Article: THE ART OF WAR--A look back at Real-Time Strategy

 The drums of war echo on the winds...

Image source: classic.battle.net

Strategy games are the flip side of a Shooter--instead of playing the soldier, you're the commander. Like Shooters, Strategy games in some form or another have been around for a long, long time--in fact, they long predate video games. Though modern Strategy games are much more technologically advanced than Chess or Shogi(though no less complex--Chess is incredibly hard to master), the basic idea of commanding a moderate to large number of units and forming a plan to take out the opponent is as old as human conflict. Strategy games come in a variety of types--one of the biggest distinctions being whether they are real-time or turn-based. There's enough of a dichotomy that this article will focus on the former category.

CALL TO ARMS

While the roots of real-time strategy can be traced rather far back, the first really notable example is Dune II, released in 1992. It was much alike a prototype for the modern RTS system. If Dune II is the prototype, the first model would have to be the ubiquitous WarCraft: Orcs and Humans. Between these two games, the baselines by which pretty much every RTS operates were laid down: top-down(or isometric) view, mouse control, resource gathering, base building, et cetera.

These elements are still what define the genre today. While every game has different flavor, different units, structures, and a different universe, you'll still find yourself more often than not telling your worker to build what equates to a Town Hall and then harvest what might as well be called Gold. These elements remain steadfast for a simple reason: because they work. While it's an abstraction from how the real military operates, it's an effective system that's easy to understand.

Despite having a long history like Shooters, Real-Time Strategy games are markedly less common and less played amongst the general populace. Why is that? I can think of two primary reasons. The first: a well-balanced RTS is considerably harder to design, because there are a lot more elements involved and it's much harder to make them all mesh with each other. The second? Strategy games require more skill. Now, don't pull out your flamethrowers and generic effigies yet--I'm not saying they require more skill to be GOOD at; I'm just saying that while the basic system is easy to understand, there's still a lot more to learn for any given RTS than there is for any Shooter. It's harder to pick up and play, you see. This tends to mean that it'll be appreciated(or at least TRIED) by a smaller percentage of the gamer populace, and as such is a less popular gametype for production.

STAGNATION or CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS

The primary issue with the basic RTS formula is that the genre really hasn't evolved much over the 15+ years since that formula was initially laid down. Since each new IP has to go out of its way to make a new world, new units, and everything else from the ground up, most developers seem not to have time to really tinker with the basic formula. Sure, your first military unit might be an Orc warrior or an American with an M16, but either way it's a basic-level grunt with low-average abilities on both offense and defense. Some developers who have an existing IP, not to mention time and resources aplenty(*cough*Blizzard*cough*) almost seem SCARED to monkey with things too much. Blizzard actually had people COMPLAINING early on that StarCraft 2 looked too much like StarCraft 1. It doesn't stop StarCraft 2 from being a good game, it just stops it from really revolutionizing the genre with any new innovations.

 Anyone who can't see the difference could use some glasses, but I'm sure they'd whine about that too.

Image Source: us.battle.net

There have been games that modified the elements somewhat--Total Annihilation's gain/loss resource system and Age of Empires' 'technology ages'(much alike Civilization) are two good examples. But nobody ever follows the leader on this kind of thing--the next RTS you see will still have you building your Command Center and training workers to harvest *insert basic resource here*. Part of the problem is that Real-Time Strategy is nigh-impossible to adapt to consoles, remaining almost entirely PC-exclusive. While there's nothing inherently wrong with such exclusivity, being as so many developers work only for consoles, you have that many fewer minds actually working on these types of games and thus, that many fewer thoughts turning into innovations being made.

Despite this hindering the progression of the genre, I don't think that RTS gaming will ever really work for consoles due to input limitations. Mouse and Keyboard works so well and has enough buttons and flexibility to accommodate any Strategy game; game console controllers don't have near enough. Some interesting attempts have been made--Stormrise, I'm looking at you here--but they have always ended up failing for one reason or another--Stormrise, I'm looking at you again with your complete lack of a tech tree. You can't let me build the most powerful units in the game right from square one. It's a balance nightmare and makes the learning curve unbelievably steep since there's no logical unit progression to follow. Moreso even than Shooters, I think Real-time Strategy should stay a PC exclusive genre because of this crippling limitation. Curious about my inclusion of Shooters as PC genre? While it's become prevalent enough that I've had to accept it for now, Dual-Stick Control always has and always WILL be inferior to Mouse and Keyboard. Man up and use a real boy controller, Halo-playing frat boys.

