why the StarCraft community KILLS every new RTS game
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ส.ค. 2022
- this entire thing was just an excuse to make the first 1:20 of this video
FIND ME PLACES:
TWITCH | twitch.tv/SpiralBiscuit
TWITTER | SpiralBiscuit
INSTAGRAM | SpiralBiscuit
LINKTREE | linktr.ee/SpiralBiscuit
Subscribe or else StarCraft kills your favorite game. Unless it's StarCraft. Then it's already dead xd
Sources:
AUDIO:
It Has To Be Ambiguous - Kill la Kill vs. Metal Gear Rising
Persona 5 OST - Phantom [Extended]
So Happy World
VIDEO (not gonna lie this is probably not entirely accurate, keeping track of this is really hard lol):
The Gamer - 더 게이머_한국게임의 역사 #StarCraft #Documentary #KOREAN GAMER (Eng sub)
Season 2019: A New Journey | League of Legends
IMLosirA's Hands
QXC Smashes his Keyboard
The Pursuit of Happyness (6/8) Movie CLIP - Cold Calling (2006) HD
IM House Tour
FlaSh on Arm Surgery, Sacrifices & Naivety of Progamers [subbed] SHIRTLESS ROTTI
[Promo] 2022 GSL Season 1
[RAGE!] Jaedong vs Larva ZvZ @ Circuit Breaker #9 [2017-06-02] [DUAL FPVOD]
[홍구]짤려도 상관없으니 그냥 올리겠습니다 ^^
홍짜르트 관람중 ㅋㅋㅋ 갓의 까르르 모음 [이영호 스타크래프트 실황]
The Boys are Slaughtered in the World of Warcraft - SOUTH PARK
Artosis rages at Protoss A-Move - Artosis Clips
Yasuo.exe
StarCraft 2: The Future of Co-op - Developer Interview with Matt Morris! (Lead Co-op Designer)
[ENG] AfreecaTV StarLeague(ASL) S8 Finals Snow vs Flash
Warcraft 2 Tower Defence
Evolution Of Bloons Tower Defense (2007-2018)
Trying DotA 1 in 2021
Aeon of Strife (Loss)
UWO vs MU | Finals Game 1 | 2019 College Championship | U. of W. Ontario vs. Maryville
American Psycho Conversation With The "Lawyer" (HD 1080P)
KIDS: iOS / Android / PC Gameplay Walkthrough (by Playables)
Analysis: The Consequences of Reducing the Skill Gap
The FALL of Anakin Skywalker: FIGHT with Obi-Wan Kenobi
Phil Ivey Wins $2,000,000 at Poker High Stakes $250K Buy In
Magnus Carlsen Wins His 5th World Chess Championship Match
Frost Giant Developer Interview - Co-op with Kevin Dong
Why Not All Mobile Games Should be Esports
Temp0 - So Mad You Rage (Glad You Came SC2 Parody)
Starcraft: Dragoons pathfinding
WC3 - Huya 4v4 Tournament: Team China 1 vs. Team Europe
WC3 - W3C Season 2 Finals EU - WB Final: [ORC] Grubby vs. Happy [UD]
Talking about the @MrBeast vs @Ninja Event... | Doublelift
/ 1521084761
Kerrigan Kills Fenix (and Raynor Vows to Kill Her) - Starcraft Remastered
Bruno Mars - Treasure (Official Music Video)
IMAGES:
lotv.spawningtool.com/build/?...
i.diplomaframe.com/images/pro...
www.pustore.com/site/Product-...
staticx.ibncollege.com/wcssto...
res.heraldm.com/content/image/...
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
www.gamespot.com/articles/pro...
www.espn.com/esports/story/_/...
/ 270741030603735040
liquipedia.net/starcraft2/DeM...
liquipedia.net/starcraft2/TLO
tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/5719...
pbs.twimg.com/media/D5lXukcWw...
www.gamespot.com/articles/tae...
www.ginx.tv/ezoimgfmt/cdn.res...
i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/n...
www.google.com/search?q=stero...
i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/f...
www.leagueoflegends.com/en-us...
u.gg/lol/champions/belveth/build
leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wi...
ssb.wiki.gallery/images/5/5e/...
www.unitstatistics.com/ssbu/
sunspeargames.com/skill-ceiling/
/ 1374415660277624837
/ 1536090976275509248
i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/f...
www.rankedftw.com/stats/leagu... - เกม
I tried getting my wife into starcraft and she isntanty bonded with the drones and never got farther than that
Good start tbh
So you mean that we have to make a virtual pet zerg minigame for the arcade.
Broodmother syndrome
You've been selected for the Gates of Pyre Alpha giveaway! Congrats! Please shoot me a DM on Twitter so I can send you the code.
twitter.com/SpiralBiscuit/status/1563290873177460737
@@SpiralBiscuit great 👍 I'll do that when I get home from work tonight
Gettin new people to RTS is more difficult than playing the game itself
Largely because the genre has largely decided to kick out the idea of sanding that accessibility cliff into an accessibility hill. Anyone that tries that isn't Starcraft, they get _maulled_ by the fandom...
@@TheTrueAdept Supreme Commander and Zero-K are pretty intuitive, and have a high skill ceiling/low floor
@@weylinstoeppelmann9858 Supreme Commander's problem has been basically 'build an economy, outspam the opposition' and I haven't played Zero-K yet to give a good descriptor for it.
@@weylinstoeppelmann9858 As another poster pointed out, SupCom is a spamfest. Because orchestrating any kind of clever combined-arms tactics in that game is a nightmare. The scale is too big, and there are too many moving parts.
SupCom should have been the game to include automation tools, and finally move past micromanagement. SupCom offered to let players wage something close to real-life wars in scale, then failed to give them anything like the kind of top-down organisation that an actual army needs to operate at that scale. Instead, it left its players with the same awkward, nonsensical, bottom-up command system that the genre has been leaning on for the last 30 years.
And so the game is won by whoever can mass the biggest deathball and hurl it at the enemy. Because any plan more detailed than that isn't worth the brainpower.
@@tbotalpha8133 That's why I wish Beyond All Reason would port over the unit AI/settings fully from Zero-K. BAR has the scale and scope I want with the focus on long games with large scale. Zero-K is tuned to shorter games very specifically and while that's fine, it doesn't capture my desire to play the way BAR's scope does. So while BAR has the scale, Zero-K's unit AI and automation tools are just frustrating to not have.
The focus on 'keep micro meaningful' ultimately pushes the design away from where I would have it in BAR. While the 'shorter games, no teching, no turtling' in Zero-K pushes the design away from where I would have it.
"if most people knew most ladder games were more like two drunk toddlers fencing with pool noodles, the intimidation factor would be significantly lower" ~ GiantGrantGames, on the subject of the perception of difficulty in playing the game
This honestly has the opposite effect to me, the vast majority of people who play ladder have probably poured hundreds if not thousands of hours into ladder at this point whether that just be practicing something or whatever and these people who are for the most part going to be way better at the game than me are considered drunk toddlers fencing with pool noodles?
@@tiggerbane4325 the vast majority of people that play ladder aren't actually all that good. many just fool around in ladder, and others just use the ladder to get matched with players of similarly bad skill level. the group that you're referring to are the minority, at the very top of the ladder.
seriously, it's not that you'd be facing super pros who are considered babies compared to the top, it's that you (as many others) are _vaaaastly_ overestimating the general skill level of ladder players.
That man is a dirty liar. Ladder is sweaty as fuck.
@@Ridesdragons didnt played star craft but played company of heroes, and the only reason why I yeeted that out of the window is because it feels like literally everyone plays better than me, even in ranked where you supposed to be matched up with people of similar skill level (and especially in custom games where theres no this illusion that people you go against as (non) skilled as you are)
@@Toxic_bnnuy I've played both, and can think of a couple of reasons for that.
1. there's the obvious "initialization" problem - the first several games will always be the hardest, because the game hasn't decided where to stick you yet. however, this point can quickly be ruled out by you depending on how many times you gave ladder a try.
2. company of heroes is a much more complicated series than starcraft. in CoH you don't have units (outside of vehicles), you have divisions, each with several abilities. there are several different resources, with different nodes giving different kinds of resources (fuel and munitions), as well as a resource you can only indirectly affect (manpower) and a victory point system. contrast that with starcraft, where there are a select few units that have more than 1 ability and most have none, and your resources boils down to just a mineral line (vespene is part of that line, it's found in the same places). that means that CoH has a higher skill floor, which weeds out players.
3. CoH is not nearly as popular. CoH1 has an average of 2k players, while CoH2 has an average of 5k players, based on the steam charts. contrast that with AoE2:DE, which has an average of 15k players, and a thriving community of low-skilled players on the ladder (stream casters like T90Official frequently cast games of these low ELO games as well, which further boosts player numbers in this skill bracket). There's unfortunately no chart for the playerbase publicly available for SC2 (likely because of warcraft's failure), but as grant demonstrated in his video essay (which you can find here, btw: th-cam.com/video/XehNK7UpZsc/w-d-xo.html), the likely player count can be extrapolated via events and old records. it is estimated that the playerbase for sc2 dwarfs that of AoE2:DE, which itself dwarfs CoH. a starving playerbase means that it's likely that the only ones left in the pool are the really good ones. CoH being a complicated game only makes that worse. it's also estimated that only up to 20% of the players, even in games with a thriving ladder like AoE and SC, actually play on ladder. this means that even under optimistic estimates, CoH1 only has roughly 400 players on the ladder on any given day, and CoH2, 1k. that is not a rich pool.
The greater gaming community even outside of Starcraft has a problem with worshipping difficulty and making less skilled players feel bad for struggling. Which makes them not want to play, and not want to challenge themselves when they do, which is frustrating because playing a lot and challenging yourself is how you get to be a good player. But I guess we should all spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus as elite mega-gamers, right?
You didn't?
This. I have been playing games since mid 80s as a kid and I feel like around 2010s the gaming community has just, out of nowhere, decided that having fun is illegal and gaming has to be about rage, frustration and sweat.
Have fond memories of just split-screen playing with friends or early online FPS arena shooters like Unreal Tournament with that one map in space with two towers where you just get insta-gibbed by snipers and no progress is made but its fun. Or the 4-8 player free for alls in Starcraft or Age of Empires 2 where allegiances change every minute.
