Glorifying War

[Wingflier]

Whelp, so CoH is a successful refinement of an old formula. It still didn't do anything to the standard RTS frame that suddenly made me go "Whoah, this is actually worth my time and money!". Maybe compared to other RTS games it's brilliant, but to me, looking at it from a slightly more detached point of view, the entire genre is stuck neck deep in conventions that it can't seem to dig itself out of. I'm tired and bad at explanations either way, but maybe I can express it like this: To me, CoH is only superficially different from, say, command and conquer.

Are you really calling the RTS genre knee-deep in conventions?

I think of all the genres, it's probably the BEST about breaking tired formulas and stereotypes.

Have you heard of the MMO Genre? The FPS Genre? Even the MOBA/ARTS Genre?

My goodness, if AI War isn't a dramatic departure from the typical RTS convention that you seem to be harking on, I'm not sure what is.

The game emulates real life as much as it possibly can, while still attempting to remain balanced and enjoyable for the player. Games like Wargame: Airland Battle take this concept to the extreme by basically removing resource-gathering altogether, giving you full-scale control of the entire battlefield, and giving units completely realistic interactions/damage tables for the situations in question.

Honestly, if you have a problem with most of the WW2-era games in the RTS genre, I think you have a problem with real life. Command and Conquer was completely inferior to CoH for the simple fact (among hundreds of others) that it was a really crappy emulation of real life. I could go into pages of detail of why the game mechanics and design decisions were also superior as well, but I highly doubt it would matter to you. Obviously any RTS games based on real war are going to have some similarities, but to look at those similarities and call them the same seems a bit disingenuous to me.

That's not to say that there aren't some amazing science-fiction RTS games out there (hello, Planetary Annihilation), but I do consider those quite different than the WW2 era games we're discussing here.

Out of curiosity, I'd like to know what elements of an RTS you think could be introduced to "completely reinvent the genre". I could probably list a dozen or so for the JRPG world right off the bat because their formula actually is that overdone. It's much more difficult to think of what the RTS world needs to change, if it needs to change anything at all. In fact, if anything, the RTS genre is the worst of them all about refining its formulas before they are changed. Company of Heroes 2 was a disaster, and much inferior to the original game.

[Shrugging Khan]

Egads! A wild wall of text!

I really should have specified two things: I was obviously NOT referring to AI War when I spoke of RTS games, and I never stated that other genres were any better.

I think I even mentioned my high opinion of Wargame (didn't play Airland Battle yet) - it tries very hard to break free of the old formulas, and succeeds in many respects. I don't particularly enjoy the game - too much micromanagement - but I certainly respect it, even though it's entirely incomprehensible to me why they would go through the trouble of making artillery fire at realistic distances while infantry can toss hand grenades over 300 metres.

Also, it's depiction of German landscapes is based on a sorely poor choice. Northern Germany is all flat and boring; the south would have been MUCH more interesting (though more difficult to do, I concede).

So to clear this right up, I am very much in favour of realism; the more the better (if doable).

I'll end this post on another polemic note before I go off to ponder it some more: My problem with CoH is that it is neither AI War nor Wargame:EE.

[Wingflier]

I think I even mentioned my high opinion of Wargame (didn't play Airland Battle yet) - it tries very hard to break free of the old formulas, and succeeds in many respects. I don't particularly enjoy the game - too much micromanagement - but I certainly respect it, even though it's entirely incomprehensible to me why they would go through the trouble of making artillery fire at realistic distances while infantry can toss hand grenades over 300 metres.

Grenades were removed in AB, though I'm not sure if for that reason. AB seemed superior (in my opinion) in most respects.

I'll end this post on another polemic note before I go off to ponder it some more: My problem with CoH is that it is neither AI War nor Wargame:EE.

