Interesting RTS article.

Kreeeee · 26 May 2008 at 19:17

"Despite commercial and critical success, THQ's RTSes, Dawn of War and Company of Heroes, haven't reached Starcraft's level of competitive play. Designer and game student James Lantz investigates whether modern RTS innovations made the genre unsuitable for high-level play."

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18326

It explains well why I still play StarCraft to this day and why Dow and CoH can't hold my interest. Would be interesting to read your opinions on this.

theo · 26 May 2008 at 20:02

Good read. But i feel they missed something by not including supcom into that article (it's a THQ game as well) as they made a big thing about the randomness in coh being a downer whilst supcom actualy simulates all the projectiles and what not. Much more realistic than randomness.

But appart from missing the other big rts to come out in recent time, i think the mentions to visual clarity are off aswell, i mean even starcraft has blood filled explosions and what not when something dies (thinking zerg deaths here) and you know they would have been more spectacular in the visual separtment if the hardware allowed it, it's just how games evolve with regards to visuals.

HighlandeR · 26 May 2008 at 20:45

To not mention Supreme Commander is a sin definatly, having said that I am eager for Starcraft II having never really played no1

MMD · 26 May 2008 at 22:18

One thing I will add; CoH is a WWII setting and seeing as though the majority of Starcraft players reside in Asia (predominantly S.Korea) it would be understandable for them to not show so much interest in European wars. Asia, that being Korea and Japan have always had a fixation with robots and the like, so you can see why they get such a kick out of Starcraft!

Not really played SC, but look forward to getting into SC2. CoH was great, CoH:OF is a little too technical because there are so many intricacy's to the tech tree - and not all of it makes sense! Still a great game single player and on LAN with mates.

Kreeeee · 27 May 2008 at 00:53

theo said:
Good read. But i feel they missed something by not including supcom into that article (it's a THQ game as well) as they made a big thing about the randomness in coh being a downer whilst supcom actualy simulates all the projectiles and what not. Much more realistic than randomness.

But appart from missing the other big rts to come out in recent time, i think the mentions to visual clarity are off aswell, i mean even starcraft has blood filled explosions and what not when something dies (thinking zerg deaths here) and you know they would have been more spectacular in the visual separtment if the hardware allowed it, it's just how games evolve with regards to visuals.

Remember starcraft came out the same time as Total Annihilation so the hardware did allow it.

theo · 27 May 2008 at 03:15

Kreeeee said:
Remember starcraft came out the same time as Total Annihilation so the hardware did allow it.

But blizzard have never been one to puch the boundries in graphics i don't beleive.

But starcraft is an odd game i think, one of a kind almost. The only games that comes close to it are quake3 and counter strike 1.6. For an rts game i think starcraft was a lucky hit and has a cult status for being so balanced and delivering such a competetive arena for people. It is my belief that no rts game will equal it, not even starcraft2. So putting starcraft in a comparison a wierd thing to do.

The article itself has some decent/interesting comments as well;
A) One from a claimed developer of dawn of war stating that they never intended to be better than starcraft but instead create a mroe casual game in which they have suceeded spendidly i think.
B)Another person states that even starcraft is confusing as hell when the action starts, using an example of microing single zerglings under fire from carriers. I personally being in similar situations can't make head from toe in that place and just wait for the carnage to end. So his point was that even in the thick of graphical hecticness even pros would be able to do their stuff to improve their chances at winning a battle.

Kreeeee · 27 May 2008 at 10:09

theo said:
But blizzard have never been one to puch the boundries in graphics i don't beleive.

The point is that it was a conscious decision to keep the graphics "clean" and clutter free and not a hardware limitation.

Why would you micro zeglings against carriers =/

AbsenceJam · 27 May 2008 at 10:13

AbsenceJam · 27 May 2008 at 10:16

The author appears to want realtime chess, every point against CoH he mentions is a point for it as a realistic game, not necessarily a more casual one. Perhaps that may not make it as suitable for competitive play but it's not something that detracts.
I don't know how SC2 will turn out but all these aspects that make other RTS games not as good as SC for competition are those that have becom normal in just about every RTS as time progresses. SC was created 10 years ago, much of its simplicity is because of that.

Kreeeee · 27 May 2008 at 12:08

He's not dismissing other RTS games, he's just exploring why they're not as suitable for competitive play. A key part of eSports (what a stupid name btw, it's not a sport) is that spectators can watch and fully understand what going one, and an overly complex interface doesn't allow that.

SC isn't simple (otherwise it wouldn't be competitive) but it doesn't have anything unnecessary implemented for visual effect.

Streeteh · 27 May 2008 at 12:19

Games designed for 'eSports' (i hate that term too), tend to be less appealing to the mass market, they tend to be heavily skill based and lack the pick up and play simplicity that todays RTS' aim to deliver.