Wish we could go back to the days when "just having fun" was the most important thing in gaming.
Honestly my issue is games are deciding how you ahould play games. Like rust for example. I get so much shit frm everyone i play with or even randoms because I dont like raiding, i barely like monuments. Its just a goofy farming simulator to me, and people are like “tHAT NoT HOW TO PlAY” like bro its a game im playing it for fun
If you want an easier game why don't you play something else this way everybody is happy???
This is so true. And actually that challenge is the actual fun: Sc2 is the epitome of self-improvement, and offers a lot here, the macro and building up an "empire" can be as inspiring as in Age of Empire or the Settlers. Next step is it better than the enemies'? And needless to say when you are versed with all this and having it in the back of your mind, multitasking becomes stronger. Ultimately leading to having to learn good micro, so all your time with macroing isn't "wasted". Of course dealing with toxic people, cry-babies or massive abusers that rank themselves down just to bash newbs isn't much fun, or dealing with false advertisement or even Shoutcasting and VoDs commenting on sc2 giving a WRONG image of what sc2 is: Not just an action game without struggle. IMO especially the later they invite the wrong people and turn off the people that might really love starcraft (2): The "wrong" people come for the action but find themselves suddenly having to macro 50% and still having to deal with almost impossible micro situations - no one to blame of the players here. This is just natural to be dissapointed. Then the "correct" people who might love the deepness of the game, but they only see the superficial picture: Armies clashing for 10 seconds, that's it. And in broodwar of course longer fights, but mostly showing action too. So they might never know or experience the "interesting" side of these games not just action. And will thusly not try the game - unless recommended or stumbling upon the interesting parts of the game somehow.
If only for the action, any fail RTS of the past is the same fun, I remember a 1 million price pool for a freshly released game. It only had action, you spawned units based on choice that's it. Guess what it dropped of really quickly and was never seen again. People like intriguing things and doing what THEY want (see minecraft being so popular!!) which basebuilding and "empire-building" offers (and ofc simple army design, too),
*But they don't like frustration and be turned off by unexpected design, or being overwhelmed from the start.* (so starting with versus mode... or having high expectations from pro-streams or worse: only observer games/shout casting... or being utterly destroyed...)
This game and the RTS genre in general truly has such an intimating presence. Out of 20 friends only 1 decided to actually download and enjoy coop with me.
Yeah, I once asked all my friends that I had, (around 8) to try starcraft, and starcraft 2, and only one downloaded and played with me for a month.
@@Poplyser Seems like this is the fate of many Starcraft players, myself included. Trying to get friends to even download the game is stretch, but finding someone to play with is always a rewarding enough feeling to make the effort worth it
Sup? untrover. Really, just offer to play the other modes in it. The game is free after all can't lose much. Stay away from versus mode if they weren't too eager to begin with at all cost
- 1st try tower defenses: Bardock's is a nice coop td for 2 players - this rewards worker control and building something because of immdiate effect: killing enemy
- 2nd then try some base defense maps without macro or automated macro, this rewards really the core of the game, trying to manage the base and building stuff!
- 3rd then or swap with 2: try the hero maps, it's good introduction to the controls of micro in starcraft 2 and a hero trains focussing on not losing that one
These all are so fun IMHO you really don't need to be any expert and it's not intimidating at all
However if it was awakening more, then you can go ahead to:
- Army only control maps, again can be pve and no macro but you actually a-move and micro an army ...
- co-op mode: the defensive missions, on low difficulty as necessary, but remember easy is not necessarily more fun, just if they suck: It's really the highlight of PvE fun IMO.
If wanted more:
- there are some great 2vs AI maps, (try the ones from hots, as they have more minerals per base)
or such as 3vs 7 AI map. ALso there some nice "modifications" you can choose. This is really endless content, and together with a friend you can have some thrilling times and raise the difficulty to keep it spicy.
- never say "ez", if it was too easy, then you didn't choose the correct difficulty xD (and vice versa never cry: you can lower difficulty almost always in certain ways)
have fun
I got it even worse im trying to get my friends into wargame red dragon and combat mission. 2 out of like 3 got it both rage quit red dragon in about 20mins
RTS games that come out and are like "we're going to be an E-sports game" are an instant turn off for me. I don't want balance I WANT DESTRUCTION! I want to watch big armies blow each other up and have super weapons and cool looking units and a compelling campaign that gets me invested in the world. Balance can come after that.
Soooooo, Soulstorm Ultimate Apocalypse Mod?
Play surpreme commander 2 then
@@soul24311 Forged alliance goes hard.
@@soul24311 play Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance not 2 pleaae god not 2
The RTS games I've played, you basically have to win very quickly. So instead of making a big army you're basically racing to make the first shot.
You get all these cool units but the whole thing becomes a game of rock-paper-scissors rather than clashes of grand armies
I don't think the community is unwelcoming, I think that the community is elitist. We like to think we're better than other people and that our game is the "smart people" game. This hasn't stopped chess from having massive success onboarding the pretentious of all ages. I think people in twitch chats of lower level streamers and people who are trying out the game are fairly positive, definitely some back seat gaming, but I don't think the twitch chats are mean.
I think that the main thing that stops on boarding with SC & SC2 is that the multiplayer is extremely unforgiving and requires a lot of game knowledge in order to defend yourself.
It's interesting. I've been involved in Immortal Gates of Pyre's (IGP) discord, and while the devs are welcoming to new players, they really seem to take their lore and worldbuilding too seriously. The head writer will often talk about how his lore is better than most other games' lore, supposedly because it is "realistic". Not the game mind you, which is heavily abstracted, but the lore behind the game. Note that this is a world of faith eating angels made of star plasma, and plant animal hybrids that worship an interdimensional cancer god. It comes off as rather elitist and childish. Like the dev team have to stroke their egos about something to make sure they seem superior.
so what you are saying is that the developers gatekeep the game. good.
if people dont wanna put the effort to learn our game and enter our community, they should not enter at all.
but gatekeeping is not what killed starcraft, alot of people played starcraft back in the day.
@@Marduk401because there was close to no gatekeeping back in 90s when og rts were coming out
@@Bleilock1 there was always gatekeeping. games gatekeeped themselves back then. --no realistic graphics (fuck realism btw, i want other types of art in games)
-no ps4-like over the shoulder movie like games.
-hard gameplay that fitered people.
and so on, games had a small audience back then, an audience that didnt get filtered.
thats why they could be hard, and innacessible.
thats why we could have hard rts games like starcraft.
As someone who tried to get back into sc2 somewhat recently I can confirm that the community was extremely unwelcoming. I was just asking about some issues with the matchmaking which do exist and I was getting "get gud" answers basically, they weren't even reading (the issue was that I was climbing due to instaquits, and I felt that screwed with the rewarding experience, was looking to matchmake with community members, this was in PiGs server btw). BW community was very welcoming however and I'm happy playing that, which is ironic since people say that game is harder. Not only was the MM better, the community gave me all the direction I ever needed.
The problem with game knowledge, isn't a community or being unforgiving issue tho, it's a developer issue. And stormgate and the other newer rts are falling into the same hole. These devs live in the past 100%. Every old genre from the 90's had this problem, where because back then you didn't teach players, nowadays they keep doing the same thing. They add challenges and tutorials but your average player isn't doing that crap until they are invested in the game plain and simple.
Today it's standard to build with the teach, test, twist method, that's what most people are used to because that's what casual games do. RTS aren't doing that, instead they have campaigns that teach jackshit about fundamentals and game state, and then cram challenges to teach players micro concepts when they don't even grasp the fundamentals of economy, and ofc players skip those cause that's not teaching organically, it feels forced. This is a psychological thing, it's why kids hate school, but when they leave school they enjoy taking courses despite being the exact same thing. This is what leads to your 100% implied statement that they have a horrible time and can't even defend themselves.
It's a trend to every old game, arena shooters like quake had trouble teaching movement. The movement tutorial was completed by 2% of the community, does that number sound familiar? Yea it's the similar to the amount of people that play ladder in SC2. Fighting games have the same issue, only single digits play multiplayer for the past decade. But Fighting games changed this recently, you know how? They made story modes like SF6, GGST and Tekken 8 where they teach you the concepts of framedata, being plus or negative, they even have minigames for charge moves which are fun ways of learning, and you get rewarded massively for doing those as well. It's a positive experience towards learning game mechanics, as it should be.
This lets people learn while having fun and get invested. Until RTS devs realize this, it will always be a niche competitive genre with the casuals being a separate community that plays the campaigns and leaves or stays for the coop. They need to step back and acknowledge what new players do in RTS games and how they have fun
Very nicely put. I think that covered the issue quite well without getting into the weeds.
To add to the analysis, another big issue is that, for a variety of historical reasons, the StarCraft community does not get along with other RTS communities and vice versa, though other RTS communities often ignore each other and just hate on StarCraft. This is in contrast to fighting games, where if someone plays a fighting game competitively, they probably are happy to play a dozen other random fighting games casually with anyone who's up to play, and the way the competitive scene is structured reflects that, as does the way new games find a playerbase willing to at least give them a fair shake when they come down the pipe.
On the other hand, with RTS, if you play an RTS, you play *that* RTS, and not only do you tend to not play even the others in the same subgenre (except maybe C&C players), but also tend to look down your nose at every other RTS out there for whatever reason. Whether it's StarCraft players calling everything else a baby game for casuals, or Supreme Commander players deriding everything else as tiny squad games for morons that don't test real army management, or Age of Empires players smugly asserting other games aren't worth their time because of their oversimplified resource management requirements, or everyone calling StarCraft and its players, and any game that even remotely resembles StarCraft (i.e. has asymmetric factions, 2 or 3 resources, and a focus controlling individual units with abilities), a mindless clickfest. So not only does the RTS playerbase make new players feel like they are wasting their time, new games simply cannot leverage that whole genre's playerbase to build their own playerbase.
Wow yeah I'm not well versed enough to speak about other communities, but I can understand where this perception comes from. I love your analogy with fighting games too!
Exactly! Well said. I was going to say the same thing.
I think the issue with your fighting game analogy is that traditional fighting games share so much of the same mechanical input and structure they are quite interchangeable. While there is a steep learning burden in matchups, frames, etc, the fundamentals are similar enough that you can plug and play between them relatively easily.
