The RTS Is Getting Easier!

[Saracen 16]

Since my retirement here, I've been spending the last week installing a few choice RTS games. Some are more recent, others are from 1997-99. Anyway...

 

The more recent games I found quite normal.... campaigns of progression have been rather solid, difficulty curve starts off easy, and doesn't really get too hard. I've also played a couple of skirmishes on normal difficulty, and have found the AI to have a slight challenge to it. However, there hasn't been enough challenge to present a remote chance of being defeated.

 

Then I decided to fire up some older games from my RTS catalog. I have to be honest, I've not had my ass handed to me on a plate so often, ever! Campaigns would start off easily enough, but soon progress with a much higher difficulty curve after just a few missions. Using modern day RTS techniques and strategies quickly mean resources run out without much being built and defeat comes faster. The AI also attacks faster and harder, and units take a lot less damage than their modern counterparts, before being destroyed.

 

Skirmishes are the same story on Normal Difficulty. The AI is more prepared to harass, build bigger armies, and in some cases steamroll if you let your guard down. In hindsight it's amazingly easy to see why there was such a big turtle culture that relied heavily on massing units. Having to turtle at times with a strong early defence force was essential to survival back in the day.

 

The primary example is indeed Starcraft (Shock! Yes I'm playing it!!).... I have only won a single skirmish game so far, and I'm also finding my economy suffers greatly in the campaign because I'm not using precise, well managed micro. I know the key to winning is heavy harvesting (10 SCVs for example to a field and expanding at the right moment), and spending every mineral you get. But I'm still getting owned! The original Dark Reign is also very similar, yet heavy harvesting of resources, and spending everything you have is still key.... Finding that correct balance and correct counters has proven rather tough!

 

I have to say therefore that it seems that the modern day RTS has been somewhat dumbed down to Macro orientated games in comparison to 10+ years ago which were more Micro intensive. Not playing older games for so long may be a partial reason, but the difficulty shouldn't be as tough as this! It's proof really that in order for the genre to appeal to the mass market, these games have had to get easier so more people can enjoy them. It also seems the reason why the genre hasn't progressed as strongly as it should have.

 

But, I've been waiting for years to find games that can provide a mighty challenge and be prepared to kick my ass. Games that really do require strategy and more micromanagement to progress through. I think I've finally found them.... they're in the past!

[Doctor Destiny 41]

StarCraft's campaigns are very difficult. I managed through them but the key is keeping units around with static defenses. Yes, you NEED static defenses, especially as the Protoss/Terran. Zerg not so much because they're cheap and massable. Expansion is definitely key and if you wait too long, you run short and can't expand at all. All I can really tell you... also, there are a few where being aggressive is a good idea.

[Gben 20]

I still haven't found anything that compares to the original experience of playing the original C&C.

I remember the missions of C&C, but I remember the story of SC.

 

I think more effort is placed on SP in the absence of MP, obviously.

[Luk3us 63]

Its true newer games are just too easy.

 

Which is why there is a bigger focus now on Multiplayer, which, depending on the opponent is harder. Or noob infested, or a little bit of both.

[Inferno 22]

Newer games are easier indeed. But I must say, RA1 wasn't really THAT hard either. It was hard, but not impossible like C&C95 impossible

[VampireA05 0]

hmm...no wonder they have difficulties option.. easy, medium, hard & brutal...

[Saracen 16]

That's another thing I dislike about modern games, is difficulty levels. A good gamer will make sure they adapt to the increasingly set difficulty within a particular title. A game which can be forced to adapt to you is in my mind plain stupid! At that point, when you're given an option to set how dumb or how cheat-worthy the AI should be is the moment the game fails to become what it has been set out to achieve.

 

Indeed I do enjoy completing games, because there is a great amount of achievement within that. But I want to work for it! New games are good when they start off simple because they get you into the mechanics, but they shouldn't hold back on my account once I'm comfortable with playing. I want my ass kicked, I want to feel frustrated when losing. So at least after calming down and figuring how I can defeat the AI, can can go back and try my strategies to see how they pay off.

