RTT gunning, RTS running?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I read som article recently in a gaming magazine (actually I don't read them to often, but my Dad bought one for me), and it had this review on Age of Mythology along with an article with the hypothesis that one of the reasons why Age of Mythology did not sell too well is that the RTS genre is getting outmoded. As stated in the article, "the idea of building a town, training an army and attacking the enemy is getting old", and that "players no longer feel like they are experiencing something new".

 

So my question is, is the whole concept of army versus army fighting getting out-dated? My answer would have to be no. Even in Role-playing games you tend to end up with a party resembling a small army of ten or so people, rather than being a single character or a pair of characters. Players still like those games.

 

So why don't players buy RTS's as much as they did? I think the reason is that while RTS's are still fun, the real fun part is moving in your army, perhaps using some kind of tactics, and defeating the enemy. RTS games have the player build towns, military bases and cities, and while it's fun to see a city rise out of nothing, most players do not find it as fun as battling it out.

 

Thus my question is: Is the Real-time Strategy genre on the way to be replaced by the Real-time Tactics genre, which removes the concept of resource gathering and base building and lets you focus on choosing an army and battling it out?

 

Look at Sierra's Ground Control. You play the role of a major aboard a starship trying to wrestle control of the planet the starship orbits. Before every mission, you're given a bunch of units ranging from different types of infantry to tanks to airplanes. You can "fine-tune" these units to be aggressive, defensive, etc. and give them some side-arms like mines, gun platforms, and remotely detonated bombs, but that's about it. If you want to succeed, you have to use what you have to beat the odds: Execute pincer-movement, diversions, sneak in and plant a bomb, or just run everything down .

 

In RTS games, you have to focus on building your town and if you have a bigger army than the enemy you'll win. Yes, you can carry out some tactical stuff like diversions, and yes, there are a few terrain advantages like the GB high ground advantage, but mainly, it's about having the biggest army. In GC the fighting (tactical) element is a good deal more developed.

 

Real-time Tactics game gives the player the freedom of battles, but without the base building part. Having an army without having to work for it. Defending a base without having to build it. Having an army that you didn't have to train. Personally, I think that although Ground Control did not sell well (which probably means people are still a bit scared of the whole aspect of not having to build a base), it was one of the best games I've played to date. So do anyone else than me think RTT has a future?

[Crazy_dog no.3]

I prefer still RTS. Sure RTT gives more tactical options which is always good, but I am always frustrated with "those troops gotta come from somewere! Were is the barracks?! Were is the food suppliy?"

[Admiral Odin]

Well, I know AoM is selling fairly decently here. I still love RTS and think there is more you can do with it, far more the with a pure tactics game.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that this year many good games came out. AoM came out later in the year. I don't think low sales necessarily mean RTS is becoming outdated, I think it is all in the timing. Many probably are waiting for Christmas (either to get it or when it is over and they have extra cash).

[Dagobahn Eagle]

In Ground control, troops were trained at bases, just that it didn't happen in game.

 

Then they were transported in dropships down to the planet at the start of every mission like in FC -just that you didn't build bases. IMO it's more realistic than building a base in ten seconds , but that's all about taste I guess.

[WolfmanNCSU]

I never really tried to distinguish between them. I just called them all RTS. I really like them both. I like the base building of a RTS and I really enjoy the ability to gather more resources. However, I really like the tactics of a RTT and the fact that you must use resources sparingly cause once your out......your out.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You'll know the difference if you play a pure RTT game: No base building, no resource gathering, no bases. A base might be on your side, but you can't control anything in it. You've got only an army. GC is the only game I know so far that's pure RTT: While it does let you choose what type of units you want

 

For example, in one mission you're given a Tank Squad, a Heavy Tank Squad, and an Infantry Squad. You can for example choose Light Tanks for your tank squad, Anti-Air tanks for the Heavy Tank Squad, and Jæger Infiltrators for your Infantry.

 

Then, you get to select special weapons for your squads, such as timed bombs for your infiltrators or rockets, missiles, mines, or deployable cannons for your tanks.

 

Besides from all that, there's no resource gathering, building, or upkeep. In RTS there is.

[Sherack Nhar]

Console gaming has lots of RTTs, like for example Final Fantasy Tactics, the Ogre Battle series, and Hoshigami: Ruining Blue Earth.

 

I prefer this type of games over RTS. RTS games are just too repetitive in my opinion. Also, console RTTs usually have some sort of RPG elements, which makes them more interesting.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

If you like RTS's get Ground Control from Sierra.com. It's only $9.99 and well worth the money.

[Sherack Nhar]

I tried the demo, it wasn't that good. I don't really like RTS... as I said earlier, it gets too repetitive, and most of the time the gameplay is too slow for my tastes.

