Killzone 2 V.S Halo Wars (Feb 09 Battle)

[ZenfoldorVGI]

makingmusic476 said:

Um...I'm not even sure how to respond to this, lol.  So comps can play cheap, and you think it's unfair?  Or am I missing something...

And then there's the multiplayer, which involves almost no AI at all.

 

 

Nah man, my points isn't "list reasons why I don't like RTS."

My point was that we still don't have the ideal control setup for such a game.

In most games, turnbased, or action, we can perform the actions we want as quickly as we can think them. Either that, or the game is artificially slowed down to accomplish this(turn based).

RTS on the other hand is a large map that doesn't completely fit on the screen. Scrolling, selecting, targeting, all of these things are hinderances brought to us by the need to use a controller, but they arent' the focus of the game(like in a shooter). Instead they are a necessary evil of the control scheme.

If we had "good" controls, for the game, we would be able to control our armies as fast as thought(which is how fast any CPU controls games). Point and click.

Thus, we don't actually have any "good" RTS controls created yet, in our lifetime. We only have "fair" controls, and "sucky" controls.

 

A solution that some games have experimented with are creating small, or "mini" maps, that we can control and select multiple armies with and dispatch, recall, target, or resupply them directly by maniuplating their paths on the map, rather than in the game.

Unfortunately, this innovation in control of the RTS, ruins the game. Instead of looking at the game, you're looking at a map which is a representation of the game. So, nobody allows full control via minimap on their RTS. They know if they did, the gamer would only use the mini-map, and the game would be lambasted for it. Afterall, a game like that could be done on the SNES.

Until we develop a control style that is as quick, or nearly as quick as our minds can deduce courses of action for our armies, we'll never have "good" controls for a RTS.