I love RTS games. As a teenager in the mid 90s I realized they were my genre of gaming. However, RTS games declined and largely disappeared for a long time in the new century. Now, as they are returning I discovered that my reaction speed and hand coordination no longer can keep up with my brain's processing speed. I used to be a mid-level player, but I get easily crushed in the ladder nowadays, so I rarely engage in it. However I do buy games and use them repeatedly, so I think through my purchase I am also contributing to keep the genre alive for a younger generation. Thanks for this post, it was oddly uplifting.
I'm in the process of making a RTS/RTT game. One of my considerations is this exact thing of RTS being so APM dependent that as one ages it would significantly less interesting to play. I have some ideas of my own I'd like to ask of you and @HarvestBuildDestroy who I actually disagree with on quite a few issues because I think the competitive scene and the "armchair general" scene are way different - and judging by units sold vs active communities, I would say the armchair generals scene is vastly larger than the competitive one - they just aren't very satisfied with the current intensive format of RTS. For example professional level micro is not at all a consideration in most big games, campaigns, and general unranked skirmishes - yet were often the most popular parts of the game. Various pieces of the RTS genre have been flayed away in these custom matches and many eventually became other genres entirely: Micro became MOBA's, defensive maps became Tower Defenses, Macro became Grand Strategy, and probably the most sad piece of it all; economy management became the microtransactions of things like Clash of Clans/Farmville - which really goes to show just how useless and possibly "busywork" econ really is - like spinning a plate shaped battery in a hand while players focus on the "x"-powered of the many other aspects of the game. Drones in SC2 will automine, and the Antihalation series does mining and prod by grading efficiency through automine and is completely fire and forget, creating massive armies and bases and leaving them to focus on tech and/or huge battles. The original Stronghold has a full blown economy simulator and is probably the most advanced/micro intensive economy with city/base building elements in an RTS out there. It has the exact same 4 resource structure (technically it has 6 with Pitch as necessary for death traps and Iron being the advanced armor and weapon resource - but Gold would buy them and virtually everything can make a strong gold economy. There's a lot of automated tweaks like torture and gardens that facilitate this) as AoE with the strategy being viewable by what the opponent has in their stockpile - it's the only game that actively displays how much of something each faction currently possesses - down to the exact number - which is a massive piece of information to derive strategies from AoE and virtually every RTS does not. In fact - as ineffective as it may be, AoE could in theory use this screen of information to its advantage, but really doesn't lend itself to. Yet it still follows the format of Set Task: Harvest Item, then forget about it as it accumulates in the stockpile as you focus on the action or building. I've watched the other vids about how econ in AoE's has strategic identity and I would agree to that point, but that can definitely be achieved without the traditional (25 +year old) methods - I think it's far more important to do exactly what HBD said in this video when talking about the Castle Blood mode, where you can quickly ID a strategy without an economy at all. The future of RTS belongs to recapturing not the economy per say, but rather strategy and tactics in real time with vibrant ID's. So it makes me wonder how much control players are willing to relinquish in a given situation - and how far they'd go to micromanage as much as they could - both are viable directions for the RTS genre. If you'd like to help me, please let me know your preference: Less control, the same format as a previous game, or more control over individual units. Examples: Less Control - Units would obey orders till they saw combat, and then react in various ways dictated by their "Training" - A.I. (Go to cover, breach a door) ect.), Units Automine or the economy is much different and hands off from needing active management. Equal - Units obey orders at all times but do not have abilities (AoE, SC1, CnC, RA2) Economy needs active management. More Control - Units have abilities or equipment they can use either on timers, or a resource, like grenades, stimms, or transformations, and armor/items (SC2, RA3, CoHs, WC3 and/or MOBAs), the economy needs near constant attention - please explain what this would mean. TY. Feel free to mix and match too. Looking forward to hearing your opinions. I can also be reached on discord.
