Interfaces Are Preventing RTS From Becoming Mainstream, Says Relic

[c0mc0]

Imagine an interface that allowed you to sit on your couch and play [...] Civ5 on your TV screen? I'd pay good money for that.

Don't. It's been done already: Civilization Revolution.

It was 'orrible.

You're right. But it's because they designed (reduced) the game to suit the interface, instead of designing an interface to suit the game.

When I say imagine playing CIV5 on a TV, I mean actually playing CIV5 - the identical game experience, simply with a control system that allowed you to interact with the game as easily as you can with a mouse and keyboard.

Hmm never knew there was an interface problem with RTS games on PC?

There's not. And he didn't suggest there was. He was talking about consoles.

I think the success of Starcraft II (or really even Starcraft I) shows us that it’s possible for these kind of games to take off and be exposed to a broad market type of consumer. And I think that with the new advances in technology (all these touch-devices on slates and tablets that they’re talking about for the new consoles) RTS games will be able to break into that kind of mainstream, because it’s really the interface that’s so challenging for people

[Jez]

Imagine an interface that allowed you to sit on your couch and play [...] Civ5 on your TV screen? I'd pay good money for that.

Don't. It's been done already: Civilization Revolution.

It was 'orrible.

Was going to say this. Also Starcraft has TV channels devoted to it in Korea, even with its alleged overwhelming interface, how much more mainstream can you get?

I've also always been suspicious of this whole couch gaming being so more comfortable thing. Maybe I just have an unhealthy liking for solitude, but my thinking is that a lot of people out there have really crappy office chairs.

[Agent_Dark]

Imagine an interface that allowed you to sit on your couch and play [...] Civ5 on your TV screen? I'd pay good money for that.

Don't. It's been done already: Civilization Revolution.

It was 'orrible.

There was also that Halo RTS wasn't there? And the Tom Clancy one that had voice commands. Neither did terribly well I think, though I never played them so I can't comment on whether they were any good or not.

[c0mc0]

Imagine an interface that allowed you to sit on your couch and play [...] Civ5 on your TV screen? I'd pay good money for that.

Don't. It's been done already: Civilization Revolution.

It was 'orrible.

Was going to say this. Also Starcraft has TV channels devoted to it in Korea, even with its alleged overwhelming interface, how much more mainstream can you get?

I've also always been suspicious of this whole couch gaming being so more comfortable thing. Maybe I just have an unhealthy liking for solitude, but my thinking is that a lot of people out there have really crappy office chairs.

It's not about the graphics, or the buttons, icons, health bars etc. This is the GUI. He's not talking about the GUI. He's talking about the way the player interacts with the game. And I think it's fair to say that Korea's obsession with Starcraft is probably the non-typical example. It sure ain't the norm.

And for the record, I have an extremely comfortable office chair. My desire to be in the living room is more about wanting to share my gaming with my family, not being tucked away playing in an office. If you want to play a game and have the kids watch/take part, it's a lot easier to kick back on the couch and do it than say "pull up an office chair, son". Consoles are a more social experience, simply because of their general location in the house. I've played games since the very early DOS days - I am a PC gamer at heart and I'll always play PC games, but sometimes I'd love the flexibility to sit on the couch and belt out a few tank rushes.

[tacitus42]

I play Civ IV on my couch. Keyboard on the lap and mouse by my side. In fact Civ IV is pretty good in that if you map ENTER to one of your mouse buttons you can pretty much just play with the mouse. (Edit: hope you like the default city names!)
As for playing RTS on a console: I bought the Red Alert 3 spin off game on PS3 and I was amazed at how good the controls were. I was able to play the game just fine they way they set up the buttons and UI. Very impressed.
Of course RTS is probably better with a mouse, much like drawing a picture is better with a tablet than a mouse.

[c0mc0]

I think it's doable right now. Your willingness to put up with something as annoying as, say, using a mouse on your thigh or next to you on the couch is directly proportional to how much you want to play said game. But the average joe (who is required to hit that "mainstream" goal they are talking about) isn't going to stuff around with something like that.

