What Defines an 'RTS' Game ?

[Jeffrey H.]

I'm just wondering, let's have a poll or discussion about what specifically defines an RTS game in the negative sense. I mean the term is used so derisively to describe some games or even elements of some games, we should be able to define what it is right ?

My thinking is simple; Clicks/Minute.

What's yours ?

[Oleg Mastruko]

My first thought is tanks or other armored vehicles doing circles around each other fighting from what appears to be arms length distance, trading half a dozen shots as their green health bars slowly decline.

My second thought is having some magical way of producing what is, for all practical purposes, UNLIMITED number of units of all types (in most RTS games it's "barracks" or base, in WIC it's simply a parachute drop at player's request).

Those are two most odious elements of RTS games for me (where's the "puking smiley" icon [:@]) 

[ravinhood]

A game that starts in real time, moves in real time constantly unless you pause and is a constant click and/or scroll fest and requires constant action/input from the player is an RTS game (with exception of FPSer type games that also run in real time). Now there are some hybrids that are turn based with real time elements to the combat portion. These are not RTS games nor pure real time games. They really are a class all their own since they don't follow the same rules of an RTS game that require constant fast clicking action/input and/or scrolling in a frantic manner. RTS games commonly use "strategy templates" for playing them. Pre-built often used over and over templates of strategy (normally copied from online websites) that rarely changes from game to game. RTS games impose faster than one can think events. RTS games do not have organized stoppage ala turn based games. The market normally determines what is an RTS game and what is turn based. RTW for example was marketed as an RTS game, though it has turn based elements in the strategy portion of the game. They really should separate these types of turn based strategy and real time combat games from complete RTS games since there are quite a few of them out there now.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

A game that starts in real time, moves in real time constantly unless you pause and is a constant click and/or scroll fest and requires constant action/input from the player is an RTS game

Well he specifically asked for a definition "in a negative sense". It's a good question and I gave my reply. Obviously every RTS would move in a "real time" or to be more precise "continuous time" but that's not telling much.

I am not a RTS hater, there are some good RTS games out there, but majority, sadly, falls into one of my "negative definitions" ("tank dance" or "unlimited production"), usually both.

Click fest? Actually I would not mind having a click fest game if it would be without my two mentioned pet peeves. (Having said that click fests usually accompany tank dance and unlimited production as almost inevitable third major element in most RTSes)

[Hertston]

There are simply multiple definitions, I think. The most narrow would be the Dune 2 (which is where it started), Age of Empires and Starcraft style real-time gather resources and build units sort of game. A broader one would include games that despense with the resource gathering bit and are rather more 'realistic', such as Company of Heroes. A guess all are 'click-fests', particularly when played competitively, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad games. It's a very popular genre. That broader definition would include games that are probably more likely to be played by folks here including CM: Strike Force (RT is the only way to play, IMHO), and Close Combat... but both are very different from the others I mentioned. The Prosim games are still real-time, but even more remote; they are hardcore wargames.

I guess an even broader definition would include continuous-time wargames, like the Airborne Assault games and Harpoon 3.. but personally I think an 'RTS' tag is totally inappropriate for those; it's just attempted guilt by association by certain persons.. ahem.. But.. even Harpoon can get a little frantic at times in that you can find yourself with a lot on your plate at once (just like RL commanders!)

Whichever definition you go with there are RTS games and there are RTS games. TBS is no different; there's a world of difference between TAOW 3 and Heroes of Might and Magic, but that doesn't mean either is 'better' than the other.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
broader one would include games that despense with the resource gathering bit and are rather more 'realistic', such as Company of Heroes.

CoH has resource gathering (only by another name), tank dance, click fest and unlimited production of units and is, IMO, simply terrible from a wargamer's POV, and of course from my personal POV [:D]

[ravinhood]

Commanders might have faced some of the decisiions in RTS games, the problem with them (rts games) are the non-realism in the speed of which a decision has to be made. A commander would not have to issue orders to every single unit in a given moment in 2 seconds as in RTS games. They would have sub commanders issuing those orders and or messengers to deliver their orders. When a person plays an RTS game he/she must become EVERY commander at the same time and that is where realism leaves those game for romper room antics. Just throw everything at a wall and hope for the best. RTS games will never be realistic and thus should just toss out the real time aspect of them unless they are going to actually depict REAL TIME as in second to second and minute to minute and hour to hour and day to day. Then an only then will a RTS game come close to the realism of a real battle.
 