@@Korzacks2nd There is a lot to unpack here, and I would need some time to truly articulate my ideas in a cohesive manner. However, I can give a few quick pointers right now. I think the amount of APM needed can be reduced without weakening the strategic and tactical virtues of a game by allowing more automation of economic elements. This does not mean you have to relinquish or diminish the importance of the economy in the game. You just have to reimagine it as a series of opportunity cost choices. For instance, you can force the player to choose between greedy expansion of economic units to power a late game, or speedy military expansion with little economic backup for a fast all-in rush. Also, you can use multiple resources that force you to make important long-term choices (for example, say you find a trove of guano, do you use that resource to make fertilizer and improve productivity, or instead use it to research explosives for battle?). If the rules are set in such a way that the player can't do both, at least not back to back, you have the economy again at the center of the player's considerations without demanding much APM in the process. Another way of keeping the economy relevant is by adding a running cost to units, instead of just a creation cost. That forces you to decide whether to build a stockpile in case your production machinery takes a hit, or just spend it all and gamble on being able to produce just enough to keep your war machine steamrolling. Those are a few ideas I can think of now on the fly. I assume your TH-cam ID is the same as the one in your Discord and I'll join it and perhaps, if you are interested, share a few more opinions I have on the topic. I love that you are working on such a project and I am also really interested to find out more about it. I am sure there are a lot of other RTS gamers from my generation that would love to be able to jump back into the gaming world.Furthermore, if done well, it will certainly appeal to all ages for sure.
@@vladimirlagos2688 I genuinely appreciate the feedback. Thank you. You are correct, my ID is the same. The best server to find me on is this one; discord.com/invite/tzAhTCQ.
Also yes, I always wished I could play as the Naga in multiplayer. :D The problem with instructional campaigns is campaigns tend to have fixed or separate balance from multiplayer, even if they have all the exact same units.
I generally agree with the points in this video, but I would like to defend Starcraft 2's campaign and co-op game modes. I totally agree that you're probably not gonna get a great sense of what unit counters what in Starcraft 2 by playing the campaign/coop, but that type of counter generally doesn't show up in Starcraft 2 (not to a very significant extent at least). Rather, the way you use your units (not just micro and unit control) matters much more, and the campaign/coop can teach a new player a lot about those aspects of decision-making. For instance, the campaign and coop can do a great job of teaching new players about the effectiveness of walled positions and high ground, or the usefulness of static defense in buying time against harassment, or the importance of knowing where enemy attacks are coming from, and these lessons can help inform a player's choices in the multiplayer (like where to put buildings, or how to react to attacks).
I'm so glad I found this channel. I used to love RTS games and played them a lot. I was more into C&C or TA/SupCom series but still, I really like to listen what you are talking about. Cheers! :)
I think a lot of your points come down to what you prefer in a design philosophy and what your goal is when you create modes like campaign, co-op, etc. I think at this point almost no one enjoys the campaigns you praise (like RoC and SC1) because the design of the missions are boring and flat. Now having said that, if your goal is to create a campaign that leads players to develop skills for multiplayer, they are a success but few players enjoy those campaigns are self-contained modes because they lack any sort of unique mission design, flair, etc. But that is the point, a campaign designed to help players develop multiplayer skills it is hard to create a modern campaign that appeals to most current RTS players. Think of most Petroglyph campaigns, they are almost always just glorified multiplayer matches with story tacked on with units slowly doled out, they fit your design goals for an RTS campaign but are almost universally knocked as possibly the weakest aspect of their games (obviously Grey Goo is a tad different but the budget on that game might be more than their other RTS combined). But these two goals are typically aimed and two different groups of players. Blizzard has said on multiple occasions that most people who buy their RTS games play the campaign, custom games and other casual modes but only dip their