History SoYouWantTo / WriteARealTimeStrategy

29th Nov '17 6:19:11 AM Cryoclaste
Is there an issue? Send a Message


On a storytelling level, do not succumb to laziness. You have a great deal of work on your plate already: units to design, maps to design, statistics to work out, playtesting to do, blablablah. Nobody will care if you just toss on an ExcusePlot; they're here for the ''gameplay'', right? No, not right. Your characters need to be interesting too. An intellectual challenge is an intellectual challenge: "Can I conquer this enemy base?" Fun, yes, in a {{Minesweeper}} kind of way, but without engaging the emotions. When the game involves characters, with interesting motivations, who feel a certain way about this mission and aren't hesitating to let you know it, who are engendering different types of sympathy for different reasons... Well, it's a completely different game, because emotions are involved. And since emotions are what you're playing to, as a storyteller and as a game designer, why would you skimp on this? Spend a lot of time on your characters. If you're not good at that, hire someone to do it for you. But do it. And if you find yourself asking, "But, what kind of story can I tell against the backdrop of a war," well, the answer is, everything. Seriously, what ''can't'' you tell against the backdrop of a war?

to:

On a storytelling level, do not succumb to laziness. You have a great deal of work on your plate already: units to design, maps to design, statistics to work out, playtesting to do, blablablah. Nobody will care if you just toss on an ExcusePlot; they're here for the ''gameplay'', right? No, not right. Your characters need to be interesting too. An intellectual challenge is an intellectual challenge: "Can I conquer this enemy base?" Fun, yes, in a {{Minesweeper}} VideoGame/{{Minesweeper}} kind of way, but without engaging the emotions. When the game involves characters, with interesting motivations, who feel a certain way about this mission and aren't hesitating to let you know it, who are engendering different types of sympathy for different reasons... Well, it's a completely different game, because emotions are involved. And since emotions are what you're playing to, as a storyteller and as a game designer, why would you skimp on this? Spend a lot of time on your characters. If you're not good at that, hire someone to do it for you. But do it. And if you find yourself asking, "But, what kind of story can I tell against the backdrop of a war," well, the answer is, everything. Seriously, what ''can't'' you tell against the backdrop of a war?
10th Aug '17 9:08:06 AM slvstrChung
Is there an issue? Send a Message


RealTimeStrategy contains two sub-genres. One is better described as "RealTimeTactics," in which the emphasis is on controlling small numbers of units and there is no base-building or administrative detailing. ''[[VideoGame/{{Myth}} Myth The Fallen Lords]]'' and ''VideoGame/DawnOfWar 2'' lean in this direction, with ''VideoGame/DefenseOfTheAncients'' and its MultiplayerOnlineBattleArena spinoffs taking it to its most logical extreme: you control just one hero, ''an'' hero, and nothing else. On the opposite end of the scale is (for lack of a better term) "RealTimeBaseBuilding," with lots of structure-placing and administrative choices, but little focus on actual military maneuvers. The most obvious examples here are TowerDefense games like ''VideoGame/PlantsVsZombies''; the ''Starcraft II'' mod "Nexus Wars" in which your entire job is deciding which soldiers to throw into battle; and the "dictator simulator" ''GratuitousSpaceBattles'', in which you design ships and determine fleet composition, but don't get to do anything except watch the fireworks once the battle is joined.

to:

RealTimeStrategy contains two sub-genres. One is better described as "RealTimeTactics," in which the emphasis is on controlling small numbers of units and there is no base-building or administrative detailing. ''[[VideoGame/{{Myth}} Myth The Fallen Lords]]'' and ''VideoGame/DawnOfWar 2'' lean in this direction, with ''VideoGame/DefenseOfTheAncients'' and its MultiplayerOnlineBattleArena spinoffs taking it to its most logical extreme: you control just one hero, ''an'' hero, and nothing else. On the opposite end of the scale is (for lack of a better term) "RealTimeBaseBuilding," with lots of structure-placing and administrative choices, but little focus on actual military maneuvers. The most obvious examples here are TowerDefense games like ''VideoGame/PlantsVsZombies''; the ''Starcraft II'' mod "Nexus Wars" in which your entire job is deciding which soldiers to throw into battle; and the "dictator simulator" ''GratuitousSpaceBattles'', in which you design ships and determine fleet composition, but don't get to do anything except composition and then watch them fight and die; and the fireworks smartphone game ''VideoGame/ClashRoyale'', in which you decide which troops to deploy on a moment-to-moment basis but can't issue them orders once they've spawned. "Full-fledged" RTS titles contain both things -- a CommandAndConquerEconomy ''and'' direct unit control -- but the battle point is joined.
that "half-assed" versions have been created and been quite successful. (''Clash Royale'' in particular is close to two years old as of this writing but is still estimated to be earning Supercell $1.5 million '''per day'''. Take that, full-fledged RTS.)