 

Forget gamers with short attention spans and an unwillingness to try and better themselves. If those so-called gamers cannot take a little heat in their games then they shouldn't be playing at all. The purpose in a game is to present challenges, to put walls in front of you to climb over. Sure they should entertain as well. But why should a game all be about just entertainment? If I wish to put in 10+ hours of effortless, mindless entertainment, I'll go watch the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy!

[Doctor Destiny 41]

If I have to work that hard to win, gaming loses its fun and becomes work. **** that. I like a good challenge but not one so hard that I scream and throw a controller in frustration. Yes, I've played games back in the day that were that ****ing hard. There once was a certain satisfaction in completing a ridiculously difficult game; however, as you get older and keep playing games, your skills develop so what seems easy is just your mind and reactions adapting much, much more quickly. Like I find myself able to finish more missions on GE007 on 00 Agent now than when I first had it.

[Malevolence 6]

To be honest I haven't really tried out much RTS and other games a lot these days. Seeing the campaigns of C&C franchise, yes no doubt its getting easier for every new product. Nothing can compete the difficulty of the first C&C TD.

[Saracen 16]

From an AI and campaign perspective going back to Tiberian Sun is the most difficult. After being patched solidly it has become one of the toughest C&C AI's on Normal difficulty.

 

However. The original C&C's AI has a single most crippling flaw in that it will scan for targets from left to right and from the top to the bottom of the map. Such a thing has become so easy to exploit that I will generally play the game with that in mind, and instinctively just place units as far north as I can. There are a few exceptions for example when facing GDI, the Ion cannon will always go for the most northern Nod Defence. If that is not possible, then it will usually attack the Airfield with little success.

 

However Airstrikes, and AI attack forces will always hunt down and kill any unit which is closest to the top of the map, even if it's just a single $100 infantry.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Saracen

[Gben 20]

I'm ignoring the bugs, and I'm foccusing on the mission design of C&C1. Great stuff, but I think the more experience you become the more obvious certain strategies become, and therefore hard to come up with new puzzles in the campaign mode apart from ridicious computer spam attacks.

 

I want mission maps to be clever, not frustrating on a platform-jump-difficulty level.

 

 

Saracen I seem to remember that you like Sup-Com SP...

It stood out because it was the first positive comment I heard here about it.

[Saracen 16]

Saracen I seem to remember that you like Sup-Com SP...

It stood out because it was the first positive comment I heard here about it.

 

SupCom first and foremost has a nostalgia feel to it. Once I had finished with the original Red Alert, I decided to pick up a copy of Total Annihilation. Even though the game is a spiritual successor, it retained a lot of the classic feel and gameplay, but it also added more depth. Sure the campaign's story was rather pants, and it wasn't very long.... But it was fun.

 

The problem is that most RTS gamers these days want a non-pushy, non complicated, easy to get through campaigns. Anything that requires effort, or proves to test a player, people aren't interested. It's evident through the fact that Total Annihilation was hailed the best RTS of 1997, and the only game that year which could stand up to C&C. It was well received by most RTS gaming communities that existed at the time. Then we have SupCom, which is more of the same, but has a stronger execution, better design, plus it added extra tactical and strategic depth. But although it was somewhat easier than TA, most people shunned it!?

 

I actually believe that C&C Generals had some interesting traits. There was something about it that saw a potential evolution of the franchise. I'm not talking about the fact the sidebar was moved, or the fact that you needed to use construction vehicles.... But the gameplay was actually more solid than C&C 3 and RA3... There was some depth to it that other SAGE Engine games have failed to replicate. A simple example was the GLA suicide bomber... putting him in a car and sending him to his death was a micromanagement treat. Things such as this were great in Generals... so it didn't matter if it had a crap story, the gameplay elements made up for that entirely.

 

If Generals 2 is announced. I cannot honestly see EALA developing anything as clever as what Generals offered. To keep the community happy, they'll probably stick to the traditional C&C route.. or everyone will be shouting "It's Not C&C!!!"... Generals was not a staple universe in this franchise, but it was willing to try something new. It worked, yet the community cried and lost sleep over what was potentially a very good game. If it had a story to it which was well written, and a slightly stronger music score, it could have been the best C&C to date. Even if they get that right with Generals 2, the game and it's gameplay isn't going to be anything like the original.

