What's One "Old Game" Mechanic That You Don't Miss?

[noob]

Personally, I don't particularly enjoy getting lost. So games without maps negate a lot of their potential entertainment value.


Here's one: I am of the view that when Supreme Commander came up with strategic zoom, any RTS or TBS over a large landmass has no business not having at least some version of it. The ability to get a decent and immediate overview of the strategic situation is far too useful, and renders the classic minimap in the bottom of the screen at the very least obsolescent.

Alas, because halfway decent RTS games are about a common as hen's teeth in this benighted age, I will tolerate this lack in any that do come along.

I think the ta series of games(ta then the supreme commanders) was rather awesome despite TA itself having no balance it have tons of awesome to compensate and each game of that series have a more epic scale.
I wonder why so many rtses focus this much on "balance" rather than focusing on epic over the top awesomeness.
I guess it is because you can not get a game in the competitive scene for long with poor balance.

[GloatingSwine]

Pardon, but I read this as

"Sorry, but if the game includes gigantic labyrinthine interiors as part of the regular challenge, I fail to see a reason to not negate that challenge and obviate the purpose of the maze-like interiors entirely."

The whole point IS the difficulty, which you solve by either manually mapping or remembering landmarks. A minimap would defeat this, and trivialize a substantial portion of the engagement and entertainment value.

Then again, I'm also one who cut their teeth on the Wizardry series, starting with the original, so I'm no stranger to manually mapping.

On the other hand, "Ain't nobody got time for that".

Making your own maps on squared paper was fine when you were young and had (seemingly) infinite time, for those with jobs and kids to wrangle it's an unnecessary obstacle (plus nobody just has paper these days, everything is computers which have a way of making trivial tasks like drawing a map way way longer).

Games should, if they're going to have any form of navigational component, at least include an automapper.

That's not to say it can't have strings attached. Literally the best map system in any game ever is in Hollow Knight, in which:

1. Each area has a map that has to be bought somewhere in that area, so your initial exploration has to be done without the comfort of knowing quite where you are.

2. When you have bought the map, it is only partially complete, so you still venture into the unknown when you reach the edges of it (which also aids with environmental storytelling because the more dangerous areas have less mapped).

3. Your map does not update as you travel, only when you rest (or die). And resting respawns all the enemies.

So you have the modern convenience of a map that lets you know where in the world you are, and the feeling of being off the grid and a bit lost in a new and hostile place.

[Anteros]

It just depends on the game to me. I don't want to spend a ton of time lost in a maze for no reason, but some games where exploration is the emphasis benefit from not having a map. An example of this would be Subnautica where the lack of a map forces the player to memorize landmarks and different fauna/flora to determine where they are and how safe the area is. It forces more interaction with the world, where if you had a map it would really detract from exploration.

[warty goblin]

I think the ta series of games(ta then the supreme commanders) was rather awesome despite TA itself having no balance it have tons of awesome to compensate and each game of that series have a more epic scale.
I wonder why so many rtses focus this much on "balance" rather than focusing on epic over the top awesomeness.
I guess it is because you can not get a game in the competitive scene for long with poor balance.

I think a reasonable part of the decline of the RTS is due to their need to cater to the competitive scene, which dictates a focus on online pvp, balance, and from what I can tell highly micro intense tactics. These are not things I get the sense that most players enjoy very much; I know I've always preferred something with substantial imbalance but great spectacle. You'd have to pay me to play Starcraft 2, I still dig Dawn of War.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

On the other hand, "Ain't nobody got time for that".

Making your own maps on squared paper was fine when you were young and had (seemingly) infinite time, for those with jobs and kids to wrangle it's an unnecessary obstacle (plus nobody just has paper these days, everything is computers which have a way of making trivial tasks like drawing a map way way longer).

Games should, if they're going to have any form of navigational component, at least include an automapper.

That's not to say it can't have strings attached. Literally the best map system in any game ever is in Hollow Knight, in which:

1. Each area has a map that has to be bought somewhere in that area, so your initial exploration has to be done without the comfort of knowing quite where you are.