Use your imagination and make some cool-looking terrain. But remember the operative word there—''terrain''. Positioning, and taking advantage of the natural features of the earth, is a big deal in warfare. If you create a map with lots of choke points, high grounds, trees and forests for cover, and a mountain that should take a while to climb, but then forget to make those things meaningful in terms of combat mechanics, WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief goes out the window. Or maybe into a wall.

One thing that is best mentioned here is TheProblemWithLicensedGames. There are a ''ton'' of existing franchises out there which have never received good video-game adaptations. The reason for this is that rules change as you switch between media: what works on page, or on the silver screen, or on the tube, does ''not'' necessarily work with gamepad in hand. There will probably never be a licensed RTS for ''Literature/TheWheelOfTime'', for instance, because its particular tone—impending apocalypse, WorldHalfEmpty, damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't destructive savior, politics and subterfuge, the gender gap—is hard to adapt into video games.

Furthremore, if you try to adapt another franchise, you're going to run into ''its'' rules, at least some of which will be contrary to good gameplay. If anyone ever tries to make a MMO based on ''WesternAnimation/AvatarTheLastAirbender'', for instance, they will run into the problem that nobody can play as an Airbender—there's only one left (it's [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin in the title]]), and because he's the main character he'll need to be an NPC. Boom: a situation where {{Canon}} is at odds with good gameplay... and we haven't even ''watched'' the show! All we've done is read its title! If you try to license an Intellectual Property, this kind of thing will happen ''a lot''. Either you can do a PragmaticAdaptation it in the name of good gameplay, or have a game that's accurate to the source material but, well, not fun.

to:

Use your imagination and make some cool-looking terrain. But remember the operative word there—''terrain''. Positioning, and taking advantage of the natural features of the earth, battlefield, is a big deal in warfare. If you create a map with lots of choke points, high grounds, trees and forests for cover, and a mountain that should take a while to climb, but then forget to make those things meaningful in terms of combat mechanics, WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief goes out the window. Or maybe into a wall.

One thing that is best mentioned here is TheProblemWithLicensedGames. There are a ''ton'' of existing franchises out there which have never received good video-game adaptations. The reason for this is that rules change as you switch between media: what works on page, or on the silver screen, or on the tube, does ''not'' necessarily work with gamepad in hand. There will probably never be a licensed RTS for ''Literature/TheWheelOfTime'', for instance, because its particular tone—impending tone--impending apocalypse, WorldHalfEmpty, damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't destructive savior, politics and subterfuge, the gender gap—is MarsAndVenusGenderContrast--is hard to adapt into video games.

games. It could probably make a great ''TabletopGame'', but not a RTS.

Furthremore, if you try to adapt another franchise, you're going to run into ''its'' rules, at least some of which will be contrary to good gameplay. If anyone ever tries to make a MMO based on ''WesternAnimation/AvatarTheLastAirbender'', for instance, they will run into the problem that nobody can play as an Airbender—there's only one left (it's [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin in the title]]), and because he's the main character he'll need to be an NPC. Boom: a situation where {{Canon}} is at odds with good gameplay... and we haven't even ''watched'' the show! All show, all we've done is read its title! If you try to license an Intellectual Property, this kind of thing will happen ''a lot''. Either you can do a PragmaticAdaptation it in the name of good gameplay, or have a game that's accurate to the source material but, well, not fun.
18th Jun '17 4:33:33 PM NightShade96
Is there an issue? Send a Message


