Le futur des RTS
Pour être honnête, ça fait des années que je n'ai pas joué à un RTS ^_^ Je suis donc mal placé pour parler du futur des RTS. Mais c'est un fait que ce genre n'est pas prêt de disparaitre, loin de là:
The reason that RTS games become RTT games is that they ignore one simple fact: "War is the continuation of policy by other means." RTS games have done a superb job of simulating war but a lousy job of simulating politics.
If RTS games are to be truly strategic, then they need to simulate both war and politics. Why? Because war is politics.
Politics are who gets what, when, and how -- in other words, who has power and who does not. War is about precisely that, just with more drama and a lot more destruction than the everyday politics we're used to. In order to make the strategy of war meaningful, war has to be about more than simply destroying the enemy.
It has to be about who gets what, when, and how. Without politics, war games devolve into pointless acts of attrition.
Take, for example, StarCraft, one of the most popular -- and, in my opinion, most fun -- RTS games of all time. The player directs drone-like units to collect resources, turns those resources into buildings and combat units, and then directs those units to seek out and destroy the enemy.If the player chooses, he can simply wait for the enemy to come to him, trusting in the power of defense to wear his opponent down. But he cannot win unless he finds the enemy base and destroys it.In other words, StarCraft models total war, or war in which a combatant uses all available resources to the very bitter end. In total war, though, there is no second place, so a strictly defensive stance is a recipe for defeat.
[ Gamasutra ]