Jonathan Blow on The Death of Real Time Strategy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Support me on Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/jona...
Jonathan Blow on The Death of Real Time Strategy
Clip from Jonathan Blow
Twitch: / j_blow
TH-cam: / @jblow888
#jonathanblow #gamedev #webdevelopment #programming #rts #realtimestrategygames
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 82 วันนี้!! คู่เอก | ยอดไอคิว vs อับดัลลาห์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hSsyTl_9bqs/mqdefault.jpg)
I actually think that the introduction of "micro" actually ruined the genre. The Venn diagram of people that want to do strategic thinking and twitch reaction gameplay at the same time is very small.
People that liked the micro aspects flocked to MOBAs since its more tactical. The people that liked the strategy moved to genres like 4X or grand strategy.
True. I like strategy games, but I dislike the micro management of units, like using individual skills. I want to build a base, decide what structures/tech to go for, what and how many units to build. I don't want to "optimize" battles by moving units around manually. Just make them perform 100% on their own. Or let me switch their behaviors to "stay on max range."
But micro was around since the beginning. Go watch a competitive game of warcraft 2: it's All micro.
@@christianhall3916 Yes and no. Warcraft 2 had a bunch of different units but very little with active skills. C&C had zero of that. Warcraft 3 made some of those skills being used automatically, but still not every unit had them, only some. Fast forward to Red Alert 3 and Starcraft 2 and it feels like most, if not every, unit out there has something that can be enabled or used via a keyboard shortcut and since it is rock-paper-scissor type of games you also has to be very concious of what and where is used for maximum effectiveness.
In other words: yes, micro was around since the beginning, but its level was much, much lower, even in the competitive scene. And not always consistent. Ever played Total Annihilation or Supreme Commander? There is little to no micro of "x units with active skills" type, mostly "there is 300 units on the battlefield, what I can do with that"?
Also: the idea that first Starcraft should be played in multiplayer on fastest speed setting was stupid and I feel like it also made the genre worse in the next years.
@@1e0isfdkorblpg Hm, I remember playing war2 online and micro was not the biggest priority, but that was years ago, so I might be mistaken.
@@SalantorWarcraft 2 played at a high level (and on the fastest game speed) is a mad scramble. Maybe it's not what you consider micro but it's very much about giving orders as fast as possible. And if you play on a slower game speed your experience could be very different.
The interviewer talks too much.
It's the podcast format
Is this Jonathan blow on RTS or unhinged RTS enthusiast ranting incoherently for 9 minutes while Jonathan blow sits quietly
What did he say that was incoherent? I think he had good points.
It's unhinged RTS enthusiast ranting incoherently for 9 minutes while Jonathan blow sits quietly.
RTS games are sort of like two games in one. The single player "Campaign" is more like a tactical/management game. In retrospect, I never felt like I was sold on warring against another military mind in games that I grew up with (such as the C&C series or the original Starcraft). The other game in an RTS package is "Multiplayer" (which I admittedly missed out on in my gaming days). AI seems to always be the Achille's heel of a strategy game (even turn based ones such as Civilization, or so from what I've heard), so it's best to treat the campaign like some sort isometric action game.
Point and click unit management is so patently absurd compared to the reality of actual military operations that it's all in good fun if you leave your brain at the door and/or embrace a philosophical paradigm of time-dilated abstraction in broad strokes. Therefore, I say let's make strategy games fun again! Seeing how difficult it is to make a convincing AI makes me shudder at the thought of diving deep into that rabbit hole of AI programming (when so many *teams* of minds greater than my own have failed).
I miss the days of sand-boxing ways to defeat some base. It was fun to imagine that there were multiple ways to crack some defensive nut-cased bunker lineup. Unfortunately, it usually de-evolved into amassing tank rushes by breaking the economy in some way. It's funny, RTS games scratched some itch, but I'm left wondering where to go to actually describe or articulate how to conjure up a similar experience. 4X games I find are too aloof, procedurally generated, and Sim-City like to bottleneck the adrenaline rushes RTS games were so close to scratching. However, I like the idea of a difficult to defeat foe that is convincingly cunning. BUT there are more than a few ways to defeat that military force and it's a nail biting puzzle to exploit a few tricks, sneak-a-rounds, or rock-paper-scissor traps to come out on top. RTS games that I grew up with didn't have this, but I felt like they were sooo close at times (maybe I'm chasing a mirage of my own lack of skill versus a few conditions that coincidentally made this illusion of out-thinking an opposing faction).
I'm just a zoomer with fond memories of RTS games, but with a few opinions on vague notions about how they could be better... nothing more.
As far as RTS goes as a genre, its always seemed destined to be more of a niche genre than a popular one. For the same reason it thrived in competitive scenes for as long as they remained popular enough. They're difficult games. The difficulty curve of mastering build orders, tech trees, map control, micro management, macro management, weird hotkey patterns, and an evolving meta game where builds change as strategies change, and as a result optimal reactions to information change, the surface area for failure as a player is significantly larger. Not to mention the technical component of EAPM, where you can literally outperform an equally skilled opponent by just "playing faster" at crucial moments, all of which compound over time to create a massive difference in output. People play games competitively, but a lot more play them for fun. And RTS just doesn't have a lot going for that latter camp compared to other genres. You can play 2-3 whole satisfying games of a twitchy FPS in the time it takes to wrap up one game of Starcraft, and at least half of that time is spent not interacting with your opponent. Unless of course you're good enough to play competently, in which case you're likely playing in a more competitive capacity anyway.
