Theory

[Macaw]

[Thread spun off from here: http://culture.vg/forum/topic?f=1&t=4076 -icy]

so hopefully there is enough of that, otherwise we are just going to have SimCity in space, which is not cool. Also lol at the Dwarf Fortress comparison.

You lol at the Dwarf Fortress comparison but you also said it could turn into SimCity? It has more in common with Dwarf Fortress than SimCity. This is all character and resource chain management stuff, only little town planning which is what SimCity is all about.

Mostly the game will be like Cultures though, I can pretty much guarantee the game will be ridiculously similar to it.

Been looking forward to this since the beginning of last year. I don't see how only 2 people on the team though cannot make it fulfill its concept. I guess you want a fully realized 3D world taking advantage of the current technology? I'm happier with the simple but cool graphics for this kind of simulation game with the 2D buildings and such.

Medieval Mayor is another sim coming out this year from the designer of Pharaoh and Zeus and a bunch of other building games released by Tilted Mill. The shocking thing about it is that they're going back to 2D with a look similar to Zeus, which has got me super excited.

It's a fucking crazy year for one of my favorite genres. First the new SimCity, then Unclaimed World, Medieval Mayor, Madou Koukaku and Crusader 2. Better than any single year for the genre even in the '90s.

[icycalm]

My comments were based entirely off those two linked videos. I haven't seen or read anything else about the game, and going from the videos it is impossible to tell that the focus is resource chain management, as you say. My SimCity comparison came from the final part of trailer 1, where it shows a cluster of buildings. Given that there's no serious opposition shown in either video, I think the SimCity comparison is valid, considering it was the first game (or at least the first hugely successful game) to almost completely remove opposition from videogames. You could almost say it was the first non-game lol :) I have a review of SimCity on the site in which I go into this in detail. I loved it at the time, because the real-time construction was new and exciting and let's face it awesome, but after Dune II came out and integrated the city-building stuff with the Herzog Zwei RTT model, I moved onto RTSes and never looked back. I think I fired up a SimCity sequel around '98 or 2000 or so, and gave up in 20 minutes due to how bland and lifeless it all was. I mean I am sure they are decent games, and if there weren't thousands of better games available I would certainly be putting some serious time into them, but as things stand I can't be arsed to. That's my stance on no-opposition games, at any rate, and this kinda looks -- again going simply from the videos -- as it will be one more of them, which as I said would be a shame since the rest looks pretty cool. Exploring an alien planet and then building stuff on it in real-time while fending off native lifeforms is a totally untapped design, and it has the potential to blow all other city-building games out of the water for the same reasons Alpha Centauri blew away Civilization. But if there's no enemies it will be boring, besides which I seriously doubt that 2 guys could deliver sufficient complexity and scope -- never mind aesthetics -- in a genre so inherently complex even if it did. And I am saying this based on the fact that none of my favorite strategy games were made by fewer than a dozen people on considerable budgets. It has nothing to do with cutting-edge 3D graphics (though of course I would prefer them!) -- I'd be just as happy with the cool 2D art in Alpha Centauri or Age of Empires II or whatever. But even in this respect the game is lacking... In any case, if you have more information on the game, let me know and I would love to take a look at it. This also includes Medieval Mayor, Crusaders 2, and even Cultures. I've heard nothing of them, and if you care to make some threads and introduce them to us, I am sure that many others here would love to hear about them. And glad to see you posting again after such a long absence!

[icycalm]

Actually, taking another look at the videos, I really have no problem with the graphics. They are detailed and charming enough as it is. They don't have the finesse and consistency of Alpha Centauri, but they get the job done nicely.

And considering the game's title again ("Unclaimed" World), it is clear the designers don't plan on including significant opposition. Let's hope they will at least have the sense to include some sort of timer- or environment-based constraints and challenges.

[Macaw]

What do you mean by opposition? Having full fledged enemy sides building the same kind of force as you? As you know, there are the hostile aliens that must be defended against in Unclaimed World.

The general design of the C&C/Warcraft style RTS is a totally different genre essentially, which I have barely any interest in. As soon as there is another enemy side on a map building the same stuff as you, then it predominantly becomes a competitive game thats usually only ever fun when played with other people, and there is no pleasure at all in the building of a big city/castle/whatever.

