Steam Sales and Metaplace Fails

Sorry Metaplace people, I couldn’t help it.   The title was too catchy to pass up. 😉

Today was one of those days where it felt like no one else was on the internet.  Forums were slow and the best the news sites could come up with was telling us Leonard Nimoy voices something and Maple Story has tv commercials now.  It’s the dreaded Christmas Crawl.  Tons of little stuff worth talking about though.

Steam’s Holiday Sale
Tons of stuff for cheap!  It makes me absolutely ill to see stuff selling for under half what I paid for it not more than a few months ago.  Amazing deals though on hundreds of games.   Stalker for $1.99, Torchlight 50% off, even games that haven’t come out are on sale like Global Agenda.  It’s nuts!  I might actually pick up Left 4 Dead 2 which is also on sale for $37.49 as a Christmas Present.

Metaplace goes *poof*
There wasn’t any game.  Aside from everything I’ve ever seen appearing to be about a decade late, it just lacked… anything palpable.   In my opinion they need to take the talent they have and make an actual game.  Their problem isn’t a lack of talent in my opinion.  Raph has a decent grasp of the social workings in a mmorpg.   Neat idea but ultimately I believe you really need a game somewhere underneath it all.

Army of 2: The 40th Day Demo
I like it!  I was a little skeptical at first.  It was feeling a little bit like they took what was nearly perfect and decided to make it shinier and better and in the process killed the soul of the game but once things got going I discovered it hadn’t really been lost after all.  I’m not blown away by the graphics or the performance.  There was noticeable delay in the weapon customization screen and some minor slow down while playing.  I saw enough to know I’m going to get and play the heck out of it.

C&C 4
I don’t like this new Tiberium stuff.  It looks like the Dawn of War control points.  I’m also hearing there isn’t base building anymore.  Bad idea.   Just stick with what works.  Base building is great.  Tried and true isn’t something you should try and innovate on.  That goes for everything out there.  Don’t fix or change what isn’t broken.

Allods Online
CBT#3 starts December 29.  They’ve also updated their FAQ to include a line that says there will be other closed beta tests.  Whether or not that was just an oversight since they edited their CBT#2 FAQ or not I don’t know.  I thought I had read that CBT3 would be followed by open beta (which is launch).  This next phase raises the cap to 30 which will include PvP and another dungeon (Castle Blight).  I’ll be sure to take lots of video and let you all know how things progress.  If you’re looking for a guild then check out ours.

  • Why is base-building so important to you? Once again, you appear to appeal to tradition for authority.

    I’ve had far more fun playing Company of Heroes and Dawn of War II and other games that involve no or limited base-building than I have playing games that do. Focusing on conflict and not having to micromanage your economy is a huge plus.

  • I was going to buy Tropico 3 and Call of Juarez: BIB for a clean 30 bucks, less than what each game normally costs.

    only to realize, I have no money in my account.

    FUUUUUUUUUUU

  • It would be changing the C&C model that bothers me. I liked DoW but I prefer base building. Watching the video describing the new system didn’t sell me with any justifiable reasons to make the change. I’m not saying anything against games with base building, but changing a game with base building to something else doesn’t work for me. I enjoy micromanaging a base and micromanaging units.

  • If everything that was ‘tried and true’ wasn’t experimented with or changed, then we would still live in caves and throw rocks at eachother.

  • @Kim

    Change for the sake of change though is bad. I played DoW 2 and if SC2 doesn’t have base building I wont play for more than a month.

    Without base building you more or less remove half of the strategy from the game.

  • “Tried and true isn’t something you should try and innovate on. ”

    You really need to stop thinking like this. Innovation is always a good thing – it’s the only way our species moves forward.

  • Base building is an integral strategic part of RTS games.

    There is a strategy to how you build your base, lay out your buildings and manage your economy, just as there is with how you use your units.

    Taking strategic depth away from a game isn’t a good thing in my book.

    Starcraft without base building would be much less of a game. I’m sad to see C&C fall on this bandwagon of unit spamming your enemy down without any regard to economy or pacing.