RTS just got swallowed by 4x. 4x game' are hugely popular right now and they target the same audience of people that like to play complex strategy games. RTS was specific to the time when you couldn't run such complex games on a home PC
I'm not sure I follow how having context aware input for move and attack disqualifies the MOBA genre from being a "Complete Game"
I think that needs a bit more exploration - as I feel that statement was more gatekeeping a genre rather than constructive discussion.
The total number of inputs/features in a game is not something I feel creates the separation between "is a game" and "is not a game"..
How many inputs/actions/features does Super Mario have, or Sonic? Do they get a free pass due to date? Why? etc, etc, etc
Disliking any game is fine ofc. You don't have to like anything you don't enjoy - or feels too fake. I would like to bring up a point on asymmetric design though.
Asymmetric design for each "team" in a game is valid design approach to creating fun and compelling gameplay, there are many games that thrive on that.
So having AI that mirrors symmetric gameplay through the use of asymmetry is reasonable as well imo.
We're happy to have fake light approximations for our graphics, and don't feel disconnected that everything isn't a light wave simulating path tracer.
Games have limitations, and jamming a full Alpha Star level AI agent into SC:BW or SC 2 just wasn't going to happen, so they had to design around it.
So in the end, I have a lot of respect for the experience and ideas of both people in this video, I do find some of the opinions hard to agree with or grasp the basis of upon further reflection.
"I'm not sure I follow how having context aware input for move and attack disqualifies the MOBA genre from being a "Complete Game""
It is not a complete game in comparison to RTS games, because you remove a big chunk of gameplay (base management, resource gathering, land-air-sea triangle, tech trees etc) and you concentrate on controlling and maintaining one unit, which is something that RTS games already had. You use only some of the genre machanics, hence "incomplete game" (again, in comparison).
Yeah. that guy neve really understood thar RTS "died" because if you're into base building, you can have that and if you're into combat, you can have that, and if you're into strategy, you can have that... Doing all at once (which RTS is) isn't as popular as doing them separately. His game won't even touch the complexity of factorio bases, LOL combat or strategy of Civilization.
He simply doesn't get why it "died", so he will eagerly join the dead with his game...
@Salantor
For sake of the point, let's (continue to) assume MOBA has less total mechanics than RTS.
Why does this number of mechanics reduce something to "not a complete game"? Does this also mean every game with less mechanics than RTS is not a complete game, or does this strictly apply to the derivative genres?
In the case that all of that is rationalised, what does this definition separation communicate?
@@GonziHere Cutting analysis, but I agree. They're more focused on whether something satisfied the conventional set of features than the reasons these branched out. Also we don't need to keep making every genre forever.
@@3DWithLairdWT You would have to ask the speakers here, I only wanted to explain that one part.
We need more John Carmack honestly, top tier content keep it up 👍
Calling Warcraft 3 an 'objective failure' without feeling the need to actually make that argument with substance simply voids all validity of your statements.
It's wierd that 4X games like paradox games, Civ 6, etc. have no problem whatsoever creating an engaging, challenging solo experience, but traditional RTS games seem to either draw no attention whatsoever or fumble the bag every single time without fail since after around legacy of the void. There are outliers like XCOM (is that even an RTS?), and Tooth and Tail. I cannot understand how does RTS devs consistently fumble the bag this hard when it comes to solo/co-op campaigns.
A parallel can be drawn between how RTS was huge in the past and niche/irrelevant in the present, and mecha anime. In the past, anime was synonymous with giant robots. Today, making a new anime franchise with giant robots is an economically risky move. Why? Lack of innovation. If you want to be optimistic, you could say that's because there's not much to improve, but I think that's a cope.
I agree on almost everything but saying that MOBAs are not complete games is an extreme oversimplification. Dota introduced several mechanics and game concepts that were completely lacking in Warcraft 3 and eventually outgrowed warcraft 3 after years of hitting the cealing of what the w3 engine could do. MOBAs are not just "simplified RTS games for wider audiences"
If you want to be pedantic RTS games not only did not evolve, they actually devolved. From Herzog 2 to Dune to Warcraft 3 to DOTA we went from controlling 1 unique unit with identical AI units around us to controlling a bunch of identical units to controlling a bunch of indentical units + some unique ones to controlling 1 uniq unit with identical AI units around us. The genre made a full circle.
Not to mention all the sequels, remakes and expansion packs to games that are 20+ years old at this point.
Dota is literally its own genre
have you ever played company if heroes? or age of empire? rts is still going strong.
Ok, what is new for the genre in both of these games?
7:07 RTS is basically a genre that's inversily proportionate with internet access to information.