Dedicated simulation style games with the more complex building, resource and management models shift the fun of the game to the satisfaction of building and managing the city, and can also be enjoyed solo. In a way its like comparing Street Fighter 2 to Final Fight.

Certain games more heavily involve 'opposition' into a more strict singleplayer citybuilding/management game design. Beasts and Bumpkins, along with 2 games under the Stronghold name (the first was a 1993 release with a Dungeons and Dragons license, the 2nd is the 2001 release that spawned the now somewhat famous series). These games all involve defending your town from enemies, and all 3 of them are brilliant and absolute must plays unless building medieval towns/castles is of no interest to you.

Those are of course a different sub genre I guess to the more strict no 'opposition' games like Simcity, which essentially become a big mathematical problem considering there will always be a single absolute best way to lay out the city. I like them about as much as the previously mentioned games though, with my absolute favorite being Afterlife from Lucasarts, which involves you having to build Heaven and Hell. It has gorgeous Simcity 2000 style pixel art buildings, and one of the most unbelievably complex, unique, but satisfying citybuilders ever.

The German stuff is different again. Settler's and its sequels were the main influences, then stuff like Knights and Merchants, the Cultures games and the now bestselling Anno series continued the style. These all focus mainly on resource chains (build a woodcutter to make wood, build a sawmill to turn wood to planks, etc) along with the individual citizens and their occupations, and focus less on strict planning and layout of buildings like Simcity and Afterlife.

Stuff like Caeser 3, Pharaoh and Zeus were hybrids, and contained both the Simcity style planning, the Settlers style resources, and minor 'RTS' elements with battles. This is likely what the new Medieval Mayor will be like too, while Unclaimed World is more the German style as the screenshots demonstrate there is no strict building planning and layout required.


Stronghold (1993 game)


Afterlife


Beasts and Bumpkins


Cultures

[icycalm]

What do you mean by opposition? Having full fledged enemy sides building the same kind of force as you? As you know, there are the hostile aliens that must be defended against in Unclaimed World.

They don't have to be building the same stuff. It's better if they are building their own stuff (i.e. different races). And it doesn't have to be about war in the physical sense. It can be, for example, in the financial sense, as in Railroad Tycoon (at least the first one which I've played). That is how to do a "building stuff" game with opposition, with real, imminent challenge (and that is going to be my main point in my upcoming Railroad Tycoon review). The easiest way to apply this to SimCity would have been, for example, to have you actually be mayor, with elections and everything. You start the game as mayor, and have to meet several goals during your (relatively short, say half an hour to an hour in real-time) term, otherwise you lose the election and the game ends. With every election you win the demands of your citizens increase, and if you want to keep playing and see the biggest buildings/infrastructure/etc. you have to really struggle to be as efficient at your job as possible. Do something along these lines, and I could play SimCity forever (and even better: a sci-fi themed, or at any rate a heavily stylized version of SimCity). But this endless pointless building is just boring to me, and again for the reasons I explain fully in my review.

As for the hostile aliens in Unclaimed World, I haven't read anything about them, but I hope they are not like the critters in Minecraft, which are basically a last-minute attempt to compensate for the lack of proper opposition -- as the natural disasters in SimCity were (as I explain again in my review). Imagine if Civilization had only the barbarians for opposition. The game would basically suck.

The general design of the C&C/Warcraft style RTS is a totally different genre essentially, which I have barely any interest in.

No, it's not. Dune II = Herzog Zwei + SimCity. This is the genre's DNA. I played all these games on release, and I know what I am talking about, besides which it's obvious once it's been pointed out to you. If you don't like them you don't like them, but their mechanical lineage is there for all to see.

As soon as there is another enemy side on a map building the same stuff as you, then it predominantly becomes a competitive game thats usually only ever fun when played with other people, and there is no pleasure at all in the building of a big city/castle/whatever.