  • I like some base building, but I think the model with points you have to take is awesome. Company of Heroes and Dawn of War is the best model I think. It feels more fast paced and focus in on the action

  • Correct me if I’m wrong but Company of Heroes HAS base building, whereas DoW II featured dropping units in from orbit.

    I like base building in SC2. Older RTS games favored base building and a lot still do. With that said, I’m not against a non-building model, such as the one in DoW II.

    As far as economical management goes, there is really just a cosmetic difference between games like Starcraft and DoW II. In one, you mine resources for producing troops. In DoW II, you capture strategic points that constantly add to your requisition points. In both cases, you are managing your economy.

    As far as taking strategic depth away, I can see how not having to spend resources on structures as well as units can have an impact. On the other hand, in games like DoW II, strategic placement of units behind cover, in specific stances/firing modes, and knowing when to use special abilities are the focus. While one focuses more on economic depth the other focuses on combat depth. You’re just trading one for the other.

    One could argue for ages whether a game like Starcraft 2 has more strategic depth than a game like DoW II. Regardless of that, however, one must realize that when professional RTS players jump into these games, you realize that whatever level of depth you thought existed is just the beginning. They have the ability to make the most simplistic looking RTS games complex and deep, and that’s why they win.

    It’s like thinking you’re in the deep end of a pool, only to realize that you’re in the shallow end after someone jumps in.

  • CoH has base building but it’s still very limited in scope compared to the traditional model. There’s no resource gathering and only a few building types. CoH is my favorite RTS and the game that got me to realize I don’t need extensive base-building to enjoy an RTS. When I’m bouncing units from cover to cover, firing off special abilities, and flanking enemy positions, I stop caring about peasants mining gold and building armories.

    World in Conflict is another great RTS that ditched the traditional base-building mechanics.

    I still love some games with the older mechanics, I’m just saying.

  • “Bad idea. Just stick with what works. Base building is great. Tried and true isn’t something you should try and innovate on.”

    That’s just silly, Keen.

  • @Andrew: Change for the sake of change is not a good thing. That’s where I stand on the issue and will not stop thinking that way. Innovation is not always a good thing. Innovation is actually tied to destruction in many things beyond just gaming. Example: Cultures and societies are destroyed by innovation.

    Innovation is not bad. Innovation for the sake of “changing it up” is a bad way of thinking. If you need to innovate something then do it. If you come up with a good idea then use it. But don’t seek to change something that works simply because you want to “change it up”. I don’t see changing the tiberium system from a tried and true method to a “capture the point” method as being innovation anyway. It’s changing from one system to another that already exists in other games. Why the change? It definitely removes depth from the game.

  • Keen,

    Base building is akin to grinding in MMOs. It provides virtually nothing but a door to a tech tree. More micromanagement = bad. Give me micro in the fights, in the combat. But for god’s sake, if I want to play SimCity, then i’ll play SimCity.

    I’m certainly glad RTS producers are either eliminating base building completely or reducing the games crutch on this facet of the game.

    Give me better combat and more tactical options. You want buildings? Go play CitiesXL.

  • @Crackbone

    You are 100% wrong. Base building is a crucial part of most RTS games. Anyone who has played at a competitive level in StarCraft know how important managing peons is, or the lay out of your base, or attacking the enemies supply chain.

    Watch any high ranked StarCraft match. This change you guys are promoting is REMOVING strategy from a game and I hate it. You are essentially making a game easier because you are unable to master the higher skilled aspects of a game.

    The way DoW2 did it works for that game because it fits more to how the table top game is designed. If anything DoW2 never should have been about base building, because that isn’t what Warhammer is about.

    However C&C and StarCraft were always about building a base, and removing that from the game is removing part of the strategy.

    Change for the sake of change is bad. Keen makes a good point that some developers are trying to innovate simply to set themselves apart. That is a bad idea. Why exclude a GOOD game feature simply to be different?

  • @ Nobs

    You’ve completely proven my point.

    Starcraft and C&C (previous to the newest iteration) are from the “old school” thought process around RTS.

    The base layout and managing your peons is old and tired. It’s been regurgitated for the past decade. RTS designers that begin to figure out that strategy doesn’t necessarily have to mean CPM, will be able to open up this genre to people who haven’t dabbled in it before.

