Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[freeformschooler]

I am not degrading anybody here, this is an absolutely dead-serious question. I have noticed that a lot of the users on B12 (and especially here, in Other Games) really love themselves a good RTS, in addition to the occasional 4X (ala Aurora and countless others) game. I'm putting this as a topic up -- if I get enough differing viewpoints, I'll probably put a poll up -- to ask why?

The core concept

Let's be serious here. No matter how much is added on to one of these sorts of games, they are, at their core, games about management. Resource management. City management. Star system management. Unit/squad management. And so forth! One of the primary things I would like to know is why this concept appeals to so many people, but particularly to the people willing enough to answer the question here. I've never really enjoyed it, but I've never really disliked it, either. I've tried to put myself in the shoes of someone who would play a game where they managed probably a million things, but I could never get into their heads.

The expansion

As we all know, "RTS" and "4X" are very different genres -- one (RTS) is management at a smaller scale, usually "managing towards a goal" AKA winning, losing, crafting the ultimate thing, and so forth. 4X games are generally larger scale, with a larger degree of resource and collective item (groups of people, groups of starships, groups of utilities) management. Yet, most 4X games I have played seem to almost be defined by not being "point A to point B if you can figure out which string to pull to get there". Civilization is a primary example: you usually play toward an end condition, yet by its fundamental nature, the game could go on forever. What I want to know for all this is which part of these types of games appeals to you most, and why?

The recommendation

If you are actually willing to give any sort of concise answer to those two questions, I can nearly guarentee that I would be willing to listen to your choice in games. I have not played very many management type games, just some of the major ones (the sim-whatever games, most of the Sid Meier stuff, of course DF, and a few others that I've heard of from multiple people). If you are after all this willing to explain what appeals to you most about your favorite game of this type, I might very well have to try it.

[Jack A T]

A good bit of it is the scale, for me.  Both RTS and 4X games have a much larger scale than, well, the majority of other games.  I like taking over the world.  I like taking over the world with a carefully gathered massive army of DOOM.  I like sending a large swarm of foot soldiers into a heavily guarded enemy base, escorting unarmed, but highly dangerous engineers.

When it comes to RTSs, I tend towards the tactical end of the genre: small squads, minimal reinforcements, much caution, and explodey stuff.

[The Scout]

RTS is just mass bum rush with large amounts of cheap units. 4x is a slower approach, to see the biggest battle or explosion.

[x2yzh9]

I've always liked 4X games. A lot of time it's due to the sci-fi nature that most of them entail, and other times it's the micromanagement that they allow you to make. I like micromanagement A LOT, but sometime's it way, way too much(See Supreme Ruler 2020) and a lot of the time 4X games are quite resource intensive(Not to mention the sandbox aspects, which I love). I guess what it comes down to is the kind of games you like. A lot of 4X gamers I know don't like racing games or FPS shooters, and I'm pretty much the same-Save for a few FPS(Usually AAA ones.) I don't like those two genres.

[freeformschooler]

Wow talk about so many different opinions  thank you all for answering the questions as best you could.

I gotta say, the few times I've played a 4X game that I did like, I ended up eating a few hours out of my life on it. For me, the most appealing concept about 4X games is the "eXplore" part of the 4 X's. I love discovering new things in-game, even if they are computer-generated. Same thing with DF, really -- I love digging into a fresh map and seeing what's there. That's gotta be one of my most favorite parts.

Jack's opinion is probably the one I've heard the most: the whole idea of the in-game and personal payoff to time-wasting strategic planning being massive. I guess that sorta makes sense.

[Soulwynd]

I only like some 4x and really dislike RTS. I cannot contribute much beyond telling you what I dislike about the genre.

First, I really hate the unit micromanagement. I don't mind the ability to give some specific orders, but units should be able to move on their own, take decisions and use their powers on their own. I like focusing on base building and general management instead of micromanagement. A nice RTS for me, would be one where you could give a squad of units a series of commands, such as take this path and kill everyone on the way, then take cover in this area. And they would do so on the best of their ability and judgment, taking alternative paths and orders if the AI thought it was appropriate.

That doesn't exist, so... I will keep away from RTSs until there's something like that.

(Oh, Savage is a fun rts because the units are players, but there are some problems with most matches that keep it from being truly fun.)