First off, all games are strictly speaking competitive. It makes no difference whether you are competing against a human player, an AI player, or a timer or level design or whatever. I recently pointed out in the scoring thread that they can now make AI in first-person shooters that appears more human-like than actual humans. So all this is a moot point. It has nothing to do with competition but with challenge. Your feeling "I am playing a competitive game right now" is simply the feeling that you are being really challenged. But a single-player game can be set to such a high difficulty that it's more difficult than playing with humans. Or what if you are playing against weak human players? None of this has anything to do with the mechanics of a game. As for you not being able to enjoy building stuff in RTSes: I am amazed you feel this way. Building up my base and defenses in Age of Empires is about the most fun I have ever had building stuff in videogames. A million times more fun than what I got from making aimless monstrosities in Minecraft or dull cities in SimCity.

Dedicated simulation style games with the more complex building, resource and management models shift the fun of the game to the satisfaction of building and managing the city, and can also be enjoyed solo.

I can enjoy RTSes solo just fine. In fact I am never playing solo because there's always an enemy, as I explained. Whether the enemy is human or subhuman or superhuman or AI is a technicality, and in the long run you won't even be able to tell the difference anyway. As for the "dedicated simulation style" games being more complex: that would indeed be an advantage if it were true. But where the peaceful sim game has more complexity in the construction side of the equation, the war game has more complexity in the war side of the equation, which, all told, makes them about equal in terms of overall complexity. But I am with you on this: I still want more and more complexity, and I am never satisfied with any given level of it. I would definitely like a bigger building component in my RTSes. And, to a degree, I've been getting it. Supreme Commander has a more complex base-building element than Dune II, so things are improving.

In a way its like comparing Street Fighter 2 to Final Fight.

You are stuck on the human/AI issue, while I am talking about a completely different thing. I am talking about mechanics. Both SF2 and Final Fight have serious opposition. SimCity doesn't. That is my problem. I don't care WHO controls the opposition -- it may be God for all I care -- as long as it is enough to seriously fucking challenge me. Otherwise I get bored and would rather go to sleep or some shit. I LOVE building stuff. But it must be for a reason. I do not want to set my own goals, because then I can lower them at will and there is no challenge to it.

As for the rest of your comments, I am aware there are city-building games with serious challenge (though I am not very well versed in them...) Those are fine (though I'd say Settlers is a straight-up RTS -- at least the first one which I've played, and not a very good one at that either). I am just not sure to what extent Unclaimed World will play like them. And I am hoping it plays a lot more like them, and a lot less like SimCity. That's all I am saying.

Ideally, though, I'd like it to play like a real-time Alpha Centauri.

[Macaw]

As for you not being able to enjoy building stuff in RTSes: I am amazed you feel this way. Building up my base and defenses in Age of Empires is about the most fun I have ever had building stuff in videogames. A million times more fun than what I got from making aimless monstrosities in Minecraft or dull cities in SimCity.

I have zero interest in Minecraft because how pointless and static building stuff is. There is no point and little function in most of the stuff you build, its more like playing with Lego. Simcity games at least have proper functions and rules for all the buildings and management aspects, so the challenge is getting as much population as possible without going broke. Don't compare the sandbox nature of Simcity with truly pointless stuff like Minecraft, regardless of the fact you still find Simcity unsatisfying because of the need for more challenge.

Traditional RTS games are all about defeating the opponent, so placement of buildings is all about tactics and strategy and all buildings have military functions, and its a mad rush to go through that strategy to defeat the enemy. There is very little satisfaction from the 'base building' aspects of these games. If you've mostly only really put time into Simcity, than really you just have to play something like Zeus, Knights and Merchants or one of the Anno games or something to experience proper city building compared to just the lifeless and expendable military bases in a traditional RTS.

[Macaw]

By the way now that I think about it the Anno games have computer opponents buildings cities along with the expected multiplayer support, despite the game having a super complex city building and management backbone. If more complex base building in your RTS's is what your after like you say, then you should go play those games.

Well theres no real need to play any of them other than the latest, Anno 2070, as the series just keeps building upon itself and getting better.

[icycalm]

I have zero interest in Minecraft because how pointless and static building stuff is. There is no point and little function in most of the stuff you build, its more like playing with Lego.