RTS games do not have this guarantee. A huge part of that is the engines they use differ so wildly. The same genre contains games like Halo Wars, Sins of A Solar Empire, StarCraft, Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Homeworld. These games all play incredibly differently, and switching between them requires learning entirely new control schemes, not to mention the units, resources, etc. The mechanical and knowledge requirement to switch in an RTS is much higher.
@@whydidimakethis111 This is half true, but only to the same extent that it's a lot easier to go from Guilty Gear to Street Fighter than from Guilty Gear to Tekken. There are still common fundamentals in all cases, but I agree that fighting game subgenres have a lot more games in each than RTS subgenres do.
That being said, there is still enough in common between various RTS games to have enough overlap to transfer from one to the other without too much issue:
-mouse-driven selection and command interface with supplementary hotkeys
-resource gathering enabling army production enabling map control enabling more resource gathering
-wrangling the various rate-limiters for various parts of the game, such as army production (ex. supply structures) and resource gathering (ex. worker costs and often income caps)
It's not like RTS are so different that you couldn't have a broader RTS community. Where you are onto something is that each RTS subgenre only has a handful of games, as games that were similar to existing games got torn to pieces on release back in the day, usually being lambasted as being too much like StarCraft, so most RTS subgenres don't really have a lot of reps. The main exception would be TA/SupCom-style RTS, due to the Spring engine and all the games made for it (player numbers notwithstanding), where jumping between different games is about as easy as jumping between different 2d fighting games. That being said, it's not that much harder to jump between different subgenres, TheLittleOne being a case in point (Supreme Commander -> StarCraft 2). More importantly, though, playing one or the other fighting game isn't viewed anywhere near as tribalistically as playing one or the other RTS game, which makes it a lot easier to even try other RTS games, which in turn makes it a lot easier to jump between them.
It's not just historical - there's a trend for the Starcraft community to be utterly blind to the fact that other flavours of RTS exist. It's a bit like the stereotype of the arrogant American tourist.
When Homeworld: Remastered came out, I remember a string of complaints, usually comparing it to SC2, that capital ships were so slow and therefore it lacked skill. They were getting annihilated in those post-release lobbies though, because that slow speed means you need to plan MUCH further ahead, and their attempts to rapidly reposition usually exposed weak armour facings to incoming fire.
At the same time though, I'm glad that Stormgate is "a thing", because hopefully it services that part of the RTS community, acting as a "lightning rod" for a sub-genre I personally don't find that compelling.
We used to play WC3 on the school computers. Only custom games and TD. Nothing competetive just having fun. Recently we've been thinking of playing it again.
SC on the other hand somehow has that "APM/tryhard e-sport" stigma. I tried to explain that it's basically the same with a sci-fi look which isn't fully the truth.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeyup. that's exactly what I'm afraid of haha
>somehow has that "APM/tryhard e-sport" stigma
Well, the reason is somewhat hardcoded into the game. Most units are made from wet toilet paper. You need to constantly control everything or you lose. The time it takes to waste all your army is negligible. You can turn away for a couple of seconds and your units can be gone. From some stupid shit like burrowed mines which doesn't even require the attention of your opponent. Or just from opponent attacking you from favorable position.
Try arcade games and have fun
Personally the experience I've had with getting people to play RTS has mostly been Campaign and Co-op oriented. I really do love StarCraft II (most of the time) but trying to get someone from "hey have you heard of this game?" to "let's go play on ladder" is almost impossible. If they have no other RTS experience it isn't happening unless you can get them through the campaign first. Which they have to want to do in the first place, and will have to do on their own...
The most I've actually got people to play with me is in the co-op mode though. Why? Because it's so much more non-committal. You can select your own difficulty. If we queue into ladder and you haven't played for 10 days you're going to be rusty and we're going to get wrecked. And that's assuming we've even played (see: lost) enough games to be at our actual proper placement level. Because you start in mid-high gold and have to get absolutely shit-tossed for 15-20 games in a row as a brand new player before making your way down to bronze where the game is playable for someone fresh.
Meanwhile in co-op we can just queue casual and I can carry you while you learn how to even build your base and workers. Then we can go to normal when your commander has some skills and you know how to build units. And then if you feel like pushing yourself and getting xp we can do brutal - or if you just want to chill out and blow stuff up guess what? we can still do normal and there's no ladder points at stake and no need to rush or push yourself.
Not to mention the massive amount of custom content. But really it's just that online vs multiplayer doesn't have a "difficulty select" and requires regular play sessions in addition to potentially studying the game and practicing it? Especially if you want to actually improve. Which is something I personally enjoy - but it's not "fun" for everyone who plays video games.
Can confirm. I played exactly one ladder game, one time. Got my shit kicked in, didn't have fun, never touched the ladder again. With Co-op I played a decent amount of it for a while and have some fond memories of it all. Though part of that is also because in Co-op, the game isn't so obsessively overtuned and limited for balance reasons. So what if the units are overpowered and you can decimate whole armies with a few well-placed commander abilities? That's half of what makes it fun. Being on the wrong side of that would suck, but that's not a problem because the AI doesn't have feelings.
I have a friend i introduced to starcraft 2 after never shutting the fuck up about it for the best part of a year and then finally it went f2p, i built his pc with him and immediately installed battlenet and the game along with it. After quite some time of him destroying me in smash bros i thought it would finally be my time but tbh i much prefer playing 2v2s and trying my best to hard carry.
Nice, I love Smash and StarCraft as well, good studf
You've been selected for the Gates of Pyre Alpha giveaway! Congrats! Please shoot me a DM on Twitter so I can send you the code.
twitter.com/SpiralBiscuit/status/1563290873177460737
This game is just TOO much lol. I remember having more "fun" with the ladder than I did the campaign (in starcraft 2, anyway), but still... I almost had to force myself to play because the anxiety it creates is atrocious.
You spend 10-15 minutes playing like a mad man... managing your base, your economy, your units... building everything up to an inevitable final battle that's over almost as quickly as it begins. Even if you win the match the feeling of triumph is temporary because as soon as you think of getting back into a new match, the anxiety kicks back in.
Yeah ladder anxiety is quite common, I think part of it comes with the stigma that if you play StarCraft, you gotta ladder and git gud which just isn't true. If laddering gives you anxiety then just don't ladder lmao. If you want to take the time and fix it and get better then there are many guides out there for dealing with ladder anxiety, but nobody is forcing anyone to play the game in a way that would give them anxiety.
U can say the same about other game, i would say that anxiety come to you and not a team like in lol. In lol ur more anxious about ur team mate than you re on play. While in sc2, 2v2 or 1v1, you need to perform
this comment here, this is the exact reason why i cant ladder 1v1s anymore. my armpits would literally sweat from playing. i achieved masters rank in 1v1 in wings of liberty, and stopped laddering because of the anxiety. now all i do are custom games, sometimes 2v2s with a friend, and coop
I never used to get ladder anxiety in Warcraft 3: TFT.
Same! It's very intense-
I play RTS games casually a lot, and I can't even imagine playing one competitively.
A big part of what makes fighting games and League feel less hard, is that you only control 1 thing with 4 or 8 buttons. That's simple and basic, and you don't need to memorize every other thing in the game.
For StarCraft 2, you need to control 100+ things. And most of those things have the normal move and attack orders, but will also have abilities you have to activate. And you have to watch and micromanage your entire 100+ army for middle level play.
I've tried practicing the macro for StarCraft 2, building harvesters and production buildings to see how hard that was. It wasn't the hardest thing, and practicing that let me play my casual games better.
But the micro is terrifying. And that wall of microing most of your units on the map, and memorizing every unit in the game is the giant barrier that scares people off the most in my opinion.
I think this is the key issue, and the video totally misses it.
As you said, most games only have you control one thing. The rare games that do have you control multiple characters are often turn-based, so you have time to review what's going on and plan your next steps (think XCOM and Civilization). The RTS genre is overwhelming at its core because controlling armies and economies simultaneously in real time is hard in a way that I don't think you really experience in any other genre.
I think it's probably true that the basic mechanics in RTS games aren't substantially harder than other hard games. Lots of games require quick reflexes and deep knowledge if you want to be competitive. But RTS games also test your attention and multitasking, so it is easy and natural to feel overwhelmed by it. That's not a pleasant feeling, and it's there even if you're playing at a low level. If StarCraft had an option that said "have the computer handle macro for me," you'd be able to avoid that multitasking at low levels, but you simply can't play StarCraft if you're not macroing and ordering units around (even if you're not microing those units during fights).
I think it's also worth noting that the issues with a hostile community are probably overblown. Game developers will often comment that the people involved in game communities on TH-cam and Reddit and the like are a small but vocal minority of players, and that a lot of their playerbase never interacts with those communities. I don't know if anyone at Blizzard has said that specifically about StarCraft 2, but the 80-20 discussion shown in the video seems consistent with the idea. It's easy for someone within those minority communities to both overestimate the impact of that community and underestimate the difficulty of getting started (the latter is essentially a survivorship bias - "it was easy for me to get into the game, so it must be easy for anyone to get into the game if they could get past the hostile community").
In the end, I think an RTS game is a lot like studying math. Some people love it, others enjoy it enough to engage with it casually, but for many people, it can be incredibly stressful and frustrating.
Also, since you control one fighter, one car, one gun, etc. in most other games you can establish a bond with what you're playing with, and the player-avatar relationship provides a lot more vigour and confidence. This lets you enjoy the game by focusing on only one medium of expression - which subsequently lets you make more friends who share that medium of expression(like people who play lol with the same champion). Such relationships are very difficult to have in strategy games where your job is to be a manager of sorts rather than a frontline performer.
@@dannydubs86 _"If StarCraft had an option that said "have the computer handle macro for me," you'd be able to avoid that multitasking at low levels"_
Replace "the computer" with "another player" and you get Archon Mode.
you don't have to learn everything at once though. you can literally play an rts just recruiting one type of unit and then gradually start recruiting more, researching new tech you haven't before, etc. that's why single player campaigns are so important for rts games. they gradually introduce you to mechanics to the point where you don't even realize that you're now controlling full armies and actually having fun since there's no judgement zone, because it's single player. maybe try some skirmishes after that if you vibe with the game and then eventually move on to mp. or don't and just enjoy the sp content.
too many recent rts games focus on mp and then they die. all the greats had amazing sp campaigns. command and conquer, starcraft, dawn of war, homeworld, etc.