toe into multiplayer because they find they have two different player bases, the ones who like campaigns, custom maps and the like and the multiplayer crowd who don't touch anything but ladder. This seemed to be true, from what former CnC developers who joined Blizzard, for most other big RTS as well. Most ladder players don't bother with other modes and the vast majority of people who buy these games just do so for a strong campaign and casual modes. So while I understand that the design goal of making a mode to teach players the basics of multiplayer but I think that saying this should be the main campaign is both bad business and a bad idea since a good campaign (in the modern sense, the campaigns you mention tend to be derided now, at least as campaigns, not as teaching tools) seems to be one of the main selling points and people who play campaign don't seem to care much for ladder anyways. I think your goal can be accomplished with other modes specifically designed for this goal. In SC2 the game comes with a large number of challenges that teach you counters, spell use, unit positioning and more as well as a strong tutorial (not to mention the many tools in the Arcade) that seem to accomplish what you describe. I also think a strong vs. AI community can be a great asset, especially with modern RTS where the AI has a very large variety of builds that it can execute. SC2 even has the ability to let you choose what build your want the AI you are facing (or if you have an AI ally) uses. CoH 2's AI also have very good variety that stops you from using the same units over and over again. The randomness of Tooth and Tail's maps and AI unit selection similarly treats each map uniquely. I think there are already two strong options for what you want to accomplish in most modern RTS games. I do think the idea of a mini-campaign that is specifically meant to teach you the basics, or complexity, of counters, map control, economy, scouting, etc with a little story layered on top would be great. In the end I think I just disagree with the design philosophy you are describing as the best course for an RTS, I think it is a valid one but I'm not sure it is going to lead to more players playing ladder or to greater success once they try. I think most feedback and player data seems to suggest the Venn diagram of the varying players has less overlap than may have thought existed in the 90's. I understand where you are coming from and I think more learning tools would be great additions but I think if you force the main selling point of most RTS games to be something less popular in order to shift a potentially small number of players to ladder at that expense, you are doing more harm than good.
"I do think the idea of a mini-campaign that is specifically meant to teach you the basics, or complexity, of counters, map control, economy, scouting, etc with a little story layered on top would be great." - AoE 2 actually does both! It has a designated learning campaign (William Wallace), as well as now a set of more multi-player focused tutorial missions (Art of War), but the rest of the campaigns weren't designed simply to be dressed up tutorial missions. They do admittedly involve mostly standard units (unlike in Starcraft 2, for instance), but you aren't guided (or restricted) to individual unit use (you'll usually have all the units available to your faction in that age available), and many of them even start you out in the advanced ages right from the first mission (for instance, you start in the third age and can advance to the final one right in the first Barbarossa scenario). So they are designed to simply be fun to play, but you also have a guided campaign and instructional missions available. :)
Yeah I agree with Topher here. The majority of players just aren't interested in multiplayer, especially competitive multiplayer. The StarCraft 2 campaigns are way more fun than StarCraft 1 or RoC. I tried replaying RoC in reforged and it was so boring I gave up.
Your point about late-tech-tree units was really well put. I've thought about that very topic many times before but never quite managed to verbalize it.
One interesting difference between SC2 and AOE2 is SC2 missions always had some kind of time limit. I saw a GDC talk about that saying it was to stop an anticlimactic deathball and clean up situation in every match but I found it taught me more of a encouragement to act quickly and not slowly antfarm which carried over to how I viewed skirmishes in both games. But I think another major difference between how players play in SC and AOE is because of the theme, in SC you are a military force sent out to eliminate an enemy position, in age of empires you are in your home, and your objective is to build an empire (less so in AOE3). I feel AOE tells players to build up their settlements to maximum development in a way SC doesn't.
