Talk:Real-time tactics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Interesting feature on Rock, Paper, Shotgun that discusses the difficulties inherent of gaming terminology and attempting to define genres. Mentions RTT as well as us:

"Real-time Strategy: A genre involving tactically maneuvering troops around a battlefield. Differs from turn-based strategy games by being played in real-time. No, really. It was formalized with Dune 2 and then popularised with Westwood’s Command and Conquer then really popularised in Korea with Starcraft. As Westwood’s game suggests, the genre generally involves commanding (By dragging a box over your unit with a mouse) and conquering (by right clicking on your opponents). Particularly anal people will note that the vast majority of RTS games are actually real-time tactical games, but they are – as their name suggests – particularly anal."[1]

SharkD  Talk  03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it might fit into the article. Perhaps as an aside if the source can be deemed reliable.

With regards using as a cite for categorising games, I'm not sure what use it would be unless it specified the games themselves. Alastairward (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources

I added more sources to Chronology of real-time tactics video games. You might want to take a look at them and see if they can be used here. SharkD  Talk  01:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

More games?

Stormrise

It's is an RTS released last year on various consoles. Here are some quotes:

"In terms of gameplay, Stormrise is far from a traditional RTS. It's not so much about building a base and commanding armies as it is jumping from node to node with small groups of soldiers." (Reviewer quote) [2]

"In some ways, Stormrise is more of a real-time tactics game than an RTS. So, technically we haven't improved on the PC control scheme at all, but instead changed the rules to create an interface and experience that can be enjoyed on all platforms." (Developer quote) [3]

It seems the control scheme of most consoles is too limited to do a full-blown RTS. SharkD  Talk  06:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Fox Command

Quote:

"Single player game play is an interesting hybrid of real-time tactics, turn-based strategy and dog-fights. ... The game is broken up into a series of planets. When you arrive on a planet you are presented with a map that shows your mothership, the Arwings of whatever pilots you happen to have and the enemy partially shrouded in a fog of war. ... After clearing some of the fog, you get to move trace routes for your available Arwings. Then the game takes over at automatically moves your units and enemy units. If you run into any bad guys you go into dog fight mode. ... Once you defeat your enemies in a dog fight you jump back into the turn-based game until you run out of turns or destroy the enemy base." [4]

Not sure exactly what to make of this game. SharkD  Talk  08:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there scope to mention them as hybrids of sorts? Or is that needlessly over categorising them? Alastairward (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better to consider each game on an individual basis, rather than simply slapping a "hybrid" label on them without any sort of verification. SharkD  Talk  02:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do later reviews trump older ones? If a change is made, a re-review or the like? Alastairward (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What? SharkD  Talk  03:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If a game is rereviewed and a magazine or website makes use of the newer terminology? Alastairward (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems unviable to try to make a rule of it. There is nothing saying that newer is always, automatically or necessarily better or more correct, or the other way around. It is better to bring up questions for discussion than try to formulate stable rules from unstable and changeable contexts. Miqademus (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question. Alastairward (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to phrase yourself much more clearly. What question? The incomplete sentence that is a statement turned into question-form by an "if" and a question mark? I interpreted it as "if a game is reviewed several times, should we always use the word of the newest review to define how to classify the game?". The answer to that is: no. A review in itself is not definitive or necessarily even relevant. And the recentness of a review has no necessary bearing on its relevance. Miqademus (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An answer, thank you. Also, if you'd read through the section, the sentence starting "if" was to add to and clarify what I'd said before. Alastairward (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The way you keep outdenting your own comments affects me in similar way AS PEOPLE WHO TYPE MESSAGES IN ALLCAPS. SharkD  Talk  03:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why that even merits mentioning. It makes it easier to keep an eye on each individual comment. Alastairward (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

More like, it makes it easier to keep an eye on your comment. SharkD  Talk  18:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ShardD: wanton changing of indentation disrupts the flow of conversation. I also agree with him about "keeping track": why would we be more interest in your comments than in anyone else's? Finally, I did provide a clear answer. Please re-read my comment above. Miqademus (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hang, on I'm thrown here. Do you mean the conversation should continually outdent to the right until it's completely finished? Alastairward (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(Indented copy to indicate conversation level. -Miq) Hang, on I'm thrown here. Do you mean the conversation should continually outdent to the right until it's completely finished? Alastairward (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, yes, at least until it is impractical to continue. You seem to want to reset the indentation at your posts. Please stop doing that, it especially makes nested conversations impossible to follow. Regards, Miqademus (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War, Company of Heroes (series)

Two very similar game series by the same developer where terms get thrown around a lot. As I understand them, some base building and unit production is involved.