For me the real terror started after i mastered micro, and realised that my macro is actually really basic and its not as easy as i thought at all... its actually harder...
Micro wins battles, macro wins games
You're absolutely correct and it isn't a problem exclusive to RTS. I've played EVE Online since God like... 2008? And people lament the game's slow death, while simultaneously scamming/shitting on new players. Granted, there are some entities (EVE University and Pandemic Horde) that try and help new players. But it's like damn dude, you profess to love this game but also actively drive people away from it at every possible opportunity. Who starts out as an expert at anything? You need breathing room for mistakes as a new player or you'll be instantly turned off a game forever. It's so bad in EVE especially that even now, with 12+ years under my belt I still feel like a newbie who if I make one fuck up in a fleet fight will be hounded relentlessly as trash.
P.S. I have watched SC2 competitive with great enthusiasm since the game came out... I've played maybe 30 casual matches because I'm terrified of SC2 ranked.
Oh man I didn't realize EVE online was like that. I just hear stories of like how you need an accounting degree to play the game xd. But also if you don't want to play SC2 ranked, nobody is saying you have to! Lots of people may feel ashamed or something because of it, but if you don't want to play ranked then just don't hahaha. It's like how plenty of MMO players just like to RP, or become merchants, or just like to experience the story. MMOs are welcoming because not everyone has to become a raid leader of their 1000 person guild who gets the mythic raid world records. You are truly free to play and express yourself in so many different ways instead. I wish StarCraft could achieve something similar in that vein.
Don't want a code, but really enjoyed the video. One of my friends plays SC2 with a TRACKBALL mouse while sending Snapchat messages in the background. Whenever I do 4v4's with my friends, it's usually less about the competitive edge and more-so what kind of crazy ideas we can pull off. I think sometimes the community is so focused on self-improvement, they forget they can have a bit of fun playing some wild games along the way!
DAAAAAAANG. I actually played with a thumb trackball when i was in like elementary school. Got to like gold league with it too lmao. That's sick I love team games, I always have tons of fun chilkin with friends on teams
@@SpiralBiscuit Even in the comments of a video about not making it about being hyper skilled, the instinct replying to an anecdote is to talk about reaching gold league in elementary school. That's the exact same thing as is discussed in the video, as it's supporting the narrative that Starcraft is only for prodigies. It's not very inclusive to people who *have* played and got pushed out- it's both making it about the rank reached as well as demonstrating that most people, "just aren't good enough."
I'm not trying to put you on blast, it's just an example of what an incredibly hard thing it is to change mindset completely, please don't take it harshly.
I got my best friend into rts by convincing them to do 2v2 with me and trying my hardest to carry them while explaining the game and letting them figure out how they like to play. Idk if that's the best strategy but it worked for us. The game really isn't that hard to get into. I wish people didn't get scared off as easily into trying new games.
My experience, limited as it is, is that a 2v2 with 2 lower threat AI's tends to be the best bet for RTS games. You help them out directly and keep the AI's from wiping them out, without crushing the AI yourself, allowing them to work with you and get the feeling of knowing enough to play effectively. Not great, but not worthless, that's all people need to feel like it's worth continuing.
Thats why i love Giant Grant Games, he makes entertaining content for everyone, and lots of people watch his videos even though they have never heard of starcraft before. the community needs people like him!
YES
When I was more active in the sc2 twitch chats, I introduced people into the game after a few dms. I knew I needed to take a step back and let them play the campaign first. However, till now I never knew how much people just don't ladder at all, I had always assumed most of sc2 players were just hardcore ladder I guess because of the communities I joined to get better quicker.
Exactly! When I introduce players to StarCraft, I just tell them to run the campaign and if they want to play multiplayer I take them into team games. Makes for a much more welcoming experience than just them getting smashed over and over again by the AI
You've been selected for the Gates of Pyre Alpha giveaway! Congrats! Please shoot me a DM on Twitter so I can send you the code.
twitter.com/SpiralBiscuit/status/1563290873177460737
I think there is a difference between release SC2 a decade ago and today's SC2 with all expansions, a ton of new units and much faster and micro intensive gameplay. Watch any old GSL WoL match and you will see the difference. Both the developers and competitive players brought the game from already challenging to an even more niche game that makes it really hard for anyone new to get into. And blizzard looked at the result and officially stopped development on the game with no intention to make an SC3.
As long APM will be a deciding factor, it will always be a sweaty game. If you look at the SC streams on twitch, you will notice there are not that many and popular players don't stream 10 hours a day, because it's physically and mentally exhausting to do so, compared to running it down mid in league or valorant.
I'm an RTS junky and no other game even compares to the adrenaline rush I get from intense 1v1s in SC1/2. The anxiety of queuing for a 1v1, the excitement of seeing a small opportunity to punish, or the defiance of surviving in unwinnable circumstances. The stakes are so high because every little thing matters, just a minor slip-up can become your undoing. Finding a proxy cheese makes your heart sink. Setting up for a sneaky drop or counter-attack makes you tense up in anticipation.
Ramming your head against a player who feels untouchable, and finally breaking them after several losses feels amazing. Coming up with ideas on the fly that work out perfectly make you feel like a genius. Seeing a scenario you recognize and immediately knowing the perfect answer makes you confident. Getting into a flow state where your focus is 100% on the game and losing yourself in reality is sublime.
After an intense match, you sit back with slightly shaky hands/arms and exhale a sigh of relief. The game depends on your skill with no one to blame but yourself. You can watch your practice pay off in real time as you adapt and become a better player.
Starcraft players have acquired a tasted for RTS games with a specific type of pacing, speed, and mechanics. RTS skills even translate extremely well to other RTS games, so it's not like you're starting right back at the bottom of the skill floor. You're just a Starcraft player at the end of the day.
For example: a fan of Coca-Cola is happy with drinking Coke and doesn't get bored of it. He may try new flavors of Dr. Pepper, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Sprite, etc., and even like them. But at the end of the day, he just defaults back to Coke. Is it because he's stubborn or indifferent to change? Maybe. Or maybe it's because Coke STILL tastes better than all of them.
SC2 kills competition because these are violent games and violence breeds violence, in the end it just has to be this way
I’ve only ever had success getting people into RTS when I show them the casual, fun parts like campaign and arcade and then just let them do their own thing. If they’re the sort of person who would succeed in a competitive game they would likely make that jump of their own volition
Oh, I can't get any friends into Starcraft 2 :(
It's making me sad, because I love this game so much. When I was 10, I spent hours watching my brother playing WoL. I've learned a good amount of gameknowledge without playing it, and it took 4 years before my parents allowed me to play it haha
And i agree with all of your points, new players are too affraid of the elitism and 1v1 competitiv aspect i think. But it's so fun to play it and rewarding when you win a 1v1 match !
Yeh same loved the game when i finally come to it and enjoyed it, it was in brain dead situation. Since SC2 no really new rts worth better... RIP warcraft reforged
You've been selected for the Gates of Pyre Alpha giveaway! Congrats! Please shoot me a DM on Twitter so I can send you the code.
twitter.com/SpiralBiscuit/status/1563290873177460737
the question with why the StarCraft community KILLS every new RTS game sounds similar with why the smash community kills every new plattform fighter the smash bros community literally kills games like rivals of aether or brawlhalla and also the recent games nick allstar brawl was also killed by the smash community also because of the launch of sora but hopefully multiversus will change the game and defeat the smash community
Aaaaaaaah wow yeah I didn't even think about this analogy even though I am keenly aware of it. I never thought to connect the two. Imo brawlhalla is doing excellent and multiversus seems to have high hopea. Nasb though.... yeah thats probably a bit of a disappointment huh.
@@SpiralBiscuit plattform fighters have definitly a bright future and huge Potential since brawlhalla become popular and Multiverse looks really impressive and recently there is rushdown revolt a Plattform fighter that was influence by alot of mechanics from other fighting games especially Traditional fighting games
I don't think smash has killed any of the games you listed. Rivals of Aether has a sequel in development, Rushdown Revolt is building up a small but loyal playerbase and is still in beta, Brawlhalla has one of the most lucrative eSports circuits among fighting games, and Multiversus is popping off. The only dead game is NASB, and that's due to lack of corporate support as opposed to anything smashers could do.
Well made Video! definitely what i needed to see right now. I got my friend into the Starcraft co-op mode after I showed him one of his favorite Heroes of the Storm characters (Zeratul) was a commander you could play as.
Of course. "It Has to be Ambiguous" has to be this video's background music. That mashup still deserves more recognition.
you're the second person I think who has recognized it o7
The whole sc2 is so hard and complex to get into is just a myth. The game is very complex and incredibely mechanically difficult at the pro level, but the game is totally different at low level. I only got into sc2 like one and a half years ago, and the main reason I didn't get into it earlier is because I heard it is too hard and it seemed to hard. And there is obviously a lot of things that make 1v1 ladder sometimes very frustrating for casuals, like the very fast paced gameplay and the way to high lethatity of some units. But after I tried it and spent some time learning it I was like this is not nearly as bad as everyone told me. The playersbase is also relatively big or at least big enough that you will find people who are at your level. There is also a crapton of things to do even if you don't want to bother with 1v1. If the community wouldn't act like it takes 3 phds to make a baracks, more people would try out the game and stick around.
Yes! This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. If the game has a healthy playerbase, then even if you suck, there will be plenty of other people that suck just as much! But if nobody is willing to try it out, then the new playerbase won't be healthy enough to support new players.
What league did you get?
@@Kenhraim I'm not sure what I got because the leagues were bugged so the game thought I was masters, but if I remember correctly I had gold or silver mmr
@@norberthiz9318 I heard about the bug. Also silver/gold MMR is the sweetspot for fun.
That's how every game is though when it comes to difficulty really. Lower levels it is always simple as there is no complexity as people don't know enough or are unable to do enough to make it complex. This is rarely a compelling argument to people though, and people have to wade through the frustration too. Whether you think this game is super complex or not it doesn't suddenly change the learning curve, and steep learning curves cull new players super hard.
After seeing how Bee got disqualified in aoe 4 RBW because "the SC community said so" this video truly resoantes in my soul.
