208

The RTS genre will never be mainstream unless you change it until it's 'no longer the kind of RTS that I want to play,' says Crate Entertainment CEO (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 5 months ago by simple@lemm.ee to c/games@lemmy.world

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] hyperhopper@lemmy.world 78 points 5 months ago

I want an actual real time strategy game. All popular RTSs are actually just about tactics and micro. I mean every SC2 guide will tell you that up to a very high level of play, if you're just doing more you'll be more efficient and win regardless of strategy. Why can't you just set a standing order of "make unit x" or "make unit x while we have gas until we get to 50 of them"? That's strategy. Having to tab back to a building and manually queue a couple of units every several seconds is just creating busywork for players, but thats what's necessary and optimal for playing SC2 and most RTS games well

[-] kurushimi@lemmyonline.com 20 points 5 months ago

I love this concept; I had a friend from school viscerally defend SC: BW as superior to SC2 because in his words SC2 removed skill because of not having the unit select cap that BW did. That’s just less, as you put it, busywork, and then the player is more free to consider army compositions and positioning rather than drawing tons of rectangles. Removing more busywork in favor of actual strategy would be amazing.

There’s no micro in Chess, just strategy.

[-] toastus@feddit.de 7 points 5 months ago

I'd argue there is only micro in chess and no macro, but I get your point.

[-] kurushimi@lemmyonline.com 2 points 5 months ago

Good point. I suppose I was combining the intended definition of micro as in issuing individual or otherwise sufficiently granular actions with the extra categorization of busywork, and indeed in that regard chess is pure micro.