1 vs 1 does seem to have a limited marketbase- SFV is proving this. The market for 1 vs 1 competitive games is no longer a AAA market unless it has some hook to trick non-competitive players into buying it, (MKX and Smash are the two big games for that reason)
MOBA has the fact you can blame teammates to help soothe the salt. 1 vs 1 doesn’t have that.
For RTS, I really liked games that allowed a bit of Mixing and matching, and didn’t have a lot of emphasis on build orders and the like. It’s one of the reasons I really liked age of mythology (with cool decisions to make at every age)
Im still waiting on the RTS’s that bring back more base building personally, with more focus on turtling, than the rush-everything RTS games I see these days. At least, in the old games like Dune, Warcraft and the like, this was a viable tactic.
Fixed build orders and expansion/attacks at the earliest viable moment are inherent parts of the way RTSs work. Competitive Dune2, WC3 and AoM all rely on them. The games didn’t change, your perception of them and what counts as competitive did.
The unevenness is slight (a few percentage points of win rate between cheap vs. expensive decks), but a key factor to motivate players to compete in the first place. Why endure that stress if there is nothing tangible to gain?
But we don’t even have to look at Constructed. Arena alone is probably larger than many other games combined, and it’s even.
This resonates with me. My favourite modern RTSs are the Total War series (which is its completely little thing, pretty much a different genre, with no base building on the battles and a pure tactical game once you get there. I did love the MP in Shogun before the expansions threw balance out of whack) and the Wargame series (again with no base building) and despite the decent dynamic campaign of the Wargame series, the most fun I had with them was definitely the crazy 5v5 mode they implemented.
I do agree with others that MOBAs are a better competitive experience for me that scratches the same itches competitive RTSs used to scratch. A solid story driven campaign (or an interesting dynamic one, but it still needs a narrative hook, like the Wargame series) is pretty much a must for me to consider an RTS, and if it’s a short one that doesn’t over repeat itself, the better.
Personally I like the 1-on-1-ness of competitive RTS much more than team multiplayer, especially for MOBAs. I mean, I love watching DotA, but I barely play any competitive DotA at all because if I don’t do well I’m letting the team down (and most of the time they’ll let you know) and I feel like I’ve wasted everyone’s time. If I’m playing 1-on-1 CoH and I get beaten then it’s a learning experience.
Thanks for the article Brad. I think gamers tend to underestimate the extent to which technology shapes and constrains gameplay. It’s hard to tell just from playing games what options are available to the designer.
I think RTS is a schizophrenic genre. They offer a type of experience in single player… and a very different one in multiplayer. It’s like having a game being a golf sim in one part and a graphic adventure in the other. In single player they usually offer a specific pace, they give time to explore, to probe defenses, to try several plans to finish a mission, they have missions with different objectives, etc. In multi player, the nature of the game systems dictate a very specific way of playing, the games turn into a competitive race to get resources, to get a bigger army and to advance more in the technological tree.
I always thought they should try other game modes. Normal RTS are the equivalent of DM/TDM. I would like to try something like attack/defense mode with limited resources, as Rush/Assault/Payload and others in the fps genre. A way to reproduce a more sp-like experience but with the smarts of other humans (which should be the point of mp in a strategy game).
Normal RTS are the equivalent of DM/TDM. I would like to try something like attack/defense mode with limited resources, as Rush/Assault/Payload and others in the fps genre. A way to reproduce a more sp-like experience but with the smarts of other humans (which should be the point of mp in a strategy game).
While most RTSes seem to focus on DM style skirmishes, there are plenty of mods that give this sort of experience (eg Joint Ops for CoH), and some RTSes build extra modes into the core game (doesn’t Starcraft 2 for that matter?). And coop campaigns are fairly common these days.
I have been playing Warlords Battlecry 3 again lately. I do like that you level up your character and how the different class/race affect gameplay somewhat. I like your retinue that you can carry over between battles. The variety of races is good and it seems to me that there it is almost asymmetrical with the races, akin to Master of Magic in that some are better than others (some peak early some later). Generally i am more of a turtle type, but playing an assassin i try to hunt the AI leader early on.
That’s actually a big part of the appeal compared to other 1 vs 1 genres. It allows you to think you are better than you are, because you can attribute the successes to your play and the failures to your teammates. It’s the big reason people get frustrated with other competitive genres.
It’s hard for me to comment on this sidebar since I don’t mind 1v1 (got really into CoH for example) but the other nice thing about multiple players is the extra variance it brings. Just like multiplayer is often more intense and interesting than singleplayer, extra human actors can make situations more dramatic too. People are interesting.
I thought that was sarcasm. Aren’t the communities for basically all MOBAs toxic due to intolerance of noobs/weak players? Another MOBA question, I read a posting online last night that I think in the comments to Brad’s article that MOBAs are a less complicated than RTS. Is that true? From what I’ve looked at it seemed to me there is so much more to learn due to character, build, and item combinations. That is probably one of the reasons I haven’t really jumped in.