Mad Minute came closest to doing it best in that the AI actually fights on its own until you issue it commands. The only problem with that type of engine is the AI is pretty lame and stupid and thus the player finds himself in as much trouble as he would if he just tried to control everything on his own. Real time might be fun to some, but, for wargaming I don't care for it since it takes too much away from the strategy and tactical aspects of the games. It also takes away from the chesslike nature most all wargames have been patterned after and they play much better being designed from a chesslike nature. Can you imagine playing chess in an RTS atmosphere? It would be like playing Archon which was a rediculously stupid game depicting chess and playing out a real time battle for the square with frantic clicking and jerking of the joystick.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
It also takes away from the chesslike nature most all wargames have been patterned after and they play much better being designed from a chesslike nature. Can you imagine playing chess in an RTS atmosphere?

LOL chess? Check out this "clickfest" [:D]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StnAGJDBjfo

I still manitain that, for me at least, click-fest-ism, by itself, is not the biggest problems for RTS games.

[cdbeck]

Asking for what defines an RTS in the negative sense is like asking "do you still beat your wife." There must be an expected answer to coincide with a biased view. I like RTS games, and I would define them in positive terms. Sometimes I think you "grogs" think that a person has to choose between "real" wargames and "click-fests" and not enjoy both of them for different reasons at different times.

Personally, I think the idea that RTS are not "real" wargames is silly. Oleg's view of CoH belies a certain bizarre disparity. Sure, CoH has unlimited production of units, a "tank dance," and... uh... clicking? However we all know, in Real Life(tm) each side waits patiently for the other to finish their moves and attacks before starting their own and all war is done in neat hexes or boxes. [8|] I don't see how the same people who criticize RTS unlimited unit production (and actually Oleg is wrong here, CoH has a unit cap, as does Warhammer: DoW, which relies on mobilization levels) as being "gamey" can sit down and play a pausable or turn based or hex based game and say "this is exactly how it is done on the field." Bit weird in my book...

SoM

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort
I don't see how the same people who criticize RTS unlimited unit production (and actually Oleg is wrong here, CoH has a unit cap, as does Warhammer: DoW, which relies on mobilization levels) as being "gamey" can sit down and play a pausable or turn based or hex based game and say "this is exactly how it is done on the field." Bit weird in my book..

Excellent argument and I actually agree. I am a BIG FAN of some sort of time based constraint and pressure in military games. FPS, RTS, online, off-line, turn based - whatever, some sort of very strict and tense time pressure surely helps with realism. Lower you go on a strategy-operational-tactics scale, worse the pressure should be.

Personally, on a tactical level I cannot stand turn based games anymore AT ALL. It has to be real time. So in a way you're preching to the choir.

Which real time, non turn based games "got it right" IMO?

Among operational level games, HTTR/COTA series, or whatever is the official name of this engine.

Among tactical games - Total War series got it very right (+ some clones of this series).

Massive (or not-so-massive) online FPS games like Red Orchestra, GRAW2 or (to some degree) Battlefield series got it right as well. This may sound like blasphemy to "hex and turn" crowd but playing the role of team commander in RO or BF is IMO the best tactical leadership experience one can get on a PC. No turn based Squad Leader clone comes even close to these games.

Having said that I still puke when I see little CoH tanks dancing around each other trading shots, while another pair of tanks is already being produced in a "magic tank shop" nearby. [:-]

[SMK-at-work]

Unlimited production is not a defining characteristic of RTS gaming - it is a design choice that can be incorporated in any game.
 
"Negative" RTS games are, IMO, those that require you to keep tabs of everything all at once to an unreasonable level of detail.  Tehre is only so much the mind can handle and many RTS games seem to try to overload the player as a means of adding "challenge".
 
