.
I've played Syndicate. Fixed-time between missions, real-time in missions. The setup was nice, but having only played the SNES version of it, I can say the inability to "zoom out" your view, or effectively separate your team beyond the edges of the screen, made a couple of the stages completely terrible. Maybe the PC version was different.
I only played the PC version and I can't remember the camera scheme being a problem.
Couple things - "Syndicate" anticipated WZ's unit design by years and implemented it better, to my taste anyway - same with research. In particular, the Cyborg Design UI and Research UI. The designer, Peter Molineux, has said that out of all his old games, "Syndicate" is the only one he'd like to remake with today's technology.
If you can get a hold of Lords of Magic, I think that would be the best example to discuss. Grand strategy, RTT battles, Diplomacy as a valid option (with the exception the Death faction anyway), Few bugs (mostly affecting multiplayer connections), 8-faction balance that, for 1998 at least, was pretty darn impressive... I think it might be a good game to try out to add to your points, due to how much it resembles many of them. It also happens to do well in comparison to the "7 deadly sins" article you posted, skitring the edge of #2 and 3, and doing well with the other 5.
I will get a hold of it and play with it. Thank you for the recommendation and analysis. I live and breathe RTS design and appreciating
the work, the achievements, of others is inseparable from that passion.
- As an interesting aside - The defacto benchmark RTS after Feb. 2009, I believe will be Enigma's
War Leaders: Clash of Nations HERE and the official game site:
http://www.war-leaders.com/
- Using the Enigma Engine another RTS to look out for in '09 is
WorldShift by Black Sea Studios (recently acquired by Crytek... yes THAT Crytek). There is a MP Demo out there you can check-out and the developers site for info and screen caps.
HERE Both these RTSs introduce fresh design and game play to the genre. Could be a bumper-crop year coming for us RTS fans.
- In the same month, Feb. '09,
Halo Wars - RTS will alas be released - it will fail and disappoint most RTS fans (at least based on the Beta)... greatest flaw - repetitive game play that becomes predictable and tiresome VERY fast. Sad after so many man-hours, years and money invested. I think it's too late to over-haul and it's just gonna be thrown-out to scoop up as much money as possible before word gets around of its design "sins"...
Also, on a side note (and please don't take this personally):
A lot of posters on this board don't have english as a first language; saying that, I do, and have gotten a BS from UDel... and even I find myself having to take some extra time to fully comprehend some of the sentences you are posing.
An example is:
QUOTE: " But that's only part of the mechanic. Other components inc: No fog-of-war, UAV's, (within a C41 commitment to intel) and a Command UI that facilitates simultaneous, multi-vectored, multiple combat group deployment-maneuver...."
It took me a bit (and I'm still not sure what the "C41 to intel" part meant), but I understood that you meant that the AI ignores (or the game does away with) fog-of-war, uses/using an "eye in the sky" type view to decide for itself how many, and what, directions to act from, all at the same time.
Oh I wouldn't take offense. Matter of fact I was mercilessly teased about my earlier posting style being too long and too detailed. It was all in good spirits and the ribbing was enjoyable and I did evolve different styles of posting.
My current style tends to use shorthand, compression and acronyms - maybe too far down that continuum of trying to keep my posting as brief as possible.
I figure too that if I screw-up in any way - like being obscure - folks will take me to task or ask me to clarify or elaborate.
I know no matter how I write I won't satisfy everyone. Plus, I think this topic wouldn't appeal to but a small minority. I could very well be wrong in that assumption.
Let me be brash and paraphrase Abe Lincoln: "You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but never all the people, all of the time."
- On "C41" (aka, "Dominant Battlespace Knowledge").I should have provided a link like so:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Books/Books%20- ... /dbk1.html
The two-fold goal of designing game play mechanics along these lines is inteliigent control of your army on the battlefield and to allow opportunities for asymmetric conflicts which in Chess would be playing the Queens Gambit and winning.
I (and most of this board, in stark contrast to someplace like GameFAQS or WoW) are definitely into an intelligent, theroy-based discussion on these types of things, but I think the choices of verbiage you are using may be throwing many of those who would post off the mark.
You could be right. I can make adjustments.
I have reviewed all the posts in this thread so far, and although there are a dozen or so distinct posters, most of the responses are only in regards to a single line of post (mostly about philosophy), or tangential posts which, while interesting, aren't actually part of the "changing the game dynamic" topic (Regardless of how respectable of an institution SETI is, I don't think it really applies to the implementation of Warzone2100
). Not that said posts are bad in and of themselves, but when >75% of the posts in a thread aren't discussing the actual original topic, then usually the topic is done (or else needs to be renamed by the TC
)
I've never been strict about "On Topic" or "Off Topic" remarks in my threads or as a webmaster-forum administrator-moderator, ('cept for flames), which probably annoys more than a few.. Always been that way. This has never been a problem for me even when I moderated BBs with upwards of 20-30 k in membership and remained as active as any of the members posting (which also goes contrary to the conventional wisdom of moderation styles - I am contrarian by nature). Had great fun on those bbs as we all learned new stuff - folks from all over the planet too wherein English was thier second or third language.
- On the
SETI - Alien front: I found that tangent interesting because I spent a lot of energy coming up with an original & compelling take (one that hasn't been done to death in other games or SF cinematic or book tropes) for back story and as a playable faction. In that sense of not recycling cliches, it was relevant for me in this discussion.
My disposition on "Off Topic" is based on the "Serious Creativity" and "Lateral Thinking" of Edward de Bono, one of my mentors. As a consequence when I engage in discussion it's more a cross between a "Socratic Cafe" and a Victorian Salon than it is a scientific paper up for peer review.
- On Edward de Bono's work: http://www.edwdebono.com/
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/met ... _hats.html
http://www.realinnovation.com/content/c081110a.asp
Perhaps using more common parlance would invite more discussion from more (and differently minded) people?
That is true... up to the point where I must use vernacular specific to game design, military doctrine and coding.... however I will, in those instances, provide clear, concise, explanations and also references that will offer those genuinely interested more exhaustive coverage than I can do in a short post, relatively speaking.
Now I have also observed a preponderance of lazy minds and dispositions - to the extent they can't even be bothered using Google to educate themselves in 10 minutes flat or less or the forum search engine... or take 15 seconds for a simple post unless they need help resolving a problem or simply are soliciting feedback and even when they get a response they ain't got sh*t more to say and leave ya hanging - makes you feel you wasted your time like a fool. But actually that doesn't bother me anymore as I see it as insight into character which can be utilized by adjusting your future investments of time. Besides, I think most would rather engage a YouTube video than a lengthy post no matter how transparent.
I do realize that almost the entire foregoing paragraph could very well be cynical and terribly unfair... For all I know much can be attributable to a preponderance of ADHD.....j/k.
I actually subscribe to
Thom Hartmann's proposition that ADHD is a different perception. In brief: Hunters in a Farmers world.... Some elaboration links follow:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=49
http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=58
http://users.rcn.com/peregrin.enteract/add/addcol.html
- And btw, I see a central connection between Thom Hartmann's metaphor of
a hunter in a farmers world and the tension in an RTS between building to battle strength and battle itself..
In the end, I am genuinely interested in what intelligent folk with good manners have to say about WZ, their own work on it and anything about the RTS genre.. As I continue to move forward with my RTS work I am conscious of being proactive in warding off an insular disposition during development.
- Regards.........
.