Replaying the RTS of the 90's recently has been fun for me but also educational as I found the campaigns of those games are so often focused around "turtle until max and then a-move across the map." This is more true in the SC1 and the early CnC games than AoE2, since AoE2 tended to be more varied, but I really hated replaying the remastered versions of SC1 and CnC because while I enjoy the stories, the mission design is more boring and one dimensional, almost each mission plays out the same. I get where the design makes sense, it does teach the campaign more like multiplayer than RTS that have come in the past decade or so, but in terms of enjoyment, there is a reason no one raves about those campaigns for their mission design and almost exclusively discuss just the story. The mission design was just poor. Also I do agree theme matters a great deal in this. Relic's RTS have very different campaigns than Petroglyph which various from Blizzard and they from Creative Assembly. Each developer tends to have different themes and goals from one another (a good thing) and even within their various properties (Relic especially tends to treat CoH and DoW very differently). A campy game about two alien races fighting space marines should have a different style of campaign than a gritty World War II game and those should both be different than an RTS set in Russia-but-not-Russia with animals.
@@maxwellsdemon13 An easy fix to the turtle and max out flaw would be to set yourself a timer and try to beat records, but yes that should be the game devs job.
Me, and i guess a lot of people, loves starcraft 1 and 2 just for the campaign/coop/custom scenarios alone. Competitive multiplayer seems like bonus to the game rather than the game itself. RTSs that don't have a HUGE learning curve are rare and most casual players cant afford the time and energy to learn. I guess this support your argument but what is more fun, control naga and night elf in the same map or a boring "kill everything on map" sc1 standard campaign mission? Great video BTW! Ps.: Have you ever played BFME2/ROTWK is one of the best RTS ever made but kind of forgot by the status quo of RTSs?
I dont know who are you playing against in sc2 but I see only capytal ships spammers in my games. Sometimes rushers, but mass battle cruiser is the most played strat I know. Terran - just battle cruiser Protoss - mass pumpkin zerg - ling rush
![fellow fellow - พรุ่งนี้ไม่มีใครรู้ feat. INK WARUNTORN [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QP6JyjYx_W0/mqdefault.jpg)
I love RTS games. As a teenager in the mid 90s I realized they were my genre of gaming. However, RTS games declined and largely disappeared for a long time in the new century. Now, as they are returning I discovered that my reaction speed and hand coordination no longer can keep up with my brain's processing speed. I used to be a mid-level player, but I get easily crushed in the ladder nowadays, so I rarely engage in it. However I do buy games and use them repeatedly, so I think through my purchase I am also contributing to keep the genre alive for a younger generation. Thanks for this post, it was oddly uplifting.
I'm in the process of making a RTS/RTT game. One of my considerations is this exact thing of RTS being so APM dependent that as one ages it would significantly less interesting to play. I have some ideas of my own I'd like to ask of you and @HarvestBuildDestroy who I actually disagree with on quite a few issues because I think the competitive scene and the "armchair general" scene are way different - and judging by units sold vs active communities, I would say the armchair generals scene is vastly larger than the competitive one - they just aren't very satisfied with the current intensive format of RTS. For example professional level micro is not at all a consideration in most big games, campaigns, and general unranked skirmishes - yet were often the most popular parts of the game. Various pieces of the RTS genre have been flayed away in these custom matches and many eventually became other genres entirely: Micro became MOBA's, defensive maps became Tower Defenses, Macro became Grand Strategy, and probably the most sad piece of it all; economy management became the microtransactions of things like Clash of Clans/Farmville - which really goes to show just how useless and possibly "busywork" econ really is - like spinning a plate shaped battery in a hand while players focus on the "x"-powered of the many other aspects of the game. Drones in SC2 will automine, and the Antihalation series does mining and prod by grading efficiency through automine and is completely fire and forget, creating massive armies and bases and leaving them to focus on tech and/or huge battles. The original Stronghold has a full blown economy simulator and is probably the most advanced/micro intensive economy with city/base building elements in an RTS out there. It has the exact same 4 resource structure (technically it has 6 with Pitch as necessary for death traps and Iron being the advanced armor and weapon resource - but Gold would buy them and virtually everything can make a strong gold economy. There's a lot of automated tweaks like torture and gardens that facilitate this) as AoE with the strategy being viewable by what the opponent has in their stockpile - it's the only game that actively displays how much of something each faction currently possesses - down to the exact number - which is a massive piece of information to derive strategies from AoE and virtually every RTS does not. In fact - as ineffective as it may be, AoE could in theory use this screen of information to its advantage, but really doesn't lend itself to. Yet it still follows the format of Set Task: Harvest Item, then forget about it as it accumulates in the stockpile as you focus on the action or building. I've watched the other vids about how econ in AoE's has strategic identity and I would agree to that point, but that can definitely be achieved without the traditional (25 +year old) methods - I think it's far more important to do exactly what HBD said in this video when talking about the Castle Blood mode, where you can quickly ID a strategy without an economy at all. The future of RTS belongs to recapturing not the economy per say, but rather strategy and tactics in real time with vibrant ID's. So it makes me wonder how much control players are willing to relinquish in a given situation - and how far they'd go to micromanage as much as they could - both are viable directions for the RTS genre. If you'd like to help me, please let me know your preference:
Less control, the same format as a previous game, or more control over individual units.