SLOW BUT STEADY GAINS or TECH UP TO TIER 3

Despite the overall mired progress of the genre, advances have been made. New ideas in hotkeys, group management, and unit interaction have given the genre the same solid structure with new variety to keep gameplay fresh. StarCraft 2 is a perfect example of this. While people whined during its development for its resemblance to its predecessor, play StarCraft 1 for a while and then play StarCraft 2. Units group together within a control group to give you access to spellcasting hotkeys even with a mixed group, there's a much wider variety in the types of spells and abilities your units have, and they've even added some fun new things to the maps, like 'high-yield' resource deposits and neutral observatories to help out in your scouting or watching for incoming attacks.

A small but noticeable sub-genre has also appeared and flourished to some degree in its own right: RTS games that involve no base building at all! Despite base building and the tech tree being a cornerstone of the genre, it turns out that in the singleplayer sections of these games, you will inevitably have at least a few levels where you get only a fixed force and have to make do, managing your units to the best tactical advantage to win the day. Picking up on this, somebody had the bright idea to make an ENTIRE GAME out of this, since those levels are always extremely fun to play. The best example of this subtype I can think of is the Myth series. Even in multiplayer, you get only a certain number of units(though if the host allows it you can trade out units for one another based on a 'point' system that rates how worthwhile they are to an army) and have to use what you've got to outmaneuver, out-think, and out-play your enemies. It removes a major element of the genre, but adds a whole new one that drastically changes how it's played.

 Hey guys? The fire is supposed to be in FRONT of the zombies. Y'know, to stop them from axing you.

Image source: www.gamespot.com

Another element carried over from singleplayer missions that has made its way into a few core systems is the idea of 'heroes'. Not ordinary units, heroes are superior in one form another. Most of the time this involves a vaguely RPG-like leveling system that allows your heroes to gain in power as the game goes on, so that they're not too powerful early on and not too strong late in the game. WarCraft 3 was the most notable game to practice this style, along with Lords of Everquest and a game that started as a popular WarCraft 3 gametype--Defense of the Ancients. Whether the latter can truly be called an RTS is a matter of some debate, however, as it's more like an RTS where you only control the hero, despite the large battle raging around you that you still need to think and contribute to tactically.

WRAP-UP or VICTORY CONDITIONS

Real-time strategy, despite having a storied history, has only made slow progress in its evolution. It's unlikely that it's going to speed up anytime soon, what with the difficulty of development and the limited number of developers. Despite this, RTS gaming has achieved a mind-blowing level of popularity--I don't think there are any Shooters or other gametypes that could be considered the national sport of an entire country, with professional players and TV stations equivalent to Baseball or Football in America. Each new game manages to make enough variety and small improvements to keep us all hooked. I can't really fault these developers for their business plan, at any rate. It'll keep us hooked for a long time.

Still, there are some attempts at new ideas that have been made that really shouldn't fall by the wayside. The aforementioned hero idea a la WarCraft 3 has been used in several games, but really should be integrated more; while it doesn't work for every game, it's an easy way to have a unit to focus your army around and change the dynamic of your play. Another element that bears further exploration is a different resource system, like what Total Annihilation has. For those who haven't played it, instead of accumulating resources and spending them in whole amounts, each gathering building you have adds a positive modifier to your number of resource points per 'tick' of game time, and building anything costing that type of resource takes the time it takes to build and the amount into account when creating a negative modifier. It's a more fluid, realistic system of constant inflow and outflow instead of having to build up massive totals and then spend them all at once.
 
Truly good Real-Time Strategy games are spaced out enough that if I had to recommend a modern RTS to you, my options would be rather limited. Instead, I'll go a bit further back into history and recommend something that's a little different, but one of the best Strategy games I've ever played: Myth 2: Soulblighter(Image source: www.wikipedia.org). As it's part of the iconic 'no base' strategy subtype I mentioned earlier, it forces you to play tactically and make the most of all your units. The units are all incredibly well balanced against each other and mesh well even when you're using a mixed force of good and evil units in a multiplayer game. There are also some surprisingly real elements in the game, such as flaming arrows and how they interact with different terrain types and the spread of the resulting fire. It's a bit older and thus might be harder to run on a modern system, but it's well worth the effort expended, and the game has a massive cult following to this day.

That brings this week's article to a close. Is it odd that I've been listening to an RPG soundtrack while writing this? Hmm... I wonder what that means. Game on, folks, and I'll see you soon!