Off topic: How are games failing you? - Page 9

Trumanator · #81 February 5th, 2009, 10:30 PM

Personally I've never really played any DoW multiplayer, only CoH (it is Relic). I just wasn't as into the whole sci-fi setting, and after my experience with CoH I can't imagine how anyone could possibly balance out that many factions.

Aezeal · #82 February 6th, 2009, 05:46 AM

Rdonj: you do have to do SOMETHING yourself or it's a movie and not a game

I've not played DoW MP.. I just liked it as SP.

rdonj · #83 February 6th, 2009, 10:07 AM

True, but I still would like a more useful AI. Even if they just changed the defensive stance style commands so that it caused your entire formation to respond to being attacked instead of just the parts of it close enough to be triggered that would be a huge improvement in my mind.

JimMorrison · #84 February 6th, 2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Rdonj: you do have to do SOMETHING yourself or it's a movie and not a game

This is true, but horrible AI implementation can cripple RTS experience as much as any other.

For example, I had some fun playing Empire Earth once upon a time. 2 things TOTALLY ruined the game for me. The first was that there was no "Attack To" command (like Dune: Battle for Emperor, what were they thinking??), so you either specify a target, or you tell them where to go, and they march along not defending themselves at all. The second thing, was that if you didn't babysit ALL of your forces, they would inevitably run off somewhere and die. The game was a micro-management nightmare, due to the extreme simplicity of your "commanders on the ground".

I think DoW is far better than that, partly due to the significantly smaller maps, and partly due to the reduction in non-combat tasks the player must perform - though it did still have its issues with non-babysat troops behaving idiotically.

I don't think anyone wants them to fight the war on their own, but at least they could intelligently perform a task, such as guarding or patrolling, without needing Daddy to come clarify their orders every 30 seconds.

I measure RTS games on their "Oh God" factor. That is, the number of times per hour that I scroll the map, and exclaim, "OH GOD!", over events that I can't avoid without direct control. Due to most games involving more than one focal point, this reaches a threshold where the game feels unmanageable in realistic terms.

Aezeal · #85 February 6th, 2009, 02:05 PM

Jim... no offence.. but it might just be you

Tifone · #86 February 6th, 2009, 02:16 PM

@ Aezeal - no, it's even me

One of the RTS I appreciated more was Kohan II. Just decide what your armies are composed of, send them somewhere and just keep an eye on them so they retreat if necessary... then, just enjoy the nice battle

Also, you just build the facilities and they collect resources automatically. Bye bye single-paesant babysitting. And tech researches take one click. A dream, really

(And consider the game I was playing before Kohan II was Starcraft, make the proper considerations

)

Trumanator · #87 February 6th, 2009, 02:21 PM

Not to put anyones back up, but I don't really think Dominions attracts a lot of people who are good at multitasking on the fly. One advantage of turn based games is the ability to think everything through and go at your own pace. You try that in an RTS and you will get destroyed. Tunnel vision is your enemy. On the flipside, an RTS is so focused on the here and now that its easy to forget your overall strategy, or to consider strategic choices.

Ironhawk · #88 February 6th, 2009, 05:43 PM

Yeah. Thats why I like to call them RTT (Real Time Tactics) instead of RTS. There really isnt too much strategy in the traditional sense in a game which relies mostly on how fast you can click the mouse.

Trumanator · #89 February 6th, 2009, 06:59 PM

I would challenge that assumption. It depends on the game. Starcraft has like 800 CPM for the good players, but most Relic games are more around 100 or so max.

_realizes shameless plugging_ _realizes he doesn't care_ _wtf_

sector24 · #90 February 7th, 2009, 10:43 AM

Company of Heroes is the RTS of this millenium. It's ok to plug it.

In many cases, the reason your RTS units are "stupid" is due to the maximum range of your unit's weapons. For instance, it's very common to put a longer range unit like a Siege Tank out of range of some Marines and hit them, and they'll come running and get slaughtered by your waiting forces. But they were going to die if they stayed where they were. Eventually a game will implement a way for units to "call for help" within some radius, but it really won't make the units smarter. It'll just change the tactics. Concentration is the true resource in RTS games, it's like strategy with an egg timer.

Back to Oblivion, there's a ruinous exploit that makes the game hilariously fun and yet ultimately defeating. If you get to the mage's guild where you can create your items, put the maximum level of Chameleon on every piece of equipment and when you reach 100% you become permanently invisible. If any of you guys built your character poorly, you can use that gear for awhile to train up your other skills without getting slaughtered by bears and bandits.

But yeah, Oblivion's leveling system was ridiculous because to min/max you have to VERY tightly control when you level (after you skill up appropriately so that you can max out your stats) so you want to tag primary skills that you would only use in a controlled fashion. So if you say tagged, Sneak, Athletics, Swords, and some other "sneaky rogue" skills, you would level very quickly, but only get +2 or +3 to your stats when you level, but all the monsters in the game get +3 or +4 so they quickly become more powerful than you. Ironically your character is at his/her most powerful at level 1. I actually beat the entire storyline without leveling up and it was surprisingly easy.

Fallout 3 fixed the leveling issue and I hated sword/shield combat in Oblivion so guns were an obvious upgrade for me. (I was always a bow/spell slinger in Oblivion) I consider Company of Heroes, Mass Effect and Fallout 3 to be exceptional modern games.

So what's missing from games? For me its consistency. Every now and then I can find a really good game, but there's usually only 1 or 2 per year and you have to sift through dozens or hundreds of mediocre titles to find it. I'm happy with the quality and features of top shelf games these days, but of course there are well marketed games that are just embarassingly bad too. It's easy to lose perspective and trash the industry but it's the same with movies and books, only a small percentage of them are really good.