Rob Zacny

Episode 213: On Campaign

Recommended Posts

Tom Chick joins Rob and Troy to talk about campaigns in RTS games, particularly StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm.

 

Listen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to comment on this episode, because I think I'm one of the campaign-only players you guys said didn't listen.  I'm a long-time listener, and consider 3MA one of my favorite podcasts.

 

The thing is, I don't like real-time strategy as a genre.  I love turn-based strategy, such as Civilization (all except 3), Galactic Civilizations, Sword of the Stars.  Alpha Centauri was my favorite strategy game for a long time, until I played Crusader Kings II. :)  I enjoy real-time pausable games like paradox interactive's grand strategies because I can play them like I do a turn based game, with careful planning, plotting, and scheming. :)  I just don't care for twitch RTS because I don't like the constant pressure.

 

So as you can imagine, I don't play many RTS games, but I do play them occasionally.  When I do, I really only enjoy playing the campaign to experiment with the mechanics and to see a story.  Call of Heroes was highly regarded, and the small number of controllable units does make it easier on me, but I'm just a fan of games as an art form and don't like to write off any genre entirely.  I appreciate the skills requires for multiplayer RTS gaming, and enjoy watching streams (especially with commentary).

 

Of course I enjoy the 3MA episodes regarding turn-based and paradox games (which I listen to many times over), but I enjoy all of your episodes.  I love to hear in-depth discussions about games I will never play, because it helps me to appreciate their place in the history of strategy games.

 

Anyway, that's enough rambling at 6am after being unable to sleep.  Just know that not everyone who listens to 3MA loves to play RTS in multiplayer or skirmish. That doesn't mean we can't love the podcast. :)

 

PS. I have to thank 3MA for introducing me to Paradox Interactive through Europa Universalis III, and convincing me to buy Crusader Kings II even though I couldn't get into the first one at all.  CK2 is my favorite strategy game, and likely will be for a long time to come. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I guess I'm one of those mythical campaign players also. And it's funny that the panel can't remember Dark Crusade.

As with the previous author I've been falling out of love with the traditional base building rts. But still, I prefer campaigns to skirmishes because skirmishes feel repetitive, and too focused on build orders, which are my least favourite part of the game. I don't play multiplayer because I'm not that competitive.

What I like about campaigns is the principle of developing a strategy. A good campaign gives me a new unit or a new enemy, a new ability or a new terrain with each level, and says, "here's a new toy, try and understand what the implications of this unit is and figure out how to fit it inside your strategy, and try not to lose in the process". I prefer that aspect of strategy games to working out how to perfect the execution of that strategy, which is a lot less interesting to me. I do also enjoy the visceral aspect of stuff blowing up, for sure. But it's being doled out new things and feeling like you've mastered some thing with each level that is the core of it. Campaigns and levels must also not outlast their welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt so insulted, I had to create an account to chime in here.

 

I am 45. None of my real world friends play (competitive) video games. I myself don't like online multiplayer anything. I don't like to play with strangers.

 

I play computer strategy games since ca. 1999. And, back in the days, when you had to choose between phone connection or dial-up modem, so you could have 4 kilobits per second, "Internet" gameplay was not an option. "We" played this 'new' genre of "real-time" strategy games and the main reason to go through clicking on little dots w a s the story? Was the campaign?!

 

This topic is way to big to be addressed in a random forum post, by a random stranger, like me. I will just say, I agree with user "Fhnuzoag" above: a good campaign teaches me the abilites of the units, etc, step by step, as the campaign progresses. Something (not only, but certainly) Blizzard does well? I need motivation to sit through hours of flawed game mechanics. None of these games is perfect and my (real life) time is limited to learn to play the games AND the complexity of how they fail and what they wanted to accomplish. The campaign is the one part, I am willing to sit through. I see a good campaign as an extended tutorial. At the same time, one of the hardest things to do? (Listen to a previous 3MA on tutorials - a huge subject & also interesting in educational, pedagogic context? Needs way more attention, by everyone, IMHO.)