It's a genere that given more information it becomes worse, since the optimizations on it are just "unfun" garbage and the difference between doing them and not is the different between dirt on the ground the moon. Just macro alone will win you by default. Some games like Age of Empires 2 strike a nice balance between having some of the "modern RTS concepts" and also keeping things stupid and simple, but most RTS now are built to be just this "APM burden" and people wonder "why arent people playing our carpet tunnel game?" "dont people want to play our strategy game thats based on how much you click?" etc.
It doesn't help that the genere is also the most poorly defined and fake'ed out genre. Everything from "armoy-only control" games to wierd hybrids to moba's and whatnot, they all get advertised wrongly as RTS, so you get this sandwitch of awful. Game fails? clearly it's because we called our dumb idea RTS, it's the RTS genere's fault (even though the game had little to do with the genre).
It also doens't help that RTS has the most toxic pro playerbase. People are literally in a "pro gamer sect" of "how you should build RTS" and constantly recruiting others. If people were to even try to make a RTS game that feels like how old RTS games felt, 1000 members of the "balance sect" will decend on you from orbit to tell you how BAD the game is. It's pretty annoying. And of course this extends to devs too, and you get things like "Homworld 3 (Demo)" where it's a unfun "competitive" mess of a game rather then a proper strategy game. It's to the point now where the idiocy is so extreme there's hardly much "strategy" in RealTimeStrategy, since everything "modern RTS" is about is just "how big is the APM burden; the bigger the more 'RTS' it is".
It should come as no surprise that most popular strong RTS now are RTS that have a strong "we dont give a shit" community and are almost all "old school" or "old school inspired" RTS.
Yeah, funny how one of the more persistent RTS games out there is Supreme Commander, a game that is not about speed, but scale and an ability to manage multiple theaters of war at the same time. Meanwhile Starcraft 2... I don't even know how well it holds itself outside pro community, but when a quickmatch can be over in less than 5 minutes I will definitelly not want to participate.
They became "real-time" only, no strategy.
I think the apex for the genre was Red-Alert 2. After that it was downhill and then it died.
I feel like complexity is the only reason for the death. I would not be able to play StarCraft. I enjoy watching it though more than any other game, I love the tournaments like GSL, it's better than any sports.
It's a miracle that genre that brainfucks you with constant multitasking between base and combat, lasted this long. And this is huge Star Craft fan talking. And even for me, managing heroes in addition to all of that (in Warcraft 3) was already too much.
When rts games were popular it was because they had the best looking graphics and multiplayer. Then the graphics got better and mobas got popular, which is the evolution of rts imo.
0:17 Me, too. Total Annihilation.
0:56 for the most part, the AIs are playing the map rather than against you.
Company of Heroes may have been the last good RTS.
What killed RTS is the multiplayer servers going offline. Those are needed to allow players to join games. And AIs are dumber than ever before now.
A scripted sequence that's masked as a system is insulting.
But its not dead???
I guess Jon never heard of Stormgate or Starcraft 2
Probably he considers bad too. The campaign for example has the exact same problems that he point.
@@guilhermecampos8313 you clearly don't know what you're saying. They are talking about the death of RTS genres. However those two that I mentioned are by far the best in their genre. And they seem to ignore it. They like talking. Too much talk makes you say stupid things.
@@luigiistratescu2756 Its not me who is talking, its them. They probabily think the same for these game too. If you know Jonathan Blow you know that he would same that those are bad too.
@@guilhermecampos8313 I made my point. I said they don't know what they're saying. Since they don't think games like Starcraft 2 or Stormgate are good games, this interview means nothing to me and it's a waste of time. Jonathan Blow knows a lot of good things when it comes to programming. When it comes to RTS games, he doesn't.
@@luigiistratescu2756In the end its just opinios. What a person thinks its good other will think its bad. Its not about just the concrete thing, but about a person experience. Jonathan Blow is not only a excellent programmer but a good and respected game designer and he thinks that rts scene is bad. You think Starcraft 2 is good. I don't think that its bad but I think Jonathan Blow is right about the stagnation of the genre.
Jonathan Blow is completely wrong here.
Nobody that plays RTS cares at all that the AI cheats and sort of let's you win or whatever.
Who the hell cares about AI? Who plays single player RTS?
I believe RTS is dying for the same reason arena shooters are dying.
Losing is not fun. Losing when you have only yourself to blame is even less fun.
These games are simply too hardcore for the current gamers.
What players want are competitive games where you can blame your teammates for losing, and feel like you contributed to winning, when in fact you may not even have.
So team games, dota, csgo, overwatch etc are the perfect games for today's players.
Nobody plays single player RTS any more because it is a dead genre and there is little interest in new people learning it. When RTS was new and at its peak everyone was playing the single player campaigns.
I'm one of those who used to play single-player RTS games and cared about the AI quality. Multi-player is a very different experience, as most human players try to abuse game imbalances and fall into meta slavery, ignoring a huge chunk of game's designed space.
Starcraft basically created esports. Starcraft 2 created twitch and brought esports to North America. Starcraft 2 was killed by MOBAs. These guys actually missed the point. The campaign was never the point. Jon just says the same thing about every game. Guy has less unique thoughts than the Starcraft 2 campaign.