Examples:
Less Control - Units would obey orders till they saw combat, and then react in various ways dictated by their "Training" - A.I. (Go to cover, breach a door) ect.), Units Automine or the economy is much different and hands off from needing active management.
Equal - Units obey orders at all times but do not have abilities (AoE, SC1, CnC, RA2) Economy needs active management.
More Control - Units have abilities or equipment they can use either on timers, or a resource, like grenades, stimms, or transformations, and armor/items (SC2, RA3, CoHs, WC3 and/or MOBAs), the economy needs near constant attention - please explain what this would mean. TY.
Feel free to mix and match too. Looking forward to hearing your opinions.
I can also be reached on discord.
@@Korzacks2nd There is a lot to unpack here, and I would need some time to truly articulate my ideas in a cohesive manner. However, I can give a few quick pointers right now.
I think the amount of APM needed can be reduced without weakening the strategic and tactical virtues of a game by allowing more automation of economic elements. This does not mean you have to relinquish or diminish the importance of the economy in the game. You just have to reimagine it as a series of opportunity cost choices. For instance, you can force the player to choose between greedy expansion of economic units to power a late game, or speedy military expansion with little economic backup for a fast all-in rush. Also, you can use multiple resources that force you to make important long-term choices (for example, say you find a trove of guano, do you use that resource to make fertilizer and improve productivity, or instead use it to research explosives for battle?). If the rules are set in such a way that the player can't do both, at least not back to back, you have the economy again at the center of the player's considerations without demanding much APM in the process.
Another way of keeping the economy relevant is by adding a running cost to units, instead of just a creation cost. That forces you to decide whether to build a stockpile in case your production machinery takes a hit, or just spend it all and gamble on being able to produce just enough to keep your war machine steamrolling.
Those are a few ideas I can think of now on the fly. I assume your TH-cam ID is the same as the one in your Discord and I'll join it and perhaps, if you are interested, share a few more opinions I have on the topic. I love that you are working on such a project and I am also really interested to find out more about it. I am sure there are a lot of other RTS gamers from my generation that would love to be able to jump back into the gaming world.Furthermore, if done well, it will certainly appeal to all ages for sure.
@@vladimirlagos2688 I genuinely appreciate the feedback. Thank you. You are correct, my ID is the same. The best server to find me on is this one; discord.com/invite/tzAhTCQ.
Also yes, I always wished I could play as the Naga in multiplayer. :D
The problem with instructional campaigns is campaigns tend to have fixed or separate balance from multiplayer, even if they have all the exact same units.
I like the new channel avatar/logo, keep up the good work.
Thanks!
I generally agree with the points in this video, but I would like to defend Starcraft 2's campaign and co-op game modes. I totally agree that you're probably not gonna get a great sense of what unit counters what in Starcraft 2 by playing the campaign/coop, but that type of counter generally doesn't show up in Starcraft 2 (not to a very significant extent at least). Rather, the way you use your units (not just micro and unit control) matters much more, and the campaign/coop can teach a new player a lot about those aspects of decision-making. For instance, the campaign and coop can do a great job of teaching new players about the effectiveness of walled positions and high ground, or the usefulness of static defense in buying time against harassment, or the importance of knowing where enemy attacks are coming from, and these lessons can help inform a player's choices in the multiplayer (like where to put buildings, or how to react to attacks).
