Who here actually likes RTS games?

In my opinion, RTS games are just beautified board games. The over the top viewing angle and simple animations remind me of chess . I'm not knocking the genre, but how can anyone actually enjoy and become immersed in an RTS game's story and characters when it uses such simple mechanics? In addition to that, how can one tolerate the drastic difference in the presentation style of the cutscenes and the actual gameplay? That practically destroys the illusion. How do you guys feel about RTS games?

Lol, this thread is almost as funny as my sig. Almost.w4rrior17

Lol, this thread is almost as funny as my sig. Almost.w4rrior17

[QUOTE="w4rrior17"]Lol, this thread is almost as funny as my sig. Almost.Same_Jeans_On

In my opinion, RTS games are just beautified board games. The over the top viewing angle and simple animations remind me of chess . I'm not knocking the genre,

BluRayHiDef

the genre wouldn't mind whatever you have to say about it since your definition of "immersion" is so narrow that's to me hardly relevant in game disucssion.

I play RTS, as well as most other games for GAMING, not for naive realism simulation.

dnd CRPG, turn base SRPG (currently playing Disciple III, what a great game, and earlier King's Bounty), Empire and City Building, real-time or Turn Base...well, I prefer all these over Shooters and beat em up action games.

I hate the genre personally. Starcraft was never on any of my pc's, II wont be either. World in Conflict is as close to enjoying an RTS as I get.

I hate the genre personally. Starcraft was never on any of my pc's, II wont be either. World in Conflict is as close to enjoying an RTS as I get.

vfibsux

I watched one of the trailers for it and it was epic; it was a really good trailer. However, when I watched videos of the gameplay, I couldn't see how it could convey a story and provide suspense as well as the trailer did. It seems as if this genre is mostly about the gameplay. However, if that's the case, why advertise it in such a way that makes it seem as if the story and characters are the integral parts of the game (or at the very least, as if they're equal to the gameplay in importance)?

There are some videogaming genres I'm not interested in. RTS isn't one of them.

almost all of us have found some rts we like. Whether it be something simplistic like Age of Empires, or something more hardcore like Supreme Commander. It really is a huge genre with lots of variety.

I hate the genre personally. Starcraft was never on any of my pc's, II wont be either. World in Conflict is as close to enjoying an RTS as I get.

vfibsux

RTS on console: Not so much...

RTS on PC: RTS and MMORPGs are mainly why I play PC games.

Get Starcraft 2 and/or Company of Heroes and/or Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War 2 to have a great taste of recent GOOD RTS.

I've tried a handful and for one reason or another I just can't get into them. I did like Company of Heroes and DoW oddly enough but those have been the only RTS games I've enjoyed. At any rate, I prefer turn-based games which are actually a lot more like chess and even less "immersive" (whatever that means) than their twitch based counterparts.

So the short answer is, no, I don't like them.

I'm not liking the new way devs are making rts games .. In fact, I hate it with every fiber of my being. They rip the genre of everything that's great about rts games - Base building, massive unit count etc. Now it's all about controlling a squad of 4 guys are capture points. It's garbage. DoW 2 is a perfect example of how a great series was absolutely ruined.BDK-Soft

they are only good on the PC.

RTS on console: Not so much...

RTS on PC: RTS and MMORPGs are mainly why I play PC games.

Get Starcraft 2 and/or Company of Heroes and/or Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War 2 to have a great taste of recent GOOD RTS.

ABRed

[QUOTE="ABRed"]

RTS on console: Not so much...

RTS on PC: RTS and MMORPGs are mainly why I play PC games.

Get Starcraft 2 and/or Company of Heroes and/or Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War 2 to have a great taste of recent GOOD RTS.

TerrorRizzing

Off topic but:

Just wondering what Nintendo has done that's good and original? I lost interest in Nintendo because they kept remaking all their Mario and all the other franchise games. They just remade them with better graphics. I regret every buying a Gamecube, and do not own a wii which is just a redesigned Gamecube. For example : oh another Mario Kart, wait it's the same as the old ones with new graphics.

