I stole the title from Tom Chick’s column, here, because I think column was too generic and not edgy enough. And because I have no idea how they thought having Chick cover RTSes was a good thing. Don’t get me wrong, I really like reading Tom’s columns, reviews and so on, but I rarely agree with his opinions. RARELY. For instance, he really liked C&C 3. I thought it was just silly shit.
All of that said, I liked the idea of his column. I don’t think his suggestions we’re really that much help though and I’m going to offer my own. Because that’s just how effing crazy I am.
Things to include (or not) in my RTS.
1) DO include strategy. I know that seems pretty straightforward in an RTS, but it’s not always the case. Look at C&C 3 again. It’s a tank rush game. Again. Then look at SupCom. It’s a tank rush game…unless it’s an air rush game, or it’s an expansion game, or it’s a tech rush, etc, etc. I don’t remember where, but I think I re-branded C&C 3 as an RTA (Real Time Action) game. Or think of Company of Heroes. That game just oozes strategy, though in this case it’s more map strategy and unit strategy.
2) DO NOT make me build my base every single time! This isn’t a requirement, but since most every RTS requires it at this point, I’m going to lean strongly in this direction. And no, this isn’t the single player campaign missions where they give you 10 guys and send you through a maze. Give me something different. Give me a points buy system like Warhammer or the general idea Myth worked with. I’m incredibly tired of each new map in the single player campaign being either the aforementioned maze or a build up your base before the AI destroys you missions. Why can’t I start with fully functioning bases? Why do I need bases at all? They don’t make logical sense and they being held over from RTS to RTS because that’s the way it’s always done. As a buddy put it awhile back, your guys shouldn’t get to next place and go, "Well damn if I haven’t forgot how to farm. Someone build a research building and figure out how to do that all over again!" Basically, I’m tired of playing the economy game EVERY SINGLE TIME.
3) DO include build a helpful interface. For instance, SupCom? Almost any building you build near another will get a visible line of power/energy running from it to the other. Does it actually do anything? Maybe. It could be now costing you less power to run that extraction facility, but it could just a pretty line that glows. That’s incredibly unhelpful. Give me information. Allow me to customize how much and what information I see (SupCom does a lot better on that aspect, especially with their newer interfaces). Are my guys being attacked? Tell me about it. I really like Starcraft for that. A little picture would pop up and guy in a tank would be hollering at me that’s under attack. If I’m the virtual commander of said virtual forces, I need as much information at my finger tips as I can possible manage at all times. Even more so than now. Give me something like GRAW where my interface is always telling me what’s going with arrows and sounds and more.
4) DO NOT drastically change your game with patches after release. I know that’s kind of a harsh one, but lets talk Dawn of War for a moment. When that game first came out, each race felt very distinctive, everyone with their own play style and their own end units (kinda like Age of Mythology’s Titans expansion) and so on. Now, with about 30 drastic play-style patches, the races all feel too similar, the top tier guys are easy to get, but limited in supply (literal limits on numbers of different types of units you can have on the field at once…KLUDGE) and so on. DoW lost a lot with it’s patches and expansions. So much I don’t even really like multiplayer anymore. I kinda feel like they are doing the same thing with CoH, though not in the same way. The game I played when I first bought it and the game I play now if I load it up and patch it for twenty hours definitely isn’t the same. To be fair to them, a lot of that feels like balance patches, but if you pay attention to the patch notes for each change, they’ve gone back and forth more than a few times and left unit bugs in so long that strategies are build around them. I don’t want to have to relearn how to play the game every time a patch is released. These aren’t MMOs and they shouldn’t be patching like they are.
5) DO give me reasons to be attached to my units. In both single player and multiplayer. Let me units gain experience, show me visually that they have and make them better for it. Sure, it’s not appropriate for every single game, but it gives me reason to protect some units, to build strategies around units that are veterans and hence more effective. And if this a single player game, let me carry units from one combat to another.
6) DO NOT include extremely early rush tactics. I know some people really like that, but all it really does it make so people just getting into the game get pwned over and over until they catch on. That’s not a good reason to include…as a matter of fact, that’s a good reason not to include it. SupCom is a good example of a way to handle it (your commander will easily destroy early rushes if used properly).
7) DO pay attention to what other RTS games are doing. I’m not saying make copies, but so many RTS duds are released that I can’t but figure they are trying to reinvent the wheel each time. Play other RTS games, take what you like from there, improve upon it and include it. Think of Blizzard. They hardly ever take really big chances in their RTS games, but what they do really well is take a bunch of features that have been designed in the past, polish them, tie them all together well (usually…lets just leave WC3 out of this) and make them sing.
8) DO NOT have crappy AI and expect me to be fine with it cheating. This is two part. One, in single player campaigns or skirmish, give me AI that is challenging, but not overpowering (with multiple difficulty levels of course). Make them play like playing another person, as much as possible. Two, give me units that are smart. Have them figure out things on their own. Pathfinding is a big way that most RTSes could be improved. Able to take complex orders and simple orders is another. Having units respond and take tactical actions when attacked or other units are sensed is another. Yes, I’m the virtual commander, but that doesn’t mean my units should be so daft they just stand around when I haven’t given them explicit orders for the given situation.
9) DO make our demo interesting and fun to play. You’re trying to impress me, the gamer that is interested enough in your game to download a demo. Don’t give me tier one (assuming you have tiers) tech and a simple map and hope I’m interested when I’m done. Don’t give me a half working, half implemented game based off a build 6 months old and expect to me to just take your word when you tell me that the full game fixes all of the problems the demo had. Sell me on your game. Convince me I really want to play it, convince me I can’t live without it, and tell me it’s better than most anything else anyone else has ever made. What’s the point of creating a demo otherwise?
To be fair, not all of that will apply to every game, but damn me if more than a few game developers couldn’t use take some of these to heart. I really want more RTS games that include global research (I hear Sins does this well). I want games that are easy to learn and hard to master. I want games that value their AI over their graphics. I want be able to have different viable strategies. And I really don’t want to play yet another tank rush RTS.
What Would Matt Do: First, I’d get out of my armchair and make some damn cool RTS games of my own…except well, this chair is pretty comfortable!