"Dawn of War II isn't like most RTS games, and that's on purpose. The developers look at it more like an RTT (Real Time Tactical) game instead. The single player is a unique blend of RTS/RTT/RPG (try saying that three times fast!)."[5]

"What we're seeing now with games like Relic's highly successful Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War series and its latest title, Company of Heroes, is a fresh approach that is delivering an immersive and fun game experience. These games are also redefining the genre by shifting the focus from 'real-time strategy' to 'real-time tactics.'"[6]

"The tongue-in-cheek space opera setting of Warhammer 40K and a real-time tactics formula developed by Relic were always meant for each other. This game is one strong contender."[7]

"With Dawn of War II, Relic aims to take things to a whole new level, effectively blending elements from RPG and RTS (or rather, RTT - Real Time Tactical) genres. It uses a similar cover system to that found in Company of Heroes, along with an updated Essence graphics engine, but adds even more destructible cover."[8]

"Even less of a traditional RTS than the multiplayer portion, it's almost easier to think of Dawn of War II's single-player like a cross between an action-RPG and a real-time tactical game. Each unit commander has a range of special abilities, in addition to the attached squadmates themselves. Rather than requiring some grand goal of map-wide domination, the emphasis is on the tackling of small-scale tactical situations--and in co-op, on the real-time collaboration between players."[9]

"Imagine a mix of RPG, real-time tactical and strategy titles, all rolled into a game about bad-ass Space Marines--and then add Diablo-esque loot on top of it all. That is the Dawn of War II campaign, in a somewhat vague nutshell. It's the kind of campaign where you spend 20% of the time just staring at the screen, stroking your imaginary beard, considering stat-point options and loot loadouts--then launch into a mission and crush Ork skulls to gain that next "blue" item."[10]

"With Dawn of War II, Relic aims to take things to a whole new level, effectively blending elements from RPG and RTS (or rather, RTT - Real Time Tactical) genres. It uses a similar cover system to that found in Company of Heroes, along with an updated Essence graphics engine, but adds even more destructible cover."[11]

Again, I haven't played these games personally. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DropTeam: Mechanized Combat in the Far Future

Quote:

"DropTeam is a multiplayer capable, real-time, tactical simulation of armored ground combat in the far future. ... You will use Dropships to land fighting vehicles and other deployable assets like sensors, mines and automated turrets on planetary surfaces."[12]

"First off, Drop Team, the real-time tactical simulation of armored ground combat in the far future, is now in the midst of public multiplayer beta testing which is reportedly “running very well.” The development team has recently released two auto-updates for the game providing a few tweaks and fixes. If the latest version “holds up for a few more days” they will most likely forward the game to gold status. The developers also sent word that they’re currently devoting most of their efforts towards finishing the single player campaign in addition to “some more spit and polish.”"[13]

This game is sort of like Allegiance in that most players pilot individual vehicles, but one player is given the overhead commander role and issues orders. SharkD  Talk  03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Alliances

"Dark Sky Entertainment unleashes Star Alliances, a "Massively Multiplayer Online Real Time Tactical" (MMORTT). See, new genres being created every day. Let's see here... Interstellar war, takes place in a galaxy with hundreds of environments, 8 planet types, 5 planet sizes, 100+ star systems. If you get mail in the game you can have it forward to SMS / Email. Tee hee, that could be a fun new way to spam peeps."[14]

Is it an MMO version of games like Sins of a Solar Empire and Sword of the Stars? SharkD  Talk  04:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

League of Legends: Clash of Fates

"League of Legends does not copy this formula. Rather, it manages to build upon the established rules in DotA to create a unique game that looks like it'll sit quite comfortably in it's own unique category. It's a little bit RTT (real-time tactical) with a dash of MMO-style PvP combat thrown in for good measure."[15]