2. When you have bought the map, it is only partially complete, so you still venture into the unknown when you reach the edges of it (which also aids with environmental storytelling because the more dangerous areas have less mapped).

3. Your map does not update as you travel, only when you rest (or die). And resting respawns all the enemies.

So you have the modern convenience of a map that lets you know where in the world you are, and the feeling of being off the grid and a bit lost in a new and hostile place.

Automapper does not equal minimap.

To use your own example of Hollow Knight, which I agree was a great implementation, there is no little map in the corner telling you where to go. If you wanted to check your map, you could, but the game is not paused and you can get attacked while your bug is looking down at his map. Also, your bug's location does not appear on the map unless you equip a charm, which then takes up a charm slot a more useful charm could have taken instead.

Hollow Knight also doesn't force it down your throat if you don't want it either. You can completely ignore Cornifer and his wife's storefront if you want the additional challenge.

[Keltest]

I think a reasonable part of the decline of the RTS is due to their need to cater to the competitive scene, which dictates a focus on online pvp, balance, and from what I can tell highly micro intense tactics. These are not things I get the sense that most players enjoy very much; I know I've always preferred something with substantial imbalance but great spectacle. You'd have to pay me to play Starcraft 2, I still dig Dawn of War.

My impression is the opposite actually. Developers have focused on spectacle over making something that's simply fun to play, and that's where they lose people. StarCraft 2, as you pointed out, long had "we think the most exciting moments come from worker harassment" as one of its guiding principles, and it did untold damage to the playerbase over years as the game went further and further in that direction. They are, finally, starting to turn it around and recognizing that just because it looks cool doesn't mean its a good thing to have in the game, though progress is rather slow on that front.

[The_Jackal]

My impression is the opposite actually. Developers have focused on spectacle over making something that's simply fun to play, and that's where they lose people. StarCraft 2, as you pointed out, long had "we think the most exciting moments come from worker harassment" as one of its guiding principles, and it did untold damage to the playerbase over years as the game went further and further in that direction. They are, finally, starting to turn it around and recognizing that just because it looks cool doesn't mean its a good thing to have in the game, though progress is rather slow on that front.

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more. The drive to make games more viewer-friendly, due to the rising importance of streaming platforms and the industry's (imo futile) turn towards monetizing e-Sports, has resulted in many games introducing mechanics which are, simply put, contrived to introduce shock moments for the audience. Much like how the NBA has hamstrung defensive play so as to promote scoring and therefore Sportscenter highlights, much of gaming has started to adopt systems and mechanics where the game does something spectacular on behalf of the player, rather than giving the player a set of tools and letting the player themselves do spectacular things.

[Erloas]

RTSs are struggling because they're being looked at the wrong way. An RTS is only "successful" if it can beat Starcraft in competitive players eyes. Which means build a game that normal players have no interest in playing, especially anyone not interested in PvP. So they try to build a game to an amazingly small player base's desires, trying to beat a very established competitor in that space, then wonder why they aren't selling very well. It also doesn't help that a good match takes quite a while to play and a lot of players don't have enough time to sit down to actually finish a match.

[Keltest]

RTSs are struggling because they're being looked at the wrong way. An RTS is only "successful" if it can beat Starcraft in competitive players eyes. Which means build a game that normal players have no interest in playing, especially anyone not interested in PvP. So they try to build a game to an amazingly small player base's desires, trying to beat a very established competitor in that space, then wonder why they aren't selling very well. It also doesn't help that a good match takes quite a while to play and a lot of players don't have enough time to sit down to actually finish a match.

Age of Empires 2 seems to be doing fairly well. Admittedly, I haven't exactly researched the numbers, but it seems to have a solid playerbase. I think a significant part of the reason for the decline of the RTS is that MOBAs provide a similar competitive experience without taking two hours to finish a match. For bonus points, whenever you lose in a MOBA, you can vent your spleen on your team mates, whereas its hard to complain about balance in 1v1 without looking like a baby.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Age of Empires 2 seems to be doing fairly well.