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

   I like that you can spend hours on it and end up in a different place then the start. Also you can lose for real. In games where its just you as the hero as long as you say that yes you want to continue you will never lose and at the end you may have saved the world but its just you still, you may have gained all the levels but so what. Its part of the reason I like roguelikes and such. When you win its because you actually won and not that you kept continuing after you died for umpteenth million time. Sure you could savescum but that defeats the purpose and disqualifys the win. Its like Dwarf Fortresses saying that "Losing is Fun" because in the end it is fun. It means something that you can and most games do not allow for this. I like my winning to mean something more than I have patience to keep working at it. If what I do means nothing besides how long it will take to win then the win inherently means nothing to me.

[Rakonas]

Honestly, I've always found 4X games odd. I play them, yet I don't get that much enjoyment out of them. I find the real enjoyment in strategy game is when it feels like you've accomplished something on an epic scale and if observed it appears to be a very good story. For some reason, probably the slow pace and the way that micromanagement increases as you succeed more, I rarely like 4x games. I don't really like RTS games like Age of Empires or Starcraft either. I vastly prefer strategy games like Diplomacy or EU3 where it's generally a zoomed out map view with more of a focus on diplomacy and intrigue than micromanaging how many additional pylons you need to construct or the amount of turns until your next settler will be built. 

[Sensei]

Well, obviously an RTS can be fun in the same way chess can: It's a competitive strategy.

As for 4X: haven't you ever wanted to rule a country?

[IronyOwl]

To some extent, having more things just sort of fills it out; by itself, managing food or military or city placement might not really be in-depth enough. Managing the placement of cities that will then consume and produce food and construct military units you then use to defend it makes it more of a full game. It's analogous to why there's more than one enemy in an RPG- it's just not enough stuff.

As the aforementioned implies, having multiple parts also means each part is different- making sure your citizens don't starve to death is often subtly different than making sure they don't revolt, and usually considerably different to making sure your enemies don't box you in or your economy doesn't crash. This would be analogous to why an RPG has multiple types of enemies- it's just more variety.

So to start answering your question for real, this combination means 4X games tend to be incredibly open-ended. There can certainly be relatively universal truths (whoring research is frequently extremely effective, for instance), but the sheer number of fiddly bits you have to mess with means that there's almost always a lot of depth and customization possible. If you see placing cities and managing food supplies and producing research and selecting which units to build and selecting where units go and deciding how to respond to your neighbors as more of chores to take care of, I would imagine it's not very appealing. If you consider each of those to be an interesting choice you'd like to make, you've just blown the "which helmet do I wear and where do I put this skill point" that most RPGs feature out of the water.

Finally, I like the building and changing aspect a lot. Most games aren't especially heavy on letting you do either unless it's scripted- you might manage to blow up a gate, or an enemy could burst through a wall so you can get through there, but in terms of "the world was like this, then I did this, now it's like this," you're pretty much stuck with either someone assuring you that the village of whatever is now safe, or that area you just cleared out can't be accessed anymore. The first certainly can be satisfying, but it's also usually predetermined; there's no way the village could not be safe without skipping that quest or failing and having to respawn. The second is more a punishment than anything else.

To tack onto that, I tend to like the RP aspect of 4X games. They're telling the story of a fairly epic struggle, after all.


I'm afraid I don't have any good answers for your other two questions. Galactic Civilizations II is pretty nice, I thought, but many people apparently felt it lacked depth.

That doesn't exist, so... I will keep away from RTSs until there's something like that.

Majesty and Dungeon Keeper. Sort of. You could also check out the Critical Mass LP; it's fairly simple but has automated squadmates.

[Soulwynd]

I didn't really consider those RTS. Dungeon keeper was more building your place in a decent working way. More similar to DF than your generic rts. In rts you don't usually worry about where your units are living or if they're eating enough, or if they're fighting eachother. You just send them to their death.

[NewsMuffin]

Because they appeal less to the masses, and more to smarter people.
Anyone can run around with a gun screaming insults at the people they shoot, but it takes a genius to control them and win.

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

   Its not intelligence its the way you think. Not just "anyone" can run around with a gun and win. It actually can take just as much strategy or more, the difference comes down to how you like to apply strategy not your level of intelligence.

[NewsMuffin]

True.
However, the last time I saw anyone use strategy in an FPS was... well actually, I never have. Well, besides 'Me use big powerful gun an run right into other guy and shoot and win.'
I realize that in real life, it takes much more than that.

[Sensei]

the last time I saw anyone use strategy in an FPS was... well actually, I never have

If you think that, you probably wonder why you keep losing.