That intro was just hilarious. You made me laugh out loud and I thank you for that! You are absolutely right. The community is very important. That's the big problem with MOBAs and team-based games in general. There is so much toxicity that people will get tired of it sooner or later. On the other hand, RTS have a huge potential. No other style had such an impact on me during my childhood. Also, for those who have this idea, StarCraft is anything but dead. But hey, apparently we have a lot of net experts these days. It's amazing! 😅 I wanted to end on this note. Great video and keep it up, my friend 🙂
There is a thing people forget to point out - the gameplay is very taxing. You easily notice your failures but have no way to get beyond them without either adopting numerous "gatekeeping" strategies you suffered from, or sweating with proper build order and timings.
The game is either stressful to you or unfair to your opponent on a lower level - the level where any new ladder player would start. I got my qualification matches then dropped the game, as the matches were exhausting yet did not bring any satisfaction by the end - too much time is spent stressing over all the management even your macro needs and how much is needed to be kept in mind, not interaction with your opponent. Don't think supply block notifications became a meme without a reason.
I like chess. I've played a lot of hard matches, including the ones where my opponent curbstomped me over and over. I've never felt like I was being drained during a series of chess matches, even competitive ones. This is why I'm convinced there's an issue with the game design, not the playerbase, that was quite friendly to me.
I wish I could enjoy custom games, but it is not what I generally partake in, nor what I expected to play when I downloaded it.
The first 20 seconds already made me subscribe - really great (funny, parody, voice, ..., didn't expect such quality on this title.. [Edit3: I think this title is actually perfect, it's "challenging".]
Big post:
Edit: And don't worry, everything after the first 2 minutes doesn't dissapoint neither, it seems to go the same wit and originality into it. Honest / kinda objective, respecting the pros but still showing the great casual side of things... Really much thanks for making this video on behalf of the less forum-camping casual community! I want to give you some recommendations:
- get into the beta-RTS: immortal / gates of pyre , you might know jakatak who is a moderator there. They are really doing a great job IMO and it's based on sc but much more casual friendly without hurting the quality beautifulness of macro - it's hard to describe but they managed to find an actual solution suiting every type of player. And fun fact it concentrates on 2n2.
Another fun recomm is indeed this: custom games in known games, friends. You can have so much fun in starcraft , warcraft3, and these newer games by just playing with friends, or making friends - just ask around in the new meta forums - sure there will always be kids and a... or some that won't stick but surely also you will meet some people on your level that are just as casual - fun fact: don't ask for "casual" or "newb" I actually saw quite some people who phrased themselvs that but were certainly not, "semi-casuals" guild in lost ark playing like 10 hours a day. "newbs" wc3 player showing like 300 apm. and lots of micro... They are all influenced by the expectations and don't wanna dissapoint when saying they might be decent I guess.
So just try around, say you're new (days and pre-experience) and also look who responds. (TBfair mot likely some backseat hardcore forum camper wanna, but you can do it)
In the old games you really want some friends, because in random matchmaing there really are some abusers one won't believe, downranking, fake stats, pretending to be newb ingame to then surprise with backdoor sieges and what not, toxic from the first second spammers what not. But there are always also just normal people, if they aren't affected by it yet, so just play where there are more normal people, ignore and report the idiots. You can really have some fun, but it might take a little bit more time to find it.
And for the record: I really respect the good pro players, but yea the games aren't only that, games offer much fun for the average - and it's not the best place to start with such high expectations that you see in the pro matches. (actually these are a big turn off for when people try the game, it's a milking system of the pro matches: Just look at some of the modern sc2 - VoDs: They do not even show MACRO of the players, i.e. the bases let alone selecting the production facilities. They even swifted the ressource location away from the ingame pos (which is really bad). But this is the dem core of the game: strategic economy and macro-management or decision making in warcraft3 - you do not have to be great in it, but you can still have a hella fun with it! Messing aorund, trying new things, seeing how it works in live match - so the core principle (macro - build up kind of a settlers principle) of why you should like it, not just the action. Of course.. people are dissapointed when they get into the game and it's not just the action. But many "frustrating" mechanics they didn't expect to face.
So all these smaller maps, the custom maps, the campaign and other side things, they show the game really well they bring people into the game and learning what the game actually means. Perfect video
ok letme stop here, this video reminded me of all of it, (hence some adds) but I need to kinda go now. best fun to you!
Edit2: Oh I am sorry, you actually mention my first recommendation - and exactly the great article I was thinking about when writing (casual + hardcore attraction) I couldn't hold myself to write before 7:38 - even greater video now.
this video is not what i expected, great editing and very entertaining !
Great video. Even greater none-promotion at the end🤣!
But yeah, this "being toxic is just part of the community. Deal with it" prevalent in players and tolerated by companies is gonna cost everyone; exponentially!
I Hope things do change, but I'm not sure when or how😐.
I convinced a German friend of mine to play Command and Conquer Generals, specifically Rise of The Reds mod after he had only played DoTA before.
We played dozens of matches together, usually with me winning until he found his meta against me playing ECA and just creeping defenses outward from his base and into mine :P
It was an unorthodox strategy but I was very suprised at just how effective it was.
The good old RA2 French strategy with the grand canons
@@bruhb7611 yep, except with normal defences and lots of construction units.
Great video man!
I've started playing SC:BW as a child (around 1999-2000) and I fell in love with it immediately. Then I switched to SC2 and after a while I picked up mentality of SC being *THE FATHER OF ALL E-SPORTS AND THE GREATEST OF THEM ALL*. Damn, I loved to brag about it to people who basically never played it in a futile attempt to drag them in. One of my friends actually gave it a try (LotV before ftp if my memory serves me) but his interest droped off real quick. Mainly because he felt overwhelmed by mechanics which were completely new to him (I think it was his 1st RTS) even though I was helping him and he was playing protoss (why yes I'm a zerg player how did you know?).
Not gonna lie during whole intro I was laughing my ass off 🤣
oh my god nobody said anything about the intro you don't understand how much that means to me. I PUT IN SO MUCH EFFORT FOR THSI VIDEO JUST TO MAKE THAT INTRO HAHAHAHAHA YOU'RE THE BEST
@@SpiralBiscuit Glad to help you man!
Intro btw was even funnier because it was straight up facts! 😂
As great a game as SC was, and as important as it was to the popularity of RTS, it's had some pretty cancerous long-term effects on the genre:
1) Mirco-intensive, ultra-high APM games are not fun for a huge number of gamers
- Your ability to click really fast, memorize build orders and micro-manage a few hundred individual entities at the same time being the primary measures of a success in a game is a huge turn-off to gamers who lack the ability or interest in this style of play. There is no reason a modern RTS has to follow this sort of model - squad-based unit structure, better autonomous unit AI, and slower-moving gameplay would all help get new players into the genre while simultaneously allowing more strategic modes of play. I'd encourage any RTS player who hasn't to take a look at games like Company of Heroes II or Total War if you're looking for an alternative to micro-intensive RTS.
2) E-Sports are poison
- With apologies to the E-sports fans out there, not all of us are interested in our games becoming sporting events. While this may appeal to a specific sub-set of highly competitive players, it runs the risk of turning off more casual players. It also can have a pretty detrimental effect on the gameplay itself, as what makes a good sporting event does not necessarily make for enjoyable gameplay - I think Overwatch is a good example of that. A focus on E-sports and E-sports compatibility exacerbates an already problematic tendency for Game Devs to cater to the opinions of "pro players" at the expense of the general player pool, for example patching out or excessively nerfing "fun" features of a game to address balance issues that only really impact gameplay at the most competitive levels of play. It also leads to players treating the game like, well, a GAME as opposed to getting immersed in the fiction of what's going on. Part of the fun of a game like Warcraft/Starcraft was the lore and fiction of the game world. E-sports takes you out of that pretty hard, to the point where you might as well replace Terrans and Protoss with Squares and Triangles for all that the fluff matters.
3) Fuck MOBAs
-Nothing wrong with MOBAs if you're into that sort of thing, but a lot of self-identified "RTS" gamers are not. If we were into them, we'd be playing them and not moping around lamenting how they killed the genre. Unfortunately the popularity of MOBAs has led to Game Devs trying to make their RTS more like MOBAs, which many RTS gamers absolutely hate. Again, the people who like MOBAs are off playing MOBAs... you, know, because they like them. Even if you like both MOBAs and more traditional RTS games (because, why not? I'm sure a lot of people do), there is no reason to make your RTS more like a MOBA because you can already get your MOBA fix elsewhere. This sort of trend chasing (or the perception of it) was what killed Dawn of War III.
4) Too many "new" RTS games are stuck trying to recapture Age of Empires II rather than innovate
- Not to contradict the previous point, but innovation is necessary in the genre... it just shouldn't be in the direction of MOBAs. The opposite - endlessly trying to recreate SC and AoE - is equally as unhealthy for the genre; you're just setting yourself up for failure, recreating the same old, stale gameplay that pushed people to leave RTS for MOBAs in the first place. If I want to play AoE II I can just fire up the excellent Definitive Edition - so can millions of other gamers. AoE IV will keep that tradition alive. Time for everyone else to make something new.
Solid outlook on the genre. There are some games currently that focus less on fast pace action and micro to let you play at your own pace but for whatever reason they aren't that popular. The best example is an RTS called northgard
RTS for me is either playing 1v1 on Starcraft when i muster up enough masochism or going back to AoE2 and chilling with a childhood friend. All new people that I introduce quit as soon as I stop holding their hand :D
It's a lonely game indeed, which is a consequence of its UI I feel. I hear AoE2 is ridic hard as well tho haha
you have a very good point here:
-> you can't say "This RTS is not worth to invest in, because of lack of competitive multiplayer progression", when there's no love for the game.
And most importantly: the LOVE of the biggest RTS games CAME from GOOD SINGLE PLAYER experiences!
That's what kept people really loving & improving into these games, thus the willingingess to make custom maps / multiplayer events grew as well.
Starcraft/Warcraft, Command & Conquer titles, SW: Empire at war, Age of Empires, Warhammer...
I just realized: since they'll never invest in making a good Single player RTS experience, there won't be any new RTS games....
Amazing videos man, keep it going, I love your editing
Thank you!
that was pretty good content, enjoying your stuff so far. keep it up!
didnt really have experience of getting new people into rts, except my co-worker, who picked up sc2 again because of me, honestly you can easily have just doing dumb builds and stuff in sc2, people forget to have fun in sc2 most importantly.