 

Skrimish or Multiplayer kills all the narrative. Having "Elves" vs "Trolls" battle it out on a map, is not the Tolkien universe I want to live in. It could be easily ANY game at that point. A vs B vs C. For this kind of 1 vs 1, I still prefer chess or equal games. Why do I need to play a 'new' game?

 

In the end, you play your game, I play mine. I don't mind other people enjoying their 'true' aspects of RTS games, but as Tom Chick said himself, RTS games are 3 different games. I like my Single Player campaigns with a hopefully good enough story and against the Game AI. The quality of these campaigns (and the difficulty of making them) is certainly something to discuss. But why would anyone deprive me of this experience? Why say, developers should stop making Single Player campaigns altogether??

 

Homeworld and Sacrifice are two games that equally prove how RTS games can be a common ground for all of us? Certainly for me. I love and play those games to this day. I even tried online multiplayer with both of them ... but even in their "heydays", no one wanted to play (with me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was mention in the episode of cutscenes where the action between battles was badly disjointed from your capabilities in the game. I think Blizzard still holds the prize for that, and they've been the heavyweight champions of it since at least Warcraft 2.

The classic go-to example of this for me is in fact in Warcraft 2. There's a brief little cutscene, it's perhaps all of 20 seconds long. A human soldier sneaks up on an orc soldier who is manning an orc catapult, stealth-kills the orc, and uses the catapult to shoot down a goblin zeppelin.

- nothing in the game did stealth
- units just had aggro range; come in range, get attacked
- the human soldier couldn't instant kill anything in the game
- catapults weren't manned units
- you couldn't capture units in the game
- catapults can't shoot air units in the game
- catapults don't single-shot kill anything either

Picky? Sure, but what was going on in the cutscene looked like a lot more fun than the actual game was (since IIRC at that point in the campaign progression the game was basically a bad logging simulator), and absolutely nothing that happened in that cutscene was an action the player could take.

The scene in Starcraft where Kerrigan (sp?) is captured was sited as good in-mission storytelling, but at least for me it was the most ignoble failure of in-game storytelling I've ever seen. Literally.

I came into that map cold, I hadn't read any faqs (which were kind of a new idea back then, and pretty thin on the ground) or talked to my friends, I knew nothing about it. I think the first time I played it I screwed up a bit and accidentally got line of sight onto the zerg base you were supposed to be protecting, and I killed something and lost that round. Fair enough. I'd been building up a force by it because with the cheesebag tactics Blizzard's level designers usually use, I knew at some point the mission objectives would change and I'd be trying to fight a zerg rush coming downhill at me. Chekhov's gun and all that.

The second time I played, same tactics, but I was a little more careful. So, lots of normal siege tanks near the base, a force of battleships in the air just out of range, lots full bunkers, lots of missile towers, some fighters and so forth. I managed to get between the protoss and one of their major resource points before they'd done much to it. When I'd nearly wiped out the protoss base, I stopped and started building up a second base and getting my forces ready for a battle royale. Kerrigan was at the second base surrounded by 24 battleships, in case the first line fell; I was expecting it to be a mess and I was flush with resources from looting the protoss. When I was ready, I killed the last solitary protoss pylon, since I figured that was the trigger. When it was about to die, I threw all my tanks into artillery mode and moved the battleships into firing range.

The fog of war peeled back, and it was a massacre. The zerg barely made it down the ramp. I had so much firepower in place that the zerg base was swept clean in a matter of seconds. My guns stopped firing, the creep started decaying away. Total victory.

At that point, when it hadn't told me the mission was over yet, I sent some builders to start putting up missile towers on the remains of the zerg base, so I could keep visibility up there. I'd managed to get visual coverage of most of the map, but I wondered if maybe there was some part of the map I couldn't see where some new base was being set up.

And then some voiceover starts screaming about being overrun and the base being destroyed, and Kerrigan, who's half a map away in an untouched fortress and surrounded by enough battleships to haul the whole planet to safety, starts demanding to know where the evacuation ships are. There is still not a living zerg unit on the map, and in fact most of the remains have even rotted away, but nope, the game doesn't care. Emperor Snide T Dolchstoss comes on the horn and says "So, you know how everything about my one-dimensional characterization said I'd betray you at my first convenience even if it made no sense and was possibly even counter to my goals?". Kerrigan gets captured by magic plot fairies and here's a nice big slap in the face for trying.