That's fair. However, the smaller, more focus field of view was an obvious design decision. In my opinion, it was a particularly good design decision. One of my main problems with Airland Battle was, despite how amazing of a game it turned out to be, the fact that you played the entire thing zoomed miles out. As much strategical depth as the game possessed (and I think it is probably unmatched in that regard), the extremely zoomed out nature of it took the focus on actually enjoying the visceral battle, and more on enjoying the *IDEA* of what was happening. In other words, a lot of the success of the game was dependent on the player's imagination. That's not to say that the "zoomed in graphics" aren't beautiful, because they are. It's just that there was no reason to ever zoom in that far, and doing so would probably be a bad decision in the middle of a heated match.

Company of Heroes chose the smaller field of view to give the player a more "connected" feel I think. So in addition to still having numerous strategical and tactical options, the player also has the ability to enjoy what's going on while they're playing. There's really nothing like sneaking up on a group of poorly trained enemy units with an elite squad of soldiers and wiping them out superior weaponry, training, and grenades. Watching the German's Tiger tank plow through superior numbers of the American's Shermans is a joyous occasion as well. Unlike in Wargame, in CoH you can really enjoy all your small strategical decisions, like flanking an enemy tank, taking out hordes of bad guys with a well-placed sniper, or using a camouflaged infiltration squad to take out high priority buildings behind enemy lines.

All of this is to say that Relic's design decision, while greatly limiting the level of realism they could realistically achieve, made the game much more successful and enjoyable for the players, in general, than did the Wargame series. I think they did the best they could with the limitations they imposed on themselves for the benefit of the player.

[Wingflier]

FAITH IN HUMANITY, RESTORED.

[Draco18s]

33% off Ghosts is even a meaningless discount.  It still ends up being a $40 game...

[Wingflier]

33% off Ghosts is even a meaningless discount.  It still ends up being a $40 game...

I know a shitton of console gamers who would, could, and already have paid full price for it. In fact they'd probably be at each other's throat for a deal like this.

[Draco18s]

33% off Ghosts is even a meaningless discount.  It still ends up being a $40 game...

I know a shitton of console gamers who would, could, and already have paid full price for it. In fact they'd probably be at each other's throat for a deal like this.

And it gets worst game of the year from Yahtzee.

[Misery]

33% off Ghosts is even a meaningless discount.  It still ends up being a $40 game...

I know a shitton of console gamers who would, could, and already have paid full price for it. In fact they'd probably be at each other's throat for a deal like this.

And it gets worst game of the year from Yahtzee.

And I can agree with Yahtzee.

I'm with the ones here that really hate modern warfare FPS games.   And I mean ALOT.  Hate hate hate hate hate.   What they did to the genre perpetually ticks me off.  I used to LOVE the FPS genre, back in the day.  Doom remains an all-time favorite of mine, and so many games along that line.  Lots of exploration to do in huge sprawling levels full of complexity, fast and furious combat where you have to (gasp!) actually DODGE THINGS (a concept that modern FPS designers DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHATSOEVER), tons of enemies everywhere, each with varying levels of health, different movement/behavior/speed, different attacks, and so on, huge impressive bosses, tons of different weapons and items, and all in all, gameplay that is just GOOD all around, and requires lots of skill.  Oh, and taking hits in these actually freaking matters.  Wanna heal?  You use items from your inventory, if you're playing a game like Hexen that HAS an inventory, or otherwise you grab pickups from around the level, which are LIMITED.