Nice! Yea dumb builds make me facepalm as a higher ranked player but when they work well at a high rank, I just laugh my ass off
so true
As other have mentioned, Starcraft 2 require multitask and attention no other game does. But there is another issue. Co-op is nice but after some time it become boring, when you learn all the maps. AI attacks you the same way. Eventually you try multiplayer. And realize that there is no balance in 2v2 or 3v3. I want to play with my friends, I don't want to play 1v1. So we find other team based games to entertain us.
Ive seen very little people in the SC community who has this elitist mindset. Most of the time, it's either former SC2 players who have not played since WoL or individuals who have not touched the game at all who claims SC is nothing more but a "clickfest" or "has no strategy besides spamming the same unit".
On the flip side, there are people who enjoys the campaign / co-op / story / worldbuilding side, and it's the fucking obnoxious minority in the 40k crowd that wouldnt shut the fuck up and has Starcraft rent free in their head.
Yes! My biggest fear is that people think that in order to join the SC2 community, you must be competitive, solely because the competitive community is some of the most diehard fans. While it's not necessarily bad, if the image is solely consistent of the competitive side, the more casual majority is drowned out.
@@SpiralBiscuit Exactly! Especially more so when said competitive community is the minority in the entire Starcraft community
40k fanboy are fcking cringe with their heresy joke spamming everywhere and thinking they are the most grimdark of all
@@SpiralBiscuit _"My biggest fear is that people think that in order to join the SC2 community, you must be competitive"_
tbh that's how I feel about DOTA 2. Killing your own minions, which I assume is a very important part of gameplay, just feels WAAAYYY too "smart" for a casual player like me. I'll stick with League of Legends and Heroes of the Storm.
i have friends who have tried out starcraft, but didn't want to stick to it because they felt like they werent experienced enough to play casually. (e.g. in a 3v3, they felt like they were letting the group down when they dont know what units to build, or how many workers to make). I think that sort of thing is the hardest thing to address though because the game is a competitive game. I think future RTS games need to find ways to make people still feel like they are "winning" even if they lose the actual match (e.g. maybe still unlock stuff, maybe the group still gets some XP points or whatever)
For sure, the games as a service really caught SC2 at a terrible time and made the sc2 pricing model obselete for much of its lifespan.
hard to care about XP. I always watch replays to discover improvement in parts which I thought hard stuck
Yeah they had that and it was called Command and Conquer Tiberian Twilight. It was not good.
You've been selected for the Gates of Pyre Alpha giveaway! Congrats! Please shoot me a DM on Twitter so I can send you the code.
twitter.com/SpiralBiscuit/status/1563290873177460737
I think the intro of the video is more dramatic than any documentary about sc2, in a good way
I've been a fan of RTS genre as long as i can remember myself, starting from SC and WC3 with AOE 2, 3 when i was a child and till modern days. All latest news about new c&c type of game, Storm gate, company of heroes 3 and release of AoE 4 makes me actually very positive about Genre future. Especially the plans of CG developers making it f2p and casual friendly. Cause i'm kinda tired to play this and all other strategy games all alone cause they are too hard for people who shower.
As a long time player I've noticed starcraft 2 has 4 types of players, coop, multiplayer, cutom, and those who just watch games.
Costome games have an entirely different feel and has thier own community and ranking system in the game. It's surprising honestly
That last bit with the remix, thanks cause it sounded rather surprisingly good
@5:15 I think "starcraft is too hard for me" is a sort of miscommunication. What people generally mean is "I don't want to have to play my game as if it were a 9to5 job to stay competent with it"
I like to bounce between a lot of different games, I've tried starcraft numerous times, but no matter how much I improved the skill always felt like it was very quickly lost if I took a break for a few months to play anything else. So eventually I stopped returning to it, and I stuck to other games. The learning curve to starcraft is a length one, and it's very brutal to be at the start of it. I'd go as far as to say it's downright unfriendly to new players in the ranked ladder, getting through placements always left me at a rank way higher than I should have been, and struggling not to win, but to just not lose so fast at least, because the only wins I got were against disconnects. I think I only ever had one genuine ladder match against somebody who felt like they were around my skill.
The pool of potential players is just small, especially if you're not in one of the prime-regions during prime-time hours. And the pool of new players who are just joining the game is even smaller. Unfortunately a constant stream of new players is sort of a pre-requisite to itself. It's very hard to gain new players without having some already to match them up against. This is a problem all online multiplayer games have, but starcraft more so because of how much longer it takes for someone to get out of that phase, and how stark the difference is between a multi-year veteran (even a low ranked one) and a genuine new player.
Funnily enough, most of the time I'd hear that, it'd be from Smash Ultimate players at my local tournament.... Where they play their game as if it were a 9to5 job to stay competent ....
@@SpiralBiscuit to be fair, I don't really think it's hypocritical for someone to have a game they play a lot while also saying they don't want to have to play other games for that many hours a week too. I've definitely had points in my life where I've been that dedicated to some games - many gamers end up with a game they're comfortable doing that for, but multiple is generally a bit ... much.
In the past, for me it was LoL. Now probably Guild Wars 2 is the closest. In an even more distant past it was Garry's Mod for me instead.
Adding ways to queue up 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, etc in casual, or even do a, "random," game type would be helpful.
Divide 1v1 from ranked would also be a helpful option. No ELO, no MMR, just get tossed in a 1v1, win/lose, move on.
The SCII arcade was awesome.
I'd say one of the best things devs for rts games can do is add a functional coop mode. I used to play a lot of Age of empire II and I still play starcraft II (although the highest rank I've gotten in versus is gold, so take what I say with a grain of salt), and what I've found is I have more fun in starcraft than in Age of empires because there are more options for cooperative play (custom games and a full coop mode) than in age of empires. I like the feeling of having powerful units and abilities to crush overwhelming odds with rather than having my ass handed to me by someone who just plays more and is better than me (I know, git gud, yada yada yada). In my disgusting opinion, having modes that people can play casually and with friends is important to allowing players to enjoy a game without having to dedicate a ton of time to learning the various mechanics and build orders.
The best things devs for RTS games can do is make the games _accessibile_ not tough as nails... which they can't because the fandom would rip them a new rear for even _thinking_ about it.
that's why I only play coop in Starcraft 2 ... no pressure, just enjoy the game with someone :D
Here's the thing: with fighting games, you can just kinda button mash and something will happen. With Mobas, you contract an IQ lowering brain disease that convinces you you're having fun as that Shaco runs it down mid for 30 minutes.
With RTS, the main way to play it, to engage with it for more than 20 hours, is multiplayer. And that shit is *daunting* in RTS because while Mobas might have more variables, a lot of those variables are quickly solved by the community. This week, this is the build you want to run on this champ. From there, its a bit of memorization of maybe 10 item names, and you're off to the races. All that's left is the physical mechanical stuff. In a moba, you can, usually, bullshit your way through with JUST familiarity with your own champ and being able to properly control your single unit.
In an RTS you need to know: your build order in the *exact order,* how your units interact, how your enemy units interact, how your units interact with enemy units. How to best collect information from your enemy. How to USE that information. All on top of an *even* higher physical mechanics requirement. You then need to keep track of 1-2 unit groups that may or may not even be in the same area AND your production back home. While performing the same macro you do with a League champion several times per minute.
Sure, you *could* just A-move at the enemy, but like... that doesn't work the moment your enemy has two working braincells.
Thanks for making the video man
I think that while the perception of rts games as difficult and competitive is a factor in their relatively low popularity I also believe that the games themselves need to change as well by providing more clear path for players who want to play casually alongside one for the more competitively minded individuals. Having a fun campaign or coop mode is great but players should be given a clear message that these are viable ways to play not just extras on top of the competitive multiplayer. Moreover if the developers want casual players to stick around for the 1v1 matches they need to implement appropriate feedback loops that guide them to have fun and get better.
Yea ok u wanna write my videos for me you summed it up way tok well LOL
much more players play coop than ladder
yet most people, who haven't played the game, said they didn't even know that starcraft2 has coop when I asked
YES. this is exactly the problem
That was a really great video new sub here!
i remember an old starcraft pro video where the player misses his first three clicks and instantly quits
Everyone here talking about competitive and league play meanwhile all I do is play Arcade mode. I got into starcraft originally and for me it has always been about the custom games. Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2. I'm super happy that starcraft 2 added Arcade game save data rather than the jank save load text based system of Warcraft 3. I hate symmetrical competitive games and I hate strategy and losing progress. Standard RTS are basically the antithesis yet because of arcade games it has been a huge part of my life.
here in south america 80% of the time i ask someone if they know what an RTS is they just say no
que pena...
I love getting new friends into starcraft, whether it be having FFA matches with a bunch of scrubs that are just exploring what the units are, or setting a tech cap so that nobody gets confused and gets to just mess around with marines and zerglings to even out the playing field, or playing ridiculous arcade modes and engaging in cooperative tomfoolery
that's actually really interesting, i should try this
Funnily enough, what got me into starcraft 2 was mostly campaign and custom content.
DON'T FOCUS ON PVP, no one in the rts community actually enjoys pvp, instead focus on good fun campaigns and a robust custom game manager.
Seriously, 80% of people who own starcraft 2 have never won more than 5 pvp matches, but have completed a campaign or spent 100+ hours in custom games.
I've been playing League for almost a decade now, mostly ranked. The reason I never got into StarCraft is because I like to take games seriously and I've heard nightmare stories of how pros injure their hands from the high APM. In League there is a lot of downtime. When you die, walk from point A to point B, or even just farm or push objectives. Actual fights that require high APM don't happen very often, so what scared me off of StarCraft is watching people contantly play at 400+apm with no downtime at all. It just looked exhausting.
Prior to this video I didn't even know StarCraft had a non-competitive multiplayer scene. No one ever talks about it.
The winners are:
Malori P
Ronald Whyte
william nolan
Casey Cho
Broockle
Random Zergling
Champu
Ghost RTS
Silvinho Walsh
TheCeLL87
Congratulations! Hope you enjoy the game ;)
(FINISHED) IMMORTAL: GATES OF PYRE ALPHA KEY GIVEAWAY:
1. Like this video
2. Subscribe to this channel
3. Leave a comment about your experience getting new players into RTS games
I will select 10 people to get codes, please be sure to have some form of contact open, whether it be Twitter, Discord, etc. so I can send you the code!