Also "RTS" is meaningless at anything above the FPS/squad command level of command IMO......WW2 took almost 6 years....well a "real time" WW2 game would do so to.....but no, you're expected to make decisinos in an evening that governments took months to deliberate over.
 
So at anything higher than the personal combat level "real time" is a lie - you're on accelerated time.
 
Overall RTS tends to fail for me at the "believability" fence - can I believe that this is a rational mechanism and gives a rational result?  Usually no.  So I don't like them as a general rule.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Asking for what defines an RTS in the negative sense is like asking "do you still beat your wife." There must be an expected answer to coincide with a biased view. I like RTS games, and I would define them in positive terms. Sometimes I think you "grogs" think that a person has to choose between "real" wargames and "click-fests" and not enjoy both of them for different reasons at different times.

Personally, I think the idea that RTS are not "real" wargames is silly. Oleg's view of CoH belies a certain bizarre disparity. Sure, CoH has unlimited production of units, a "tank dance," and... uh... clicking? However we all know, in Real Life(tm) each side waits patiently for the other to finish their moves and attacks before starting their own and all war is done in neat hexes or boxes. [8|] I don't see how the same people who criticize RTS unlimited unit production (and actually Oleg is wrong here, CoH has a unit cap, as does Warhammer: DoW, which relies on mobilization levels) as being "gamey" can sit down and play a pausable or turn based or hex based game and say "this is exactly how it is done on the field." Bit weird in my book...

SoM

I don't have any problem with people liking RTS games, just don't call them wargames with any sense of realism because none of them come close to the realism of simulation turn based wargames do. It's not the mechanics of the wargame play that makes it a wargame though, it's the outcome and the reality of history it portrays in an historical manner. That's the POINT I keep trying to get across. RTS games are NOT real time strategy games or wargames, they are "ABSTRACT REAL TIME" they say 1 second equals 1 minute or 1 hour or 10 hours or a full day, that's where the realism of real time loses it's flavor and realism factors of a real war or even a battle do not exist.

On the other hand turn based games with chesslike features are built to portray the actual battle and the outcomes. Grand Scale being an exception because when you give players all the elements without restrictive rules to the war or battle they will change the outcome. If you play a battle of Avalon Hills Gettysburg 99.9% of the time the Union Player will win because the game is designed around the Union Player winning and having the advantage of the Ridges from the getgo. Granted some board socalled wargames are abstracted as well and tend to allow too much of a "whatif" and the outcomes are varied, those are not true wargame simulations either. But, a game that builds the rules around true simulations AND abstract or whatif features are the better of them all since it provides something for everyone. RTS games provide only one thing. A fast action click fest romper room style of play that is driven by a template that is played over and over.

They also can do nothing more as the risklike games of the Total War series. Merely place the player in an historical ERA with historical LOOKING units and they all end there in realism and historical value. Once play begins they become the romper room click fest games that they are. Only a very small handful actually come close to representing historical FACTS and that is the point of wargaming in the first place to recreate the battle or the war, not some hypothetical outcome from the word go. Now, it's fine to have an historical game with WHATIF's that those that want to play the whatif's can delve into, but, these should be ADDED features not the MAIN feature of the game if it's going to be called a wargame. When you get into whatif's you break away from the historical simulation though.

Now if you want to just depict them as mere strategy of moving numbers around at the speed of light then there's a positive difference there. For those that are into just moving numbers around as fast as they can and "he who gets there firstest with the mostest wins" then that's fine. Nothing wrong with playing a game like that with cute little animations to immerse themselves into some delusional belief they are fighting a real war or battle. lol I as a true wargamer just don't get into that type of silliness of jerking my wrist around and having to think faster than I care to. Just childish romper room silliness is all I see of it. He did ask for NEGATIVE aspects of RTS yah know?