Branching campaigns were a well established idea by the time Starcraft came out; as far as I can tell the strictly linear campaign of Starcraft was because they really wanted to tell you a specific story. Which would have been unfortunate but somewhat forgivable if the story hadn't been unusually execrable even for an RTS.

There were other examples of this kind of thing in Starcraft, but to me the mission where Kerrigan gets captured no matter what you do was the low point, the most glaring illustration of nearly (only nearly; the level wasn't a single answer puzzle, at least) everything that is wrong with RTS campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not really a fan of how Blizzard does campaigns. Even Warcraft 3 was a bit of a chore, with most levels reducable to the same strategy, repeated. Arthas's campaign was clearly the high point, the rest of the game instantly forgettable. Single player campaigns I did like? Well...

 

1. Warhammer: Dark Omen.

- Persistent units, and hard as hell. A proto-Total-War game, I suppose, without the strategy layer but with more varied units. Would be interesting to replay to see how much it holds up.

 

2. Men of War

- Some of the levels were kinda a chore, but many others were strong because of scope that you will basically never ever see in a skirmish or multiplayer battle. Also made for a great co-op campaign.

 

3. Freedom Force

- Get new skills and superheroes! Fight new supervillains! Also, a rare implementation of boss fights in a RTS that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cleardot.gif
I have that Cuban Missle Crisis game (not installed...).  When I tried the game out, the impression I got was that it was made as an attempt to use the existing Blitzgrieg engine and make a game that could be marketed as a post-apocalyptic themed RTS. It still looked like a WWII game.

I think this was the first time the Emporer: Battle for Dune game was mentioned on the podcast. I consider that game basically part of the C&C franchise as it's exactly the same as any C&C game but set in a different universe. I think it was the first 3D attempt in that Westwood lineage with Generals to follow.

The biggest problem I have with that game, is that if you played a non-Arrakis map, there was no resource collection. In the Dune universe of the books each faction's home planet has a primary resource that they exploit and export. One can see the concept in the design of the buildings and maps in the game--Harkonnen buildings have flaming exhausts like oil wells. Harkonnen maps had pipes, etc. reflecting a fossil fuel based economy, but there was no fossil fuel collection. Caladan maps should've had resource gathering reflecting a maritime resource economy, and one could've built hydropower plants rather than windtraps (which in the books aren't power plants at all, but wasn't a problem). Instead, skirmish games played on non-Arrakis maps just gifted you income throughout the game. Boring.

I don't have much input about campaigns though... I'm more of a skirmish against AI player. I'd rather go back and reread the Dune books again than play through the game's campaign. I know not to expect much though. I love novels and short stories. As an artist and sci-fi fan, I'll watch pretty much any sci-fi film just to see the production design and execution. I know not to expect much story wise. That's what novels are for.

I guess one thing I can add about campaigns is that I also especially hate commando missions. In some campaigns I stopped at a commando mission and have never gone back. That happens even with games I really like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much input about campaigns though... I'm more of a skirmish against AI player. I'd rather go back and reread the Dune books again than play through the game's campaign. I know not to expect much though. I love novels and short stories. As an artist and sci-fi fan, I'll watch pretty much any sci-fi film just to see the production design and execution. I know not to expect much story wise. That's what novels are for.

 

    Have you played the Dune board game?  It's pretty awesome if you can get 6 people together.  Six sides, and fairly assymetric sides.  For example, at the beginning of the game, the Bene Geserit player writes down the name of a player and a turn, and puts that face down on the table.  If that player wins on that turn, the Bene Geserit player wins instead.  The Guild put their troops on the planet at half price, and when anyone else puts troops on the planet they pay the Guild player; if the game goes 12 turns with no winner, the Guild wins.  It's a very good game that plays very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most RTSs are going to be about building up a massive war machine. That makes for some compelling game play, but not necessarily compelling story telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most RTSs are going to be about building up a massive war machine.

