eXpolitBigTuk said:
Blizzard does kind of have the RTS market cornered but I doubt there is any less desire for a good RTS I think we need to wait and see how planetary annihilation does before making any calls on the genre
Sins of a Solar Empire Dev Claims RTS Is Dying
- Thread starter Marshall Honorof
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Blizzard does kind of have the RTS market cornered but I doubt there is any less desire for a good RTS I think we need to wait and see how planetary annihilation does before making any calls on the genre
RTS has never been as big as shooters. They most likely never will be either. I am not sure what the point of his comments are except to make jabs about other franchises and praise his next title. Just like chess has never been bigger then football in the last hundred years. It's just not comparable.
Wonder why only a few of the titles are doing well? Because the rest suck. AoE online was terrible, rise of nations was meh, and don't get your hopes up on bioware doing any good with Command and Conquer because as we all know bioware has tons of RTS experience.
People don't buy bad games, people stop playing bad games. This is why people are more likely to pick up age of kings or broodwar then any of the latest released junk folks are being shilled.
Wonder why only a few of the titles are doing well? Because the rest suck. AoE online was terrible, rise of nations was meh, and don't get your hopes up on bioware doing any good with Command and Conquer because as we all know bioware has tons of RTS experience.
People don't buy bad games, people stop playing bad games. This is why people are more likely to pick up age of kings or broodwar then any of the latest released junk folks are being shilled.
The reason? There was an RTS bubble in 2003-2006-ish. Too many RTS, not enough buyers for any of them. So the publishers, in typical publisher fashion, decided that genre, not saturation, was the problem.
Then we got hit by the Free To Play wave. For obvious reasons, it failed.
You can see the viability of RTS in the success of SoaSE - a well-built RTS, reasonably marketed, will sell about a million copies. 5 in Blizzard's case. All you need to do is drop the damn free to play bull.
Then we got hit by the Free To Play wave. For obvious reasons, it failed.
You can see the viability of RTS in the success of SoaSE - a well-built RTS, reasonably marketed, will sell about a million copies. 5 in Blizzard's case. All you need to do is drop the damn free to play bull.
RTS's are going the way of the TBS. They'll become niche games that few plays, but the genre will still survive as long as somebody makes games for it. And as long as PC gaming still lives, they will. It's one of the "exclusives" to the platform, due to the input needed for the game to work properly.
It could work well for tablets too, though. Maybe that's a market they haven't really considered yet?
It could work well for tablets too, though. Maybe that's a market they haven't really considered yet?
They're not dead, they're just not innovating anymore. The last major update to the RTS formula was Dawn of War 2, back in 2008. Sins is an actionized version of older 4X titles, Mobas have spun off in their own directions, and Starcraft 2 is continuing the process of not doing anything new, and balancing things so tightly that you have no chance of ever seeing new strategies.
Dawn of War 2 threw base building out the window, focusing on squad tactics and unit preservation. Also, the inherent imbalances in the gameplay makes things much more interesting. With a game like Starcraft 2, where everything is honed to a fine edge, and everything is so balanced, you see singular strategies that become ubiquitous, since they are built around the maximum efficiency idea. With crazy imbalances like in Dawn of War 2, things are far more unpredictable, with some truly bizarre strategies finding success in odd occasions.
The Tyranid Gun blob is one of the strangest builds I've seen, but when I witnessed it take down a Force Commander in less than a second of shooting, I knew it was dangerous.
Strategy games need to keep pushing the boundaries of what they are capable of, and keeping things off balance to throw in that extra level of fun.
Dawn of War 2 threw base building out the window, focusing on squad tactics and unit preservation. Also, the inherent imbalances in the gameplay makes things much more interesting. With a game like Starcraft 2, where everything is honed to a fine edge, and everything is so balanced, you see singular strategies that become ubiquitous, since they are built around the maximum efficiency idea. With crazy imbalances like in Dawn of War 2, things are far more unpredictable, with some truly bizarre strategies finding success in odd occasions.
The Tyranid Gun blob is one of the strangest builds I've seen, but when I witnessed it take down a Force Commander in less than a second of shooting, I knew it was dangerous.
Strategy games need to keep pushing the boundaries of what they are capable of, and keeping things off balance to throw in that extra level of fun.
