Interfaces Are Preventing RTS From Becoming Mainstream, Says Relic

[jerichosainte]

I gave up a long time ago on RTS for the lack of camera control with the games becoming larger in scale. Being able to zoom in/out to any magnification to get a better picture of the battlefield and simplifying the camera control would make the experience less frustrating.

[Syncourt]

I gave up a long time ago on RTS for the lack of camera control with the games becoming larger in scale. Being able to zoom in/out to any magnification to get a better picture of the battlefield and simplifying the camera control would make the experience less frustrating.

Zooming out to the degree of the Supreme Commander games really should be standard in modern RTS. Such an awesome feature, handy and convenient.

Though I dislike the RTS games (such as world in conflict) that make you control the camera. Just give me a standard top down view and keep all that spinny 3D gimmick stuff optional. I don't primarily play RTS games to go over the battlefield in first person, but it is good having the option to do so.

Also, please do not remove base building anymore. Developing and protecting your base is half the fun of RTS games, especially in single player campaign.

[Ooshp]

Why are you all assuming it means "dumb things down"? Making a GUI much more clear and readable doesn't mean dumbing it down. Stop being paranoid/elitst pricks.

...what with so many buttons to press, left and right clicking...

The guy thinks 2 mouse buttons is difficult.

Even Mac users got the hang of the right click years ago.

If you'd like to head back to the dark ages of one-button gaming with old mate, go right ahead. I get angry enough when someone takes away my thumb buttons and scroll wheel (pleaes no one tell Greg about the scroll wheel, he might have a nervous breakdown).

[Bronze_D]

A. create a new smart order/targeting mechanism that would allow the the less accurate and slower console control interface to still issue time sensitive command with reasonable accuracy.

I've often thought a cool way to build an RTS would be to put you much more realistically in the shoes of a general - you give the "big picture" orders, rather than micromanaging every unit.

Real life generals don't spend their time helping individual soldiers pathfind their way to objectives - they decide on strategy, and on the broad sweep of what is to happen, and then rely on the chain of command to implement it.

I'd love to see an RTS game where you have a realistic chain of command. "Take 20 infantry units and prepare for an ambush over there, then wait for my signal", "launch an air strike to soften up those emplacements", etc. etc.

Could work a lot better on consoles too.

That said, there will always be room for Total Annihilation style RTS on PC. Like (proper) FPSes, PC is uniquely suited to these games due to its controls.

There are...
most wargames plays out exactly like what you just described which is the macro scale of the battle, instead of the micro scale which is where most 'RTS' are and they've been around since before video games even existed and some were made for computer as well.

Hidden: show

These wargames however generally are not real time, and thus not RTS, though games like Hearts of Iron are pseudo real time.

RUSE is essentially a semi hybrid of the two, a wargame and an RTS... but simplified to the maximum to reduce the strain on the player since RUSE is still aimed more towards RTS players and not wargamers.

If you show RUSE to one of the old wargamer who crunch stuff like hearts of iron for breakfast then he'll likely scoff at it since from his point of view it'll look like a brightly colored and shiny wargame for kids with extreme simplification of the basic concept of warfare. To him it'll look like what ARMA player will look at CoD.

So in that sense RUSE was rightly aimed more towards contemporary RTS players.

Problem is the more you focus on the macro scale and the grand strategy, the more difficult the AI challenge becomes.

There are only 3 ways it can be resolved:
A. create an extraordinary AI capable of taking broad, or generalized command and apply the correct implementation of it on the actual gamespace.

This is effectively the equivalent of creating an AI subordinate to execute the general's command, but this requires an AI that actually KNOW how to do so which is beyond what we have in general.

B. do what RUSE did and simplify it to the most general form.

Works well especially with console since it also simplify the amount of information that needs to be feed to the player and parsed in time which is good since the target audience would not otherwise be able to cope.

C. let the human players manage the more intricate and detailed part of the order.

Problem is when it comes to wargames scale, the amount of information and order that have to be issued and managed will quickly overwhelm most regular Joe player.