 

Indeed, and depicted in the weirdest ways.  The congo line of troops spewing out of tiny huts jogging over to the mob of idling vehicles nudging each other bums me out eventually.  Not the mechanics, but the disonance with the theme.  Multiplayer/skirmishes make that burn out happen faster for me, why I stick to campaigns only.

 

Other than Homeworld (yep, ships persist), I was trying to think of games that were RTS'ey but didn't invovle heavy base or build-queue cycles.  Of course, Close Combat!  Not much strategy in the campaign, and no narrative what so ever.  Yet a decade on I remember emergent stories from both single player and the occasional office-lan multiplay.  Might be the inclusion of the morale system or the slight abstractions built into the unit-orders systems.  Something about not having click-perfect response makes it more memorable when things go horribly good or bad.

 

Always seemed strange more games didn't try the squad level scale with linked battles to tell a story.  I was going to say FTL might be the best spiritual succesor to CC, but turns out Slitherines still developoing CC. Whoa, ze blood!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I had to post here, but actually 'bdmarvel' pretty much posted what I had to say: While I love turn-based strategy and tactics, as well as the Paradox-style of real-time  but pausable, I don't care that much for RTS games. Perhaps there is still something to add.

 

I have thought about, why I like RTS campaigns even thought they don't exemplify what's typical for the genre in the eyes of many more hardcore players. I've reached the conclusion that my experience depends on two factors: There is the narration and the gameplay systems. In turn-based and 'slower' games, these two come together, so I can enjoy both the great intellectual challenge of learning and mastering a system (let's say that of Crusader Kings 2), while creating a story (in that case that may be the rise to power of my small dynasty from Cornwall). Regarding the system, the RTS falls short to that - the strategic mechanism that I like are hidden behind a wall of skill - meaning the ability to react quickly and to conscious about what's happing in every corner of the map. Also there are problems with the narrative side: when a match usually lasts an hour on the maximum, there is not much persistence in the story. In addition to that the RTS genre has problems with "interesting decisions" - most times there seems to be an optimal path to victory.

 

Why do I play RTS campaigns nonetheless? Because they create a narration with gameplay in between, that is okay (but not great) for me. As I don't like action-adventures or shooters that much, the gameplay in the typical RTS campaign seems okay to me. And Blizzard already tries to bring people over to skirmishes and MP - but for me, that hasn't worked. Because of the problems stated above and because I certainly don't look for competitive gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really love RTS campaigns, but I do like them sometimes. I find skirmishes and multiplayer engaging, but often stressful, and I feel I need to turn my full attention to them. If I'm home late after a trying day, I don't always feel like something that intense. A scripted campaign lets me get some of the RTS gameplay at a slower, less intense pace. It's gaming comfort food, basically.

 

Also, I feel like you guys are prejudiced against puzzles. Puzzles are fun! I like puzzles. There's nothing wrong with an RTS-puzzle, as long as it's well executed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom is reading my mind re: Lords Management games and the types of players that play them. I've been thinking this for awhile.

Edit: Basically what I'm saying is Tom is smart.

Edit 2: I love 3MA. There is no other public forum where this kind of informed discussion occurs about strategy games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never played very far in it, but of all things Force Commander had some promising elements; it had units you could carry over between missions, it was a "prestige"-based system, you could name units, there was unit experience and structure capture...

 

Of course it also had the Vader theme with a backbeat, so YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really love RTS campaigns, but I do like them sometimes. I find skirmishes and multiplayer engaging, but often stressful, and I feel I need to turn my full attention to them. If I'm home late after a trying day, I don't always feel like something that intense. A scripted campaign lets me get some of the RTS gameplay at a slower, less intense pace. It's gaming comfort food, basically.

 

    That basically describes the relationship I had with Total Annihilation when it came out.

 

Also, I feel like you guys are prejudiced against puzzles. Puzzles are fun! I like puzzles. There's nothing wrong with an RTS-puzzle, as long as it's well executed. 