[Breton]

I can admit right away that RTS is probably my favourite type of games. This is probably because they are quite advanced (not boring), and therefore much more fun than some lousy shooting game where you just run aroung all the time shooting big bad aliens. Also, it is completely wrong to say that the biggest army always win. In RTS there are lost of thing that decides the cause of battle. In AoM for example, it is as any old age RTS cavalary beats archers, achers beats infantry, infantry beats cavalery. But this is done much more advanced, because there is anti-archers archers, anti-archers infantery, anti-infantry infantry, anti-cavalery cavalery and stuff like that. In AoM, this is done even more advanced, because myth units beats regular units, regular units beats heroes, heroes beats myth units.

 

I personally think it is much more fun to attack with an army you have created yourself than with an army you have gotten in the beginning of the game. Also, the base building is great, it is very fun to start with a smal settlement and build it unto a major city with walls, castles, armies and monuments. And to watch your enemy's city being destroyed by your catapults and rams, by your infantery and archers, by your cyclops and mountain giants.

 

However, I do like these RTT games too.

 

It is hard to say why RTS games are less popular, it might be that more, well, "stupid" people are playing games, and therefore favouring unadvanced and quite silly shooting games. The same people that are actually favouring consoles instead of PC, and as you all know RTS is impossible to play on consoles.

[WolfmanNCSU]

Another really good RTT game is Sudden Strike. Its a WW2 RTT. You are given control of your forces and assigned missions. Vast amounts of men and armor, and some occastional air support. You must be careful with how you spend your resources, cause once you infrantry or tanks are out of ammo or destroyed, your done for. Sometimes after taking vantage points you will receive reinforcements.

 

What I like best about this game is the fact that it takes lots of time and strategy, and lastly the physics are very realistic.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I personally think it is much more fun to attack with an army you have created yourself than with an army you have gotten in the beginning of the game.

 

Ground control is a bit like the Force Commander Star Destroyer/MC 80 hangar, just with even more options.

 

It had experience, unit type, special weapons, and special equipment.

 

One of my favorite games to date.

 

Conclusion is that yes, you don't build the army, but yes, you can customize it.

[Sherack Nhar]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

It is hard to say why RTS games are less popular, it might be that more, well, "stupid" people are playing games, and therefore favouring unadvanced and quite silly shooting games. The same people that are actually favouring consoles instead of PC, and as you all know RTS is impossible to play on consoles.

RTS, less popular? I think they're the third most played genre. First is undoubtedly sport games, and First Person Shooters come in second. And RTS CAN be played on consoles, even if it's a bit quirky. Takes Starcraft 64 for example.

 

Don't diss FPS! They serve their purpose

[Admiral Odin]

I would think that FPS would be the most popular. Then Sports,

[Sherack Nhar]

HELL no. Sport games occupy about 25% of the gaming market, platforms confounded.

 

I can dig up the article if you want, it was on VoodooExtreme if I remember right.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

It is hard to say why RTS games are less popular, it might be that more, well, "stupid" people are playing games, and therefore favouring unadvanced and quite silly shooting games. The same people that are actually favouring consoles instead of PC, and as you all know RTS is impossible to play on consoles.

 

 

It really depends on which FPS u're talking about. Serios Sam is a "silly shooting game". but others (like Deus Ex and Half-Life) are not.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3

 

 

It really depends on which FPS u're talking about. Serios Sam is a "silly shooting game". but others (like Deus Ex and Half-Life) are not.

 

I know, I love Half-Life, but games such as Serious Sam, Unreal Tournament, and Quake 3 are nothing more than walking around with big weapons and constantly fire at anything that moves.

[Admiral Odin]

You really could say the same thing about Half-Life (the main game, not the mods) for the most part you walk around the game shooting everything in site, besides the one or two scientist.

 

Serious FPS are those that follow the lines of America's Army, or Counterstrike.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

 

I know, I love Half-Life, but games such as Serious Sam, Unreal Tournament, and Quake 3 are nothing more than walking around with big weapons and constantly fire at anything that moves.

 

 

You got that right. Anyway, back on-topic:

 

I think really, apart from my "how did that get there" problem, maybe it's because I suck at RTT's. Liminted resources and limited army (kind of, but in RTS u get fresh troops far quicker) don't sit with me very well.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Anyone remember that really old game Shadowforce?

 

You stop at a space colony to deliver supplies only to find the station empty and a self-destruct sequence in action. Thinking you're fighting terrorists, you disable the self-destruct sequence, only to find it had been activated by a heroic member of the station's crew in an effort to stop the evil computer aboard and some evil genetical experiments gone awry.

 

It's a FPS, but it's got a good deal of role-playing in it, like interacting with surviving crew members and some droids that hadn't yet been taken over by the computer. Also, it had all these long messages, such as "as you disable the sequence, a computer screen at the opposite end of the room suddenly comes to life. First you see only a greenish shimmer, then it changes into a evil human-like face..." Creepy if you saw it in-game.

 

RPG mixed with FPS. It was great, but seeing I was (I think) less than 11 years old it scared the Hell out of me"

[Sherack Nhar]

If you like RPG mixed with FPS, give Deus Ex and System Shock 2 a try. I never got to play the latter, but the former is incredibly entertaining.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Play System Shock 2, unless u are of the weak of heart.:evil1;