Modern games?  Hahahaha NO.  Let's see... inability to carry more than half a weapon at the same time.... cant be confusing our players, after all, with CHOICES!!!!  They might not get their free win card if we do that!  Regenerating health, a concept that just sucks so much of the challenge out of the genre.... all you have to do is back up into an already cleared area and STAND THERE for a moment, and your guy magically heals!  Realism?  I THINK NOT.  Then we've got cover systems.... holy hell do I hate these.  All that dodging in the older games, with fireballs and lasers and crazy crap coming from all directions to create an exciting and purely skill-based battle of epic proportions?  Hah.  Not here! You hide behind a box, and every now and then you push a single button to pop out halfway, shoot, and then pop back down and heal some more before firing again.  And your enemies are dumber than a sack of hammers, so they wont like, you know, come after you or something.  They'll do exactly the same.  Predictable!  And then there's the levels.  Argh.  Argh.  ARGH.   Boring places, linear in all aspects.... cant have our players getting LOST, after all!  They might not be able to see the rest of the movie.... er, game, that is.  They wont get the full EXPERIENCE!  Cant have them actually losing, after all!  They might not buy our next boring and easy product if that happens!  Oh, and the core thing I've always absolutely freaking loathed in any FPS that ever was for any conceivable reason:  Sniping.  ARGH.   Of all things, by far the most bloody boring.  It's at it's most phenomenally dull in single-player modes in these games, because again, the enemies that make bags of tools look smart.... they're not going to be HARD to hit, particularly when you're stealthed (which usually you are).  And in multiplayer, it's at it's most ANNOYING.   Moving along, and BAM YOU'RE DEAD, due to an invisible opponent that shot your slow-moving dude exactly once.... sometimes a whole TWO times! ZOMG!   Oh, and let's not forget waypoints!  Again, cant have the player getting lost.... they might not reach the next cutscene!  Cutscenes.... another thing I loathe, and something which just blows the pacing to hell.


Really, this whole genre went from AMAZING to HYPERSUCK.  And no, I dont give an exploded rat about "realism".   These games?  They aint realism (again, things like regenerating health, among all sorts of other things that undo the idea of anything being realistic).Oh they TRY it, but then they trip over their own feet.  And the difficulty is nonexistent compared to many old ones.  Oh, I'm thinking plenty of players would disagree with that one.... but I've noticed that a major reason why people think games like these are hard, is simply due to the fact that modern games as a whole are so stupidly easy by default.  It's why you see games like Dark Souls being called "the hardest game ever!!!111".  Hint, it's not.  Damn near every game I'm really into is harder than that one.  Demon's Souls / Dark Souls seriously arent that hard, particularly once you understand the patterns of the enemies you face;  the combat is kinda slow-paced, so you dont have to react super fast during combat.  Memorize the patterns, and you've got all you need to start plowing through the game, just like in the first one.  That's not to say it's a bad game, as it isnt... at least the devs put SOME difficulty into it.  I applaud them for that.  But still, SO many games, just like the majority of the FPS genre in recent years, hold the players' hands SO much that they dont know what actual difficulty is.


And just to add insult to injury, I leave you with the best possible example of all of this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4yIxUOWrtw

Think of the way the original Doom plays.  How it works, how the game flow is, what the levels are like, the exploration, the enemies, the excitement.   And then watch this video, and possibly the two parts that follow it.  And note the major contrast.  And the thing is, while it's kinda funny, what the video shows is absolutely true, in that it really is how devs these days think now and how they approach all of this.

And these are supposed to be good games?

Just..... no.   

I'll stick with my epic battles against 10 zillion fireball-spraying demons amongst a room full of crushers and lava and arrow traps, thanks.   MUCH more exciting than hiding behind that box.

[zespri]

Regenerating health, a concept that just sucks so much of the challenge out of the genre.... all you have to do is back up into an already cleared area and STAND THERE for a moment, and your guy magically heals!  Realism?  I THINK NOT. 

Sorry, for cherry picking like this, but this argument always amused me: a healing station that heals you from 10% to 100% immediately is real and resting that heals is not. What kind of world do you live in? =)))) Seriously, the flying balls with an eye, that what you call realism? A combat system where when you are hit you get health percentage reduced? Many time it has been brought up that if damage in games were modelled after real world the games would be real boring: the first proper hit would make you a non-fighter in terms of any semblance of competitive advantage. And I don't even mention the healing speed in reality.

Let's face it, games are designed not to replicate reality, they are designed to be fun. If you think that healing while resting is a bad mechanic for the genre you might have a point. But with the realism argument you do not.

