The importance of base-building in an RTS is definitely on a continuum from games like Knucklecracker that are all base-building to games like Myth that involve no conception of a base whatsoever.

So you’ve started with the overbroad and indefensible premise that “base-building works”. You back up that claim by stating that some games that use base-building have been popular and lauded as good games. You therefore assert that because games have base-building instead of some other system, they are good RTSes–an assertion that you did not actually back-up in any way. It does not follow. You have to show me that base-building itself made these games discernibly better than if they chose some alternative.

You’re succumbing to familiarity bias in a big way.

So:

Popularity does not indicate quality. (Familiarity bias.)

If a game is of high quality and it has a feature X, it does not follow that if a game has feature X then the game will be of good quality. (Correlation does not imply causation… and there’s not even correlation here.)

So you can’t rightly claim that base-building works. You can rightly claim that base-building CAN work (because of Starcraft, etc), but I can rightly claim that non-base-building CAN work as well (CoH and DoW2). Neither of us has the upper hand, then. You can’t demand that people should make new games that use base-building and I can’t demand that people stay away from base-building.

Also, why should a game be “true” to its predecessors? Why can’t a new C&C game be a new game and not just a reskinning of C&C1? Clearly there have been some pretty big changes between the original C&C1 and C&C3. Do you defend all of the old systems with the same ferocity as you defend the abstract notion of base-building? C&C1′s system clearly worked, by your definition, so why should they have changed it at all when Red Alert came out?

Something works in a game when someone thinks it is fun. How do we determine if someone thinks something is fun? We can ask them, but they will almost definitely misattribute what makes a certain aspect of a game fun. Sometimes you have fun not because the game does much work to evoke fun, but instead because you are in the proper mood and you’re thinking about the game in a way that makes it fun. Some people can have fun doing mundane tasks like sorting cards–does that mean that sorting cards works as a game or a mechanic?

People enjoy mechanics that others consider broken. And sometimes fixing a mechanic breaks another because the entire system integrates poorly.

Unless you can tell me what exactly needs improvement and what works, you can’t tell me what kind of changes are “bad” innovation.

“Starting from scratch and trying to make a game that is unique (i.e. innovation for its own sake) is a great way for game designers to get out of their comfort zone and produce something that aggressively explores and opens up the space of possible game rule combinations.”

“There are also some problems with classing certain game mechanics as attempts at innovation–sometimes “innovation for innovation’s sake”-seeming stuff arise in systems constructed from the ground up independent of past experience (i.e. perhaps the designer didn’t know about a game that has a similar mechanic).”

Some, yes. I do agree that I can’t rail on everyone who makes something new that happens to just be a twist on something else or a perceived change of one thing to something worse.

I’d like to clarify something quickly before you go and make a blog entry.

My problem is more with “Change for the sake of change” and/or it being passed off as innovation than it is with straight up innovation.

When someone is actually truly innovative, I don’t think any of us can argue that it is bad for them doing something a new way. I take issue with attempting innovation — attempting to innovate on something or change the way something is done — when there really isn’t a need or when it’s being done simply because they want that facet of their game to be “new and improved”.

It goes back to trying to fix what isn’t broken. I don’t think this is anything new. I don’t take credit for being the origin of this way of thing. However, I strongly feel that people are starting to forget or stop caring about this concept. Why change what works? What not add to or come up with an entirely new concept instead of changing what works?

I hope for us to be able to communicate clearly with as little tension as possible. Discussion over debate or argument is my preferred method.

I’m going to make a larger post about innovation for innovation’s sake later on my blog (maybe in a few days). In short, I am not convinced that blind innovation is categorically bad. Starting from scratch and trying to make a game that is unique (i.e. innovation for its own sake) is a great way for game designers to get out of their comfort zone and produce something that aggressively explores and opens up the space of possible game rule combinations. There are also some problems with classing certain game mechanics as attempts at innovation–sometimes “innovation for innovation’s sake”-seeming stuff arise in systems constructed from the ground up independent of past experience (i.e. perhaps the designer didn’t know about a game that has a similar mechanic). You don’t have to address my argument here if you don’t feel like it. I’m not intending to spill that conversation into this thread.

Base buildings adds another layer. If you don’t like that layer then I won’t fault you for liking a more straight forward approach. I think a true RTS game needs base building. That’s how I prefer them. I don’t feel like buildings are “unimportant things” — they create your units, provide you with upgrades, increase pop cap, etc.

I’d rather not have a heated argument with you when ultimately we each like different things and that’s all there is to it. Go to my original post. You won’t find me saying that non-base building games are bad. I simply think C&C4 going that route is a bad idea (I will say that I like them less and think there is less to them, but that’s an opinion and not up for debate). C&C is an original RTS base building game. It works. It shouldn’t be changed.

Now if we shift gears to the innovation discussion (which I’ve had many times) all I’ll say is that I disagree with those who think that all innovation is good. I would go as far as to say that it is factual that not all innovation is good. My opinion on the matter is that we should not innovate just for the sake of saying “hey look, we’ve changed”. I think innovation is necessary when something doesn’t work or you want to do something better — or find a different way to do something. The creative process should always be alive, but I do not believe that, when it comes to gaming, we should always be trying to expand vertically to “the next newest thing”. Sometimes things are better left alone.

“Base building only adds to a game. It does not detract.”

It “adds” to a game in the sense that there is more to click in order to make technology advance. And that there are more unimportant things to destroy in order to win.

“Go watch a Starcraft tournament on youtube and tell me if you don’t see battling for strategic locations such as expansion points. You’ll see more battling over locations, more combat, and yes even base building on top of all of that.”

All that battling over “strategic locations” would still occur without base-building (see DoW2, CoH). And it would be more intricate and tactically interesting battling because the game designers can expect the player to pay attention to the battle and not be distracted by micromanaging their economy for a marginal resource gain.

I’ve watched at least 50 professional Starcraft matches and have yet to see how they do anythign to prove that base-building is superior design-wise to focusing more on combat.

“Sometimes I think people just hate what they can’t do well. It’s quickly coming to that these days.”

Ad hominems don’t improve your case so don’t bother with them.

“Example: Cultures and societies are destroyed by innovation.”

I assume that the commenter who quoted that quoted it correctly. Your anti-innovation arguments seemed to be based off of what you learned from some professor about cultures, from what you’ve said in this comment thread.