[cdbeck]

Well, I disagree fundamentally with the idea that TBS is any more "realistic" than RTS. Sure, both points about RTS being abstracted time were valid and very astute (although to be fair, I believe the Real Time term does not apply to Actual Time - as in a game will take 6 years if the war took 6 years - but that the time continues to tick in game as it is ticking in real life, not in scale, but in tandem). Still, TBS may be chess-like, but war is not really all that chess-like (and to be fair, many tournament chess games are played in real time, and in cases of a stalemate, the person who used less time can win). Generals couldn't walk away from a battle and the enemy not move until the general was ready. In hex based games, the terrain is relatively transparent and totally known, there may be fog or war but typically, if he enemy unit is in sight you know its stength and morale (totally an unrealistic proposition). In some games, like the Battlefront or Battles in Italy/Normandy/Korsun Pocket you accurately know the odds an attack or artillery strike will succeed. Even in board games, a smart person can factor the odds when rolling dice (a luxury not always so accurate in war). If real war were chesslike, technology would mean nothing, logistics would mean nothing, terrain would mean nothing (all these things are absent in chess, just to fully disprove your analogy).

RTS is no less accurate than TBS. Neither really presents a very good picture of war. Both are amazing abstractions (RTS is overly fast paced and often has overpowered or overly numerous units, TBS boils down war to the war-room manuevering of troop models on a map that so often breaks down in real war - look at modern examples). Only very few games actually deal with issues of logistics, provisioning, supply transport, homefront morale, homefront production and workforce, public opinion, or any of the other things that war entails. It is ok to dislike RTS, if you don't like faced paced action games (for example prefer traditional RPG to Diablo RPGs) that is your perogative. But I feel we should stop being sanctamonious and call it like it is. No matter what wargame you are playing, you are not a "true" wargamer in any sense. You are a true gamer. Nuff' said!

SoM

[Jeffrey H.]

I really didn't think it would be easy to answer. But yeah, some elements like arcadey feel, overloading the user with required inputs, constant elevated levels of managment. Too much scrolling and clicking. Something a hyper little kid might like.
 
It seems easy enough but it's kind of hard to pin it down.

[Sarge]

Developers turned RTS into a four letter word not war gamers [;)]

[SMK-at-work]

All games aer abstractions.
 
For me the crucial measure is whether they are believable abstractions.
 
Designers often tout "playability", and seem to shy away from "realism" because playability is easy to achieve (no stacking, 10 pt strengths, simple movement costs & FOW options, etc) whereas "realistic" seems to involve a bit moer work.
 
I have nothing against "playability" - but if it doesn't produce a believable version of history (I'm not much into fantasy) then it gets a low mark from me.  RTS tends to score low on the believabilty score because generals had a lot of time to plan things and usually had only a limited number of problesm to deal with - or at least only dealt with a lot of problems to a fairly shallow level - they might get given some facts and figures by subordinats and reporting systems and have to make a decision....but having made eth decision there is an army out there that will carry it out more or less by itself.
 
Eg Churchill orders tanks loaded on a convoy headed for Nth Africa around the Cape of Good Hope.....well that's teh last he has to do - his government structure arranges for eth tanks to be delivered to the docks, loads them, assembles a convoy and escorts, sails them off, navigates, unloads and delivers to depots at the other end.  Auchinlek then removes units from eth front line for re-equipping and training, and 2 or 3 months after they left the UK the tanks are being slaughtered on a PAK front in the Cauldron....Churchill gets updates on progress of one of his pet projects, but otherwise doesnt' make any more decisions in the process!!
 
Typically in both RTS and TBS you have to plot the moves of the convoys, allocate where the equipment is going to at the other end, and attend to many more details.  In RTS you have to do all this wile also keeing an eye out on all sorts of other indicators in your game - miss something and you're in trouble in a way that simply never happened...the same applies in TBS, but at least much less so sonce you can review your move before your finish it.
 
And you might pick up the problem next turn before it has escalated out of control.
 
Neither is perfect....but TBS (and WEGO) systems are more error resistant IMO.
 