What we're missing right now in the console world is a watershed moment similar to the release of Apple's iPhone. (Right up front, I am not an Apple fan boy. I do not own a single Apple product. There, now that's out of the way....)

Touch screen phones exsisted well before the first iPhone. So did PDAs like the later generation Palms. But they were clunky at best and certainly never took off. Windows Mobile was a mess and was only used by the most dedicated gluttons for punishment (like myself). Then along comes the iPhone, that does not really provide any new technology that hadn't already been available in some form on the market, but that put it all together into one package, did it exceptionally well and focused on the user experience first and foremost. Suddenly, the market for touch screen devices exploded.

I think we're still waiting for a similar eureka moment in terms of how we interact with computers post-keyboard and mouse. In all likelihood, we'll still be using some guise of them for decades to come but as we continue to use computers more and more away from the desk, we've got to find more practical ways to interact with them. Technology like that in Kinect and even the Wii before it and now the massive surge in touch devices really shows what could be possible. I've used my tablet screen as a touch surface to control a cursor on a Windows box remotely (think like a giant touchpad) and it works very nicely. Very accurate and intuitive. Perhaps this is sort of tech, cleverly build into the next PS3 or XBox, is what will suddenly unlock the potential of that computer sitting under your TV, that is capable of doing so much more than what those dinky little joysticks currently let you do with it. Who knows? All I know is that until we can figure out how to push past the little buggers, we're going to keep seeing games shoehorned (ie, "dumbed down") for the console market.

[tacitus42]

That's such an awesome thought.

[TRB]

I don't think the kind of people for whom using a PC is too complicated [ie: most of the console market] are the kind of people who are capable/willing to undertake the mental exertion required for a good RTS/RTT.

If you dumb them down to the point of games like CoD where its idiots running around with auto-aim or aim-assist then you've just defeated the point of an RTS/RTT. [just as COD defeats the point of PC shooters]

[sifter132]

The guy thinks 2 mouse buttons is difficult.

I don't think its the actual clicking thats difficult...It's the sheer amount of clicking you have to do. When one of the RTS game performance measures is '# of clicks', you aren't just talking about normal clicking. You have to be crazy arse on the mouse to get really good at them.

Yep, the genre has resisted consolification for a while purely because the interface and the game mechanics tend to be more complex (plus that pointery thing called a mouse too). Wake up Relic, it's why people PLAY the goddamn genre and not Hello Kitty Parachute Paradise.

Trouble is that they don't. Starcraft 2 was popular, Company of Heroes must have done alright - what else has even made the radar of good RTS? It's kinda dead apart from those 2 franchise (although I guess C&C could return as well). Chris Taylor's Kings and Castles got canned for example, everyone wants to play fricken DOTA or the other tower defense stuff that's coming in droves.

So you are weighing a quality of game decision versus an economic decision. I just don't think RTS is popular enough. Hardcore fans will be upset but that's what happens when there aren't enough of them.

[Mekon]

Starcraft 2 (...) Company of Heroes
what else has even made the radar of good RTS?

Depends how pedantic one is about the distinction between RTS (must include base-building perhaps?) and RTT (which Company of Heroes most definitely is) and whether you choose to exclude games that allow you to pause time.

Ignoring the ever-present genre classification debate, from my own collection:

* RUSE.
* World in Conflict.
* Wargame: European Escalation (a spiritual successor to WoC, IMO).
* Sins of a Solar Empire (I personally disliked it, but is popular nonetheless)
* The Dawn of War series (later titles have focused more on squad-level RTT than RTS).
* The Total War franchise.
* Men of War and expansions (albeit somewhat more niche).
* The Majesty games (somewhat of a outlier, given the abstraction of control).

Some city-builders also incorporate RTS/RTT elements to various degrees: The Settlers, Anno and Tropico franchises, for instance.