    I’ve been RTS gaming since Dune II. Yeah, a long damn time. RTS needs a major refresh and it needs new blood. The concepts themselves have to change to bring new people into it. It’s the only way RTS is going to survive.

    Companies like Relic, like Eugen(with RUSE)are the only reason this genre will have a shot to get some additional lifeblood. Old and tired ideas and rehashes like SC, etc, serve nothing but to stagnate the genre.

  • @Crackbone: I guess this is a classic case of the gaming generation gap.

    I see base building as strategy.
    You see base building as in the way of the prize.

    I see base building as depth.
    You see base building as “grinding”.

    I see base building as one of the best parts of a RTS.
    You see it as “regurgitated from the past”.

    We’re at an impasse.

  • I want a game where we don’t build bases, harvest resources, or build units. Just flip a coin and see who wins.

    I don’t want to be burdened with all the extra work.

  • Keen :

    Yeah, unfortunately, I’ve been on this earth longer than you have and unfortunately have played out the base building out too many times to count. Fortunately, most of the RTS designers are starting to see things my way.

    Graev : LOL.

    Give me the work at the combat level, where tactics actually matter. Company of Heroes was a great example of this. The micro was at the combat level, not so much @ the base level.

    Additionally, Relic put together a great model for economy as well, one of which simulated more of a “reality” with supply lines and alike.

    To both of you guys : Have a nice holidays.

  • Men of War is my favorite RTS by a long shot. There is no base building involved. However, there is more strategy and micromanagement than any other game I’ve played.

    I suggest checking it out.

  • Wow, thanks for the Steam tip. Their website is great. I was going between it and metacritic before I realized that they listed the metascore in the right corner; you can even sort by metascore if you choose the view all games in this genre option. Back to their website, this could take awhile…

  • Just because something old doesn’t mean it’s bad. You are falling into the same mindset of change is always good.

    Some RTS games can benefit from a no base design, DoW2 is one such. However Starcraft is by and large the most popular RTS of all time. Alot of the games success came from base building and design, though alot of other factors played a part.

    You can change base building without removing it. Right now we have two styles of RTS games, one with bases and one without. To be honest neither is revolutionary and having played both I feel the one with bases offers more strategy.

  • I dont think its a matter of more or less strategy but rather where the focus of the strategy is. I’m I agree with Crackbone. The focus on the strategy should be on the battle and combat. Not do I have enough peons gathering gold.
    And saying that innovation for innovations sake is bad, is ofcourse right. But you make it sound like these guys dont think this is really a good idea, which I think is wrong. So saying that they change it, just to change it is wrong imho

  • “Tried and true isn’t something you should try and innovate on. ”

    You really need to stop thinking like this. Innovation is always a good thing – it’s the only way our species moves forward.
    ————————–

    Seems like some of the comments are directed that Keen’s statement and not the premise of his argument.

    Base building is not “old” technology and the lack of base building is something new and innovative. It is just a different style. You can easily have the base building AND make new innovation to that style of play.

    C&C has been a game with the base building style – if someone is a fan of the series…I’d imagine they like base building…to switch it around and adopt a new style can easily turn a lot of the fans of the old style of.

    I dont think either has anything to do with innovation – and the discussion of his quote is kind of pointless because we’d just be discussing semantics and silly cliches.

  • Shame to hear that about C&C4. I was really looking forward to another classic C&C game. I just picked up Dawn of War 2 and although I like the idea of just controlling units, I miss the old fashion base building aspect. It just won’t be C&C without it…

  • OK I take what I said back about the Steam site; after reviewing and selecting games for ~40 minutes, I went through the account creation and purchase process and 1 hour later I still can’t complete it and there was no obvious phone number to contact a representative. They use a rinky dink FAQ driven support system to eventually be followed up by an email response setup in which one needs to create a second support account. Why would anyone want to go through that kind of hassle to order a few games, I don’t know. Perhaps the system is down, who can guess…

  • Gankatron, download STEAM and do all your purchases through it. I never have a problem with them. Email them and they usually respond and are really helpful.

