What happened to Strategy?

[rossatdi]

RTS are starting to fade, I agree. Personally I blame the shift away from PC gaming to console gaming. RTS is only great on the PC because the mouse is STILL a more accurate pointer than any controller currently on the market - incredible, considering the mouse is more than 50 years old.

You're not wrong. FPSs are perfectly playable with a half decent console set up. RTS aren't. You need a mouse and keyboard (unit groups, A + click to arrack, P + click to patrol, zoom). I wish Microsoft would bit the bullet and release an official mouse and keyboard so I could play stuff like SupComm.

 

[Grimm91]

Strategy is just too hard for a majority of people to grasp. They prefer the easy 'spoon fed' method of how to get through a FPS.

Thats the truth. Most people just want to kill things; not take the time to totally destroy things so they will never rise again.

 

[Clemenstation]

It'll be interesting to see how well Halo Wars is received, especially because they are designing the interface for consoles from the ground up. RTS games will need to drill into the console market eventually, and awkwardly porting games meant for mouse + keyboard just isn't gonna cut it.

 

[goodman528]

Most of the money in gaming today is in the consoles, especially the Wii and the DS. Nintendo's market share is huge. There's a site somewhere that lists sales stats, i can't find it atm. Most of the money's in making casual games, then MMOs (because of monthly subscription), then styreotypical shooters, then RPGs. RTS is chewing at the bread crumbs. Then there's the issue of piracy for PC games.

Anyway, I'm excited about the games you guys listed too, Starcraft 2, Total War: Empires, Dawn of War 2, etc. But the strategy game I'm most excited about is:

Hearts of Iron III

There seems to be a tiny band of hardcores who really love HOI, but no one else is interested in it. HOI to the Strategy genre is like a microcosm of what Strategy games are to the whole gaming industry.

 

[Jursa]

Supreme Commander The forged alliance, Dawn of War 2, SC2, Red alert 3, Sins of a solar empire... and I'm only mentioning the good ones...

 

[cyber_andyy]

No love for the Supreme Commander?

Not surprised as its physics engines and sheer scale meant that only people who had dual cores could play it.

Massive shame really as it has immense strategic depth.

quad core in some cases. Waiting on the Experimentals expansion, see what thats like but it looks like GPG are switching to Demigod and SupCom2 right now.


I still play age of empires 1 and 2 and both expansions, also empire earth NUMBER 1. two wasnt all that great and 3 was a pile of s***.

I also have a soft spot for the codename panzer games, dipite thier insane difficulty levels.

Tried COH, it was all right but single player AI sucked hard.

EDIT: Forgot WiC, MP is a laugh but campain started to get samey, but there were some epic battles.

 

[Baby Tea]

Strategy is just too hard for a majority of people to grasp. They prefer the easy 'spoon fed' method of how to get through a FPS.

It's sad, but really true. People see 'strategy' as 'where is a good place to camp?' rather then 'where should I move my troops?'. As a long time, and continuous fan of the Total War series, there is something way more gratifying...way more thrilling about standing your 240 spearmen, 140 archers, and 1 General with 8 bodyguards at the top of a hill waiting to defend against 1200 men at arms, and 300 cavalry...and then WIN.
*Sigh*
I didn't even use time compression. I watched every step, every spear stab, every arrow volleyed, every man fall...and it was glorious. The stuff of freaking legend. Every soldier was mine to command, and they beat the odds. I literally cheered.

And you can't get THAT in an FPS!

 

[MercurySteam]

I've allways liked EA's approach to the C&C series (I never actually played the ones by Westwood).

If you liked C&C3 you'll like Red Alert 3. You don't hear the "Insufficient funds" thing as often.......

 

[Chickenlittle]

I've allways liked EA's approach to the C&C series (I never actually played the ones by Westwood).

If you liked C&C3 you'll like Red Alert 3. You don't hear the "Insufficient funds" thing as often.......

Westwood had the right ideas. They gave you limits, albeit decent limits, that you could work with, and gave you challenges. They gave you the option of makes strategies, i.e. feinting and ambushing, rather than simple rushing with Mammoth Tanks every game.