 

[ravinhood]

While I concede the point that nothing is totally realistic out of tabletop or computer games (because they ARE games afterall), the turn based chesslike aspect of a turn based game gives the individual more of an unrushed time for actual "quality" input and play into the simulation being presented. When we look back at the wargame tables of our recent past WWI, WWII, even the Civil War and all the wars inbetween, the commanders didn't grab a joystick or mouse and some silly RTS game and pretend to delve into the outcome of that particular war, or battle in some abstract speed bubble of rediculous time frames as 1 second equals 1 minute, etc. etc.. They moved minatures and tiny flags around on a huge map ala turn based and even had TIME to discuss these maneuvers, there were no rushed RTS aspects in the "PRE-PLANNING" of the battles ahead. They also had the luxury of TIME to plan out those battles, but, of course we know a plan is just a plan until it is carried out and hardly adhere's to the pre-plan as planned, BUT, that is what the die roll and the CRT is for when playing these CLOSEST to HISTORICAL COMMANDING value turn based games. The element that is of most value to a commander is TIME and turn based games give that TIME to make decisions whereas RTS games do not. High level commanders were not RUSHED to make SPLIT SECOND decisioins when commanding Armies, Corps, and Divisions. Even the sub commanders of these Armies, Corps and Divisions were not rushed to make such decisions. So, in an RTS game when I'm commanding a CORP of units I shouldn't have to maneuver them in a 2 second time frame every 5 seconds.
 
Also, ALL chess games do not play in an RTS manner or specifically timed turns. There are "some" tournament play in actual time (speed chess), but, it's hardly what the majority of chess players play like, same as for turn based wargames vs real time or RTS kiddy games. Comparing how the games are played in competitive chess tournaments is apples an oranges to this discussion. We aren't talking about multiplayer here nor competitive tournaments. We are talking about how low RTS games are compared to turn based gaming. Actually we are merely talking about a definition for what defines an RTS game, but, we all get a bit OT don't we?
 
Thus, the negatives of RTS games is the speed of actual real time they use which is far from realistic in the sense of time used. That they cannot depict an actual simulation of a war or battles in those wars. Look at Paradox's HOI, it hardly comes close to the actual outcome or reality of WWII and the battles of it. It too falls into a risklike game using WWII features and maps. That it requires the loss of what is actually going on overall of the map and with ones units without input. That's a big issue and not too many games take that into effect. The total war series doesn't and every other rts game I have played doesn't as well. What real war/battle do units just sit there and get pounded on and not fight back? That doesn't happen in a turn based game. All units will be active as the player gets to them. RTS games cannot depict real war or real battle activities, well most of them, there are a handful two I can think of maybe 3 that the AI plays even as the player plays in a real time atmosphere.
 
Resource gathering is about as silly as it gets in an RTS game. Having to build buildings and upgrade them in the faster than light timeframe as you try to fight the battle at the same time. Producing units out of some abstract barracks or pregnant machine to either a capped supply or an unlimited supply. Using the rock, paper, scissors combat method as the outcome of winner/loser is probably the most rediculous. Instead of using proper stats and values of the units based on terrain and experience and morale and command or just a bad hair day.
 
I see a lot of people play the "realism of command" card when it somes to discussing real time RTS vs turn based. But, the thing they always leave out is there's not just ONE commmander involved in a real battle or war. There are 1000's. There's no way to get the feel of what a real commander feels or goes through in an RTS game because not a one models it realistically mainly because of the speed of TIME element they use and the need to input actions and commands to every single unit in some form or fashion in unrealistic time. If you're not going to use real time then it's not a real time game it's a gamey time game, but, I repeat myself here.
 
Now, I see some games getting to that point where you either start out paused before battle and can issue orders before the battle starts. LOMSE, SPARTAN, TROY, Bull Run 1 & 2 by Mad Minute are a few games I can name that does this. Then as the overall commander you only have little or no input during the battle (but, then you jump to a sub commander and have more input except for Spartan and Troy which do not allow added commanding). That's fine in an RTS game that's what they all should be to reach what I think is the true reality of commanding a BATTLE, not a war though. Commanders didn't run around the map like a chicken with their head cut off after the battle started issuing orders and then turn around and build a barracks and then tell some pregnant factory to churn out peasants that he has to tell where to go and gather resources. Many of them fought after giving initial plan orders and sub commanders shouted maneuvers and/or orders or individual troups just gave themselves their own orders after the battle started (routs don't get many commands to rout yah know   ). With occassional inputs from Hill Commanders who would have the tactics change during the battle with flag or hand signals and later on radios.
 