I'm so glad I found this channel.
I used to love RTS games and played them a lot. I was more into C&C or TA/SupCom series but still, I really like to listen what you are talking about.
Cheers! :)
I think a lot of your points come down to what you prefer in a design philosophy and what your goal is when you create modes like campaign, co-op, etc. I think at this point almost no one enjoys the campaigns you praise (like RoC and SC1) because the design of the missions are boring and flat. Now having said that, if your goal is to create a campaign that leads players to develop skills for multiplayer, they are a success but few players enjoy those campaigns are self-contained modes because they lack any sort of unique mission design, flair, etc. But that is the point, a campaign designed to help players develop multiplayer skills it is hard to create a modern campaign that appeals to most current RTS players. Think of most Petroglyph campaigns, they are almost always just glorified multiplayer matches with story tacked on with units slowly doled out, they fit your design goals for an RTS campaign but are almost universally knocked as possibly the weakest aspect of their games (obviously Grey Goo is a tad different but the budget on that game might be more than their other RTS combined).
But these two goals are typically aimed and two different groups of players. Blizzard has said on multiple occasions that most people who buy their RTS games play the campaign, custom games and other casual modes but only dip their toe into multiplayer because they find they have two different player bases, the ones who like campaigns, custom maps and the like and the multiplayer crowd who don't touch anything but ladder. This seemed to be true, from what former CnC developers who joined Blizzard, for most other big RTS as well. Most ladder players don't bother with other modes and the vast majority of people who buy these games just do so for a strong campaign and casual modes.
So while I understand that the design goal of making a mode to teach players the basics of multiplayer but I think that saying this should be the main campaign is both bad business and a bad idea since a good campaign (in the modern sense, the campaigns you mention tend to be derided now, at least as campaigns, not as teaching tools) seems to be one of the main selling points and people who play campaign don't seem to care much for ladder anyways.
I think your goal can be accomplished with other modes specifically designed for this goal. In SC2 the game comes with a large number of challenges that teach you counters, spell use, unit positioning and more as well as a strong tutorial (not to mention the many tools in the Arcade) that seem to accomplish what you describe. I also think a strong vs. AI community can be a great asset, especially with modern RTS where the AI has a very large variety of builds that it can execute. SC2 even has the ability to let you choose what build your want the AI you are facing (or if you have an AI ally) uses. CoH 2's AI also have very good variety that stops you from using the same units over and over again. The randomness of Tooth and Tail's maps and AI unit selection similarly treats each map uniquely.
I think there are already two strong options for what you want to accomplish in most modern RTS games. I do think the idea of a mini-campaign that is specifically meant to teach you the basics, or complexity, of counters, map control, economy, scouting, etc with a little story layered on top would be great.
In the end I think I just disagree with the design philosophy you are describing as the best course for an RTS, I think it is a valid one but I'm not sure it is going to lead to more players playing ladder or to greater success once they try. I think most feedback and player data seems to suggest the Venn diagram of the varying players has less overlap than may have thought existed in the 90's. I understand where you are coming from and I think more learning tools would be great additions but I think if you force the main selling point of most RTS games to be something less popular in order to shift a potentially small number of players to ladder at that expense, you are doing more harm than good.
