhat different to your normal TBS as its a game from the Warhammer universe based around American football. However I’m watching a championship on youtube, so find much of the enjoyment of learning a TBS is ultimately being taken away as I pick up most of it by watching these other people play.
The second reason is lack of time conflicting with wanting to complete the game. For example I got Total War Shogun 2 last year, invested many hours into and quite enjoyed the battles (though again I find the strategy part somewhat lacking, it often feels more like rock-paper-scissors), but was still some way off completing the game. Then work and life got in the way, I stopped playing for a few weeks and no I don’t feel like trying to get back into it.
However I don’t think RTS is dead, though I do wish strategy games wouldn’t remain so focused on the real-time aspect. I’m very interested to see how the kickstarted Total Annihilation game turns out and have started to look out more for shorter strategy type games, though ones with a bit more depth than your bog-standard tower defence.
The best RTS game I ever played was the original Dawn of War before they nerfed it. Yeah, there was a lot of rinse and repeat, but PUGs were awesome, because you never knew what to expect. And watching the battle in progress was just so much fun.
But sadly, like all games,- and nerfed - and the expansions were just okay, - and since no other game seems to be able to top it, I don’t play RTS games anymore.
Game was just like this … sooo much fun!! Even when our side lost.
Natural Selection 2’s success would like to have a word with you.
IIRC Advance Wars is not a RTS, but turn based 