Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Real-time strategy
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Gameplay== [[File:0 A.D. alpha 25 - playing as Spartans.jpg|thumb|300px|Screenshot from the game ''[[0 A.D. (video game)|0 A.D.]]'', showing typical RTS interface elements such as a resource overview (top left), a map of the game world (bottom left), and a description of the selected unit (bottom center)]] In a typical real-time strategy game, the screen is divided into a map area displaying the game world and terrain, units, and buildings, and an interface overlay containing command and production controls and often a "radar" or "minimap" overview of the entire map.<ref>[http://www.nassaulibrary.org/centreblog/starcraft.png Starcraft in-game image] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100524092606/http://www.nassaulibrary.org/centreblog/starcraft.png |date=May 24, 2010 }}</ref><ref>[http://i.d.com.com/i/dl/media/dlimage/89/25/1/89251_large.jpeg Command & Conquer in-game image] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100524092554/http://i.d.com.com/i/dl/media/dlimage/89/25/1/89251_large.jpeg |date=May 24, 2010 }}</ref> The player is usually given an [[Isometry|isometric]] perspective of the world, or a free-roaming camera from an [[Bird's-eye view|aerial viewpoint]] for modern 3D games.<ref name="fundamentals">{{cite book|last=Rollings|first=Andrew|author2=Ernest Adams |title=Fundamentals of Game Design|publisher=Prentice Hall|year=2006|url=http://wps.prenhall.com/bp_gamedev_1/54/14053/3597646.cw/index.html}}</ref> Players mainly [[Scrolling|scroll]] the screen and issue commands with the mouse, and may also use keyboard shortcuts. Gameplay generally consists of the player being positioned somewhere in the map with a few units or a building that is capable of building other units/buildings. Often, but not always, the player must build specific structures to unlock more advanced units in the [[tech tree]]. Often, but not always, RTS games require the player to build an army (ranging from small squads of no more than two units to literally hundreds of units) and using them to either defend themselves from a virtual form of [[Human wave attack]] or to eliminate enemies who possess bases with unit production capacities of their own. Occasionally, RTS games will have a preset number of units for the player to control and do not allow building of additional ones. Resource gathering is commonly the main focus of the RTS games, but other titles of the genre place higher gameplay significance to how units are used in combat (''[[Z: Steel Soldiers]]'' for example, awards credits for territory captured rather than gathered resources), the extreme example of which are games of the [[real-time tactical]] genre. Some titles impose a ceiling on the number simultaneous troops, which becomes a key gameplay consideration, a significant example being ''StarCraft'', while other titles have no such unit cap. ===Micromanagement and macromanagement=== {{main|Micromanagement (gameplay){{!}}Micromanagement}} [[Micromanagement (gameplay)|Micromanagement]] deals with a player's constant need to manage and maintain individual units and resources on a fine scale. On the other hand, macromanagement refers to a player's management of economic expansion and large-scale strategic maneuvering, allowing the player time to think and consider possible solutions. Micromanagement involves the use of combat tactics involved in the present, whereas macromanagement considers the greater scale of the game in an attempt to predict the future. ===Criticism of gameplay=== ====Turn-based vs. real-time==== {{Main|Time-keeping systems in games}} A debate has emerged between fans of real-time strategy (RTS) and [[Turn-based strategy|turn-based strategy (TBS)]] (and related genres) based on the merits of the real-time and turn-based systems. Because of their generally faster-paced nature (and in some cases a smaller learning curve), real-time strategy games have surpassed the popularity of [[turn-based strategy]] computer games.<ref name=gspytbsrts>{{cite web | last =Walker | first =Mark | title =Strategy Gaming: Part V β Real-Time vs. Turn-Based | publisher =GameSpy | url =http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategygames05/ | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20081221074049/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategygames05/ | archive-date =December 21, 2008 | access-date=October 28, 2007 | url-status=dead}}</ref> In the past, a common criticism was to regard real-time strategy games as "cheap imitations" of turn-based strategy games, arguing that real-time strategy games had a tendency to devolve into "click-fests"<ref name=armchair>{{cite web |title=Theatre of War by 1C and Battlefront β Interview |publisher=Armchair General Magazine |url=http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?cat=59&p=2806&page=1 | access-date=June 2, 2007}}</ref><ref name=pcp>{{cite web | title =Point β CounterPoint: Turn Based vs. Real Time Strategy | publisher =[[Strategy Planet]] | date =June 27, 2001 | url =http://www.strategyplanet.com/features/articles/pcp-turnvsreal/ | access-date =April 5, 2007 | url-status =dead | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20070226185919/http://www.strategyplanet.com/features/articles/pcp-turnvsreal/ | archive-date =February 26, 2007 | df =mdy-all }}</ref><ref name=gspystrategy2>{{cite web | last =Walker | first =Mark | title =Strategy Gaming: Part II | publisher =GameSpy | url =http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategy02/ | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20100105182651/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategy02/ | archive-date =January 5, 2010 | access-date=October 28, 2007}}</ref> in which the player who was faster with the [[computer mouse|mouse]] generally won, because they could give orders to their units at a faster rate. The common retort is that success involves not just fast clicking, but also the ability to make sound decisions under time pressure.