LogFAQs > #941785271

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Other than niche titles; was Starcraft 2 really the last decent RTS?
Sahuagin 07/07/20 6:05:49 AM #20:	adjl posted... Generally, yeah, or at least some form of competition between factions (you can have economic RTS's, after all). You can certainly make a case for non-competitive games being strategic and real-time, but that's really not what's typically meant by the genre label "real-time strategy" (much like "Role-playing game" doesn't literally mean any game in which you play a role). well I definitely don't adhere to the "now that there's warcraft, only warcraft-like games are RTSs" rule. and again, even then this game actually is warcraft-like. I research military tech to be able to place turrets at choke-points to fight monsters that attack in swarms, and everything happens in real-time. it's an RTS, no exaggeration or stretching of any kind required. I don't care if the naive definition is more shallow than that. adjl posted... I suppose technically it does, but in practice the norm is simply to reload the most recent save and try not to get hit by a train this time. well, as I said, having your base overrun is a thing, too, and it's practically identical to being overwhelmed by zerg. you don't need to tweak the settings as much as you say (and it doesn't matter, because tweaking the settings is a part of the game); it's very possible to end up in an unwinnable situation if you neglect your military tech, or if you're surrounded enough and your power grid crashes with too much reliance on lasers, etc. and again, you're really just saying that "it's easy enough that it doesn't qualify" which doesn't even make sense. being able to save and load the game doesn't matter either, that's completely normal for a PC game. adjl posted... When asking if a game qualifies as a certain genre, the only important question that needs to be answered is "Would I recommend this game to somebody purely based on the knowledge that they enjoy the genre I'm trying to apply here?". no, definite disagree. that's just narrow thinking. as if all genres become more and more focused over time rather than more and more broad. just because a game does some things different than existing games in a genre doesn't mean it doesn't fit in that genre; rather it broadens it. and again, it's a strategy game to me even without biters. strategy to me means large-scale (macro) planning, not just large-scale planning directly related to warfare. I don't care what the naive view is. adjl posted... (much like "Role-playing game" doesn't literally mean any game in which you play a role) that's not the right example; that's a misuse of the term RPG that doesn't capture anything at all about the genre. it's an ignorant literal reading of the term that is useless and doesn't identify anything. RPG means a game in which you make roles to play (or maybe you might be able to limit that to being given roles to play; as long as the role can vary is the key concept). RTS means a strategy game that runs in real-time. there's a lot of implications there, to both of these ideas (RPG and RTS). it makes a big difference when a game can be played via multiple different roles. it's not a superficial difference, it changes the game in fundamental ways. real-time strategy games are hugely different than turn-based ones, regardless of the degree of military VS non-military strategy that entails. it's not a superficial difference, it changes what the game is in fundamental ways. and still, this game has military strategy... it just isn't absolutely 100% focused on military strategy above all else, it's more like 50-75% instead. whoop-de-doo. you have a variety of points here that I definitely don't agree with: - non-military strategy games are not strategy games - hybrid genre games are not in any of the genres they pull from - once a game in a genre become popular enough, it eclipses the rest of the genre and the genre becomes only about that game and games that are similar to it - if a game lets you modify the degree of a genre-defining element of its gameplay, then it no longer qualifies for that genre all of these are unnecessarily narrow ways of thinking. --- *The truth basks in scrutiny.* https://imgur.com/GMouTGs http://projecteuler.net/profile/Sahuagin.png <cite>Sahuagin posted [p:941785271] in Other than... [t:78827575]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Generally, yeah, or at least some form of competition between factions (you can have economic RTS's, after all). You can certainly make a case for non-competitive games being strategic and real-time, but that's really not what's typically meant by the genre label "real-time strategy" (much like "Role-playing game" doesn't literally mean any game in which you play a role).</quote>well I definitely don't adhere to the "now that there's warcraft, only warcraft-like games are RTSs" rule. and again, even then this game actually is warcraft-like. I research military tech to be able to place turrets at choke-points to fight monsters that attack in swarms, and everything happens in real-time. it's an RTS, no exaggeration or stretching of any kind required. I don't care if the naive definition is more shallow than that. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>I suppose technically it does, but in practice the norm is simply to reload the most recent save and try not to get hit by a train this time.</quote>well, as I said, having your base overrun is a thing, too, and it's practically identical to being overwhelmed by zerg. you don't need to tweak the settings as much as you say (and it doesn't matter, because tweaking the settings is a part of the game); it's very possible to end up in an unwinnable situation if you neglect your military tech, or if you're surrounded enough and your power grid crashes with too much reliance on lasers, etc. and again, you're really just saying that "it's easy enough that it doesn't qualify" which doesn't even make sense. being able to save and load the game doesn't matter either, that's completely normal for a PC game. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>When asking if a game qualifies as a certain genre, the only important question that needs to be answered is "Would I recommend this game to somebody purely based on the knowledge that they enjoy the genre I'm trying to apply here?".</quote>no, definite disagree. that's just narrow thinking. as if all genres become more and more focused over time rather than more and more broad. just because a game does some things different than existing games in a genre doesn't mean it doesn't fit in that genre; rather it broadens it. and again, it's a strategy game to me even without biters. strategy to me means large-scale (macro) planning, not just large-scale planning directly related to warfare. I don't care what the naive view is. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>(much like "Role-playing game" doesn't literally mean any game in which you play a role)</quote>that's not the right example; that's a misuse of the term RPG that doesn't capture anything at all about the genre. it's an ignorant literal reading of the term that is useless and doesn't identify anything. RPG means a game in which you make roles to play (or maybe you might be able to limit that to being given roles to play; as long as the role can vary is the key concept). RTS means a strategy game that runs in real-time. there's a lot of implications there, to both of these ideas (RPG and RTS). it makes a big difference when a game can be played via multiple different roles. it's not a superficial difference, it changes the game in fundamental ways. real-time strategy games are hugely different than turn-based ones, regardless of the degree of military VS non-military strategy that entails. it's not a superficial difference, it changes what the game is in fundamental ways. and still, this game has military strategy... it just isn't absolutely 100% focused on military strategy above all else, it's more like 50-75% instead. whoop-de-doo. you have a variety of points here that I definitely don't agree with: - non-military strategy games are not strategy games - hybrid genre games are not in any of the genres they pull from - once a game in a genre become popular enough, it eclipses the rest of the genre and the genre becomes only about that game and games that are similar to it - if a game lets you modify the degree of a genre-defining element of its gameplay, then it no longer qualifies for that genre all of these are unnecessarily narrow ways of thinking. --- The truth basks in scrutiny. https://imgur.com/GMouTGs http://projecteuler.net/profile/Sahuagin.png</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1