I'm not sure that counts as an argument against Erloas' post though. Aoe2 is a game from the same era as Starcraft, recent remaster of a remaster not withstanding. Around the year 2000 all the RTS's go full 3D graphics, which leads to less clear visuals and smaller numbers of units, leaving the genre struggling. (The main exception is probably Homeworld, which came really early in this wave of games too. How did they make that game?) and by the time computer power picks up to where you can have a full 3D version of the RTS's that sold well the genre seems to have been sort of permanently sidelined. The most notable exceptions are sequels and remakes. What happened there? Or is this just perception and were RTS games always about as niche as they are today?

[137beth]

I actually forget that Minecraft doesn't have a map by default since I believe JourneyMap is the single most commonly used mod, to the point that it even shows up on servers meant to be largely Vanilla. It may as well be added by default because a server or modpack that doesn't use it is as rare as hen's teeth IME.

However, AFAIK a majority of Minecraft players are on Bedrock edition, which doesn't have mods.

[warty goblin]

RTSs are struggling because they're being looked at the wrong way. An RTS is only "successful" if it can beat Starcraft in competitive players eyes. Which means build a game that normal players have no interest in playing, especially anyone not interested in PvP. So they try to build a game to an amazingly small player base's desires, trying to beat a very established competitor in that space, then wonder why they aren't selling very well. It also doesn't help that a good match takes quite a while to play and a lot of players don't have enough time to sit down to actually finish a match.

Thank you, you have said exactly what I was trying to communicate, but did a much better job.

I've always liked RTSs for letting me screw around with an accessible quasi-simulation of cool nerd crap. Starcraft never did it for me in part because I never liked the art style, partly because it never felt like the game was representing anything except shuffling pieces around the board, but also there was a sort of soullnessness to everything. Like all the weird rough edges had been sanded off for the sake of a bit more balance*. I much prefer the attitude of something like Dawn of War or Battle for Middle Earth 2, which are far less concerned with being a perfectly balanced esports thing than they are letting me smash my undead space fascist robot into the undead omnicidal robot just to see who comes out on top, or recognizes the inherent joy of beating up orcs with ents. What I'm saying is that I basically want to play fantasy army men on the computer, and recent RTSs have been terrible at that.


* I find this to be universally true of Blizzard games to be honest. They all feel terminally empty at the core.

[Keltest]

I'm not sure that counts as an argument against Erloas' post though. Aoe2 is a game from the same era as Starcraft, recent remaster of a remaster not withstanding. Around the year 2000 all the RTS's go full 3D, which leads to less clear visuals and smaller numbers of units, leaving the genre struggling. (The main exception is probably Homeworld, which came really early in this wave of games too. How did they make that game?) and by the time computer power picks up to where you can have a full 3D version of the RTS's that sold well the genre seems to have been sort of permanently sidelined. The most notable exceptions are sequels and remakes. What happened there? Or is this just perception and were RTS games always about as niche as they are today?

I don't think they were "niche" exactly, but the population of gamers has ballooned as more accessible games came about and the hardware to run them became more ubiquitous. I'd wager that the number of "gamers" who casually play or watch fortnite when theyre bored while otherwise not touching any games is vastly larger than dedicated fans of games like StarCraft.

It doesn't help that companies like Activision and EA are more concerned with nickle and diming their customer base than actually producing good, accessible games these days.

[Spore]

I fell RTS in a semi casual setting declined with the advent of the internet. Suddenly every schmuck knows how to do a deadly four gate push as Protoss in an SC 2 ladder game. Thus removing most forms of creative play from the enemy.

Back in the days when I played SC ladder or WC3 I barely had enough time on the net to play 1-2 games. Looking up build orders was a, thing but much much less so.

Maybe that is why autobattlers are so popular. All the feeling of strategy and mass combat without the need to memorize a build down to the seconds to have just aneven footing with your enemy.

[Vinyadan]

I'm not sure that counts as an argument against Erloas' post though. Aoe2 is a game from the same era as Starcraft, recent remaster of a remaster not withstanding. Around the year 2000 all the RTS's go full 3D graphics, which leads to less clear visuals and smaller numbers of units, leaving the genre struggling. (The main exception is probably Homeworld, which came really early in this wave of games too. How did they make that game?) and by the time computer power picks up to where you can have a full 3D version of the RTS's that sold well the genre seems to have been sort of permanently sidelined. The most notable exceptions are sequels and remakes. What happened there? Or is this just perception and were RTS games always about as niche as they are today?

