Suburban_Commando

I agree on them really losing their way since that game. I think the AI and strategy layer are way past their expiration date. There's constant fudging going on with the AI following different rules than you and diplomacy never works as it should. Battle AI is a big issue itself. I agree on reviews too, which is why I'm waiting for some 3MA coverage. I think this appears to be a game that could make a great first impression through your first hours with it too because the battles seem better and there seem to be some changes on the strategy layer. But Rob's write up on the game with early impressions already had him feeling like the strategy portion was over simplified and didn't work as he got further in. Hoping they cover the game on 3MA this week.

Very much agree with the sentiments as far as all RTSes trying to be designed for multiplayer when there's probably a bigger audience not looking for that at all. Kind of feels like how they keep making Lords Managements trying to take down LoL and DOTA vs just making something on its own. For me, a traditional RTS of the "build a base while trying to also manage everything in the field" has no draw anymore. I never have actually liked that dynamic but at this point in my life I can't be bothered to deal with it to get what I like about RTS games anymore. Dividing your attention that way is not attractive to me. I want to be able to take all the game action in and not feel like how fast I click or scroll around the screen is key to how well I do in a strategy game. I want to follow my soldiers into a battle if that's what I'm doing in the game, not have to scroll back to start making reinforcements or building more as I send an attack in. This dynamic got even more maddening to me post Warcraft III when most RTSes started to work in RPG like abilities you need to be in the action to use. I think this post: sums up some of my feelings as well on the traditional RTS looking back at it. My thinking is that Relic is brilliant as far as how they have experimented in the genre (Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 the most) and yet no one really picks up Relic's innovations or ideas and tries them. It's a shame because as I say, Relic has worked against those issues and found something I like but few games try anything like that. I think the Men of War series deserves mention for doing its own thing, and although quality varies, it can provide some awesome tactical depth. I think there are avenues to expand RTS or build off things that have already been experimented on but most just keep making traditional RTS, which is a shame. Something more defense based (as talked about in the Tower Defense podcast), more tactical like Company of Heroes, more RPG-ish like Dawn of War. Yet I just don't see too many developers trying that. As mentioned on the Tower Defense podcast, why has no one made a game that actually is the castle management/defense game!? I think frankly the genre need more experimentation. Maybe the audience isn't there to support that, but otherwise the genre no longer does much of anything for me, especially if it plays basically like Starcraft all over again.

Good posts on this idea. I really think MGSV is a great example where the AI really stood out to me. I found it very fun to manipulate. For example, putting the enemy in an alert for me made them predictible. They would often stay put. So you could snipe a couple and then sneak down on top of them. Or if you're around buildings, you shoot a loud weapon on one side and circle around where you know they will go. For me, over time you figured out the AI but that just made it more fun. Eventually armor and some things limit your options but mostly you have a lot of freedom and a lot of those options work really well. I personally like the idea of this kind of AI in strategy games.

I also really liked the episode and think overall the thinking was right about issues with the genre even if it wasn't as comprehensive. Though I think TD is growing and trying cool stuff too over time. Some developers that stick with TD are doing some great stuff and there's room for the genre to keep getting better and adding depth. This describes my attraction to the genre perfectly. RTS games are almost always discouraging turtling but TD embraces it. When RTS do occasionally embrace defense, usually a mission or two, it's often my favorite part of that game. There are reasons I like defense in games, but one is not that I like simple strategy games. That was the label on the genre, that it was shallow. I actually love tactical games with depth. Just other aspects make me prefer defensive set ups. It's cool that audience is being catered to more and more.

I was happy to see this podcast topic. Made me finally register for the forums here to comment on it. I really like the Tower Defense genre and think it has a lot of potential and room for growth how the guys do, although there is more that they haven't seen (and as Spelk linked to above there are Tower Defense games doing some different stuff out there). I think personally I just really like defending an area. Keeping an eye on one spot, maximizing coverage of things like turrets, placing walls, improving defenses as time goes on and repairing them, the frantic moments where you need to shuffle around your infantry or weapons when the enemy breaks through in one spot. I also love "you have 5 minutes to set up defenses" type moments where you need to make educated guesses and formulate a plan. So personally my draw is not the same math and effeciency focus as far as why I like the genre. I think it is planning, covering an area with defenses based on different enemies, and that desperation and tension that comes with waves of enemies crashing against your walls. I share the guys love for stuff like RTS defense missions and Stronghold not just being about managing a castle how it first seems is also one of my biggest dissapointments in games. RTS games aren't made for this gameplay but they allow a freedom in it that is fantastic. I always wished I could play Company of Heroes by totally just focusing on defense. Thinking about the issues of it as part of the industry, I also feel like it is unfortunately looked at as a stepping stone genre for developers or designers instead of something that could be fleshed out to be a very complex and deep game. I think bringing in say RPG mechanics is perfectly viable (and is innovative and exciting in other genres) but just hasn't been executed on continuisly and with enough depth. I also personally think visually a lot of tower defense games are weak which is an issue for making the games attractive. Even ones with budgets and talent behind them like say Defense Grid and Sanctum have very unnattractive art and setting, to me. Few of them try to create a world or setting with any degree of seriousness like other genres do (which isn't required to make a good game, but I like games that do). That kind of stuff could clearly be improved I think. I am hoping Steam and how indie games can be made now, Tower Defense becomes legitmized to people and taken more seriously. Anyways, been learning to program myself and after trying to find something managable for a project I settled on Tower Defense because yeah it is far more approachable to make (like the guys say) I see how the genre could be expanded. Time to see if I can do it myself. To me this is the best one they didn't mention. It's very rough in presentation and things but I love the basic ideas it has going on. Instead of very light levels of RPG with tower defense it goes further and I think that alone works. There should be more games like this. Acutally, they are making a sequel and as far as presentation and everything it looks vastly better (much more like Disgaea or FFT) so that is something to keep an eye on. Could you give examples? I haven't seen these games and I think I would really like them. Stronghold was close but doesn't focus on the idea and has very frusterating elements.