RealTimeStrategy contains two sub-genres. One is better described as "RealTimeTactics," in which the emphasis is on controlling small numbers of units and there is no base-building or administrative detailing. ''[[VideoGame/{{Myth}} Myth The Fallen Lords]]'' and ''VideoGame/DawnOfWar 2'' lean in this direction, with ''DefenseOfTheAncients'' and its MultiplayerOnlineBattleArena spinoffs taking it to its most logical extreme: you control just one hero, ''an'' hero, and nothing else. On the opposite end of the scale is (for lack of a better term) "RealTimeBaseBuilding," with lots of structure-placing and administrative choices, but little focus on actual military maneuvers. The most obvious examples here are TowerDefense games like ''VideoGame/PlantsVsZombies''; the ''Starcraft II'' mod "Nexus Wars" in which your entire job is deciding which soldiers to throw into battle; and the "dictator simulator" ''GratuitousSpaceBattles'', in which you design ships and determine fleet composition, but don't get to do anything except watch the fireworks once the battle is joined.

to:

RealTimeStrategy contains two sub-genres. One is better described as "RealTimeTactics," in which the emphasis is on controlling small numbers of units and there is no base-building or administrative detailing. ''[[VideoGame/{{Myth}} Myth The Fallen Lords]]'' and ''VideoGame/DawnOfWar 2'' lean in this direction, with ''DefenseOfTheAncients'' ''VideoGame/DefenseOfTheAncients'' and its MultiplayerOnlineBattleArena spinoffs taking it to its most logical extreme: you control just one hero, ''an'' hero, and nothing else. On the opposite end of the scale is (for lack of a better term) "RealTimeBaseBuilding," with lots of structure-placing and administrative choices, but little focus on actual military maneuvers. The most obvious examples here are TowerDefense games like ''VideoGame/PlantsVsZombies''; the ''Starcraft II'' mod "Nexus Wars" in which your entire job is deciding which soldiers to throw into battle; and the "dictator simulator" ''GratuitousSpaceBattles'', in which you design ships and determine fleet composition, but don't get to do anything except watch the fireworks once the battle is joined.
14th May '17 3:33:32 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Numbers of units. For many RTS game types, particularly those emulating ''Franchise/{{StarCraft}}'', you need to handle more units than most engines find comfortable doing. And that's not just about drawing; even if the 300 Zerglings aren't all on screen, they all still need to move around, path to destinations, etc.

to:

* Numbers of units. For many RTS game types, particularly those emulating ''Franchise/{{StarCraft}}'', ''VideoGame/StarCraft'', you need to handle more units than most engines find comfortable doing. And that's not just about drawing; even if the 300 Zerglings aren't all on screen, they all still need to move around, path to destinations, etc.
7th Mar '17 10:41:49 PM mlsmithca
Is there an issue? Send a Message


What sort of setting are you looking at? As long as there's people, there's war, so you can have stick-wielding cavemen, high-tech futures with robots and lasers, magic-based fantasy, or anything in between. (Heck, ''VideoGame/RiseOfLegends'' did all three, though with Da Vincian steampunk instead of cave thugs.) You could even go supernatural: zombie invasion? Vampire invasion? Werewolves? Mutants? {{Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot}}s? (''ComicStrip/CalvinAndHobbes'' once had Tyrannosaurs flying F-14s. Calvin: "[[SoCoolItsAwesome This is so cool!]]" Hobbes: "[[CoolButStupid This is so stupid]].") Also, what's your battle plane? Are we talking ground-based armies here? How about interstellar fleets with full 3D maneuvering?—it's a known fact that the ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}}'' fandom is looking for love. What about something in between? How about ''both''?

to:

What sort of setting are you looking at? As long as there's people, there's war, so you can have stick-wielding cavemen, high-tech futures with robots and lasers, magic-based fantasy, or anything in between. (Heck, ''VideoGame/RiseOfLegends'' did all three, though with Da Vincian steampunk instead of cave thugs.) You could even go supernatural: zombie invasion? Vampire invasion? Werewolves? Mutants? {{Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot}}s? (''ComicStrip/CalvinAndHobbes'' once had Tyrannosaurs flying F-14s. Calvin: "[[SoCoolItsAwesome This "This is so cool!]]" cool!" Hobbes: "[[CoolButStupid This is so stupid]].") Also, what's your battle plane? Are we talking ground-based armies here? How about interstellar fleets with full 3D maneuvering?—it's a known fact that the ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}}'' fandom is looking for love. What about something in between? How about ''both''?
3rd Mar '16 12:52:18 PM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* For games that branch back into the genre's roots as TurnBasedStrategy, check out ''VideoGame/AgeOfEmpires'' and ''RiseOfNations'', which is sometimes considered its SpiritualSuccessor.

to:

