I’ve tried to like these games so much since the first one came out back in the day. I’ve played all of them, multiple times but can never go last one hour. I don’t get it. I should like these games!
Rts is great but many people nowadays don’t touch the genre and the people that play it are spread out across every rts game that ever existed. TA still has a community and it came out in 1997.
I’ve always played rts games extremely casually never playing single player but never playing 1v1 ranked. When you’re bad the games take so much longer and start slower. So it’s litterally a more boring game until you get good.
Playing beyond all reason and playing 1v1s for the first time has forced me to drop my noob habits and actually play rts properly. Its intense having to manage your raiding units while expanding while protecting that expansion while scouting while keeping your base safe and growing. But it’s so rewarding when you win.
Now I see newer players and what they have to go through I understand why so many quit. They join a lobby called “all welcome” then get kicked because no one wants the noob on their team. They get flamed. People run circles around them in game and attack before they have a single unit out. Rts is hard to learn but so fun once you have the basics down and can actually start developing strategies and reacting to your opponents in real time. Idk even know what I’m trying to say here I just woke up.
I love RTS but I rarely play it these days because I don’t have a lot of screen time. When I have half an hour to pick up my device I’m probably going to play an FPS. I did start a play through of the original homeworld campaigns a while back but I’ve not had time to progress far.
fwiw in my experience, most Age of Mythology: Retold games last about 10–15 minutes. So you could usually get 2 games in if you’ve got half an hour free.
I should say, this is when I play ranked games at a slightly-above-average Elo. RTS games have a reputation for trending to go much longer at very low Elos because players aren’t good at doing aggressive strategies. I dunno how much this would apply in AoM though, compared to AoE2 (which is my main source for this point) because defensive buildings are much stronger in AoE2 than AoM.
I loved the old Blizzard RTSs as a kid. I think it was SC2: Heart of the Swarm when I got a bunch of coworkers to get the game and we played together quite a bit over a month. But it reached a point where I could take them all 4v1 (we only did that once though, I didn’t want to scare them off or be a gloating asshole) and win without really breaking a sweat. I learned my build orders and my keyboard shortcuts.
I could not for the life of me break out of bronze in multiplayer.
A couple years later one of my best friends was talking shit about whooping me in SC1, and I destroyed him. But that game gave me some ideas.
I think people really enjoy the base building aspect, like all of my friends treated building bases on some level as being like Sim City.
And back in the SC1 days, battle.net was rife with “No Rush” games where you build yourself up for whatever agreed upon time limit and then go at it. Games would often be labeled as NR15 or NR20, for example.
I think one possible resolution for increasing the popularity of RTS is to take a hybrid real time approach. You can build and do things in real time, but under the hood battles and the economy operate in discrete chunks of at least several seconds. You can do something similar to Sim City where every minute or two or whatever, you get all your resources to spend, and can then spend the rest of the time focusing elsewhere.
You can make a Base Building RTS where No Rush rules are baked into the game.
There is room for RTS games to be chill and more relaxed, as opposed to the game long manic feeling that you can never do anything fast enough, and that I think is the avenue to giving RTSs some mainstream limelight.
I think one possible resolution for increasing the popularity of RTS is to take a hybrid real time approach. You can build and do things in real time, but under the hood battles and the economy operate in discrete chunks of at least several seconds.
Come to think of it, I saw two approaches that were similar to this before:
In Frozen Synapse, you plan your turn, eventually commit it, then it plays out at the same time as the enemy planned turn. You can even move enemy units while planning to simulate possible movements and attacks they might make.
In the fourth Battle Isle game, Battle Isle The Andosia War, you did your strategic turns with your units, then in real-time as everyone else did those turns, built your production base and produced units. So the longer you take for your strategic turn, the more time everyone else gets to work on their economy.
I thought Frozen Synapse's ability to let you simulate your opponent's moves was super cool - surprised I didn't end up seeing it in more strategy games (obviously not so much applicable to the normal real-time stuff though!).
@Carighan@anewdaydawns Another fundamental aspect is that RTS is PC centric genre, and therefore made with a mouse and keyboard only mindset, ignoring the consoles fan base, as such, If we want it to become more popular, then we should ask ourselves what kind of RTS can be designed with a controller in mind, and therefore work on home consoles, find a balance of being appealing to them without straying too far from the core design principles of this genre
I love almost everything about this, apparently 100h+ in Infinite Wealth was not enough for me. Although, having discovered Like a Dragon only because of their switch to turn-based combat, I’m not sure the brawling is a good fit for me.
I’ll probably pick it up eventually, assuming a new main game doesn’t drop till then.
That didn’t look like mk8 though? The character style looked different, Mario looked more like Wonder than Odyssey. His cart was proportioned taller and skinnier than mk8 carts. The race track isn’t one seen in mk8 either
It looks pretty cool! It might be too big for handheld. I get sore from the regular switch. But I’m excited for new games. Just gotta wait a lil longer
As disappointed as I am with the name Switch 2 being so plain and ordinary versus their previous sequel consoles (Super NES, Gameboy Advance, Wii U); with the console being so similar to the Switch (1), I think they’d have another Wii U situation on their hands if they did have a more clever name.
If someone told me this was a mid-cycle refresh, I’d probably believe them; but maybe the official launch reveals will change my mind…
It makes sense that they’re playing it safe this time around. They’ve already had successors to well selling consoles due to gimmicks (*ahem Wii U). The Switch is already a well selling console so it seems like they’re just making the same thing but with better performance and some usability improvements.
Nintendo overestimated the intelligence of their customers with the Wii U. They won’t make that mistake ever again.
Not that they are alone in this. There’s a reason why the Xbox 360 was called the Xbox 360 and not the Xbox 2. Microsoft didn’t want the second Xbox console to appear a generation older by name than the upcoming Playstation 3. Nintendo at least don’t have that problem, because the Switch 2 is in a market of its own and won’t be compared to the Playstation 5 by the vast majority of those interested in buying it.
Not really making them money when they’re willing to repair it for free - honestly surprised they didn’t just silently upgrade them to Hall Effect to stem the tide of repair requests
youtu.be
Aktywne