<ref name=pcp/> The "clickfest" argument is also often voiced alongside a "button babysitting" criticism, which pointed out that a great deal of game time is spent either waiting and watching for the next time a production button could be clicked, or rapidly alternating between different units and buildings, clicking their respective button.<ref name="babysitting">This mostly a concern with older RTS games that did not feature building queues, meaning that players would have to click the button to build a unit soon after it was completed. However, in some games where units have timed abilities that must be explicitly activated, for instance heroes in the real-time tactics game ''[[Mark of Chaos]]'' this is still a concern.</ref> Some titles attempt to merge the two systems: for example, the role-playing game ''[[Fallout (video game)|Fallout]]'' uses turn-based combat and real-time gameplay, while the real-time strategy games ''Homeworld'', ''[[Rise of Nations]]'', and the games of the ''[[Total War (video game series)|Total War]]'' and ''[[Hegemony (video game series)|Hegemony]]'' series allow the player to pause the game and issue orders. Additionally, the ''Total War'' series has a combination of a turn-based strategy map with a real-time battle map. Another example of a game combining both turn-based game and real-time-strategy is ''[[The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth II]]'' which allows players, in a 'War of the Ring' game, to play a turn-based strategy game, but also battle each other in real time. ====Tactics vs. strategy==== {{See also|Real-time tactics#Genre classification}} A second criticism of the RTS genre is the importance of skill over strategy. The manual dexterity and ability to multitask and divide one's attention is often considered the most important aspect to succeeding at the RTS genre. According to Troy Dunniway, former Westwood developer who has also worked on ''[[Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars]]'': "A player controls hundreds of units, dozens of buildings and many different events that are all happening simultaneously. There is only one player, and he can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Expert players can quickly flip between many different tasks, while casual gamers have more problems with this."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dunniwaydesign.com/rts_design.htm |title=RTS Design |work=Aspects of real-time strategy |date=September 2007 |access-date=September 13, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927142342/http://www.dunniwaydesign.com/rts_design.htm |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Real-time strategy games have been criticized for an overabundance of tactical considerations when compared to the amount of strategic gameplay found in such games. According to [[Chris Taylor (game designer)|Chris Taylor]], lead designer of ''[[Supreme Commander (game)|Supreme Commander]]'': "[My first attempt at visualizing RTSs in a fresh and interesting new way] was my realizing that although we call this genre 'Real-Time Strategy,' it should have been called 'Real-Time Tactics' with a dash of strategy thrown in."<ref name=christaylor>{{cite web | last =Keefer | first =John | title =Supreme Commander Interview (PC) | publisher =GameSpy | date =July 8, 2005 | url =http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/supreme-commander/631678p1.html | access-date=November 4, 2007}}</ref> (Taylor then posits his own game as having surpassed this mold by including additional elements of broader strategic scope.)<ref name=christaylor/> In general terms, [[military strategy]] refers to the use of a broad arsenal of weapons including diplomatic, informational, military, and economic resources, whereas [[military tactics]] is more concerned with short-term goals such as winning an individual battle.<ref name=gspytbsrts/> In the context of strategy video games, however, the difference is often reduced to the more limited criteria of either a presence or absence of base building and unit production. In an article for ''[[Gamasutra]]'', Nathan Toronto criticizes real-time strategy games for too often having only one valid means of victory β [[attrition warfare|attrition]] β comparing them unfavorably to real-time tactics games. Players' awareness that the only way for them to win or lose is militarily makes them unlikely to respond to gestures of diplomacy. The result is that the winner of a real-time strategy game is too often the best tactician rather than the best strategist.<ref name="gama_toronto">{{cite web | last = Toronto | first = Nathan | title = The Future Of The Real-Time Strategy Game | website = [[Gamasutra]] | date = January 24, 2008 | url = https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/the-future-of-the-real-time-strategy-game | access-date = February 2, 2010}}</ref> Troy Goodfellow counters this by saying that the problem is not that real-time strategy games are lacking in strategy (he says attrition is a form of strategy), rather it is that they too often have the same strategy: produce faster than you consume. He also states that building and managing armies is the conventional definition of real-time strategy, and that it is unfair to make comparisons with other genres.<ref name="gama_goodfellow">{{cite web | last = Goodfellow | first = Troy | title = The Future Of The RTS β A Counter-Opinion | website = Gamasutra | date = January 28, 2008 | url = http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17098 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080130023216/http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17098 | url-status = dead | archive-date = January 30, 2008 | access-date = February 2, 2010}}</ref> In an article for ''[[GameSpy]]'', Mark Walker criticizes real-time strategy games for their lack of combat tactics, suggesting real-time tactics games as a more suitable substitute.