* For games that branch back into the genre's roots as TurnBasedStrategy, check out ''VideoGame/AgeOfEmpires'' and ''RiseOfNations'', ''VideoGame/RiseOfNations'', which is sometimes considered its SpiritualSuccessor.
3rd Mar '16 11:16:33 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


What resources are in your game? YouRequireMoreVespeneGas gives the overview, but most titles in this genre go with basics: Gold, Lumber and Population. Others have tweaked the scale: resources you might not need, tons of resources, only one or two... This has an impact on gameplay, remember. ''RiseOfNations'' proved that resource diversification makes things ''way'' easier, but maybe you don't ''want'' it easier. Maybe you want The Player to think long and hard about every build order issued. For that matter, what if you want The Player to be able to de-emphasize resourcing? How about building a race into your game that doesn't resource ''at all'', thus depriving opponents of a vital weak spot to hit?—though at the cost of some other weakness, of course. What if each faction in your game needed extra amounts of a certain Lumber-style resource? This would force each faction to stick to certain locations on the map, where said resource is prevalent, and thus have an effect on their playing style.

Any extras you want to throw in? Squads of infantry instead of individual soldiers? {{Support Power}}s? A tech tree? RPGElements and persistent troops that gain experience points? Hero units? Terrain bonuses? What if you were to splash in FourX traits, like ''SinsOfASolarEmpire'' has? What about some CollectibleCardGame flavor, like ''PoxNora''? Courts-martial if you screw up really badly? (The ''VideoGame/WingCommander'' flightsims had these as a NonStandardGameOver for screwing up [[ButThouMust plot-critical]] missions.) Something else entirely? The sky's the limit.

to:

What resources are in your game? YouRequireMoreVespeneGas gives the overview, but most titles in this genre go with basics: Gold, Lumber and Population. Others have tweaked the scale: resources you might not need, tons of resources, only one or two... This has an impact on gameplay, remember. ''RiseOfNations'' ''VideoGame/RiseOfNations'' proved that resource diversification makes things ''way'' easier, but maybe you don't ''want'' it easier. Maybe you want The Player to think long and hard about every build order issued. For that matter, what if you want The Player to be able to de-emphasize resourcing? How about building a race into your game that doesn't resource ''at all'', thus depriving opponents of a vital weak spot to hit?—though at the cost of some other weakness, of course. What if each faction in your game needed extra amounts of a certain Lumber-style resource? This would force each faction to stick to certain locations on the map, where said resource is prevalent, and thus have an effect on their playing style.

Any extras you want to throw in? Squads of infantry instead of individual soldiers? {{Support Power}}s? A tech tree? RPGElements and persistent troops that gain experience points? Hero units? Terrain bonuses? What if you were to splash in FourX traits, like ''SinsOfASolarEmpire'' ''VideoGame/SinsOfASolarEmpire'' has? What about some CollectibleCardGame flavor, like ''PoxNora''? Courts-martial if you screw up really badly? (The ''VideoGame/WingCommander'' flightsims had these as a NonStandardGameOver for screwing up [[ButThouMust plot-critical]] missions.) Something else entirely? The sky's the limit.



Oh boy. We could list hundreds of hours of addicting gameplay here and still not do a good job. Basically, though, any game you've seen mentioned in the rest of the article is worth playing, even if only for a little while so that you can learn what that game did differently than everyone else. (''SinsOfASolarEmpire'' and ''RiseOfNations'', for example, are games you can basically master in 10 hours. You'll probably play longer, because they're ''fun'', but in terms of just getting an understanding of their mechanics, what they do well and what they could improve, it won't take long.)

to:

Oh boy. We could list hundreds of hours of addicting gameplay here and still not do a good job. Basically, though, any game you've seen mentioned in the rest of the article is worth playing, even if only for a little while so that you can learn what that game did differently than everyone else. (''SinsOfASolarEmpire'' (''VideoGame/SinsOfASolarEmpire'' and ''RiseOfNations'', ''VideoGame/RiseOfNations'', for example, are games you can basically master in 10 hours. You'll probably play longer, because they're ''fun'', but in terms of just getting an understanding of their mechanics, what they do well and what they could improve, it won't take long.)