My memory of the period is that a lot of people played AoE2, and that Warcraft III was such a sensation, that some changed their graphics card just to be able to play it, and everyone was on it. Also, people loved Stronghold, although it had a far lower profile.

I think that it might have been a bit easier to publish a strategy game back then. You had magazines that would review many games a week, and they would be careful to include different genres to interest a larger readership. There would also be a lot of namedropping in the reviews of hardware (how does ____ run on this?) or while discussing general trends. Nowadays, if you asked me what the greatest RTS in the last three years was, I would say "Ashes of the Singularity", because I don't know of any other, and I LIKE rts! (Although I assume that there's a Total War game somewhere out there, too.)

Here is a part from a forum post. It relates an interview to Chirs Taylor, who made Supreme Commander:

Polish and presentation
At first glance, the most noticeable thing about Supreme Commander is that it's gorgeous; the visuals and sound effects are incredible and hold up even to this day. There's not much I can expand upon here, so I'll provide some explanation as to why that is. You may find it odd that modern RTS games struggle to surpass the presentation of a 10+ year old game, especially since 10 years was the gap between then, and Total Annihilation.

The reason boils down to budget and engine limitations, and these are not trivial matters. We've solved the engine issue at Stardock with our core-neutral Nitrous engine, but as for budget... let's just say that Supreme Commander was not profitable on launch and the publisher, THQ, collapsed 5 years afterward (coinciding with a whole host of other reasons, I'm sure). As RTS games become more niche, it's now too big of a gamble for publishers to invest a huge budget in them, unlike for other genres.



Here's an interesting excerpt from a Q&A with Chris Taylor, lead designer of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander, that I came across while researching for this essay:

"Supreme Commander 2 was criticized for being a simpler version of the first game – do you agree and if so, how/why did this happen?"

Chris Taylor: "It was a fair criticism, and it happened for two reasons. The first reason was that times were a lot tougher in the world of PC games. We didn’t have that big of a budget, and we had quite a bit less time. But we thought, hey, if we have to really bust ass to get this game out, lets see if we can make it a more accessible and mainstream game by shrinking the scope and scale a bit, and in some ways that worked, but to our original fanbase, this strategy was a failure."

Gameplay aside, most people would say Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance is a much prettier looking game than Supreme Commander 2. Budget matters.

[Rodin]

Could part of the decline be due to the original fans aging out of the genre?

I used to love RTS games as a kid. I got into the genre early with Dune 2 and never looked back. I was never all that good, but actually playing the game never presented any difficulty.

These days, I find myself completely incapable of multi-tasking at the level required to play an RTS. And not multi-player either - just managing the basics against a computer AI is very difficult. My mind just doesn't move quickly enough to keep up.

If that's true of more people than just me, that could be a problem for RTS developers. Younger kids don't have the same high profile titles to draw them into the genre, and their existing customers have moved on.

[noob]

My impression is the opposite actually. Developers have focused on spectacle over making something that's simply fun to play, and that's where they lose people. StarCraft 2, as you pointed out, long had "we think the most exciting moments come from worker harassment" as one of its guiding principles, and it did untold damage to the playerbase over years as the game went further and further in that direction. They are, finally, starting to turn it around and recognizing that just because it looks cool doesn't mean its a good thing to have in the game, though progress is rather slow on that front.