  • I agree with nobs
    also lol @ greav i like your game idea when does development start? can I pre-order?

  • Removing base-building from a game shifts the focus of strategy.

    Base-building is mostly an unnecessary motor-skill and memorization test. Good base building is about memorizing placement tricks and quirks that allow you to block off narrow passageways and ramps or screw with the pathing of your gatherers so they produce 3 more resources per second. It’s about raising your supply limit exactly as you need more supply.

    In an RTS, every second spent in one place is a second lost in another. Every second you spend messing with your gatherers and placing buildings (that are usually only duplicating a technology tree) is one second you aren’t spending on battle tactics and strategy. If the RTS is about conflict and battle, then the player should be able to devote as much time as possible to managing the conflict, not puttering around and potentially turtling their way into boredom-land.

  • i don’t think it’s a gaming generation gap, Keen. i think it’s an interest gap.

    I can appreciate that some gamers like the niche of simcity/rts that was prevalent before. and i can certainly appreciate that others like the RTS games that focus less on basebuilding and more on combat management.

    this goes back to champions online … you’re a ‘respected reviewer’ to a great extent. whether you like it or not, your blog has actually transcended the stage of ‘crazy gamer dude who spouts random opinions on the web’ people value your opinion.

    so when you post stuff like “innovation is bad” etc etc. you just seem uninspiring and obtuse. I think people expect more of you as an ‘expert’. Instead of a 1-paragraph rant they want something meatier, like an analysis of the paradigm shift in RTS games from the old simcity model to the new combat tactics model, weigh the pros and cons from a neutral perspective. You’ve done stuff like that in the past, and it’s been good.

  • Never said innovation is bad. I said innovating on the wrong things and/or for the wrong reasons is bad. Big difference.

    I’m not interested in writing an analysis of the paradigm shift in RTS games. That’s not my style. If my opinion has indeed become something more, then I’m going to continue being myself. As such, I’ll point out that changing C&C from a base building game is a bad idea. Occasionally I’ll get analytical and create a big thesis-like entry, but right now I don’t think it takes paragraphs to point out an opinion.

    And it really is a gaming generation gap. It’s not an age thing like Crackbone so haughtily tried to assert. “Next-gen”, “this generation of games”, and other uses of the word generation have created a divide amongst people. The “WoW generation”, when talking about MMO’s, is clearly definable. There is a generational gap here too. You have the people who have aligned themselves with this new generation/style of RTS and those who have aligned themselves with the original way.

    New games being made with the “DoW Style” won’t get flack from me for doing it that way. I may not like them as much, but they were created as a new idea. Games made the base building way then changed to this different style will get flack from me if I feel that their original base building suited them more and that the change is unjustifiable.

  • Keen, you did say “Example: Cultures and societies are destroyed by innovation.” That one made me do a double-take but I’m assuming you didn’t really mean it globally, probably in some more specific sense.

    I understand now that you’re talking about the C&C family of games going this route, and in that sense I can agree that one of the founding fathers of the RTS better have really good reasons for such a drastic change. Some of us (like me) are new DoW generation, some of us are the old C&C generation. When an old franchise tries to get on board with the new hotness, fans revolt, and it’s understandable. Tale as old as time.

  • @Buddydude: Correct. I just spent an entire semester listening to a professor ramble on about innovation being one of the leading factors of destroying the something something culture/society in such and such a place (and dozens more). I tied it in to there being unnecessary change in gaming because of this perceived “all innovation is good innovation” idea. There are times and places when innovation has disastrous results. That’s all I’m saying. I think changing something that works because it’s not some “new way” is one of those cases.

  • @Evizaer

    Every game can be dumnied down to “memorized motor skills test” if we really try.

    Putting out the effort to get those 3 minerals per second more than your opponent is strategy.

    Then you go back and say “very second spent in one place is a second lost in another” which is a weak argument for multitasking. That is a huge skill needed for high level RTS play. Removing aspects of the game so weaker gamers can more easily focus on the fighting aspect of the game reduces the over all strategy needed for the game.

