Vikings vs. Capitalists—Two recent RTSes and a disappointing
realization
I’ve recently had the chance to play two different modern
real time strategy games, and appreciate the different unique takes they have
on evolving the traditional RTS format. Unfortunately, it seems the pattern of
removing meaningful decisions and simplifying game systems continues to be more
popular than streamlining clunky old models in a way that retains the essence
of what makes strategy games so enjoyable. I’m talking about the successful Viking
RTS Northgard, and the unappreciated market based Offworld Trading Company.
First, I’d like to bring up three main critiques of the RTS
genre. These critiques are not necessarily mine, but I think it is important to
consider broader critiques rather than my person gripes in this situation. I
would also like to identify several RTS games that I believe encapsulate the
very best of traditional RTS gaming—Age Of Empires II and III, StarCraft I and
II, and WarCraft III. I like all these games, but will be using them as
comparison points. It is also important to note I only am discussing RTS games from
a multiplayer perspective.
1)
Traditional
RTS games are too long. For a modern gaming audience with ever shortening attention
spans, RTS games are criticized for lasting too long. There is merit to the
critique in my view—horror stories abound of opponents scattering villagers to
drag out a won game, campy and walling strategies can similarly drag out a game
painfully, indeed most of these problems come from the culture of old RTSes—technically
most did not end until all opponent units were eliminated, and instead game
length had to be controlled by players themselves—players either had to be
friendly or competitive enough to realize when they had lost and resign the
game. As for the generic critique of game length, I am of the opinion that
anything truly memorable requires some amount of time investment for a good
payoff, but still, this is a general critique.
2)
Traditional
RTS games require unejoyable micro and APM (actions per minute). From Age
of Empires to most infamously StarCraft, to play at a competitive level
requires extremely fast and precise micromanagement of units. This takes the
strategy component of RTS games and ties it with something much more comparable
to twitch shooters. I will admit this is my biggest issue with RTSes, and
probably why I enjoy strategy board games more. It certainly can gatekeep
interested players out of the RTS scene when such a commitment to practicing
micro is needed to stay viable.
3)
Traditional
RTS games have draconian victory conditions: Already discussed to an extent
in point 1, but traditionally, RTS games are driven by total player elimination.
Additionally, winning a traditional RTS requires players destroy other players’
hard built bases/economies/armies. This can be discouraging, and is the equivalent
often of a player being forced to play Japan in WWII after the atom bombs have
been dropped.
With those three central critiques established, lets examine
how Northgard fares. The game is very much an RTS, but with many mechanics simplified
and adjusted to make it easier to play well and harder to act aggressive. These
mechanics include: villagers automatically spawn and resource gather with
either zero inputs or one input, depending on specialty; basic military units
with sharp unit caps; building limits in territories and restrictions on how
territory can be captures; a winter phase that requires resource hoarding and
slows all play; scouting opponents’ territories or building troops for early
aggression is expensive and therefore discouraged. In addition, Northgard
introduces mechanics that go at least somewhat beyond those of a traditional
RTS. These mechanics include: a rudimentary diplomacy system with resource
trading between non-teammate players; various quests on the map to make
colonization more interesting/difficult; two, theoretically three methods of
winning the game that require no player-to-player conflict; and many methods of
upgrading/crafting new benefits for your clan.
1)
Traditional
RTS games are too long. Northgard is painfully long. For the amount of
meaningful decisions you make during a game of Northgard, the pacing of a match
is far too bloated. The first time I played, I was accidentally on a large map
and blamed that for the long game—but subsequent matches on appropriately sized
maps have led to the realization the game is playing as intended. Why is it so
bloated? The victory conditions all require lots of investment of
time/resources in a game where the board is set up to prevent you from
optimizing your economy (building limits per territory, resource limits per
territory, worker limits per building). The game outright discourages early
aggression, and winter further slows down every player. Northgard is
outrageously long for what it accomplishes, I’d go so far as to call it a waste
of time when a match between four players drags to an hour and a half.
2)
Traditional
RTS games require micro/APM to be competitive. Northgard goes out of its
way to attempt to fix this issue, which I do commend. Unfortunately, microing
your units is still a superior way of playing the game. In particular, you can
micro army units and villagers around to soak up damage from NPCs or other
players, and are actively encouraged to do so by the game’s brutal punishment
of waiting for new villagers to spawn slowly if you lose a precious unit.