Everything was balanced, and had a good use, whether it be time-buying fodder, or high-end defenses.

Unfortunately, it seems that most RTS games now focus more on features and balance rather than the actual strategy. C&C3 for example; the only winning strategy in multiplayer is Mammoth Rushing, while in Campaign, all you can do to survive often is to turtle up anf then rush the enemy, as strategies take too much of your funds and distract you too much.

 

[LordCraigus]

It's sad, but really true. People see 'strategy' as 'where is a good place to camp?' rather then 'where should I move my troops?'. As a long time, and continuous fan of the Total War series, there is something way more gratifying...way more thrilling about standing your 240 spearmen, 140 archers, and 1 General with 8 bodyguards at the top of a hill waiting to defend against 1200 men at arms, and 300 cavalry...and then WIN.
*Sigh*
I didn't even use time compression. I watched every step, every spear stab, every arrow volleyed, every man fall...and it was glorious. The stuff of freaking legend. Every soldier was mine to command, and they beat the odds. I literally cheered.

And you can't get THAT in an FPS!

I know what you mean, there's something unique about the experience you get from a strategy game that's sometimes a lot more immersive than any FPS. The Total War games always sounded really good (you make them sound awesome too) but I never tried them due to the system requirements, and now I just feel that if I did buy one I'd have come to the party too late to get the most out of it and the community.

 

[hattifnatt]

DoW2 is around the corner and it will be awesome, Men of War is due next month and will probably be great if you like hard games.

 

[LordCraigus]

Men of War is due next month and will probably be great if you like hard games.

I'm so psyched for it but I just hope it's better than Faces of War, which was not a worthy sequel to Soldiers: Heroes of WWII in my opinion.

 

[Baby Tea]

The Total War games always sounded really good (you make them sound awesome too) but I never tried them due to the system requirements, and now I just feel that if I did buy one I'd have come to the party too late to get the most out of it and the community.

Forget that thought. You could probably pick up Rome: Total War in a bargain bin somewhere, and it's requirements aren't very high at all (By today's standards):

1.0 GHz Processor
256MB RAM
GeForce 2/Radeon 72xx series with 64MB VRAM
2.9 GB Free HDD space

I never got into the online play, but the campaign is epic. You really get to love your generals. I knew them by name. I'm sure there is a demo kicking around you could get as a sample. With limited arrows/ammunition (Catapults, etc), troop moral, great units (I LOVE attack dogs!) and real tactics that actually work (Flanking kicks ass!), you'll see why this game (And the rest of the series) rocks my socks.

 

[Chickenlittle]

No love for the Supreme Commander?

Not surprised as its physics engines and sheer scale meant that only people who had dual cores could play it.

Massive shame really as it has immense strategic depth.

I personally liked this game, and beat it, I just felt...well, that it took too long. You had to build up your tech tree every single mission, and everything had WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too many hit points. The first mission alone for me(training mission) took over an hour, and because the enemy base was fortified against air and ground attacks, strategy was out, and rushing took 40 minutes to kill the base, ignoring secondary objectives.

 

[Lyiat]

Well, its not a Real Time Strategy, but its big time strategy none-the-less... but the Total War games are still kicking around, and they seem as good as ever.

Empires: Total War just came out if your looking for it.

 

[Chickenlittle]

I could try that, but I'm likely to get C&C3 for the PC first. 360 doesn't do it justice.

 

[BmC]

Strategy never existed, it's a myth.

 

[Chickenlittle]

Strategy never existed, it's a myth.

It did exist once, back when the first RTS games existed, and Westwood still ran strong.

 

[Jharry5]

There's too much instant gratification gaming out there now for RTS games to have much of a look in, mainly due to consoles like the Wii trying to appeal to a wider audience. All games now seem to be for those who either aren't too bothered about spending 6 hours on playing a game or those who just want to blow stuff up...

 

[BmC]

Strategy never existed, it's a myth.

It did exist once, back when the first RTS games existed, and Westwood still ran strong.

There's no proof of evolution therefore there's no proof of stragegy games