I do not think worker harassing is epic.
I think that orbital lazers, nuclear missiles, giant things(such as a multi-cannon big Bertha), swarming armies and devastating weapons are epic(also explosions everywhere for no reason).
Starcraft 1&2 displays "nukes" that does not feels like real nuclear weapons and the giant things are not as much epic as the ones in TA or Supreme commander are in relative to other units(for balance reasons).
Starcraft 1&2 are way less epic in terms of scale variation and of numbers than TA and its successors.
Furthermore starcraft is cruelly lacking in explosion volume(both less explosions and less big explosions) in relative to TA.
Maybe people like spectacles that are more refined than "explosions everywhere and look that giant thing exploded from being hit by a hundred attacks" but personally I think that it is a good enough justification for me to play TA.
Dune 2(referenced just above) have on its wikipedia page only pictures with explosions.
I also think that micromanagement is not epic: while micro managing intensely you are focusing on a smaller scale(or cycling quickly between varied small groups of units) and not enjoying the wide scale battle as much.

[Bohandas]

It doesn't help that companies like Activision and EA are more concerned with nickle and diming their customer base than actually producing good, accessible games these days.

I never understood how those companies keep managing to sell their overpriced games

[Erloas]

Could part of the decline be due to the original fans aging out of the genre?

I used to love RTS games as a kid. I got into the genre early with Dune 2 and never looked back. I was never all that good, but actually playing the game never presented any difficulty.

These days, I find myself completely incapable of multi-tasking at the level required to play an RTS. And not multi-player either - just managing the basics against a computer AI is very difficult. My mind just doesn't move quickly enough to keep up.

If that's true of more people than just me, that could be a problem for RTS developers. Younger kids don't have the same high profile titles to draw them into the genre, and their existing customers have moved on.

I think there is a lot of proof that "retro game design" is actually a lot more popular than a lot of publishers believe, as is shown from Indy developers and Kickstarter. Some publishers are figuring that out, most aren't. So a lot of older game styles that publishers though were no longer popular are, they're just not making games for them because they don't think they are. Space/flight also falls into this too. I know a lot of people that wish for something like old school Privateer or Wing Commander (Star Citizen showed the demand, though they seem to be failing to deliever) but a publisher will make something with some of those aspects and pile a bunch of other things "the kids these days want" on top of it and kill the experience in the process then wonder why it didn't do that well. It is also why some franchises have stayed around because they stay relatively close to the original design ideas, and when they do try something way out of line they get a lot of flack for it.

As for RTSs in particular, one of the key "attributes" of good players is clicks per minute, aka micromanging, so they think "huge levels of micromanagement is what makes an RTS good" but in reality that is one of the main things that drive normal players away. I don't want to have to spend dozens of hours researching the game and learning all the idiosyncrasies of it and have to play constantly to be any good, but that's how they build those games now. That happens with many games designed for "the competitive gaming scene" where dedicating your gaming life to this one game is expected to be any good at it.

[warty goblin]

I think there is a lot of proof that "retro game design" is actually a lot more popular than a lot of publishers believe, as is shown from Indy developers and Kickstarter. Some publishers are figuring that out, most aren't. So a lot of older game styles that publishers though were no longer popular are, they're just not making games for them because they don't think they are. Space/flight also falls into this too. I know a lot of people that wish for something like old school Privateer or Wing Commander (Star Citizen showed the demand, though they seem to be failing to deliever) but a publisher will make something with some of those aspects and pile a bunch of other things "the kids these days want" on top of it and kill the experience in the process then wonder why it didn't do that well. It is also why some franchises have stayed around because they stay relatively close to the original design ideas, and when they do try something way out of line they get a lot of flack for it.

I think that for the most part, Kickstarter and indie game development shows that most games based on retro designs are actually pretty niche. The kickstarter boom burned out in broken promises and failed deadlines the better part of a decade ago, and the only companies that have much luck there lately are well established and generally are asking for more money up front to polish an existing title. Even that isn't exactly a sure thing, note that Obsidian has pretty clearly moved away from the retro RPG since Pillars 2 sold poorly.

(You might argue that Obsidian simply lost market share in the retro RPG space to Divinity 2, but Divinity 2 is only sort of retro, and pushes a lot of design envelopes really, really hard, in a way I don't think Obsidian ever has.)