 

    The problem with RTS puzzles, at least to me, is... well...

 

    What I want from a tactical scenario is a problem to solve.  I want to be given a problem, be able to examine it, and then set out to solve it.  I don't usually solve it on the first try, but ideally it ought to be possible if I analyzed the problem well enough.  See, for example, Unity of Command, where the scenarios can be brutal, but in principle a skilled player could look at them with a critical eye and crush them, and two different skilled players would potentially do it differently.

 

    I think a lot of players (including myself) use "puzzle" as a shorthand for scenarios that have one possible solution, that solution is hidden from you until you've played and fallen at several different hurdles, and even once you understand the solution you still have to execute it perfectly to win.  The term "puzzle" is technically broader than that, but I think that's what people are really complaining about; the kind of scenario where the answer is ultimately just paint-by-number, but you have to determine which color matches which number by trial and error.  And you fail if you don't paint each area perfectly.

 

    When I denigrate a scenario as being just a puzzle, that's the kind of thing I mean.  There was a scenario in Red Alert (IIRC; it might have been one of the other games in the C&C series) for example where you were controlling a single soldier on foot.  There were a whole sequence of hoop-jumpy things you had to do to win; there were dogs that attacked you, people who shot at you, barrels you had to shoot and explode.  In some ways it wasn't even a puzzle; you could more or less see what the level wanted you to do, it was just a matter of executing it perfectly.  It was... not really fun at all, and it's that kind of thing I typically think of when people complain about a scenario being a puzzle rather than a strategy game.

 

    I think it's partly a terminology problem; I'd consider Scribblenauts a "puzzle" game, for instance, but the whole point of that game is nonlinear problem solving; in the DS version, at least, they *require* you to solve each level three different ways (or was it five?) before you've actually "beaten" it.

 

    Personally, "paint-by-numbers" is my go-to phrase for the kind of scenario we're talking about; the one-answer "read the mind of the level designer and then execute that perfectly" scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great discussion guys.

 

I guess my objection (and I won't speak for Tom) to RTS campaigns is that so many of them are tacked on and don't really let you see the beauty of the "true" design - the balancing of units attributes, the economic game, etc; until very very late in the campaign - if at all. They are more action RPGs - which is fine! I like action RPGS! - but designing campaigns as the center of the single player experience seems to underestimate the audience and overestimate the game fiction.

 

To be clear - I am no MP RTS hotshot. I don't have the reflexes for it any more and never really had the math. But, either against friends or (even better) single player skirmish or MP comp stomp, there are few short game experiences as rewarding for the small general inside of us like a skirmish RTS. Scenarios with units that have activation radii or maps that reveal new things and change how you have to do everything (I'm look at you SupCom and Rise of Legends) hit me as not the "Real" game.

 

I guess it's like soloing World of Warcraft, to me. Yeah, I think I get why people do it, but if that's what you're coming for I think you're missing some of the real beauty.

 

Sorry if anyone was offended! But this is why we have the forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it obviously has some glaring issues I did really enjoy the DoW II campaign. I guess a lot of it comes down to being a big wh40k fan, but I saw it as a simpler and more visceral version of World in conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it obviously has some glaring issues I did really enjoy the DoW II campaign. I guess a lot of it comes down to being a big wh40k fan, but I saw it as a simpler and more visceral version of World in conflict.

 

    Warhammer is bonkers enough that I find I can forgive things I wouldn't forgive elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also registered to the site in order to answer the "Who are these people?" question.  Also an older gamer, my favorite RTS experience was playing Command and Conquer over a phone line with my brother, so long ago I believe there were still long distance charges to consider.  That was also the end of my P2P RTS career, for the most part.  I've dabbled here and there, but during those first games I knew that at some point, out of the fog of war, some herky jerk accumulation of tanks would appear, poorly led and little upgraded, intent on destroying my laughably pathetic defenses.  And we did laugh and have a great time.  