GL HF!
Right in the middle of the video, realized i listened smt iv map music in background 😎
i think what helps to contribute to this is new rts games seeing starcraft 2 success with comp and thinking that is how they will succeed and end up releasing a game that is forgotten in 6 months. as they made some ultra balanced game that looks incredibly unfun to play because it misses what the majority of what people want in an rts, the fun of just watching units from a diverse set of factions go at it balanced be damned and further more giving the community the tools to go at it and add to the game themselves
and the thing is STARCRAFT 2 OFFERS THIS and its why its ultimately successful and so many rts developers have completely slept on it and then wonder why their game had 0 staying power.
I think that the way how broodwar was Designed is a role model what an simple rts look like except you can select only few units. immortal gates of pyre is inspired by broodwar but it has alot of automated mechanics which is really makes the game easier it seems really incredible
That basically SC2. Starcraft Remastered looks great but I instantly felt the unit selection limit, being unable to select multiple production structures at once or the lack of smart casting. Honestly, I would not add much at all to SC2 controls, it's nearly perfect.
@@Leonhart_93 Just a fun fact, the unit selection limit was an intentional design choice. You had other games at the time with unlimited unit selection but they wanted to incentivize smaller skirmish style engagements. I think there is merit in this choice but I doubt it will ever come back.
@@spyfire242 If it was intentional then it was rather bad design. Taking control from the player in order to balance the game in a certain way is definitely something that should not be done. And the reason why mass BC or Carrier was so popular is that you didn't needed to worry about the limit with those.
@@Leonhart_93 I disagree there are definitely trade-offs here and it just comes down to personal preference, also mass BC or Carrier? Not a thing outside of casual play and not even that popular in BGH or fastest either and not because it makes controlling the units any easier, people just think capital ships are cool.
@@spyfire242 That's exactly what I mean, the non dedicated population never got into it further than massing the easiest unit to mass. All of the people that I knew who played this did that. None played for very long. And of course it won't be viable if they want to advance to somewhat competitive. Doesn't that mean that there are little to no new people in the game. How can it survive like that?
Got my friends into age of empires 4 when it went on sale this past week and got really back into RTS myself and now it's great my friends actually play
man...
i only want to play skirmish and have fun with AI just like the old days
Uh 1 year too late, anyways, I was actually trying to get a Korean into the game - I think I met him in Random Team and he was extremely bad, like just sending 1-2 units on the map and escaping the enemy and no workers , like quite new. However I was nice to the person and concentrated on winning (we won). Afterwards, we got into contact and after he asked I told him about the core principles and what to concentrate on. We did some vs AI games, and he really did improve by miles in a day. Unfortunately I think I big time messed this up as I was completely overwhelming with too much macro from me (bases on whole map and literally all unit types in the game) and the enemy not dying (cause I kidna stopped playing as I was watching him play and only chatted, after I beat most of the AI bases - I actually forgot how the AI not give up - so it really dragged out. Also from what I heard he really didn't get any help elsewhere - being new to the game. This was surprising, but then looking at the ladder and people there, not so much, rather "hahahah" than go to xy website or ask me later.
The toxic people online really pissing me off how much they turn off new players, hell sometimes even at me, just because I try an arcade map first times, of course not doing perfectly duh. Like idk why people are that way, just princesses that never cared to think about others I guess or simply don't care about others, (and certainly not about the game apparently).
Btw: At the start he complained about similar things you also mentioned in the video: The game being too hard - and this felt wrong to me, because exactly as you say in the video: There are so many great aspects of the game that are just fun and not "hard", hard is always relative to what the opponent is at. But starcraft 2 can be like playing the settlers. (great macro-only RTS basically, from its core) The beauty of building up, striving, and deciding on a path, but also fine-tuning builds, all this is not "hard", it's a thing everyone can do and enjoy - if it's his thing. But it's the problem, the game isn't sold as and shown on streams for what it is. People think it's a pure action game and HAS to be played in PvP from the start... and then they are thrown into a basebuild for the first 50% of the game.
(and then of course you can improve these settler-basics by applying more hotkeys and multitasking - but guess what multitasking is really based on this core principle: First you start casual basebuilding -> this gives you the knowedge of what the basebuilding is like and what is done in the background, only then you can multitask well as you know in the back of your head what is "happening" in your base as you were always so eagerly managing it before in casual way.)
And of course VoDs and streams shouldn't be supported that do not show what the game is actually, not only armies clashing and wonderfully fighting. Real game is: Your army just being evaporated cause you didn't watch for 1 second (because hey pros know all the timings so they never did an "newbie" scouts that warn me of an incoming attack, why should I?), and building an "empire" (macro).
SO yea some of those custom maps ("arcade") are certainly the way to go, AND playing with friends or people you know,
or some micro-only maps (you showed some in the video), or pure base defenses. Hence another example:
2nd help: I tried to get a japanese into the game, he really liked the commercial videos and name and I thought it can be fun, but in the first game (I chose co-op casual mode) it was impossible to teach almost: (We were sitting at the same table even) He didn't grasp the principle of building workers - kinda refused to build them (kinda in awe of what's infront) let alone doing anything with the workers (mining/building). So I went another approach: I hosted a 2ppl - tower defense map and this is where we got somewhere, slowly getting into the third person perspective control - the reward of selecting a worker and having it build a tower which translated directly into the tower killing the incoming units! And then reward for trying other towers and seeing them do certain things that synergise with each other. It's a the coop td: IIRC it was Bardock's TD ! (And afterwars Crate Tower Defense, and then then he actually said this is too easy)
It's really amazing how we forgot that we were also just slowly introduced into the RTS genre like this or similar way, rather careful or explorative. And that some others simply weren't. People can be on very different levels.
On the point at 3:34, as someone who has played StarCraft 2 since launch, I can count on one hand how many ladder matches I've played. It's just way too intimidating for me (which is weird considering I also play Halo very competitively). I still watch SC2 pro matches almost every day via Lowko, but it only heightens both my awe and intimidation at the game. That being said, StarCraft (1 & 2) has way more varied content on a base level than the vast majority of other games. It has a campaign, coop, 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 ranked and unranked multiplayer, custom game browser, map editor, and modding tools. The only other games I can think of that have anything close to that level of variety are Halo and Call of Duty (which helps explains a lot of their success). So it always puzzles me when I always hear people that won't try it because of how hard they think it is. What you brought up probably explains this stigma all too well and is most definitely the reason StarCraft hasn't been growing and why RTS games in general are still very niche.
As someone who also delves into Total War (mostly the Warhammer games), the divisiveness of the RTS fanbases could not be more apparent.
For sure. I think had StarCraft advertised and had a better UGC system, and implemented coop earlier, it would be way more popular. A bit unfortunate, but it was released at the end of the "game in a box" era, and couldn't catch up to the games as a service era.
I don't really know whether or not it's possible to create a truly casual pvp experience of RTS. Especially if it keeps being a 1v1 genre.
Chess blew up but the rules are SUPER simple and it's SUPER easy to watch, it's literally just a board (when Starcraft is switching POVs all the time). It's really easy to get a new person into it and to create funny best of of blundering your queen to feel relatable.
To be able to understand the blunders of a starcraft game, you need to understand so much of the depths of the game already that it's probably hard to even understand a casual player having fun. They're gonna use jargon and talk about stuff that you won't understand if you haven't played the game for multiple hours.
As chess is a turn based game, it's also way easier to look at the chat to banter and generally be entertaining, while if you want to manage your entire starcraft army you'll need to be much more focused and you'll have to make a trade-off between entertainment and focus.
The only way I see it working is getting very popular content creators on RTS games and doing games in pairs, kind of coaching style (as in the chess tournaments with the GMs watching over their respective content creators). This way there is always someone that isn't too focused that can entertain the stream and also provide clear explanationas to the non initiated.
I personally tried twice to get deep into SC, and everytime I got bored because I had no friends playing it and it really felt like a grind. I really hope it gets more attention in the future 'cause it looks really fun once you're invested enough and with the right people.
I have wonderful memory playing Starcraft and League, they none-stop trash talk you the whole game, after that they send you a friend request and continue trash-talk, said "end myself and uninstall the game", This why I stop playing rank League, brings me back❤
I got my friend in Coh2 by playing co-op vs CPU and eventually we transitioned to multiplayer
nice
some nice points made on which we I think all can agree on. I mean our community is known for elitism, but I hope this will get better in the future.
Great vid!❤
I genuinely found Starcraft ladder a much more difficult experience as a new player than just about any other ranked game. I thought I would be player against other morons like me, but it felt absurdly sweaty even at the bottom. I also think the complexity of SC2 is an immediate cliff, whereas the other games you cited you can start off with simply learning your one character instead of an entire faction.
if starcraft didnt have 3 different species to choose from and such high quality backstory i wouldn't be still into it to this day,
like i remember myself back when i were 7 and first got the 1998 version of the game,then playing for 11 hours without stopping,eventually i got into starcraft 2 when it came out,and i revisited my old memories with starcraft remastered,I'm into the game mechanics and how cool it is sure,but I'm far more into bizarre design of units and buildings you control along with unique backstory for a sci fi game.
infact i spend more time searching for starcraft comics rather than playing the game itself,i am still competitive on it but only with friends,i don't care in the overall ladder of professionals
Definitely agree that elitism is a huge roadblock to attracting new players to RTS, perhaps the single greatest one of all. This isn't the Salty Spitoon. We don't need to ask every single person who wants to try these games "HOW TOUGH ARE YA?!"
I have always and will always believe that high level ASL-tier Brood War is the most mind-numbingly intense thing in gaming without much competition, but even I am keenly aware of the gulf between Flash trying to repeat a title, and John and Jane thinking about trying the campaign this weekend. We need to replace gatekeeping with the notion of welcoming new players with open arms--let them know "sure, you can grind to become a star leaguer, but you don't have to." I know I'm a pretty decent player after this many years, but I'm not trying to go pro. I can play through the campaigns of SC1 and War3 with my eyes closed at this point, yet I understand I'm never going to be qualifying for tournaments nor do I feel obligated to shoot for that. And neither should we bury newbies under that kind of pressure. Is only game! No HEFF to be mad!
I'm fairly new to RTS in general. I started with Supreme commander, loved that game.