I was the first person in the world to publish a negative review of Minecraft, and my argument was exactly on this basis:

http://insomnia.ac/reviews/web/minecraft/

Most people who've heard about this game will doubtless have seen at least one or two screenshots of some of those huge, elaborate and colorful structures that Minecraft's most intrepid, let us call them "players", have been building: from giant castles, cities, futuristic landscapes and the like, to detailed recreations of anything from private residences to cars to fucking Imperial cruisers from Star Wars, and so forth. And I mean, seriously, there's no denying the darn things are impressive — at least the first time you see them, and until you've realized what's wrong with them. And what's wrong with them, to cut this short and get to the fucking point, is that they are DEAD. EMPTY. BARREN. LIFELESS — devoid of ANY complexity apart from the primitive physical properties of a bunch of colorful blocks placed in more or less eye-pleasing patterns, get it? — something which is not at all the case with the original sandbox-type game (Sim City) and its by-now practically countless descendants. For a city in Sim City is FAR MORE THAN A BUNCH OF COLORFUL BLOCKS RESTING ON EACH OTHER. It is, or at least does a pretty darn decent job of simulating, a living, breathing, growing or declining (depending on the player's skill) urban agglomeration with its own rules and constantly evolving properties. The structures in Sim City, in other words, COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER. Its simulated streets are filled with simulations of cars carrying simulations of people driving back and forth from their simulated homes to their simulated workplaces and shopping in the simulated malls. The airports in Sim City ACTUALLY FUNCTION (you can even see the simulated planes flying over your simulated city, and sometimes even crash into it). The ports and stadiums and railways likewise. Contrast this to a "city" in Minecraft, which has the exact same properties as a "city" built from Lego blocks — I.E. NONE. It just sits there and does nothing. If Sim City is supposed to simulate a city then, Minecraft IS SUPPOSED TO BE SIMULATING LEGO BLOCKS. CAN YOU INTERNET FUCKFACES SEE THE RETROGRESSION NOW? I mean what's next, a "game" that simulates NOTHING? Because, if we pursue the "indie" bums' relentless downward plunge towards minimum complexity, that would be the next logical step.

So we are on the same page on this issue at least. But saying "don't compare the sandbox nature of SimCity with truly pointless stuff like Minecraft" is wrong-headed. If Minecraft scores 100/100 on the pointlessness scale, SimCity scores at least 70, so it is not a binary thing but a spectrum, and what I am saying is that I believe that the more focused, goal-oriented games are superior to the more freeform ones, and I have developed complex philosophical arguments to support this view. I could link you to my reviews and forum posts but I know you are not really into philosophy, so unless you ask me to I won't. That's why I haven't linked you my SimCity review so far, even though I referenced it several times.

Traditional RTS games are all about defeating the opponent

And SimCity is about defeating the opponent, which is an idea of a population target in your head that you have to reach in order to get your dopamine hit -- and that's why is so boring. Because the opposition's in your head instead of on the screen.

so placement of buildings is all about tactics and strategy and all buildings have military functions, and its a mad rush to go through that strategy to defeat the enemy.

There's a mad rush in SimCity too. If the RTS games are too mad for you, we'll lower the level of difficulty or find you stupid opponents to match the less mad rush found in SimCity.

There is very little satisfaction from the 'base building' aspects of these games.

We differ here. Like I said, I have never had more enjoyment building shit in games than in Age of Empires II.

If you've mostly only really put time into Simcity, than really you just have to play something like Zeus, Knights and Merchants or one of the Anno games or something to experience proper city building compared to just the lifeless and expendable military bases in a traditional RTS.

On the contrary, it is the SimCity cities that seem lifeless to me. RTS cities are full of life, because life includes death. And I like things being expendable because it keeps things fresh -- and that's what life is, freshness. But I agree with you that I should play more of the city-building games. Anno in particular looks cool in screenshots, and I have always wanted to try it. But my guess is that I will still prefer something like Cossacks or American Conquest, and ideally a Cossacks or American Conquest game with the city-building part as complex as that of Anno's. And if you think it can't be made, everything can be made, as Paradox showed with Europa Universalis -- it's just a matter of developing the right user interface/time-scale system to achieve the desire result.

We should play Age of Empires co-op online some time, and I should play Anno by myself at some point, and then return to this discussion afterwards.

[Macaw]

And SimCity is about defeating the opponent, which is an idea of a population target in your head that you have to reach in order to get your dopamine hit -- and that's why is so boring. Because the opposition's in your head instead of on the screen.