 

My experience when venturing out into public RTS matches has been one of thinking I've just about got everything set up to begin when out of the fog of war comes brutally efficient, sneering death. I thought playing 4 v 4, or comp stomps would be better but it was way worse.  Instead of dying alone, I was letting down the team, usually being reminded of it nonstop in a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS.  And this was often with games I did well at against the AI.  I did not, however, know things like The Best Build Order for Vasari in Sins of a Solar Empire.  Seeing "WHY ARE YOU BUILDING THAT?!!" scrolling through your chat window is terrible.  I now know enough to know there are best practices for build orders to basically every RTS, and know enough of myself not to learn them.  The irony of Troy's remarks on the podcast is, to me, the multiplayer experience of an RTS suffers from exactly the "puzzle" or "paint by numbers" problem he hates.  In order to compete at a basic level, I need to learn a specific order of gameplay and execute it within the first 4 minutes of the game or I'm finished, turning it into Temple Run.  The campaign actually frees me from that, while introducing me to the world and the units.  I could just skirmish, but I like the context.  I'd love to know more about the Sins of the Solar Empire World, hearing the voices acknowledge ship commands makes me wonder what the hell is going on in the wider context.

 

I also loved the Command and Conquer cut scenes, and music, and thought it all worked together as a giant, hilarious, inmate-Michael-Bays-running-the-asylum bombastathon. Which was super fun.  Video gaming is a form of entertainment and art I enjoy, just like movies, not the newest incarnation of a life-long interest in strategy gaming and I wonder if that is the difference.  I don't go out and buy RTS games because they are strategy games, I buy them because they are video games and I hear good things about this or that title.  And though I listen to podcasts and read a couple sites to be sure I don't miss cool, story-driven indies, sometimes i just want to build giant towers that shoot lightning while bad metal plays.

 

Finally, thanks for the podcast.  As I said above, I'm not really a heavy strategy gamer, but I came over from the GWJ podcast and enjoy listening to knowledgeable people talk about stuff, even if I don't have the full context.  I have not started up Crusader Kings 2 yet, but this show convinced me I should buy it and attempt to learn it.  This latest episode made me think I should really try Starcraft2, even though Starcraft seems to be the distillation of all I hated about multiplayer gaming.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as puzzles are concerned in strategy game missions, I don't have a problem with them in theory, but I often end up a little wary of them because there is always the risk of bad game design making the solution a little too precise where the slightest deviation results in failure. That's no fun, and has ruined a number of strategy game (not just the real-time variant) campaigns for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the reason RTS single players campaigns are so bad is because the game is designed around the multiplayer, meaning they prioritise an emphasis on build orders and clicks per second, so the single player is generally just a tutorial for the multiplayer, i don't like multiplayer in general and i like tower defence games but I'm not a casual gamer, computer games are my passion and my main form of entertainment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the reason RTS single players campaigns are so bad is because the game is designed around the multiplayer, meaning they prioritise an emphasis on build orders and clicks per second, so the single player is generally just a tutorial for the multiplayer, i don't like multiplayer in general and i like tower defence games but I'm not a casual gamer, computer games are my passion and my main form of entertainment

 

From the developer point of view I think that scratches the surface a little, but there's a deeper element, I think.  An RTS is generally designed as a whole package; the core design may not have had all the final units when it went down on paper, but the final form of the complete game is visible in the original design.  The team then sets out to build that design, with the result being a (probably alpha) complete version of the RTS, with something approaching an unbalanced but relatively complete final unit set.

 

At that point, the campaign starts being built.  The campaign has a bunch of requirements; must be X hours of "gameplay", must have at least Y missions, must tell a story, must be a tutorial for the game...

 

Some poor bastard or set of bastards has to fill that giant pit.

 

If they need (say) a 30 mission campaign, they can't just give you the full unit complement for all 30 missions, or you'll barely be able to remember which was which.  So they wind up having to take this swiss watch of a game an say "Ok, in the first mission the player just gets the crown gear."  And you have the mission about moving the camera and shooting a water tower with a tank.  On to mission 2, "crown gear and spring"!

 

Then someone leans in and says "The producer isn't sure that modern FPS players will be familiar with the concept of grouping, we need there to be a grouping tutorial in some mission before the sixth one."  And someone else will decide that the girl with the improbable physique driving the combat motorcycle needs to be in more cutscenes where we're looking at her from low and behind, so we need more "story".