I've played some of C&C remastered campaign, played some of SC 2 Campaign. They are fun but get challenging quickly, currently I'm stuck in both games.
But the multiplayer?
I feel like you have to really have a good understanding of the basics and be committed to at least 200 hours of "getting good" to be competitive. Frankly, I don't have that much time to spare.
Update
Played my first match, TvP, and got smoked in 10 min. I had 22 APM, my opponent had 90. Overall not a bad time, would play again.
Best sc2 video intro of all times god DAMN that hyped me up
In another words, "given the opportunity, players will -optimize- ladder the fun out of game", lmao
entertaining video, nicely done
I feel like COH2 is and was suffering from similar problems, especially since the competitive 1v1 scene was dominating the balancing for all the ladder balance. Which silly, since not every unit that is OP in 3v3s or 4v4s is OP in 1v1s and 2v2s. a single arty player late game can completely alter the course of battle in 3v3s and 4v4s. A arty player in 1v1 or 2v2 will get smoked when the enemy simply controls the map while his supply cap is devoted partly to arty.
Yet alot of players be like "whats balanced for 1v1 is balanced for all" which is complete nonsense. When taken into account that the more popular modes (team games) are full of filthy casuals and often get into the late game with essentically 4 1v1s going on in the same map. Whereas in 1v1s and 2v2s, failing early is usually a loss overall. And than theres the 5 different factions, with a huge amount of diversity in commanders, playstyles, units, abilities. Which lead Balancers to literally start making every unique or interesting commander into nothing more than "Like the other guy but slightly differen't". Hell they even created a whole new "unique" unit, that was basically just slightly better riflemen with nades. Just so they could replace it with superior unique units that were OP in 1v1s.
This is exactly what happens to some SC2 units too, Ravens had Long lasting turrets, seeker missiles, PDs Which were dope af. BUT THAN they gave them lame ass anti armor missiles, a stasis field wannabe and a cum quick turret but it has more DPS. Because obviously, cant have a fun unit, must make it a Pro players APM wet dream. And infesters, oh boi, the thing they are most known for: Infested marines just had to go because reasons. I get the arguments as to how these changes are for balance, but making units just pro-jerkoff tools and removing the fun bits is going to turn off casual players. Honestly Pro circuits and casual ladders should have different balance builds. And players who want to jump from casual PVP to "I HAVE NOT SLEPT IN 2 DAYS" competitiveness just have to switch to the new balance. Its why arcade, co-op and campaign are the most popular features of SC2. They all are actually fun, and the "rule of thumb is fun" when it comes to keeping a community alive.
It’s true. As a fighting game player, we play like 2-3 games every year. I’ve always thought it was weird how competitive RTS basically died out because everyone stuck to one ancient video game.
It’s like we were still playing Super Street Fighter II at EVO main event.
It just sounds like we just need to call up EVO upper management to me
Whether people believe it or not, the barrier for most players with RTS games is that the control scheme for said games isn't resolved yet. It happened with shooters on console, and when they "solved" the control scheme, the genre got huge on console.
SC (and now SC2) are some of my favorite games, but if you compare the control scheme to something like Age of Empires, Cossacks, or Rome Total War, everything is so different that you, as a casual, can't really get good just playing different games of the same genre as you could while playing fighting or shooting games.
Someday someone will come up with "the RTS control scheme to rule them all" and it'll become standard. I think the RTS genre will come back sooner than later as a "mainstream thing," there's just sht to be fixed for it to be like huge again.
The Starcraft series will always have a warm place in my heart. I do find myself trying other RTS games, but then i star to feel bored because it's not as good as SC 2. The game's mechanics and fun factor are just that good. 😆
The funny thing is that Starcraft's formula is rather good, it's the epitome of 'easy to learn, hard to master'. Hell, when the Beta for 2 was going around, I was in the _Silver_ leagues and I wasn't some elite crazy madman... hell most of the community I've met is... pretty decent.
the intro proved to me we need a starcraft anime
Dont need a code. but very epic video. fun & informative and spitting them facts!
think stormgate and Immortal taking a note and learning from sc2 by making the rts genre a bit more accessible' editing the skill ceiling to be slighlty more accommodating.
True i would also say that plattform fighters is an good example alot of newer Platlform fighter take influence from other Subgenre for example brawlhalla embrace items and innovate it or rush down revolt take things from other fighting games and innovate that and reinvent this as an new game
@@lordtraxroy true. Nothing wrong with taking inspiration from something and improving and perfecting it with your own twist.
The skill ceiling doesn't affect newbies, the skill floor does. It's okay to lower the skill floor, but lowering the skill ceiling should be a strict no-no. On the contrary, devs should be looking to raise the skill ceiling.
@@Maver1ck101 osu is an good example for this because the skill floor is insanely low but the skill ceiling is inhumanly high just look the beatmap called yomi yori so anyone can pick this game but mastered will cost hand injurendy
I erally liked this video and was an inspiration for my own. You are far more knowledgeable too. Thanks!
The way this is narrated INSTAMAKES IT MY FAVOURITE CHANNEL FUCK YEAH
I've always had a love/hate relationship with Blizzard RTS titles so I'm just glad that they provided us amazing campaigns and tools to make our own experiences, I hope more games have a focus on the user generated content, there's a reason games like Skyrim stay alive for many years thanks to modding scenes after all.
that intro was 10/10
I think that you convey your opinion fairly and respectfully, I may not totally agree with you, but I think people need to stop disliking the video just because they don't totally agree. What is this, Reddit?
I'm one of these RTS adjacent gamers that have always wanted to get into RTS and never actually done it. I spent my childhood playing Warcraft 3, but I didn't play melee. From there I've played every Moba in existence. I think another issue with getting into RTS isn't just the gatekeepy vibe, but also how cemented the games are. What, am I going to read up on 25 years of Age of Empires 2 history? Even Starcraft 2 is bloody damn ancient. It just feels daunting going into such a pre-existing community with a relatively stagnant meta. It feels like you're supposed to learn every objectively correct thing to do rather than think for yourself and experiment because you're simply going to be wrong. I'm excited to actually make a foray into RTS with Stormgate and Immortal.
Maybe to try introducing them to something funny and simple at first, like Populous 3, SCI Campaing like see this is a worker and it does this and then you let him play it, or Stronghold, Nation Wars, Empire Earth, Ground Control, Rome Total War, something that will suck them in (that is what got me into rts, army fighting planing and no rush having fun with AI and Campaings).
SC II is too much advanced
...I used to play for fun, but later was dam it is even more funnier when you hit 200/200 at 9th min and have a huge battle with who micros better and who can outsmart who
I think Campaign is pretty cool with that too because most missions in the campaign try to emulate some sort of fantasy of like "ooga booga big army go boom" or like "stealth ghost infiltration" and the variety is what makes the genre of RTS so sick
I don't know if you've seen GiantGrantGame's video about why SC2 will always be the king of RTS, but I think the problem is a lot of newer RTS take the wrong kind of lessons from SC and SC2. They go all in on the competitive multiplayer aspect and neglect the campaign, and their custom content is paltry at best, if it even exists. Most RTS players are casuals, even within competitive giants like SC and SC2. You need to capture and hold onto that audience in order to be successful.
Unfortunately, many smaller RTS games just can't hit that mark. Even larger budget ones like AoE4 fail to take the lessons from SC2 and blunder their launches. It's a hard genre to nail down, and requires very careful tuning to create a lasting, enjoyable experience.
Honestly I don't know how game companies work at all so this is completely speculation. If you think about game development, oftentimes the most expensive aspect is all those bells and whistles you speak of. Campaigns, cutscenes, language localizations, a workable map editor, custom game monetization, and a workable UI for custom maps are incredibly expensive and aren't guaranteed to pay off. If you advertise as a strong competitive game, then you're more guaranteed that X number of hardcore players will buy the game and try it out. Do I agree with this line of thinking and do I think this is incredibly short sighted? Yes, but I can understand financially and time wise why studios are forced to go in this direction. Once you've created the barebones game, you can already advertise towards competitive players as all that's left to do is balance tweaking and mapmaking, so why invest more for something that may have little to no return?
@@SpiralBiscuit @SpiralBiscuit So there are ways to lower the costs for those features you listed. You can amortize the cost of things like localization and UI due to the multiplayer aspect of the game sharing those same elements. You can integrate your own internal map/scenario editors into the product (with the appropriate restrictions for commercial use of course) for your end users to take advantage of. There's not really a way to get around the cost for a well directed, designed, and acted campaign, so you'd have to eat that cost standalone, but things such as unit lines are shared with the multiplayer, which is a cost you'd have to incur anyways when making your RTS game.
However, I think you've kind of misunderstood what kinds of people play RTS. As I mentioned, the majority of RTS players don't touch the competitive multiplayer aspect of RTS games. This includes SC2, a game "built from the ground up to be a hardcore esport" (Blizzard devs' own words). I'm not just talking out of my ass for this one. The Blizzard devs themselves broke down the spread I think during Heart of the Swarm, and it was something like an 80-20 split for Campaign/Multiplayer. There's no reason to believe this has changed, and SC2 in general has a much higher percentage of its population inside of multiplayer. For most RTS games on Steam, you'd be hard pressed to find one where more than 15% of users have the achievement for playing a ladder or ranked match vs other players. Usually the figure is 10% or even lower.
I don't think advertising your RTS as a "hardcore, competitive" experience is what will bring in guaranteed players. The numbers certainly don't back it up. You're much more likely to attract an initial audience if you have things like a well-structured Campaign, PvE/Co-op modes, custom content creation, and above all a good engine. This last one is something you'd think studios would have cracked by now, but it's been 12 years since SC2 came out and I still can't find an RTS whose engine is as smooth as that game's.
The GiantGrantGames video regarding why modern RTS games will fail if they don't follow the lessons learned from SC2: th-cam.com/video/XehNK7UpZsc/w-d-xo.html
It's worth a watch. This is also why I am optimistic for Stormgate, because 1. It has some really talented people working on it, some coming from as far back as WC3, and 2. It does seem to understand why players enjoy RTS games, and it should, given the amount of ex-Blizzard talent on the team.
To me as a old casual gamer, all of this is just bizarre. I have zero desire to play competitively or even just with other people. All I want from a game is a decent single player campaign.
If I wanted to be competitive outside of my job, I would do some sport. Something healthy.