Lance James, also known as Myll Erik, is back with his next installment of “Art of War”. For Art of War part 2 he wants to know “What’s your take on games focusing on the aggressive only playstyle?” and “Should there be multiple options/choices? Are there disadvantages to having too many ways to play?”.
Art of War – Part 2
I’m a big fan of options. I like to play my games the way I want to. The case used to be that I could be successful by playing in a variety of ways. I could stay defensive and build up my forces, I could be aggressive and go for the kill, I could take an expansion route, I could go for a choke, or I could take the rubber approach and bounce off what my enemy did in game.
I’ve saw that the majority of all current RTS titles only offer players the attack/conquest option for winning and they have also shifted to a speed/attack/rush mentality. I’ll flat out say – that is my preferred way of playing. But that’s not everyone, I’d even say that’s probably not the majority. In most games I’ve played recently it’s all about being the first to attack and getting the quickest military possible. It’s hard to be a boomer or turtler in RTS games these days as often there isn’t a clear reason to play that way. From my perspective, RTS games need to allow players to choose their path, be it playing aggressively or defensively and both ways need to be balanced in order for them to be a real choice.
I say choice for a reason – in that the player should always have the option based on the game scenario. I don’t want to always have to rush (figuratively) in order to be competitive within a game.
After reading all that – here’s what I think we should discuss.
1. What’s your take on games focusing on the aggressive only playstyle?
2. Should there be multiple options/choices? Are there disadvantages to having too many ways to play?
Drop us a comment below and let us know what your opinions are.