I was reading Stephen Fett's criticism of the new patch and his disapointment about the more or less abandonment of the Micro/hero concepts that the game originally started as, and was wondering if now that RTS games have finally matured, have most players come to a conclusion (mostly unconcious) about what their expectations of RTS should be. [neoKEN: Stephen Fett is a newbie. This website is dedicated to high level competition and it is sad to see that there are people like him who does not know what it means to be at your very best. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.]
[btw, it's also ironic and funny that Mr.Fett also wrote this article entitled "n00bs" (^_^) ]
So, what SHOULD RTS games be?Right now there are perhaps 2 1/2 to 3 (commercially) viable strategy game paradigms - Blizzard's, Ensemble's, and Westwood's (although WW has pretty much given up contending for the competitive crowd and makes games that are "fun", their basic concepts are still viable, hence the 1/2 to 1 score). And even then, Blizzard doesn't seem to have as much control over how their own games are played, considering how many bnet players choose "money" or "custom game" maps, types of games they never encouraged and to some extent frowned upon (and do still).
Blizzard games have always been more military and less economic than Ensembles. ES games are basically inside-knowledge + macro fests (HC,HC,HC,HC,HC,HC) - decent players of the Age of Kings games would have at least 100 workers and just about dozens of buildings. Combat was basically about economic attrition and massed unit attacks, although this didn't mean there wasn't any scope for micromanegement, especially early in the game. But what it came down too, at least from the (so called) inter+ crowd up, was a huge macro fest and the best players were invariably the fastest clickerstypers.Blizzard has tried to make micromanagement more productive by giving single units very powerful abilities that need to be activated individually. I think Starcraft had a bit more depth than the Age of X series, but what it did come down to again was whom could click the fastest - just that the clicking was split between macro-ing the economy and micro-ing the battles.
The one thing all 3 share is the concept of "mousing speed" as the prime differentator between skill levels. Say what you will, to be a top player in any RTS game you have to be a keyboard and mouse mashing maniac. This in no way implies that the very top players aren't the most creative tactically or strategically, but it does mean that two or three wrungs beneath these famous players the main factor in player skill is their speed.From all the criticisms that have been leveled against War3, the creeps, the unit limits imposed by upkeep, the lack of economic decisions, what i see is that deep down, underneath all the logical debates about strategic depth (most of which are very valid) is the desire for more macro in the game; more mousing speed. If you (for ex) raised the unit cap and doubled the workers per mine, youve just created another macro game like Starcraft - the main point i think of Stephen's critique.
Thats not bad, i guess, if thats what "the people" want - but im curious those whom disliked the fundamental gameplay of the early versions would have =ever= accepted it without much more macro decisions to make. Could a 'tactical' rts ever have the depth theyre looking for?