Furthermore, you can do this to the point of cheesing when it comes to NPCs,
since they will rarely agro your units across the borders of a territory. Northgard
may have the appearance of not requiring a micro mindset—but it is still insidiously
present and is unsolved.
3)
Traditional
RTSes have draconian victory conditions. Here, fans will point to the
victory conditions Northgard introduces that allow for non-violent victories.
Unfortunately, they work like the non-violent victory conditions do in
Civilization 5 or 6—cute in concept, but against human opponents, you better
bring a gun to the board or the aggressive player will spot your peaceful clan
and wipe it from the map. Its even worse in Northgard than in a game like Age
of Empires II—losing your army can happen quickly, due to the small army sizes,
and rebuilding is far more damaging than in Age of Empires, because you need to
either wait for more villagers to spawn or pull villagers off your economy to
try to fight back. All the while, your opponent is burning down your far flung
clan (because of building limits, you are forced to spread your settlement out
far and wide—interesting in theory, but not in Northgard’s execution).
Lets now turn to Offworld Trading Company. By now, its not a
new game, but compared to the great classics, it certainly is modern and tries
to have a unique take on the genre. Again, like Northgard, the game is very
clearly an RTS, but with a vastly different gamestate for players to approach.
This gamestate involves: a list of resources that fluctuate in value depending
on players’ actions and a NPC colony’s consumption; limited territorial growth
with hard caps based on the level of a player’s HQ; no traditional conflict,
but rather a semi-random black market that can be used to either sabotage or
boost a player, with escalating prices with each purchase; the winner is
determined by who can buy out the other players’ companies, based on the amount
of shares controlled in each player’s company and the monetary value of each
player’s company; a system of patents that can give you unique boosts to your
company on the map. How does Offworld deal with these three common RTS
critiques?
1)
Traditional
RTS games are too long. Offworld is a fast paced game, playing as fast as
or faster than StarCraft 2 (which I would consider the fastest paced RTS of the
classics I’ve listed above). Because the victory conditions are based on buying
out your opponents’ companies, the size of the game map or amount of players
does not impact the game length to the extent it does in other RTS games.
Players can try for early snowball strategies at the expense of long term
growth, which can shorten games further if such a snowball pays off.
2)
Traditional
RTS games require mirco/APM. Offworld, like any RTS, requires some degree
of APM/micro skill, but the amount necessary to be competitive is much less—indeed
some times, the best strategy can be to take a breather and do nothing with
your company—which can throw off players who are always looking to be clicking.
Because you do not need to micro workers to resource gather to the extent
necessary in traditional RTSes, and because there is next to no map combat, a
player can play Offworld well without needing to be a micro talented player.
3)
Traditional
RTS games have draconian victory conditions. In Offworld, your game ends
when you are bought out of your company. There are sabotages to use against
players, but leading up to a loss, you generally will not sit through the type
of painful base destruction you see in other RTS games. The game does contain
player elimination, but you are not forced through a long painful destruction,
player elimination is sudden.
Offworld thus apparently addresses
each of the main issues modern gaming culture seems to have with traditional
RTS games far better than Northgard. Why then is Northgard more popular?[1]
Put simply, it does a better job at presenting itself superficially as a unique
and modern take on the RTS genre, while Offworld is much more opaque in the
solutions it brings to the RTS critiques. Northgard’s winter system,
territorial limitations/expasions, and its worker growth mechanics are clearly
defined as key parts of the game system, as evidenced by the numerous writers
and youtubers who bleat out the “surviving the winter is harder than surviving
your opponents!” mantra—a player vs. game set-up that appeals to those unhappy
with the traditional raw player vs. player setup in RTS games. The Viking theme
similarly is cleaner and more attractive at first glance than the generic
sci-fi theme Offworld presents itself as. Finally, the core economic mechanics
of Offworld seem much more complicated than they actually are at first glance,
and the system of playing and winning Offworld is admittedly a far more
difficult system to pick up and play than Northgard’s traditional (but
simplified) presentation of workers and resource gathering.
It’s a tragedy,
but hardly a unique one. Northgard’s success is a permeation into the stagnant
RTS genre from the eurogame scene in face-to-face gaming—it is a game that uses
theme and effective surface level mechanical uniqueness to mask the generic
(and unsatisfying) multiplayer experience underneath.
[1] I
will confess I wrote this with no concrete data to back up my claim. I can go
back and support it, but even a brief youtube search for competitive video view
counts for each game leads credence to my claim.