And the pure indie space is generally pretty limited in the sorts of titles it can actually produce. Pixel art metroidvanias with Dark Souls inspired combat, yeah, sure, those seem to crop up at the rate of about one a week, but there's entire genres that indie development leaves more or less untouched. The indie RTS is a rare beast, alongside the illusive indie FPS. There are examples to be sure - I find Angels Fall First a really enjoyable class based shooter with genuinely horrific gun handling - but if you're actually hoping to play some genres, and are looking to indie devs, pickings are going to be very, very thin.

In a trend I find a lot more encouraging than straight up indie development however, it seems like we're finally getting a robust AA development scene back. I'm all for this, since my favorite games have almost never been AAA blockbusters (too homogenized) or indie games (too limited, I don't like platformers and that's a huge chunk of indie games right there). So we're starting to see slightly janky action games for instance, which is great because I love weird'n'janky action games.

[Erloas]

I think that for the most part, Kickstarter and indie game development shows that most games based on retro designs are actually pretty niche. The kickstarter boom burned out in broken promises and failed deadlines the better part of a decade ago, and the only companies that have much luck there lately are well established and generally are asking for more money up front to polish an existing title. Even that isn't exactly a sure thing, note that Obsidian has pretty clearly moved away from the retro RPG since Pillars 2 sold poorly.

I think you missed what I was actually saying, which I probably didn't explain as well as I could have. The show the demand is there, even if they fail to deliver it. Even though Star Citizen seems to have mostly died in development, it proved there was a lot of excitement for a game of that style. inXile seems to be doing fine and they're working with very classic designs to their games. Having just picked up XCOM, it has a very modern feel to the graphics, and animation, but the combat and gameplay are classic turn based strategy. There are a number of indy games with classic designs and what people complain about are that they're too short, or clearly missing features because of low budget; so the complaints about the game is the studio couldn't do more, not that the game design was bad.

There is also a big issue of both player and developers definition of success. In the MMO scene for instance WAR was a decent game but it crashed, not because the game was bad, but because expectations where for it to beat WoW in terms of numbers and when it didn't everyone said it was a failure and they closed it down rather quickly, even though the game itself was fine. Contrast that to EVE, which released at about the same time as WoW, and never had great sales or sub numbers, it was in the lower end of subs for MMOs for a long time, but it was making the developers money and it was making players happy. If that same game had been published by EA it would have been shut down for being a failure, but instead it's been around for something like 15 years.

Yes a game has to make $150M if it cost $100M to make, but if you make a good game for $2M and sell $4M worth of copies, well many people would look at that and say "it only made $2m, the game must suck" but in reality one game made 50% profit and the other made 100% profit, so why is the more profitable one considered a failure?

The biggest failure of a lot of small game companies is usually because it's programmers and designers trying to run a business and they have no idea how to run a business, so they fail from bad business practices not because of bad game designs.
Of course there are also plenty of games that are just bad and buggy.

[Hunter Noventa]

This isn't exclusive to older games, but I really hate when you face an enemy, defeat that enemy, and then the game proceeds as if you lost. This is doubly obnoxious if losing to the enemy results in failure to progress.

Either make the fight super difficult/impossible and then let me progress after being defeated, or don't make me play through the battle at all.

Ah yes, the good old 'Heads I win, Tails you lose' paradigm.

The only time I think I saw an 'unwinnable' battle done well was in Super Robot Wars Original Generation 2 for the GBA. On stage like, 15 of 50ish, you fought against 4 endgame bosses with their full endgame stats. The 'win' condition was to get all your units to one side of the map to escape (turn-based SRPG). However, there was a big block of terrain that gave you defense and regeneration, so with patience and clever positioning, you could actually defeat the four endgame bosses with the 5 or so units you had (you're supposed to fight them with like, 20, and at much higher levels). If you do defeat them all, and you have to do it in the right order, one of the bosses breaks the fourth wall, calls you a SUPER PLAYER and gives you a bunch of powerful loot.

[The_Jackal]

Ah yes, the good old 'Heads I win, Tails you lose' paradigm.

Well, this is a necessary component of creating a narrative in your game. If you want to have an early encounter with the nefarious Doctor Nefarious, he's got to win, or at least escape, so that the story doesn't immediately end.

