- Location
- The Hague
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Controversial gaming opinion: video games are good.
What are controversial gaming opinions you have?
How would that work when both armies would be automatically trying to do that?
- Location
- Russia
The only good MOBA on the market currently is Smite, and that's because AFAIK it's the only one that decided to completely shake off its RTS roots and become a very quick session-based action RPG.
E.I.G.
Robo-Bird
- Pronouns
- It/They
That is a case where you have two options for getting a win:
1- Optimally you want whoever managed the better mix of unit counters to win. Say one side is a bit heavy on tanks while the other has enough tank killers to take them down faster. This moves the problem to being a mixture of predicting/identifying the enemy's build and getting the economy and production time to counter that properly.
2- More commonly the bigger doom blob wins, and the main goal is to make the blob faster than an enemy by just plain doing economy and production better.
Either way it has it so the armies are an extension of the economy instead. So your ability to macro (produce a better economy) is more critical than your micro (control over individual units during the fight).
Axslashel
I am a pessimist not a realist.
- Location
- Land of the Midnight Sun
MOBA were given as an example of a genre that moved away from microing in favour of tactics. Sure there are tactics in MOBAs but not really the kind of tactics that makes RTS games different from other genres.
hghwolf
Bird of contempt
I don't feel the need to take responsibility for someone else saying something that is wrong.
Like... the other examples given are RTTs, by which I assume they mean stuff like Myth or Commandos, and Total War where the battle layer is just a RTT... ?
MOBA's aren't like those at all, and I would go so far as to say that there isn't much of a tactical layer in the same way you'd see it in a multi-unit game to a MOBA at all.
Mmmmmm...
I'd definitely say Age of Empires doesn't fit into the 4X alike variant, it's too fast for that... but also it's very much NOT Starcraft or Warcraft even in the Age of Mythology, 3, or 4, versions where you have different pop costs for certain units. Actually, Age of Mythology is probably the best example of a game where, yeah, there's SOME very impactful micro you can do... but the game can basically handle it for you if you don't want to worry about it. Myth Units and some Heroes have very impactful abilities like instant kills or big CC, and you can kind of micro that... but also the units just autocast them immediately.
I'd definitely say Age of Empires doesn't fit into the 4X alike variant, it's too fast for that... but also it's very much NOT Starcraft or Warcraft even in the Age of Mythology, 3, or 4, versions where you have different pop costs for certain units. Actually, Age of Mythology is probably the best example of a game where, yeah, there's SOME very impactful micro you can do... but the game can basically handle it for you if you don't want to worry about it. Myth Units and some Heroes have very impactful abilities like instant kills or big CC, and you can kind of micro that... but also the units just autocast them immediately.
Yeah, RTTs are what you want with tactics, your Company of Heroes or Dawn of War 2 games where it's much more about where you tell your squads to go rather than clicking with wild but purposeful abaddon. MOBAs move the tactics to the team level, where you're trying to do something straightforward in the context of what the other 4 people are doing.
E.I.G.
Robo-Bird
- Pronouns
- It/They
... I'll comment on MOBAs, but I don't think it is controversial that they are more a symptom of how some multiplayer genres work than actually respected games.
Most of what I hear about them is:
A- They are exclusively multiplayer games, which means they don't have much value to people who don't like their specific kind of PvP.
B- They are really toxic because of their high level of proficiency to actually play their specific kind of PvP.
I've known about that sort of game since long before they were more than mods for RTS games, and honestly I didn't even like them too much then.
They were always one of those mod types that have interesting sounding mechanics and character implementations, but centered around a style of gameplay that was just too multiplayer focused to ever be worth it to me.
I'd strongly blame MOBAs for helping to kill the RTS genre as it once was, but only in the sense that they were RTS adjacent and multiplayer focused successes. Which further promoted the dumb idea that multiplayer only is a good idea for games.
I blame them for being one of the specific game types that actually are best multiplayer only, and thus give ignorant executives the idea that it should work for all game types.
Most of what I hear about them is:
A- They are exclusively multiplayer games, which means they don't have much value to people who don't like their specific kind of PvP.
B- They are really toxic because of their high level of proficiency to actually play their specific kind of PvP.
I've known about that sort of game since long before they were more than mods for RTS games, and honestly I didn't even like them too much then.
They were always one of those mod types that have interesting sounding mechanics and character implementations, but centered around a style of gameplay that was just too multiplayer focused to ever be worth it to me.
I'd strongly blame MOBAs for helping to kill the RTS genre as it once was, but only in the sense that they were RTS adjacent and multiplayer focused successes. Which further promoted the dumb idea that multiplayer only is a good idea for games.
I blame them for being one of the specific game types that actually are best multiplayer only, and thus give ignorant executives the idea that it should work for all game types.