And ''this'' category could be really big too. Of course, few of them have articles here on the site--primarily ''because'' they're epic fails. Ever heard of ''VideoGame/NexusTheJupiterIncident''? ''GenesisRising''? ''VideoGame/HaegemoniaLegionsOfIron''? ''VideoGame/ConquestFrontierWars''? What was wrong with them? Absolutely nothing! Sure, they weren't blockbuster hits, but they weren't ''bad'' either. The problem is, the standard for RTS is ''really high'' (damn you, ''VideoGame/{{StarCraft|I}}''), and as such even mediocre games just don't cut it. It's like trying to make a ''Zelda'' clone: either you go big or you go home.

to:

And ''this'' category could be really big too. Of course, few of them have articles here on the site--primarily ''because'' they're epic fails. Ever heard of ''VideoGame/NexusTheJupiterIncident''? ''GenesisRising''? ''VideoGame/GenesisRising''? ''VideoGame/HaegemoniaLegionsOfIron''? ''VideoGame/ConquestFrontierWars''? What was wrong with them? Absolutely nothing! Sure, they weren't blockbuster hits, but they weren't ''bad'' either. The problem is, the standard for RTS is ''really high'' (damn you, ''VideoGame/{{StarCraft|I}}''), and as such even mediocre games just don't cut it. It's like trying to make a ''Zelda'' clone: either you go big or you go home.
3rd Mar '16 11:15:41 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


What sort of setting are you looking at? As long as there's people, there's war, so you can have stick-wielding cavemen, high-tech futures with robots and lasers, magic-based fantasy, or anything in between. (Heck, ''RiseOfLegends'' did all three, though with Da Vincian steampunk instead of cave thugs.) You could even go supernatural: zombie invasion? Vampire invasion? Werewolves? Mutants? {{Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot}}s? (''ComicStrip/CalvinAndHobbes'' once had Tyrannosaurs flying F-14s. Calvin: "[[SoCoolItsAwesome This is so cool!]]" Hobbes: "[[CoolButStupid This is so stupid]].") Also, what's your battle plane? Are we talking ground-based armies here? How about interstellar fleets with full 3D maneuvering?—it's a known fact that the ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}}'' fandom is looking for love. What about something in between? How about ''both''?

Would you like your gameplay to emphasize macro- or micromanagement? The former is best exemplified by ''TotalAnnihilation'' and ''VideoGame/SupremeCommander'', both of which are the brainchildren of the same guy (Chris Taylor), and both of which allow you to command thousands of units at once. The latter's adherents currently play ''VideoGame/{{Warcraft}} III'', in which an army of 50 units is considered quite large, and you have to be able to watch over all of them, activate their abilities and keep them healthy. (If this sounds difficult, it is, but ''War3'''s popularity suggests that people like it anyhow.)

to:

What sort of setting are you looking at? As long as there's people, there's war, so you can have stick-wielding cavemen, high-tech futures with robots and lasers, magic-based fantasy, or anything in between. (Heck, ''RiseOfLegends'' ''VideoGame/RiseOfLegends'' did all three, though with Da Vincian steampunk instead of cave thugs.) You could even go supernatural: zombie invasion? Vampire invasion? Werewolves? Mutants? {{Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot}}s? (''ComicStrip/CalvinAndHobbes'' once had Tyrannosaurs flying F-14s. Calvin: "[[SoCoolItsAwesome This is so cool!]]" Hobbes: "[[CoolButStupid This is so stupid]].") Also, what's your battle plane? Are we talking ground-based armies here? How about interstellar fleets with full 3D maneuvering?—it's a known fact that the ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}}'' fandom is looking for love. What about something in between? How about ''both''?

Would you like your gameplay to emphasize macro- or micromanagement? The former is best exemplified by ''TotalAnnihilation'' ''VideoGame/TotalAnnihilation'' and ''VideoGame/SupremeCommander'', both of which are the brainchildren of the same guy (Chris Taylor), and both of which allow you to command thousands of units at once. The latter's adherents currently play ''VideoGame/{{Warcraft}} III'', in which an army of 50 units is considered quite large, and you have to be able to watch over all of them, activate their abilities and keep them healthy. (If this sounds difficult, it is, but ''War3'''s popularity suggests that people like it anyhow.)
15th Jan '16 9:43:40 PM Kuruni
Is there an issue? Send a Message