    People seem to think that the only place strategy has it’s place is on the front line. As mundane as it seems logistics can be just as strategic. Where do you think Scorched Earth policy came from?

  • @Keen

    Cultures are not analogous to game systems and games. Why do you assume that they are and what makes you think that they are?

    @Nobs

    “Then you go back and say “very second spent in one place is a second lost in another” which is a weak argument for multitasking. That is a huge skill needed for high level RTS play. Removing aspects of the game so weaker gamers can more easily focus on the fighting aspect of the game reduces the over all strategy needed for the game.”

    No. This is not at all what I was talking about. You can’t successfully design tactically interesting combat in a real-time game that requires intricate base-building because the player cannot look both at his base and at his combat units on the field at the same time. Focusing a game on combat means that the tactical options in combat can be expanded significantly–your player will be focusing on combat, so he’ll be able to and expected to use these tactical options often. Players can spend their time managing multiple battles instead of barely having time to manage one battle as they micromanage their economy.

    “People seem to think that the only place strategy has it’s place is on the front line. As mundane as it seems logistics can be just as strategic. Where do you think Scorched Earth policy came from?”

    There is strategy in logistics. (The adage comes to mind: “Amateurs study tactics; the best generals study logistics.”) But the scope of a real-time game doesn’t have to be (and probably can’t be) all aspects of waging war–and RTSes generally do not engage with the entirety of war. Instead of engaging with logistics in the half-assed fashion of “base-building”, games could focus entirely on combat and battlefield tactics. You can gain the important effects of having base-building without requiring the player to place buildings and micromanage their economy; it’s been done in CoH and in DoW2.

    Besides: fighting over VPs generates more interesting tactical scenarios than trying to outright destroy your opponent’s base. At least in my experience.

  • @evizaer: You’re just being difficult. I simply mentioned them in passing as an example. Never once did I base any argument on the comparison. Forgot the culture example entirely. Changes nothing.

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

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

  • @Keen

    “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.

  • And, regarding base-building:

    “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.

  • @evizaer: I’m not saying that base building is superior. I simply said I like base building more. I also said that I don’t see why a base building game should be changed to a non base building game.

    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.

  • OK. We can simply disagree here. I would like to have a discussion about the virtues of base-building, but you don’t seem to be up for it.

    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.

  • I’m willing to have a discussion about base building and non-base building. I would like it to be more than blanket statements. Maybe we can pick a certain aspect or a few things at a time to break down and really get into the heart of the issue

    “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.”

    I actually am in favor of this. I see nothing wrong with making an entirely different game or type of game or attempt at something. What I have a problem with is when a developer takes something that has worked well one way and radically alters it. Incremental innovation is often a much better thing.

    “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.

  • Who determines what isn’t broken? We have to be able to determine what isn’t broken before you can claim that people are trying to fix what isn’t broken.

    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.

  • Sometimes you can’t see what’s broken, even though it’s staring you right in the face. That’s because it often takes a radical change of perspective before you can see things that others so blatantly see. Until you willingly or unwillingly change your perspective, you won’t see it.

  • Well, base building for one. It does work. I can name several games where base building has not only been successful but where the game itself has gone on to be a timeless classic (Starcraft). Take the Warcraft RTS series. It’s heralded as one of the best ever made and same for the C&C series. Why should C&C change it? I think the burden of explanation falls to those wanting to change something rather than those wanting to keep it the way it is; especially when the model has worked for many years. That’s what I’m getting at here. Why the change? Is it because someone said ‘Hey let’s change it up’? Perhaps you can explain why? You can’t say base building is less popular — facts point to a vast majority of RTS gamers preferring it. It’s not making sense.

  • There are hundreds of RTS games that have completely and utterly failed that have included base-building. Why should a few successes arbitrarily cement a few mechanics into “they obviously work” status? The fact that a game has base-building does not correlate strongly to how fun the game is. You should care about how the game implements base-building, not the mere fact that it’s a part of the game.

    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?

  • And base-building/non-base-building is a false dichotomy, anyway. It’s so abstract as to be useless to us when discussing the quality of the game. We can only classify a game based on it.

    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.