It seems many thing have gone niche when people only gargle FPS bollocks.
But at the same time you aren't exactly pulling people in when there is no worth while campaign coming with your games, last memorable one I got out of Dawn of War 1, and that was 2004.
But at the same time you aren't exactly pulling people in when there is no worth while campaign coming with your games, last memorable one I got out of Dawn of War 1, and that was 2004.
I agree completely.AC10 said:
I tried sins, and didn't like it AT ALL.
My favorite RTS games are Total Annihilation and the first Supreme Commander.
No
Its not as popular as it was, but its certainly not "dying"
At the moment its rather relegated to a few BIG devs, but Im sure it will come around in popularity again, seeing as there's probably going to be alot of people switching to PC after this console cycle
Its not as popular as it was, but its certainly not "dying"
At the moment its rather relegated to a few BIG devs, but Im sure it will come around in popularity again, seeing as there's probably going to be alot of people switching to PC after this console cycle
Another one of those? No, as long as people still play these games, the genre isn't dead.
Maybe he'd like to use it as an excuse as to why he didn't make the profit he expected to make, but he would be very wrong.
We'll see just how much this genre is "dead" when Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm comes out.
Maybe he'd like to use it as an excuse as to why he didn't make the profit he expected to make, but he would be very wrong.
We'll see just how much this genre is "dead" when Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm comes out.
Eh.. I think the reason RTS games died is they stopped innovating, people got bored of "Tanks, helicopters and infantry", I want submarines, space stations, giant mechs and big, impressive guns.. Half the reason Starcraft 2 never appealed to me, the scale was too small. Supreme Commander was amazing for it's time, honestly the best RTS to date, and hopefully Planetary Annihilation will kick off RTS games again.
I always recommend Sins of a Solar Empire to all of my friend. He even bought it... but I unno... we never actually played it together.
Is gaming really going to be without so many options in the next decade or so? Or will they release a flight simulator after 10 years, and it will be fresh and new since no one has made one in so long, springing forth more of its kind?
Is gaming really going to be without so many options in the next decade or so? Or will they release a flight simulator after 10 years, and it will be fresh and new since no one has made one in so long, springing forth more of its kind?
I liked Sins, although I found that the pirate raids way too annoying, and the games lasted for hours upon hours in you wanted to conquer entire systems. I thought it was going to be something akin to Homeworld, but alas, there is nothing like Homeworld besides Homeworld. Come on Relic, you're at a new house now, maybe the new management will have an epiphany. I played Starcraft to the bone, never was too good but I enjoyed it. Starcraft II stopped enticing me when it gave its online and e-sport crowds so much more importance than average-joe player. Trying to play on a more laid back manner is practically impossible. It's phrenetic, all the time. Also, their "benevolent" online DRM, plus ditching LAN support killed it for me.
RTS isn't dead by any means, but devs seem stuck on older ideas, or use new ones that don't draw in the non-hardcore market. Amongst my circle of friends RTS were great at LAN parties. All current devs are also abandoning that way of setting up matches, and I think that's how a lot of people got into the genre (biased as my perspective is). Also, they don't seem to know how to ease people into the mechanics. For example, SoaSE would have benefitted from a single player campaign that let you learn the sstrategies one by one. As it is, it's slamming into brick walls of complexity.
RTS isn't dead by any means, but devs seem stuck on older ideas, or use new ones that don't draw in the non-hardcore market. Amongst my circle of friends RTS were great at LAN parties. All current devs are also abandoning that way of setting up matches, and I think that's how a lot of people got into the genre (biased as my perspective is). Also, they don't seem to know how to ease people into the mechanics. For example, SoaSE would have benefitted from a single player campaign that let you learn the sstrategies one by one. As it is, it's slamming into brick walls of complexity.
RTS's seem to be in more of a rut than dying, really. Not a terrible amount of innovation, nor much polishing. Sins is a great game and a good example of something still alive, but it was just too slow for me to play too often. Too many of the recent games especially tend to be on a "bases are bad" bent, and I can certainly say that that has never appealed to me in the slightest.
There's plenty of ideas too, more polishing on the homeworldesque genre, Achron's mechanics, more modern-based games that aren't utter crap, etc.
There's plenty of ideas too, more polishing on the homeworldesque genre, Achron's mechanics, more modern-based games that aren't utter crap, etc.