What resources are in your game? YouRequireMoreVespeneGas gives the overview, but most titles in this genre go with basics: Gold, Lumber and Population. Others have tweaked the scale: resources you might not need, tons of resources, only one or two... This has an impact on gameplay, remember. For this troper's money, ''RiseOfNations'' proved that resource diversification makes things ''way'' easier, but maybe you don't ''want'' it easier. Maybe you want The Player to think long and hard about every build order issued. For that matter, what if you want The Player to be able to de-emphasize resourcing? How about building a race into your game that doesn't resource ''at all'', thus depriving opponents of a vital weak spot to hit?—though at the cost of some other weakness, of course. What if each faction in your game needed extra amounts of a certain Lumber-style resource? This would force each faction to stick to certain locations on the map, where said resource is prevalent, and thus have an effect on their playing style.

to:

What resources are in your game? YouRequireMoreVespeneGas gives the overview, but most titles in this genre go with basics: Gold, Lumber and Population. Others have tweaked the scale: resources you might not need, tons of resources, only one or two... This has an impact on gameplay, remember. For this troper's money, ''RiseOfNations'' proved that resource diversification makes things ''way'' easier, but maybe you don't ''want'' it easier. Maybe you want The Player to think long and hard about every build order issued. For that matter, what if you want The Player to be able to de-emphasize resourcing? How about building a race into your game that doesn't resource ''at all'', thus depriving opponents of a vital weak spot to hit?—though at the cost of some other weakness, of course. What if each faction in your game needed extra amounts of a certain Lumber-style resource? This would force each faction to stick to certain locations on the map, where said resource is prevalent, and thus have an effect on their playing style.



This editor is a little biased on the topic, but let me say it anyway: the vast majority of storytelling is about characters, and their relationship to each other. And nothing I have seen, in all the fiction I've read and all the games I've played, has ever convinced me otherwise. There are very few exceptions, mostly in the form of travelogue stories—tales like ''Literature/TheWonderfulWizardOfOz'' or ''Literature/GulliversTravels'' where the setting itself is practically a character in its own right. ...And yet even that seems to affirm my statement: the land of Oz, and Dorothy's relationship to it, is the most important character in the story. And, in terms of storytelling, RealTimeStrategy is no different. The good ones may have great gameplay, but the ''best'' ones also have great characters, characters we care about and whose fates we want to learn about. They may not be the ''main'' reason we play... but they're definitely up in the top three. And the games that don't have characters... Well, there's only two reasons to play them (RuleOfFun, and online competition with your friends). That'll get you some mileage, but not as much as it could have.

to:

This editor is a little biased on the topic, but let me say it anyway: the The vast majority of storytelling is about characters, and their relationship to each other. And nothing I have seen, in all the fiction I've read and all the games I've played, has ever convinced me otherwise. There are very few exceptions, mostly in the form of travelogue stories—tales like ''Literature/TheWonderfulWizardOfOz'' or ''Literature/GulliversTravels'' where the setting itself is practically a character in its own right. ...And yet even that seems to affirm my statement: the land of Oz, and Dorothy's relationship to it, is the most important character in the story. And, in terms of storytelling, RealTimeStrategy is no different. The good ones may have great gameplay, but the ''best'' ones also have great characters, characters we care about and whose fates we want to learn about. They may not be the ''main'' reason we play... but they're definitely up in the top three. And the games that don't have characters... Well, there's only two reasons to play them (RuleOfFun, and online competition with your friends). That'll get you some mileage, but not as much as it could have.



This is more a personal gripe from this editor, but it's worth mentioning: try to keep your single-player campaign consonant with the multi-player experience. By which we mean: don't introduce (many) heroes, abilities or units that aren't available in multi. [[YouRequireMoreVespeneGas We Require More Demographics Research]], but my hunch is that many players expect the 1P campaign to basically be a glorified tutorial, and to come away from it knowing how units work in multi. So throwing in a lot of things that aren't ''in'' multi will just annoy them. As a case in point, check out the ''VideoGame/StarcraftII'' 1P campaigns--which were a ''lot'' of fun, but have almost nothing in common with how the game is actually played against other people. Roaches that {{Spawn Broodling}}s, roaming wolfpacks of Goliaths and Diamondbacks, teleporting Swarm Hosts, Thors and Ultralisks that respawn when killed... None of these are in multi, so anyone who grew to rely on them is screwed. And by the way, all these things are {{Game Breaker}}s, so the number of players who relied on them is, well, AllOfThem. This plays into a concept called "First Time User Experience," FTUE, which simply asks, "How can we make the process of Picking Up The Game For The First Time as un-confusing as possible?" A 1P campaign with lots of extra units--especially extra units that, as in ''SC2'', are not ''marked'' as being extra units--does not make for good FTUE.