[Erloas]

Well, this is a necessary component of creating a narrative in your game. If you want to have an early encounter with the nefarious Doctor Nefarious, he's got to win, or at least escape, so that the story doesn't immediately end.

While you clearly have to estabilish the character of the boss there are a lot of ways to do that. "You beat them in combat then they beat you in a cutscene afterwards" is the incredibly lazy way to do that. It also does the opposite of making them feel like a real genuine threat because it generally happens fairly early in the game and you're relatively weak.

[Gnoman]

Ah yes, the good old 'Heads I win, Tails you lose' paradigm.

The only time I think I saw an 'unwinnable' battle done well was in Super Robot Wars Original Generation 2 for the GBA. On stage like, 15 of 50ish, you fought against 4 endgame bosses with their full endgame stats. The 'win' condition was to get all your units to one side of the map to escape (turn-based SRPG). However, there was a big block of terrain that gave you defense and regeneration, so with patience and clever positioning, you could actually defeat the four endgame bosses with the 5 or so units you had (you're supposed to fight them with like, 20, and at much higher levels). If you do defeat them all, and you have to do it in the right order, one of the bosses breaks the fourth wall, calls you a SUPER PLAYER and gives you a bunch of powerful loot.

The way FFVIII did it, which I liked, was to have the boss defeat you in a cutscene after the battle - but if you actually managed to deplete the boss's health to 0 you got a pretty decent reward for that stage of the game.

[Amechra]

Well, this is a necessary component of creating a narrative in your game. If you want to have an early encounter with the nefarious Doctor Nefarious, he's got to win, or at least escape, so that the story doesn't immediately end.

Then you just straight-up don't let the player win.

The issue isn't so much that Doctor Nefarious has to win/escape, it's that you can work really hard at beating Doctor Nefarious, and then the game straight up ignores that and says "and then Doctor Nefarious beat you all up and barely broke a sweat¹". Like, it'd be different if you got a separate cutscene where he ran away if you reduced him to 0 HP, or if it were impossible to drop him to 0 HP in the first place.

I mean, this is generally an issue with the dissonance between gameplay and cutscenes - I'm reminded of an old LP I watched of someone iron ghosting² Thief who got really indignant when the guards came to arrest Garrett because of his thefts, because he put a lot of effort into not being detected. But nope! the guards found him because Garrett had been sloppy.

¹ Looking at you, Golden Sun.
² Make it through every single level without alerting anyone or knocking out the guards. The only sign that you were there should be that all of the loot is missing - you have to put back keys and boxes when you're done with them.

[Winthur]

As for RTSs in particular, one of the key "attributes" of good players is clicks per minute, aka micromanging, so they think "huge levels of micromanagement is what makes an RTS good" but in reality that is one of the main things that drive normal players away. I don't want to have to spend dozens of hours researching the game and learning all the idiosyncrasies of it and have to play constantly to be any good, but that's how they build those games now. That happens with many games designed for "the competitive gaming scene" where dedicating your gaming life to this one game is expected to be any good at it.

As a passionate Starcraft 1&2 player I find that if your litmus for being good at the game is "being just good enough to enjoy yourself and enjoy some fighting chances while casually improving at your own pace", you can completely ignore the notion of APM. There is no point in trying to focus on increasing it. It won't do you any good.

What matters is knowing what you have to do (don't look at tooltips and be efficient with where you click) and executing it cleanly, which has everything to do with quick decision making on the fly and quickly noticing patterns rather than breaking mice over and over. There are multiple strong players in both games with remarkably low APM playstyles. APM doesn't equate to skill. If you aren't going pro, APM is a complete misnomer, and a false obsession of many players. You increase your APM from simply playing; at some point, you become slightly faster with certain tasks so that you have more time to execute some other tasks, and that's when your APM rises. Even then, APM fluctuates, is subject to race choice, playstyle and multiple other factors. Soulkey is a god-tier Zerg in the Brood War scene and has remarkably low APM for someone in his position; relative no-name newcomer to the scene (I believe Organ?) had a match where he had 550 APM because he spammed his keyboard a lot and yet he failed to make an amazing showing.

