The death of RTS games

[dumblogic511]

Well, part of it is that RTS games don't really translate to consoles, so there's no new market to tap into since most people are more likely to get into gaming through consoles than PCs nowadays. In essence, RTS games are marketed towards people who have always played RTS games. Since StarCraft and, perhaps, C&C were the last real phenomena in the genre, it's probably going to take something like that to bring more attention to RTS and bring more people into it.

Another aspect of it might be lack of innovation. I mean, I love RTS games, but, to be honest, a lot of them are kind of samey. Apart from real standouts like Total War, the only real difference between maybe 80% of RTS games is the setting, and not much else. They could benefit from the way StarCraft had a great story to tie all of the battles together.

I could not disagree with you more, imo RTSs are one of the only genres which have been adapting. The modern RTSs seem a bit samey, but compared to FPSs, they are very different from eachother.

 

[Acaroid]

It seems to me that lately RTS games have been dieing a slow and painful death. The RTS game series I grew up with and loved was the AOE series. In my opinion, the series was a perfect example of what RTS games should be, a combination of a simplistic kind of economic management and a simple rock, paper, scissors counter system, along with a few other different elements, that combined to create a great multi-player game where you attempt to disrupt your opponents economy, while countering his army, and maintaining your economy. Recently though, most RTS games seemed to have forgotten about economy, and used a peon-less system, where the game is mostly combat oriented, which to me is much more entertaining in a FPS game. Until SC 2 comes out, does anyone have any games they believe are more like the older RTS games, or any news about a game other than SC 2, that may use some more economic elements?

Like most things, games go through evolution stages and trends, at the moment peon like systems just arnt "trendy" I guess. No way RTS are dying, with SC2 around the corner, total war and C&C games still being pumped out and games like R.U.S.E just around the bend RTS is far from dead. It maybe a little while before an old style RTS comes around again (other than SC) but that game will bring new players to the genre and the old style peon systems might live again! But as someone else said, alot of the modern RTS have a focus more on units and battles than base building and resource gathering.

 

[badgersprite]

Well, part of it is that RTS games don't really translate to consoles, so there's no new market to tap into since most people are more likely to get into gaming through consoles than PCs nowadays. In essence, RTS games are marketed towards people who have always played RTS games. Since StarCraft and, perhaps, C&C were the last real phenomena in the genre, it's probably going to take something like that to bring more attention to RTS and bring more people into it.

Another aspect of it might be lack of innovation. I mean, I love RTS games, but, to be honest, a lot of them are kind of samey. Apart from real standouts like Total War, the only real difference between maybe 80% of RTS games is the setting, and not much else. They could benefit from the way StarCraft had a great story to tie all of the battles together.

I could not disagree with you more, imo RTSs are one of the only genres which have been adapting. The modern RTSs seem a bit samey, but compared to FPSs, they are very different from eachother.

Maybe you've been playing better games than I have. The major titles in the genre are all great, but, don't forget that there are a lot of RTSs out there that practically no one plays, and there's not a lot of variation between the vast majority of those titles. Seriously, I played a Star Wars RTS with a mission that was exactly the same as an Alexander the Great mission in a different game, and, in most games, there's usually the exact same resource-gathering component that came from Warcraft & StarCraft, with little or no variation except that you might discover a new resource in the third age.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't bother me. I don't get bored easily. I still love RTS games, even if they do get repetitive, but, for other people, they might not want to buy different titles if they could just play StarCraft or C&C and get a better experience.

 

[Valate_v1legacy]

Find Total Annihilation. That game NEVER gets old. The economy/resource management is a pivotal part of the game, and it's just plain sweet to see the nuclear dust of a recently defeated commander.

[Edit]: Another great series is the Stronghold series. It's multiplayer is still there(barely) and it will make for some great times.

 

[ottenni]

I think the three RTS series that have been truly doing things right have been Age of Empires, Total war and Starcraft. AOE and Starcraft were not particularly innovative or original but they did what they did perfectly, and both had excellent campaigns to (even if you had to be interested in history to get into AOE). And total war did a great job of doing something different very well. I would mention Warcraft 3 ass well but when you get down to it it was just the worlds most complex game of rock paper scissors with way to much micro management, something that Starcraft somehow made interesting. But im going to have have to say Age of Mythology was the best by far.

 

[dumblogic511]

I'm not saying that it is dead, I'm saying that the RTS style I grew up with is dying, and it is being replaced by a lot of much more samey WW2 games, where most of the game is creating and upgrading for different counters, which to me, is just a list of counters to remember, I did not like DoW2, but maybe I would like COH, I bought CnC3 a while back and never played it. Will prolly give it a try.

 

[RYjet911]

Sins of a Solar Empire is a really good, recent RTS. Especially once you get the expansion, I've never had more fun with an RTS before, besides a couple of great games of Zero Hour and AoK2 with friends.

 

[mrhappyface]

The RTS franchise is depending on Command and Conquer. With the failure of console RTS: i.e. Stormrise, only PC titles are supporting it. There are many good entries such as SupCom, but its only one title. Ensemble Studio started dying after AoE 3. Until StarCraft 2 is released, the RTS genre won't show much appeal in the mass market.

 

[Deleric]

I actually think RTS' have the biggest learning curve out of all games. It's not just pumping loads of points into one stat like RPG's, it's not button smashing like a fighter. You actually have to build fast, manage resources and attack efficiently.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Starcraft is pretty much a national sport in korea and Starcraft II is probably going to hit the millions in sales within the first week.

