What happened to Strategy?

[geldonyetich]

"What happened to you, Strategy? You could have been a contender. Now, you're just a punk."

Really, I have no idea what the OP is blathering on about. There's tons of new strategy games coming out, RTS being the prominent flavor.

 

[spuddyt]

well, supreme commander 2 has been "announced" - although its being published by square enix, WTF?
Still, if its as good as the last one, and isn't quite as computer rapingly slow, I would love it and think that it might actually get somewhere

 

[Daymo]

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.

Mammoth Rushing dosen't work. As shown in the grand final ladder match, http://www.commandandconquer.com/portal/site/redalert/article/detail;jsessionid=98E70D8B0F3305874CA62704FFFE490C.ea-e-h-p-del1-1?contentId=04ba3d9fff74e110VgnVCM100000100d2c0aRCRD.

And stratergy has given way to micro-management, only at the real top end does stratergy really come in to it. Untill then it's about who can tech up fastest or micro the best. I do wish there were more games focusing on stratergy because as much as I enjoy RTS's I'm not that great at them, but I often win with less resources than the opponent when looking at some of the stats post game in Red alert 3.

 

[Gamer101]

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.

Rome:TW is a great game. The full cinema-like battles is amazing. I still go back and play that every now and then.

And as for the OP - what about Endwar?? I've only had the chance to run the demo so far, but it seemed to be a unique RTS with a really neat voice-command system that worked pretty darn flawlessly.

 

[mattttherman3]

Theres also the fact that after halo wars comes out that Ensemble Studios is getting sent to the chopping block which sucks because they are the best rts franchise, blizzard was good but i doubt they will make another rts game

 

[Baby Tea]

And as for the OP - what about Endwar?? I've only had the chance to run the demo so far, but it seemed to be a unique RTS with a really neat voice-command system that worked pretty darn flawlessly.

I LOVE Endwar!
For me, it is without a doubt the best RTS on a console.
And it's just a darn fun RTS besides! The voice commands work great for me! And you can couple that with the controller commands to be issuing orders almost as fast as an RTS on a computer.

 

[Gamer101]

And as for the OP - what about Endwar?? I've only had the chance to run the demo so far, but it seemed to be a unique RTS with a really neat voice-command system that worked pretty darn flawlessly.

I LOVE Endwar!
For me, it is without a doubt the best RTS on a console.
And it's just a darn fun RTS besides! The voice commands work great for me! And you can couple that with the controller commands to be issuing orders almost as fast as an RTS on a computer.

Yeah, I thought that was an ingenious idea by the developers of Endwar. The one hurdle of an RTS to be as good on a console as a PC was you just can't be as fast as a keyboard and mouse.....well.....they got over that hurdle. Just say what you want to do, give a voice command. Finally brought good ol' GameVoice technology to the console.

 

[SimpleReally]

Part of the problem is there is one superior company totally destroying the competition so now everybody is too scared to compete.

just ask Namco
or konami's winning eleven department

 

[SimpleReally]

Theres also the fact that after halo wars comes out that Ensemble Studios is getting sent to the chopping block which sucks because they are the best rts franchise, blizzard was good but i doubt they will make another rts game

Are you living under a rock?

 

[Zac_Dai]

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.

Sorry I was more talking from the multi-player perspective. But I agree with you about the single player, its nothing like the multiplayer side though.

 

[mattttherman3]

Theres also the fact that after halo wars comes out that Ensemble Studios is getting sent to the chopping block which sucks because they are the best rts franchise, blizzard was good but i doubt they will make another rts game

Are you living under a rock?

Probably

 

[lazypenguin]

I know Starcraft 2 is coming out

Which year would that be?

But seriously, I think game designers have started to phase out RTS games, as it's for a more hardcore group of gamers. Well not exactly "phase out", but they aren't getting the attention they used to. The casual gamer era is being accommodated for a lot these days in my opinion.

 

[ArcadianTrance]

Are you kidding my father, brother, and I can't wait for star craft 2 so thats 3 non koreans that are excited.

 

[Mr_Powers]

Gamers now a days are just assumed to be too stupid to bother with strategy games. Plus the probably don't sell as well and often only on PC so there not profitable enough to make anymore. However, I think that there is really no way to completely get rid of RTS, there will always be a few, however crappy or unbalanced they may be, that will always be in production.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I see plenty of strategy games, the only problem is they tend to fall into one of several predicatable tracts. You have the turn based games where combat often occurs on a purely cookie cutter basis (jeep beats infantry, tanks beat jeeps etc) and can be seen today in games like Civilization, or Advanced Wars. Then you have games similar to Starcraft or C&C, and those are often more about resource management and base building than actual combat strategy. Sometimes, you get games like Ground Control (my favorite RTS made to date) or the Total War series that focus more on the combat strategy than most games.

That being said, the downfall of the PC as the premier gaming platform has a lot to do with it. It's rare to see PC exclusive games these days (and when they are, they tend to have excruciatingly high system requirements), and more developers are focusing on consoles. I have yet to play a console strategy game that managed to be sufficiently deep yet have a manageable control scheme.

 

[Credge]

DoW 2 has a hype outside of DoW, and the WH40k's fanbase?

Yes. Many CoH (Company of Heroes) players are interested in it due to similar mechanics in a different setting. My dad is interested in it, someone who was interested in CoH but never got to play it. He's never been fully interested in Warhammer games, but is a huge strategy guy.

The hype around it is rather large considering.

 

[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.

Mammoth Rushing dosen't work. As shown in the grand final ladder match, http://www.commandandconquer.com/portal/site/redalert/article/detail;jsessionid=98E70D8B0F3305874CA62704FFFE490C.ea-e-h-p-del1-1?contentId=04ba3d9fff74e110VgnVCM100000100d2c0aRCRD.

And stratergy has given way to micro-management, only at the real top end does stratergy really come in to it. Untill then it's about who can tech up fastest or micro the best. I do wish there were more games focusing on stratergy because as much as I enjoy RTS's I'm not that great at them, but I often win with less resources than the opponent when looking at some of the stats post game in Red alert 3.

You have the right there, although your link does not work.

I'm using my personal experience in C&C3 multiplayer here, as I haven't played RA3 except for the demo, and that's likely all I ever will. It didn't incorporate much from the previous RAs, and rewarded the player for rushing and retreating immediately. At least in the demo. For the larger mission in the RA3 demo, you could only win by rushing.

Hopefully one of the upcoming RTS developers remembered what the "S" in "RTS" stood for.

 

[Tekrae]

RTS games are less popular than first-person-shooters, which are probably the most commonly played game outside the casual genre. Therefore, not as many people play them. Plus it involves using your brain, something the average gamer apparently can't do, considering the amount of idiots on multiplayer games.

 

[KarmicToast]

There have been some great AOE games, Starcraft 2, new Red Alerts, Halo Wars, End War, and others. So first of all, it's still around.

If you are wondering why it isn't as popular, you can blame it on the fact that a)the PC has lost out big time to consoles in recent times, and b)consoles can't handle RTS's nearly as well as PCs.

Here's another reason: There isn't much more to do with the genre other than base it on new things. It's like the Lego series. Small differences, but mainly, its the same.

*note* I like RTS games and wasn't trying to attack them.