Most of the satisfaction in something like Simcity is also stuff like trying to evolve the zones really high (which in turn gives more population). Planning and managing an area well enough that a zone can evolve into bigger and bigger stuff until it becomes a skyscraper is incredibly satisfying. I know this alone wont drastically change your mind on anything, but its one of many factors that makes Simcity and similar games fun.

There's a mad rush in SimCity too. If the RTS games are too mad for you, we'll lower the level of difficulty or find you stupid opponents to match the less mad rush found in SimCity.

In an RTS you madly rush to kill the enemy and the map is over. In a city building game you put more time and effort into the construction of a single city and managing it and seeing it evolve is the fun. You say you get more fun building stuff in Age of Empires 2, but to me its a totally different feeling to a traditional RTS, I really can never compare the two, I just get more fun out of building focused games myself.

From a city building perspective the bases in Age of Empires are about as lifeless as stuff in Minecraft, because everything is still just used for getting the next unit or research. In Knights and Merchants you have cute little graphics and animations bringing to life the medieval town, the woodcutter cuts trees down and the carpenter turns them to planks at the sawmill. The stonemason mines rock then chisels it at his hut. People go to the tavern to eat. Workers have to flatten the land with shovels to build roads and structures, farmers grow crops. All these are things that make the town fun to build, manage and look at.

But my guess is that I will still prefer something like Cossacks or American Conquest, and ideally a Cossacks or American Conquest game with the city-building part as complex as that of Annos.

I actually enjoyed playing those games a bit just to fully build a town, even though there was no real satisfying city building payoff as it was still very much traditional RTS design with everything based around military. The huge amount of workers on the various resources and incredibly large and gorgeous buildings certainly made the building aspect more satisfying though.

[icycalm]

Most of the satisfaction in something like Simcity is also stuff like trying to evolve the zones really high (which in turn gives more population). Planning and managing an area well enough that a zone can evolve into bigger and bigger stuff until it becomes a skyscraper is incredibly satisfying. I know this alone wont drastically change your mind on anything, but its one of many factors that makes Simcity and similar games fun.

And stuff like this is part of the reason SimCity is better than Minecraft, but it's not enough. Or, to put it another way, it's good but it could be better.

In an RTS you madly rush to kill the enemy and the map is over.

And in SimCity you madly rush to hit your population target and the map is over.

And if length of play is what you want, the hugest maps in Supreme Commander can take hours I've heard. Maybe even days. Europa Universalis is an RTS (a grand RTS), and it can take weeks. There's no reason why games with conflict in them have to last less than games without conflict.

In a city building game you put more time and effort into the construction of a single city and managing it and seeing it evolve is the fun. You say you get more fun building stuff in Age of Empires 2, but to me its a totally different feeling to a traditional RTS, I really can never compare the two, I just get more fun out of building focused games myself.

Well, maybe YOU can't compare them, but if you think about it that's how it should be since you only play one of the things you can't compare. I play both, so I CAN compare them.

Look, remember the equation I gave you earlier?

Dune II = Herzog Zwei + SimCity

In more general terms, this can be rewritten as:

Real-time Strategy = Real-time Tactics + Real-time City-building

Or more simply:

Strategy = Tactics + City-building

And this is indeed the definition of strategy, if you look it up on a dictionary or Wikipedia!

All you are saying then, when you say that you don't enjoy RTSes, is that you don't enjoy tactics. Therefore it should come as no suprise that you enjoy city-building games more than RTSes. I, however, enjoy tactics just as much as I enjoy city-building, hence a genre that marries these two activities (the RTS genre) is superior to either of the other two, simpler genres.

And if you want to argue that the other two aren't simpler, we are going to be here a very long time as I try to explain set theory [ > ] to you, so I am hoping that you won't :)

From a city building perspective the bases in Age of Empires are about as lifeless as stuff in Minecraft, because everything is still just used for getting the next unit or research. In Knights and Merchants you have cute little graphics and animations bringing to life the medieval town, the woodcutter cuts trees down and the carpenter turns them to planks at the sawmill. The stonemason mines rock then chisels it at his hut. People go to the tavern to eat. Workers have to flatten the land with shovels to build roads and structures, farmers grow crops. All these are things that make the town fun to build, manage and look at.