 

[Punk Guy24]

RTSs are not dead, it's just that idiots think that they can put them on consoles, and that every RTS has become like StarCraft, which means everything is solved via rushing like there is no tomorrow. I remember titles like Total Annihilation, in which you couldn't just rush yourself to victory, because you had a unit that could destroy anything via a break everything gun, and yes I like the word "via" because it makes me seem like a big self-important writer who is also a tosser. Anyway, the main reason why TA was a great game and a refreshing alternative to the rush-tastic game that is SC was that you had to think a bit more, because if you just rocked the frontal assault, you'd get turned into chunky salsa by the point defense. You had to think a bit more, and use stuff like flanking maneuvers, aerial assaults, naval attacks, and sneakiness. Yeah you could use stuff like that in SC, but why do that when you can just build 50 siege tanks and pound the enemy into submission? I mean that is great fun, and I'd like to note that I love SC, I play it a whole lot, but I can see it's faults because I'm not a drooling fan-boy and I can tell when a game I like sucks sometimes. Most recent RTSs have just filled me with apathy because they just take the tried and true method of "rush it and fuck it". The only recent RTS series that I have enjoyed would have to be the Supreme Commander series, mainly because it's just TA with extra stuff, better graphics and a story. The SupCom series was a shining example of how RTSs could be so much more than Rushfest '08. Also the resource system was such that everything didn't hinge on holding resource points, you could just keep your original resource point. Also SupCom let you go on the defensive and not get turned into a bullet and cob salad. So now that I've posted my unimportant drivel, I'll go back into my hidey hole before I invoke anymore fan-boy hate.

 

[Mcface]

RTS are far from dead..

Go play men of war.. or Empire Total War.. or Company of Heroes.
they are all very popular games with multiple expansions and community mods.

And look at Dawn of War 2, its a tough, innovative game.

 

[dumblogic511]

RTS are far from dead..

Go play men of war.. or Empire Total War.. or Company of Heroes.
they are all very popular games with multiple expansions and community mods.

COH is one of the games I was talking about, a modern RTS, although I heard it was good. Never heard of me of war, and I don't know what type of gameplay ETW has.

 

[Kandon Arc]

Yeah I think RTS and strategy games in general are on the way out. Relic did produce some brilliant ones but DowII is an RTS/RPG hybrid indicating a possible new direction for the studio. The Total War series went significantly downhill with Empire, the next big Civ project is on Facebook. The only good new strategy I've been playing is Hearts of Iron III, but having not played any of the previous titles can't really say if it's an improvement or not. Hopefully Starcraft II will provoke new interest in the traditional RTS but who knows?

 

[Mcface]

RTS are far from dead..

Go play men of war.. or Empire Total War.. or Company of Heroes.
they are all very popular games with multiple expansions and community mods.

COH is one of the games I was talking about, a modern RTS, although I heard it was good. Never heard of me of war, and I don't know what type of gameplay ETW has.

ETW has two different types.
In Campaign you manage your entire empire, officers, countries, etc. When the battles start on the map, you then fight in real time with thousands of units (Muskets and Cavalry in ETW's case, though there is a Samurai, Ancient and Medieval game as well)

Men of War is my favorite currently, you use your armies and micro manage every move they make. You can put your infantry behind your armor and use them for cover as you advance, take direct control of any unit in the game and move them around with the arrow keys and fire with the left mouse. Theres no building and resource management, you are given a reinforcement count, and have to use it wisely. you can never "rush" victory in it.

 

[riskroWe]

The RTS game series I grew up with and loved was the AOE series. In my opinion, the series was a perfect example of what RTS games should be, a combination of a simplistic kind of economic management and a simple rock, paper, scissors counter system...

The counter system was a lot more complex than that. The important thing is that the game was balanced, no civilisation was the best. Starcraft was also pretty balanced. Then there's Impossible Creatures where the balance depended on your creativity, and it got that much more complicated.

 

[Ph33nix]

It seems to me that lately RTS games have been dieing a slow and painful death. The RTS game series I grew up with and loved was the AOE series. In my opinion, the series was a perfect example of what RTS games should be, a combination of a simplistic kind of economic management and a simple rock, paper, scissors counter system, along with a few other different elements, that combined to create a great multi-player game where you attempt to disrupt your opponents economy, while countering his army, and maintaining your economy. Recently though, most RTS games seemed to have forgotten about economy, and used a peon-less system, where the game is mostly combat oriented, which to me is much more entertaining in a FPS game. Until SC 2 comes out, does anyone have any games they believe are more like the older RTS games, or any news about a game other than SC 2, that may use some more economic elements?

on the age of empires thing. What are you talking about symplistic economy? 4 reseorces to manage, 4 man its ridiculous.
I feel RTS wiill likely for the next 5 years die a slow death leaving us with 2 or 3 long run franchise left most likely C&C,Blizzard, and the either aoe or sup commander, unless they make a halo wars 2

 

[dumblogic511]

The RTS game series I grew up with and loved was the AOE series. In my opinion, the series was a perfect example of what RTS games should be, a combination of a simplistic kind of economic management and a simple rock, paper, scissors counter system...

The counter system was a lot more complex than that. The important thing is that the game was balanced, no civilisation was the best. Starcraft was also pretty balanced. Then there's Impossible Creatures where the balance depended on your creativity, and it got that much more complicated.

I'm not talking about how complicated they were, or the balance involved. I am talking about the fact that new RTSs are all micro and overly complex counters. Macro has died. I don't want to spend my time thinking about counters to everything, I want to outsmart my opponent, make him try to attack my infantry that are harrasing his buildings, while I use my anti-peon unit to kill some of his peons, and win by out microing him, and harassing his economy, not just have a better idea of what counters what then him.