Poll: RTS? Explain

[Yokai]

The RTS genre is usually the only one where you truly have a sense of power. If the game says you're a king, you can do just about anything a king can do. There's something very satisfying about seeing a column of a thousand soldiers marching out of a huge, sprawling city and knowing that it's all because of your (unscripted) actions.

 

[MikhailGH]

my 2 favorite:

Company of Heroes (newest incarnation http://www.companyofheroes.com/)

Rise of Nations

Oh yeah, Rise of nations and Company of heroes... I still play em both with friends.

 

[Pearwood]

The fun is in the buildup, turning a small base into a powerful army then coming up with a way to use them to defeat your opponents. I guess you need to be the right type of person to enjoy the buildup more than the actual action.

 

[repeating integers]

I like RTS games because the require intelligence to play - as in, the kind of cogitator-strategist intelligence, not the quick-on-your-feet kind like in shooters. The large scale of it all also appeals to me.

My RTS of choice is Homeworld. Full 3D combat? Beautiful, beautiful visuals despite being over 10 years old? Great atmosphere? A brilliant soundtrack? Yes, sir! Homeworld is, I genuinely believe, the single greatest game of all time. Anyone who saw me in the last March Mayhem should know this already

 

[effilctar]

Unless your RTS isn't very good, that is.

Like Halo Wars. Consoles tend to fail at RTSs. There aren't enough buttons to fit in all the features you can have by playing on a PC.

 

[obliviondoll]

Every type of game evokes a feeling that of something:
Action: Skill/strength.
Stealth: Cowardice.
Turn based strategy: Intelligence.
Real Time Strategy: Memorizing build orders and keybinds.

Really? STRENGTH is a factor in action games? Unless you're accidentally breaking the controller, I don't see it translating into any I've played.... I'm almost tempted to say except LARP, but even then, hitting harder just means you're more likely to get banned from a club for being excessively violent.

Corrections inbound:

Action: Reflexes, sometimes knowledge of the capabilities of different loadouts/characters helps (specific skill requirements differ depending on game).

Stealth: Precision, spatial reasoning and awareness, alertness, knowledge of the capabilities of different loadouts/characters, knowledge of enemy behaviour, and either understanding of the effects of light and shadows on visibility or understanding of disguises.

Turn-Based Strategy: Ability for strategic thought, knowledge of the capabilities of different units, loadouts, terrain effects, and in some cases knowledge of build orders, building types, personnel and resource management.

Real-Time Strategy: Potentially everything in Turn Based Strategy, but with thought processes needing to be fast as well as accurate.

I still say there should be more simultaneous turn-based games. Basically, it's the interim step between turn-based and real-time. When you're giving orders to your units, it looks like a normal turn-based game, but the units don't move until all players have hit "end turn" - then everything moves in real-time for a while, and during this period, you're just a spectator. It adds a feeling of tension most strategy games never see, particularly when something unexpected shows up, like an artillery strike from outside your field of vision, or a massive flank attack you didn't anticipate.

There are also tabletop games which use simultaneous turn-based systems, like Classic Battletech (the game the Mechwarrior series came from... except Mechwarrior 4)

 

[Amphoteric]

BECAUSE IT IS FUN

 

[deadxero]

In short.... if you are sitting back watching what is going on in an RTS, you're getting your ass kicked. A well balanced (multi-player) RTS is as much about multi-tasking and keeping up with your unit/resourse management as it is about the other player. It can get pretty chaotic in a match between two experienced, well matched, players.

Imagine a game of chess, that isn't turn based. So you're having to out whit your opponent in real time rather than thinking for 5 minutes before each move.

I will say that it is common for people to have your oppinion of RTS games at a glance. It takes some time/effort to really learn to play an RTS competitively. It's the depth of play that makes it fun, and keeps some playing the same games year after year.

 

[Dogstile]

I like having an RTS because being deceptive, countering, steamrollering, hoarding, turtling and all other strategy's take skill to pull off well. (yes, even turtling. Think you can turtle well? Wait until the enemy's snuck in a unit, killed your power and rolled up the tanks while air striking your best anti tank units.)

Its the whole feeling like you know more than the enemy, you're more capable. And its a pretty damn hectic experience if you know how to fight. (ever tried 3 on 3 all rushing in halo wars? Its amazingly frantic)

 

[Pills_Here]

Well there are plenty of games where you're a lone warrior going against thousands of enemies, games where you're a foot soldier in a much larger army, it stands to reason there would be games where you play the role of the Commander. For me, the genre has always showed how cheaply life is priced in times of war. There is a pretty big gulf between RTS and actual warfare but the point is the same, for 50 minerals you have a mans life in your hands. I can't help but think as I send massive numbers of tanks and infantry to certain doom what actual generals and tacticians would have thought during battles like Stalingrad.

 

[Continuity]

...why people enjoy clicking around on a menu making buildings and then sitting back and watching there creations either dominate or be destroyed.

HA.

RTS is nothing like you describe here, if you "sit back and watch" your forces they will be decimated. You have to control them minutely, many RTS's even require you to get an edge by micro managing individual units in combat and much more that than you need to macro manage economy and strategy. Its a whopping challenge if nothing else.