"PvP" and "toxic" go together hand in hand in my experience, it's why I avoid PvP like the plague. I don't know how much it's PvP attracting toxic people or PvP making them toxic, but the toxicity is there regardless.
Mhm, I meant more in a unit movement kind of way.
Each unit would move towards the unit they counter, and away from their own counter while the enemy units do the same, creating a continuous cycle of units moving around.
It seems to me like that would result in some kind of huge blob where both your army and the enemies are mixed together in a confusing melee.
- Location
- Russia
That's assuming that the units in that game are melee based.
- Location
- in the trash
I mean, this just sounds like a pathfinding nightmare, and god knows collision boxes are already enough of a problem for any sufficiently big stack of units.
Sure, I'm fine with chokepoints, but your army getting into a confused traffic jam and dying because they're too dumb to coordinate for shit is just irritating.
Tangential: I want games to play with automated chains of command where you avoid an uncoordinated mess like that by establishing coordination.
Most cases of having groups form themselves up that I can think of use unreasonably rigid and formations thatare clearly dumber than the unformed blob. I am sure that can be done better.
- Location
- in the trash
More sophisticated tools would help, part of the problem is that unit movement is a decision space complex enough you can make a whole game out out of it. And the existence of movement tools to help with this stuff needs to be highlighted to the player, bluntly.
Often times it's just an exercise in frustration, frankly. Like, the fact that some games mkght not even have an option for stuff like "stay together as a formation instead of scattering due to your differing movement speeds". If I want my slow but tanky unit to screen for faster but more fragile units? Additional micromanagement every time you issue a move order.
And like, is this supposed to be a part of the intended gameplay experience? Or is it just fiddly bullshit forced upon you by the limitations of the game?
I feel like most of these are actually 4X-RTS with pause , which is actually just such a massive gamechanger on its own that I feel it really needs to be distinguished from RTS without pause play. Although I'm not sure which RTS would actually be made worse by having it as a QoL option for SP.
(I definitely don't play these types of games in MP, can you tell?)
Last edited:
Yeah I have actively considered RTS with pause an entirely separate category since Sword of the Stars.
That the bit.
.I played Dow2 MP, the other player was good enough to go you going to lose since T2 n etc.. even gave me some advice.
And in the end, I just gg.
I'm not sure why playing the player tactic is so much about taunting, vulgarities or complains.
Because trust me. When he pointed out where I went wrong etcetc , he established a huge air of superiority in my mind.
- Location
- Te Ika-a-Māui
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Clearly communicating where the other player went wrong and how they can do better next time is hard, hurling bigoted abuse is easy.
gyrobot
One China One Nation/Weeping for Concord
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I unironically support Sony telling smaller studios to clean up their game of unacceptable content since the responses toward it only justify the devs being made to change problematic content
Yes I am talking about the recent response to Lisa the Definitive Editions changes
Yes I am talking about the recent response to Lisa the Definitive Editions changes
Hykal94
Orange Estus Kitteh
- Location
- Firelink Shrine
gyrobot
One China One Nation/Weeping for Concord
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I am just tired of how Sony is seen as some devil because they moved their HQ to California and began some puritanical crusade since then. Is it wrong I let it out as an unpopular opinion?
Hykal94
Orange Estus Kitteh
- Location
- Firelink Shrine
Okay so I finally looked up what the changes are which mostly consist of changing mentions of alcohol to soda and drugs to candy or whatever. In a game as bleak as LISA where the themes consist of addiction, abuse, trauma in a post-apocalyptic world, the changes do seem pretty asinine.
Nevermind, you're right, this IS pretty dumb. It's already M-Rated, so why the changes?
Nevermind, you're right, this IS pretty dumb. It's already M-Rated, so why the changes?
gyrobot
One China One Nation/Weeping for Concord
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Because it affects the Joyful and minors and people looking like minors taking drugs for beneficial reasons seems to be a taboo no matter the medium since it is anti-social behavior. But good luck explaining that without being downvoted by people who thinks Sony and California and the snarls come out
Thank god the poor children purchasing Lisa: The Joyful, an M rated game which still includes violent graphic mass murder, mutations, and multiple cases of sexual assault isn't letting a teenage girl drink or do drugs (provided you are buying the game on the Playstation, Nintendon't Give A Shit). Surely, that would be crossing the line if Buddy were to consume fictional drug pills instead of magical colored candies before going into a berserker rage and slaughtering people with a katana twice her size.
Anyways, I have to get back to playing my Sony Playstation 4™ Exclusive "The Last of Us 2", where I can watch a girl get railed in the ass in high definition Realistic Graphics, followed by a teenage girl drinking alcohol and smoking weed with her friends.
Anyways, I have to get back to playing my Sony Playstation 4™ Exclusive "The Last of Us 2", where I can watch a girl get railed in the ass in high definition Realistic Graphics, followed by a teenage girl drinking alcohol and smoking weed with her friends.
