Will there be less and less PC games?

[Darian]

If it lacks all of the major characteristics of a genre, why should you focus on something like base building?

Because those were the most obvious example of things the most popular/typical RTSes use, and their absence is a strong indication that Dungeon Siege isn't much of an RTS. Other things, like the fact you can't move the troops in an RTS manner, or the fully-customisable inventories (which are not very RTS-like), are rather vague and easy to argue one way or the other.

an RPG ... Dungeon Siege is a hack&slash clickfest, nothing more.

Its genre is called "action RPG" ("hack & slash" is also fairly common), making it a subset of RPG. Games in this subgenre are often marketed as RPGs, with the specific classification being left to players and reviewers. It's no more a "true" RPG than Pokemon or Final Fantasy 48, but that's the way the genres are named.

 

[M@ster-$]

World Forge produces RTS with equipment customization: Ancient Wars: Sparta, The Golden Horde.

 

[Archonsod]

Producing PC games has never been profitable, since the very beginning only 15% of PC games have ever turned a profit.

Most PC games turned a profit. How do you think companies like EA and Ubisoft got so big in the first place?

Turning a profit isn't generally a problem, the issue is who the profit is going to. Publishers and developers have seen a steady increase in development costs at the same time as a steady decrease in their share of the money from each sale.

an RPG. ****'s sake... Why not a football mangare game while we're at it? Fishing simulator? Call me a faggamoffyn, but IMO merely having swords and magic doesn't make a game an RPG. Are you truly comparing Dungeon Siege to the likes of Baldurs gate? Dungeon Siege is a hack&slash clickfest, nothing more. Don't try to draw deeper meaning from it, there's none.

If Diablo can be called an RPG then Dungeon Siege is also an RPG. In fact, I'd say Dungeon Siege was even closer to an RPG since it includes an actual party.

Give them a few years and they might even be able to add roleplaying ....

 

[TheSlightFeelingOfRegret]

Producing PC games has never been profitable, since the very beginning only 15% of PC games have ever turned a profit.

Most PC games turned a profit. How do you think companies like EA and Ubisoft got so big in the first place?

No they didn't, that's an outright lie. And it is fairly obvious that profitable firm =/=> profitable industry. They got so big because they have large marketing departments and will only pick up the games that they know will sell.

 

[Archonsod]

No they didn't, that's an outright lie.

No it ain't. The only games that fail to make any profit whatsoever are crap like Dai Katana, which spent so long in development you'd need to sell to the entire population of China just to break even.

They got so big because they have large marketing departments and will only pick up the games that they know will sell.

Yes, because Marketing departments are completely free for businesses

 

[phbbbt107]

I didn't know Dungeon Siege involved tactics. All I did was click on enemies and occasionally use my super ability or change my equipment and spells.

Indeed, in the small amount of my now completed post that you could have seen in the time you wrote that response I was drawing attention to the fact; the features you describe are typical hallmarks of a strategy game, but they do not have to be present. It is strategy and tactics played in real time that should define an RTS though people often do not recognise the difference between those two, and, in my opinion, there have been so called RTS games that do not possess either.

According to dictionary.com, strategy is : "the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations." In other words,the arms race portion of most RTS's is actually strategy, since you're essentially planning your attack and the composition of your forces.

Unless you were trying to be ironic, then my assertion still stands. Dungeon Siege has no RTS elements.

And no Sudden Strike isn't an RTS. Wikipedia is right in calling it an RTT. There is tactical planning, but no strategic planning.

Number 1) I don't care about Dungeon Siege, Dungeon Siege is not the issue.

Number 2) An Arms Race is a strategy, I know that full well (you may or may not be interested to know that sarcasm is a kind of irony, from your use of the word I suspect that you do know, but it is much the same thing here.) I am saying that it is not an enjoyable strategy, it is time spent clicking or calculating and at the end you see something explode. I do enough of that in my everyday life, though explosions are rarely the positive outcome. I find any satisfaction gleaned from such a playing experience to be fleeting at best. Cutting off supply lines is also strategy, forming alliances is strategy, organising superior reconnaisance is strategy. I find these far more enjoyable.

Sudden Strike contains elements of strategy, though it is mostly tactics. The actual game is not the point, it's the way that I think strategy games should be is the point.

Sorry, I confused you with M@ster-$, so ignore the Dungeon Siege comments.

I suppose at this point we're just arguing about semantics. I agree that I would like RTS's to emphasize tactics more (Company of Heroes is a good example). However, they're still tactics. Things like flanking, calling in artillery, putting units in cover, unit formations, using abilities, etc., all that stuff is, by definition, tactical. I like to think of strategy as all the stuff that happens before and after the battle and tactics as everything that happens during the battle.

Producing PC games has never been profitable, since the very beginning only 15% of PC games have ever turned a profit.

Most PC games turned a profit. How do you think companies like EA and Ubisoft got so big in the first place?

No they didn't, that's an outright lie. And it is fairly obvious that profitable firm =/=> profitable industry. They got so big because they have large marketing departments and will only pick up the games that they know will sell.

Isn't that called "good business strategy?"

World Forge produces RTS with equipment customization: Ancient Wars: Sparta, The Golden Horde.

Just because an RTS has equipment customization doesn't mean that every game with equipment customization is an RTS.

When I put /RTS I mean that it has RTS elements. The main genre is still RPG. It is just not only RPG.

And RTS is not only base and researching.

Look at the definition of strategy I posted. Focus on the parts about "planning" and "large military movements and operations". Dungeon Siege has neither.

In Diablo-like games you click the mouse till it dies.

Dungeon Siege showed some tactics, micromanagement, behaviour selection, something else...

As you said yourself, Dungeon Siege has tactics. The only thing in that list that could be considered strategic is behaviour selection, and even that is a bit iffy.

Strategy =/= tactics.

And for the benefit of everyone, the definition of tactics from dictionary.com is:

1. (usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.

 

[M@ster-$]

World Forge produces RTS with equipment customization: Ancient Wars: Sparta, The Golden Horde.

Just because an RTS has equipment customization doesn't mean that every game with equipment customization is an RTS.

I was refering to Darian's post:

or the fully-customisable inventories (which are not very RTS-like)

To show that RTS can have equipment customization.

-

Well, seems like I confuse strategy with tactics