Games don't have to reach blockbuster/AAA status (although some of the above clearly are) to be considered "good", or successful... even though some publishers apparently feel otherwise. Mainstream isn't always the goal, some developers prefer to target their niche - as long as they make a decent profit, it's all good.

[Bronze_D]

Total War combat is actually RTT, and it's strategic layer is turn based, while Men of War (and it's ancestor Soldiers Heroes of WW2) were RTT to the core just like shadow company or the ill fated real time remake of Jagged Alliance.

Generally speaking if the focus is unit management rather than resource management or production then it's most likely an RTT, since that's pretty much what RTT is all about.

Typically in an RTT you are given set amount of units and what not with limited capability of adding new unit to the roster and are expected to complete the task with the available assets which puts a premium on the tactical decision to maximize the unit's effectiveness and avoid or minimize attrition (since there are either non existent or limited amount of production to replace casualties).

In contrast an RTS generally expect you to handle production capability on top of unit management along with the resources necessary for said production and the focus is usually split between keeping the production running optimally while handling the units on the field so the focus of the game is split two ways with more leeway in casualties since they can be replaced to an extent much more easily than in most RTT.

[Mekon]

As I said:

Depends how pedantic one is about the distinction between RTS (must include base-building perhaps?) and RTT (which Company of Heroes most definitely is) and whether you choose to exclude games that allow you to pause time.

Ignoring the ever-present genre classification debate...

Personally, I'm not interested in the distinction... RTT is a subset of the broader RTS genre, IMO.

[Bronze_D]

Which it is to an extent partly because most contemporary RTS have RTT element built into it. (most of the target audience of typical games would fall asleep at a grand strategy game or pure strategy game even if it's in real time).

The question is just how much weight the game put towards one way or another...

in CoH case the scale tips towards the 'tactical' end of the scale, but it did not go all the way, it simply lean closer to it.

in typical RTS the scale usually tips closer to the 'strategic' end of the scale but again they usually are not really that deep into the strategic element either (since they are still meant to be mainstream games).

[Mekon]

Personally if I'm going to play a "real" deep strategic game, I prefer it to be turn-based - I like having time to think/plan/strategise (it fits the genre better, IMO). Harks back to my tabletop wargaming days, Avalon Hill boardgames et al.

Base-building, while amusing, is just make-work really. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy most subsets of the RTS genre, and I do enjoy placing buildings etc, but I shy away from uber-micro titles. I tend towards a cerebral game-style, rather than instinctive reactionary gameplay.

In passing, the Europa Universalis franchise attempted the grand strategy path in real-time (albeit pausable), but wasn't particular popular. Possibly due to the grand scale... or perhaps the convoluted interface (and thus we return to the actual topic of this thread).

[Bronze_D]

Actually they got it more or less right with pseudo real time for the scope and depth they had,

in Hearts of Iron they expanded it further and here we start seeing the strength of the 'pseudo' real time part since it allowed things like battle to be timed precisely to your hearts content down to the timing of the entry of your various war assets into a battle.

if you imagine that translated to turn based then it would either result in turns measured in hourly time unit (at least during a resolution of a battle) or a much more generalized combat resolution mechanism, neither of which are exactly going to please the fans since the first one would result in excessively massive number of turns to resolve anything, while the later results in loss of depth on the resolution mechanism itself.

note: in Hearts of Iron in particular it fits the theme very well because during WW2 with the new motorized infantry force and all, battle condition flow in a fraction of the time of the previous wars (a battle can be resolved, restarted, and shifted several times per day) so having the time unit measured in a flexible pseudo real time (which can be set from anything down to hourly up to days per second) lets you to still fine tune your armies approach to a battle while still letting you manage the country's much larger long term goal without requiring obscene amount of turns.

the game was exceedingly complex indeed for mainstream gamers, but that's fine because the audience the game was intended for fully EXPECT these complexity and depth.