[Histidine]

Regenerating health, a concept that just sucks so much of the challenge out of the genre.... all you have to do is back up into an already cleared area and STAND THERE for a moment, and your guy magically heals!  Realism?  I THINK NOT. 

Sorry, for cherry picking like this, but this argument always amused me: a healing station that heals you from 10% to 100% immediately is real and resting that heals is not. What kind of world do you live in? =)))) Seriously, the flying balls with an eye, that what you call realism? A combat system where when you are hit you get health percentage reduced? Many time it has been brought up that if damage in games were modelled after real world the games would be real boring: the first proper hit would make you a non-fighter in terms of any semblance of competitive advantage. And I don't even mention the healing speed in reality.

Let's face it, games are designed not to replicate reality, they are designed to be fun. If you think that healing while resting is a bad mechanic for the genre you might have a point. But with the realism argument you do not.

I think you misunderstood: Misery's point is that CoD et al. put on the airs of being realistic but really, really aren't
(BLOODY SCREEN! so real!)

[Draco18s]

Sorry, for cherry picking like this, but this argument always amused me: a healing station that heals you from 10% to 100% immediately is real and resting that heals is not. What kind of world do you live in? =))))

Also think from the gameplay standpoint: A healing station at fixed intervals means that you actually have to survive to get there to use it.  Healing behind cover is equivalent to having a heal station behind every pillar and chest high wall.

[x4000]

I actually like the new thing where you can only carry a certain number of guns -- four seems to be a good number to me, rather than letting the player have 10.  When you have all weapons all the time (like Half Life 2), then you can just not use your best weapons, and instead use your lighter ones until you get to a boss.  Then boom boom, kill the boss with the big weapon, and keep going on.  Don't get me wrong, I love HL2.  But I thought that was a point not in its favor.

That said, a big problem with a lot of the newer games you are complaining about is that none of the guns have enough difference to really matter hugely much.  The reason I like a limited carry is because it actually makes for an interesting opportunity cost, and tense moments with low ammo if you bring too many big guns.  But the games you're complaining about don't handle it like that. 

Red Faction: Guerrilla is one of my favorite FPS-ish games (third person, but still a shooter) of the last few years.  The way that the choice of four weapons was handled was awesome, and the upgrade system was awesome, and the weapons were incredibly well-differentiated.  It was extremely well done.  Then of course the sequel was a linear train wreck, but still.

I agree that cover systems have no redeeming value.  Incidentally, I also feel that way about "grab onto the ledge and pull yourself up onto it" mechanics in sideview platformer games.  Incidentally, AVWW was criticized by a few people for not having that.  What happened to precision jumping?  The same thing happens when an FPS game doesn't have a cover system, these days -- it's criticized for being outdated or lazy a lot of the time.  Gah!

[Draco18s]

I actually like the new thing where you can only carry a certain number of guns -- four seems to be a good number to me, rather than letting the player have 10.  When you have all weapons all the time (like Half Life 2), then you can just not use your best weapons, and instead use your lighter ones until you get to a boss.  Then boom boom, kill the boss with the big weapon, and keep going on.  Don't get me wrong, I love HL2.  But I thought that was a point not in its favor.

Ironically I've been playing Deus Ex: Human Revolution carrying every weapon I can get my grubby little paws on (except the machine pistol, which is crap, and the 10mm pistol because other things are more useful in that inventory space) and haven't really had the opportunity to use the heavy rifle in a situation where it mattered.  The spinup time is long enough that in the one boss fight I had it for, it was useless (because the boss was invisible and the way to beat her was to stun her with the PEPS, then hit her with real bullets while she was stunned, the weapon switch time plus spinup time on the heavy rifle made it worthless.  Ironically I beat that boss because she bugged out and forgot to become unstunned.  Thank god, because I don't think I could have beaten her otherwise.)

