Page 1 of 1 [25 Posts]  
Author Message
pchote
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:03 am    Post subject:

NimoStar wrote:
That's exactly what OpenRA is for example.

Now if they would only implement "age of empires" style mechanics (buildings made by workers, etc.) it could recreate anything from Starcraft II to Age of Mythology and Warcraft.

OpenRA mods can already do this, see for example Medieval Warfare.
NimoStar
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:43 am    Post subject:

Quote:
Now I wonder how splitscreen would work on an RTS game


Actually there was console versions of some RTS with infamous split screen multiplayer...

It actually "works" but you need to pay as much attention to your enemy's screen as to your own xd


_____________


Actuallyu developing an old-style RTS would be fairly cheap today due there being open source development tools, free 3D graphics by the thousands, etc.

In fact anyone could make an old school RTS

That's exactly what OpenRA is for example.

Now if they would only implement "age of empires" style mechanics (buildings made by workers, etc.) it could recreate anything from Starcraft II to Age of Mythology and Warcraft.
Holy_Master
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:34 pm    Post subject:

- Blizzard didn't try to put their new RTS to console since Nintendo 64 even before the death of RTS become a thing.

- EA focus toward zero effort cash cow project ( I really dont want to call this company as game company anymore they just there to make money).

- Petrogryph some how have weird vision no one even know what they aim for but despire they made simple RTS like 8 bit they didn't seem interest to put it to console for extra cash...

- Relic also didn't seem interest to put any of their RTS to console or even try despire they're crazy enough to make something like Dawn3...

- Microsoft seem to have some faith in RTS game (with some new game like Halowars 2 , Age of empire DE, AoE4 ) but at same time they care more about xbox and windows store not surprise if all those game failed at arrival since no one use windows store and Halo fan expect for FPS and AoE name would not sell on console.

- Stardock didn't seem to interest to make any game for console.

with all those reason I didn't think RTS dead just because it outdate or didn't fit for console but just because other genre easier to make and earn more money which is reason why we saw more FPS than other genre.

and genre that born from corpe of RTS like MoBA still popular even with no help from console.
EVA-251
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:47 pm    Post subject:

Crimsonum wrote:
I disagree, my first ever contact with C&C was on PlayStation 1 (both TD and RA) and I enjoyed it. Sure I wasn't as good at it as I am now on PC, and probably never would've been due to clunky controls, but the most important thing is that it was fun and enjoyable.

I'm the same. I first played CNC on the N64. I enjoyed it. Doesn't mean I would buy another RTS on a console. Be it for my PS4, or my brother's Switch.

Crimsonum wrote:
Now I wonder how splitscreen would work on an RTS game Neutral

spoilers, it wouldn't #Tongue

@Omega
Sure, they can make money; that isn't what I trying to say. The way I see it, RTS is a genre that will always have a hard time entering the console market. Sub-optimal peripherals and the traditional demographic is entrenched on PCs. A game that can tap in to the console market has greater earning potential than one that is (basically) limited to PC.
G-E
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:13 pm    Post subject:

Civilization is getting progressively worse and it makes plenty of money, sure it's turn based, but on slower speeds C&C games aren't really more frenetic...
OmegaBolt
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:30 pm    Post subject:

Split screen? Do it like the PS1 days, link cable. #Tongue

The idea that RTS can't make money is a bit silly too IMO. Maybe it, and the companies that have tried to make them, have failed to advertise or something, but if you look at the extreme insane success of the Paradox Interactive games (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Stellaris), which are real time grand strategy games not remotely considered open to the mainstream, I'd think basic RTS could work out. Getting a huge mainstream audience is not even required to make money, you just need to excellently serve your fanbase and provide great content.
Crimsonum
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:42 pm    Post subject:

EVA-251 wrote:
And RTS is just one of those genres that does not work at all on consoles. And consoles bring in a lot of money.

At least that's how I see it.


I disagree, my first ever contact with C&C was on PlayStation 1 (both TD and RA) and I enjoyed it. Sure I wasn't as good at it as I am now on PC, and probably never would've been due to clunky controls, but the most important thing is that it was fun and enjoyable.

Now I wonder how splitscreen would work on an RTS game Neutral
EVA-251
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:46 pm    Post subject:

I would say RTS is fairly outdated, not just "CNC style", whatever that may mean.

As the cost of developing games increases, multi-platform releases are becoming more and more important. And RTS is just one of those genres that does not work at all on consoles. And consoles bring in a lot of money.

At least that's how I see it.
Holy_Master
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:41 pm    Post subject:

If I was EA I just rather give player option to pay for up their ladder rank they can win even without play single match! :p
TAK02
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:22 am    Post subject:

Holy_Master wrote:
if only EA just remaster Ra2YR with modern graphic engine it could make them billion easily.