Usually even in most wargames a combination of the 3 of the above is used to some extent, but generally the complexity of the strategy required and the amount of information flow will ensure no one but wargames fan will survive the initiation.

[TRB]

I hope no one who thinks games like ruse are still too complicated ever tries a game like Men of War: Assault Squad.
They'll have a melt down.


RTS and RTT not being mainstream has nothing to do with the 'interface' and everything to do with depth of gameplay and how much knowledge and personal skill a player needs to be good.

People who can't manage the already pretty clear interfaces are never going to be any good at the actual game, be it the rock/paper/scissors[lizard/spock] of RTS like ruse and starcraft or the more complex nuances of games like MoW:AS.

[InAUGral]

Please for the love of God, don't dumb down RTS games. I hate this move to oversimplify every aspect of gameplay, gone are the days of depth and complexity

This.

I know that RTS isn't exactly "mainstream" but that's how its meant to be. No point in making a UI that's retardedly simple that makes the game as challenging as Farmville otherwise it would remove the S from RTS.

[3Lollipopz!]

couldn't agree with everyone more. However, I played COH today for the first time in 18 months. It's control structure is aweful and not being able to remap my arrow keys, which move the map! meh.

Strategy isn't mainstream because developers are making them simple. Some games give the illusion of depth by making the interface horrid to play with... Two mouse buttons? WTF!

Well, I'm looking forward to COH2 next year, but let's see if it can deliver an enjoyable experience like #1... OR will it be a Sup Commander 2 experience (makes me want to teabag my own drumset)

[Agent_Dark]

"Micro" skill is what defines an RTS game imo... If an interface is "streamlined" (ie dumbed down) then there's no real Micro required and you may as well just play a Turn-Based Strategy.

I thought the original CoH was a great RTS with respects to the micro required. Would be a big shame to see that dumbed down.

[Bronze_D]

imho micro management is actually the main focus of RTT and not exactly RTS since strategy in it's general form isn't so much the micro management but rather the macro.

most of our 'RTS' however have fair degree of RTT element built into it in general since it isn't quite as interesting to have an RTS with just the amount of depth available in most mainstream RTS games if you are not given some ways of tipping the scale of the battle.

it is perfectly viable as well to have micro management in turn based game since that is EXACTLY what turn based tactical games are all about, micro managing your troops, mech, tanks, whatever... every single step of the way from where they go, how far to go, when to fire, etc.

[Agent_Dark]

imho micro management is actually the main focus of RTT and not exactly RTS since strategy in it's general form isn't so much the micro management but rather the macro.

most of our 'RTS' however have fair degree of RTT element built into it in general since it isn't quite as interesting to have an RTS with just the amount of depth available in most mainstream RTS games if you are not given some ways of tipping the scale of the battle.

it is perfectly viable as well to have micro management in turn based game since that is EXACTLY what turn based tactical games are all about, micro managing your troops, mech, tanks, whatever... every single step of the way from where they go, how far to go, when to fire, etc.

I dunno, I view "Micro" as a skill really when you are forced to do all that micro-managing right in the heat of battle. It's one thing to do that in a Turn Based scenario where you can sit back and really think through what you're about to do, and completely another where you need to make split-second decisions on how to position your units, what to focus fire your units on, when to activate special abilities etc.

I'm not saying TBS doesn't need micro-management, but RTS is where you need to do that Micro in a split-second.

[Jez]

I have to agree with the above - what I find appealing in the genre is the complexity. Don't get me wrong, there is room for more streamlined titles alongside more complex tactical simulations, but claiming that the need to control multiple units is a drawback is pants on head stupid, IMO... hint: if you're only controlling one unit, it's not an RTS title.

That said, titles like RUSE are simplified, yet still have a reasonable amount of depth. It works fine on console, although I do prefer it on PC.

I've always wondered why they don't just offer choices when it comes to things like this, surely there could be room for more than one type of interface in order to accomodate newcomers who might find a standard one overwhelming?