"I do think the idea of a mini-campaign that is specifically meant to teach you the basics, or complexity, of counters, map control, economy, scouting, etc with a little story layered on top would be great." - AoE 2 actually does both! It has a designated learning campaign (William Wallace), as well as now a set of more multi-player focused tutorial missions (Art of War), but the rest of the campaigns weren't designed simply to be dressed up tutorial missions. They do admittedly involve mostly standard units (unlike in Starcraft 2, for instance), but you aren't guided (or restricted) to individual unit use (you'll usually have all the units available to your faction in that age available), and many of them even start you out in the advanced ages right from the first mission (for instance, you start in the third age and can advance to the final one right in the first Barbarossa scenario). So they are designed to simply be fun to play, but you also have a guided campaign and instructional missions available. :)
Yeah I agree with Topher here. The majority of players just aren't interested in multiplayer, especially competitive multiplayer. The StarCraft 2 campaigns are way more fun than StarCraft 1 or RoC. I tried replaying RoC in reforged and it was so boring I gave up.
Your point about late-tech-tree units was really well put. I've thought about that very topic many times before but never quite managed to verbalize it.
Very interesting ideas and nice video!
Brother keep going 👊 love your content
One interesting difference between SC2 and AOE2 is SC2 missions always had some kind of time limit. I saw a GDC talk about that saying it was to stop an anticlimactic deathball and clean up situation in every match but I found it taught me more of a encouragement to act quickly and not slowly antfarm which carried over to how I viewed skirmishes in both games.
But I think another major difference between how players play in SC and AOE is because of the theme, in SC you are a military force sent out to eliminate an enemy position, in age of empires you are in your home, and your objective is to build an empire (less so in AOE3). I feel AOE tells players to build up their settlements to maximum development in a way SC doesn't.
Replaying the RTS of the 90's recently has been fun for me but also educational as I found the campaigns of those games are so often focused around "turtle until max and then a-move across the map." This is more true in the SC1 and the early CnC games than AoE2, since AoE2 tended to be more varied, but I really hated replaying the remastered versions of SC1 and CnC because while I enjoy the stories, the mission design is more boring and one dimensional, almost each mission plays out the same.
I get where the design makes sense, it does teach the campaign more like multiplayer than RTS that have come in the past decade or so, but in terms of enjoyment, there is a reason no one raves about those campaigns for their mission design and almost exclusively discuss just the story. The mission design was just poor.
Also I do agree theme matters a great deal in this. Relic's RTS have very different campaigns than Petroglyph which various from Blizzard and they from Creative Assembly. Each developer tends to have different themes and goals from one another (a good thing) and even within their various properties (Relic especially tends to treat CoH and DoW very differently). A campy game about two alien races fighting space marines should have a different style of campaign than a gritty World War II game and those should both be different than an RTS set in Russia-but-not-Russia with animals.
@@maxwellsdemon13 An easy fix to the turtle and max out flaw would be to set yourself a timer and try to beat records, but yes that should be the game devs job.
"Starcraft is esport link below" more like link lie!!! thanks for the video :D
Derp, thanks for pointing that out lol (added)
@@HarvestBuildDestroy ho you change your profile picture :) I assume is because you're not only focused on AGE of anymore
Me, and i guess a lot of people, loves starcraft 1 and 2 just for the campaign/coop/custom scenarios alone. Competitive multiplayer seems like bonus to the game rather than the game itself. RTSs that don't have a HUGE learning curve are rare and most casual players cant afford the time and energy to learn. I guess this support your argument but what is more fun, control naga and night elf in the same map or a boring "kill everything on map" sc1 standard campaign mission?
Great video BTW!
Ps.: Have you ever played BFME2/ROTWK is one of the best RTS ever made but kind of forgot by the status quo of RTSs?
13:25 missed opportunity for a faster mate
De7-e8++
Yeah, I doubt much if any of that was actually optimal lol, I just needed some chess footage
10:17 Is this what Disney said when they invaded Gaul?
I dont know who are you playing against in sc2 but I see only capytal ships spammers in my games. Sometimes rushers, but mass battle cruiser is the most played strat I know. Terran - just battle cruiser Protoss - mass pumpkin zerg - ling rush
I am not one od them and I agree that best way to learn a rts is to play campain - great video btw
Awesome man 🔥
#IDArmor
LMAO I only played 4v4 or 8 player FFA for forever