Current best Protoss in the foreign (not Korean) Brood War circuit takes games off of Korean pros and has some of his own patented ways to play, yet he admits by himself that he cuts a lot of corners mechanically because he acknowledges his limits. Queuing up Probes loses him a few seconds compared to Rain, but does it really matter? He's still the best Protoss in the West, has fun, and can likely sometimes beat Rain, if not consistently.

Note as well that races can have "inflated" APM, for example you click a lot more as Zerg to do the same things as a Protoss does, simply because the most efficient macro method for Zerg in SC involves having a bonus button press to select Larvae.

This is somehow not more commonly known. APM benefits you in all RTS games, even ones with a less steep mechanical skill floor, because RTSes are inherently equalizing the Real Time component with the Strategy component. A workable APM in any RTS game comes from simply knowing what to click, when and where, instead of wasting time on deliberating optimal setups. Even in something like Company of Heroes the player who can micro his first motorcycle and still keep up with base management is going to gain at advantage over someone who wastes their time hovering their mouse over the map looking for cover. In that way, the burden of knowledge isn't bigger than in something like DotA. This is a fact of all RTS.

I've done a very simple test a long while ago where I focused entirely on executing a very simple plan that spams Protoss Gateway units for a safe expansion prospect and commits to a timing attack when +1 Weapons upgrade hits, but I played only with one hand. My APM from doing only that, and mouse-clicking on everything, and not doing anything redundant, was 70. There are Master and Diamond players who play with my one-handed APM. There are Grandmaster players who peak at around 120 APM. Popular culture somehow has it ingrained that halfway decent Starcraft play starts at 300 APM or something, which is nonsense.

RTSes simply reward solid play, not fast play. It doesn't matter how erratic your game looks to an observer, most of the challenges a beginner to the game faces is forgetting the foundations - he forgets Pylons, doesn't make additional Gateways when minerals bank up, forgets to continuously produce Probes. The skill floor of Starcraft doesn't dictate that you have to be able to lead a two-front attack while knowing how to harass the backline at the same time, perfectly dancing every single unit in your army. Forgetting is entirely on the mental side.

Well, this is a necessary component of creating a narrative in your game. If you want to have an early encounter with the nefarious Doctor Nefarious, he's got to win, or at least escape, so that the story doesn't immediately end.

Relevant speedrun.

[Rynjin]

Well, this is a necessary component of creating a narrative in your game. If you want to have an early encounter with the nefarious Doctor Nefarious, he's got to win, or at least escape, so that the story doesn't immediately end.

So take one of a few options:

-Cutscene only
-Literally unwinnable; lose in the game, lose for real
-Make it winnable but give a nonstandard game over for it
-Just don't have them fight the BBEG until the end

"Win to lose" sucks, especially the subset of "If you lose it's game over as normal" variants.

I think the only time I've really liked it was how Kingdom Hearts handled the fight with Leon near the start. You can win, but a.) he's obviously not really trying and b.) The cutscene actually changes (you pass out from being tired, without a scratch on you and instead of calling you "disappointing" he just grumps and gets teased by Yuffie for almost losing to a teenager).

[LaZodiac]

So take one of a few options:

-Cutscene only
-Literally unwinnable; lose in the game, lose for real
-Make it winnable but give a nonstandard game over for it
-Just don't have them fight the BBEG until the end

"Win to lose" sucks, especially the subset of "If you lose it's game over as normal" variants.

I think the only time I've really liked it was how Kingdom Hearts handled the fight with Leon near the start. You can win, but a.) he's obviously not really trying and b.) The cutscene actually changes (you pass out from being tired, without a scratch on you and instead of calling you "disappointing" he just grumps and gets teased by Yuffie for almost losing to a teenager).

God this reminds me of Legend of Dragoon where you have to both not lose and not win. You can't die because it's a game over, but can't WIN because it makes it do a super move that kills you, so you have to thread the needle and Survive.

[Triaxx]

I rather liked the couple times FFIX did it against Beatrix. You'd have a tough fight, and then she'd just smash you down to 1HP and walk away.

And then later you had her on your team and found out she'd had those abilities from the start and was just playing with you.