Also all most of their games are for kids. You don't see many Nintendo games rated for older people.

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"][QUOTE="ABRed"]

RTS on console: Not so much...

RTS on PC: RTS and MMORPGs are mainly why I play PC games.

Get Starcraft 2 and/or Company of Heroes and/or Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War 2 to have a great taste of recent GOOD RTS.

LeadnSteel

Off topic but:

Just wondering what Nintendo has done that's good and original? I lost interest in Nintendo because they kept remaking all their Mario and all the other franchise games. They just remade them with better graphics. I regret every buying a Gamecube, and do not own a wii which is just a redesigned Gamecube. For example : oh another Mario Kart, wait it's the same as the old ones with new graphics.

Also all most of their games are for kids. You don't see many Nintendo games rated for older people.

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"][QUOTE="ABRed"]

RTS on console: Not so much...

RTS on PC: RTS and MMORPGs are mainly why I play PC games.

Get Starcraft 2 and/or Company of Heroes and/or Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War 2 to have a great taste of recent GOOD RTS.

LeadnSteel

Off topic but:

Just wondering what Nintendo has done that's good and original? I lost interest in Nintendo because they kept remaking all their Mario and all the other franchise games. They just remade them with better graphics. I regret every buying a Gamecube, and do not own a wii which is just a redesigned Gamecube. For example : oh another Mario Kart, wait it's the same as the old ones with new graphics.

Also all most of their games are for kids. You don't see many Nintendo games rated for older people.

Not so much a genre I enjoy playing..I do like watching competitive strategy game matches on occasion, though.

Not so much a genre I enjoy playing..I do like watching competitive strategy game matches on occasion, though.

Velocitas8

Starcraft 2 is not even out yet, and I've spent hours watching the competitive matches on the Beta with the commentaries and stuff. But I like playing them too XD

It is chess if you think about it. Out smarting your opponent with massive armies, constantly thinking what to do charging into their bases, arty them to hell, call in support from the sky it's pretty intense at times. Company of Heroes *cough* It's also relaxing break from shooters and usually has no annoying players in multiplayer. And some games allow you to change the camera angle when watching a replay and you can see the view of your army which is pretty cool if you ask me :oMrLions

I don't have a problem with it being like chess. I'm just wondering if people who play RTS games play them for the story and characters. The RTS genre simply seems unfit to convey stories on an individual level and with the style necessary to immerse the player into the world of the characters. For example, look at gameplay footage of Starcraft and then look at the cinematic-like trailer. They seem so different. It makes me wonder why the game is advertised in such a way where the story seems like the integral part of the game (or at the very least equal to the gameplay in importance). In reality the story couldn't be anywhere near as important as the gameplay. Do you get my point? The gameplay style (bird eye view, with so many "game pieces on the board") isn't as personal as a first person or third person game, where you're tied to a single character who you follow and control.

I've never really liked RTS that much. Too much multi-tasking I think.

World in Conflict was a good RTS, and iirc, it wasn't top-down only, you had great camera control.

I enjoy them a lot. I mostly play them for the level designs. I enjoy the games that let you conquer large maps by fighting individual battles much like Dawn of War Dark Crusade does. As for the story, I don't really play them for that but they can add to it.

i always drifted more toward historic city building RTS games. Pharaoh and caeser, (but primarily pharaoh) i played too much of haha. Just installed dawn of discovery today... awesome game. Rise of nations was the last RTS that I really got into and then CivCity:Rome, but companies aren't making enough of them anymore!!