I can ceretainly think of instances where RTS elements are maintained to the detriment of gameplay. DotA 2 springs to mind, your hero still auto attacks creeps within range despite that being poor play for much of the game, and I suspect the reason that's maintained is because that's the way it was in the original dota.

[Bronze_D]

I dunno, I view "Micro" as a skill really when you are forced to do all that micro-managing right in the heat of battle. It's one thing to do that in a Turn Based scenario where you can sit back and really think through what you're about to do, and completely another where you need to make split-second decisions on how to position your units, what to focus fire your units on, when to activate special abilities etc.

I'm not saying TBS doesn't need micro-management, but RTS is where you need to do that Micro in a split-second.

Somewhat true, but strictly speaking most ppl don't have trouble with micro managing single unit in real time.

The difficulty for most ppl is micro managing MULTIPLE units and possibly while doing their macro order as well and do this all in real time.

So it's not so much micro that is difficult, it's the multitasking that is difficult for most ppl.

Which is why turn based games tend to have more depth in general, since there's no time limitation and thus less burden on the time reaction for the player, the game can throw more focus on the actual micro management itself.

Typical turn based tactical games for example tend to throw a truck load of information to the player, some expect you to monitor their stance, their weapon, their firing mode, where they are looking at, etc and these are often just the minimum of what's expected.

[c0mc0]

I think those talking about GUI have missed the point. I think he's talking more about the player interface here - it's more broad than simply the GUI ie, input controllers - mouse, keyboard, controller etc - how the player interacts with the game. The question he was asked is -

How universally appealing to do you think the RTS genre is? Do you see CoH expanding to consoles? Is it even possible for an RTS to break into mainstream with the kind of numbers we see in shooters?

With that rather important context, you can see that "mainstream" = high sales on consoles. This is arguably a fair call. How many of your non-gamer friends know what Arma is? Or STALKER? Or Crysis? Or (insert your own PC exclusive FPS here)? Now, how many of them know Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare etc...

There are plenty of RTS' on PC that I would have considered "mainstream". How about Command & Conquer (insert version here). But Wilson's not talking about dumbing down your PC RTS, he's talking about the barriers to getting them working well on consoles. Although it could be argued that the later will affect the former.

Unfortunately, if you want massive sales, you have to hit the consoles hard. Call of Duty is mainstream enough that the morning radio guys talk about it on air..."shooting terrorists" over the weekend and all that.

So, with the context there, Wilson answers that the biggest barrier to RTS success on the console is the interface. I couldn't agree more. As I get older and have less time on my hands, I sometimes wish that the RTS (and Turn based strategy games like CIV5 etc) had a viable control system for consoles so I could sit on my couch and play them in a more casual environment, as opposed to finding time to go away from my family, go into the computer room and going into "gaming mode" - that one where you sit for hours on end and get narky when you are interrupted.

Imagine an interface that allowed you to sit on your couch and play something like Company of Heroes or Civ5 on your TV screen? I'd pay good money for that. I imagine it will come in the form of a mature version of the Wii's point and click IR controller capability. I doubt gesture control is going to take off for such fine grained movement - your arm is going to get sore fast if you're waving them around like a conductor to tell your heavy MG to move from one side of trench to the other. You need something small and light like a pen that can be moved with small wrist movements.

We all decry the "consolification" of gaming. But is it really consoles we hate? Or is it simply the limitations of what current gen consoles are able to provide? I think when Wilson refers to the "complexity" of the interface, I think he's talking, effectively, about the requirement for a mouse. The traditional interface for deploying units in an RTS is to "click the little tank button". Unfortunately, a PS3 controller sucks for "clicking" just about anything. How many people regularly browse the internet on their PS3 using the controller? Not many, I imagine - it's completely painful moving a cursor around with a controller.

I don't think Wilson is suggesting that they will dumb down CoH2 - at the heart fo the issue is the limitations of current controller technology. Until we overcome that, no about of "dumbing down" is going to allow a game like CoH to play well on a console.

[Yapa]

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

[Mekon]

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.