An online "session-based multiplayer battle arena game". SharkD  Talk  06:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pirates of the Burning Sea

"Due to the intricate construction and historical function of these boats, there are numerous strategic ways players can use the ship's features to take advantage of the game's real-time tactical naval combat system, dynamic trading economy and global player vs. player gameplay."[16]

"In this massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) players strive to be the most cunning pirate, trading merchant, navy officer, or privateer on 18th century high seas. Pirates of the Burning Sea lets the player enjoy tactics, strategic adventure and swashbuckling action on the PC. This nautical fantasy developed by Flying Lab Software also features real-time tactical naval combat and movie-quality surround sound."[17]

Another MMO. SharkD  Talk  07:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New Cortex Command

"We just noticed, thanks to TIGSource, that there’s a new build of the excellent bunker-building, side-scrolling, robot-smashing, real-time tactical base-managing shooter, Cortex Command. ... Imagine if Worms was an unfinished RTS designed by an artistically-inspired robo-festishist. You’d be in the right kind of ballpark."[18]

Huh, what? SharkD  Talk  07:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Invizimals

"When in battle—which was described as 'real-time tactical combat by the developer—the PSP's face buttons trigger attacks that you carry out by performing some kind of motion. Examples that were shown including blowing into the camera to trigger an ice storm, waving your arm in front of the camera to send blasts of fire, and casting a shadow on the playing field to cause a lightning storm. The fighting looked fast and intense, as the player had to constantly cast spells and throw attacks to keep the other creature at bay. The PSP can be moved at any time, allowing you to view the action from any angle."[19]

The article doesn't go into any further depth regarding combat. SharkD  Talk  07:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of RTW's historical accuracy

Why is RTW the only game with a criticism listed in the entire list of games based on history? The only references are a site describing a mod (Rome Total Realism) which is essentially promotional (not WP:RS) and some random guy's blog on About.com (again not a WP:RS). This is trivially WP:UNDO, and I bet a quick google search of the other games would reveal equally reliable and numerical sources criticising them for their "historical accuracy." These are games, not simulations. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

UGO Networks is reliable per WP:VG/RS. You might want to start a discussion there regarding About.com. As for why it's mentioned - probably because it's the most popular of all the games. SharkD  Talk  04:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The game is notable, yes, but this supposed "criticism"? Do we have any reliable sources outside a promotion for the mod that establishes notability? Further, no other game in the list has any criticisms mentioned. The list is being used as a WP:COATRACK to mention this mod. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the undo of the undo since it is better to discuss here than to start edit warring. Though I have no strong opinion on the topic, my personal thoughts are that TW is a series based on realism, and that R:TW, which was intended to be the most realistic game of the series in the most tactical of the classical eras, is remarkable for actually turning away from realism, and was heavily criticised for it. Since RTT is a more "realistic" (or at least "believable") anchored genre this is relevant. However, I think that how the criticism is integrated into the section, not to mention the article as a whole, definitely needs work. Miqademus (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"The list is being used as a WP:COATRACK to mention this mod." Why do you say that? Nowhere is the mod mentioned in the article. SharkD  Talk  13:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, "I editted warred because it's better to discuss here than to start edit warring." Whatever, I'll start an RFC if you wanna play this like a vote. Your personal opinions don't really matter here. Do we have any sources establishing this "heavy criticism" of the game outside of the RTR development crew and their advertisers? I don't see that RTW has any more inaccuracies than any other game in the series. Regarding WP:COATRACK, including the sources which are simply promotions for the mod is a way to include a non-notable mod into an article, by piggybacking on the mention of a notable game. A mention of RTR is perhaps appropriate on the page for Rome Total War, but this is really not the place to discuss such specific about RTW. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, where does it say "heavy criticism"? Please read the article first before you go around cutting at it with a hacksaw. SharkD  Talk  17:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I started a thread regarding About.com on the Talk page of WP:VG/RS. SharkD  Talk  17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point entirely. Anyway, I believe the assumption on Wikipedia is that we don't include criticisms until they are notable, which means significant, which means more than one developing team's (and their sponsor's) opinions. See the RFC below. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC

A dispute has arisen about this edit which removes a supposed criticism of Rome Total War. Two sources have been provided for the claim that RTW was "heavily criticised" for being historically inaccurate. Both of them are promoting a specific mod for the game called "Rome Total Realism." I believe this gives WP:UNDO wait to a criticism essentially made by one small group of developers, especially when compared to other games in the list. Should this supposed criticism be included in the article in a simple list of Real-time Tactical games about history or should it be left to the game's actual page, Rome Total War? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If not clear from the prompt, I oppose inclusion of the disputed text. It gives WP:UNDO weight to a criticism made only by the mod's developer's and users. Further, this article isn't even about Rome Total War, it's about Real-time tactics, we shouldn't be going into depth about supposed issues with this particular game. No criticisms for other games are made here. Keep in mind that a lot of these games recieved worse reviews than RTW. So why is this supposed criticism even mentioned? People looking to read up on Rome Total War are going to go to that article, not here (now that I look at the article, this supposed criticism isn't even listed there!). We've indirectly referenced the article by mentioning the Total War series, so I think we should just leave it at that, and keep this list as a list.

I suspect a little WP:OWN is going on here per comments in the section below. I see a couple editors making massive revisions and reversion, as well as thinly veiled personal attacks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"violating realism" is an unnecessarily heavy term. I would prefer a citation to a broader piece rather than a shorter Total Realism related news snippet. For example, from the GameSpot review of RTW - "There's one common theme, however: the vast majority of Total War mods are attempts to fix historical inaccuracies Creative Assembly introduced into Rome: Total War and its successors to give the games more popular appeal. One of the most sweeping and successful of these revisionist mods is Rome Total Realism." - tells the reason why liberties were taken with historical fact, and mentions the specific mod too. The other games in the list need equal treatment. Marasmusine (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Which page is that quote on in the source you provided? I couldn't find it. That source does say this, however:

Rome: Total War is the third Total War game from England's Creative Assembly, and, to make a long story short, it's the best one yet. It was naturally expected to build on its illustrious predecessors, which featured epic-scale real-time battles and impressive attention to historical realism and detail.

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Marasmusine is actually referring to this article. If you look closer, it is Part 2 of a broader feature series on PC games mods. There are 13 parts in total. Not "news" snippets in any case. SharkD  Talk  22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the title of the article is, "Rome: Total War Game Mod." Not a WP:RS per this quote:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, nowhere did the article say "heavily criticised". That part was made up by the initiator of this RFC. Secondly, I don't think there are any special rules on Wikipedia regarding "criticisms" as opposed to other sorts of claims. I.e. I don't see what difference it makes whether it's a "criticism" or not. SharkD  Talk  22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Heavily" is implied by the fact that it is so notable that we need to mention it in an article that is not about Rome Total War. And there are all kinds of special rules on Wikipedia regarding criticisms, I don't know what site you've been editting. WP:UNDUE was created specifically for this sort of thing. If we created an entire section on RTW, perhaps a sentence would be appropriate to criticize it. But the only mention is a criticism. Why mention it at all? We have sources actually praising it for its historical accuracy. The result is a controversy and we don't take sides in Wikipedia. Hence, since the sources are conflicted on the historical accuracy of RTW, we need to leave out the debate entirely unless we want to cover it in full. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You've changed the passage to read: "Developers of a mod entitled Rome: Total Realism disputed the historical accuracy." This isn't supported by the cite either. The cite explicitly makes the point that revisions in terms of historical accuracy are common to nearly all mods of R:TW. SharkD  Talk  23:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean that promotional cite that is not a reliable source? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very passive-aggressive when somebody comes here as a fanboy and systematically changes things only to fit his own personal views. SharkD  Talk  00:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

More personal attacks? No response to my comments on policy? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have a particular issue with regard to UGO Networks, then please take it to WP:VG/RS. This site has been already vetted as a good source. Calling it "extremist" and "promotional in nature" just because it doesn't completely align with your views is not appropriate. SharkD  Talk  09:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Support exclusion. I was just adding review scores for Rome: Total War#Reception and did not encounter any notable reviewer claims of historical inaccuracy. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)