Last edited:
stormbringer951
Against Eternity
I remember the amount and the type of micro was the basis of an an interesting article arguing that Starcraft and Age of Empires 2 are experienced very differently to later games like Starcraft II and and Age of Mythology/Empires 3.
Article: Modern games' progressive reduction in focus on mechanics in favor of strategy and decision making had a dramatic impact on how games played out. Classic real time strategy games rewarded the player who could build the most units. It was mechanically impossible to maximize production efficiency by the mid- and late-game while simultaneously doing everything else. Players that were more mechanically skilled could win by simply building a lot more stuff than their opponent.
[...]
This extends to economic management as well – the sheer size of mid- and late-game economies and their spread across the map in classic real time strategy games required enormous mechanical skill to effectively manage. The limitations in the user interface contributed to this, such as simplistic or out-right missing waypointing systems, which forced players to do lots of simple mechanical actions. Modern games streamlined user interfaces to make economic management easier, allowing players to focus more on what their economy was trying to achieve rather than whether or not their economy was actually doing anything.
[...]
I touched on this topic in the mechanics section, but I focused mostly on its impact on how games play out. I also want to examine its effect on user experience. Classic real time strategy games, partly by choice and partly by technical limitation, emphasized very basic macro- and micromanagement. The game engines' capabilities were fairly limited, and players spent most of their time doing basic actions – selecting production facilities, queuing units, reorganizing their economies, moving units, targeting enemy units, etc.
Modern real time strategy games streamlined these mechanics and shifted focus to more advanced macro- and micromanagement with more strategic implications. Age of Mythology emphasized god powers, Age of Empires III emphasized positioning around cannons, and StarCraft II emphasizes ability mechanics (spellcasting, siege / unsiege, etc).
This approach synergizes with the economy changes mentioned previously. Dumb units in classic real time strategy games were remarkably ineffective without handholding, meaning that fights came down to control more than anything else. Losing units was also less painful because it was more acceptable to trade inefficiently. Smarter units in modern games are much more capable of winning fights on their own – a stronger army will generally defeat a weaker army, regardless of control. This places more emphasis on cost-efficiency and changes how players think about taking engagements. Players actively avoid fights they think they can't win, because they're less able to simply control their way to victory.
The difference in moment-to-moment actions also changes how difficult a game feels. Players in classic games spent their time doing things that were very easy and basic. Easy tasks feel easy. Players in modern games spend their time on more advanced and harder tasks like spellcasting. Hard tasks feel hard. I think this partly explains the feedback from Korean professionals that StarCraft II is "too difficult", even though it is less mechanically challenging in-aggregate than Brood War. Advanced actions, particularly binary mechanics like spellcasting, come across as more challenging than basic tasks like queuing units.
The experience of controlling units on a moment-to-moment basis is also particularly different. Classic real time strategy games featured units that were ineffective without manual intervention. Controlling units meant a focus on achieving something. Units in modern games are not only more capable than their predecessors, they're also easier to control thanks to user interface niceties like smart casting and stronger waypointing. Unit control has a chess-like feel to it – controlling an Oracle is less about achieving anything than it is about executing the right strategic decisions to get it in the right place at the right time to achieve a specific goal. Once that's accomplished, the unit can do the rest on its own, at least relative to units in classic games.
Article: The result is that many rote, mechanical tasks have been replaced by complex, strategic ones. Players frequently cite the mechanical difficulty and emphasis on rote tasks as one of StarCraft's downsides; this shift in focus toward more complex and strategic tasks should theoretically solve that problem and deliver a more satisfying gameplay experience.
In practice, this design approach has a number of unintended consequences, and they're related to the thought process players employ when playing real time strategy games – playing as fast they comfortably can and executing on tasks in priority order.
One is that hard tasks feel harder than easy tasks. Easy tasks – like going back to your base, clicking on each building one by one, and queuing up a new unit – may be mechanically challenging at a high level. But they're cognitively straightforward and deliver incremental benefits as the player improves. Hard tasks – like having enough game sense to accurately scout and predict your opponent's unit composition – are cognitively complex and deliver their benefits discretely rather than incrementally.
[...]
Easy tasks feel good. They're intrinsically enjoyable to exercise, players receive immediate benefits from any rise in skill level, and they lack an element of cognitive confusion of wondering whether they're worthwhile to execute on. Meanwhile, hard tasks often lack an intrinsic physical element, deliver their benefits in a delayed and discrete fashion, and require relatively more thinking to determine whether they've been done correctly.
The emphasis on the type of micro and the division between executing straightforward simple mechanical tasks as fast as possible vs more complex/stressful/tactical decisions makes me consider the balance of each in e.g. MOBAs and how to categorize those sorts of actions and what happens to player experience when the game removes or adds to those micro decisions (e.g. Heroes of the Storm removing last hitting).