[QUOTE="MrLions"]It is chess if you think about it. Out smarting your opponent with massive armies, constantly thinking what to do charging into their bases, arty them to hell, call in support from the sky it's pretty intense at times. Company of Heroes *cough* It's also relaxing break from shooters and usually has no annoying players in multiplayer. And some games allow you to change the camera angle when watching a replay and you can see the view of your army which is pretty cool if you ask me :oBluRayHiDef

I don't have a problem with it being like chess. I'm just wondering if people who play RTS games play them for the story and characters. The RTS genre simply seems unfit to convey stories on an individual level and with the style necessary to immerse the player into the world of the characters. For example, look at gameplay footage of Starcraft and then look at the cinematic-like trailer. They seem so different. It makes me wonder why the game is advertised in such a way where the story seems like the integral part of the game (or at the very least equal to the gameplay in importance). In reality the story couldn't be anywhere near as important as the gameplay. Do you get my point? The gameplay style (bird eye view, with so many "game pieces on the board") isn't as personal as a first person or third person game, where you're tied to a single character who you follow and control.

To be REALLY honest, I play games for gameplay. Thats mainly why I love MMORPGs. It is not that I don't care about stories, it's simply that once you've done the story, I don't want a game to end there. I mean, the story could be good, but if the gameplay sucks... whats the point (imo)? I love RPGs for their immersive stories AND gameplay. For RTS, I love the gameplay so even if the story sucks, I don't really care cuz I'm having fun playing the game. For Starcraft 2, it has a great story AND the gameplay is cool.

For example, they wanted to release Starcraft: Ghost on the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox. They did not. Why? We don't know. But I can assume the gameplay wasn't as good as it would have been if it was a RTS. Maybe the story of SC Ghost was Epic!... but if the gameplay sucks... whats the point?

IMO: Gameplay > Story. Good if you have both. But a story won't make me buy a game. The gameplay can. For example: Too Human on the 360. The story sucked so hard but I've played several hours online with my friends and had such a great time! For RTS, I take Age of empires 3 as an example. I did 2 missions of the campaign and stopped cuz I thought it sucked (storywise). But wow I had so much fun playing Lan with my friends. But hey! That is just me XD

In a sentence, I play RTS for gameplay and "NICE!" if there's a good story (SC 2).

That's only my opinion. Don't throw garbage at me!:roll:

I've never played an RTS for the plot, but I have been deeply obsessed with an RTS's backstory and universe, if that comes close enough. See, when it comes to an RTS, its about the unique gameplay aspects. I loved WH40K for having huge battles, for example. You won't find too many people who'd play an rts mainly because of the campaign's story. It's about competitive multiplayer and the rest is just game mechanics and wits.

Really enjoy RTS games. The campaigns are also really enjoyable if well done.

I hate campaign in RTS and I think many people agree with me... Because even with no campaign Sins of Solar Empire still a great game...Aldouz

I like RTS for 3 reasons:

1)The strategy involved is immense, you really need to be smarter than your opponant to beat them.

2)The way the storyis involved in the gameplay. You are typically the commander of a small group of troops in a larger army. Take starcraft campaigns for example, when you click on the units, they all call you sir or commander or some other thing. The mission briefings before each campaign you see the story unfold and you are told why you need to fight the force you are about to face. Every once in a while there is a cinematic showing the major plot points. This was also the case for warcraft 3.

3) it is a different style of play. I play FPS, RPG, MMORPG, Sim, real time RTS, turn based RTS, those old type clicking action games. Having the option to follow a story in a different way makes the game more fun.

It's one of my favourite genres.

RTS is a terrible genre and they could never get as immersive of stories as FPS games.visceron

My sarcasm detector is getting absurd readings, waaaay off the charts :P

I do. The creativity at work inside a proper RTS game easily overwhelms whatever any other genre can offer.

[QUOTE="vfibsux"]

I hate the genre personally. Starcraft was never on any of my pc's, II wont be either. World in Conflict is as close to enjoying an RTS as I get.

BluRayHiDef

I watched one of the trailers for it and it was epic; it was a really good trailer. However, when I watched videos of the gameplay, I couldn't see how it could convey a story and provide suspense as well as the trailer did. It seems as if this genre is mostly about the gameplay. However, if that's the case, why advertise it in such a way that makes it seem as if the story and characters are the integral parts of the game (or at the very least, as if they're equal to the gameplay in importance)?

Play Omega (last mission from Brood War expansion) and then come here and talk about if the game properly merges both the character story and the gameplay or not.