And the massive amounts of DLC I keep seeing on Steam don't help the matter. I love RTS but the problem lies with things like the fact that Starcraft is still the benchmark. If your benchmark is 15 years old, its time things need some fresh blood.Falterfire said:
Personally, its not that RTS aren't popular - my friends and I love RTS. Its that GOOD RTS are hard to find. Were more good RTS released, this problem wouldn't exist. Finding good RTS is becoming more and more difficult as time goes on, however, and as such RTS popularity is in decline.
Varying experiments in the genre tanked and led to its collapse too, see Civilizations Rise and Fall the rts/first person hack and slasher hybrid (free to download leagaly btw) and Warfront Turning Point with its rts/first person pillbox and turret gameplay.
Ill tell you what the genere needs. Watchable battles. Non of this zerg rush nonsense where giant blobs of units smush into battle with other blobs in a disorientating visual white noise. Where are the grand scale clashes of armies having at each other? Being able to command, watch the battle unfold before you and react to trouble areas in the field.
Were someone to make a new Rise of Nations or a less base building more combat oriented game like Preatorians (seriously guys look this one up) then we will have what the genere lacks and something soase does as well as total war does beautifully, show us battles. Shooters let you be a part of the battle, but rts's are about managing that battle and watching your little men perform the task. Seeing armies clash, empires rise and fall before your eyes, civilizations start from humble hamlets to meteoric metropolises is what makes the rts genere (well economizing/reaserching as well but that falls in the whole civilization bit). You can cut out the base building all togother like in World in Conflict but im still on the idea that battles are the rts's life blood.
What is it that compels us to play rts. The campaign? The multiplayer? The senarios? Or the skirmish mode? Depends on the player but im gonna go out on a limb and speak for the majority when i say its the skirmish mode. Once you figure how the ai plays and you can more or less beat it with your eyes closed, you can start to experiment with your units, see how a spearman goes up against a swordsman. How long will this cavalry man run while under a single archerer's fire, how about a more realistic senario and have a squad of horse on a platoon of archerers? How many units will this tower take before it falls to the enemy? Is investing in towers for defense worth the cost when i can just build a larger army with the money i would have otherwise spent on static defense? Once figureing the ai is done it becomes a sort of sandbox where you can manipulate your enemy into doing what you want it to, or just have a leizurely game of testing your units and buildings beyond meare checking attack and defense values.
A genre where you are the scientist and it is the experiment with which you are free to tinker with? I dont think it will ever completely fizzle into nothingness.
Ill tell you what the genere needs. Watchable battles. Non of this zerg rush nonsense where giant blobs of units smush into battle with other blobs in a disorientating visual white noise. Where are the grand scale clashes of armies having at each other? Being able to command, watch the battle unfold before you and react to trouble areas in the field.
Were someone to make a new Rise of Nations or a less base building more combat oriented game like Preatorians (seriously guys look this one up) then we will have what the genere lacks and something soase does as well as total war does beautifully, show us battles. Shooters let you be a part of the battle, but rts's are about managing that battle and watching your little men perform the task. Seeing armies clash, empires rise and fall before your eyes, civilizations start from humble hamlets to meteoric metropolises is what makes the rts genere (well economizing/reaserching as well but that falls in the whole civilization bit). You can cut out the base building all togother like in World in Conflict but im still on the idea that battles are the rts's life blood.
What is it that compels us to play rts. The campaign? The multiplayer? The senarios? Or the skirmish mode? Depends on the player but im gonna go out on a limb and speak for the majority when i say its the skirmish mode. Once you figure how the ai plays and you can more or less beat it with your eyes closed, you can start to experiment with your units, see how a spearman goes up against a swordsman. How long will this cavalry man run while under a single archerer's fire, how about a more realistic senario and have a squad of horse on a platoon of archerers? How many units will this tower take before it falls to the enemy? Is investing in towers for defense worth the cost when i can just build a larger army with the money i would have otherwise spent on static defense? Once figureing the ai is done it becomes a sort of sandbox where you can manipulate your enemy into doing what you want it to, or just have a leizurely game of testing your units and buildings beyond meare checking attack and defense values.
A genre where you are the scientist and it is the experiment with which you are free to tinker with? I dont think it will ever completely fizzle into nothingness.