 

Somewhere between mission 18 and 25, the people doing the scenarios will have utterly lost their will to live, or will be slipping easter eggs into the missions in the subconscious hope that they'll be fired and thus be able to escape with honour.  That will be just before the producer decides that the maps aren't "dynamic" enough and need to "play better".  When quizzed about what "better" means, the producer will explain "it needs to pop more, you know, be more fun, and better looking".

 

I've never worked that trench myself; I've been in the next trench over, writing code.  But I can still sympathize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have already been some great responses, but I couldn't help but comment as well. Especially since Tom was so eager to know more about us.

 

I rarely play RTS games. Even classic real time RPGs like Baldur's Gate are too hectic for me. But that doesn't mean I don't like the occasional RTS campaign, at least to follow the story. I am not very competitive, so standard RTS gaming like Tom advocates is more than I can handle. The one time I tried a multiplayer Starcraft 2 match (one of the warmup games you play before placement), I got so panicked that I quit the match after 60 seconds.

 

After this episode, I'm a little ashamed to admit that the only RTS campaign that I played to completion was Dawn of War II. I loved that final mission, boss fights and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the developer point of view I think that scratches the surface a little, but there's a deeper element, I think.  An RTS is generally designed as a whole package; the core design may not have had all the final units when it went down on paper, but the final form of the complete game is visible in the original design.  The team then sets out to build that design, with the result being a (probably alpha) complete version of the RTS, with something approaching an unbalanced but relatively complete final unit set.

 

At that point, the campaign starts being built.  The campaign has a bunch of requirements; must be X hours of "gameplay", must have at least Y missions, must tell a story, must be a tutorial for the game...

 

Some poor bastard or set of bastards has to fill that giant pit.

 

If they need (say) a 30 mission campaign, they can't just give you the full unit complement for all 30 missions, or you'll barely be able to remember which was which.  So they wind up having to take this swiss watch of a game an say "Ok, in the first mission the player just gets the crown gear."  And you have the mission about moving the camera and shooting a water tower with a tank.  On to mission 2, "crown gear and spring"!

 

Then someone leans in and says "The producer isn't sure that modern FPS players will be familiar with the concept of grouping, we need there to be a grouping tutorial in some mission before the sixth one."  And someone else will decide that the girl with the improbable physique driving the combat motorcycle needs to be in more cutscenes where we're looking at her from low and behind, so we need more "story".

 

Somewhere between mission 18 and 25, the people doing the scenarios will have utterly lost their will to live, or will be slipping easter eggs into the missions in the subconscious hope that they'll be fired and thus be able to escape with honour.  That will be just before the producer decides that the maps aren't "dynamic" enough and need to "play better".  When quizzed about what "better" means, the producer will explain "it needs to pop more, you know, be more fun, and better looking".

 

I've never worked that trench myself; I've been in the next trench over, writing code.  But I can still sympathize.

 

maybe they should just separate the tutorial from the single player and trust that if a player wants to learn something specific they will use them and if they want to learn by playing that is what they will do, i kind of feel like with strategy games that realising you have totally fucked up and restarting the level can teach you so much more than following the instructions of a tutorial for no apparent reason, maybe the first level should be easy and have reasonably specific and clear objectives but once you have done that learning by doing is better just following specific orders, but of course that is just the way i like to do things and that may not be for everyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe they should just separate the tutorial from the single player and trust that if a player wants to learn something specific they will use them and if they want to learn by playing that is what they will do, i kind of feel like with strategy games that realising you have totally fucked up and restarting the level can teach you so much more than following the instructions of a tutorial for no apparent reason, maybe the first level should be easy and have reasonably specific and clear objectives but once you have done that learning by doing is better just following specific orders, but of course that is just the way i like to do things and that may not be for everyne

 

I'm pretty sure that strategy game designers have found that people will skip tutorials for the campaign, then quit the game forever when the campaign doesn't tutorialize. At least, that's how my non-strategy-game friends behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now