RTS should be considered negative in a negative definition by just the letters alone. First of all it's not played in a realistic real time element. Second there's not really any strategy to them whatsoever. There are "templates" of build structures and maneuvers one uses to win. I don't see much strategy in that, but, I guess there's enough there to call it a strategy thus the S part of RTS gets definition.
 
When I think of say a game like WitP as a RTS game I just get a big belly laugh. I wonder how many of the grogs of the "turn based" WitP game would rush out to buy the RTS version?

[Kuokkanen]

For me RTS is any game where multiple war units are controlled in seemingly real time. That counts at least Dune 2 and its sequels and clones, Close Combat serie, Ground Control serie, MechCommander serie, Command HQ and clones of it including COTA, Hearts of Iron and sequels & clones, Settlers and sequels etc.

Then are games which involve plenty of strategy and tactics, but generally player is in control of one unit and has only limited control over other friendly units. For example in Starfleet Command player has direct control over just one ship at the time and control of other ships is limited to commands that Starfleet's fleet captain (rank was mentioned in some TOS episode) might bark over radio.

What comes to negatives... if there are lots of units on the map that player needs be constantly babysitting. For example in Supreme Commander is AA unit that can fire ground targets too, but only if appropriate command button is hit while unit is selected, and after that it won't shoot air targets until that button is hit again. Now imagine 50 of those units all over huge map along with 500 other units... This is big step backwards compared to Total Annihilation where unit with multiple target type capabilities attacks targets by its own discretion (though torpedo bombers attempting hit fighters with their torps is funny).

Now there are some hybrids that are turn based with real time elements to the combat portion. These are not RTS games nor pure real time games.

Are you referring to Combat Mission series? For that I agree.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

My first thought is tanks or other armored vehicles doing circles around each other fighting from what appears to be arms length distance, trading half a dozen shots as their green health bars slowly decline.

My second thought is having some magical way of producing what is, for all practical purposes, UNLIMITED number of units of all types (in most RTS games it's "barracks" or base, in WIC it's simply a parachute drop at player's request).

Those are two most odious elements of RTS games for me (where's the "puking smiley" icon [:@])

They don't all have the resource management/unit creation aspect, quite a few games went out of their way to get away from that. Ground Control being the first, I think.

[ravinhood]

Another negative aspect, not being able to really enjoy WATCHING what you are playing. How many have played a battle of an RTS combat like in the Total Wars and missed 1/2 to 3/4ths of the action? How often do you get to zoom IN and watch the action? When the battle is nearly over that's when. What good are 3D fantastical lookin units when you have to play scrolled out to keep a good grip on what is happening over the entire battlefield?
 
Also eliminating the micromanagement is just one thing to fixing RTS games, there is still the CLICKYfest left after that. It's the SPEED of the battles that are the real negative issues with RTS games. Not that they are real time really. Mad Minute did it great, why can't others copy this type of battlefield speed? LOMSE has a 3 frames per second speed that's perfect for playing that little real time combat, why can't others do this? Crusader Kings has an excellent GAME speed overall with what they call "very slow" settings, why can't ALL RTS games have these speed settings. I remember playing AOE the first one with it's slowest setting and it was too dam fast. lol What I don't like in RTS games is using PAUSE or any real time game for that matter. I hate having to hit an extra button over n over n over again just to keep up giving commands. I'd rather see the slowness settings that go sooooooooo slow even the groggiest of turn based grogs would like it. Like ME. Choice of many settings of speed of play should be in every RTS game and they should follow the speed choices of Paradox games, Mad Minute and LOMSE, then I could get into some RTS games. I'd love to play Company of Heroes, how's the slowest combat or action speed setting in that game? I think I read someone had to make a MOD for it and there wasn't any decent settings within the game itself.