to:

This is more a personal gripe from this editor, but it's It's worth mentioning: try to keep your single-player campaign consonant with the multi-player experience. By which we mean: don't introduce (many) heroes, abilities or units that aren't available in multi. [[YouRequireMoreVespeneGas We Require More Demographics Research]], but my hunch is that many players expect the 1P campaign to basically be a glorified tutorial, and to come away from it knowing how units work in multi. So throwing in a lot of things that aren't ''in'' multi will just annoy them. As a case in point, check out the ''VideoGame/StarcraftII'' 1P campaigns--which were a ''lot'' of fun, but have almost nothing in common with how the game is actually played against other people. Roaches that {{Spawn Broodling}}s, roaming wolfpacks of Goliaths and Diamondbacks, teleporting Swarm Hosts, Thors and Ultralisks that respawn when killed... None of these are in multi, so anyone who grew to rely on them is screwed. And by the way, all these things are {{Game Breaker}}s, so the number of players who relied on them is, well, AllOfThem. This plays into a concept called "First Time User Experience," FTUE, which simply asks, "How can we make the process of Picking Up The Game For The First Time as un-confusing as possible?" A 1P campaign with lots of extra units--especially extra units that, as in ''SC2'', are not ''marked'' as being extra units--does not make for good FTUE.
9th Dec '15 4:08:59 AM jormis29
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Keep an eye on your GUI. A game is only as easy to play as it is to control. In RTS that's less of an issue (especially if it's a computer game), but it might be a good idea to review the StockControlSettings for the genre, as well as catalogue any improvements on these schemes. ''VideoGame/TheSims'', which is basically a RTS without war, gives you a visual queue of a character's not-yet-executed orders, which you can then modify on the fly. ''VideoGame/SupremeCommander'' lets you issue unit orders to a ''factory'', so that any units produced there will come out with that queue already assigned. ''War3'' gave you auto-casting on some spells; unfortunately, toggling ''auto-cast'' spells didn't come along until ''LeagueOfLegends'', which also gave you orange highlights to show when an enemy was targeting your OneManArmy, and—best of all—an auto-reconnect function, lag meter and framerate counter all built into the GUI. ''RiseOfNations'' is the king of of innovations: an entity's control palette is always bound, positionally, to the QWERT, ASDFG and ZXCVB buttons, meaning you can keep your hand there and always have full control over any unit or building you select. Pressing '''Tab''' lets you cycle through all available research. Pressing '''Home''' instantly finds ''all'' units, anywhere on the map, of the type(s) you currently have selected. All these make the game more fun—or, at least, make it easier to concentrate on ''playing'', since you don't have to fight a twiddly interface. So check out these UI innovations. You might want them.

to:

Keep an eye on your GUI. A game is only as easy to play as it is to control. In RTS that's less of an issue (especially if it's a computer game), but it might be a good idea to review the StockControlSettings for the genre, as well as catalogue any improvements on these schemes. ''VideoGame/TheSims'', which is basically a RTS without war, gives you a visual queue of a character's not-yet-executed orders, which you can then modify on the fly. ''VideoGame/SupremeCommander'' lets you issue unit orders to a ''factory'', so that any units produced there will come out with that queue already assigned. ''War3'' gave you auto-casting on some spells; unfortunately, toggling ''auto-cast'' spells didn't come along until ''LeagueOfLegends'', ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends'', which also gave you orange highlights to show when an enemy was targeting your OneManArmy, and—best of all—an auto-reconnect function, lag meter and framerate counter all built into the GUI. ''RiseOfNations'' ''VideoGame/RiseOfNations'' is the king of of innovations: an entity's control palette is always bound, positionally, to the QWERT, ASDFG and ZXCVB buttons, meaning you can keep your hand there and always have full control over any unit or building you select. Pressing '''Tab''' lets you cycle through all available research. Pressing '''Home''' instantly finds ''all'' units, anywhere on the map, of the type(s) you currently have selected. All these make the game more fun—or, at least, make it easier to concentrate on ''playing'', since you don't have to fight a twiddly interface. So check out these UI innovations. You might want them.
This list shows the last 10 events of 52. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=SoYouWantTo.WriteARealTimeStrategy