Unfortunately it is the way of the world, compare Team Fortress 2, one of the most simplistic shooters out there today, to its predecessor TFC. TFC contained a huge amount of completely skill based moves that you NEEDED in order to even remotely compete, these included Bunnyhopping, rocket jumping and conc jumping to name a few. Due to these difficult to master skills it made high level competitive play a stunning thing to observe, but it's also because of the huge skill differences between new and old players that it eventually died and was replaced by its easier-to-play child.

When i watch videos of the higher level Starcraft players my jaw tends to drop to the ground, but it is because of this overwhelming display of skill that many players achieve that i never venture online (i played the singleplayer through only last year though, i do love the game).

Complicated and heavily skill based games don't tend to sell well in todays market, i think one of the reasons for this is because back then big name games were fewer and further between so players actually put effort into learning the ropes and improving. These days its pickup a game, play it for a month, buy the next big game and forget about the last.

Went totally off on a tangent there but yeah, i guess it's valid. I hope starcraft 2 brings in enough talentless RTS players like myself so i can actually get into the online games this time around.

Squark · 27 May 2008 at 12:42

An interesting article, but why is there no mention of Total Annihilation and SupCom? TA is fairly simple and 'clean' with plenty of predictability, plus its awesome

I think that TA is a fantastic RTS, I'd play it all the time, I did venture online a couple of times and got whooped

I used to love using PeeWee hoardes!

balls · 27 May 2008 at 15:48

one reason why its played so widely is because people in south Korea / china even with the worst spec PC can still play it easily

phil675 · 27 May 2008 at 16:30

Nice 'article'. Another Blizzard circle-jerk.

Kreeeee · 27 May 2008 at 16:34

phil675 said:
Nice 'article'. Another Blizzard circle-jerk.

Diddums.

balls said:
one reason why its played so widely is because people in south Korea / china even with the worst spec PC can still play it easily

Korea have great technology though, their net speed is amazing. The game's not very popular in china iirc.

I hope SC2 has low requirements though as I don't want to upgrade my PC for one game

Squark said:
An interesting article, but why is there no mention of Total Annihilation and SupCom? TA is fairly simple and 'clean' with plenty of predictability, plus its awesome

I think that TA is a fantastic RTS, I'd play it all the time, I did venture online a couple of times and got whooped
I used to love using PeeWee hoardes!

TA was indeed awesome and it's true, the author never addresses why it never took off competitively.

Streeteh said:
Went totally off on a tangent there but yeah, i guess it's valid. I hope starcraft 2 brings in enough talentless RTS players like myself so i can actually get into the online games this time around.

No, it was an interesting read, thanks

I see your point, even in console games like mario kart and halo 3 things have been dumbed down for the modern gamer. Personally I blame the playstation generation and their solitary gaming antics

phil675 · 27 May 2008 at 16:42

All it is, is someone taking developments in RTS games, saying they're useless, and that Starcraft is perfect.

Starcraft is NOT the best game ever made, despite what all the 1337 kiddies will have you think.

FrenchTart · 27 May 2008 at 16:47

phil675 said:
All it is, is someone taking developments in RTS games, saying they're useless, and that Starcraft is perfect.

Starcraft is NOT the best game ever made, despite what all the 1337 kiddies will have you think.

From the sounds of it it's talking about the success of the games, not exactly which one is better. If anything, your posts seem to be the only ones on here that have any "1337 kiddy" content.

Kreeeee · 27 May 2008 at 16:51

phil675 said:
All it is, is someone taking developments in RTS games, saying they're useless, and that Starcraft is perfect.

Starcraft is NOT the best game ever made, despite what all the 1337 kiddies will have you think.

You're not too bright are you?

He's not saying any of the games are poor, he's discussing why they're not more popular in the competitive "scene".

gurusan · 27 May 2008 at 16:52

Kreeeee said:
I hope SC2 has low requirements though as I don't want to upgrade my PC for one game

It's made by Blizzard, don't worry

The graphics are always poo and cartoony but they make up for it in gameplay.

I still play Starcraft to this day (still suck at it too).

Streeteh · 27 May 2008 at 16:53

phil675 said:
All it is, is someone taking developments in RTS games, saying they're useless, and that Starcraft is perfect.

It's saying it's perfect for competetive play and i agree. The precision control truely allows players to have complete control over everything that occurs, the random damage that exists in CoH for example adds an element of chance to it, so even if a player is better there is always going to be an instant where luck wasn't on his side.

Basically, the more control a player has over a game, the more skill based that game will become. While there will always be skill involved in every game, starcraft is just a better measure than the majority.