[Gben 20]

I found TA in a bargin bin about a year ago. I thought I would give it a go as I never played it. I got stuck about mission 7 and never got back into it.

I think one is issue, though perhaps not a problem, is the high diversity of units... too many I mean! I like the concept of chess... a small confined space with only a small number unit types with clear advantages and disadvantages.

 

I hope the next game is Gen2. Because EALA have proved they can do something different with RA3, and I'd be interested in Gen2 for that reason.

Most Gen2 issues are storms in teacups... (names, sidebars, drones etc).

[BlyTwo 0]

Tiberian Dawn was stupidly hard sometimes... But now-a-days with the shrinking average IQ people need games that aren't a challenge, just a cheaply acted story.

What happened to RTS's like Earth 2150 where you actually had to do everything, you developed your own weapons and chassis and ammo, you supplied your reinforcements, and you hat 2 maps active at once, your base, and your present mission. Now the most complex thing you can do in an RTS is fire a special power, which has a recharge time.

What happened to games like that?

Edited January 17, 2009 by BlyTwo

[Gben 20]

Oh yeah I forgot all about that game (2140 - was that the first one?) I must pull that out and try that again.

I never did finish it.

[Castleman12 0]

The older games are indeed much harder, though....Ive never finished C&C95. Too hard lol, But one thing i did notice that they only did up till Tiberian Sun is the select mission thing in the campaign. Where you could do one, somewhat easier mission in order to make the next one much different. Now what ever happened to that?

[BlyTwo 0]

Oh yeah I forgot all about that game (2140 - was that the first one?) I must pull that out and try that again.

I never did finish it.

2140, never played, 2D. 2150 absolutely first full 3D RTS, 2160, never played, look like it might be good...

 

The older games are indeed much harder, though....Ive never finished C&C95. Too hard lol, But one thing i did notice that they only did up till Tiberian Sun is the select mission thing in the campaign. Where you could do one, somewhat easier mission in order to make the next one much different. Now what ever happened to that?

I've never finished C&C1 I don't think... But I think I got pretty far though.{with C&C/star wars mod, years ago} (I have dos version only lol, can't find windows)

In TS you can easily get the missions to be separate in the list, it is simply a mission.ini edit. And Kane's Wrath has the mission select, and for the rest, you just get a save 2 seconds before the end of each mission...

And haven't looked at the RA3 campaign, I'm waiting to do it with a friend...

 

[Remember:] Oh, ya! In Tiberian sun, I remember when you did a specific mission it may effect another.

Example:

Mission choice 1: disable defense network.

Choice 2: infiltrate a complex that has a defense grid.

If you do choice 1 it would make choice 2 way easier in the end...

 

C&C3 had the map with the choices, but they don't effect each other...

Edited January 24, 2009 by BlyTwo

[Saracen 16]

2140, never played, 2D. 2150 absolutely first full 3D RTS, 2160, never played, look like it might be good...

Earth 2140

• A solid game with great gameplay
• Great destruction physics and explosions
• Great difficulty
• unusually deep for a 2D RTS
• Building mechanic was inspiration for RA3's EotRS. Economy mechanic also.

2150

• Great depth - Multi-map, unit design, research, terrain deformation and sub-terrainian mechanics
• Interesting difficulty
• great night/day and weather mechanics
• factions different and balanced

2160

• Great continuation of the franchise
• factions further diversified though building mechanics and economy
• New Alien faction still the most unique in any RTS ever developed
• Negetive: Pop caps rather restrictive at times
• Negetive: Base defense towers often too strong - never nerfed, in hand with pop cap games were often stalemates with inpenetrable bases

[Gben 20]

Saracen your description of 2160's negatives has made it a positive!

I must look out for that game (and add 2150 to the re-do list!)

[Mighty BOB! 5]

I wish the lowest common denominator were smarter.