And Pay-2-Win would make them at least 2 billion in the first week. Because some people want to save themselves spending time on leveling up in a game. Why do you think those abominations like Clash of Clans and what-ever are so succesful?
Because if you want a powerful unit and "stronghold" you have to pay. And it's not just you who'll pay. There are at least a thousand more.

The problem is also that now-a-days games are built to be that way: time-consuming activity for barely a reward, while people can save immense amounts of time by spending seemingly small sums every now and then, which translates to a wad of cash pretty quickly in a larger time-frame. And then a mountain of cash arrives at EA's doors in less than a year.

Apperently there are too many spoiled brats around who love having their parents spend their money on this pile of garbage permanently, rather than think properly and pay once for a good game.
This is now the future of gaming, apparently.
Holy_Master
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:01 am    Post subject:

I saw the most RTS game after starcraft2 are kind of regress than progress only progress it offer is graphic technology (with unworthy art style), I still refuse to believe RTS isno longer popular since there're nealy no RTS game release anymore how thing that doen't exist can become popular...

truly I think if only EA just remaster Ra2YR with modern graphic engine it could make them billion easily.
FurryQueen
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:25 pm    Post subject:

Outdated implies that it was only good for a limited time. Game mechanics never become outdated. They just turn stagnant or unpopular and this style of RTS just isn't that popular anymore. Then again, no one's done anything interesting with the genre for a long time. The last really good game in the genre was Starcraft 2.

Hell, RTS doesn't need innovation. Starcraft 2 didn't really do anything "new" per se, but it delivered on everything you'd go to Starcraft for. Personally, any RTS that delivers a narrative like that and has the gameplay to match, that's all I'd really want.

But outdated? Nah. Not hardly. Just... not enough attention and it's way too niche for a AAA studio. Indie studios might give us a good RTS if they gave it a shot.
NimoStar
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:07 pm    Post subject:

I can still play it onñline and it's more fun than so-called new games with microtransactions and such...

So no, "outdated" for players no.

Maybe for companies that want easy money...
4StarGeneral
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:42 pm    Post subject:

MadHQ wrote:
Sadly C&C RTS is dead, its old and repetitive, as much as I like it, there just isn't enough of an audience for it.


I have to disagree, Starcraft is very, very similar to C&C and it's got no problem taking off. The problem C&C has that mods fix is balance issues; And of course EA doesn't update their games worth shit, so C&C hasn't had a chance to take off because EA's team has no idea how to make a good RTS.
TAK02
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:41 pm    Post subject:

OmegaBolt wrote:
I think a C&C that took the campaign quality of Tiberium Wars and the gameplay of Red Alert 3 and put them together would be the best C&C ever made.
What about Emperor: Battle for Dune? It had solid game-play (I think) despite its simpler style when compared to things like Generals and C&C3 and RA3.
In fact, I'd rather play a match in E:BfD than in C&C's 3D games.

Modding-wise, which is very important, E:BfD isn't that moddable due to the file format which apparently hasn't been solved until rather recently. See here.
But what if someone'd re-make the unique engine in such a way that it's moddable as easily as the old-school C&C games we all love?
G-E
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:13 pm    Post subject:

Assuming all the units are voxels or something similarly easy to produce for content creators, it could be flexible enough for the engine to zoom in or out as in later C&C games, there's no reason to "upgrade" much. Think about how the game would change if you could just move the camera around.

As a point of fact, with today's hardware, more memory, better cpus, there's no reason even buildings and infantry couldn't be voxels. Small tweaks to the lighting to make it raytraced rather than purely normals bound would add a richness missing in RA2, without going full 3D.

Perhaps the only limited area in graphical terms is the terrain and special effects. Dynamic terrain, whether deformable, or merely subject to particle effect debris (leaving craters and dirt all over) is a huge visual boost without making the game more complicated, likewise explosions/fire can also be procedurally generated now, and would bridge the gap to modern engines well.

My biggest peeve with the newer C&C games is the over-use of special effects, especially the sparkles, but the excessive fire and heavy smoke clouds also obscures the battlefield making it a negative once the newness wears off. This can be easily toned down or scaled appropriately so as not to interfere with situational awareness, it's just that EA chose to make their games pretty rather than replayable.
IamInnocent
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:41 pm    Post subject:

I agree with the viewpoints regarding the amount of content needs to be produced to satisfy the customers. However my viewpoint is that graphics were emphasizing on the give and take reward when executing a strategy. Think about the glorious explosions occurred when you successfully execute your forces of destruction! >: ) It enhances the gameplay experience.

Games like Tiberium Wars and Kanes Wrath manage to balance between content development and up-to-standard graphical engines, that is before RA3 when the franchise paid more attention to the graphical content than the quality content. By the lack of quality content I mean by that the story seems to be generic or the gameplay looked as if it could be better.