This is ignorance talking. On of the awesome things about Age of Empires is precisely that there are 4 instead of 1 or 2 kinds of resources (as in previous RTSes), and the fact that you can see your little workers cutting down trees, fishing, mining, hunting differents kinds of animals, skinning them, taking the stuff back to your town, erecting walls, planting crops, etc. You haven't played the game, dude. Is this aspect of the game more developed in the pure construction games? Of course it is. But I explained to you why this is so. Because there is ANOTHER aspect in Age of Empires, that is very much LESS developed in the pure construction games. And besides, as I have already said, all these genres are evolving, and we can't be far away from an Age of Empires game with a construction model as complex as that of some of the games you love. Indeed, that is the ONLY way forward for the RTS genre: to continue to complexify both the tactics and the construction aspect, as they have been doing from day 1.

But my guess is that I will still prefer something like Cossacks or American Conquest, and ideally a Cossacks or American Conquest game with the city-building part as complex as that of Annos.

I actually enjoyed playing those games a bit just to fully build a town, even though there was no real satisfying city building payoff as it was still very much traditional RTS design with everything based around military. The huge amount of workers on the various resources and incredibly large and gorgeous buildings certainly made the building aspect more satisfying though.

And this is why you actually enjoyed these games, more than early RTSes: because these are late-RTSes, and hence have a more complex construction aspect than the early ones. And in the future this will improve even further, as it always has. As for them having "no real satisfying city building payoff": this is a contradiction of your previous sentence. The payoff was the pleasure you said you got from them in your fist sentence.

I also want to draw your attention to the co-op aspect of these games. In Age of Empires one player can build the city, while the other is defending it and fighting wars. I struggle to convey to you with words how much fun this is, and that's why I am offering to play the game with you online so you can see yourself. And this is indeed the future of the genre. After all, in real life no one runs an empire by himself either, and games will inevitably continue imitating real life in their quest to increase in their scope and their complexity.

[icycalm]

This entire conversation becomes real funny when you consider what the purpose of cities is in real life. Do you know why humans first began to gather together and form settlements? This is why:

Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war.

But that doesn't meant that EVERY person in a human society is capable of taking pleasure in ALL the aspects of this society's existence. That's why some people become scientists and engineers, and others generals or commandos. You are just more the engineer-type (AND commando, since you love straight-action games, and are good at them), whereas other people are only scientists (the puzzle-game players), or only engineers (the city-building players), or only generals (the tactics-game players), or only commandos (the action-game players) -- whereas I can take pleasure in all of them because that's how wide my interests and capacities are, which explains why I am the philosopher.

[Macaw]

The city building aspects of RTS's is not going to evolve more in the future, its gonna be the same shit forever. RTS players don't want complex city management, the whole point is for it to be simple.

The only exception is something like Anno, but the audience there is still totally different to the people playing C&C and Starcraft.

[icycalm]

What is the point in even holding a discussion about a genre which you don't play, don't care about, and from what I can tell don't even understand?

The city-building aspect of RTSes has been getting more complex since day 1. Yes, there have been steps back, but the same is true in every genre. Progress is not a straight line, it is chaotic, but as long as there IS progress, complexity will keep increasing, because complexity increase IS progress.

All you are talking about is C&C and StarCraft, as if these even mattered! These are simple, popular RTSes that no real RTS player actually cares about. StarCraft was mediocre in 1998 -- let alone in 2013! And just as you claim that the city-building of RTSes will cease becoming more complex, there were people back in 1999 claiming that Civilization will never become real-time, because people wouldn't be able to handle it. And yet it did, and the company that made it went on to make dozens more games, and keep complexifying them, and made a fortune in the process.

Your worldview is incredibly narrow. "Never", lol. As if the human race would become extinct in 10 years. What's worse, is that you seem to derive some kind of perverse pleasure in your doomsday prophecies of a genre you don't play and don't like. "The evolution of your genre has come to an end, hahahaha!" Whereas the truth is that the evolution of YOUR genre has come to an end, or at any rate will come to an end BEFORE the evolution of my genre, because YOUR genre is inherently less complex than mine. Remember this equation?