So now I'm carrying around several weapons I have no ammo for because hooray: DLC mission that takes all your stuff away from you.

I think I'm doing to 1 more stun gun dart, at which point I'll have a combat rifle and a 10mm, no more than 20 bullets each.  Because when I loot enemies/storage lockers I get notifications like this:

Picked up 2 10mm rounds
Picked up 1 tranquilizer dart
Picked up 1 tranquilizer dart
Picked up 1 tranquilizer dart
Picked up 3 combat rifle bullets

Like wtf.

[Wingflier]

In terms of the "older games being harder", sometimes I think that's just nostalgia coming out from when we were kids.  We weren't as good at games back then.  Doom may have seemed difficult then, but I think if you played it again you may be a bit disappointed.  That isn't to take away from Doom, because it was an absolute marvel and achievement for the FPS genre.  I grew up playing that game.  I'm just not convinced that it's difficulty is as extreme as you're making it out to be.

It's true that most of these modern FPS games attempt to be realistic but fail in some (or many) fundamental ways.  It's also true that their "single-player campaigns" are extremely silly and pointless.  However, to be fair, most people know that these games (CoD, Battlefield, Halo, etc.) are made more for their online multiplayer aspect than anything else.  The single player campaign is really just a tertiary concern.  You could argue that the multiplayer aspect is really subpar as well, but that's where most the production values went, so if you want to judge the quality of the game, you should probably focus on that. 

I'm curious about what you think of a game like CS:GO?  There is no single player campaign to speak of.  They didn't waste their time or pretend to make a decent campaign (which we all know Valve can make).  They simply stuck with the multiplayer aspect and let the game stand on its own merits.

Taking a look at all your requirements:

1. There is no pointless "cover system".  You can't lean out from walls or press a button to "stick" to a box.  You can hide behind walls to avoid fire if you want, but you can do that in any FPS game (including Doom).  However, many of the high powered weapons can penetrate through think surfaces, so often times even that won't save you.

2. You can't regenerate health at any time during the round.  Once you've taken damage, you stay permanently hurt until the round is over or you die. 

3. You don't respond until the round is over, so there's a realistic portrayal of death and loss.  If you die without inflicting any damage on the enemy team, you've just become a a serious burden on your own by basically giving them an extra enemy to fight.

4. All your opponents are human, so you can't complain the the "AI is dumb".  The matchmaking system pairs you with people (on your team and theirs) which are similar to your skill level.  Typically you'll be pushed to your limits every game.

5.  There are ~20 official levels, with more coming, and countless user-created levels to play on community servers.  Granted, the levels aren't huge, and you'll end up playing on them a lot, but even after a dozen times, there are still new places to find, tricks to discover, and strategies to learn.  There's much more to discover, for example, than playing the first level of Doom 2 for the thousandth time.

Sniping is there, of course.  Aren't you the one who wanted realism?  Though it actually requires quite a bit of skill to die against good player because the zoomed out crosshair has been removed.  In addition, sniper rifles are extremely expensive to buy, and don't offer the same monetary rewards for killing people as the other weapons.  Cheap items like Flashbangs and Smoke Grenades make it much easier to deal with these players when necessary.  If you kill them as well, they are at a huge disadvantage because they'll be broke.

Yes, you can only carry a few weapons at a time (per round), but every new round allows you to purchase a whole new set of weapons.  With a whole assortment of pistols, shotguns, sub-machineguns, machine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, and grenades to choose from, your arsenal is much larger than in any single-player FPS I've ever played. 

So I think there are games that strive for realism and do it successfully while still keeping things balanced and fun.  Not all games are the CoD/BF/Halo equivalent, and I agree with you, those games are awful.  I just disagree that it's the only thing we're stuck with.

[x4000]

Both Counterstrike and Day of Defeat were excellent for me, personally, back in the day.  I have not played the more modern iterations, but in college I sunk a goodly amount of time into both those games with my roommate and wife.