<ref name=gspytbsrts/> He also says that developers need to begin looking outside the genre for new ideas in order for strategy games to continue to be successful in the future.<ref name=gspytbsrts_pvi>{{cite web | last =Walker | first =Mark | title =Strategy Gaming: Part VI β Where the Genre is Headed | publisher =GameSpy | url =http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/stratfinal/ | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20071030014041/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/stratfinal/ | archive-date =October 30, 2007 |date = February 2002| access-date=February 13, 2010}}</ref> This criticism has ushered into a couple of hybrid designs that try to resolve the issues. The games of the ''[[Total War (video game series)|Total War]]'' series have a combination of a (turn-based) strategy map with a (real-time) battle map, allowing the player to concentrate on one or the other. The games of the ''[[Hegemony (video game series)|Hegemony]]'' series also combine a strategy map and a battle map (in full real-time) and the player can at any point in time seamlessly zoom in and out in between both. ====Rushing vs. planning==== A third common criticism is that real-time gameplay often degenerates into "[[rush (video gaming)|rushes]]" where the players try to gain the advantage and subsequently defeat the opponent as quickly in the game as possible, preferably before the opposition is capable of successfully reacting.<ref name=ign_scvsdow>{{cite web | title =StarCraft vs Dawn of War | website =IGN | date =August 6, 2004 | url =http://pc.ign.com/articles/533/533146p1.html | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20090414092309/http://pc.ign.com/articles/533/533146p1.html | archive-date =April 14, 2009 | url-status =dead | access-date =December 1, 2007 }}</ref> For example, the original ''[[Command & Conquer]]'' gave birth to the now-common "tank rush" tactic, where the game outcome is often decided very early on by one player gaining an initial advantage in resources and producing large amounts of a relatively powerful but still quite cheap unitβwhich is thrown at the opposition before they have had time to establish defenses or production. Although this strategy has been criticized for encouraging overwhelming force over strategy and tactics, defenders of the strategy argue that they're simply taking advantage of the strategies utilized, and some argue that it is a realistic representation of warfare. One of the most infamous versions of a rush is the "Zergling rush" from the real-time strategy game ''[[StarCraft]]'', where the Zerg player would morph one of their starting workers (or the first one produced) into a spawning pool immediately and use all of their resources to produce Zerglings, attacking once they have enough to overwhelm any early defense; in fact, the term "zerging" has become synonymous with rushing.<ref name=bgeryk_gspot/> Some games have since introduced designs that do not easily lend themselves to rushes. For example, the [[Hegemony (video game series)|''Hegemony'']] series made supply and (seasonal) resource management an integral part of its gameplay, thus limiting rapid expansion. ===On consoles=== Despite ''[[Herzog Zwei]]'', a [[console game]], laying the foundations for the real-time strategy genre, RTS games never gained popularity on consoles like they did on the [[Personal computer|PC]] platform.<ref name=1UP-Duke/> Real-time strategy games made for [[video game console]]s have been consistently criticized due to their control schemes, as the PC's keyboard and mouse are considered to be superior to a console's [[gamepad]] for the genre. Thus, RTS games for [[home console]]s have been met with mixed success.<ref name="CNETLOTR">{{cite web | last =Ocampo | first =Jason | title =The Lord of the Rings, The Battle for Middle-earth II (Xbox 360) | website =CNET | date = July 7, 2006 | url =http://reviews.cnet.com/xbox-360-games/the-lord-of-the/4505-11457_7-31676469.html | access-date=November 4, 2007 }}</ref> Scott Sharkey of [[1UP.com|''1UP'']] notes that ''Herzog Zwei'' had already "offered a nearly perfect solution to the problem by giving the player direct control of a single powerful unit and near autonomy for everything else," and is surprised "that more console RTS games aren't designed with this kind of interface in mind from the ground up, rather than imitating" PC control schemes "that just doesn't work very well with a controller".<ref name=1UP-Duke/> Some handheld consoles like ''[[Napoleon (video game)|Napoleon]]'' on the GBA uses a similar solution. However, several console titles in the genre received positive reception. The ''[[Pikmin]]'' series, which began in 2001 for the [[GameCube]], became a million-seller. Similarly, ''[[Halo Wars]]'', which was released in 2009 for the [[Xbox 360]], generated generally positive reviews, achieved an 82% critic average on aggregate web sites, and sold over 1 million copies.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/halowars |title=Halo Wars (xbox360: 2009) Reviews |website=[[Metacritic]] |access-date=March 6, 2009 |archive-date=February 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090227055715/http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/halowars |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/935835-halo-wars/index.html |title=Halo Wars for Xbox 360 |publisher=[[GameRankings]] |access-date=March 6, 2009 |archive-date=March 3, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090303152635/http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/935835-halo-wars/index.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> According to ''[[IGN]]'', the gameplay lacks the traditional RTS concepts of limited resources and resource gathering and lacks multiple buildings.<ref>{{cite web |author=Geddes, Ryan |date=February 20, 2009 |url=http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/955/955576p1.html |title=Halo Wars Review; Ensemble takes Halo, and real-time strategy, to a whole new planet |website=IGN |access-date=March 6, 2009 }}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)