Real-time Strategy = Real-time Tactics + Real-time City-building

This equation says that the capacity for complexity in my genre is twice the capacity for complexity in your genre. It says, in other words, that my genre will keep evolving long after yours has stagnated. If you don't understand mathematics and set theory to grasp what I am telling you here, I am sorry, but giving me examples of some shitty RTSes from 1998 is not an acceptable counter-argument to all the theory I am using to help you understand how complexity and genres work.

There's nothing wrong with the RTS genre. It's just that, for whatever genetic or cultural reason -- or a mix of these reasons -- you are not attracted to tactical warfare. I bet you don't like wargames either, stuff like Panzer General, etc. So obviously you won't like RTSes, since half of them is tactics. But it's precisely for this reason that your opinion on them cannot hold any water. So you can go on not liking them all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that plenty of other people do like them, and those people will keep evolving the genre regardless of what you might have to say on the subject. And if we are both alive whenever the next big step forward is made in the genre (and note that it took almost a decade to go from Age of Empires to Supreme Commander..., and another decade to go from Civilization to Europa Universalis), I'll email you the links and have a good laugh at your myopia and narrow-mindedness. About the only way the RTS genre won't move forward is if a killer comet strikes earth before this happens, so if you hate the genre with such passion I suggest you start praying for that.

[icycalm]

RTS players don't want complex city management, the whole point is for it to be simple.

And what a fucking retarded statement is this. If the whole point for it was to be simple, why don't we still have the extremely simple base-building of Dune II in the newer games?

Utterly retarded comment. Zero knowledge of the history of the genre, zero understanding of videogames. Just some spastic hatred about a genre you don't like because you don't have the mental and motor skills to tackle it. I expected much better from you, dude. At any rate you will do me the favor of not posting any more ignorant babble in here about genres you don't like because it's insulting to those who do like them and to those who make them, and lowers the quality of discourse on my site, on top of being a waste of my time and annoying as all hell.

If you want to keep posting -- and I WANT you to keep posting -- post about stuff you love and understand, end of story.

[icycalm]

I mean, look at the MOBA retards. The MOBA genre (DotA, LoL, etc.) is an extreme dumbing down and vulgarization of the RTS genre, precisely because it was invented by REMOVING the city-building aspect from RTSes (AND the tactical aspect, in fact, since each player controls one avatar instead of hundreds or thousands). But is that an argument against the genre, if some idiots decided to dumb it down? It's like saying CITY-BUILDING GAMES ARE DOOMED BECAUSE OF ALL THE IDIOTS PLAYING FARMVILLE. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF CITY-BUILDING GAMES: TO BE SIMPLE, BECAUSE LOOK AT FARMVILLE LOL.

I am not talking to Macaw now, because there's no chance in hell he'll ever understand what I am saying. All the explanations and theory I am giving him are going right over his head "because StarCraft lol". I am talking to everyone else reading this thread. The existence of some decadent games inside a genre does not mean that the genre itself is decadent -- all it means is that there are a bunch of shitty games in it, because there are a bunch of shitty people who make these shitty games and play them. And with every step forward that the genre takes, the percentage of shitty games in it INCREASES, because every step forward is harder to take than the previous one, hence the number of failures must necessarily increase. All this is Evolution 101 and I shouldn't have to explain it.

[icycalm]

When you hate the higher thing, it is not you who is passing judgement on it, it is the higher thing that is passing judgement on you.

[Macaw]

Dune 2 still has more complex city building than lots of more modern RTS's, considering you have to build the concrete floors and power plants and stuff. Warcraft 1 had road construction. Modern stuff like the Middle Earth RTS's and the Dawn of War series are examples of more streamlined base building.

I never said I hated the genre, you know I'm obsessed with pretty much everything, and in regards to having little interest in it I meant that mostly from a city building standpoint. I've played almost every RTS in existence, even just last year I was obsessively researching and playing obscure releases that never made it out of their countries of origin, in particular stuff from Russia, Poland, Taiwan, Korea and the Czech Republic. In this regard I know more about RTS history than you, and probably have more interest in finding cool stuff like this even if the games lack a lot of the balance and refinement of the new releases, so you can hardly say I have no love for the genre.

One of the more awesome games I discovered was 'Alchemist' developed in Hong Kong, which has barely any information about its existence on the net and probably no screenshots, but is one of the more intricate and stunningly cool releases during the whole 90's craze with the genre. Games like this deserve to have more exposure.