Mods of CNC were the ones that kept me going on about CNC even till this day. The diversion of the strategies available for execution of mass destruction, or simply a good gameplay, is enough to satisfy me. However, that doesn't mean I am to imply that content of the game is to be neglected.

If it has an interesting setting and gameplay, then count me in!

OmegaBolt wrote:
I think a C&C that took the campaign quality of Tiberium Wars and the gameplay of Red Alert 3 and put them together would be the best C&C ever made.


Brilliantly said!
OmegaBolt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:50 pm    Post subject:

I agree a focus on graphics is pretty pointless. You can make something very pretty without pushing hardware. Games FAR too often focus on pushing hardware over developing real content, which is what I find most annoying. I'd rather have 40-45 missions, in a game like TD/RA1 than 15 in Grey Goo or Starcraft 2 - but instead they focus on producing expensive, time consuming cutscenes, graphics, music etc over real gameplay. I feels like older games gave you more, because they kinda did... they didn't have to make HD textures for everything etc.

Personally I don't know what outdated means. If the UI works well, smoothly, isnt clunky etc then its not outdated. I think a C&C that took the campaign quality of Tiberium Wars and the gameplay of Red Alert 3 and put them together would be the best C&C ever made. I think Grey Goo did UI brilliantly, by combining that horizontal command bar and global production queues. Planetary Annihilation innovated with the awesome 3D maps and interplanetary gameplay. There's innovation there that could be continuously explored and improved on if RTS games with quality developers and decent budgets were made.

However I'm up for a quality RTS that doesn't innovate. If it has an interesting world, story, gameplay it would be good enough for a genre reboot.
MadHQ
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:42 am    Post subject:

You do not need enhanced graphics to make the game cross platform.

Cross platform RTS does not work either, RTS players do not want to play on a console.

And as far as modding is concerned, enhanced graphics does make modding more limited as most modders are not able to produce the quality of graphics required to match the rest of the game. That is one of the reasons as to why there where so few mods for C&C3, RA3, & C&C4.

Look at Ra2/TS, there are lots of modders and mods due to the simplicity of it.

Enhanced graphics mods are one of the most common mods out there due to the game being old, and its the simple-est to achieve, not just for the hell of it.

Sadly C&C RTS is dead, its old and repetitive, as much as I like it, there just isn't enough of an audience for it.
IamInnocent
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:22 am    Post subject:

With the current status of CNC community who had been self sustained for 7-8 years after the downfall of Tiberium Twilight, I beg to differ. Enhanced graphics were being done on almost every good mod, being it for mods like Twisted Insurrection, Mental Omega, C&C Untitled and most of all, Generals Evolution, new and improved systems are what kept the fans and community going.

Besides, with new and enhanced graphics, the game will have the opportunity of being cross-platformed with Ninetendo Switch and PS4, bringing in more players... It's just up to whether or not EA decides to step up their game or give up their franchise.
MadHQ
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:14 am    Post subject:

Pushing graphics is one of the worse things a game can do. It will incredibly reduce the amount of capable players.
IamInnocent
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:05 am    Post subject:

Forged Battalion and Halo Wars didn't get them anywhere.

What CNC needs is now is what the fans need. A redesign of it with overclocking graphics with some influences from Battle Royale and Starcraft, sadly, if really do want to please the newcomers on familiarizing the concept to keep the torch going. Or else, EA needs to make something jawdropping between the lines of Kane's Wrath, Generals: Evolution, Rise of the Reds and C&C Untitled.

The golden age of RTS genre is over, the thing that kept the community going is mod supports. Has there ever been a successful revival for things that had gone through their golden age? I know Pokemon does, differently in various ways... Oh yeah, and Breath of the Wild taking GOTY for 2017.
MadHQ
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:39 pm    Post subject:

Yes, C&C RTS is outdated.
TAK02
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:00 pm    Post subject:

Hmm...
Have you tried Dune 2, Dune 2000 and/or Emperor Battle for Dune? They're good games too.

No, C&C RTS is far from outdated.
It's just that developers haven't found a way to make an RTS exciting.
Except for Westwood.

Skill and strategy are everything in an RTS, because an RTS is more or less a simulation of real battle.
This means that both skill and numbers need to be taken into account when determining the winner in a conflict.

There is no luck in an RTS.
Mechacaseal
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:15 pm    Post subject:  Do You Think C&C Style RTS Is Outdated?

i still play starcraft 2 tiberian sun and league of legends quite often but i personally dont feel sc2 and league of legends are good games. i think they are more about luck and busy work. long matches lots of lame attacks that dont do much until you steamroll people later in the game. just is not super satisfying. i mean most genres of games also suck for similar reasons but... i feel like games can do better. less artificial long drawn out matches. less luck based on skill. i feel a lot of games rely too much on skill rather than a player's personality. its not fun to kill newbs or get destroyed by a skilled player. it just doesnt feel like you have any true control in the game most of the time.
Page 1 of 1 [25 Posts]  

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group