[icycalm]

In this regard I know more about RTS history than you

hahaha

When we gain access to the histories of China and of India, the endlessness of the subject-matter will reveal to us the defects in the study, and force our historians to see that the object of science is to recognize the many in the one, to perceive the rules in any given example, and to apply to the life of nations a knowledge of mankind; not to go on counting up facts ad infinitum.

...

Students, and learned persons of all sorts and every age, aim as a rule at acquiring information rather than insight. They pique themselves upon knowing about everything—stones, plants, battles, experiments, and all the books in existence. It never occurs to them that information is only a means of insight, and in itself of little or no value; that it is his way of thinking that makes a man a philosopher.

You have a jumble of random facts in your head, and you are utterly incapable of doing anything with them. You can't even grasp a couple of simple equations that I am giving you, and I have to explain everything very slowly using the simplest terms available, and despite all that I am still not getting through to you.

As for your knowledge of RTSes, what difference does it make if you've quickly gone through a bunch of random unknown games, when you are utterly ignorant of all the key games in the genre? You didn't even know how detailed all the villagers and animations in Age of Empires were. You had no idea that you can, and SHOULD, play these games in co-op. You do not even seem to be aware that Supreme Commander exists. You think RTS battles are over too quickly. You keep citing StarCraft as if it even mattered. In this entire discussion you have shown less understanding and knowledge of the genre than I had 20 years ago, let alone today.

Listen here, kiddo. I am 15 years older than you. I was playing Pong before your father had even learned to masturbate. I had 3 university degrees at 21, and I am the number 1 art critic, art theorist, and philosopher in the world. And I am telling you you are full of shit and understand nothing. Speedrushing through a romset does not make you an expert. It makes you an idiot who spends all his time speedrushing through romsets. And while I value all the little factoids you may have gathered through your speedrushing, you should at least have enough sense to realize when you are out of your depth and incapable of holding your ground in a discussion. And since you are out of your depth, and hence unable to follow what I am saying or provide any arguments of value, I consider this discussion over, and I would like to remind you that in this forum I do not moderate or lock threads -- I moderate and lock people. So please understand this and act accordingly, or you will force me to do something I do not want to do.

[icycalm]

I mean look at this shit:

Dune 2 still has more complex city building than lots of more modern RTS's, considering you have to build the concrete floors and power plants and stuff.

"Age of Empires had fishing, and Supreme Commander doesn't have fishing, hence Age of Empires is more complex than Supreme Commander."

Weaboos lol.

I am actually going to break my rules and lock this thread because if Macaw blurts out another retarded fagotry I am going to fucking ban him, and I really don't want to do this. I'll unlock it in a few weeks when he has forgotten about it and gone back to mindlessly plowing through romsets 20 minutes at a time.

[icycalm]

Let's take another look at that equation:

Real-time Strategy = Real-time Tactics + Real-time City-building

Even though the potential complexity of each of these genres is infinite (since, though in practice nothing is infinite, in theory everything is), the potential complexity of the RTS genre is bigger than those of the other two, because it is made up of the sum of two infinities. And if you think all infinities are equal, watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0 (paying particular attention to the end, lol)

So in the course of my argument with Macaw I brought to bear at different points mathematics, history, psychology, anthropology and philosophy, and his only comeback has been that he played some obscure Kazakhstani RTS for 20 minutes hence he understands more about the genre than I do and I am therefore wrong. At no point in the discussion did he attempt to grapple with any of the scientific arguments I gave him -- or even acknowledge them at all! -- and his only strategy seems to have been to namedrop some borderline obscure titles in the hopes that I'd be intimidated and drop the subject.

And it's the same with all of them. Recap, GaijinPunch, Shou, Kulata, Rob from Shmups, that Racketboy retard -- every single one of them banned from this forum because they are uncouth, uneducated men-children who are barely able to analyze A SINGLE game to any depth, never mind theorize about them, yet all of them fancying themselves above me in terms of knowledge, even though NONE of them has been into games anywhere near as long as I have, nor have they attempted to tackle even HALF the genres that I have.

He knows more about the history of the genre than me lol. I bet you anything you want he hasn't even played half of the RTSes he has namedropped. I'd be surprised if he has even watched Age of Empires' opening cinematic.